Full text of "Christology of the Old Testament, and a commentary on the messianic predictions"

See other formats

■Si OF PR.'/vcT^

^iOGlCAL SEW^^^-

5^
J

CLARK'S

FOREIGN

THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.

NEW SERIES.
VOL. XX.

VOL. IV.

EDINBURGH :
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.

M D C C C L X V.

CHRISTOLOGY

THE OLD TESTAMENT,

AND A

COMMENTARY ON THE MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS.

E. W. H E N G S T E N B E R G,

DR. AND PROF. OF THEOL. IN BERLIN.

SECOND EDITION, GREATLY IMPROVED.

TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN BY

JAMES MARTIN, B. A.

EDINBURGH.

VOL, U.

EDINBURGH :
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET;

LONDON : HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN : .lOHN ROBERTSON AND CO.

M D C C C L X V.

SMITH AND COMPANY, PRINTERS, SOUTH ST ANDREW STREET, BDINBUEOH,

N 0 T I C E.

This Work is copyrighi in this countnj hy arrangement u-ifh the Author.

LIST OF CONTENTS.

Page

EssiANic Predictions in the Prophets.

The Prophet Zechariah.

Chap. xi. . .

Chap. xii. 1 — xiii. 6, .

Chap. xiii. 7 — 9,

107

Chap, xiv., ....

118

The Prophet Malachi, . .

156

Chap. ii. 17 — iii. 6, . . .

171

Chap. iii. 13— iv. 6, ,

201

The New Testament and the Prophecies of Malachi,

230

Appendix I.

Importance of the Messianic Prophecies.
Appendix II.

Messianic Expectations among the Heathen,
Appendix III.

Tlie Divinity of the Messiah in tlie Old Testament,
Appendix IV.

The suffering and atoning Christ in the Old Testament,
Appendix V.

History of the Interpretation of the Messianic Prophecies,
Appendix VI.

The Nature of Prophecy, ....

257
270
279
332'
365
396

THE PROPHET ZECHARIAH.

CHAPTEE XL

Hitherto the prophet has chiefly confined himself to the
bright side of the picture, in his announcement of the future which
awaits the covenant nation (compare especially chap, v.) ; but
another scene suddenly presents itself, and it is only when he
has communicated this to his hearers and readers, that his
description of the future, which has thus far, though true, been
only one-sided, is fully completed, and sufficient precaution taken
to prevent the abuse which a carnal mind might make of this
partial representation.^

This section is divided into three parts. The first three verses,
which serve as a prelude, describe the ruin of the entire land by
foes from without. A deeper insight into the cause of this is
given by the prophet in an account of a twofold symbolical pro-
cess which took place within his mind. In the first (vers.4 — 14),
the prophet takes the place of the angel of the Lord and depicts
his future proceedings. Israel, which is doomed to be destroyed
by the judgments of God, appears as a flock destined for the

1 Calvin has well observed : " These predictions appear to contradict one
another. But it was necessary that the blessings of God should first of all be
announced to the Jews, in order that they might engage with greater alacrity
in the work of building the temple, and might feel assured that they were not
wasting their time. It was now desirable to address, them in a different style,
lest, as wiis too generally the case, hypocrites should be hardened by their vain
confidence in these promises. It was also requisite, in order that the faith-
ful should take alarm in time, and earnestly draw near to God ; since nothing
is more destructive than false security, and wherever sin is committed with-
out restraint, the judgment of God is close at hand."

VOL. IV. A

I MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

slaughter. The prophet makes an effort to save it. He takes
upon himself the office of shepherd, and tries to rescue it from
the wicked shepherds, who would lead it to destruction. But
the obstinacy of both shepherds and flock compels him to give
up his office and leave the flock to that utter misery, which he
alone has hitherto been the means of averting. He now asks
for his wages ; and they give him the contemptible sum of thirty
pieces of silver. In this manner the last manifestation of mercy
on the part of God towards his people through the Messiah, and
that subsequent rejection, are typified. By the command of the
Lord the prophet then exhibits in a second symbolical action the
wicked shepherds themselves, who will worry and destroy the
flock after the good shepherd has been rejected by it.

Hofmcmn (Weissagung und Erfiillung i. p. 316) regards vers.
1 — 3 as forming the conclusion of the foregoing prophecy, whilst
Bleek supposes these verses to " contain a small and separate
prophecy." But both are wrong, as is evident from the fact that
the shepherds mentioned in ver. 3 are spoken of again in ver. 8
and that nyn^ " feed," occurs in ver. 4, where it also refers to
the same shepherds. The good shepherd, the angel of the Lord,
is to make another attempt to rescue the people, whom the
evil shepherds, the shepherds who are also lions, have led to
destruction. Again, in vers. 15 — 17, the end of the section
returns to the subject of its commencement. We see there the
lion-shepherds, on whom judgment is represented in ver. 3 as
having already fallen, in full action again, after the good shep-
herd has been removed out of the way. Moreover both opinions,
Hofmanns as well as Bleek's, may be shown to rest upon a mis-
taken interpretation of vers. 1 — 3.

Ver. 1. " Open thy gates, 0 Lebanon, and let fire devour thy
cedars."

The style is quite dramatic. The prophet, instead of an-
nouncing to Lebanon its future destruction, commands it,
as the servant of God, to open its gates. The meaning,
therefore, is, '• thou, Lebanon, wilt be stormed and devastated
by the foe." The question is whether this verse and those
which follow are to be interpreted literally or allegorically.^

1 According to the testimony of Jarchi, Kimclii, and A hendana, the alle-
gorical interpretation was a very ancient one among the Jews. From a passage

ZEC'HARIAH, CHAP. XI. 1. 3

As a general reply, we may say, there can be no doubt that
Lebanon is used here in a figurative sense. Bleek's opinion,
that we have here the description of " a devastation of nature
itself, and that by the hands of violent men," is proved to be
incorrect by ver. 2, where the cedars of Lebanon are expressly
called " the mighty" and also by the earlier passage, Jer. xxv.
34 — 38, where the shepherds and the mighty of the flock are the
princes and magnates of the nation. The rest, therefore, must
also be interpreted figuratively. But what are we to understand
by Lebanon ? We are not left to conjecture here, to which
Hofmann has recourse, but can give an answer based upon a surer
foundation. In the symbolical language of Scripture, and par-
ticularly in Zechariah (chap. iv. 7), mountains denote kingdoms.
Now, Lebanon, as being the nearest range, which met the eyes
of the sacred writers, and the border mountains between Pales-
tine and the heathen world, might be taken as a symbol of the
imperial power in the hands of the Gentiles. But it might also
be regarded as a symbol of that kingdom, of which it originally
formed a part, — namely, the kingdom of Israel. We find the
symbol employed in the Scriptures to represent both of these.
Lebanon and Antilebanon are employed as symbols of the impe-
rial power in the Song of Solomon iv. 8 (see the remarks on this
passage) and Is. xxxvii. 24, xiv. 8. In Is. x. 34, and Hab. ii.
17, Lebanon is used to denote the Assyrian empire. It occurs in

in the Talmud (Joma, 396) it is evident that Lebanon was supposed to repre-
sent the temple at Jerusalem. We will quote the Avords of this singular pas-
sage. " Quadraginta annis ante excidium apertae sunt porta3 templi sua
spontc. Abjurgavit igitur eas K. Jochanau fil. Zaccai et dixit : 0 templum,
templum, quare tu terres te ipsum ? novi ego, quod finis tuus erit, ut deso-
leris. Nam sic prophetavit de te Zacharias, tilius Iddo : aperi Libane portas
tuas." This opening of the temple-doors is mentioned by Josephiis also (de
bell. Jud. vi. 5), and it is not improbable, that he regarded it as an omen of
such importance to himself and his contemporaries, because the explanation
referred to was so generally current at the time. The antiquity of this ex-
position among the Jews is also apparent from the fact that it is given by
many of the Church-fathers, particularly Eusebius and Jerome, who probably
borrowed it from them. The latter observes, " Lebanon opens its gates,
that the Roman army may enter, and the fire consumes its cedars, either
when the whole is destroyed by fire, or when the leaders and chiefs are
overthrown by the attacks of the enemy." There were many even of the
modern commentators, Grotius for example, who adopted the reference to the
temple : Others, again, were of opinion that Lebanon meant Jerusalem gene-
rally ; whilst there were others, such as March and Eichliorn, who undcsr-
stood by it the whole of Palestine, " of which this mountain formod the
northern boundary, and which, like Lebanon itself, was distinguished in
many ways above the other countries of the earth."

4 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

connection with the mountains of Gilead as a symbol of the king-
dom of Judah in Jer. xxii. 6,7, " Thus saith the Lord concerning
the house of the king of Judah : thou art Gilead unto me ; surely I
will turn thee into a wilderness, into cities Avhich are not inhabited,
and I sanctify over thee destroyers with their weapons, and they
exterminate thy choice cedars, and cause them to fall together
over the fire." In Ezek. xvii. 3, the family of David is represented
as a lofty cedar upon Lebanon. In this case, therefore, Lebanon
must be a symbol of the kingdom of Israel, which only existed
in that of Judah in the time of the prophet. In the verse before
us the symbol is used in the latter sense. — Hofinanjis opinion,
that this section contains the announcement of a universal ]vidig-
raent, is proved to be incorrect by the parallel passages in the
two nearest prophets, Ezekiel and Jeremiah ; — by the fact that
all the names employed as symbols are names of places in the
holy land (Lebanon, Bashan, the pride of Jordan) ; — by chap.
X. 10, " I will bring them to the land of Gilead and Lebanon,
and they will not have room," where the land of Lebanon is the
land of Israel (the threat in the verse before us is evidently in-
tended as a contrast to the promise in the passage just quoted
in fact the same contrast may be traced throughout between
chap. xi. and chaps, ix. x.) ; — and lastly by the connection which
has been shown to exist between ver. 1 — 3, and ver. 4 sqq. — If
Lebanon then is the Kingdom of Judah, not as contrasted with
the ten tribes, but including them (chap, x.), the cedars of Le-
banon can only represent the chief men of the kingdom. We
are led to this conclusion by the express declaration in ver. 2.
Stately trees are generally the symbols of great men. In Ezek.
xxxi. 3 sqq. Asshur is introduced as a cedar in Lebanon. Com-
pare Is. X. 18, 19, xiv. 8, and my commentary on Rev. vii. 1.

Ver. 2. ^^ Hold, cypress, for the cedar is fallen, the glorious
ones being made desolate ; lioivl, ye oaks of Bashan, for the
wood is felled, the defenced one."

The cypresses, it is true, are inferior to the cedars, but on
account of the hardness and strength of their wood, and its
suitable qualities for the building of palaces and ships, they are
placed in the second rank ; and there are other passages {e.g..
Is. xiv. 8, xxxvii. 24, and Ezek. xxxi. 8), in which the two are
connected together. The oak-forests of Bashan were also cele-
brated, the oak being generally classed among the noblest trees.

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XI. 2. 5 '

Compare Is. ii. 14, where the oaks of Bashan are classed with
the cedars of Lebanon, ag they are in this passage. Both in
substance and in the expressions employed, there is a resemblance
to the passage before us in such passages as Is. xxiii. 14, " Howl,
ye ships of Tarshish, for your fortress is destroyed," and Jer.
xlix. 3, " Howl Heshbon ; for Ai is in ruins." It is a general
custom with the prophets, when the strong has fallen, to call
upon the weaker to tremble and mourn, and in this manner to
give expression to the thought, that for the latter there is no
longer any hope of deliverance (compare the remarks on chap.
ix. 5). — The relative "I't'N is equivalent here to " because" or
" inasmuch as," and is introductory to the exjjlanation. That
DnnK are not glorious frees, but the nobles of the nation, is
evident from the earlier passage, on which this is founded (Jer.
xiv. 3), " their nobles (glorious ones) have sent their little ones
to the water,"^ and xxv. 34 — 38, where the leading men are
called the glorious ones of the flock, id; is also applied to wood,
which has been felled, in Is, xxxii. 19. His proud and lofty
trees come down, as it were, from the throne into the dust. The
words of Isaiah are, " it hails when the wood comes down."
The world is represented there as visited by the judgments of
God ; and Michaelis interprets the words as referring to the
time " when the kingdom of Antichrist will be destroyed." In
the passage before us, on the other hand, the judgment falls
upon the faithless covenant nation. It is the more natural to
conclude that there is some connection between this passage and
the one in Isaiah, since there is a link of connection in chap. x.
11, " and the pride of Asshur is thrown down, and the sceptre of
Egypt departs," to which the words before us evidently refer.

1 The supporters of the allegorical interpretation have from time imme-
morial justly looked upon these words as affording a direct confirmation of
their views. In the >Septuagint the clause is rendered on fi-iyakui i^iynrTi-
us IraXai'TMonffav. Jeromc translates them " qtiuniam magnijice vastati sunt"
and observes, "he now states more clearly, what he had already said
obscurely. ... I want to know, what are these cedars of Lebanon,
which are consumed, these fir-trees, to which howling is attributed, these
pines, which fall to the ground ; the great ones, he tells me, are laid low."

1 heodoret ; xa] l^^jjvst/av, a t^o'Tixu; iip'/ixsv, I'riiya.ytt x.t.X. and Vl/Tll, on o'i t£j/
av^jfc/trs^y, g Aoyo; araKaiTa^oii ilsit' 'iipn ya^ iii^lis, oti f^tydXui f/.tyiffTavis iTaXai.

6 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PEOPHETS.

The leaf is turned. The judgment, which was formerly in-
flicted upon the world for the good pf the Israelites, now falls
upon the faithless covenant nation itself — " The wood, the strong
one" is equivalent to " the wood, notwithstanding its strength."
In the symbolical language of Scripture, the loood denotes the
whole nation, as the lofty trees represent its leaders. Compare
Is. ix. 17, X. 19, 34, xxxii. 19, xxxvii. 24, xliv. 23, "break forth,
ye mountains, into singing, 0 forest, and every tree therein," where
the mountains are the kingdoms, the wood the nation, and the
trees men. The passage upon which this is more immediately
founded is Ezek. xx. 46 sqq. The nation of Judah is described
there as " the forest of the south." " The forest of the south,"
says Hitzig, " is devoured by the fire of Jehovah (vers. 46 — 50),
i.e., his sword will exterminate the inhabitants of the land of
Judah (chap. xxi. 1 — 5) ; the men are trees, therefore the
nation is a forest." The explanation is given in ver. 2, " pro-
phesy against the land of Israel." The marginal reading "I'ss,
which is only used of the vintage, in the place of "^ivs, which is
very commonly employed in the sense of " firm, mapproachable "
(in Ezek. xxi. 26, Jerusalem is called !t>"'^3), probably arose
from the passage being compared with Jer. vi. 9, for which there

is no warrant.

Ver. 3. '' The voice of the hoiuling of the shepherds, for their
ornament is spoiled, the voice of the roai'ing of the lions, for the
pride of Jordan is spoiled."

The prophet is describing what took place in a vision, and
this will explain the absence of the verb, which could not be
accounted for merely on the supposition of an ellipsis. The
passage, on which this is based, is Jer. xxv. 34 sqq. Jeremiah
is speaking there of the Chaldean judgment, a repetition of which
is announced by Zechariah here ; hence the connection between
the two passages is a purely internal one. In Jeremiah the
judgment falls upon Judah and the surrounding heathen world.
But Judah is the central point. Verse 36 agrees almost word
for word with the first half of the verse before us, " the voice of
the crying of the shepherds and the howling of the glorious one
of the flock : for the Lord lays waste their pasture." Verse 38
corresponds to the second clause : " they leave, as a lion, their

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XI. 3. 7

camp ; for their land will be for a desolation."^ The only thing
which is peculiar to Zechariah, is the fact that the lions are
represented as being frightened out of the pnV^e of the Jordan,
the noble wood, which covers its banks, and prevents you from
seeing the water till you have passed it, and which still affords
shelter to innumerable wild beasts, though there are no longer
any lions among them (Burckhardt 2 p. 593 ; Bosenmiiller
Alterthumskunde 2. 1. p. 196 sqq.). Even this has been taken
from other passages of Jeremiah.^ The connection, in which
the allusion to the shepherds at the end of the introduction
stands to the prophecy generally (" feed," ver. 4; "ye shepherds,"
ver. 5, &c.), has been correctly pointed out hj Eioald: "the
prophecy has thus by a sudden leap approached the shepherds,
of whom it treats in a much more serious tone after this lively
prelude." As the shepherds referred to afterwards (in vers. 4, 5,
8, 15) are the rulers of the nation, it must also be to them that

1 According to Zechariah, the whole body of shepherds is to be regarded as
the subject of my, and not Jehovah (compare Ezek. xix. 1 sqq.).

2 Schnwrer (on Jer. xii. in Velthusen, Kiihnol, and Ruperti comm. theol.
3. p. 372) maintains that the expression, " the pride of the Jordan," gradually
worked its way into the language of the people as a strictly geographical
term. But this is wrong, for it never loses its appellative signilication as a
term of honour. Not only do we find the expression itself in three passages
of Jeremiah, and in no other book, but in all three passages the pride of the
Jordan is specially described as the abode of lions. Now this can hardly
have been the case previous to the depopulation of the land through the
devastations caused by the wars, which attended the breaking up of the king-
dom (compare 2 Kings xvii.), and certainly was not the case in the age to
which the second portion of Zechariah has latterly been assigned. Moreover,
this was so far from being an exclusive mark, that we can only explain its
recurrence in Zechariah on the ground that it was taken from Jeremiah.
In Jer. xlix. 19 we find this passage in the prophecy against Edom, '' behold
he will come up like a lion from the pride of the Jordan to the fold of the
strong" ("the land of Edom which boasts of its impregnable strength."
Schmid). The same sentence occurs word for word in chap. 1. 44 in the pro-
phecy against Babylon. The repetition is intentional. It points out the
retributive justice of God. In Jer. xii. 5, " in the land of peace thou trustest,
but what wilt thou do in thepride of Jordan," a safe district is contrasted
with the neighbourhood of the Jordan, which was rendered dangerous by
lions. If we pay attention to such phenomena as these, we cannot but
marvel at the blindness of those who transfer the second portion of Zecha-
•riah to the period antecedent to the captivity. Bleek (p. 279) reverses the
order. He says that Jeremiah borrowed the expression from the passage
before us. But this is contrary to analogy. Every word in Jeremiah indi-
cates its priority in age. And in addition to this the perfectly independent
use of the phrase in chaps, xii. 5 and xlix. 19 is also a proof of the originality
of Jeremiah.

8 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PKOPHETS.

reference is here made, in harmony with the original passage in
Jeremiah. What we are to understand by the ornament of the
shepherds may he gathered from Jeremiah, where we find "their
pasture" instead. According to this, we are not to restrict it to
the pasture, as Maurer does, or to understand it as meaning the
things of which they are proud and make a boast, as Hitzig
does ; but must refer it simply to the good of the land, flowing
with milk and honey, which was at their disposal, their proud
possession. — Lions are frequently employed as symbols of strong
and despotic men (compare Job iv. 10 and Ps. xxxiv. 11), espe-
cially of tyrannical rulers (see the remarks on Kev. xiii. 2 and
Song of Solomon iv. 8). But the most deserving of attention is
Ezek. xix., where the tyrannical princes of Judah are called
Dn'SD (lions). Schmieder has justly observed, — " a very sharp
reproof is implied in the fact that the shepherds of the nation are
compared to lions, a shepherd and lion in one being something
very similar to a wolf in sheep's clothing. This prepares the
way for what follows, where the pious (?) sheep are mentioned
whom the shepherds will not spare." The shepherds are also
lions ; this is the clue to the catastrophe depicted in vers. 1 — 3.
Where the leaders are so degenerate, the whole life of the nation
must have been deeply corrupted. The jwide of the Jordan cor-
responds to the pride of Jacob in Ps. xlvii. 5, Amos vi. 8, Nahum
ii. 3, and means the glorious possession and inheritance bestowed
upon him. The issue of the whole is, that the threat of Ezekiel
in chap, xxxiii. 28, "I lay the laud most desolate, and the pomp
of her strength shall cease, the mountains of Israel shall be
desolate, that none shall pass through," receives a new fulfilment.

Ver. 4. The prophet, having given a pictorial description in
ver. 1 — 3 of the judgment to be inflicted upon the covenant
nation, proceeds now to the manner in which this result would
be brought about. The first three verses bear much the same
relation to the rest of the chapter as Is. Hi. 13 — 15 to chap. liii.
— Thus saith the Lord my God, feed the flock of the slaughter}

The question arises here, to whom are these words addressed ?

1 njnn, not slaugMer-house, but slaughter, also occurs in Jeremiah. Com-
pare more particularly chap. xii. 3, where fsv and njnn are mentioned toge-
ther. The corrupt nation is introduced there as a flock destined for the
slaughter. The same state of things is to occur again.

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XI. 4. ^

Who is it, who is here commissioned to feed the flock ? (1). Very
many of the earlier expositors assumed that these words were
addressed, without the prophet's intervention, to the Angel of
the Lord, who was essentially one with God Himself, in other
words, to the Messiah, in whom, according to the teaching of the
Old Testament, this Angel was eventually to appear. The fact
that there is something forced, in the assumption that another
person is introduced in this sudden manner, and without farther
notice, is not sujBScient to prove that the opinion is incorrect.
The abrupt introduction of new persons, whose presence is merely
indicated by their speeches and actions, is a tiling of frequent
occurrence in the prophecies, and was a necessary result of the
dramatic character of the prophetical writings. And there is
the less ground for objecting to the sudden appearance of the
Angel of the Lord in the present instance, from the fact that
throughout the whole of the first part he is constantly repre-
sented as one of the persons employed. But a comparison of
ver. 15 sqq. is amply sufficient to overthrow this exposition.
The person, who is referred to in these verses, must be the same
as the subject of ver. 4 sqq. This is evident from the expression,
" take unto thee again the instruments of the evil shepherd."
The word t^V again is a proof that the person who takes the
instruments of the evil shepherd in this case, is the very same as
the person who took the instruments of the wicked shepherd in
ver. 7 sqq. But the contents of ver. 15 sqq. do not apply in any
way to the Angel of the Lord or the Messiah, as the supporters
of this view are obliged to confess. It cannot, therefore, be
to him that reference is made in the fourth and following
verses.

(2). Others (including Hitzig, Eivald, Hofmann, and Bleek)
suppose that the prophet is addressed, not as the representative
of another, but in his private capacity. But ver. 15 sqq. demon-
strates the incorrectness of this view, quite as much as that of
the former. If the prophet is introduced there, not in his
private capacity, but as the representative of another, this must
also be assumed to be the case here.^ Moreover the very first

1 Eitzig himself condemns what he says on ver. 4, by the remark which he
makes at ver. 15, " when the prophet takes the shepherd's staff a second time,
he does this not to tend them himself, but as the tijpe of a future shepherd."

10 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

words go beyond the ordinary vocation of a prophet. No
prophet was ever appointed to be the shepherd over the whole
covenant nation. Ho^^' could a prophet be the chief shepherd
of the whole flock (ver. 7), by whom all the other shepherds or
rulers of the nation were deposed (ver. 8) , who kept the nation
in safety from all its outward foes/ who preserved internal peace,
and at whose all-powerful word both peace and safety came to
an end ? What sense is there in the account of the thirty pieces
of silver, if the prophet himself is intended ? We may also
appeal to the parallel passages, which are of such peculiar
importance in the case of Zechariah. When the prophets pointed
the people to the good shepherd of the future, they either spoke
of the Lord himself, who would act as a shepherd to the nation
which the wicked shepherds had ruined (compare Is. xl. 11,
•' He will feed his flock like a shepherd, he will gather the
lambs in his arm and carry them in his bosom, and gently lead
those that give suck"), or of the Messiah {e.g., Ezek. xxxiv. 23,
" And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed
them, my servant David, he shall feed them and he shall be
their shepherd," chap, xxxvii. 24, compare Jer. iii. 15, xxiii. 4,
5). The manner in which these two passages are to be made to
harmonise, — namely, by assuming that the Lord would discharge
the duties of a shepherd through the Messiah, is especially evi-
dent from Ezek. xxxiv., where the allusion to Christ as the good
shepherd of the future is preceded by the declaration, that the
Lord himself will visit his flock and take id under his care (vers.
11, 12). There must be an intimate connection, therefore,
between the Lord and the second David. But how could we
conceive it possible, that the very same position, which is occu-
pied everywhere else by the Lord and his anointed, should be
here assigned to the prophet ? Lastly, the idea that the passage
refers to the prophet, generally goes hand in hand with the
assumption, that the narrative relates to some past event, and
that the prophet is describing an attempt which had been made
by him to rescue the unhappy kingdom of the ten tribes from

1 The words of ver. 10 go for beyond the province of a prophet, " that I
might break my covenant which I had made with all the people." The
person to whom the Lord said in ver. 4 " feed my flock," here attributes to
himself a divine work.

ZECHARIAH, CHAP, XI. 4. 11

destruction. But this opinion is thoroughly inadmissible. It is
evident from vers. 1 — 3, ver. 7, and the allusion made to the
brotherhood of Judah and Israel in ver. 14, that the section
does not relate to the Epliraimites. Moreover no analogy can
be adduced in support of the reference to any thing j-^as^, whicli
is also overthrown by the correspondence between the threat of
punishment in the fifth chapter and the emblematical portion t)f
the present prophecy.

(3). The only remaining view is, that ver. 4 commences an
account of a symbolical transaction, in which the prophet repre-
sents another person, and typifies his conduct and circumstances.
That this is commonly the case with the symbolical actions
of the prophets, may be seen from every one of them. In this
manner Isaiah, for example, in chap, xx., sets forth the coming
fate of the Egyptians and Ethiopians. And thus do Jeremiah
in chap, xx., and Ezekiel in chap, iv., depict the future condition
of the covenant nation. In the symbolical procedure, related in
the first three chapters of Hosea, the prophet represents the Lord,
and his actions show forth the treatment, which the covenant
nation would receive from the hands of the Lord. In determin-
ing who is the person represented by the prophet on this occa-
sion, the choice can only be between the Lord and his angel or
revealer. It cannot be argued in defence of the latter, that on
several occasions the Lord is distinguished from the subject of
the address, as in vers. 4, 13. Such a distinction forms an
essential part of a symbolical transaction, as we may easily see
if we compare Hosea ; it belongs to the drapery, not to the sub-
stance. The person represented tells his representative what he
is to do, in order that. the representation itself may correspond
to the reality. There is, however, just as little force in the argu-
ment which may be adduced on the other side, that in ver. 13
Jehovah calls the miserable wages paid to the shepherd the goodly
price at which He, the Lord, was priced. Just as in other
prophecies the Angel of the Lord, who is connected with him by
unity of nature, is sometimes distinguished from him as the mes-
senger from the sender, and at other times participates in both
his name and actions, so is it also with Zechariah. The most
striking example is chap. ii. 8, 9, " Thussaith Jehovah Zehaofh,

12 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROP BETS.

after the glory^ hath, he sent me unto the heathen, which spoil
you ; for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of Ms eye.
For behold I will shake my hand upon them, and they shall be
a spoil to the servants, and ye shall know that Jehovah Zebaoth
hath sent me." The speaker is here distinguished from Jehovah
Zebaoth, who had sent him ; nevertheless the prophet calls him
Jehovah Zebaoth, and he attributes to himself a divine work,
— namely, the destruction of the enemies of the covenant nation
(see the remarks on the passage itself).

The decision of this question is rather dependent upon the
result to be obtained from the general contents of Zechariah's
prophecies, with reference to the relation in which the Lord and
his angel stood to the covenant nation. Now we very soon dis-
cover, that all the intercourse between the Lord and his people
was carried on through the medium of his revealer, who was
furnished with all the fulness of his power ; that all the bless-
ings imparted to the nation proceeded from him, — that he in
fact was the real protector and covenant-God of the Israelites.
It was he who was in the midst of the myrtle-bush, the symbol
of the covenant nation attended by a company of angels (chap.
i. 8). He promises to dwell in the midst of the people (chap.
ii. 14), and it is he who rebuts the charge brought by Satan
against the covenant nation in the person of its representative
Joshua, and on his own authority bestows upon him the forgive-
ness of sins (chap. iii. 1 sqq.). To whom, then, but to him, the
constant shepherd of the nation, could the last and greatest
attempt to prove his fidelity as a shepherd, which is depicted in
this section, be possibly attributed ? This result, which is thus
independently obtained, is confirmed by the fact that in the his-
tory of the Angel of the Lord, who appeared in the Messiah, we
meet with the thirty pieces of silver again, and that in the New
Testament he is represented as the subject of this prophecy, and
actually hints at the fact himself (John xxi. 15 — 17). — ^We need
scarcely stop to inquire whether the symbolical transaction, here
described, was an inward or an outward one. The former is very
obvious, as Maimonides has shown (Mor, Neb. ii. 46, Buxt. p.

1 Correctly explained by Jonathan thus : " post gloriam, quae promissa est,
ut adducatur super vos."

ZECHARIAH, CHAP, XI. 4. 13

324). The tending of the sheep, the destruction of the three
shepherds, the payment of the thirty pieces of silver as wages, —
it is impossible that any of these should have taken place out-
wardly ; especially as the literal meaning is sometimes seen be-
hind the symbol, for example in ver. 11, where the miserable
sheep are spoken of, who waited upon the great shepherd and
knew that it was the word of the Lord, also in ver. 12, where
the prophet treats with the flock itself, respecting his wages, both
of which would be inexplicable, if the prophet had been tending
a real flock of sheep. Moreover, the supposition, that the sym-
bolical action was a purely inward one, is favoured by the analogy
of the visions in the first part, which differ from the present only
so far, that in the latter the prophet appears upon the scene
as one of the leading actoi's, whereas in the former he seldom
takes any part, except when he receives information as to the
meaning of the symbolical representations (compare, however,
chap. iii. 5). The department of visions is generally the most
predominant in such prophets as appeared subsequent to the
intercourse of the nation with the Chaldeans, especially Ezekiel
and Daniel, and in the case of both of these there is every thing
to indicate the internal character of the events narrated.

So far as the meaning of this symbolical action is concerned,
we must reject at the outset every interpretation, in which, whilst
the authenticity of the second part is admitted, reference is sup-
posed to be made to some event that occurred before the captivity.
They are most of them the inventions of Jews, who were actuated
by hostility to Christians, and are all of them so absurd as to be
utterly undeserving of any minute investigation.' The argu-
ment adduced in support of them, — namely the use of the pre-
terites, loses all its force, when once it is shown that the prophet
is here describing a symbolical action. For this had already
taken place, whilst the thing typified was still future. If, then,
it is clearly established, that reference is made to the time of the
second temple, the choice must be between two interpretations.
According to the one of these, the whole of the dealings of God
with the covenant nation under the second temple are alluded to
here ; according to the other, the symbolical representation sets

1 Compare the passages quoted by Abicht, in his roadihle treatise de hacuUs
jucunditatis d corrvmjjentiu^n, Thesaurus novus 1 p. 1094 sqq.

14 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

forth one particular effort, which was to be made in the time of
the second temple, to save the nation from destruction, — namely
the pastoral work of Christ, and the rejection of the people which
followed the rejection of the Messiah. The first view is held by
A barhanel, whose words we must quote, if only for the purpose
of showing, that the power of truth was superior to doctrinal
prejudices in his case, much more than in that of other Jewish
expositors, and allowed him to grasp at least the fundamental
idea of the prophecy.^ The same opinion is also adopted by
Calvin. According to his interpretation, the Lord discharged
the duties of a shepherd by means of all his faithful servants in
the time of the second temple, but most perfectly of all by Christ.^
An elaborate defence of this view is to be found in Ahiclit p.
1092 sqq.^ On the other hand the opinion, that the prophecy
relates exclusively to the office of shepherd to be filled by Christ,
has predominated to such an extent, that nothing would be
gained by mentioning the names of its supporters. If we
examine the arguments adduced in support of the first opinion,
it will be obvious at once that the reason assigned by xi hicht has
no force whatever. For how does it follow, from the fact that

1 He says, according to Abicht's version : Sensus prophetse is est. Post-
quam deus prophetse indicasset bona, quae erant futura super incolas secundi
templi, si vias suas bonas redderent, secundum prophetias, quas jam inter-
pretatus sum, pergit se/mo ad prophetam, ipsi significando futura, si non
bona redderent opera et se bonis illis dignos exhiberent, sed si e contrario
reges et sacerdotes eorum una cum reliquo populo deterius viverent, quam
patres eorum, quomodo non sufficiebat, ut 02:)eribus bonis Sliechinam et reve-
lationem non reducerent, sed quoque se reos redderent desolationum et cap-
tivitatis. Et hue tendit sapientium p. m. in principio capitis : Aperi Libanon
portas tuas." (Compare the remarks on ver. 1).

'■^ " Suscipit propheta in se personam omnium pastorum ; quasi diceret: non
esse cur obtendat populus inscitiam, vel culpam suam aliis titulis et coloribus
fucari velit ; quia deus semper obtulit se pastorem, et adhibuit etiani minis-
tros, quorum manu regeret populum hunc. Non stetit igitur per deum, quin
feliciter haberi potuerit hie populus."

3 His main argument is the following : " In antecentibus propheta habi-
tatoribus templi secundi dei specialem providentiam et defensionem contra
insultantes hostes, terrse fertilitatem c. 10. 1, defensionem et robur 3 — 7,
multiplicationem et coUectionem, 8 sqq. promisit, qute omnia ad templi
secundi tempora respiciunt. Quoniam vero deus praevidit, quod in bono non
perstituri, sed mails operibus contaminati, pcenam merituri sint, nunc bono-
rum promissioni poenam adjungit, qua3 eos mansura sit, si a legis divinoe
tramite defiecterent. — His rationibus subnixus dico, nostra verba de modo
Judseos in templo secundo pascendi in genere loqui, quo deus modo bonos,
modo malos concessit pastores, prout Judaeorum vita et opera comparata
fuerunt."

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XI. 4. 15

the prophecy contained in chaps, ix. and x. embraces the whole
period of the second temple, from the favours conferred upon the
Jews in connection with Alexander's triumphs to the coming of
Christ, that the prophecy before us must be equally comprehen-
sive ? It is restricted rather to the jjr'incipal object of the fore-
going prediction, — namely, the coming of Christ (see chap. ix. 9,
10), which it presents in another point of view, in order that its
meaning may be fully understood, and not be so perverted by a
one-sided and worldly interpretation as to become pernicious
instead of salutary. Reference might also be made to Jer. xxiii.
4, where the Lord promises to give to the people good shepherds
in the place of the bad ones it had before, and to Ezek. xxxiv.
where the announcement that the Lord will undertake the office
of shepherd, relates to the entire period extending from the
return from Babylon to the coming of Christ. But even in these
prophecies, which Zechariah evidently had in his mind, peculiar
prominence is given to the mission of the Messiah, as the highest
and most perfect manifestation of the faithfulness of the Lord as
the shepherd of his people. In Ezek. xxxiv. 23, the Lord says,
" I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them,
even my servant David ; he shall feed them, and shall be their
shepherd. And I the Lord will be their God, and my servant,
David, a prince among them." And in Jer. xxiii. 5, He says,
" I will raise unto David a righteous branch, who will be a king,
and will govern well, and execute judgment and justice in the
earth." Now why should not Zechariah, with these prophecies
before him, have given prominence to the highest and last mani-
festation of the fidelity of the Lord as a shepherd, and to
that alone ; especially when the subordinate manifestations of
this fidelity, which were depicted by Jeremiah and Ezekiel at
the same time, had already taken place to a great extent in
the return of the people from captivity, and the raising up of
those two excellent rulers, Zerubbabel and Joshua, whose praises
Zechariah had already sounded in the first part of his book ? It
is not possible, therefore, to adduce even a plausible argument in
favour of this view ; on the other hand a decisive argument may
be adduced against it. According to this explanation the oflSce
of shepherd undertaken by the Lord, and consequently the de-
struction of the three shepherds described in ver. 8, must have

16 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

been a continuous act, which lasted from the return from capti-
vity till the Koman catastrophe, that is for several centuries.
But it is stated in ver. 8, " I cut off the three shepherds in one
month." We have here a distinct explanation on the part of
the prophets, that his symbolical representation depicts one single
manifestation of the faithfulness of the Lord as a shepherd,
which is to be completed in a comparatively brief period of time.
To this we may add, that the term applied to the covenant
nation, " the flock of the slaughter," is very appropriate to the
condition of the people at the time when Christ came, but not
during the whole period of the second temple, and least of
all to the prophet's own days. It is true that Calvin refers
it to the last of these. ^ But if we examine the descrip-
tion given in ver. 5, we shall quickly perceive that the state
of the people depicted there is very different from their poor,
no doubt, but yet peaceable condition on their return from
captivity. — Lastly, the breaking of the staff called mercy, de-
noting the withdrawal of the protection, hitherto afforded by the
Lord to his people against the heathen nations, and the break-
ing of the staff " of the bound ones," which represented the
dissolution of the unity existing in the nation itself, are both of
them apparently single acts with lasting consequences (compare
ver. 11, " and it was broken in that day)." The Lord does not give
up his nation to passing judgments, as in the previous history,
to receive it back again when it has repented ; but a peremptory
decree of rejection isused against them. And yet, if the
announcement related to the whole of the dealings of the Lord
with the covenant nation during the period of the second temple,
we should expect to find the former. If, then, the rejection is
one single act, the conduct of the people which occasions it must
be the last and greatest exhibition of its hardness of heart ; and
this was seen in the rejection of Christ. A comparison of ver.
4 and ver. 6 will also show that this is the case : " feed the flock
of the slaughter, . . . for I will no more pity the inhabi-
tants of the land, saith the Lord." The feeding is represented
here as the last attempt to rescue the unhappy nation, whose

1 Grex occisionis refertur ad prophetge iietatem ; mortuae oves, quas domi-
nu3 eripuerat, multis molestiis adhuc expositee erant. "

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XI. 4. 17

utter destruction would immediately follow, if, as was actually
the case, the attempt should be unsuccessful.

A difference of opinion has still to be mentioned with reference
to the meaning of n^nqn ^nv. The Jlock of the slaughter may
mean a flock, already being slaughtered, or one which is to be
slaughtered at some future time. The Lord may call the
covenant nation by this name, either for the purpose of showing
that he has undertaken the office of shepherd, on account of his
compassion for the miserable condition, into which the people
had fallen previous to his becoming their shepherd, or because
of his pity for the nation, on account of the judgments which
still impended over it. It is best to combine the two. The
wretched condition of the nation at the time, governed as it was
by evil rulers both native and foreign, was the effect of the just
judgment of God. This condition would not only continue, but
be heightened in future, if the nation did not sincerely repent ;
and it is to furnish it with the means of repentance, that the
Lord himself undertakes the office of shepherd, and comes to
save the lost one. — There can be no doubt that the Lord alludes
to this passage, when he says to Peter in John xxi. 15, " Feed
my lambs," and in vers. 16, 17, " Feed my sheep." (ra. dp^ix,
which answers to the Hebrew d'nSi: may be explained on the
supposition that the Saviour had also Is. xl. 11 in his mind,
which he combines with the passage before us). When Jesus
is leaving the earth, he transfers to Peter, as his representative,
the office which the Father has intrusted to him according to
the words of this prophecy. " Jesus is the Lord of both lambs
and sheep. He loves his flock, and commends it to one who
loves him" (Bengel). But it is remarkable, that Jesus speaks
of his sheep, whereas the passage on which his words are based
mentions the fioch of the slaughter^ the whole nation which is
devoted to destruction. The office of shepherd over this, how-
ever, the Lord had already relinquished. Hence he could not
transfer it to Peter. He simply refers to the office of shepherd
over the little flock, .the elect of the old covenant nation, " the
poor of the flock, who wait upon me/' as they are called in
ver. 11.'

1 Bleeh says (p. 287) " Hengstenberg, according to his usual disposition to
regard the prophets of the Bible as soothsayers and diviners of the future,"
VOL. IV. B

18 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

Ver. 5. " Whose buyers slay them, and hold themselves not
guilty, and whose sellers say, blessed be the Lord, for I enrich
myself, and their oiv7i shepherds S2mre them not."

The futures in this verse are all to be taken as signs of actions,
which had indeed already commenced, but would also be con-
tinued. They are sufficient in themselves to show that it is not
merely with reference to the present and the past, that the
Israelites are called sheep for the slaughter. ^^^% »»^ is
rendered by many commentators " they are not punished ;" by
others " they do not feel themselves guilty." In a similar
manner the words, " blessed be the Lord, I enrich myself," are
understood by most expositors as indicating the greatest cruelty
and harshness on the part of the sellers. But this view is
decidedly incorrect. io^^'nj can neither mean " they regard
themselves as guilty," nor " they are not punished." It is true
that o^'^?, like all the verbs denoting sinning, has also a sub-
ordinate meaning indicating punishment for sin, but the leading
idea of guilt is never lost sight of. The untenable character of
this rendering is still more apparent from a comparison of the
parallel passages. From these we learn that the idea which the
prophet intends to express is this, " the wretched condition of
the people is not the result of human caprice, but of the just
judgment of God." Jer. ii. 3 is particularly applicable here:
" Israel was holy to the Lord, the first-fruits of his increase. All
that devoured him ivere guilty, evil came upon them, saith the
Lord."^ The prophet contrasts the former time, when no one
could have injured the nation which walked in the fear of God,

looks upon this as a distinct prediction of the work and fate of Christ." In
our opinion, however, any one who is disposed to regard the prophets as
holy men of God, moved by the Holy Ghost, (and this is not a matter of
personal predilection, but the opinion of the whole Christian church), will find
in this prophecy, even when looked at from a purely scientific point of view,
very strong ground for congratulating himself on having the disposition
referred to, and for commiserating those who do not share it. The rational-
istic expositors in their interpretation oj this llth chapter, as ivell as of the 5Zd
chapter of Isaiah, have brought to light nothing hut exegetical monstrosities, to
he free from the necessity of upholding which, is one of the blessings of faith in
the word of God.

1 Jonathan : " And as any one, who ate of the first fruits of the harvest
before the priests, the sons of Aaron, had ofiered some of the sheaf upon the
:iltar, was guilty, so did all, who spoiled the house of Israel, contract guilt to
themselves by so doing."

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XI. 5. 19

without incurring guilt and exposing himself to punishment,
with the present time, when it is given up by the Lord himself,
as dbjust prey to its foes, who act as his instruments. Jer. 1. 6,
7, is equally in point, " my people are lost sheep, their shepherds
lead them astray ; they let them wander about upon the moun-
tains ; they go from mountain to hill, they forget their fold.
All who find them devour them, and their adversaries say we
incur no guilt, because they have sinned against the Lord, the
habitation of righteousness, against the Lord, the hope of their
fathers." The reason why their enemies are not guilty is here
expressly stated to be, that the nation has fallen away from its
God, who has given them up to the tyranny of their enemies, as
a. just act of divine judgment. Jer. xxv. 9 also deserves to be
quoted, although not so distinctly referred to by the prophet, as
the two already mentioned : " Behold, I send and take all the
families of the north, saith the Lord, and Nebuchadnezzar, the
king of Babylon, my servant, and bring them upon this land,
and upon all these nations round about, and I place them unde/-
the band, and lay them waste," &c. Nebuchadnezzar is repre-
sented here as the minister of divine justice, who might have
executed its decrees upon the covenant nation in an irreproach-
able manner, if this appointment had been the motive by which
he was actuated, just as the war against the people of the cove-
nant is described as a holy war in chap. xxii. 7 (" I sanctify
destroyers upon thee.")

" Thi/ sellers say" is equivalent to they might say. A person
is often represented as having said what he might very naturally
have said under the circumstances. But if we compare Is. xxxvi.
10, where Sannacherib says, "Am I now come up without the
Lord against this land to destroy it ? the Lord said unto me, go
up against this land, and destroy it," we shall see that the enemies
of the Israelites had some conception at times of their high voca-
tion. Gain which can lead a man to say, " bless or praise the
Lord," in other words for which he can thank God, is righteous
gain.^ liTP.'P is not their possessors, as many suppose, but their

1 Calvin has well observed, though in a different connection, " we are
accustomed to give thanks to God, when we can regard the benefits, which
fall to our lot, as his gift. The thief who has murdered an innocent man,
does not say "blessed be God," for he would prefer that the name of God
should be obliterated, since he has wounded his own conscience.

20 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

sellers, as the antithesis to in'?.?o clearly shows (compare Is.
xxiv. 2). The buyers and sellers of the flock are those who do
just as thej please with the covenant nation. We cannot follow
Theodoret, Cyril, and many others, who imagine that wicked
rulers belonging to the nation itself are intended. The expres-
sion must rather be referred to foreign oppressors, as it has been
by Jerome, who correctly explains it as denoting the Komans.
This is obvious from the parallel passages just quoted, and still
more so from the circumstances themselves. How could the
flock of Israel be a Icno/ul gain to its native shepherds ? They
were the principal cause of its rebellion, and the punishment fell
with peculiar severity upon them (compare ver. 17 and Jer.
xxiii. 1). On the other hand the shepherds, who do not spare
the flock, are most probably the native rulers exclusively, as we
may gather from ver. 8 and vers. 15 — 17. The former of these
also furnishes conclusive evidence, that by the shepherds we are
not to understand merely the civil rulers, as Aharhanel and
Grotius do, but the ecclesiastical rulers also, particularly those
whom the Lord had appointed in any way to be the leaders of
the nation. There is a gradation in the passage, therefore ; not
only will the people continue to groan, as they do now, under the
oppression of foreign tyrants, but their own rulers will also be
irretrievably ruined as well as they. The apparently feeble ex-
pression, " they spare not," is stronger than any positive state-
ment as to the nature of their conduct would be, especially when
applied to the native shepherds, since it indicates at once, that
both nature and duty required them to spare their own flock, and
therefore it was a severe judgment on the part of Grod, when
they denied it.

Ver. 6. " For I will not spare the inhabitants of the land,
saith the Lord, and I ivill give one into the power of another,
and into the power of his king ; and they lay loaste the land,
and I ivill not save out of their hand."

'3 at the commencement of this verse might refer to ver 5.
In this case the futures would have to be taken in the sense of
ordinary futures, and the flock of the slaughter would mean one
wmcU was afterward to be slaughtered, and not one whose
slaughter had already commenced. The present verse would
then assign the reason, why the nation was to be given up to

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XI. 6. 21

destruction, without its destroyers being chargeable with guilt,
provided it resisted this last attempt at its rescue. The Lord,
who has long waited for fruit from the bad tree, must at last cut
it down. But as the flock is represented in ver. 7 as being
already in a miserable condition, at the time when the Lord
enters upon his office as shepherd, we have no reason to restrict
vers. 4 and 5 to the future. It is better, therefore, to refer '? to
the injunction "/eet? the Jlock of the slaughter." Make a last
attempt to save it, for I cannot and must not any longer sufier
its fearful apostasy to go unpunished. V^^, the land — viz.,
the land of Israel already referred to. " He is speaking of the
land, to which he has already referred,- and not of the whole
world, as the Jewish commentators have falsely interpreted, in
their wish to turn the sentence of God away from themselves to
some other quarter." (Jerome).

The explanation of this verse also depends u}3on a parallel pas-
sage in Jeremiah (chap. xix. 9) : " And I cause them to eat the
flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they eat
every one the flesh of his friend in their distress and want, which
are brought upon them by their enemies and those who seek their
life." A twofold cause of their ruin is given, a twofold punishment
from the Lord is mentioned, — namely the strife among the people
themselves, which is heightened by suffering, and the oppression
of the foe. We find precisely the same thing here ; the former
is indicated in the expression, " I gi've them to one another,"
and the latter in the words, " I give them up to their king." That
we are to understand by the king a foreign oppressor, and not a
native ruler, is evident from the fact, that the covenant nation
had no native king in the time of the prophet, and that he never
speaks of any such king in his descriptions of the future, with
the exception of the Messiah. Contention within and foes without
are not only mentioned in the passage quoted from Jeremiah
and in Is. ix. 7 sqq. (compare especially vers. 18, 19, and chap.
iii, 4), but they are also linked together by our prophet himself
in chap. viii. 10, as the two principal methods of punishment
employed by God for the chastisement of his people, " for before
these days . . there was no peace from the enemy, and I set
every man one against another." This miserable state of things,

22 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

which existed in the nation previous to the commencement of its
captivity, is here represented as returning with still greater force
on account of its base ingratitude for repeated forgiveness, and
its relapse into apostasy. If we turn to the fulfilment, we may
see at once that the king is the Koman Emperor. (Compare
John xix. 15, where the Jews say, " we have no king but C^sar.")
We need not stop to show how literally this prophecy applies to
the fate of the Jews subsequent to their rejection of Christ, to
the passionate contests of parties within the city, and eventually
its conquest by the Komans ; much less is there any, necessity to
brino" forward the well-known passages from Josephus, which
Jahn has provided with so liberal a hand. Bleek is of opinion
that the expression " of Ms king" is a proof that the reference
can only be to a native king. But he has overlooked Hosea xi.
5, " Assyria is his king." There is probably a distinct allusion
to this passage in the words before us, and there is the greater
reason for supposing this, from the fact that Assyria is mentioned
in chap. x. 10, with evident reference to Bosea, as the represen-
tative of the imperial power. (This passage also furnishes a
refutation of Hofmann, who most strangely interprets this verse
as denoting the ill-treatment of the whole human race ; (see
Weissagung und Erfiillung i. p. 318). Schmieder says, " we
cannot regard these words as relating to the king of the whole
land, for every one is to be given into the hand of Ms king, not
of the king who is king of all." But the king of the whole land
is also the king of every individual. The mode of expression
employed is a peculiar one, which would certainly appear strange
if it stood by itself ; but it is to be explained from its connection
with the previous clause, " I give them into the power of one
another." Those who refer the expression to a native king,
however, must fail to notice vers. 1 — 3, where foreign foes are
described as laying waste the land, and also ver. 10, where the
principal danger is represented as coming from without, in con-
sequence of the covenant with the nations being broken.. — To
the word tru??, " the neighbour and the king," might be supplied
as the subject. But it is better to understand the king alone as
being the subject, or rather the heathen foe concealed behind
him. For apparently the words, " and they lay the land waste"
are simply an abridgment of the account of the hostile invasion

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XI. 7. 23

in vers. 1 — 3. nna, to smite in pieces, may be more suitably
applied to a hostile invasion, than to internal contentions. In
other passages it is always used in connection with foreign foes,
(Num. xiv. 45 ; Deut. i. 44 ; Is. xxiv. 12). The words, " I will
not deliver out of their hand," also point to heathen oppression.

Ver. 7. '' And so I fed the fiock of the slaughter, therefore the
most miserable sheep, and I took unto me tioo staves, the one I
colled loveliness, and the other I called the united ones, and fed
tJie flock."

There can be no doubt, that p"? means therefore, on this account.
Other renderings have all been adopted without any foundation.
The simplest explanation is that given by Eitzig, who supposes
the expression to refer to vers. 5, 6, in which case the word
therefore merely repeats, in a more distinct and emphatic manner,
what has already been said at the commencement, " and so I
fed." As the directions to feed the sheep are explained by what
follows in ver. 6, which commences with ^^ for" so does the
account of the execution of the order point back to the same
explanation through the word therefore (I fed), with which it
begins. The miserable oftlie sheep are the most miserable sheep,
those whose miserable condition is such, that the rest in com-
parison are not miserable at all. The question arises, however,
where are we to find the whole, the flock generally, with which
the part is here compared. If we suppose the former to be one
particular flock, the nation of Israel for example, the miserable
would then be a portion of that nation, which was peculiarly
miserable. If, on the other hand, we understand the former
as denoting sheep generally, meaning thereby all people and
nations, the mx>st miserable sheep would then be the whole of
the covenant nation. The former is the more customary view ;
and it is generally supposed that an antithesis is intended here,
similar to Ezek. xxxiv. 16 : "I will seek the lost, and bring
back the strayed, bind up the wounded, and strengthen the sick ;
but the fat and strong I will destroy." It is also added that the
most miserable are those, who are made humble by their misery,
and long for salvation. But on closer examination it is evident
that the latter view is the correct one. It cannot be objected to
this, that in ver. 11 " the most miserable sheep" are only the
God-fearing portion of the nation. For the limitation does not

24 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS,

arise from the expression, " the most miserable sheep/' but
from the clause which follows, " who adhered to me ;" and
this modif}dng clause rather tends to show that " the most
miserable sheep" is in itself a general expression, not limited
to any particular class, but referring to the whole nation. The
most decisive evidence in favour of the latter, however, is to be
found in two parallel passages of Jeremiah, — viz., chap. xlix. 20,
" Surely they (the children of Edom) tear the lowliest sheep ;"
and chap. 1. 45, where the same statement is made with refe-
rence to the Chaldeans. In both passages, " the lowliest sheep"
is an expression applied to the Israelites, in contrast with all the
nations round about. Moreover the Lord is described in vers.
4 and 9 as undertaking the office of shepherd, not merely over
a portion of the nation, but over the loliole, and for the good of
the whole. The expression, " most miserable sheep," is iden-
tical with " sheep of the slaughter" by which the whole nation
is designated. The fact that two shepherds' staves are taken, is
supposed by many expositors to denote the various ways in
which God dealt with the nation. But this idea is founded
upon an erroneous interpretation of the names of the staves. A
shepherd's staff is the instrument with which the shepherd de-
fends his flock and ensures their well-being ; " thy rod and thy
staff they comfort me " (Ps. xxiii. 4). Hence the two staves,
taken on this occasion, indicate the protection afforded by the
good shepherd against a twofold danger, from outward foes and
inward contention ; the two sources of danger referred to in ver.
6, as those which would lead to the ruin of the nation, in the
event of its hardness of heart continuing. But now, so long as
the last attempt to lead it to repentance continues, the danger
is averted by the faithful shepherd. After this it breaks in with
fearful violence.

Dyi is rendered by most commentators loveliness or hecndy
(Sept., jcaXXoi- ; Aquila and Symmachus, ivitpiitnoi. \ Jerome,
decus). At first sight the word, as thus interpreted, appears to
have but little meaning ; and, according to ver. 10, the staff
represented the mercy of the Lord, by which he protected the
nation from being destroyed by outward foes. But the usages
of the language are decisive in favour of this rendering, and
every objection is removed by the fact, that the expression,

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XI. 7. 25

which is indefinite in itself, is more precisely defined by the two
earlier passages to which this refers, — viz., Ps. xc. 17, " The love-
liness of the Lord be upon us" (may it show itself in our history),
and Ps. xxvii. 4, " One thing have I desired of the Lord, that
will I seek after, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all
the days of my life, to behold the loveliness of the Lord, and to
inquire in his temple." According to these passages the staff love-
liness can only denote the lovely aspect in ivhich the Lord mani-
fests himself to his people, and therefore is identical with the staff
mercy. We cannot agree with Bleek, who explains the name as
denoting the loveliness of the people, an explanation at variance
alike with the passages quoted and also with ver. 10, where the
staff denotes an act of God ; nor yet with Maurer, who renders
it amoenitatem, vitam commodam. The singular oyj indicates
the relation of the One God to his nation ; the plural o^Snn
that of the members of the nation to one another. — The second
name D'^?n is supposed by many to be used in a bad sense de-
noting either pei'dentes or dolentes. Thus in contrast with the first
staff grace, the second is the staff ivoes, with which the nation is
to be punished, in case it should refuse to receive the Lord as its
shepherd.^ But the following proofs are sufficient to establish
its incorrectness. (1). ^?n does not mean to destroy or to he
destroyed either in the Kal or Niphal, much less to feel pain?
(2.) This rendering, as Calvin has already observed, is shown to

1 The last to defend this view is Hofmann (Schriftbeweis ii. 2, p. 557),
" As there is a Ssn, which means to do evil or inflict evil, D'Ssn, which
denotes the various methods of inflicting evil, forms an appropriate antithesis
to Dyj."

2 The passages adduced in support of the meaning to destroy, which has
already been contested by Gousset and Schultens (ad Jobum p. 9G4) are the
following. Neh. i. 7, " We have sinned against thee "^ *jh'3n Shn,"
is generally rendered, " We have dealt corruptly towards thee," or " We
have acted wickedly towards thee ; " but it ought rather to be rendered, "We
are pledged to thee," omni pignore obstricti tibi tenemur ad pccnam : Schul-
tens has admirably illustrated this from the Arabic sayings, " Every man is
pledged to death, every evil doer to punishment," or " Every man binds
himself by the things which he does." Job xxxiv. 31 is usually translated,
" I paid the penalty, and will do wrong no more " {'^''zr^ii nS). But
the proper rendering would be, " I bear (or there has come upon me) what I
do not deserve." Job intends to represent his innocence as continuous, and
therefore employs the future. — Prov. xiii. 13, " Whoso despiscth the word,

26 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

be incorrect, by the fact that the Lord malies use of the staff to
feed the flock during the day of grace, and that he is represented
in ver. 14 as breaking it when the period of grace is over. From
this it is evident that the staff must be a symbol of blessings,
and not oi punishments. The breaking of the first staff denoted
the withdrawal of a divine blessing, and that of the second does
the same. Taking the staff, therefore, must represent the
bestowal of a blessing ; and as the harmony of the nation is
destroyed when the staff is broken, this harmony must be the
blessing bestowed when the staff is taken in the hand. (3.) It
is difficult to understand the use of the plural, if this explanation
be adopted.

Other expositors, who are convinced that this rendering is in-
admissible, have taken the word in the sense of binding. Three
different modifications of this meaning have been suggested.
Many of the early translators have rendered the word cord, either
because they regarded ^^'n as merely another form of ^?.D, a
cord, or because they pointed it differently. Thus in the Septua-
gint, Aquila, and Symmachus we have nod rw ers^av ixaXsTa
6jp'm(Jixoc. Jerome translates it et alteram vocavi funiculos.
Calvin, who points the word o'^^D, adopts the same render-

iS S.3n», is pledged to himself, namely for punishment." Thus there is not
a single passage, in which either the Kal or Niphal is used, where the meaning
to destroy is even a probable one. The fact that it is found in the Niphal
proves nothing. For this may be traceable to a modification of the primai-y
meaning of the word, produced by the conjugation itself San to hind and
to he hound ; Piel, to ensnare, then to destroy. In Chaldee also the meaning
to destroy is not found in the Peal, but in the Pael alone. nSian (prave
factum, scelus) in Dan. vi. 28, to which appeal is also made, is literally the
pledged one (Amos ii. 8) according to the view already given. San, hurt,
in Dan. iii. 25 (compare Ezra iv. 22) is to be explained by the help of Micah
ii. 10, where San, a cord, is used to denote pain ; pain and hurt being re-
garded as a condition of restraint, tormentum a iorquendo. Gesenius endea-
voui's to trace the supposed meaning, pervertit et perversus pravus fuit, to the
primary signification to hind, but with little success. There is no necessity
to assume, as some of the more modern lexicographers have done, that Snn
is made up of two difi"erent roots. Ahicht (p. 1100) has already shown in
what way the meanings may all be traced to the one primary signification
to hind or to he hound.

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XI. 7. 27

ing.^ Others (e.g. Drusius, Fuller, and Marck) take the word as
an active participle, " the binders."^ And others again, with Be
Dieu as their leader, regard it as a passive participle, and render
it "the bound" or " the allied." There can be no doubt what-
ever that the word is generally used in Hebrew in the sense of
binding, and that not merely in a literal, but also in a meta-
phorical sense.^ There can also be just as little doubt, that ^?n
has both an active and passive signification. This is sufficiently
evident from the metaphorical use of the term Pfdndung, which
has the double meaning of binding another, and binding one's
self or being bound. (Compare the passages quoted from Job
and Nehemiah). In the Arabic the two corresponding verbs

^..JUfiL and — ^''^^ which originally formed but one root, have

not only an active meaning in the first conjugation, but a passive

and reflective sense as well. -_Xx2i, to pledge and to destroy,

both from the idea of binding, the latter as being in a forced

condition, or one of restraint. ,_3joi., demens, maniacus fuit, to

be mentally bound. ._jLk^ foedus inivii, and — V^"^^ prcegnans

fuit, a state of physical bondage, as madness is one of mental.
Now from this we may see, that the choice between the three
modifications mentioned is not a difficult one. The first is too
arbitrary to merit any notice. The second is untenable, because
it furnishes no explanation of the use of the plural ; for who
could the binders be ? The third has everything in its favour.
The second staff, in perfect harmony with ver. 14, represented
the brotherly union which continued to exist in the covenant
nation during the period of grace, through the interposition of

1 Bleek subscribes to the same view (p. 282). But this gives us a far less
suitable meaning than the received reading. " Cords " would point rather to
the idea of fettering, for which it is very commonly employed.

2 This is the view held by Gesenius : constringens poet, pro fune ; but the
plural shows that it is incorrect.

3 This is very obvious from the derivative words San a sailor, (ligator
funis nautici), San a cord, and union or company (a\v«aj San, 1 Sam.
X. 5, 10, properly rendered by the LXX. x'i^^ ^^oipnrav), niSapn, consilia
(nectere dolos).

28 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

the Lord. The words, " and so I tended the flock," are not
merely a superfluous repetition, but show that the tending took
place by means of the staves. The rendering adopted by many,
" with which I fed the flock," is correct as far as the sense is
concerned.

Ver. 8. " And I cut off the three shepherds in one month, and
I was loeary of them, and their soul also rebelled against me!'

We shall inquire, first of all, who are to be understood by
the three shepherds. We reject at the outset the view expressed
by Calvin, Jahn, Bosenmilller, and others, who suppose that we
have here a definite number for an indefinite, three for several.
Instead of " the three shepherds" {Sept. rous rpc7s itoiixiva.?) we
should have in this case simply " three shepherds." The article
is just as decisive against those who understand by the three
shepherds three distinct individuals. If this were the meaning,
we should either find the individuals mentioned before, in which
case a simple allusion would be sufficient (but no such shep-
herds have ever been mentioned), or they must have been so
well known to the prophet's readers that he might safely assume
that they would readily understand him.^ But it is impossible
to find three individuals to whom the words would apply. This is
evident from the fact that, of all those who support this explana-
tion, hardly two are to be found, who agree as to the persons
referred to. Moreover the views advocated by the majority of
these expositors nmst be rejected at the outset, on the simple
ground that they seek the three shepherds among those who lived
before the Babylonian captivity, whereas it is to a future event
that reference is here made.^ There can be no doubt, therefore,

1 It is also to be observed, that the thought of the future predominates
throughout the whole of the Scriptures, that it is never the existing genera-
tion alone which is addressed, and that the knowledge assumed as possessed,
is never such as was accessible to their own age alone.

- The rationalistic critics {e.g. Hitzig, Mmtrer, Etoald, and Bleek) fall back
with a certain unanimity upon 2 Kings xv. 13. But in this case it is im-
possible to do justice even to the most outward circumstances. According to
that passage Shallum reigned a. full month. Menahem, who must have been
the third, was not killed at all, but died a natural death at the end of ten
years, and his ton reigned in his stead. To get rid of the difficulty Hitzig
works away at the word "i^riDn, which must mean to cut off, as ver. 9
clearly shows ; and Ewald invents " a third ruler, who rose up at the same
time and was quickly overthrown, possibly on the other side of the Jordan,
but who is necessarily passed over in 2 Kings xv. 10 — 13." The opinion ia

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XI. 8. 29

that the prophet is speaking, not of three individuals, but of
three orders of slieplierds. Those who hold this opinion are
divided again into various classes. Junius, Piscator, and
Lighffoot conjecture that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essencs,
are referred to, a notion which must be rejected on the simple
ground that these Jewish sects could not possibly be called the
shepherds of the nation. 3Iarck imagined the civil, ecclesiasti-
cal, and military authorities to be intended ; but he has not
brought forward any proofs that the latter are ever represented
as belonging to the shepherds of the theocracy. If it may he
regarded as certain, that the three shepherds represent tlie three
classes of shepherds existing in the theocracy, in other loords
the leaders of the nation, the only correct method of procedure
is to inqiiire, whether Zechariah himself or any other of the
Old Testament writers, especially those who lived about his
time, has anywhere referred to three classes of shepherds as the
sole leaders of the theocracy. Now if we adopt this course, we
shall see that Zechariah cannot possibly have thought of any
others than the civil aidhorities, the priests and the prophets.
This is the oldest interpretation in existence.^ We may see
how natural it is, from the fact that, whilst Christ was to com-

based upon the assumption, which we have already shown to be erroneous,
that we have not a prophecy here, but a historical picture relating to the cir-
cumstances of the ten tribes, an assumption sufficiently disproved by ver. 14.
Another objection may also be offered, — namely, that so special an interposi-
tion of the providence of God would hardly be looked for in the case of the
kingdom of Israel, which rested upon a thoroughly false foundation. The
destruction of the three shepherds is represented here as a consequence of the
feeding ; it was an act of mercy. But in the kingdom of Israel, the overthrow
of one or other of the kings was attended with but little loss or gain to the
kingdom of God. The men of God looked upon its changes of dynasty with
comparative indifference. It is also a point of some moment, that all history
fails to yield a suitable explanation, if we understand by the three shepherds
three individuals. There is no gap in the history of either Judah or Israel,
and therefore no opportunity is afforded anywhere of introducing the three
shepherds.

1 Thus Theodoret says, " he refers to the rulers of the Jews, tlie prophets
and the priests, for by these three orders they were fed." Cyril gives the
same explanation, except that he substitutes the scribes for the prophets : " T
think," he says, " that by the three shepherds he means the legally appointed
priests, the duly constituted rulers of the people, and in addition to these the
scribes; for they fed Israel." Jerome also mentions it. " I Iiave read," he
states, " in the commentary of a certain writer, that the shepherds, who were
cut off in one day through the indignation of the Lord, are to be seen in the
priests, and false prophets and rulers of the Jews, because they were all cut
off at once after the death of Christ."

30 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PKOPHETS.

bine in his own person all the offices which existed in the Old
Testament, these three are the only ones which the Church has
ever attributed to him, a proof that they must occupy a very
prominent position in the Old Testament, and that there is no
foundation for Schmieders assertion, that it cannot be shown
that this threefold division of the offices was distinctly recog-
nised either before or during the time of Zechariah. The fact
that this explanation was not universally adopted in later times,
may be easily accounted for, on the ground that it was difficult
to prove the existence of the prophetic office in the time of
Christ. What else could have led any one to seek for other
shepherds than those which are constantly associated together
in this capacity, to the exclusion of every other, and ivhich are
also represented, as in this passage, as having been together the
main cause of the misery and destruction of the nation ? There
are numerous passages in Jeremiah, which might be compared
with this. For example, Jer. ii. 8, " The priests said not where
is the Lord, and they that handle the law (also priests) knew
me not ; the shepherds (with special reference to the civil autho-
rities) , sinned against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal ;"
ver. 26, "As the thief is ashamed when he is found, so is the
house of Israel put to shame, they, their kings, their princes (the
two together constituting the civil authorities), and their priests,
and their prophets." Jer. xviii. 18, " And they say, come and
let us devise devices against Jeremiah ; for the law cannot perish
from the priests, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from
the prophets." If we examine the prophecies of Zechariah
himself, we find the other two classes of shepherds most dis-
tinctly noticed in connection with the prophetic order, of which
he was the representative, in chap. iv. 12 — 14. To the inquiry,
what the two olive branches were, which fed the lamp (the king-
dom of God) with the oil pressed from their fruit, the prophet
receives the following reply, " these are the two sons of oil, which
stand before the Lord of the whole earth." The two orders,
through which the Lord communicated his mercy to the Church,
are here said to be the priesthood and the civil authorities, the
former being at that time represented by Joshua, the latter by
Zerubbabel. It is very obvious from a comparison of chap. iii.
that it is not in their individual capacity that these two are

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XI. 8. 31

referred to here, for throughout that chapter Joshua is always
spoken of as a representative, sometimes of the priesthood, and
at other times of the whole nation. This passage is so far ana-
logous to the passage before us, therefore, that in the latter the
order's into lohich the leaders of the nation were divided are also
personified as itidividuals. Compare also Mai. ii. 7, where
the priestly order is called the messenger of the Lord of Hosts.

The only difficulty which remains is how to explain the fact
that the prophetical order should be introduced as one of the
three, seeing that this had been extinct for a long time before
the period of fulfilment. We reply that, in accordance with the
essential character of prophecy, the prophet represents the future
by means of the analogous circumstances of his own time. Just
as the order of the civil shepherds continued to exist though
kings had ceased to reign, so did the order of prophets continue,
so far as everything essential was concerned, even after the sus-
pension of the gift of prophecy. The vocation of the prophet
was to make known to the people the word and will of God (Jer.
xviii. 18). Before the completion of the canon this was done
by means of revelations made directly to the prophets them-
selves, but after this it was accomplished by the investigation of
earlier revelations under the guidance of the Spirit of God, and
the application of the results to the peculiar circumstances of the
age. The place of the prophets was occupied by the scribes, on
whom, according to the book of Ecclesiasticus, chap, xxxix., the
Lord richly bestowed the spirit of understanding, who studied
the wisdom of the ancients, investigated the prophets, delivered
instruction and counsel, and who were noted for wise sayings.
They stood in the same relation to the prophets of the Old Tes-
tament, as the enlightened teachers of the Christian Church to
the prophets of the New. The three constituent elements of the
Jewish Sanhedrim answer to the three shepherds mentioned here,
namely, the leading priests, the scribes, and the elders, oipxispHs,

ypa^xixariis, TTpsafivr^poi (Matt. xxvi. 3).

What are ice to understand by the cutting off and extermina-
tion of the three shepherds? In the opinion of many commen-
tators, the literal destruction of the individuals themselves. But
a difficulty arises here from the fact that the extermination of
the shepherds precedes the breaking of the staffs. It cannot

32 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

therefore, be a literal extermination that is intended, for the shep-
herds are represented immediately afterwards as still in existence.
It is they who provoke the good shepherd to impatience, and as-
sume the attitude of greatest hostility to him, and from the use of
the future with Vav. conversive, this must be regarded, not as pre-
cedins: the extermination, but rather as the result of it. It is their
obstinate resistance, by which all his pastoral efforts are frus-
trated, that leads him to break the staves and lay down the
office of shepherd. We can only think, then, of an extermina-
tion of the shepherds, as shepherds, that is, their deposition from
their office, the tacit assertion of their non-existence, which was
followed by their outward removal in due time. To effect this
deposition of the shepherds was the leading object of the Lord
during his term of office. But the very disposition, which made
them deserve to be deposed, also prevented the sentence, which
was pronounced upon them with absolute authority, from being
carried out in its fullest extent. Only the most miserable of the
sheep which hearkened to the Lord (ver. 11), withdrew from
their pernicious guidance. It was not till the rejection of the
whole nation, which was blind to its own interests, that the sen-
tence was executed in its full extent hy foreign foes, and without
its receiving good shepherds in the place of the bad, which would
have been the case if it had obeyed the good shepherd, and
carried out the decree of extermination itself. Bleek asks, " How
can it possibly be said of the Redeemer, that the object of his
efforts was to liberate the people — exte^^nally or internally —
from the rule of their civil authorities, and consequently to
exempt them from obedience towards them ?" But it is not to
" civil authority," in its ordinary sense, that reference is made
here, (the political power was then in the hands of the Romans),
but to an order of shepherds resting upon a theological founda-
tion. We have, in fact, the sentence of deposition formally
pronounced in Matt, xxiii. 2, 3 : " the Scribes and the Pharisees
sit in Moses' seat : all, therefore, whatsoever they bid you
observe, that observe and do ; but do not ye after their works."
Respect for the ecclesiastical authorities is here torn up by the
roots. Henceforth the hands alone are to be moved, not the
heart. To render inward obedience is not a duty, but a sin.
The whole chapter will show us what the extermination of the

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XI. 9. 33

shepherds means. The second passage in the New Testament
is John X. The evil shepherds, whom the good shepherd will
remove out of the way, when he undertakes the care of the flock,
are the " strangers" in ver. 5, the " thieves" in ver. 8, the " hire-
lings" in ver. 12. Of these the Lord says in ver. 8, " all that
ever came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did
not hear them" — words which, in their cutting severity, corres-
pond exactly to the expression, " I cut off" in the passage before
us. The very fact that Jesus invariably addresses himself to the
ox,>>-oi, is a practical declaration that the shepherds are no more.
We never find the Lord or his apostles attempting to effect a
reform of the ruling power. On the contrary this is always
regarded as under sentence of condemnation. The destruction
of the shepherds was accomplished in one month. This cannot
be merely equivalent to " within a short space of time," as
Kimclii, Calvin, and others suppose. If so, there would be good
ground for Hitzig's question, " Why should a month be spoken
of, when most likely a day or an hour would have been more
appropriate ?" That the prophet would have said " in one day,"
if he had simply meant within a very short time, is evident from
the parallel passage in chap. iii. 9, where the reconciliation to
be effected by the Messiah is thus described, " I will remove the
iniquity of that land in. one day." The month is to be reckoned
from the commencement of the shepherd's ministry ; and the
expression " in one month" is to be taken as denoting a period,
which is long when compared with " one day," but brief as
contrasted with other periods of time. It shows that the exter-
mination of the three shepherds is not to be regarded as a single
act, like the expiation, but as a continuous act, which occupies
some time. It sets before us in an appropriate manner the
repeated efforts on the part of Christ, to deliver the poor nation,
the lost sheep of the house of Israel, from the spiritual tyranny
of its blind and corrupt guides. " I was weary of them," lit.,
my soul was short with them, I lost all patience with them.^
'^na is usually rendered " to feel disgust," according to the ana-

1 SchuUcns (on Prov. xx. 21) says, " this expression does not denote
weariness, so much as the indignation which arises from intolerable injuries,
under which the mind is, as it were, oppressed and sutfocated. . . . The
impatience of one who is grievously harassed, oppressed, stifled, who can
hardly breathe, is everywhere apparent."

VOL. IV. C

34 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

logy of the Syriac. But this is not quite correct. Schultens
has already shown that the verb denotes the hostile and malignant
disposition of the three shepherds, regarded both as condemned
by God and as springing from an evil moral source, and therefore
could not be applied to the feelings cherished by the good

shepherd towards them. In Arabic >tXj denotes a low and

corrupt state of mind generally, and is then specially applied to
avarice as a base passion. In Hebrew this is evidently the idea,
in the only other passage in which the verb occurs, Prov. xx.
xxi. f^vD'^P nSqi is an inheritance acquired in a despicable
manner. The evil shepherds are inflamed with contemptible
hatred towards the good shepherd, because he exposes their
wickedness, and seeks to deprive them of their power. They do
all they can, therefore, to prevent the execution of his commis-
sion. '• Their soul" is not merely a substitute for the personal
pronoun, but denotes the intensity and depth of the abhorrence.
Maurer would refer the words ona and oit*2J to the sheep
rather than the shepherds, but evidently for no other reason than
that his false views respecting the shepherds require it. If these
are to be regarded as individuals, and not as orders, their exter-
mination must necessarily consist in their death, and nothing
more can be predicated after this. If the sheep are intended, it
is difficult to see what gives rise to the impatience and weariness.
Both of these presuppose, that some contention has already been
described as taking place between the good shepherd, and those
to whom the words refer. The latter do not wish to be deposed.
Hence the impatience, and the efforts made by the good shepherd
to effect their deposition excite the most malignant feelings on
their part.

Ver. 9. And I loill not feed you; the dead thing shall die,
that which is exterminated shall he exterminated, and the rest will
consume every one the other}

Schmieder has very properly compared this passage with John
viii. 21, "I go away, and ye shall seek me and shall die in your
sins." But there is a still closer resemblance in Matt, xxiii. 37,
38, " 0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often

1 Calvin : " When they cannot be healed, and suffer no remedy to be pro-
vided for their ills, T will leave them ; they shall learn what it is to be without
the good shepherd."

ZECHARTAH, CHAP. XI. 9. 35

would I have gathered thy children together, and

ye would not ! Behold your house is left unto you desolate."
The determination not to feed the " poor sheep " any more,
which is based upon the discovery made in ver. 8, presupposes
that they resemble the shepherds. There are many who follow
the Septuagint (iTroQvnmirM) and Jerome, and understand the
futures as expressing a wish. But the very form of the words
shows that this cannot be the case. They are predictions. The
" dead thing" and " that which is exterminated" denote some-
thing, which is devoted to so certain a destruction, that it may
be regarded as dead and exterminated already. The only thing
that could have averted this destruction would have been their
following the good shepherd ; but now that he has been obliged
to give up his office, things are left to take their natural course.
There are three kinds of destruction referred to here, as a com-
parison of the parallel passages will show : plague, such as usually
breaks out in besieged cities (the dead will die), violent death
from foreign foes, and a terrible strife among the citizens them-
selves, in consequence of the existing distress. Compare, for
example, Jer. xv. i. 2, " Then said the Lord unto me, though
Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be
towards this people ; cast them out of my sight, and let them
go forth. And it shall come to pass, if they say unto thee,
Whither shall we go forth ? then shalt thou tell them, thus saith
the Lord : such as are for death, to death ; and such as are for
the sword, to the sword ; and such as are for the famine, to the
famine ; and such as are for captivity, to captivity." Also, Jer.
xxxiv. 17, " Ye have not hearkened unto me, in proclaiming
liberty, every one to his brother, and every man to his neighbour ;
behold, I proclaim liberty for you to the sword, to the pestilence,
and to the famine." See also Ezek. vi. 12, " He that is far off
shall die of the pestilence ; and he that is near shall fall by the
sword ; and he that remaineth and he that is preserved shall die
by the famine." No proof need be adduced, that the destructioii
of the Jewish state was really effected by the combination of all
these three. — And those loho remain loill eat the flesh one of
another} A similar description is given of the manner in which
the citizens of the kingdom of Israel fought one against another,

1 March : " Ex rabie fera, in quam praeter naturaai liae oves degcneraljunt."

36 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

in consequence of the distress which preceded its fall. See Is.
ix. 19 sqq. " No man shall spare his brother. They devour
on the right hand, and are hungry ; they devour on the left hand
and are not satisfied : every man eateth the flesh of his arm "
(rages, that is, against his own flesh, inasmuch as those who
destroy one another are members of one community, of one
national body).

Ver. 10. " A7id I took my staff Loveliness and hrohe it, that
I might put an end to my covenant, which I had concluded tvith
all nations."

The same event, which we find predicted in plain terms in the
foregoing verse, is exhibited here under a twofold symbolical
action. The desolation, caused by foreign nations, is represented
by the breaking of the stafl" Loveliness or Grace ; and the con-
tention within by the breaking of the stafl" of the bound ones ; or
to speak more correctly, the announcement contained in the
previous verse is followed here by an account of its fulfilment.
The figure of the flock is not strictly preserved. In the words
" with all nations," the figure is dropped ; in figurative language
it should have been " with all wild beasts" {cf. Is. Ivi. 9, " all
ye beasts of the field come to devour.") The thought, that
hitherto the covenant nation has been preserved from being
destroyed by foreign enemies, in consequence of the secret inter-
position of the omnipotence of God, is expressed thus : the Lord
has concluded a treaty with all nations on behalf of Israel, and
this treaty is now to be brought to an end by the breaking of the
staff" Favour. A similar figure is employed elsewhere. In Job
V. 23 the fact that no creature can injure the man who is at
peace with God is stated thus : "for thy league shall be with
the stones of the field, and the beasts of the field shall be at peace
with thee." In Hosea ii. 18 the safety of the covenant nation
from earthly foes, when once it has been forgiven by its chief
enemy, the Lord, is described in these terms, " and in that day
I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and
with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the
ground, and I will break the bow, and the sword, and the battle,
and make them dwell safely." But the passage which Zechariah
had immediately before his mind was Ezek. xxxiv. 25, " And I
will make with them a covenant of peace, and will cause the

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XI. 11. 37

evil beasts to cease out of the land, and they dwell safely in the
desert, and sleep in the woods," which differs from the one before
us simply in the fact, that the figure of the flock is more strin-
gently preserved. Zechariah announces that the covenant,
which is here declared to have been concluded by the Lord for
the good of his people, will now be brought to an end as a
punishment for its fearful apostasy. If proper attention had
been paid to these parallel passages, the words "all peoples"
would never have been referred to the tribes of Israel, as they
have been by MarcJe, and latterly also by Umbreit (see Bleek's
reply.) A sufficient objection to this explanation is to be found
in the fact that the breaking of the staff Favour must indicate
some special manifestation of the Divine displeasure ; otherwise
the breaking of the staff of the united ones could not have been
mentioned as co-ordinate with it. Moreover, even if " the
peoples " could denote the tribes of Israel, this meaning would
be excluded here by the addition of the word ~^3 (all). But
the assertion, that d*sv is not infrequently used in connection
with the tribes of Israel is thoroughly unfounded. °'W by
itself is never used in this sense. In chap. xii. 6 "all nations "
are the heathen nations ; and in Micah iv. 5 " all nations" form
the antithesis to Israel. The New Testament parallel to this
passage is to be found in Luke xix. 41 — 44, where Christ says
to Jerusalem, which knew not the day of its visitation, " the
days shal] come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench
about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every
side ; and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children
within thee." Compare also Luke xxi. 24, " Jerusalem shall be
trodden down of the Gentiles."

Ver. 11. ''And thus the treaty was brought to an end in that
day, therefore the poorest sheep ivhich adhered to me, learned
that this is the word of the Lord"

It is obvious from this verse, that the efforts of the good shep-
herd are not altogether in vain, but a small company of true
disciples attach themselves to him. These (" his own sheep,"
who follow the true shepherd, but flee from a stranger, and who
know the true shepherd, as Christ says in John x. 4, 5, 14) are
described as those who observe him, keep their eye constantly

38 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PKOPHETS.

fixed upon him, and always act according to his direction and
will. When the enemy broke into the land, after the treaty was
brought to an end, they perceived that the announcement,
which had already been made, of the destruction to be effected
by the Lord, was not a mere human threat, but really a divine
prediction. The prophet speaks of the event as past, because in
the vision which passed before his mind, the things described
bad actually occurred. If the prophecy had been couched in
literal terms, instead of being clothed in symbol, it would have
run thus : when, therefore, my treaty is brought to an end, those
who fear me will discern in the fulfilment the divine character
of this sentence of mine upon Israel. ^iin refers to the
announcement already made in vers. 7 and 10. There is a
parallel to the words of the last clause in Jer. xxxii. 6 — 8, " the
Lord said to me, behold Hananeel comes to thee, saying, buy
my field ; and Hananeel came to me and said, buy my field, I
pray thee. Then I knew that this was the word of the Lord."
By the fulfilment of the word of God, Jeremiah is still more
firmly convinced, that he has not mistaken a human idea for a
Divine revelation. A remark to this effect, that the fulfilment
of his prophecies will furnish the proof of their Divine character,
is frequently met with in Zechariah ; compare chap. ii. 13, where
the angel of the Lord says, " then shall ye know that the Lord
of Sabaoth had sent me." (See also chap. ii. 15 and vi. 15).
— In that day, — namely the day on which I had broken my staff,
or without a figure, " after I had withdrawn my favour from
the people, the hostile nations, which I had hitherto restrained,
fell at once upon them." — Therefore ; — namely, from this very
fact.

Ver. 12. ^^ And I said to tliem ; if it seemeth good to you,
give me my loages, if not, let it he ; and they iveighed to me as
my ivages thirty pieces of silver."

" / said to them." JaJin observes that this must refer, not to
the flock, but to the shepherds ; since it was only from them
that the wages could be demanded. But in this he is wrong.
By the fact that the shepherd treats with the flock itself, whereas
in other cases it is the owner who is treated with, he shows that
this flock is endowed with reason. He leaves out the smaller
and more despised portion of the people, among whom the

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XI. 12. 39

desired success had been obtained, as was stated in the previous
verse, and treats with the larger and more powerful portion,
whose obstinacy had compelled him to lay down his of3fice. No
doubt the leaders of the nation are more particularly intended,
as taking part in this negotiation, not as shepherds, however, but
as part of the flock itself; just as we find them described in
Ezek, xxxiv., at one time as shepherds, at another as goats, and
then again as fat sheep in contrast with the lean. The Lord
could not demand his wages from the shepherds as such, for he
had never entered their service, but on the contrary had endea-
voured to deliver the flock out of their hands. Most of the
commentators {e.g., Theodoret, Eusehius, Jarchi) understand by
the wages, repentance and faith, or piety of heart. This is in
fact the only return, which is worthy of the good shepherd.
The great object of his coming was to secure these fruits. It is
no valid objection to this, that the good shepherd does not ask
for his wages, till he has entirely given up the people, till the
Lord has withdrawn his favour, and the people therefore are no
longer able to bring forth the fruits of repentance, but are
devoted to destruction. For the form of the demand (compare
Jer. xl. 4, Ezek. iii. 27) shows that the good shepherd does not
expect it to be complied with, but makes this just demand, with
which we may compare the Lord's looking for figs on the fig-
tree of the Jewish nation, at a time when it had lost its capacity
for bearing figs, in order that an opportunity might be afforded
for the manifestation of the disposition of the nation and its
hard ungrateful heart. They weigh to him as his wages thirty
pieces of silver. Instead of wages they ofier him an insult.
Thirty pieces of silver are so contemptible a sum,^ that the very
offer, for &iicli services as he had rendered, especially from the
quarter from which it came, was more insulting than a positive
refusal. In Hosea iii. 2 thirty pieces of silver are represented
as the sum for which a slave might be purchased (see vol. i. p.
189). According to Ex. xxi. 32 thirty pieces of silver was the
compensation to be paid for having killed a servant. This
passage suggests the thought that they intend to take away the
life of the good shepherd (a fact which comes out still more

1 Maimonides (Mor. Neb. e. 40, part 3) " ut plus minus reperies hominem
liberum asstiniari sexaginta siclis, servum vero triginta."

40 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

distinctly in chap. xii. 10 and xiii. 7), and avail themselves of
the opportunity to offer him this insult.

Ver. 13. "And the Lord said to me : throio it to the potter,
the noble price, at ivhich I am valued by them ; and I took the
thirty pieces of silver and threiu them to the potter into the house
of the Lord."

The Lord addresses the prophet, who is his representative.
This is evident from the words, " at which I have been valued."
"^'^V^, to throw away, sometimes with the idea of contempt
implied (compare Jer. xxii. 19, lii. 3, and Ezek. xx. 8). We
should not have so many erroneous explanations of the expres-
sion " to the potter ," nor would the attempt to explain the verse
have been altogether given up on account of these words, if more
attention had been paid to the clue furnished by Jeremiah, who
affords the same help in the interpretation of this book, as
Ezekiel and Daniel in that of the Revelation. It would then
have been seen that " to the potter" is the same as " into an un-
clean place, or to the hangman." The potter referred to here,
as the constant use of the article in this passage, in the prophecies
of Jeremiah, and in the Gospel of Matthew leads us to conclude,
was probably the potter employed about the temple; for we
cannot imagine that there was only one potter in all Jerusalem.
His workshop was in the valley of Hinnom, most likely because
the earth which he required was very plentiful there, or that the
earth in the valley was peculiarly good. The following reasons
are sufficient to establish this conclusion. That the workshop
was not only outside the city, but actually in the valley, which
runs beneath it, is evident from Jer, xviii. 2, where the prophet,
who was in the temple at the time, receives instructions to
" arise, and go doivn to the potter's house." Compare ver. 3,
" then I went down to the potter's house." But Jer. xix. 2
points especially to the valley of Hinnom, " go down to the
valley of Ben Hinnom, which lies by the brick-gate, and pro-
claim there the words which I shall tell thee." From this it
follows that the gate which led to the valley of Hinnom was
called the brick or pot-gate, from the pottery which stood in the
valley. That n^D^nn njjt?;, literally the gate of the pottery,
must be rendered thus is evident from the allusion to ver. 1,
where ^'?.rj would be, strictly speaking, superfluous, and also

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XL 13. 41

from the fact that Jeremiah would not h.?ve mentioned the gate
leading to the valley of Hinnom by name, seeing that it was
generally known, and is described elsewhere simply as the gate of
the valley, if there had not been something in the name itself
bearing upon the subject in hand.^ (Compare Nehemiah ii. 13,
15, with Jer. ii. 23, in the latter of which passages the valley of
Hinnom is called the valley y.ar s^ox,rjv.) But from the time of
Josiah, by whom the valley of Hinnom, at that time the scene
of idolatrous abominations of the most fearful description, was
polluted by carrion, human bones, and other things of a simi-
lar kind, it was regarded by the Jews with disgust and abhor-
rence as an unclean place ; and eventually the opinion was
expressed in the Talmud, that the mouth of hell was there.^
When Zechariah represents the contemptible wages as having
been cast into the valley of Hinnom, and mentions the parti-
cular spot in the valley, the workshop or field of the potter, we
see in each of these a special reference to a prophecy in Jeremiah,
with which he supposes his readers to be already acquainted. In
the first there is an allusion to Jer. xis. The prophet is repre-
sented there as going with several of the elders of the nation and
the leading priests to the valley of Hinnom, where he breaks to
pieces an empty earthen vessel. The meaning of this symbolical
action is described as follows: "because they have filled this
place with the blood of the innocents ; ... I will empty
the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place, and I will
make them fall by the sword of their enemies, and by the hands
of those that seek their lives, and their carcases will I give to be
meat for the fowl of heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.

1 Gesenms says, "niDin figlina sc. officina pottery, In qua fiunt vasa
testacea, a cnn-" That tnn is not a potsherd, but an earthen vessel, is evi-
dent from "cnn "ivv in ver. 1. When used by itself it never means a sherd.
In the Pentateuch it is alvrays used for an earthen vessel : " every Cheres, in
which thou boilest," Lev. vi. 21 (compare xi. 33, siv. 50, xv. 12, Num. v. 17) j
and again Jer. xxxii. 14, " make them v>-\n 'SsD into an earthen vessel,"
Prov. xxvi. 33.

2 Lightfoot says (centur. chorograph. Matth. prrem. opp. t. ii. p. 200), " in
the time of the second temple, when the things which had formerly brought
the place into such ill repute, had all vanished, there still remained so much
that was disgusting and repulsive, that the name suggested the thought of
hell as much as it had done before. It was the common cesspool of the whole
city, in which every kind of filth was collected."

42 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

Thus will I break this people and this city as one
breaketh the potter's vessel, which cannot be healed any more,
and they shall bury in Tophet, because there is no more room.
Thus will I do with this place and to the inhabitants thereof",
and make this city like Tophet. And the houses of Jerusalem,
and the houses of the kings of Judah, shall be dej&led as the place
of Tophet." Zechariah describes the contemptible wages as having
been thrown into the valley of Ben Hinnom or Tophet, partly
because this was an unclean place, but more particularly /or the
purpose of renewing the proptliecy of Jeremiah, and to show that
a second fulfilment of this prophecy would take place, inasmuch
as the justice of God, which dictated the threat and its first ful-
filment, would be again provoked and even in a still more fear-
ful manner. The sign of the base ingratitude of the Jewish
nation, the corpus delicti, is carried to the very same spot,
from which their former abominations cried to God and called
down his vengeance. A new pledge, as it were, is deposited
there, which the nation will be obliged to redeem at the proper
time. The selection of the potter's ground, in particular, is
made with reference to chap, xviii. The prophet is represented
there, as paying a visit to the potter's house at the command of
the Lord, just at the time when the potter was at work. " And
the vessel, that he made of clay, was marred in his hands ; then
he made another vessel out of the clay as it seemed good to him."
The meaning of the symbol is thus described : "0 house of
Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter ? saith the Lord.
Behold, as the clay in the potter's hand, so are ye in my hand.
Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you;
return ye now every one from his evil way, and amend your ways
and doings." This truth, that the Lord could and would cast off
his rebellious people, without acknowledging any claim on their
part, if they did not repent in due time, is here made prominent
once more by Zechariah, when he describes the contemptible wages
as being brought to the spot, where the truth was first uttered by
Jeremiah, and which was quite as well adapted to set forth the
truth in symbol in the time of Zechariah, seeing that the potter
had opened his workshop there again. The circumstances also
were such as to recall this prophecy of Jeremiah in all its force ;
for the former apostasy, which had directly occasioned it, was

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XT. 13. 43

but slight in comparison with this, their base ingratitude towards
the Lord, who had taken charge of the flock himself. — The
explanation we have given, sustains and completes the surmises
of Grotius. The objection, that after ^n "q'Srn we expect to
find a thing and not a person, does not apply; for " to the potter"
is just the same as to the potter's house or potter's ground.
Casting to the potter is used here in precisely the same sense as
casting to the moles and bats, — viz., to their place of resort, in
Is. ii. 20. Schmieder's objection that it is impossible, or rather
inconceivable, that a potter should have either his house or his
workshop in an unclean spot, only shows that the passage in
Jeremiah has been overlooked, where it is expressly stated that
the potter's workshop was in the valley of Hinnom. The valley
was theologically unclean, that is, unsuitable for the performance
of acts of worship (2 Kings xxiii. 10), but in a civil point of
view it was not so. So much was not conceded to theology,
even in the immediate vicinity of the capital. If the valley of
Hinnom was used as a burying-ground (see Kraft, Topographic
Jerus. p. 190 sqq.), the potter might also settle there, if it con-
tained the proper earth for his purpose. Now Krofft (p. 193)
has shown that this kind of earth is really to be found there :
" then follows the Aceldama or field of blood, as it is called in
tradition, with a few graves or natural grottoes and quarries in
the corner. The testimony of tradition as to the exact site is
confirmed by the fact, that a little higher up there is a consider-
able bed of white earth or pipe-clay, where I frequently saw
people employed in digging." — The most widely-adopted of the
interpretations which differ from our own, is " to the treasure,"
or " to the treasurer," and appeal is made to the authority of the
Syriac, where the word is translated treasury. Of the advocates
of this exposition, some maintain, with Kimclii, that "^X"!' is
synonymous with i^Sx ; others, with Jonathan, that i?.''" means
treasurer ; and others again, for example JaJin and Hitzig,
suggest the reading "^p", which they regard as synonymous with
■^y'i^<. But this explanation could hardly have been defended
by any one, who was acquainted with the passages already quoted
from Jeremiah. For no one could place these passages side by
side with the verse before us, without surmising at once that

44 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

there was a connection between them, though he might not be
able to determine its precise nature, especially if he observed,
how nearly every verse in the chapter is related in some way
to Jeremiah, and that there are traces in other parts of the
chapter, of the use which has been made of Jer. xviii. and xix.
(compare ver. 9 with Jer, xviii. 21 and xix. 9). It does not
even give a good sense, or rather it gives no sense at all. For
how could the temple-treasures be introduced in this connection ?
It would have done honour to the thirty pieces of silver to place
them among these. Dishonourable gains were not allowed to
be brought into the treasury of the temple (Deut. xxiii. 18,
Matt, xxvii. 6). Moreover the root "i^^* is never used inter-
changeably with 12^'. There are more than forty other passages,
in which this word Jozer occurs, and it always means an image-
maker or potter. It is used with peculiar frequency in this
sense in Jer. xviii. and xix., and also in Zechariah xii. 1. — Again
the expression throw it does not harmonise with this rendering.
It evidently denotes a contemptuous action, and there would
have been nothing contemptuous in depositing the money in the
treasury of the temple. What is thrown away in disgust cannot
be placed among the temple-treasures. Maurers rendering, '^mit-
titur in templum pecunia," is simply a proof of inability to explain
the words as they stand in the text. In this case it would have
been better to leave the explanation in the hands of the Jews ! In
Ho/mann's opinion the meaning of the passage is, "he regards the
money as worth no more than the clay that is used by the potter."
In this case the potter would be equivalent to a potter. But Jere-
miah, on the one hand, and Matthew on the other, both point to
one potter in particular. And what a singular mode of expres-
sion it would be, if " to the potter" meant " to the clay." — The
glory of the price, which I have been valued at by them: in
other words, " the glorious price (irOnically egregiimt scilicet
pretium) at which they have estimated my person and my work."
(Compare Deut. xxxii. 6, " do ye thus requite the Lord, 0 foolish
people and unwise"). — And I threio it, the amount (or it, the
l^rice), into the house of the Lord, that it might be carried
thence to the potter. There can be no doubt in this case, that
the money could not possibly be taken to the temple and the
potter at the same time. For the potter did not work in the

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XI. 13. 45

temple, nor even in the city, but, as we have ah'eady seen, in the
valley of Hinnom. From the very nature of the case, there can-
not have been any potter in the house of the Lord. We must
suppose, therefore, that it was taken first of all to the temple
and then to the potter ; and this is very clearly indicated by the
use of ^?5 before "^vvn " away to the potter," in other words,
" to be carried thence to the potter." But the question arises
here, why was the money taken first of all to the temple, when
it was ultimately to be left on the potter's ground ? Evidently,
because the temple ivas the place, where the people aj^peared
before the Lord. There, therefore, the nation was to be upbraided
with its shameful ingratitude, by the return of the contemptible
wages. The money was then to be carried away to the potter,
because dishonourable money could not remain in the temple,
Deut. xxiii. 19. Talm. tract. Sanhedrinf. 112.

We have hitherto been seeking to solve the difficulties con-
nected with vers. 13 and 14, altogether apart from the fulfil-
ment. And the follov/ing is the explanation obtained. The
Lord has once more undertaken the office of shepherd over the
flock, which is devoted to the slaughter, the unhappy nation of
Israel ; and when he lays the office down again, on account of its
determined unbelief, he demands his wages. They give him
thirty pieces of silver. He is not content with such miserable
pay, and throws it down in the temple. It is carried thence, as
being unclean, and taken to the potter's ground, where it is left
as a pledge of divine vengeance, until the day, when judgment
falls upon the nation. The meaning of this symbolical repre- \
sentation we found to be, that after the Lord had given up his i
people on account of their hardness of heart, their obduracy ■
would be displayed once more in some striking act of ingrati-
tude towards him, and by this they would render themselves
completely ripe for judgment.

The agreement between the prophecy and its fulfilment is so
striking in this instance, that it would force itself at once upon
us, even if no reference had been made to it in the New Testa-
ment itself. What else could the last and most fearful mani-
festation of ingratitude towards the good shepherd, predicted

46 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

here, possibly be, but the murderous attack by which the Jews
rewarded the fidelity of Christ as a shepherd, and for the exe-
cution of which Judas was bribed ? It is not merely in the
event regarded as a whole, however, but even in the details there
is the closest connection between the history and the prophecy.
The miserable payment of thirty pieces of silver is introduced
here primarily, as a figurative representation of the blackest in-
gratitude, and the most supreme contempt on the part of the
Jews. Yet one cannot but be struck with the fact, that of all
the small sums possible, the very one, which Judas the traitor
actually received, should have been singled out. Nor can this
have been altogether accidental. Whilst the bribery of Judas the
traitor was in itself a proof of the basest ingratitude, the fact
that, when Judas left it to the priests to fix the terms (Matt. xxvi.
15), they only gave him the contemptible sum of thirty pieces of
silver, was a manifestation of the greatest contempt towards the
Lord himself There is no force in the objection brought by
Paulus (Comm. iii. p. 683), that Zechariah represents the thirty
pieces of silver as paid to the shepherd, not to his betrayer.
The insignificant remuneration paid to the betrayer was really
an expression of contempt towards the shepherd. And thus
also it came to pass, under the superintending providence of
God, whose secret influence extends even to the ungodly, that
Judas threw the money into the temple, so that what Zechariah
had witnessed inwardly took place here outwardly, the people
were upbraided with their ingratitude by a symbolical action, in
the place where they were accustomed to appear before the Lord.
The priests carried the money away from the temple, as being
impure, and bought a wretched piece of ground in the very same
valley, which had once before been defiled by innocent blood
and had called down the vengeance of God upon Jerusalem, as
predicted by Jeremiah, and on the very same spot where Jeremiah
had formerly proclaimed to the people their rejection by the
Lord. Here, then, was the blood-money deposited, the riptr/
hixacros (Matt, xxvii. 6), the reward for betraying innocent
blood (ver. 4), from which the field received the name of " field
of blood" (ver. 8 ; Acts i. 19), and here did it lie as a witness
against Israel, a pledge by which the nation had bound itself to
submit to the punishment of God ; and inasmuch as it resembled

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XI. 13. 47

the former one, which they had ah-eady been obliged to redeem,
the threat uttered by Jeremiah, in connection with these earlier
abominations, had now recovered its full force again. Compare
Jer. xix. 4 sqq., " they have filled this place with the blood of
innocents, . . . therefore, behold the days come, saith the
Lord, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor the
valley of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter." There are
words to the same effect in chap. vii. 32. Tradition also places
the field of blood in the valley of Hinnom, in perfect accordance
with the results, which we have obtained from a comparison of
the accounts in the New Testament with the words of Jeremiah
and Zechariah (see Liglitfoot in acta ap. opp. ii., p. 690, and
Kraft ut supra).

The results, which we have so clearly obtained from a com-
parison of prophecy and history, are confirmed by the express
testimony of the Apostle Matthew (chap, xxvii. 9). But there
are certain difficulties connected with this passage.

The first occurs in the introductory clause, in which the pro-
phecy is attributed to Jeremiah (" then was fulfilled that which
was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying").

Many of the earlier commentators fSancfius, Glass, Frisch-
muth) conjectured, that the passage as given by Matthew was
compounded from the two prophets Jeremiah and Zechariah,
and that the name of the former alone was mentioned, as the
more distinguished of the two. But to this it was very properly
objected, that the passages of Jeremiah, to which they referred,
ought certainly to have some connection with the event narrated
by Matthew. To this objection they were unable to reply,
partly because they did not perceive in what relation the pro-
phecy of Zechariah stood to the passages cited from Jeremiah
and partly also because they did not observe the profound mean-
ing which Matthew detects in the fact, that the potter s field
was purchased as the field of blood. Grotius is the only one of
all the commentators who has in the slightest degree hinted at
this. " When Matthew," he says, " quotes his saying of Jeremiah,
which is repeated by Zechariah, he tacitly declares that the Jews
are threatened with the same judgments, as these prophets had
foretold to the men of their own times." But the objection is
fully answered by the remarks we have already made. We

48 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

have shown that the prophecy of Zechariah is for the most part
simply a renewal of that of Jeremiah, that he announces a
second fulfilment, which will not merely be accidentally associated
with the first announcement, but essentially connected with it,
inasmuch as it rests upon the fundamental idea of the justice of
God, which is sure to bring about a fresh fulfilment whenever
it receives a fresh provocation.

Matthew might certainly have quoted both prophets. But
such lengthened quotations are contrary to the custom of the
writers in the New Testament. For this a twofold reason may
be assigned. They could justly presuppose a very accurate
acquaintance with the Scriptures on the part of their readers ;
and they placed the human instrumentality employed, far behind
the Divine author, the Spirit of God and of Christ, which spoke
equally in all the prophets. Very frequently, therefore, in fact
almost universally, the human author is not mentioned by name
at all. The writer contents himself with the simple formula of
quotation, " the Scripture saith," " as it is written," " for it is
written," " as the Holy Spirit saith," or " as God hath said." It not
infrequently happens that two or even three passages from diffe-
rent authors are combined together into one, and yet the name
of only one author is given. The passage Mdiich presents the
closest analogy to the one under consideration is Mark i. 2, 3 :
" As it is written in the prophet Isaiah, behold I send my mes-
senger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.
The voice of one crying," &c. In this case two predictions are
quoted under the name of Isaiah, one from Malachi and the
other from Isaiah himself ; and more than this, the prophecy of
Malachi stands first. Isaiah was the more celebrated prophet ; and
it had become so much a custom to refer to the minor prophets
as a whole, in consequence of their having been united together
in a single collection, that it is very rarely indeed that any one
of them is mentioned by name. (Compare Matt. xxi. 5, with
Is. Ixii. 11, and Zech. ix. 9 ; and Matt. xxi. 13, with Is. Ivi. 7,
Jer. vii. 11, Eom. ix. 27, 1 Pet. ii. 6 sqq.).

If Matthew had simply intended to call attention to the fulfil-
ment of Zechariah's prophecy, he would have contented himself
with a general formula of quotation. This is evident from the
analogy of all the other quotations from Zechariah, in not one

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XI. 13. 49

of which the prophet is mentioned by name. Thus in John xix.
37 the words of chap. xii. 10 are introduced in this general way,
" and again another Scripture saith ;" in John xii. 14, where a quo-
tation from chap. ix. 9 occurs, we merely find, " as it is written ;"
in Matt. xxvi. 31, where Zech. xiii. 7 is quoted, " for it is written"
(compare Mark xiv, 27) ; and in Matt. xxi. 4, 5 a quotation from
chap. ix. 9 is headed thus, " that which was spoken by the pro-
phet," where the article shows that Matthew could take for granted
that all his readers were well acquainted with the prophet
referred to. But although it might appear to him unnecessary
to mention Zechariah by name, this was not the case with Jere-
miah. The fact that there was a fulfilment of his prophecy in
the event narrated, and the extent to which this was the case,
was not so immediately obvious, as to render directions for further
research unnecessary. And yet, if this was overlooked, the
meaning of Zechariah 's prophecy would be involved in obscurity,
and the most essential features of the fulfilment misunderstood.

It only remains to show, that the quotation in Matthew fully
coincides with the passage before us, in substance at least, if
not in words. We must, first of all, endeavour to determine the

meaning of the words k<x.I sXa-loov ra. rpixy.o)ir(x. xpyupia., TYiV
Tt//,riv Tov reri[Mri[^ivov , ov inixri'yocvro ocTto ujwv 'Iff^aTjX. We

render them thus : " They took the price of him who was valued,
at which they had valued him on the part of the children of
Israel," To obtain this meaning we do not supply the Ti'vsf
before awo t<Zv L^f&iv 'I-r/jayiX, which Friizsche has very properly
rejected, though he has not thereby established his own extremely
forced interpretation. We rather apply the Hebrew and Ara-
mean usage, according to which the third person indefinite,
which again takes the place of the passive, is expressed by the
third person plural. We may cite as an example from the New

Testament, Luke xii. 20, r-hv ■^^v-x^riv aou uT^actroviyiv a.Tih GOV.

The words olti^ viSdi 'lipa-riX, "on the part of the children of
Israel," answer to dt^v.d in Zechariah, (Compare James i.
13, aTTo Seoy 'Traipx^of/.aci : " I am tempted on the part of God."
The name is given in Matthew in the place of the pronoun, to
call attention to the shameful character of the valuation. It was
not the heathen, from whence it proceeded, but the people of the

VOL, IV. D

50 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

covenant, who had received such innumerable proofs of the love
and mercy of the Lord. The apparent discrepancy, arising from
the fact that in Matthew it is the rulers of the Jews, who are
said to take the pieces of silver, and throw them upon the potter's
field, whereas Zechariah attributes this to the shepherd, is
removed by Matthew himself in the words >ta9a mvirdt^i i^oi
Kupios, which he introduces at the end, and which answer to the
'^N nint -i^k"! of Zechariah. He evidently intimates in these
words that he regards the rulers of the nation, not as acting
independently, but merely as instruments through whom the
Lord accomplished his purposes. Moreover, Matthew had the
words of our verse in his mind, for a long time before he actually
quoted them. Compare chap. xxvi. 15, " what will ye give
me (answering to the words ' give me my wages ' in the verse
before us ; the evangelist looks upon Judas as an instrument in
the hands of Christ, who demands his wages, as it were, through
him at the hands of the Jews), and I will deliver him unto you.
And they covenanted Qamfyav, the Septuagint rendering in this
passage) with him for thirty pieces of silver."

Ver. 14. " And I broke my second staff, the united ones, to
destroy the hrothei'hood between Judah and Israel."

(Compare ver. 7.) There is no intimation of the staff having
been originally composed of two distinct pieces of wood. Its
fitness as a symbol was purely ideal, and it was only when it was
broken that there was an actual resemblance between the sign
and the thing signified. It is not without a reason, that the
payment of the wages of thirty pieces of silver is placed between
the breaking of the first and second staves. It served at the
same time to justify the first judgment, and provoke the second.
The meaning of the prophet is this : after the Lord has forsaken
his people, the most pernicious discord will arise among them,
discord as destructive in its character as the former conflicts
between Judah and Israel. He expresses this in his usual figu-
rative style (see the remarks on vers. 10, 11) in these terms," the
Lord will cause the brotherhood between Judah and Israel to
cease," which is equivalent to the declaration in ver. 9, " they
will eat one another's flesh." The prophecy was fulfilled, as we
ha\e already observed, in the time of the Eonian war, when the

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XI. 15. 51

Jews destroyed one another in the fury of their party conten-
tions.' In Zechariah's days the severe wound inflicted upon the
nation by the separation of Judah and Israel (Is. vii. 17) began
to heal ; and in chap. 10 he piedicts a perfect cure. The
restoration of unity is one of the most delightful prospects, which
Ezekiel sets before the nation (chap, xxxvii. 15 sqq.). But at
a still later period a fresh sin on the part of the nation would
again deprive it of the blessing.^

Ver. 15. " And the Lord said to me, take unto thee again the
instruments of a foolish shepherd."^

Again: that is, still continuing to set forth in symbol the
fate which awaits the nation. Ewald renders the passages, " take
to thee still farther." Tiy links this action to the previous one,
and shows that they are to be looked at from the same point of
view. If the prophet acts as the representative of a coming
shepherd in the first instance, he must do the same in the
second. It is very evident, that by the foolish shepherd, we
are not to understand any one individual,* but the whole

1 This is so obvious, that it even forced itself upon AbarhaneVs mind,
" quia tempore excidii latrones aucti sunt, et cum amore etiam fraternitas est
imminuta in tribu Juda, et insuper inter hos et fihos Israelis, sacerdotes et
Levitas, qui apud ipsos erant, idcirco hie ait, ad irritum faciendam fraterni-
tatem inter Judam et Israelem."

2 The commentators, who dispute Zechariah's authorship of the second
part, generally pass very quickly over this verse. It is inconceivable, how
Bleek could assert, that it points to a period antecedent to the breaking up of
the Ephraimitish kingdom. If the authorship of Zechariah is denied, the
only possible conclusion to which we can come, is that the prophecy belongs
to an earlier period than the division of the two kingdoms, and this is not for
a moment to be thought of. There is an account in 1 Kings xii. 20 of the
breaking up of the brotherhood, (ninx, brotherhood, is only met with
here : the form is Aramaic, see Filrst). From the period of the division of
the kingdoms to the dissolution of the kingdom of the ten tribes, the brother-
hood between Judah and Israel was never restored. The first indispensable
condition was communia sacra. That the breaking up of the brotherhood
extended to the time of Isaiah is evident from Is. vii. 17. But the brother-
hood between Judah and Israel is referred to here, in terms which show that
at least the first step must have been taken towards its restoration.

3 Calvin says on this verse, " the pi'ophet teaches here, that even when God
had relinquished the care of the people, a certain show of government would
still be maintained, but one from which it could easily be gathered that God
was no longer acting the part of a shepherd. . . . God had already laid
down his office of shepherd, but he afterwards placed wolves, and thieves and
robbers over the nation in the place of shepherds, when he was about to
execute his fearful judgment upon the Jews."

4 According to Eioald the foolish shepherd is " Pekah, the wild king who
was ruling at the time." Maurer thinks Hosea is intended, Uitzig, Monahem.

52 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PrwOPHETS.

body of bad rulers, who brought about the destruction of the
nation after the rejection of the good shepherd. We must not
refer the expression to foreign rulers, however, but to the
governors at home. Such threats of divine punishment, as we
find in ver. 17, could only be directed against the latter, since
they were both instruments and sharers in the punishment, as
w^ell as the apostasy. Of the apostasy in fact they were the leading
instigators. The former, on the other hand, are represented in
ver. 5 as entirely free from sin. We have already seen, that in
the verse just referred to, the native governors are called shep-
herds, and as such are opposed to the foreign rulers, who are
described as buyers and sellers.^ The foolish shepherd is not
identical with the wicked shepherds in ver. 8, as Schmieder sup-
poses. The appearance of the shepherd is exprest^ly described
2i^ future in ver. 16, and we naturally understand this as mean-
ing future in relation to the ideal present ; which, as we have
already seen, was the time of the appearance of the good shep-
herd. " The good shepherd has withdrawn from the flock, the
bad shepherd takes his place " (Hitzig) . The reason why the
actual plurality of the bad rulers is exhibited in the form of
an ideal unity, is to be found in this antithesis to the one good
shepherd. The term applied to the shepherd, " foolish," not
wicked, directs attention to the fact, that the rulers of the
nation are so blinded by the judicial punishment inflicted by
God, as to be unable to see that, whilst their fury is directed
against the nation, they are undermining their own good. This
aspect of wickedness, — viz., the folly associated with it, is fre-
quently referred to. Compare, for example, Jer. iv. 22, " For
my people is foolish : they know me not ; foolish children are
they and without understanding ; they are wise to do evil, but
to do good they have no knowledge." By the instruments of a
foolish shepher^d we may understand merely the shepherd's staff,
if we regard the expression simply as in antithesis to what
precedes, or the other instruments employed by a shepherd as

Such guessing as this is a sufiBcient proof that the principle of interpretation
is false.

1 Ahendana (in the Spicilegium to Sal. Ben Melech's Miclal Jophi) had the
right idea ; but his explanation is too limited : " per pastures nihili intelli-
guntur principes lati'onum, Jochanan, Simeon et Eliezer."

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XI. 16. 53

well. We may imagine the shepherd's instruments as consisting
of a strong stick mounted with iron, with which he wounds the
sheep, whereas the good shepherd keeps them in order with a
thin staff and gentle strokes. We may also picture to ourselves
a shepherd's bag full of holes, and containing nothing of any
use to either shepherd or sheep. In any case Boclmrt's notion
must be rejected, that " there is nothing in either the appear-
ance, or attributes of the bad shepherd, to distinguish him from
the good ; his actions alone betray him." (Hieroz. i. 455).

Ver. 16. " Fo7' behold I raise up a shepherd in the land, those
that perish he will not visit, the tender thing he will not seel:
out, nor heal that lohich is luounded ; the strong he ivill not
nourish, and the flesh of the fat one he will eat, and split their
claws in pieces."

The foolish shepherd does the very opposite of what Christ
the good shepherd is represented as doing in Is. xlii. 3, " The
bruised reed he will not break, and the smoking flax will he not
quench." Zechariah had also several passages from Jeremiah
and Ezekiel in his mind. Compare Ezek. xxxiv. 3, 4, " Ye eat
the fat and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill the fat one and
ye feed not the flock ; the weak ye strengthen not, the broken ye
bind not up, ye bring not back that which has broken away,
neither do you seek out that which is ready to perish ;" and Jer.
xxiii, 1, 2, " Woe be unto the shepherds which destroy and
scatter the sheep of my pasture, saith the Lord ; therefore, thus
saith the Lord Grod of Israel against the pastors that feed my
people ; ye have scattered my flock and driven them away, and
have not visited them." The connection with these passages is
not merely an outward one. By a just judgment of God the
nation had been punished by means of bad rulers before the
captivity. Jeremiah and Ezekiel had promised deliverance from
them, and after the captivity, — namely in the time of Zechariah,
this had actually taken place, when the nation was ruled in a
truly paternal spirit by Zerubbabel and Joshua. Zechariah
however, announces that at a future period the same cause will
again produce the same effects, and that in a heightened degree.
The word ''for," at the commencement, may be explained on
the supposition, that it assigns the reason, why a symbolical
action had been enjoined. "lyjn, according to the current

54 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

opinion, means that which has burst or broken away ; Gesenins
and Mmirer : '' disimlsio, concr. dispulsum" But as "^yj,
written in precisely the same way, is used to denote " the young"
in every other passage in which it occurs, there is no reason to
make an exception in this instance, but on the contrary there is
every reason to assume, that the radical signification of tender
and weak is the leading notion here, and to this the idea of
seeking is very appropriate. We must imagine the tender one,
which needs the greatest care of all the flock, as having been
left behind. The verb ">jfJ, which is certainly also the root of
lyj, "a boy," does not suit well as the root of "^v^ with the
meaning strayed, if we consider the sense in which it is generally
used. Its only meaning is to shake. The form also is not suit-
able, as we may see at once from the fact that Hitzig proposes
to change the vowel points, and alter the participle into a
Niphal. But the occurrence of the masculine "^yj in the midst
of feminines is perfectly decisive. It is impossible to account
for this, if we regard the word as part of the verb. On the other
hand the noun "»i?J, according to the early usages of the language,
for which Zechariah has a great preference, is employed for both
genders (compare Gen. xxiv. 16 and Job i. 19). It is a matter
of but little importance, that "^yi is never used of animals,
whether we consider the age in which Zechariah wrote, or the
fact that the prophecy really relates to men. The two clauses
relating to the weak and the strong are separated by Athnach,
From its connection with the fat one it is better to explain -"invj
as meaning, not that which stands still and cannot move from
its place on account of hunger and exhaustion, but " that which
stands upright." The analogy of the language is in favour of
this, as 32r: does not mean to stand still, but to stand. The
Sepfuagint rendering is to oXoxXripov ; that of the Vidgate : id
quod stat} The words, "he will split their claws," do not refer
to the extreme cruelty of the shepherds, as many commentators
suppose, but to the avarice, which is no doubt accompanied by
cruelty to the sheep. There is a climax intended ; he will eat,

^ " It is opposed to that which lies down and is prostrate from disease.
For as the sick and broken down stand in need of medicine, so do those that
stand up and are well need food and sustenance, that their health may be
preserved." — Bochmi,.

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XII. 1 — XIII. 6, 55

&c., he will even break tlie claws one from another, that not a
shred of flesh may be lost.^

Ver. 17. ■* Woe to the worthless shepherd ivho leaves the flock,
a sword over his arm and over his right eye ! his arm will he
entirely lamed, his right eye ivdl become quite dim."'^

The arm and the right e3'e are mentioned as individual ex-
amples of the objects of punishment, and as the two parts of the
body, which are most needed by a good shepherd for tending and
guarding his flock, and most shamefully abused by a bad shep-
herd to the ruin of the sheep. The arm is the organ of strength,
the right eye of prudence. An apparent difficulty is presented by
the fact that two kinds of punishment are mentioned in connection
with each member, and that the two are incompatible with each
other. The siuord is first of all threatened to both ; then
xocrxKn^is to the arm (Calvin, "the arm will dry up, i.e., its
strength will so thoroughly depart that it will become like a
rotten stick"), and dimness to the eye. But the punishments
mentioned merely serve to particularise the general notion of
punishment, and the prophet connects several together, to give
greater distinctness to the magnitude of the punishments as well
as of the crime. He was the better able to do this here, since
the shepherd was not one individual, but many.

CHAP. XIL 1-XlIL 6.

A new scene opens here. The nation of the Lord, which is
at war with all the nations of the earth, though weak in itself, is
strong in the Lord, and is everywhere victorious (vers. 1 — 9).
The Lord breaks the hard hearts of the inhabitants of Jerusa-

1 Ewald and Hitzig adopt Tarnov's explanation, " he will tear their hoofs,
by driving them on bad roads." But tearing or breaking in pieces points to
a direct act. Compare the parallel passage in Micah iii. 3, where allusion is
made to the breaking of bones by the voracious princes.

2 " In this verse the prophet teaches, that although God will justly inflict
this severe punishment upon the Jews, yet the shepherds themselves will not
escape with impunity ; and thus he shows that, even in the midst of all this
confu8ion and destruction, he will still remember his covenant." — Calvin.

5G MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

lera, and gives them the grace of repentance ; so that they repent,
with bitter sorrow, of the sins which they have committed against
Him (vers. 10 — 14). In Him they now find forgiveness for
their sins (chap. xiii. 1), and this is followed by an earnest effort
to attain to sanctification, and to remove everything of a wicked
and ungodly nature in their life and conduct (vers. 2 — 6). The
prophecy is divisible, therefore, into two parts, the victory of the
people of God over the hostile heathen world (chap. xii. 1 — 9),
and the conversion of the children of the kingdom.

Commentators are divided in opinion as to the period of
fulfilment, and also as to the subject of chap. xii. 1 — 9. With
]'egard to the former, — not to mention those who agree with
Eioald in referring the prophecy to the Chaldean invasion, which
took place before the time of the prophet, — there are many, with
Grotius at their head, who imagine that the period of the Macca-
bees is here referred to. But the relation in which the present
chapter stands to the preceding one, is a sufficient proof that this
cannot be the case. The restoration of the people of God, de-
picted here, is evidently contrasted with their rejection men-
tioned in the previous chapter ; and if the rejection took place
after the coming of Christ, the restoration cannot belong to an
earlier period. This is also confirmed by chap. xii. 10. The
penitential and believing look, which is there described as being
turned to the murdered Messiah, belongs to a later period than
the Maccabean era, and points at once to the Messianic age, of
which alone the forgiveness of sins and universal desire for holi-
ness, referred to in chap, xiii., can possibly be signs, whether we
regard them by themselves, or in connection with the parallel
passages. Lastly, in the earlier prophecy relating to the Macca-
bean era, only one nation is mentioned as hostile to the covenant
nation (chap. ix. 13), — namely the Greeks ; but here, on the other
hand, all the nations of the earth are represented as its foes.

The second difference relates to the subject of the prophecy in
chap. xii. 1 — 9. The opinion is a very old one, that the Chris-
tian Church is referred to. Jerome speaks of it as relating to
the Christian Church in general and particular, in contradis-
tinction of the Jewish. " Some of the Jews," he says, '■ imagine
that this prophecy was partly fulfilled in the period extending
from Zerubbabel to Cneius Pompeius, who took Judtea and the

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XII, 1 XIII. 6. 57

temple, of which occurrence an account has been written by
Josephus. Others, again, suppose that it will be fulfilled, when
Jerusalem has been restored at the end of the world, an event
which the miserable race of the Jews anticipates along with its
r.Xsif/.fxsvco, the foolish shepherd of whom we have read above. —
Lastly, there are others, ourselves for example, wJio are called
Inj tlie name of Christ, who regard it as being fulfilled every day
in the Christian Church, and as destined to continue to be so to
the end of the world." Cyril, March, and many others adopt the
same opinion. That this exjilanation, in the form in which it is
generally given, is inadmissible, cannot for a moment be doubted.
The expounders of the prophets alone, not the prophets them-
selves, know anything of a spiritual, as distinguished from the
outward Israel. It can only be adopted in a modified form,
— viz., when the covenant nation is understood as meaning that
portion of Israel, which welcomed and believed on the Messiah
when he came, and which received the heathen nations into its
bosom, instead of merely uniting with them as an independent
body and on an equal footing, so as to form together one church.
There would still be one view which might be adduced in oppo-
sition to this, — namely, that the subject of the prophecy is not the
Church of the New Testament generally, of which the first-fruits
of Israel formed the kernel and stem, but the Church of the last
days, when the ivhole of the people of the ancient covenant will
liave been delivered by the mercy of God fiom the sentence of
hardness passed upon them, and will again be received into the
kingdom of God, of which they are to form the centre. At first
sight there is something very plausible in this view, which is
supported by Vitringa (observv. s. 1. ii. c. 9, p. 172), C. B.
Michaelis, Datlie, and others. The principal argument in its
favour is founded upon chap. xii. 10 sqq. " According to this
passage, those who now receive the powerful assistance of the
Lord, are those who formerly put him to death. With the
national guilt, which is depicted in chap. xi. in connection
with the punishment that follows, there is hei-e contrasted na-
tional lamentation on account of it, and such strong expres-
sions are employed to indicate its universality, that it can-
not possibly relate to the few Israelites who turned to the Lord
immediately after the crucifixion." But it is erroneously assumed

58 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

here, that the persons represented in chap. xii. 1 — 9 as receivino-
the powerful help of the Lord, are the same as those who are
described in chap. xii. 10 sqq. as mourning in bitterness. A
proof to the contrary, however, may be found in the circumstance,
that the conveision is preceded by the victorious conflict with
the heathen world. Again the people, as we see them at tlie
end of chap, xi., cannot possibly be those referred to in chap. xii.
1 — 9. The former can only be the objects of punitive justice,
not of saving grace. The conclusion to which we are brought,
therefore, is rather that the persons referred to in chap. xii. 1 — 9
are the poor sheep, who are represented in chap. xi. as giving
heed to the good shepherd, along with such believing Gentiles
as had been received as part of Israel. But it is unnatural to
suppose, that Zechariah passes all at once from the death of
Christ to the final history of the kingdom of God, that he makes
no allusions to the glorious events which lie between, to the splen-
did triumphs over the heathen world which have already taken
place, and that he says nothing further about the intimation
given in chap. ix. 10, " he speaks peace to the heathen, and his
dominion is from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of
the earth." It cannot be said that the fact may be explained
from the peculiar interest taken in the history of Israel. The
Christian Church is from its very commencement the legitimate
continuation of Israel, the wicked having been rooted out from
the nation, and those who were Gentiles by birth having been
incorporated into Israel on the ground of their faith. The
kSaviour himself clearly indicated this at the very outset, by
calling his Church " Israel" (Matt. xix. 28) ; and it was from
this point of view alone, that the number of apostles appointed
for the whole Church (Matt, xxviii. 19), corresponded to that of
the tribes of Israel. According to Paul there is but one olive
tree, one people of God, one Israel from the beginning to the
end. In Rom. xi. 18, Israel is represented as the root of the
Christian Church. In Rom. xi. 7, — " the election hath obtained
it, the rest are hardened," — the emphasis must not be laid upon
the latter in a one-sided manner. According to Eph. ii. 12 and
19, when the Gentiles come to Christ, they are incorporated into
the " commonwealth of Israel," as " fellow citizens with the
saints" ("Israelis;" Bengel). That Israel is the root of the

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XII. 1 — XIII. 6. 59

Christian Church is also apparent from the intercessory prayer
of Christ (John xvii. 6 — 8), where he refers to the Church on
earth as founded ah-eady, before a single Gentile had been
admitted into it.^ — There is just as little ground for restricting
the second part of the prophecy to the final history of the Church,
as for limiting the first in this way.

The first day of Pentecost, which is evidently included in
chap. xii. 10, enters a decided protest against such a limitation.
In both parts there are combined into one picture both that lohich
is gradually realised in history, and that luhich takes place in a
series of distinct events. — We have a repetition of the first part
in the prophecy of the fall of Rome, as the heathen mistress of
the world, in Rev. xvii., and in the announcement of the victory
of Christ over the ten kings, the instruments employed in in-
flicting his judgments upon Rome, in Rev. xix. 11 — 21, where
the means employed by Christ are hunger, pestilence, and espe-
cially murderous discord. Even chap. xvii. 14 of the Book of
Revelation, where the victory obtained by Christ over the heathen
through the power of the word is thus described, " these shall
make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them :
for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and they that are with
him are called, and chosen, and faithful," is to be regarded as
included in this prophecy. Our remarks on Ps. xcvii. are also
applicable here, " the coming of Christ partook of the character
of a judgment even with regard to those of the heathen, who
submitted to the Gospel : the worthlessness of their whole exist-
ence was thus brought to light, and deep shame took the place
of pride and haughty contempt of Zion."

We must call attention here to the strict agreement between
the first and second portions of Zechariah, to which we have
already alluded. Chap. ix. and x. correspond exactly to chaps,
i. — iv. In both we have a description of the blessings to be
bestowed upon the covenant nation previous to the coming of
Christ, but still more especially of those to be enjoyed in con-
sequence of his coming. Chap. xi. answers to chap. v. In both
we find an account of the divine judgments, which would be
inflicted upon the unbelieving and ungodly portion of the covenant

1 See the remarks on Ilosea ii. 1 (vol. i. p. 209 sqq.), or Kev. vii. 4 and

60 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

nation, after its ungodliness had been most openl}' displayed in
the rejection of the Messiah. Chap, vi, 1 — 8 contains a brief
notice of the events which are more fully described in the pro-
phecy before us and in chap. xiv.

Ver. 1. " The burden of the icord of the Lord upon Israel:
Thus saith the Lord, lohich stretcheth forth the heaven and
layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man
loithin him"

We have already seen (chap. ix. 1), that n"^? never means
utterance, but always hurden, and that it only occurs in the
superscription of prophecies containing threatenings of evil. In
such cases the proper name, which follows it in the construct
state, or is connected with it by ? or ^v, indicates the object of
the threats contained in the prophecy, or of the coming judg-
ments. It is without ground, therefore, that some propose to
render k'^o prophecy in this one passage, and to give to ^5?
the meaning of. The double S;? in ver. 2, which points to the
pressing calamity, and also the ^y in ver. 3, correspond to
Ntt'D, in the sense of burden. An exceptional rendering of the
word here is all the more inadmissible, when we compare the
perfectly analogous superscription in chap. ix. 1, and that in Mai.
iii. 1, which is almost word for word the same. It is also
equally indisputable, that Israel can only refer to the covenant
nation. This was its highest and holiest name, which could not
be transferred to any other. How then are we to explain the
fact, that the announcement which follows holds up before the
people of the covenant the prospect of salvation ? We reply
that severe calamities, to be endured by the people of Grod, form
the starting point of the section (chaps, xii. — xiv.), to the whole
of which in a certain sense the heading "burden over Israel"
belongs, in contradistinction to the burden of Hadrach in
chap. ix. 1, In the words of Christ in Matt. xxiv. 9, " ye
shall be hated of all men for my name's sake," we have the
New Testament version of this prophecy. There is a mitiga-
tion of the announcement, however, in the name " Israel."
The word of the Lord cannot press as a burden upon Israel, in
the same sense as upon Hadrach. The words of the Psalms are
applicable here : " Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but
the Lord delivereth him out of them all." In Psalms Ixxiii. 1,

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XII. 1. 61

it is said, " truly God is good to Israel, even to such as are of a
clean heart," notwithstanding the severe afflictions, with which
they are visited, — a passage which bears upon the verse before
us, inasmuch as the limiting clause shows that by Israel we are
to understand the election alone, the true Israelites, in whom
there is no guile, to the exclusion of the false seed. — In ver. 1
Israel is mentioned ; in vers. 2 — 9 Jerusalem and Judah ; in ver.
10 sqq. the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
The reason of this variation, which is evidently not accidental,
is the following : Israel the most sacred name is placed, with
the strongest emphasis, at the head. It is afterwards scrupu-
lously avoided, to render it the more conspicuous, that it is used
here in an emphatic sense. In vers. 2 — 9 the covenant nation
is designated Judah and Jerusalem, — a combination for which
Zechariah shows a strong predilection in the first part also.
(Compare i. 12, ii. 2, where Israel, the sacred name, is placed
side by side with Judah and Jerusalem, and ii. 16). This may
be accounted for, from the circumstances of the time succeed-
ing the captivity, when Judah took the lead unconditionally,
and the other tribes attached themselves to it. That Israel does
not merely mean Judah here, but that Judah, on the contrary,
is the name given to the whole nation, is evident from chap, x.,
where the return of Joseph and Ephraim is depicted. The
latter cannot be regarded as excluded in this instance. Lastly,
the change of name in ver. 10 sqq. shows that the Church is
regarded there from a different point of view. — The predicates
connected with the name of God serve at the outset to allay any
doubts that might arise from the discrepancy, between the pro-
mise and the actual circumstances, by pointing to the omnipo-
tence of the author of the former. What is here implied, is
explicitly stated in chap. viii. 6 : "if it be marvellous in the
eyts of the remnant of this people in these days, should it also be
marvellous in mine eyes ? saith the Lord of hosts."^ The par-

1 There is a parallel in Is. xlii. 5, " Thus saith God the Lord, he that created
the heavens and stretched them out, he that spread forth the earth and that
which Cometh out of it, he that giveth bread to the people upon it, and spirit
to them that walk therein." The two passages cannot be unconnected. For
not only are the three points mentioned the same in both, but they occur in
the same order, and the context is the same. In both passages *he omnipn-
tence of God is appealed to as the guarantee of the certain realisation of the

62 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPEHTS.

ticiples n^j and ip"i are not to be understood as referring ex-
clusively to the past. In direct opposition to the mechanical
view of the works of God, as standing, when once created, in just
the same relation to Him as a house to the builder, the upholding
of these works is represented in the Scriptures as being, in a
certain sense, a continuous creation. Every day God spreads
out the heavens, every day He lays the foundations of the earth,
which would wander from its orbit and fall into ruins if it were
not upheld by His power. The last predicate, also, does not
refer merely to the first creation of the spirit of man, but to the
constant exertion of the power of God both to create and to sus-
tain. The formation of the human spirit is brought forward
here with peculiar prominence as one of the many works of the
almighty power of God, because this is the ground of the unre-
strained and constant influence which is exerted upon the spirits
of men, by Him who " turns the hearts of kings as the water-
brooks." Why should not the creator of the spirits of all men,
the " God of the spirits of all flesh" (Num. xvi. 22, xxvii. 16),
be able to smite all the riders of the enemy with blindness, and
fill the leaders of his people with holy boldness, as he is repre-
sented as doing in vers. 4 and 6 ?

Ver. 2. " Behold, I make Jerusalem a hasin of reeling to all
the nations round about, and even over Judah it ivill he, in the
siege against Jerusalem."

^D occurs indisputably in Ex. xii. 22, and several other pas-
sages in the sense of " hasin.'" The reason why a basin is intro-
duced here in the place of the cu]), which we find in the earlier
passage upon which this is based, has been plausibly explained by
Schmieder thus : " a basin, to which many may put their mouths
so as to sip and drink at the same time." ^y"> has the same
meaning as nSynn in the earlier passage, " reeling," " giddi-
ness." The giddiness is regarded here as a state in which the
bodily strength is weakened. The point of comparison is the
helplessness and misery of the condition. The cup of giddiness

Messianic salvation. As proofs that Isaiah is the earlier of the two, we may
mention, j^rsi, that it is a customary thing with Isaiah to introduce such
epithets in connection with the name of God, especially in the second part, in
accordance with the character of his commission as expressed in the words,
" Comfort ye, comfort ye, my people ; " and secondly, that Zechariah refers to
such passages as these, of an earlier date, in almost every verse.

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XII. 2. 63

is frequently used as a symbol of the judgment of God, which
places men in this condition. Thus in Ps. Ixxv. 9, "for in the
hand of the Lord there is a cup, and it foams with wine,
it is full of mixture, and he pours out, and even the dregs
thereof the wicked of the earth must swallow and drink."
The reference here is to the judgments, which God prepares
for the heathen world on account of their oppression - of his
people and his kingdom. See further Is. li. 17, 22, 23. " Awake,
awake, 0 Jerusalem, which hast drunk at the hand of the Lord
the cup of his fury, thou hast drunk tlie dregs of the cup of
giddiness, and wrung them out. Behold, I take out of thy hand
the cup of giddiness, the dregs of the cup of my fury ; thou
shalt no more drink it again. And I will put it into the hand
of them that afflict thee, which have said to thy soul, bow down,"
&c. When Jerusalem, subsequent to the coming of the good
shepherd, in other words, the Church of Christ, is represented
liere as being a cup of giddiness to all nations round about, that
is to the whole surrounding heathen world, this can only mean
that their attacks upon Jerusalem will be followed by such judg-
ments from the hand of God, as will deprive them of all their
strength. He who presents the cup of giddiness, as the earlier
passages prove, can be no other than God himself, whose
judgments begin indeed at the house of God, but never con-
tinue to press as a "burden" upon it. In the description
given of the enemies there is a gradation. Here they are
called " all nations round about ;" in ver. 3, first " all na-
tions," and then, " all the nations of tlie earth." We are in-
troduced here to a state of things, such as never existed under
the Old Testament. It ivasfor the name of Christ that Isixiel
teas first hated of all nations. Its earlier conflicts with the
heathen world had all been with particular nations. The king-
dom of God was first involved in a general conflict with the
heathen world, when it put forth world-wide claims, and, not
content with defending its own existence, assumed the attitude
of a conqueror. According to one of the explanations most ge-
nerally adopted, the meaning of the second part is that Judah
also will be constrained by the enemy, and take part in the siege
of Jerusalem.^ The supporters of this view are obliged to invent

^ This explaaatioa is adopted in the Chaldee paraphrase, and also by Je-
rome " but Judah also, when Jerusalem is besieged, is taken by the heathen,

64 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

historical details, of which there is not only not the slightest indi-
cation in the text, but rather the very opposite. Again, nothing
is gained by appealing to chap. xiv. 14 ; for when the verse is
correctly rendered, there is no allusion whatever to any conflict
between Judah and Jerusalem.^ The true rendering is this :
also over Judah it will come in the siege against Jerusalem.
Luther's translation is substantially correct : " it will also affect
Judah, when Jerusalem is besieged." The subject to n'n» is to
be obtained in part from ^'■s^, burden, in part also from the first
clause. If Jerusalem is made a cup of giddiness, its own severe
suffering is presupposed. We cannot supply iivn after n»n\
■TivD can only apply to a fortress, not to a country (see Deut.
XX. 20). Hofniann supposes the country population to have
taken refuge in the city. But this is precluded by what follows,
where Judah is represented as acting independently of Jerusa-
lem. Judah and Jerusalem are apparently contrasted here, as
the inferior and superior portions of the covenant nation ; — a
similar distinction is made in ver. 8, within Jerusalem itself,
between the house of David and the rest of the inhabitants.
The type of this distinction lay before the prophet in the relation
in which Jerusalem, the civil and religious capital, stood to the
rest of Judah. which had formerly looked up to it with wonder
and admiration, and still continued to do so (see, for example

and entering into alliance with them, is compelled to besiege its own capital."
There are only two ways, in which this explanation has been defended
with any plausibility. The first is that of Michaelis, to which Rosenmiiller
and Ewald subscribe, " but it will also be over Judah (i.e., it will lie upon
Judah, even Judah will be held or forced) in the siege," &c. The second is
the one adopted hj KimcJii, Hitzig, Maurer, and others, " but it (the cup of
giddiness) will also be upon Judala, when it shall be compelled to come to
the siege against Jerusalem," or else, " but even for Judah, Jerusalem is such
a cup of giddiness." It is a sufficient reply to both of these, however, that
there is nut the slightest indication in what follows of any participation on
the part of Judah in the siege of Jerusalem; on the contrary Judah is re-
presented as the ally of Jerusalem, by whose victories, obtained through the
help of the Lord, Jerusalem is to be delivered.

1 This argument tells all the more powerfully against the explanation
given by Kimchi; for according to this, Judah is visited by severe punish-
ment from God for its forced participation in the siege, whereas there is no-
thing but salvation announced in the verses which follow. A special objec-
tion to the exposition given by Micliaelis may be found in the fact, that
although his rendering of ^y is not in itself untenable (see Ezek. xlv. 17 ;
Ps. Ivi. 13), it is inadmissible here, on account of the parallelism of Judah
and Jerusalem, which precludes the adoption of a different rendering in the
one case from that given in the other.

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XII. 3. 65

Ps. cxxii. and Ixxxvii. 2, " The Lord lovetli the gates of Zion
more than all the dwellings of Jacob.") Very little can be said
in favour of the idea that this contrast, which we meet with in
the first part as well (chap. i. 12, ii. 16), is to be taken with
strict liteiality, especially in the case of Zechariah, the character
of whose prophecies is throughout figurative and symbolical.
The contrast serves merely to prepare the way for the announce-
ment which follows, that the Lord will first of all deliver the
weakest and most helpless portion of the covenant nation, in
order that it may be all the more apparent that the rescue is His
work.

Ver. 3. " A7id it ivill come to pass the same day, 1 ivill make
Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all nations, all lolio lift it
ivill be torn in pieces, and all the heathen of the earth are
gathered together against it."

The figure of a heavy stone, which causes sprains and disloca-
tions to those who overrate their strength and try to lift it, is so
lucid in itself, that there is no reason to suppose, as most
commentators have done, that there is a direct allusion to a
custom, which Jerome says was very general in Palestine in his
day, of lifting heavy stones as a trial of strength. Schmieder
observes here with perfect accuracy, " thus did the heathen of
the Roman empire attempt to lift the ' burdensome stone ' of
the Christian Church, by slaying the witnesses for Christ ; but
the heathenism of Rome bled to death of the wounds, which this
' burdensome stone' inflicted in return." But when he adds, " it
cannot yet be determined with certainty, whether reference is
made to the literal siege of a Christian Jerusalem, or whether the
figure of a siege is merely the symbol of a hostile attack upon the
heart of the Christian life," we must beg leave to difier from him.
If the fulfilment commences with the death of the anointed one,
Jerusalem can only stand for the centre of the Christian Church.
And we are also led to this conclusion by the fact that in chap.
xi. the whole of the holy land, and therefore of course the literal
Jerusalem, is represented as given up to total desolation. A
real conflict between the city of Jerusalem and all the nations of
the earth is in itself a very improbable thing. We have evi-

1 Damnum non sentiens, ipse magnum damnum iis affert." Marck.
VOL. IV. E

66 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PEOPHETS.

dently here a comprehensive view of that which appears in history
in a long series of events, the victorious course of the militant
Church through the many centuries of the world's history, dating
from the appearance of the good shepherd. But we have, lastly,
a decisive proof that the prophecy does not relate to the literal
Jerusalem, in the repetition of the same announcement in the
Book of Kevelation, where we find, not Jerusalem, but simply
the Christian Church, which overcomes first of all heathen Kome,
then the ten heathen kings, and last of all that form of
heathenism which is revived in Gog and Magog. — In the words,
" and there assemble themselves" &c., the prophet again de-
scribes the danger in the strongest terms ; in order that the
deliverance may appear the more wonderful from the contrast,
and also that those who believe may not be disheartened.

Ver. 4. ''In that day, saith the Lord, I will smite every
horse ivith fear, and their riders loith madness, and upon the
house of Judah I loill open my eyes, and I ivill smite every
horse of the nations with blindness."

" He confirms what he has said a short time before, that, al-
though the whole world should conspire against the Church, yet
there is strength enough in God either to thwart all their attacks
from afar, or to bring them to nought. And he mentions stupor,
folly, and blindness, in order that the faithful may learn that
God can destroy or scatter his enemies by secret means. Al-
though, therefore, He does not fight with material swords or
employ the common method of warfare, yet, says the prophet,
he is provided with other means of prostrating his foes." Horse
and rider are characteristics of the might of the heathen ; com-
pare Ex. XV. 1, and Ps. xx. 8. " Some think of chariots, and
some of horses, but we will think of the name of the Lord our
God." The figure alone is all that we find relating to ordinary
warfare here. Chap ix. 11, sqq., where an actual war is referred
to, has much more of a military character. The sword and the
bow, arrows, trumpets, blood, &c., are all mentioned there. The
meaning of the expression " smite the riders with madness," is
brought clearly before us in 2 Kings vi. 18, where the Lord
answers the prayer of Elisha by blinding his enemies, so that
instead of taking him, they rush into destruction. The ho7ise
of Judah does not simply mean Judah itself, as it does in the

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XII. 5. 67

foregoing and following verses, where Judah is contrasted with
Jerusalem, but appears to embrace the whole of the covenant
nation.

Ver. 5. "And the princes^ of Judah say in their hearts:
the inhabitants of Jerusalem are strength to me in the Lord of
Hosts, their God."

novN must be taken as a noun. Any other rendering is gram-
matically inadmissible, and fails to give an appropriate meaning.
Vers. 6 and 7 throw light upon this passage. It is emphatically
stated there that God will first of all deliver the weakest and
most exposed portion of the covenant nation or Church, repre-
sented by the inhabitants of the provinces, as distinguished from
the inhabitants of the capital, and will give them the most
splendid victory over the common foe, that the former splendour
of Jerusalem may not be so increased by the new distinction
conferred upon it, as to throw Judah completely into the shade.
In the verse before us the way is prepared for this announcement,
by the statement that Judah does not entertain the most remote
idea of any such good fortune and honour, but waits in calm
humility and modesty, looking for deliverance solely from the
capital, which is peculiarly favoured by God and enjoys his
especial protection. Its own confession of inferiority renders it
all the more obvious, that the glory which follows is a work of
God, who is strong in the weak, and givetli grace to the humble.
Schmieder ]ust\y observes that the princes of Judah are " a type
of the leaders of those that believe, in every future age, whatever
different names or titles they may bear in the course of centuries."

1 The use of the noun p]!|W in this passage, and also in chap. ix. 7, to
denote the princes and leaders of the covenant nation, is very remarkable.
Elsevfhere it is merely applied to the hereditary princes of Idumea ((Jen.
xxxvi. 15, sqq., Ex. xv. 15, 1 Chr. i. 51, sqq.) It is true that many lexico-
graphers bring forv^ard Jer. xiii. 21, in addition to the passages from
Zechariah, as an example of the more general use of the word. But
Schultens has shown (animadvv. phil. on Jer. xiii. 21) that t^'h^ is not used
there is the sense of prince, but means friend, as in other passages of Jere-
miah (e.g. iii. 4). The peculiar use of this word in the case of Zechariah is
an answer to the hypothesis of those who maintain that chap. ix. was
composed by a diiferent author from the one before us. It also furnishes a
proof that the second part was composed after the captivity, and therefore
that it is genuine. The use of the word, in such a sense as this, can only bo
explained by a study of the language of the earliest written documents, which
Zechariah constantly employs.

68 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

The use of 'V for ^^^ may be explained on the supposition that
the princes of Judah speak in the name of the whole nation, just
as in chap. vii. 3 the messengers of the people of the covenant
inquire, " shall I weep, as I have done ?"

Ver. 6. " In that day tviW I make the princes of Judah Wee
a pan of fire in the midst ofsticJcs, and like a torch of fire among
sheaves, and they devour on tlie right hand and on the left all
the nations round about, and Jerusalem sits still further in her
place at Jerusalem."

Jerusalem is personified in the first place as a woman. Not-
withstanding all the acquisitions of her enemies, who are desirous
of overthrowing her, she still continues to sit where she has
hitherto been sitting. In Is. xlvii. 1 an announcement of an
opposite character is made repecting Babylon, the representative
of the world, " Come down, and sit in the dust, 0 virgin daughter
of Babylon, sit on the ground without a throne, 0 daughter of
the Chaldeans."

Ver. 7. " And the Lord will succour the tents of Judah first,
that the splendour of the house of David and the splendour of
the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not exalt itself over Judah."

The tents or huts^ of Judah are contrasted with the splendid
buildings of the capital, and probably indicate the defenceless
condition of Judah, which made it absolutely dependent upon
the assistance of God. There is a parallel passage in Ezek.
xxxviii. 11. The clause " that the splendour, &c., do not exalt
itself," refers not to the help of God, which was to be afforded to
Jerusalem quite as much as to Judah, and in fact through the
medium of Judah, but to the expression first, the false render-
ings of which it serves to preclude. It is not without a sufficient
reason that ^Tl^f.fir is not repeated before Judah. " The simple
mention of the name of Judah, shows that Judah possessed no
splendour on which it could pride itself" — Burckliardt A'??<?'r,
not " the boast," but the splendour and glory. The reference is
simply to the possession of superior advantages, which, however,
from the tendency of human nature, might easily lead to self-

1 " By tents, in my opinion, the prophet means huts, which cannot afford
any protection to their guests and inhabitants. . . . There is a contrast
implied between huts and fortiiied cities."' Calvin.

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XII. 8. 69

exaltation, not only over other men, but over God Himself, and
an excessive accumulation of which ought therefore to be guarded
against. The prophet appears to have had in his mind such an
abuse as Jerusalem had formerly made of its superiority to the
provinces in this respect. The strong are rescued by the weak,
in order that the true equilibrium may be maintained, and, as
Jerome says, " it may be made apparent that in either case the
victory is the Lord's." The " house of David " is the royal family
in the kingdom of God, which culminated in Christ, and is con-
tinued in the princes and potentates in the kingdom of God, who
become partakers of his spirit. In Ps. xlv. 17 the kings of the
Messianic kingdom are represented as the Messiah's sons, and
therefore as members of the house of David.

Ver, 8. " In that day loill the Lord defend the inhabitants
of Jerusalem, and the stumbling among them in that day will be
as David ; and the house of David as God, as the angel of the
Lord before them."

The article in ^"^'PPD (the stumbling one) divides the inhabi-
tants of Jerusalem into two classes, the weak and the strong.
The former are to take the place, which was once occupied by
the strongest man among the latter, — viz., David their ancestor, the
brave hero and king ; the latter are to occupy a position which
had no existence in the previous economy. This is the prophet's
method of expressing, by one particular example, the general idea
that at that time the Lord would exalt his own people to a glory
of which they had no conception before. The New Testament
parallel is Luke vii. 28, " for I say unto you, among those that
are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the
Baptist ; but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater
than he," To the concluding words, " and the house of David,"
&G., there is a parallel in Matt. iii. 11, where John the Baptist
says, " he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes
I am not worthy to bear." He is a weak man "^v:^: (lit. stumb-
ling, then weak generally, of. 1 Sam. ii. 4) in comparison with
the Son of David, who comes after him. Elohim, by which
many of the earlier expositors understood " angels "here, denotes
divinity in general, as contrasted with human nature (see the
comm. on Ps. viii. 5). On the other hand the expression " the
angel of the Lord" (not an angel, as many render it), the re-

70 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

vealer of God, to whom Zechariah frequentlj attributes both his
names and his works, sets before us a distinct form within the
sphere of duty. The expression " before them " also leads to the
conclusion, that the angel of the Lord is intended ; for there is
evidently an allusion to the march through the desert, in which
not merely an angel, but the angel of the Lord led the way.
(Compare vol. i. p. 118, and also the remarks on Micah. ii. 13,
vol. i., p. 433). A hyperbole, such as we find in 2 Sam. xiv.
17, 20, cannot for a moment bethought of here, for we have
the language of a prophet before us now. Moreover, the parallel
passages, chap, xi., xii. 10, and xiii. 7, which show that Zecha-
riah expected the angel of the Lord to appear in the Messiah,
are opposed to such a conclusion as this. The house of David
is not referred to here in the same sense as in ver. 7, but pri-
marily in this its culminating point. It would be strange if
Zechariah, when depicting the glory of the house of David under
the New Testament, should separate it entirely from Him, in
whom the unanimous testimony of the prophets declared that it
would reach its highest point. That Zechariah expected the
Messiah to spring from the house of David, is evident from chap,
ix. 9, 10, iii. 8, and vi. 12, which refer, almost in as many words,
to the earlier announcements of the descent of the Messiah from
the tribe of David. But the glory of Christ descends to his
servants, the leaders of the Church ; compare Gal. iv. 14, " ye
received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus." This
can only be regarded, however, as the reflection of the glory,
which, strictly speaking, rests upon Christ alone. The true
equality of the house of David with God, and, as it is here
stated by way of climax, with the angel of the Lord, could
only be effected by such an union of the human nature and the
divine, as was really accomplished in Christ. Humanity in
itself could never be exalted to such a height as this. That it is
not a mere resemblance, which is spoken of here, but a literal
equality, is evident from the expression, '' as David" in the pre-
vious verse.

Ver. 9. " And it shall come to pass in that day, tlmt I loill
seek to destroy all the heathen, that come against Jerusalem."

Many render this " I will seek out, for the purpose of destroy-
ing." But the words of chap. vi. 7, in which the parallel is

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XII. 10. 71

very striking, show that '^p.?. with V must be understood as de-
noting an effort to attain to something. We have here the con-
clusion of the first part, in which the victory of Israel over the
heatiien world is predicted. The second part commences in ver.
10, with an announcement of the restoration of the children of
the kingdom. Michaelis observes that " this prediction was
evidently not fulfilled in the early part of the New Testament
history, for not only had Grod at that time not destroyed the
heathen, who came to destroy Jerusalem, but, on the contrary,
by their instrumentality he destroyed Jerusalem itself, along
with the Jewish state and Levitical worship." But this remark
is founded upon the erroneous idea, that by Jerusalem in this
passage we are to understand the literal city of Jerusalem ;
whereas, according to the previous chapter, this was already
destroj'^ed. The first fulfilment of this prophecy on a large scale
was the destruction of Eome, as the heathen mistress of the
world (see Rev. xvii. 18). The limitation " unless they repent,"
is of course implied, and this is expressly stated in chap, xiv.,
where the Messiah's rule of justice and of peace is represented as
embracing all the Gentiles to the ends of the earth ; (compare
chap. ix. 10).

Ver. 10. " And I pour out my spirit upon the house of David,
and upon the inhabitant of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and of
supplication, and they look upon me, whom they have pia-ced ;
and they mourn for him, as the mourning for an only one, and.
they lament for him, as the lamentation for a first-horn."

This verse is connected with Joel ii. 28. " And it shall come
to pass afterwards, that I will pour out my spirit," and the
connection is sufficient in itself to show that we have a pro-
phecy before us, which relates to the Messianic era in its
fullest extent, from the time of the atoning death of the Mes-
siah onwards. The fulfilment of the primary prophecy took
place on the day of Pentecost ; and the events of that day
had also a prophetical character, and constituted, as it were, a
practical renewal of the predictions of Joel. By the house of
David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem we are to understand
the members of the ancient covenant-nation, those whom Peter
addresses in Acts iii. 25 as " sons of the prophets and of the
covenant." At first sight it appears strange, that in this pas-

72 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

sage as well as in chap. xiii. 1 Judah should not be mentioned
at all, but merely the house of David and the inhabitants of
Jerusalem. But this may be explained from the custom, which
was prevalent among the earlier writers, of designating the
whole nation by the name of its central-point or capital, Jeru-
salem or Zion. In the first part we frequently find Jerusalem
only mentioned by name, although the prophet evidently had
the whole nation in his mind. Compare, for example, chap. iii.
2, " the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee," and
chap. viii. 8. In other passages, e.g. chap. i. 12, Jerusalem
and the cities of Judah are employed to denote the whole. — in
never means " to entreat" as Hofmann would render it. He
appeals to Job xix. 17 ; but the proper rendering of this verse is
" I mourn for the sons of my body," in other words, " I mourn
for the loss of my children." Eioalds rendering, " a spirit of
love and of the wish for love," is also merely an attempt to get
rid of a difficulty, in is never used for love to God, or even
love to brethren, but love towards an inferior, that is grace.
With reference to the genitive Hitzig observes, " a spirit of
grace and of supplication, of the latter inasmuch as it produces
it, of the former inasmuch as the impartation of it is an act of
Divine grace ;" but he also adds, " at the same time there appears
to be something harsh and unparalleled in such a combination
of two genitives with entirely opposite meanings. If the spirit
of supplication is the spirit which produces supplication, the
spirit of grace must also be the spirit, which is the efficient
cause of grace, or brings grace in its train. Compare the pre-
cisely similar combination in Is. xi. 1, " the spirit of wisdom, of
power," &c. From its connection with the supplication, again,
the grace referred to here cannot be the grace of God objectively
considered,^ but grace regarded as an active principle working
within. Wrath and mercy, which have their roots in God,
produce a distinctive kind of life in the hearts of men. In Rom.
iv. 15, " because the law worketh wrath," wrath is not exactly
the consciousness of wrath, though it is evidently regarded as
manifested in the heart of the sinner. With reference to the
grace, there is a perfect parallel in Heb. x. 29, " and hath done

1 Maurer, " animus qui gratiam divinam conciliet."

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XII. 10. 73

despite unto the spirit of grace," in which there is an aUusion to
the passage before us. The " spirit- of grace" is the spirit,
which produces a state of grace (compare also 2 Tim. ii. 1, "be
strong in the grace, which is in Christ Jesus ;" Acts iv. 33 ; Rom.
xii. 6). The spirit of grace, then, is the spirit, which brings grace
near to the heart, and sets his seal upon it. In chap. xi. 10 the
staff " loveliness" is broken, as a sign that the Jews have no longer
a gracious God, on account of their contempt of the good shep-
herd. Here, on the other hand, grace is once more communicated
by the spirit, and put within their hearts. There is something
very striking in the combination of " grace" and the supplica-
tion" (Gnade and Gnadefiehen). Even in the selection of two
expressions derived from the same root, the writer shows that
this supplication springs from a state of grace. " For thus will
the Jews be entirely cured of their notion of their own merit,
and the custom of making prayers fprecularum ;" Burckhardt).
— M'sn with ^.!< is not infrequently used, where either mental
or physical perception if referred to, coupled with the idea of
confidence in the object beheld ; like QewpTv, for example, in
John vi. 40. We find this in Num. xxi. 9, in connection with the
brazen serpent, by looking upon which Israel was healed.^ Here
it is tacitly contrasted with the contempt and abhorrence, with
which Israel had previously turned its eyes away from the Mes-
siah (compare Is. lii. 14). The expression " uj)on me " is very
remarkable. According to ver. 1 the speaker is the Lord, the
Creator of heaven and the earth. But it is evident from what
follows, that we are not to confine our thoughts exclusively to an
invisible God, who is beyond the reach of suffering, for the same
Jehovah presently represents himself as pierced by the Israelites,
and afterwards lamented by them with bitter remorse. The
enigma is solved by the Old Testament doctrine of the angel and
revealer of the Most High God, to whom the prophet attributes
even the most exalted names of God, on account of his partici-
pation in the divine nature, who is described in chap. xi. as
undertaking the office of shepherd over his people, and who had
been recompensed by them with base ingratitude. The suffix

1 There is apparently an allusion to this passage here, in anticipation of
John iii. 14, 15.

74 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

in I'i^y is regarded by many commentators, who adhere to the
Messianic interpretation, as used, not in a personal, but in a
neuter sense. Thus Gousset, Scliultens (animad^v. phil. in loc),
and Dathe render it, " they mourn on account of it," — namely, on
account of the crime committed in piercing him. But the
reasons assigned are not sufficient. They adduce first of all the
change in the persons, h^. and i'!^v. But the change from the
first person to the third is of such frequent occurrence, especially
in the prophets, that there is no necessity to bring forward
specific examples (see Gesenius Lehrg. p. 742). There was also
a peculiar inducement to make the change in the present
instance, inasmuch as the previous words, " him, whom they
have pierced," formed a natural transition to the third person.
And this transition, again, was the more appropriate, since it
was important to give some intimation of the fact, that the same
Being, whom the supreme God had identified with himself on
account of his unity of nature, was yet personally distinct.
(Compare chap. xiii. 7, " the man, that is my fellow"). This
reason for the change has latterly been adopted by E. Meier
(Studien unci Kritiken 42 p. 1039). — The authors mentioned
inquire further, " why should the believing Jews mourn for
him, the slain Messiah, when, as has been stated, they regard
him with confidence and hope, as still alive ? We reply : they
mourn for the murdered one, not as though he were still in the
power of death, but with the heartfelt consciousness that he was
slain through their sins. But the proofs, which are decisive
against this rendering, are the following. When W follows the
verb ISO, though it may denote the cause generally, it is univer-
sally connected with the person for whom lamentation is made.
(Compare, for example, Jer. xxxiv. 5 ; 2 Sam. xi. 26 ; and
1 Kings xiii. 30). Again, in the verses which follow, persons
alone are referred to as the object of lamentation : e.g., ''for the
only one," ''-for the first-born," "for king Josiah," Lastly, vers.
12 — 14 evidently depict the deep sorrow of the whole nation and
of every individual for one who is dead. — "i?n, lit. mahing
hitter, points back to the preceding verb '' they mourn," as the
use of the Infinitive sufficiently shows. Hence we must not
supply " they shall weep," as most commentators have done on

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XII. 10. 75

the strength of Is. xxii. 4. There is all the less reason for doing
this, since the appropriateness of the allusion to isd is confirmed
by Jer. vi. 26. onnpn ispo and the Hiphil of -^lo is used
exclusively in the sense of making bitter, never of grieving.
Mourning for an only son is also used in other passages as a sign
of the deepest sorrow ; compare Amos viii. 10, " And I will make
it as the mourning for an only son," and Jer. vi. 26. — Of lamen-
tation for the first-born, the type is to be found in Egypt ; see
Exodus xi. 6, " And there shall be a great cry throughout all
the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be
like it any more." — The fulfilment of the prophecy in the verse
before us commenced immediately after the crucifixion of Christ ;
see Luke xxiii. 48, " And all the people that came together to
that sight, beholding the things that were done, smote their
breasts." (This is the primary signification of 130^ which was
originally used to denote a peculiar manner of giving expression
to grief; see Is. xxxii. 12, super uhera -plangunt. Winer, s. v.)
The crowds, who but a short time before had cried out " crucify
him," now smite their breasts, overpowered by the proofs of the
superhuman dignity of Jesus, and mourn for the deceased, and
for their own sin. This was the commencement of a powerful
movement, which brought large bodies of penitent Jews to the
Christian Church. The first Christian Pentecost formed its
central point. The point of Peter's address is contained in the
words, " therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly,
that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have cruci-
fied, both Lord and Christ ; " and the result is thus described
in ver. 37, " when they heard they toere pricked in their
heart." The theme of Peter's discourse is described as being
this, " ye have killed the Prince of life" (chap. iii. 15) ; and
the following is the result, " many of them which heard the
word believed, and the number of the men was about five thou-
sand." The extent of the movement is also apparent from
chap. V. 14, " and believers were the more added to the Lord,
multitudes both of men and women." There is the less reason
to exclude these commencements of the fulfilment, since not
only Luke xxiii. 48 but also Heb. x. 29 points distinctly to
this passage, and pre-supposes that the promise contained in

76 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

it is already partially fulfilled. That the house of David was
also affected by this movement has been convincingly proved by
Schmieder from Acts i. 14, " these all continued with one accord
in prayer and supplication — (the supplication here, the grace in
chap, iv, 33) — with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus,
and his brethren," in connection with which it is important to
observe that the guilt was national, and even those who had
previously believed on Jesus felt that they were involved in it.
The only passage in the New Testament, in which this prophecy
is actually quoted, is John xix. 37, " and again another scripture
saith, they shall look on him whom they pierced." On the con-
nection between this quotation and the prophecy itself, the follow-
ing remarks are needful. (1). The only point in which the
citation differs from the original is in the change of the first
person into the third. In Zechariah the Messiah himself is
represented as speaking ; in the gospel, John speaks of him.
There is no ground for inferring from this, as Bleeh has done,
that the Apostle, who has not employed the Septuagint on this
occasion, but translates direct from the Hebrew, had another
reading before him, especially when we observe that Matthew
does precisely the same thing in the case of Zech. xi. 13, which
is quoted by him in chap, xxvii. 9. The desire to secure greater
perspicuity is a sufScient explanation. If John had not read
" upon me," in the gospel, he could not have been so confident
that the prophecy referred to Christ, as not this passage alone,
but also Eev. i. 7, evidently prove that he was. (2). Although
Vitringa (obss. ii. 9, p. 172) and Michaelis have taken great
trouble to maintain the opposite, it is obvious that the words
are quoted by John in immediate connection with the piercing
by the lance, and not with reference to the crucifixion of Christ
generally. In vers. 31 — 33 he relates that the legs of Christ
were not broken, like those of the others ; and in ver. 34 men-
tions the piercing of his side. He then proceeds in ver. 36 to
cite a passage from the Old Testament in explanation of the
first fact ; and in ver. 37 brings forward another in connection
with the second. At the same time it by no means follows that
John merely refers to the prophecy in connection with this par-
ticular circumstance, or that he regarded it as entirely restricted
to this, but only that he looked upon this as actually a fulfil-

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XII. 10, 77

ment of the prediction ; — and with perfect justice, inasmuch as
the piercing with a spear, in common with the entire crucifixion,
is represented in Acts ii. 23 as a work of the Jews, not indeed
from a material, but from a spiritual point of view. That John
is very far from restricting the prophecies to the particular cir-
cumstances, in connection with which thoy are quoted by him, is
obvious from cliap. xviii. 9. The prophecy before us would
evidently lose much of its meaning and importance, if the verb
•^125 were to be understood as relating simply to the one fact of
the piercing with a spear. It is rather to be regarded as depict-
ing the whole of the sufferings with which the death of the
Messiah was attended. That the death itself is the essential
point, and not the instrument employed or the manner of the
death, is evident from chap. xiii. 7, where a sword is mentioned,
whereas i|^t points rather to a spear. Liicke has very correctly
observed, " at the time when John composed his gospel, a
considerable number had already been gathered out of the hostile
Jewish world, of such as looked to the crucified One for their
salvation. In this sense the 1-^ovra.i (they shall look) had been
fulfilled." In addition to this distinct quotation there are two
other passages, in which there is evidently an intentional allusion
to the one before us. The first is Matt. xxiv. 30, " And then
shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the
Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and
great glory." The other is Rev. i. 7, " Behold he cometh with
clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced
him." These passages contain a kind of sacred parody of the
prophecy in Zechariah. They show that side by side with the
salutary contrition, the godly sorrow, of which Zechariah speaks,
there is another kind, — viz., the Judas-contrition of despair; that
by the side of the voluntary look, directed to the crucified One,
there is another, an involuntary look, which even unbelief can-
not escape. The fearful meaning involved in this allusion will
be learned by every one. It shows, moreover, that the prophecy
was referred to Christ, by both the Lord himself and his apostles.

78 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

HISTOEY OF THE INTEEPEETATION.

1. AMONG THE JEWS.

A valuable collection of materials has been made by Frisch-
miitli and Salemann ; by the former in his dissertatio de Messia
confixo (thes. theol. phil. i. p. 1042 sqq.) ; by the latter in his
Jehovah trans/ossus (ibid. p. 1054 sqq.) Even before the
coming of Christ it was natural that the Jews should mistake
the true meaning of the prophecy ; for it not only pointed to a
suffering and dying Messiah, like Is. liii. , but to a suffering and
dying Messiah, connected with Grod by a mysterious unity of
essence, — a mystery which could not be fully comprehended till
the Son of God appeared in the flesh. Among the Jews
after the time of Christ, the difficulty of interpreting the passage
necessarily increased ; for not only did they want the light of
fulfilment, like those of an earlier age, but they were driven into
a corner by Christian controversialists, who took it as the basis
of their arguments. How little ground we have for expecting
impartiality under these circumstances, is evident from the can-
did confession made by Abarbanel, that the chief object which
he had in view in his exposition was to remove the stumbling-
block, laid by Christians in the way of his people, when • they
interpreted the prophecy as relating to the crucified One. The
history of the interpretation of this passage among the Jews is
little more, therefore, than an account of the principal methods
employed by them in the distortion of prophecy, — methods which
led to such contradictory results, as to furnish a powerful argu-
ment against their correctness.

1. Some sought to get rid of the difficulty by giving to 1|'2"t.
the figurative meaning " to pierce," in other words, " to grieve."
According to the exposition, the verse depicts the contrition of
the Jews on account of the sins committed by them against the
Lord. This view was adopted by the translators of the Septu-

ZECHARIAH, CHAP, XII. 10. 79

agint, who rendered the clause, e7n/3X£-4/ovTaj iifos /xs, civ(j ^v
■Koi.rcopy^ri'yoi.Mro. Jerome and many others suppose that the
translators mistook 1"^i^"t. for 'np;^ ; and examples of similar
transpositions are no doubt to be found. Lud. Cappellus and
others suggest the probability of their having found iij^n in their
MSS. ; but this is very unlikely, as there is nothing else to favour
such a reading. Others, including Cocceius and Biixtorf, think
that, as they did not know how to get over the difficulty, they
substituted iii5T. for 'ni^'; by mere conjecture. We should not
mention the fact, that the blind prejudice shown by Fo.ss (de
translat. LXX. interprett. p. 20 and 77) in favour of the Se'p-
tuagint, has led him to maintain that av6' wv y.a.rupx'nnoi.vro is a
later corruption, were it not that Eiuald has given expression to
the same opinion (commentar. in Apoc. p. 93). The only expla-
nation that can be given of this is the wish to get rid of an
important argument for the genuineness of the Book of Revela-
tion,— namely the remarkable agreement between John xix. 37,
and Rev. i. 7 in the rendering of the words quoted from this
passage, an agreement which cannot be set aside by merely
referring to a similar coincidence in the use of the word sxxev-
teTv by Aquila, Symmaclius, and Theodotion, since in their case
the one quoted from the other and their agreement is entirely
restricted to the use of the word s><.y.£VTs7v. — Very few have hit
upon the ti'ue explanation, — namely that the translators read i"ii^"i,
but thought the literal meaning of the verb unsuitable, and
therefore understood it figuratively, " to pierce" in the sense of
" to vex." Lampe, among the earlier commentators, has adopted
this explanation (Comm. on John part. 3, p. 633). The con-
jecture is changed into a certainty, if we merely look at the other
examples of a similar mode of procedure on the part of the trans-
lators in the very same section. The most remarkable is chap.
xiii. 3, where we find another instance of transposition in con-
nection with the same verb "^PSl- In this case also the meaning
to pierce seemed to them inappropriate, since they could not
imagine that parents would be so cruel as to kill their own sou,
aud probably also because, like many of the later commentators,
they imagined that the same individual was alluded to in ver. 5
and 6. If so he could not be regarded as killed. In this case they

80 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

render the verb iw/xttoSi^eiv, to hind the feet together, whereas
in every other instance they translate it aTroKevrsTv, ixKcvrsrv,
xaraxEVTeTv, or TjT^wffKsiv. — We have another example in chap.
xii. 8. They were startled to find it stated there, that the house
of David should be as God. Hence they translated d'hSno,
us olycos Osot) ; whilst Jonathan on the other hand endeavoured
to remove the ground of offence by giving to d'h'?.^. the mean-
ing of prince. — So much may perhaps be conceded to the sup-
porters of the other hypothesis, that the translators were led to
select the verb xaro/jxs'^/w-^", to express the idea of contempt
and wickedness, by the recollection of the word "'P.^, which
they probably regarded as allied to 1P4.

We have no hesitation in giving the same explanation of the
Chaldee version, the words of which have been so often mis-
interpreted, and of which, so far as we are aware, the only
correct explanation that has ever been given is that of Lampe
(ut supra). The passage is rendered *"[ ^v '^1?^,]^? PV?';. l^'f'rtsN.
The translation usually given of this is, " orabunt coram
me, quoniam translati fuerunt" (compare Lightfoot on John
xix. 37). The meaning of the paraphrast is supposed to
have been, that the Jews would turn to the Lord with bitter
lamentation on account of their captivity. But the objection to
this is, that nothing can be pointed out in the text, which could
give rise to such a translation. The difficulty, however, is
removed, if we understand St2Sto^< as meaning to ivander about
in a moral sense, to rove about so as to lose sight of the Lord ;
compare ^l*!? vagatio, lusus ; ^'i;.^ ambulator, otiosus spectator
{see Buxtorf S.V.). — This explanation has been given up by
the modern Jews, who all agree in translating "ip4 literally.
But it has found supporters in the Christian Church ; and we
will now inquire whether it is admissible. It must certainly
constitute a grave objection, that in every other case ip.T is used
in a literal sense, never figuratively, and that we have an ex-
ample in this very section in chap. xiii. 3, a passage, which is
the more important on account of the close relation in which it
stands to the verse before us : they had wickedly pierced the
good shepherd, but now they pierce the false prophet righteously.
But the words which follow are a sufficient disproof of the

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XII. 10. 81

figurative interpretation. If ip.T is not used in a literal sense,
how can the next clause speak of mourning for one who is dead ?^
how can it be compared to the mourning for the death of an
only son, and the mourning for the death of King Josiah ? The
only resource left in this case is to take the word in its ordinary
signification, and to look for the figure in the general statement.
God is slain, as it were, by the sins of the Jews ; and the
remorse, which they feel for their sins, is figuratively represented
as mourning for the dead. But let any one look through the
whole of the Old Testament, and see whether he can find any-
thing analogous to a figure, so strange and derogatory to the
dignity of God, as this would be. — It is quite out of place, to
appeal to the fact that 3p4, to pierce, is also used with reference
to God ; for it is not in its primary sense that it is so used, but
with a figurative meaning to insult, and even in this sense
it is not associated directly with Jehovah himself, but only
with the name of God (Lev. xxiv. 11). To these negative
reasons for rejecting the explanation referred to, we have now
to add — (1) the positive grounds for referring the prediction to
the Messiah and his death ; — viz., the evident identity of the
person, slain and lamented here, with the good shepherd, whose
faithful care was rewarded by the nation with base ingratitude
(chap, xi.), who is represented in chap. xiii. 7 as being slain,
and whose rejection on the part of the nation is the cause of
their being visited by severe judgments, until at length the
remnant is purified by afiliction, turns to the Lord, and is
received into favour again ; — (2) the parallel clause in chap,
xiii. 7, " Awake, 0 sword, against my shepherd," which is suf-
ficient in itself to overthrow the figurative interpretation of "ipT ;
and (3), as external evidence, the testimony of the New Testa-
ment.

2. There is another remarkable proof, that the correct inter-
pretation of the passage, as relating to a true Messiah, was not

1 Maurer, who supports the figurative explanation, thinks that he can get
rid of the objections by the simple remark, that " even reviling is a severe
ofifence, and a just cause for deep lamentation; but he overlooks the itBD
vSy. The word nso, the ordinary term applied to mourning for the
dead {cf. nsD Avith Sy to denote the person, for whom lamentation is made,
2 Sam. xi. 26), must be taken in this sense here, especially when we con-
sider the following naoDS, which undoubtedly refers to mourning for the
dead.

VOL. IV. F

82 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS,

unknown to the earlier Jews. In the Jerusalem Talmud (fol.
xii. 1 ed. Dessov, ; compare the appendix on the suffering
Messiah), it is the only one mentioned : " There are two
opinions ; one, that the mourning is for the Messiah, the other,
that the mourning is for the crime." This has frequently been
understood as meaning, that by some the crime was regarded as
the sole object of the prophecy in this verse. And it has
been found impossible to understand, how so strange an opinion
could possibly have arisen. But this is not the case. Both
views agreed in referring the prophecy to the Messiah. The
difference, as we may see upon closer examination, and from a
comparison of the corresponding passages in the Babylonian
Talmud, had respect exclusively to the suffix in vS?;. Some
regarded it as relating to the person of the pierced one, whilst
others supposed it to be used as a neuter, (as ScJiultens and
DatJie also do) with the meaning, " on that account," — namely,
on account of their sin, which had either directly, or what is
more probable, indirectly occasioned the. death of the Messiah.
So much is certain. But we have no means of determining how
these Kabbins interpreted the separate clauses of the verse, or
how they got over the difficulty, which must have presented
itself to their minds, in the words " they look upon me, whom
they have pierced ;" whether they adopted the rendering, which
De Bo'ssi, who has carefully examined the Codex, says that
Symmaclius has given in the Codex Barberinus, — viz., (tl/v o)
s^sxEVT^ffav, " they look upon me (the Lord) luith him, whom
they (either the Jews or the enemy) have pierced ;" or wliether
they rendered it, as many of the later Jews have done, " they
look upon me (they turn to me as suppliants) because the enemy
has pierced them." It is impossible to decide this, from the
fact that the difference referred to there has respect, not to the
meaning of the whole passage, but to the object of grief. In any
case, however, the passage is of great importance, inasmuch as
it proves that the earlier Jews were not strangers to the doctrine
of a dying Messiah, and that, in whatever way his death might
occur, they associated it with the sin of the nation. In the
course of time, however, this view was found to be inconvenient ;
and the attempt was made to get rid of the difficulty by adopt-
ing the fiction of two Messiahs, the son of David and the

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XII. 10. 83

son of Joseph, to the latter of whom all the passages were ap-
plied, which appeared to speak of a dying Messiah (com-
pare the appendix on the suffering Messiah). This is the
case with the passage before us in the Babylonian Talmud,
where the question is raised again, whether the mourning relates
to the Messiah or to the sin, and the former is pronounced indis-
putably the correct opinion, on the ground that the lamentation
must have reference to the person described as pierced immedi-
ately before. (See the appendix). Among the later Rabbins, this
interpretation is adopted by A benezra and A barhanel ; the latter of
whom displays a marvellous vacillation, by giving his support
elsewhere to the explanation proposed by KimcM and Jarchi
to which we shall presently refer, although he so decidedly rejects
it here. Lastly, it is also found in the Jalkut GJiadash (fol. 24 ;
quoted by Gldsener de gemino Jud. Messia p. 57), " after Jonah
has been pierced, that is, the Messiah ben Joseph, David will
come, that is, the Messiah Ben David."

The supporters of this interpretation had now to solve the
difficult problem : how is the expression, " whom they have
pierced," to be reconciled with the words " they will look upon
me 'f Various methods were suggested, but all equally unsuccess-
ful. (1). They altered, without the least shame, the inconvenient
"b^ into I'l^.'J. The text is quoted thus, without any further
remark, in the Talmud, and also in En Israel, p. 117. And ac-
cording to a remarkable passage in Rabanus Mau7'us contra
Judceos, p. 13 (Wagenseil's Sota, p. 68), it was to be found in
his day (the 9th century) in the margin of many MSS. " Where
we, according to. the faith of the Holy Scriptures, read in the
person of God ' and they shall look upon me, whom they have
pierced ;' they (the Jews) although they dare not make any
alteration in the text of the sacred volume, from their fear of the
Divine command, have written outside as a marginal note, ' they
shall look on him, whom they have pierced.' And thus they
teach their pupils, to copy what they find in the text, but to
read what tliey find in the margin ; so that they hold, forsooth
that, in their folly, the Jews look to him, whom Gog and Magog
have pierced." In the 13th century this reading had found its
way into the text of several MSS., see Raim. Martini (p. 411
Leipzig), " Observe, that some of the Jews, being unable to

84 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

endure such forcible testimony from the Holy Scriptures, falsify
one letter in this passage, and read v!?^?, so that it may be un-
derstood as referring not to God, but to some one else." Com-
pare, on the other hand, p. 855, where the author appeals to the
ancient MSS., in all of which the reading '^^: is found. The
reading vSn is actually to be met with in 49 MSS. in Kennicott,
and 13 in i)e Rossi ; it is also contained in the original text of
many of the Kabbinical writings, though it has been to some
extent rejected from the published editions (compare De Rossi on
this passage). We need not enter into any elaborate proof of
the correctness of the reading '^jjf. Grammatically it is the
more difficult of the two ; it is opposed to the favourite opinions
of the Jews ; it is found in all the ancient MSS. , the testimony
of which is the more complete in this case, from the fact that the
translations of ^gm7a, /S'^m?7?ac7ms, and Theoclotion have been
handed down to us in a ScJwUon of the Codex Barber ; and it
is found not only in the best manuscripts, but also in by far the
largest number.' It is not so easy to decide the question, whe-
ther the reading vSn is traceable to doctrinal considerations,
that is, whether we have here an example of an attempt on the
part of the Jews to falsify the text. Wagenseil has endeavoured
to prove that we have {Hachspan de usu librr. Rabbinic, p. 295) ;
and De Rossi maintains the opposite. We are constrained to
decide in favour of the former. It is true that there are not
wanting other examples in which the Keri has attempted to
restore grammatical correctness, in cases where the first person
is followed immediately by the third. But no one has ever
ventured to bring these supposed emendations into the text.
In this instance, in the Talmud, where we first meet with
the reading i^'^n, its bearing upon the interests of the Jews
is far too obvious, as is also the case with Jalkut, where
the reading ^n is adopted, to render it possible to refer
the passage to the Messiah Ben Joseph, " to him whom they

1 Such reasons as these have but little weight, it is trne, with Ewald.
His inclinations are of much greater importance. " For ♦Sk," he says,
" read i»Sk, which is found in many MSS." The reason assigned is this,
" the first person makes the Old Testament speak nonsense, — namely that the
people would mourn for Jehovah (for no one else could be thought of), as
for one dead, who would never return again (?)." Such practices as these
should be left to the Jews ; they should never be heard of within the limits
of Christendom.

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XII. 10. 85

have pierced," a departure from the Talmud which clearly
shows, how little external ground there was for giving up the
received version. If the emendation was occasioned solely
by the grammatical irregularity, how was it that it did not
occur to any one to read ''^v instead of "^'^V ? — De Rossi appeals
to the fact, that not a single Jewish controversialist has brought
forward the reading vSn to refute the Christian interpre-
tation, as an argument against the supposition that there has
been an intentional falsification of the text. But this fact may
quite as legitimately be used, as an argument on the opposite
side. It bears testimony to a guilty conscience. If the reading
1'^'^ had been obtained by righteous means, they would never
have hesitated to appeal to it. They used it timidly and
modestly, more for their own satisfaction than as a weapon to
direct against their foes ; and when they found that, after all, it
did not succeed, that the forgery could not be introduced into
all the MSS., and that attention was already being directed to
the question, they gave up the reading altogether, and tried to
find out some less objectionable way. — (2.) They gave a different
rendering to 1^"^? riK, — viz., " they look to me (as suppliants),
because they (the heathen) have pierced him (the son of
Joseph") ; a rendering, the arbitrary character of which is so
very obvious, that we can see no reason for examining it more
minutely. — It is hardly worth while even to add, with reference
to the antiquated notion of the Messiah Ben Joseph, that it is
nothing but a foundling of modern Jews, which never met with
general acceptance, as the remark of Kimchi, in opposition to its
supposed application to the present passage, sufficiently proves,
and which the more intelligent, such as Maimonides and Menasse
Ben Israel, expressly or tacitly reject. It is of greater import-
ance to lay emphasis upon a remark, which affects not merely
this particular explanation, but the whole genus to which it
belongs. The look directed to the pierced one, the loud lamen-
tation for his death, is represented here as a consequence of the
outpouring of the spirit of grace upon Israel, a sign of its
genuine conversion, the fruits of which are described in chap,
xiii. 1 — 6. But how could the lamentation for a leader, slain by
the foe, be regarded as the result of conversion ?

(3). A still greater error was committed by those who, like

86 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

Kimchi, JarcM, and Menasse Ben Israel {Hulsius theol. Jud.
p. 513), interpreted " the pierced one," as meaning every one
who had been slain in the war with Gog and Magog : " they
will all lament for the death of one, as if the whole army had
been slain." Some of them adopt the false reading vSn, and
others give to "^W. ^'<?. the inadmissible rendering " because.'"
Kimchi, for example, explains it as equivalent to "siai??. The
last reason adduced, for rejecting the previous interpretation, tells
with considerable force against this one also. The supporters
of it are unable to defend their assumption, that there is a change
of subject in 'Vp^, of which there is not the slightest indication
in the text, and which is therefore unnatural, or to account for
the absence of the suffix. This interpretation is to be especially
accounted for, from the fear of conceding too much to the
Christians, by referring the passage to the Messiah Ben Joseph ;
a fear, for which there was all the more foundation, since it
could not but be clearly perceived, that it was useless to attempt
to prove the reality of the fictitious Messiah Ben Joseph, and
that, if the attempt was made and failed, so long as the passage
was admitted to be generally Messianic, it would be impossible
to evade the conclusion that it must refer to the Messiah Ben
David. The extent, to which this fear prevailed, is evident from
the fact that, in a Polish edition of Jarchi, the passage in
which he speaks of the explanation, which refers the passage
to the Messiah Ben Joseph, as handed down by tradition and
confirmed by the Talmud, has been omitted ; compare Steph. le
Moyne on Jeremiah xxiii. 6.

2. AMONG THE CHRISTIANS.

In the Christian Church, as we should naturally expect, the
reference to Christ has been generally maintained from time im-
memorial. It is superfluous therefore to mention the names of
those who have supported it. Even J. D. Michaelis declares
himself in its favour, although he adopts the ungrammatical
rendering, " they will look upon me, and upon him, whom they
have pierced." We shall notice only the exceptions, — namely,

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XII. 10. 87

those who reject the Messianic interpretation. But we shall he
very brief, as the refutation will be found in what has already
been written.

(1). Calvin (in his commentary on the passage and on John
xix. 37), followed to a certain extent in the footsteps of the trans-
lators of the Sephmgint and Chaldee versions, though without
in any way depending upon them. " Piercing," he says, " is
used here for continued irritation, and is as much as to say, that
the Jews with their obstinacy were equipped, as it were, for war,
that tliey might fight against God and pierce him with their
malice, or with the weapons of their rebellion. . . . The
meaning ... is this : when the Jews have provoked God
in many ways with perfect impunity, they will at length become
penitent, for they will begin to be alarmed by the judgment of
God, although before this not one of them had thought of giving
an account of his life." At the same time we must not over-
look the essential difference between Calvin and both the Jewish
and rationalistic expositors, who have adopted the same ex-
planatioa. According to Calvin the prophecy is to be under-
stood in the first place figuratively, and referred to God ; but
under the superintending providence of God it came to pass,
that it was literally fulfilled in Christ, who is associated with
God by unity of nature, that is to say, the history of Christ
formed a visible symholum of the substance of the prophecy.
That he regarded the prophecy as connected with the fulfilment
in Christ in a much more intimate manner, than in the so-called
" mystical sense" of Grotius, which, as Reuss has shown (opusc.
1, p. 74 sqq.), is something purely imaginary, is obvious from
all the rest of the exposition, in which he seems to lose sight of
the figurative meaning altogether. By the earliest expositors
this view of Calvin's was universally opposed. Lampe complains
very bitterly, that Calvin's private opinion should be charged
upon the Keformed Church, and that a reproach should thus be
cast upon it. With the exception of an unknown writer men-
tioned in Martini fde trihus Eloliim c. 112), and Smalcius the
Socinian, it did not receive support from any one but Grotius.
From him it has been copied by several of the modern commen-
tators, including Bosenmiiller, Eichhorn, Theiner, and Maurer.

(2). The reference to a Messiah Ben Joseph has so far found

88 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

supporters among modern expositors, that many of them regard
the prophecy as relating to the death of a distinguished Jewish
general or martyr. Jahn (Einl. ii. 2, p. 671) supposes that
Judas Maccabffius is intended, and renders the clause thus,
" they will look upon him (Jehovah), on account of him, whom
they have pierced." Bauer (schol. p. 310) conjectures that allu-
sion is made to some Jewish commander, who lost his life in the
Maccabean war, though it is impossible to determine which.
Bleelc speaks of " one particular human martyr, who had been
put to death a short time before, in the service of the true God.
In order to get rid of the reference to Jehovah, and therefore to
the Messiah, to which he objects on the ground that the pro-
phet could not have expected any of his immediate readers and
hearers to understand him in this sense, — overlooking the fact
that the prophecy had been preceded by chap. xi. as well as Is.
iiii.), — ^he takes upon himself to read ♦!?.!*., the poetic form of ^n,
and renders the clause " they look to him whom they have
pierced." But this is a desperate remedy. iV-i;? only occurs four
times in the whole of the Old Testament, — viz., in the book of
Job, in the highest style of poetry, and that immediately before
a noun. Moreover, ♦^k is the construct state of a noun, and
therefore cannot possibly be connected with the accusative t<».
The result arrived at by Bleek — " it is uncertain to whom the
prophet refers" — is surely purchased too dearly at such a price as
this. Again, on Bleek's hypothesis, it is impossible to explain
the announcement in vers. 10 — 14 respecting the national mourn-
ing, or the statement made in chap, xiii, 1, as to the fountain
opened for sin and for uncleanness, in consequence of their look-
ing upon him who had been pierced, or again, the reference in
vers. 2 — 6 to the sanctification resulting from the same look, not
to mention the evident allusion to the healing eifected by looking
at the brazen serpent. — Eicald's explanation is open to precisely
the same objections. For one martyr, he substitutes a plurality
of such as had fallen in the war with the heathen. His render-
ing is, " they look to him, whom men have pierced," which he
explains thus, " the intention is to show that no martyr falls in
vain, but that he will one day be mourned for with universal
love." To render this explanation possible, " a spirit of love and

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XII. 10. 89

the wisli for love" is substituted for "the spirit of grace and
supplication ;" but we have a sufficient proof that this is incor-
rect, in the passage in Joel upon which this is based, and from
which we learn, that reference is made to something entirely
different, — namely to religious regeneration. Again, Eivald is
obliged to sacrifice the accredited reading 'Sn and adopt "i'^k
in its stead. The third sacrifice that has to be made, is the
assumption of a change of subject in i"ipT, which is not only
objectionable in itself, but is also disproved by the fact, that it
severs the connection with chap. xi. , that it renders what follows
incomprehensible, since the opening of a fountain for sin and
uncleanness (chap. xiii. 1), and also the repentance (vers. 2 — 6),
show that those who look are the same as those who had formerly
pierced — (otherwise the repentance would be altogether vision-
ary),— and lastly by the fact, that there is no reference whatever
to persons who had fallen in conflict with the heathen. But if we
read vSn^ it would be presupposed that the pierced one had
already been more particularly described. We could not in this
case adopt the rendering, " they will look to one whom they have
pierced," but " to him" (definitely), especially as the relative is
preceded by ^^. Ewald introduces the plurality on his own
authority entirely ; for both here and in the parallel passages
(chap. xi. and xiii. 7) there is never more than one individual
referred to, as the object of persecution. Hofmann (Schriffcbe-
weis ii. 2, p. 562) has at length gone back again to one indivi-
dual. He now renders the passage " my heroes look at him
whom they (the heathen) have pierced." " They mourn for a
loss which they have suffered, not for a crime which they have
committed." The only peculiarity to be noticed here is the
rendering of''^N " my heroes," to which two objections maybe
offered, first, that ^*< never means hero (compare the remarks
on Is. ix. 5), and secondly, that toon is usually construed with
'^s*. But this false interpretation of *^n was compulsory ; for
if Jehovah was pierced, the author of the deed must have been
Judah, whom we have already seen in chap. xi. in fierce conflict
with the angel of the Lord. In the same manner was Hofmann
also obliged to resort to a false rendering of 'n. If the spirit of
grace must be poured out upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
before the looking takes place, they must also have been the

90 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

sole authors of the piercing. With the spirit of supplication,
again, Hofmann really does not know what to do. It is diffi-
cult to see for what they pray, if not for forgiveness of the sin
indicated by the word "iip"'. In answer to the supplications,
they receive (in chap. xiii. 1) "a fountain opened for sin and
unclean ness."

3. The merit of having discovered a new exposition belongs
to Vogel and Hitzig alone, of all the expositors, who are at the
same time neither Jewish nor Messianic. The former main-
tains, that the prophet is not speaking of the Messiah, but of
himself (on CapelU crit. sacr. i. p. 140), According to Hitzig
the passage can be "simply" explained, on the ground that
Jehovah is identified with the prophets, the sender with the
sent. " The murder of a prophet is regarded as an attack upon
the person of Jehovah himself," But Hitzig does not fail to
perceive the difficulties connected with this explanation. This
is the only passage" he says, " in the Old Testament in which a
murderous attack upon Jehovah is simply deduced from a true
idea ; but it may appear strange, that such a deduction could
be made." Jehovah slain ! and a lamentation for the dead on
his account ! Such a representation is something more than
strange, if it merely means that the prophets have been killed.
One who wi^es to introduce such startling ideas as these, ought
certainly to explain more clearly what he means. Besides in
chap. xi. to which, as even Hitzig admits, there must neces-
sarily be an allusion intended here, there is nothing about the
conflicts and sufferings of the prophet, but the Angel of the
Lord, who is associated with God by unity of essence, appears
as the good shepherd, enters upon a conflict for life or death
with the evil shepherds (ver. 8), and receives from them a dis-
graceful recompense (ver. 12). Lamentation is made here for
the guilt contracted by the inhabitants of Jerusalem, through the
events described in chap. xi. — Lastly, the comparison with
Josiah in chap. xiii. 7, of whom Hitzig, it is true, manages
to dispose, contains a still more decisive proof that it is a king
who has been slain.

How is everything been done here to get rid of the truth, and
how ineffectual have all these efforts proved ! The truth forces
its way through all such errors, and is never without a witness.

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XII. 11. 91

Ver. 11. ^^ In that day the mourning in Jerusalem will he
great, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Me-
giddo."

In this verse and the following the prophet does all he can, to
make the sorrow appear as great and as universal as possible.
The mourning of Hadadrimmon is not mourning which actually
occurred in Hadadrimmon ; but those who took part in it,
though really in Jerusalem, were in Hadadrimmon in spirit
(see 2 Chr. xxxv. 34), and, therefore, it was so far the scene of
the mourning, that the cause of it was to be found there, — it
was there that the good king Josiah was slain. The following
proofs may be adduced, that it is with tlie mourning for the death
of this king, that the lamentation for the pierced one is here com-
pared. (1). The lamentation, to which the prophet refers, must
have been one of tlie most bitter, that had ever occurred in their
previous history. Now this can be proved to have been the
lamentation for Josiah. According to 2 Chr. xxxv. 25 Jeremiah
composed a funeral dirge on the occasion of his death, and other
odes were composed and sung by male and female singers. These
odes were current in Israel as popular songs, aod continued to
be so till the chronicler's own time. They were placed in a col-
lection of elegiac odes, relating to the mournful calamities which
befel the nation, commencing with the death of Josiah, and
which speedily effected its ruin. In this we have a proof not
only of the bitterness of the lamentation, but also of the fact that
it was preserved in lively remembrance in later ages, even in the
period succeeding the captivity. — (2). The lamented one must
have been a good king ; and the campaign becomes the more
appropriate, if he was one who died in a certain sense on account
of the sins of the nation. Now both of these are fully realised
in Josiah. He is described in 2 Kings xxiii. 25 sqq. as the best
of all the kings of Judah. Yet this did not suffice, to turn the
Lord from his purposes of destruction. He died a victim, not so
much to his own imprudence, in going to war with the
powerful king of the Egyptians, as to the sin of his nation.
If this had not called down the vengeance of God, He would
either have preserved him from the imprudence itself, or
have averted its consequences. — (3). The comparison requires,
that the slain one should have been a king of Judah, and that

92 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

the lamentation should have been in Jerusalem. The words
"at Jerusalem" are evidently to be understood in the second
clause as well as the first : " The mourning will be great in
Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon was." We find
both of these in the case of Josiah. The king was brought to
Jerusalem mortally wounded, and immediately after his arrival
there, the last spark of life was extinguished, and the lamen-
tation commenced for him, the beloved one, with whom the
throne of Judah appeared to have been carried to the grave
(compare 2 Chr. xxsv. 22).^ — (4). The places exactly coincide.
We find in the Chronicles word for word the same expression
as here, Josiah was pierced through " 'i'^'.?'? ''^yi???." The only
difference is, that in the passage before us the very spot is men-
tioned, in which Josiah received his fatal wound. ^ Jerome bears
express testimony to the fact, that Hadadrimmon was situated
in the valley of Megiddo or Jezreel.^ Rimmon also occurs as the
name of a city in chap. xiv. 10 ; and we frequently meet with it
as the name of a place with some other word prefixed, e.g., Ain
Rimmon (compare Simmonis onom. p. 347).

However, notwithstanding the cogency of these reasons, there
have not been wanting some who dispute the reference to
Josiah, or connect some other with it. The latter is the case
in the Chaldee version, where the passage is paraphrased thus :
" as the mourning for Ahab, the son of Omri, whom Hadad-
rimmon the son of Tadrimmon, slew at Ramath in Gilead,
and as the mourning of Josiah, the son of Amon, whom
Pharaoh Necho slew in the valley of Megiddo." Hadadrimmon
is here regarded as the name of the Syrian king, who slew
Ahab, derived, according to a custom which undoubtedly pre-

1 The apparent contradiction between this passage and the account given
in the Book of Kings, in which Josiah is said to have died at Megiddo, is
sufficiently explained from the attempt at conciseness on the part of the latter
author, whose general design leads him throughout to show less precision,
with regard to external circumstances, than the writer of the Chronicles.
He does not stop to mention, that there was still a feeble spark of life remain-
ing in the king ; but speaks of Megiddo as the scene of his death, because he
was mortally wounded and nearly died there.

2 Grotius : " Sicut ilia Darii ad Arbella, ab Arbellitide regione, et ad
Gaugamela ex oppido aut vico propinquo."

3 " Hadadrimmon urbs est juxta Jezreelem, hoc olim vocabulo nuncupata,
et hodie vocatur Maximianopolis in campo Mageddon, in quo Josias rex
Justus a Pharaone cognomento Necho vulneratus est."

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XII. 11. 93

vailed among the Syrians and Babylonians, from Bimmon, the
name of an idol. The mourning of Hadadrimmon is under-
stood to mean the mourning caused by Hadadrimmon. But
if this be correct, it must be all that is intended ; for it is im-
possible to see how any second allusion can be reconciled with
the words of the text, if Hadad-rimmon is to be taken as a pro-
per name. It really looks as if the Chaldee translator placed
both in the text, merely because he was undecided which of the
two he ought to choose, and not because he regarded them as
equally admissible. But no proof can be needed, that the passage
does not relate exclusively to Ahab. Of all the tests which we
have mentioned, there is only one that applied to him, viz., his
death in the valley of Megiddo. Any general and bitter lamen-
tation for this wicked king of the rebellious Israelites cannot for
a moment be thought of. He was so universally hated, that no
one would wash his polluted blood from the chariot, and they
were obliged to engage the services of disreputable persons for
this dishonourable employment. — We shall pass over other opi-
nions of a still more trivial character, and merely mention, in
addition, the explanation proposed by Hitzig. He has set up
two different hypotheses. In the Studlen unci Kritiken 1830,
1, p. 29, he'maintains that the allusion here made is to the death
of the wicked Ahaziah (2 Kings ix. 27), an allusion which even
Melancthon defended in conjunction with that to the death of
Josiah, (" the comparison is taken from the death of the two
kings, Ahaziah and Josiah, both of whom were slain near Me-
giddo"). On the other hand, in his commentary, Hitzig says
that Hadadrimmon is the Syriac name for Adonis : " very strik-
ingly (!)," he says, " is the sorrow for their Grod Jehovah com-
pared to the lamentation for the god Adonis." Both hypotheses
are intended to " neutralise" the reference to Josiah, in favour of
a preconceived opinion respecting the period, when the second
part was composed. Both of them, but especially the latter,
show the utter absence of any sense of sacred propriety. In
chap. viii. 14 Ezekiel refers to the mourning for Adonis as an
idolatrous abomination. The arguments brought forward to
prove that Hadadrimmon was a name of Adonis, who is
mentioned in the Scriptures under a different name, fall com-
pletely to the ground (compare Ezek. viii. 14, &c.) — In conclu-

94 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

sion we simply call attention to the decisive manner, in whicli
this verse disproves the supposition that the previous verse refers
to the supreme Deity, and establishes the reference to the Mes-
siah. How perfectly absurd it would be to compare the mourn-
ing for the supreme Deity, to whom offence had been given, with
the lamentation for King Josiah, who was slain ! Yet how
appropriate a type of the Messiah we have here ! He was slain
on account of the sins of his people ; his reign was the closing
manifestation of mercy on the part of the Lord ; unspeakable
misery followed immediately afterwards : the lamentation for his
death rested upon the mingled feelings of love, and of sorrow for
their own sins, which had brought him to death.

Vers. 12 — 14. The reason why the prophet gives so elaborate
a description of the mourning for the pierced one is twofold. His
first design is to represent the mourning of the Israelites as true
and not merely ceremonial, and their conversion as complete,
and deeply rooted in the heart. He affects this by continuing
the figurative style with which he commenced, and describing
every family as mourning apart, and in every family the men
apart, and the women apart. This is intended to show that every
family, and every sub-division of every family, would mourn as
if the loss were peculiar to themselves. His second design is to
state, as emphatically as possible, that the mourning pervades
the whole nation, that the conversion does not merely embrace a
few of the " poorest of the flock, who followed the good shep-
herd," as was the case when Christ appeared in his humiliation
(chap. xi. 11), but that it is a truly national affair. To effect this,
he first of all mentions two of the leading lines ; then, to show
that the change will thoroughly pervade the whole, from one end
to the other, he connects with these two of their principal fami-
lies ; and finally, to give expression to the idea that the whole
nation is affected, he adds to these " all the rest of the families."
Thus, like Paul in Rom. xi. 26, he represents all Israel as saved,
a work which commenced with the crucifixion, has been going
on through every age of the Church, and will be fully completed
in the last times.

Ver. 12. " And the land mourns, family by family apart, the
family of the house of David apart, and their ivives apart, the
family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart."

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XII. 12 14. 95

Ver. 13. " The family of the house of Levi apart, and tlieir
wives apart, the family of the Shimeite apart, and their tvives
apart."

Ver. 14. ^' All the rest of the families, families by families
apart, and their ivives apart."

Commentators differ in their opinions as to the specification
which is here given by the prophet of the various families,
which take part in the lamentation for the ]\Iessiah. At first
sight there is something plausible in the exj^lanation given by
Jerome : "in David we have the royal tribe, i.e., Judah ; in
Nathan the prophetic order ; in Levi the priests, for the priest-
hood sprang from him ; in Shimei the teachers, for the different
orders of magistrates sprang from this tribe. The prophet does
not mention the other tribes, which were not possessed of any
peculiar privileges." But on closer examination, his opinion is
found to be quite untenable. The principal objection is that
the family of the Shimeite cannot possibly mean the tribe of
Simeon. In the first place, the patronymic of Simeon is not
'Vipttr, but Shimeoni (Josh. xxi. 4 ; 1 Chr. xxvii. 16), in addi-
tion to which we find only the periphrastic expression 'p.?
^Syptt^ ; and secondly, if no tribes are mentioned here but those
which possessed some peculiar privilege, the tribe of Simeon is
quite out of. place. So far was this tribe from having any
peculiar privilege, that it did not even receive a separate pro-
vince like all the rest of the tribes, with the exception of that of
Levi, which was richly compensated for the want of it by a pre-
rogative of a different kind.

That the " different orders of magistrates" were chosen from
this tribe is a Jewish fiction, whose origin may be traced with-
out any difficulty. The Jerusalem Targum paraphrases Gen.
xlix. 7 thus : "I will divide the tribe of Simeon, that teachers
of the law may be placed in the assembly of Jacob, and I will
scatter the tribe of Levi" (for other Jewish quotations see
Heidegger hist, patriarch, ii. p. 484). In this passage, from
Jacob's blessing, we have the origin of the fable. The Rabbins,
overlooking the fact that it was a sufficient blessing for a tribe
to belong to the people of God and not to be cut off from the
nation, and reading in Gen. xlix. 28, "Jacob blessed them"

96 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

came to the conclusion that a pecuhar blessing must necessarily
be awarded to every tribe in Jacob's address. But the announce-
ment made to Simeon did not appear to contain any such bless-
ing. They did not allow this, however, to disconcert them ;
especially as the apparent curse on Levi, contained in the same
verse, had been changed into a blessing. With regard to the
special purport of the blessing on Simeon, they thought that it
must be somewhat analogous to that on Levi, since the same
announcement of dispersion in Jacob was made to both of them.
Hence they shared the vocation of teacher between the two
tribes of Levi and Simeon. The later Jews placed the tribe of
Simeon in a subordinate position. JarcM, for example, was of
opinion that none but clerks and schoolmasters were chosen
from this tribe. We need hardly say that there is nothing
whatever in history, to indicate that this vocation was ever
allotted to the Simeonites.

The key to a correct explanation may be easily obtained, if
we determine the precise position of the family of the Shimeite.
We can do this with certainty from Num. iii. 17 sqq. Levi
had three sons, Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. Gershon had
two sons, Libni and Shimei. In ver. 21 the family of the latter
is called ♦v??''! '^'Tis'f'?, the family of the Shimeite, just as in
the passage before us. It is evident, therefore, that one parti-
cular family of the tribe of Levi, and that a subordinate one,
is mentioned in connection with the whole tribe. If this be cor-
rect, then, it may be regarded as certain that by the family of
Nathan we are not to understand the descendants of the pro-
phet, who lived in the time of David ; still less, the prophetic
order ; for the prophets did not spring from Nathan, and therefore
could not be represented as his family. The family of Nathan
must be a branch of that of David, just as the family of Shimei
was a branch of that of Levi. It may be taken for granted, then,
that the prophet alludes to the family of Nathan, a son of David,
who is mentioned in 2 Sam. v. 14, and Luke iii. 31, and that he
introduces the name of Nathan, for the same reason as that of
Shimei, because he was merely the head of a subordinate branch
of the family. We have thus the two leading families in the
early theocracy, the royal and the priestly ; and with these there
are associated two minor subdivisions, to show that the conver-

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XIII. 1. 97

sion would entirely pervade every family from the highest to the
lowest of its members. The prominent position taken by women
in the gospel history, from the daughters of Jerusalem in Luke
xxiii. 27 sqq. to the weeping ]\Iary in John xx. 16, answers to
the peculiar emphasis laid upon the women here.

Chap. xiii. 1. " At that time there loill he a fountain opened
to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for
sin and for uncleanness."

The penitential grief of Israel will not be in vain. In fact, it
cannot be so ; for it has been produced by the Lord himself,
who has poured out the spirit of supplication upon his people.
(Chap. xii. 10). A fountain is shut up, as long as it is hidden
in the rock, and opened when it breaks forth ; see Is. xli. 18, &c.,
XXXV. 6. That " the house of David and the inhabitants of
Jerusalem " are to be understood as denoting the whole nation,
is evident from chap. xii. 12, where the land is referred to. In
the expression, " for sin and for uncleanness," there is an allu-
sion to Num. xix. 9 sqq. where we find the following passage,
with reference to the holy water, which contained the ashes of
the red heifer, that had been offered as a sin-offering, " and it;
shall be kept for the congregation of Israel for waters of unclean-
ness, ('■''iJ), it is a sin-offering. ... He that toucheth a
corpse, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the
Lord : and that soul shall be cut of from Israel, because the
water of Niddah was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be un-
clean, his uncleannsss is yet upon him." Even under the Old
Testament, Levitical uncleanness was regarded as a type of sin,
and the outward purification as a symbol of the inward (see Ps.
li. 19, and the remarks on Is. lii. 14 in vol. ii. p. 268). The
water in this case must be healing water, if it is founded upon
the atoning blood. The communication of forgiveness rests
upon the atonement ; compare 1 John v. 6, " this is he that
came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ, not by water only,
but by water and blood." The legal symbol leads to the same
conclusion. The sprinkling, prescribed in Num. xix., could only
be performed with water containing the ashes of the red heifer,
which had been sacrificed as a sin offering. A comparison of
the passage in Isaiah, upon which this is based (Is. lii. 13 sqq.),
leads to the same conclusion. Christ is there represented as the

VOL. IV. G

98 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

sacrifice for sins, and according to ver. 14, the sprinkling of
many nations is rendered possible by his atoning death. This is
also indicated in chap, xii. 10, where the saving look at the
pierced one is referred to. As we have an allusion in the passage
before us to Num. xix., so have we, in the verse just mentioned,
to Num. xxi. 9, " and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten
any man, he looked at the brazen serpent and lived." Micliaelis,
therefore, is quite correct in saying, " Christ himself has been
opened as a fountain." The blood, which forms the back-ground
of the water, has in fact been mentioned with sufficient distinct-
ness in the context : — viz., in the expression, " they pierced," and
the funereal lamentation in chap. xii. 10. Hence we have an
intimation here of the fact, which is expressly stated in 1 John
i. 7, " the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin." That
the fountain for sin and uncle anness was opened to the inhabi-
tants of Jerusalem immediately after the death of Christ, is evi-
dent from Acts iii. 19, where Peter says to the Jews : " repent
ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted
out," and from Acts v. 30, where Peter and the apostles say
in the presence of the Sanhedrim, " the God of our fathers
raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, and hanged on a tree. Him
hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a
Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel (chap. xii. 10) and for-
giveness of sins."

The consequence of the forgiveness of sins is a new life in
righteousness and holiness, a/emoval, under the help of the Lord,
of every thing opposed to his will,

Ver. 2. ''And it shall come to pass in that day, saith Jehovah
of hosts, that I cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and
they shall no more he remembered ; and also I cause the pro-
'phets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land."

In order to express the idea of the removal of every form of
ungodliness from the forgiven people, the prophet selects two
specific examples, idolatry and false prophecy, which had been
most rife in the earlier times, particularly in the days of Jeremiah,
in whose prophecies Zechariah " lived and moved." We can
draw no conclusion from this, as to its prevalence in the pro-
phet's own times, or in the future which he describes. The
peculiar manifestation is merely an accident ; the essence is un-

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XIII. 1. 99

godliness, which is always the same, whether it assume the form
of idolatry, of false prophecy, or of pharisaism. Such an assump-
tion need cause the less difficulty here, on account of the many
striking examples we have already had, of descriptions of the
future under the forms of the past or the present, which may
differ in appearance but are essentially the same. The expres-
sions " to cut off the names," and " that they be no more remem-
bered," denote the most complete extermination ; compare Hosea
ii. 19. With regard to the latter Calvin has well observed, " his
meaning is, that the hatred of superstition will be so great, that
the people will shudder even at the very name." — That we have
no ground for inferring, as EicliJiorn, Rilckert, and others have
done, that we have here an announcement of the cessation of the
gifts of prophecy, but that it is rather the removal of false pro-
phets which is here predicted, is evident from the fact that the
prophets are classed with idols on the one hand, and with an
unclean spirit on the other ; from the expression, " I will cause
to pass out of the land," which indicates a forcible extermination
of something bad in itself, and a pollution to the land ; and from
the further expansion given afterwards, where two different kinds
oi false prophets are mentioned, — namely those who speak in the
name of the Lord, and those who combine false prophecy with
idolatry. The unclean spirit presents a contrast to the spirit of
grace, spoken of in chap. xii. 10 as afterwards to be poured out,
on the one hand, and to the fountain opened for the cleansing
away of uncleanness, on the other. The special allusion to ido-
latry and false prophecy, particularly the latter, is evident from
the connection. From the fact that a spirit of uncleanness is
referred to, it follows that the false prophets, as well as the true,
and possibly the worshippers of idols, as well as those of the true
God, were under the dominion of a principle external to them-
selves, to whose power they had given themselves up by an act
of free will. This is also apparent from 1 Kings xxii., where in
accordance witli the character of the vision, the spirit of prophecy
is introduced in a personal form, and offers to deceive Ahab, by
putting false prophecies into the mouths of the prophets of the
calves. It follows from this, that the false prophets, as well as
the true, were subject to an influence from without, — a doctrine,
which is confirmed by the New Testament view of the kingdom

100 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

of darkness and kingdom of light, as being both equally in pos-
session of the minds of those who belong to them (compare, for
example, the parable of the tares). In Luke xi. 25 the " unclean
spirit " (an expression taken from this passage) is a power exist-
ing apart from the individual, and is contrasted with the Holy
Spirit (ver. 13). The same remark applies to the three unclean
spirits in Eev. xvi. 13.^

Ver. 3. '^ And it cometh to pass, if any still further prophe-
sieth, his father and mother, that begat him, say to him. Thou
shall not live, for thou hast spoken lies in the name of the Lord.
And his father and mother, that begat him, pierce him through,
when he prophesieth."

The prophet has here expressed in his own pictorial style the
thought, that, in that day, love to God will be manifested with
unbounded energy. If the pictorial character of the verse be
overlooked, difficulties of various kinds immediately arise ; though
any one may see at once that they do not really exist. In Deut.
xiii. 6 — 10, which form the basis of the prophet's drapery, a
judicial procedure is alluded to, and the nearest relations merely
commence the execution, "^pj?, in the passage before us, is
supposed by many commentators to mean simply corporeal pun-
ishment and not a mortal wound. But the opposite of this is
evident, both from the words " thou shalt not live," this being
merely the execution of the sentence, and also from those pas-
sages in the law, which the prophet had in his mind. In the
latter it is not punishment in general, but capital punishment,
that is commanded. Compare Deut. xviii. 20, "but the pro-
phet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which
I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the
name of strange gods, even that prophet shall die ;" see also
chap. xiii. 6 — 11, and Blichaelis Mosaisches Recht. v. §. 252.
The severest punishment also is best suited to express the

1 In numerous passages of the Sohar the fulfilment of this prediction is
assigned to the Messianic times. We quote a few of these. " Sin will not
cease from the world till the king Messiah comes, as the Scriptures say, ' I
will cause the unclean spirit,' &c." — " The left side will have the upper hand,
and the unclean will be strong, till the holy God shall build the temple and
establish the world. Then will his word meet with due honour, and the un-
clean side will pass away from the earth. And this is what the Scripture
saith, ' I will cause the unclean,' &c." (compare these passages in Schottgen,
Jesvs der wahre Messias, p. 407 scjq.)

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XIII. 4. 101

thoiigiit intended by the prophet. The cause, which has led
to this conclusion, has been the erroneous assumption, that the
false prophet mentioned here must be one of those, whose actions
are described in the following verse. There is an allusion in ipT
to chap. xii. 10, where the same verb is emploj^ed. (Compare the
remarks on that passage). — In the laws of Moses respecting the
false prophets, two classes are mentioned, those who utter false
prophecies in the name or by the authority of the true God, pre-
tending to be His servants and messengei-s, and those who pro-
phesy in the name of strange gods, and derive their inspiration
from them. In the verse before us the prophet introduces one of
the former ; in vers. 5 and 6 one of the latter.

Ver. 4. " And it cometh to pass in that day, the prophets
loill desist^ loith shame, from their vision in their prophesying ,
and tliey loill no more put on the hairy mantle to lie."

Upon the prophets themselves, — the deceivers, who are least
open to good impressions, — the great revolution will have such
an influence, that they will give up their occupation with
shame. The hairy garment was the dress of the true prophets,
and was imitated by the false ones, to impose upon the common
people, in whose estimation the dress makes the man (compare
Is, XX. 2 ; 2 Kings i. 8 ; Eev. xi. 3). According to the general
idea the prophets wore this kind of clothing as ascetics ; and
Vitringa (on Isaiah) has very strenuously defended this view.
But as the hairy garment is on other occasions always peculiar
to mourners, as the prophets themselves not infrequently order
it to be worn as a sign of sorrow for sin and for the judgments
of God, which are either threatened or have already fallen, it is
a more natural conclusion, that in their own case also it had the
same meaning, that it was a sermo prophcticus realis, a symbol
of the prophet's grief for the sins of his nation, and the conse-
quent judgments of God ; and this supposition is confirmed by
the fact, that we have no indication that any of the prophets of
the Old Testament led a strictly ascetic life. The expression
" to lie" may either mean that they dressed in this way to give
themselves out as true prophets and the better to impose upon
the people, or that they did it to gain credence to their lying
prophecies. The former is the more probable on account of the
following verse, where the false prophets, who have hitherto pre-

102 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

tended to be true, are described as candidly confessing that they
are no prophets at all. Strange to say, it has been maintained
by Eivald and even by Schmieder, that the prophet foretels the
overthrow of the whole existing order of prophets, and that, in
fact, the words of vers. 2 — 4 betray the author's opinion, that the
prophets, as a whole, were false. (Hitzig). This is just as
rash as the conclusion, to which some have come, that the rejec-
tion of sacrifice is announced in Is. i. and Ixvi. In every one of
the three verses we have a distinct sign, which serves to mark
the prophet as a false one ; in ver. 2 the association of the unclean
spirit along with the notice of the prophet ; in ver. 3 his speak-
ing lies ; and in ver. 4 his deceiving. If the prophet had dis-
puted the claims of the prophets, he would by so doing have
denied his own existence. It is evident, however, from chap,
vii. 3, 7, and 12, that he held the true prophets in very great
esteem. This is also apparent from the fact that his announce-
ments universally rest upon the predictions of the earlier prophets.
A future revival of prophecy is expressly predicted by Malachi,
the last of the old line, in chap. iii. 1.

Ver. 5. ^^ And he saifh, I am no propJiet, I am a Jiushand-
man. For a man has sold Tnefrom my youth."

The false prophets were, for the most part, of humble rank.
The leading motives, by which they were actuated, were idle-
ness, which made them dislike to work for their living, and
ambition, which led them to push themselves into the more
respectable order of teachers of the people. This is evident
from many passages ; among others from Is. ix. 13, 14, "where
the honourable man is described as the head of the nation, the
false prophet, on the contrary, as the tail, the representative of
the common people. — At the time referred to, however, better
principles will so thoroughly have gained the upper hand, that
they will prefer to pass for what they are, even though they may
be nothing more than common husbandmen, rather than for
what they once wished to be considered. The prophet depicts
a scene between a man, who has formerly been a false prophet,
and some one who asks him what he is. At first he is ashamed to
answer, and tries to hide the fact that he has been a false pro-
phet ; but a second question forces from him the humiliating
acknowledgment (ver. 6). This dramatic character of the whole

ZECHARIAH, CHAP, XIII. 6. 103

account is a suJB6.cient explanation of the double use of "^i^ni
(in this verse and ver. 6), without any further or more precise
description of the persons speaking. In a drama the persons are
known from their speeches and actions. — *JJi?!? has been rendered
in very different ways. But this would never have been the
case, if the translators had kept to the ordinary sense of the
Hiphil. njj3 means to acquire, possess: Hipliil, to cause to
acquire or possess, then, to give anytlmig into a person's pos-
session. The words "from my youth" are intended to avert
the suspicion, that the husbandman of to-day was formerly a
prophet. If he were not an independent farmer, but a farm-
labourer in another man's service, he would apparently have been
prevented by outward circumstances from ever acting as a pro-
phet, however much he might have desired it. Undoubtedly, if he
wanted entirely to escape suspicion, he might have adopted some
better method, than beginning with the declaration, " I am no
prophet," But his fear, lest he should be discovered, so com-
pletely overcame him, that he spoke without reflection, and by
his very denial put the inquirer upon the true scent.

Ver, 6, "And that man saith to him: what are the wounda
then between thy hands ^ He saith : they have been inflicted
upon me in the house of my lovers."

In the opinion of many commentators the late false prophet
still continues his lying. Others suppose, that he confesses his
shame, and states that the wounds have certainly been inflicted
upon him by his parents on account of his prophesying, and as
he now sees from true aflection. The latter is Jeromes ex-
planation. But neither of these interpretations can be sustained.
In both of them D*?q?<P is taken in a good sense, whereas,
from the nature of the Piel as an intensive form, it is always
used to denote impure and sinful love, either carnal or spiritual,
and especially that of idols. It occurs in this sense not less
than fourteen times ; first of all in Hosea ; then in Jeremiah
and Ezekiel ; and these are the only books in which it is found.
It is evident that it must have the same meaning here. To
the objection adduced by Hitzig, " one single man could not
call the idols his lovers," we reply, that there is nothing more
objectionable in this, than in the fact that Isaiah calls the Lord

104 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

his beloved or bridegroom in chap. v. 1, or that Solomon should
be called Jedediah (compare my commentary on Solomon's
Song). To the fmi:her objection that " the prophets are repre-
sented in the previous verse, as prophesying in the name of
Jehovah, although they prophesy falsely, and not as idolaters, " it
is a sufficient reply, that the first kind are noticed there, the
second here. Moreover, in the period which Zechariah had
more particularly in his mind, the line of demarcation between
the two was not clearly defined. Hence we subscribe to the
opinions of those, who believe that reference is made here to the
wounds commonly inflicted in connection with idolatrous worship.^
We shall content ourselves at present with proving, that this
custom also prevailed in connection "vvith the forms of idolatrous
worship, which existed among the Hebrews. The strongest
proof is afforded by 1 Kings xviii. 28, where the priests and
prophets of Baal are said to have " cried aloud, and cut them-
selves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood
gushed out upon them." But a proof may also be found in Jer.
xvi. 6 and xli. 5 ; from which we learn, that the heathen custom,
which prevailed among the surrounding nations, particularly
the Philistines and Moabites, of inflicting wounds upon them-
selves when any death had occurred or any great calamity had
befallen the land (see chap, xlvii. 5 and xlviii. 37), had been
adopted by the Hebrews. This custom was not a mere sign of
grief, but was intimately related to idolatrous worship and the
wounds inflicted in connection with that worship. This is
obvious from Deut. xiv. 1 , The Israelites are there forbidden
to wound themselves on occasions of mourning, on the express
ground that they are the nation of God, M^hich is not to be de-
filed by idolatrous practices. The connection becomes still more
apparent, when we look more closely into the origin and mean-
ing of the custom of wounding as one of the rites of idolatry.
We find the best explanation of this in a passage of Apuleius ;

1 The principal passages, quoted as evidence 'of this custom, which was
continued in the East even till modem times, are to be found in both the
earlier and later commentaries on 1 Kings xviii. 28, and in Bosenmiilhr's A.
and N. Morgenland iii. p. 189 sqq.

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XIII. 6. 105

" Infit vaticinatione clamosa, conficto mendacio, semet ipsum
incessere atque criminari, quasi contra fas sanctfe religionis
designasset aliquid, et iusuper justas pcenas noxii facinoris ipse
suis manibus exposcere. Arrepto denique fiagro, quod semiviris
illis propriura gestamen est, . . . indidem sese multituodis
commulcat ictibus, mira contra plagarum dolores prcesumtione
munitus. Cerneres prosectu gladiorura ictuque flagrorum solum
spurcitie sanguinis effeminati madescere." According to this
passage, and another which Calmet has quoted from Clemens
Alexandrinus, the custom of inflicting wounds originated in a
vague consciousness of guilt and of the necessity for expiation,
which manifested itself in such various ways in the ceremonies
of idolatrous worship. The worshippers punished their own
bodies without mercy, that they might thereby render a species
of satisfaction, and secure the favour of the otfended deities.
Now this consciousness of guilt was excited in a peculiar manner
by the death of friends, not merely because their loss was
regarded as a punishment, but also because death in general,
which comes so near to us in the death of those we love, affects
even the rudest minds in such a manner as to excite a suspicion
of what it really is, — namely, the wages of the sin of the human
race. And this is also the case with public calamities, inasmuch
as they are commonly regarded as judgments from an angry
God, or from angry gods. But we are not left without proofs,
that this custom of wounding was intimately associated with the
rites performed by idolatrous prophets. We find it expressly
mentioned in this connection, in the passage quoted from the
Books of Kings (compare ver. 29), whilst the whole narrative
furnishes evidence of the intimate association between idolatry
and false prophecy. The priests of Baal were also his prophets.
There is a very remarkable passage, however, in Tihidlus (1.
1, eleg. 1, ver. 43 sqq.), relating to the worship of Cybele :

Ipsa bipenne suos caedit violenta lacertos,
Sanguineque effuso spargit inepta deum^
Atque latus priBfixa veru stat saucia pectus, ,
Et canit eventus, quos dea magna movet.

This close connection may be traced to the consciousness that

106 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

satisfaction must first be rendered to the Deity for sin, before
any man can be worthy to receive him into himself, and engage
in his service. The doubt which has been raised, whether riSsn
could be applied to these wounds and the scars that they
caused, is not deserving of any consideration. Apuleius renders
it by ^?agrce, which exactly corresponds. Seneca, as quoted by
Augustine (de civ. dei 6. 10), says, " se ipsi in templis con-
trucidant, vulnerihus suis ac sanguine supplicant." A plausible
objection might be founded upon the expression, " I have been
wounded ;" for in nearly all the accounts which we possess,
relating to this custom, self-inflicted wounds alone are men-
tioned. But it is evident, at least from the statements of
modern travellers (see Olearius p. 332), that there are cases
in which the worshippers inflict wounds upon one another ; and
the assertion, " I have been wounded," does not preclude the
infliction of wounds upon one's self. The late prophet may have
intentionally selected the passive, because he was only the in-
strument, the real authors were the lovers. The probability of
this last assumption is increased by the selection of the word
D'anKo, to denote the idols, a choice which can hardly have
been accidental. The expression " my lovers" is evidently em-
ployed on account of the contrast which it presents to the an-
nouncement, " I have been wounded." The folly of this species
of idolatrous worship is described by Seneca (ut supra) in much
the same manner: " ut sic dii placentur, quemadmodum ne
homines quidem sa^viunt teterrimi et in fabulas traditaj crude-
litatis. Tyranni laceraverunt aliquorum membra, neiiiinem
sua lacerare jusserunt. In regias libidinis voluptatem castrati
sunt quidam ; sed nemo sibi, ne vir esset, jubente domino, manus
intulit." The connection between this verse and the preceding
one is as follows. The late prophet, when asked about his
circumstances, tries first of all to avert suspicion that he has
ever left his humble occupation. But when the interrogator
calls his attention to the suspicious scars upon his body, he
acknowledges with the deepest shame his former folly, and shows
that he regards it in this light, by the manner in which his con-
fession is made. " Between thy hands" may be most simply
explained as meaning on the hands themselves and round about
them. ^^ Between" is employed instead of ^^ on" to show that

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XIII. 7. 107

we are not to imagine that the wounds were confined to the
hands ; it merely describes the situation in general terms, show-
ing, however, that they were chiefly about the hands, and also
that we are not to think at all of such remote parts as the head
and shoulders. The reason why the hands are singled out, is
not that they were uncovered, and that the wounds were more
readily seen on that account. It is evident from the expression,
" on all hands there are cuttings," which occurs in Jer. xlviii. 37,
in connection with the description of the mourning of the Moab-
ites, that it was a common custom to wound the hands. In the
passages relating to this subject in both classical authors and
the Fathers, the greatest stress is generally laid upon the
arms, which are certainly included here. Seneca, for example,
says, " lacertos secat," and Ajncleius, " sua quisque brachia dis-
secant."

CHAPTEK XIII. T-9.

The Lord's shepherd, who is closely connected with the Lord
himself, is to be taken away from his flock, the covenant nation,
by a violent death. The flock, deprived of its shepherd, will
then be exposed to sufferings of every kind and eventually
scattered. But the Lord will not withdraw his hand from it for
ever. Two-thirds, indeed, must perish. But to the last third,
after it has passed through the purifying fire of afiliction, the
mercy of God will be gloriously displayed.

This prophecy forms a brief repetition, and at the same time
an explanation of that contained in chap. xi. and xii. 1 — xiii. 6.

Ver. 7. " Aivake, 0 sivord, upon my shepherd and upon a
man, my felloiu, saitli the Lord ofSahaoth ; smite the shepherd
and the flock is scattered, and I bring hack my hand over the
little ones."

There can be no doubt, that by the Lord's shepherd mentioned
here we are to understand the same shepherd, who is represented
as associated with him by a mysterious unity of nature ; who is

108 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PKOPHETS.

described in chap. xi. as undertaking the office of shepherd over
the miserable nation and making a last attempt to preserve it ;
whose fidelity in his office is rewarded by it with such base
ingratitude •/ and who is eventually put to death (chap. xii. 10).
The rejection of this shepherd is represented in chap. xi. as fol-
lowed by precisely the same consequences, as his death in the
verses before us, — namely, the destruction of the greater portion
of the nation (compare ver. 8 with chap. xi. 6, 9, 15 — 17) ; and
even in chap. xii. 10 his death is indirectly referred to, as the
cause of all the sufferings which befal the nation. This is amply
sufficient to demonstrate the fallacy of every exposition, which
seeks for any other shepherd than the Messiah ; whether " the
ideal Pseudo-Messiah, Ben Joseph," as most of the Jewish com-
mentators suppose f or " some hostile general," who is called the
Lord's shepherd ironically, as Jarchi imagines ; or " the foolish
shepherd" spoken of in chap. xi. 15 — 17, as Grotius maintains
in his commentary on Matt. xxvi. 31 ; or " Judas Maccabeus,"
as not only J aim but Grotius also affirms in his commentary on
this passage (for, as is generally the case where mere conjectures
are indulged in, he is not consistent with himself) ; or " an
ideal general, who is to fall in conflict with the foe, as Koster,
Bertholdt, and Eichhorn say ; or " a native monarch, who is to
be punished for his sins," which is the notion entertained by
Hitzig and Bleek, and which Maurer and Ewald have carried
out still further by fixing upon the individual intended, — the
former fancying Jehoiakim, the latter the wicked Pekah ; or
lastly, " the whole body of rulers, spiritual and temporal, includ-
ing Christ," which is the interpretation given by Calvin and
Drusius. — All these explanations are at variance, not only with
the authority of Christ, but also, and most decidedly, with the

1 Hitzig observes : " as the flock which is to be scattered is evidently the
nation, the shepherd cannot be the prophet, but the king, and of this we
have a proof in the use of the singular." But in his commentary on chap,
si. 4 sqq., Hitzig still maintains, even in the second edition, that the prophet
is intended. And yet it is evidently to the Lord's shepherd, spoken of here,
that the commission, " feed the flock of slaughter," was addressed, in chap,
xi. 4.

2 Vid. Jos. de Voisin, obserw. in prooem. pug. fid. p. 160. Hidsius,
theol. Jud. p. 54. Eisner, praes. Wessel, de Messia gladio judicis, non bello
percutiendo. Leiden 1741.

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XIII. 7. 109

expression which immediately follows " upon a man my fellow."
It is true, this would not be the case, if n^cy could be applied
to an associate of any description, as many have asserted. The
shepherd is said to be called the associate of the Lord, because
He is also the shepherd of his people. But this assertion cannot
be sustained, r.'i:^ is one of those words, which are peculiar
to the Pentateuch, having subsequently become entirely obsolete.
It is used eleven times in the Pentateuch, and is not met with
anywhere else. From this it is obvious, that Zechariah did not
take it from the living language of his own day, but, like ni''5?
in chap. xii. 5, from the Pentateuch, and therefore, that we must
adhere strictly to the meaning which we find it bearing there.
It occurs in the laws relating to injuries done to near relations,
and is always used with peculiar emphasis, to show how great
a crime it is to injure one, who is related both bodily and
spiritually by a common descent.- It is used interchangeably
as being equivalent to brother ; a word which is invariably
employed in the laws of Moses with reference to a common
physical and spiritual descent. We will quote the eleven pas-
sages in which it occurs. Lev. xix. 11, "ye shall not lie or
defraud iri'Dy.5 u^'n" (compare Eph. iv. 25). Ver. 15, "thou
shalt judge '^T}'''ot righteously." Ver. 17, "thou shalt not hate
thy brother in thy heart ; thou shalt rebuke ^D'ov.." Lev. xviii.
20, " thou shalt not lie with Tiip*oy r^m" Lev. xxiv. 19, " if
a man inflict a bodily injury "ii^'i?]??, as he hath done so shall
it be done to him." Lev. xxv. 15, " if thou buyest anything of
-|n»cj?j or sellest anything "(ri'cvS, ye shall not injure any
one his brother." And so again in vers. 16 and 17, " and ye
shall not injure any one in'tty^ and thou shalt fear thy God."
Lev. vi. 2, " If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the
Lord, and lie unto iri'cy in anything intrusted to him (re-
pudiate a trust) — or oppress in^cy."! It is obvious that in

1 The reason why n*cj; is only found in Leviticus, and not in Exodus
also, is sufficiently explained on the supposition that it was used inter-
changeably, after the almost synonymous words yn and ns had been written
very frequently, to prevent these from being weakened and losing their deeper
meaning by constant use. We cannot adopt the rendering given by Geseniuti
and Hitzig : '^ vir societatis mece, i.e., socius meus. Even if n'Djr was
originally an abstract, it ia always used as a concrete in the P<;ntateuch
(compare vSj? in Lev. xix. 17), and Zechai'iah has simply taken the word
as he found it there.

110 MESSIANIC PEEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

all these passages n»D^ is used in a very different sense from
our word ndchste (lit. the next or nearest one ; Angl. neighbour),
which has been weakened by use, and robbed of its original
meaning by sin, until it has come at length to denote generally
a stranger. It clearly indicates the closest relationship that can
possibly exist among men, not one which can be entered into at
pleasure, but into which every man is born, which continues to
exist even against his will, and becomes the just occasion and
ground of punishment if he violate its obligations. From this
it is evident, however, that, when the same term is applied to
the relation in which a certain individual stands to God, the
individual referred to cannot be a mere man, but must be the
same person who has already been referred to in chap. xi. and
xii., as connected with the Lord by a mysterious unity of essence.
The neighbour or fellow of the Lord is no other than he who
says in John x. 30, "I and the Father are one," and who is
described in John i. 18 as " the only begotten Son, who is in the
bosom of the Father," whose connection with the Father is the
closest that can possibly be conceived.

In the use of ri'cjr in this passage, there seems to be a special
reference intended to the circumstances under which it invariably
occurs in the Pentateuch, namely, in laws relating to injuries
inflicted upon a " neighbour." The prophet, by employing this
word, gives prominence to the apparent discrepancy between the
command of the Lord, " Sword, awake over my shepherd," and
the precepts of his own law, according to which no one was to
injure his ammitJi (neighbour). He calls attention in this way
to the grandeur of that object, for the attainment of which the
Lord could even disregard a relation, whose type among men he
had commanded to be kept holy. Humanly speaking, he points
out how much is involved in such a command, how much it
must cost the Lord (compare the expression in Eomans viii. 32,
" who spared not his own son.") 15.^, which is added, stands in
a certain contrast to 'ri»oy.. He, whose is the sword to smite,
must combine the human nature with the divine. ■'5A is not
infrequently used to denote man, as contrasted with God, e.g.,
Job xvi. 21. The subordinate idea of strength, which the word
often has, like our word man, is not to be sought for here, as

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XIII. 7. Ill

it has been by many. The personification of the sword, and
the address delivered to it, is perfectly analogous to the prophecy
of Jeremiah against Philistia in chap, xlvii. 6, where the prophet
is affected by feelings of pity for the fate of those against whom
he has prophesied, and exclaims, " 0 thou sword of the Lord,
how long will it be ere thou be quiet ? put up thyself into thy
scabbard, rest and be still ! How couldst thou be quiet, seeing
the Lord hath given it a command, seeing that he hath sent
it against Askelon and the sea-shore ?" This command also
proves that the Lord Himself is the first cause of the death of
his shepherd, the human agent being merely his instruments,
as Christ says to Pilate, " thou wouldst have no power against
me if it were not given thee from above" (John xix. 11).
The expression "awake" shows that, in accordance with the
personification, we are to regard the sword as hitherto at rest.
Until now the shepherd's liour had not yet come. The fact
that a sword is commanded to smite the Lord's shepherd
merely announces the death which awaits him, and has no re-
ference to the precise manner of his death, any more than the
piercing mentioned in chap. xii. 10, which indicates not a cut
but a stab. The sword, as being the weapon usually wielded
by the judge and the warrior, is not infrequently used to denote
any instrument, by which a wound or death is inflicted, in cases
where the point in question is not the instrument itself, but the
wounding or slaying. The most striking example is 2 Sam. xii.
9, " thou hast slain him, 0 Uriah, by the sivord of the children
of Ammon ;" for, according to 2 Sam. xi. 24, he had been pierced
by the arroios of the Ammonites. In 2 Sam. xi, 25, when
David had received information from Joab that many of his
men had been slain by the arroios shot by the foe, he sent back
this message, " Let not this thing be evil to thee, for the sivord
devoureth now here, now there." The same general use of the
word sword is met with in Ex. v. 21, " ye have made our sword
to be abhorred in the eyes of Pharaoh and his servants, putting
a sword into their hands to slay us." Compare also Ps. xxii. 21
and Matt. xxvi. 52, " all they that take the sword shall perish
with the sword." What murderer could deny the applicability
of these words, which are a repetition of the general sentence
pronounced in Gen. ix. 6, to his own case, on the ground that he

112 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

had not slain his neighbour with a sword, but with some other
kind of weapon ? The same idiom was current among the
Romans, who called the right of the magistrate to inflict capital
punishments, the Jus gladii. There are many commentators, who
suppose that the words, " smite the shepherd," are not addressed
to the sword. Thus 31ichaeUs says, *' smite, whoever thou
mayest be that smitest." But the fact of 3'?.n being feminine
furnishes no support to such an explanation, when we consider
the personification adopted here ; compare, for example, Gen.
iv. 7, where sin, which is personified as a wild beast, is construed
as a masculine.

Smite the shepherd, and the sheep will he scattered. If the shep-
herd be dead in either a spiritual or a corporeal sense, the flock is
generally scattered. Compare 1 Kings xxii. 17, where the prophet
Micah, when predicting the death of Ahab, addresses both Jehos-
haphat and Ahab thus : " I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills,
as sheep that have not a shepherd, and the Lord said, these have
no shepherd, let them return every man to his house in peace."
(" Judas also was killed and the remnant fled," 1 Mace. ix.
18). A misunderstanding of the New Testament quotations of
this passage has led many commentators to interpret the term
flock in too limited a sense, and to restrict to a part, wdiat really
applies to the whole. Thus, for example, in the Dialogus cum
Tryphone, the flock is represented as referring exclusively to
the disciples, and the passage is supposed to have been com-
pletely fulfilled when he was taken prisoner and they all " for-
sook him and fled." Amhrosius discovers the fulfilment in the
dispersion of the apostles into every land, and in their proclama-
tion of the gospel of Christ (Sermon ii. on Ps. cxviii.). According
to Jerome the flock embraces " omnem in Christo multitudinem
credentium," and Michaelis explains it in a similar manner as
denoting " the apostles and other believing Jews." But the
flock must include all the sheep, which the shepherd had to feed.
Now, according to chap, xi., these embraced not merely the
believers, but the lohole Jewish nation ; compare especially the
notes on ver. 7. " The poor of the flock, loho wait upon the
shepherd" are described in ver. 11 as only a portion of this
flock. Hence the entire nation is represented here under the
image of sheep without a shepherd, after the death of the Mes-

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XIII. 7. 113

slab. In what way, and for what length of thne they were de-
prived of the shepherd, and phmged into misery in consequence,
would depend upon the differences in their spiritual condition,
and the consequent differences in the treatment they received
from the Lord. The bereavement suffered by the apostles and
other believers was only temporary ; the Lord soon took them
under his protection again.

The phrase, " to bring bach the hand upon a person," in
other words to act upon him again, is indefinite in its nature, and
whether it is used in a good or bad sense, the context must
decide. In the present instance many suppose that the expres-
sion is used in a bad sense, and in this they have been preceded
by the Chaldee and Septuctgint, and by the Greek commentators
who are guided by these versions. The next verse also appears
to favour this conclusion, for reference is there made to a severe
judgment impending over the scattered flock. But this merely
carries out what has already been said of the dispersion of the
flock, upon the greater portion of which it is destructive in its
effects. Then follows, at the end of ver. 8 and in ver. 9, an
expansion of the words, " I bring back my hand." Moreover
the very phrase itself, " I will bring back" contains a proof that
it is used in a good sense, for it evidently expresses a contrast to
the act of dispersion, which is recorded immediately before.
The expression " the little 07ies," again, also leads to the same
conclusion ; for it evidently indicates the compassion of the
Lord for the miserable condition of the poor sheep ; just as in
chap. xi. 7, the shepherd undertakes to feed the flock, on account
of their being most wretched sheep. (Compare Is. i. 25 sqq. ;
where Vitringa has clearly proved that the same words,
" I will bring back my hand over thee," are used in a
good sense, and refer to the mercy, which is manifested by
the Lord to his people in its purification ; whereas, so long as
this was delayed, he appeared to have forsaken it.) There is
evidently a contrast between Zion in ver. 25, and the enemies of
God in ver. 24 ; and the same contrast is introduced in ver. 27
and 28. — D'li?sn are the little ones in a figurative sense, the
wretched ones, those who are called the most miserable sheep in
chap. xi. 7. In Jer. xiv. 3 the synonymous term '^iy^f is
opposed to "^'•^f*, " their nobles send their little ones for water."

VOL. IV. H

114 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS,

In Jer. xlviii. 4, Tiyv is also used to denote wretchedness of
condition; compare, again, Ps. cxix. 141, "I am small and
despised." In the form of the word, D'">y3f is simply the parti-
ciple of "»y2f J to be small ; and in the only other passages in
which it occurs, — viz., Jer. xxx. 19 and Job xiv. 21, it is in-
feriority of condition that is referred to. Hitzig understands
by the little ones, " the poor and pious in the nation, who
suffer wrong, but do not inflict it ;" but the fact that there is no
antithesis in this case, as there is in Ezek. xxxiv. 16, 20, is a
sufficient objection to such an interpretation. And again, " the
little ones" in chap. xi. 7 are not one particular portion of the
flock, but the whole. If 0'"»y2f is a participle, the reference to
the flock is the more obvious ; " over those who are little " being
equivalent to " over them, on account of their degradation."
The bringing back of the hand of the Lord upon the little ones,
which is promised here, was experienced first by the apostles,
and such of the Jews as already believed on Christ. — We will
take another look at the New Testament quotations of this
passage. The principal one is Matt. xxvi. 31, 32, " then saith
Jesus unto them, all ye shall be offended because of me this
night, for it is written, I will smite the shepherd and the sheep
of the flock shall be scattered abroad. But Qi), after I am
risen again I will go before you into Galilee " (compare Mark
xiv. 27). This quotation is taken from the original Hebrew,
not from the Septuagint. The figurative mode of representa-
tion, the address to the sword, which the Seventy have retained,
is resolved by the Lord into plain terms, " / will smite." The con-
cluding words, as the Vi sufficiently shows, are consolatory in their
nature, containing an announcement that, after a brief suspension
of his office of shepherd, the Lord will resume it again, so far as the
apostles and the rest of the believers are concerned. Hence they
contain a particular application of the words in Zechariah, "I
bring back my hand over them." It is also obvious from this,
that the words are interpreted by the Lord in good sense, and
that he did not understand the little sheep as meaning shepherds,
as the Chaldee paraphrast and all the Greek expositors have
erroneously supposed (see Aquila, etti tous noiij.ivas (ipa-//is ;
Symmachus and the Septuagint, fji^mpous ; Theodoret, vscoripovs) .
We have already seen, however, that the special application of

ZECHARIAH, CHAr. XIII. 8. 115

Zechariah's announcement respecting the dispersion of the flock
to the apostles and first believers, in whom a commencement
was made of the saving operations of the Lord on behalf of his
church, which was given over to judgment, does not preclude a
more comprehensive meaning or a wider application. The great
importance attached by the Lord to this passage, is apparent
from the fact, that he had already made use of the words to
announce to the disciples the fate which awaited them ; thougli
he does not expressly introduce them as a quotation, as he does
on the present occasion, on account of their having failed to
comprehend the allusion before. In John xvi. 32, he says,
" behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be
scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone."

Ver. 8. " And it cometh to pass, in all the land, saith the
Lord, two parts therein are cut off and die, and the third
remains therein."

The article in v^?? points to the land with which the pro-
phet had been occupied throughout, and over the inhabitants of
which the Lord had undertaken the office of shepherd (compare
chap. vii. 5, xii. 12). The expression ntJ^'"'? is taken from
Deut. xxi. 17, as it is also in 2 Kings ii. 9. It means, literally,
" a mouth of two," that is, "a mouthful," a " mouth-portion," of
two, and is founded upon the custom of placing a double portion
of food, or more, before such as it was desired to honour. (See
Gen. xliii. 34, and Bosenmilller s Alt. u. Neu. Morgenland i. p.
207.) In the passage referred to in Deuteronomy it is used in a
secondary sense, to denote that portion of the inheritance which
fell to the share of the first born, — namely, a double portion. The
word '? is not used anywhere else, in this derivative sense, for a
share or " portion" in general, and there can be no doubt that,
when Elisha, as the first born of Elijah in a spiritual sense, asked
for a double portion of his spiritual inheritance, he borrowed
the expression from the Pentateuch, nnd that our prophet has
done the same. The whole of the Jewish nation is represented
here as an inheritance left by the shepherd, who has been put to
death, and this inheritance is divided into three parts, two of
which are given up to death, as maintaining the right of the first-
born, whilst life receives the third ; — a division, similar to that

116 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS,

which was made by David after the overthrow of the Moabites,
" and David smote the Moabites, and measured them with the
measuring line, making them lie down ; and he measured two
parts to put to death, and one part to keep alive." That the
double portion allotted to death was just two thirds, is intimated
afterwards, in the fact that " the third " still remained. If we com-
pare Ezek. V, 2 with ver. 12, " a third part of thee shall die with the
pestilence, and with famine shall they be consumed in the midst
of thee ; and a third part shall fall by the sword round about
thee, and I will scatter a third part into all the winds, and I will
draw out a sword after them," it seems natural to suppose, that
the double portion of death was to be divided into those who
died a violent death by the sword, and those who died by famine
and pestilence. But it is decisive against this, that j?iJ, to dis-
perse is also used in connection with a violent death ; compare
vol. ii., p. 453 ; Gen. vii. 21 ; Josh. xxii. 20. At the same time
the similarity between Zechariah and Ezekiel — (the division of
the whole nation into three parts, two thirds to be destroyed, and
one third to be preserved) — is too striking for it to be regarded
as merely accidental.' Moreover, it is not merely external, but
has a deeper foundation. The prophet takes up the whole of
Ezekiel's prophecy, contained in chap, v., and announces a second
fulfilment, just as we have already proved that he has done with
a similar prediction of Jeremiah (compare the remarks on chap,
xi. 13). Ezekiel had already threatened the peoj^le, that the
Lord would divide them on account of their sins. This threat
had been fulfilled, and the people were still suffering the conse-
quences of the judgment, when the prophet announced, that the
Lord would make a fresh division on account of their fresh re-
bellion. The substance of the two prophecies is to be found in
that striking and comprehensive picture at the close of Is. vi.,
in which Isaiah had depicted the fate of the covenant nation
some centuries before. In chap. vi. 11, 12, he announces the
utter desolation of the land and the dispersion of its inhabitants
into distant countries ; — (the Babylonian catastrophe). — This

1 The passages are not precisely the same ; in Ezekiel one third is slain by
the sword, one third dies by pestilence and famine, and one third is scattered
to the winds and destroyed, with the exception of a remnant, which " escapes
the sword among the nations ;" in Zechariah, on the other hand, the whole
third is represented as preserved. — Tr.

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XIII. 9. 117

portion of th.e prophecy is still further expanded in Ezek. v. —
He then adds, " but yet in it shall be a tenth, and it is made
desolate again." Under the latter we can only understand the
fresh overthrow of the national independence by the Romans.
And it is this second destruction to which Zechariah here refers.
The further predictions of Isaiah respecting the holy seed, which
is to be preserved when the whole nation is overthrown, and is to
attain to salvation, are in perfect harmony with the concluding
words of the passage before us and with ver. 9 (compare vol. ii.
p. 5).

Ver. 9. " And I bring the third part into the fire, and refine
them, as silver is refined, and try them, as gold is tried. He
slmll call upon my name aind I will hear Mm. 1 say : it is my
people, and he saith, Jehovah is my God."

The third part is the true Israel which continues to exist in
the Christian Church (c/ chap. xii. 1), the only people of God
on earth, the only one which can call the Lord its God. The
fire represents the tribulations, which necessarily attend the first
introduction of the kingdom of God, the severe conflicts in which
the true Israel has to engage, first with the two thirds, but after
that, and to a still greater extent, with the heathen (compare
chap. xii. 1 — 9 and chap, xiv). In 1 Pet. i. 6, 7 the apostle
wrote, after the fire had already broken out, " wherein ye greatly
rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness
through manifold temptations, that the trial of your faith, being
much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be
tried with fire, might be found unto praise, and honour, and
glory." This passage might serve as a commentary upon the
one before us. C. B. Micliaelis and others, who suppose that
the sufferings of the Jewish nation during the whole period of
its dispersion are here referred to, have quite mistaken the
meaning. In this case unbelieving Judaism would be regarded
as the legitimate and sole continuation of Israel. Moreover,
refining presupposes the existence of a precious metal; the
assaying of gold proves that it is really gold. Both of them,
wherever they are spoken of, have reference solely to such as are
still in a state of grace. There is almost a verbal agreement
between this passage and ver. 10 of the sixty-sixth Psalm, of
which David is the author, " for thou, 0 God, hast T>roved us.

118 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS,

thou hast tried us as silver is tried." But this earlier passage,
upon which ours is based, refers to Israel as still enjoying the
grace of God. In the Berleburger Bible there occurs the follow-
ing note on the Psalm referred to : " by many a furnace of afflic-
tion thou hast tested the worth and constancy of our faith, hope,
and patience, as metals are tested by fire." r^p-i oiy? ^enf? bas
two meanings ; to " shout out the name of the Lord with love, '
i.e. to praise him (1 Chr. xvi. 8 and Is. xliv. 5, and " to call
ujjon the name of the Lord with love," In either cases the 3 de-
notes the object, in which the affections of the person, engaged
in shouting or calling, repose ; and the strict meaning is to shout
out, or address, beiog satisfied with the name of the Lord, that is
absorbed with love in his manifested glory. The phrase, there-
fore, is not perfectly equivalent to ^'p\ N^i^ or nin» S|>' Nn;?. It
can never be used as the latter can, in connection with per-
sons, who addreses the Lord in a hypocritical manner, or out-
wardly and superficially alone. Hence it is used with perfect
appropriatecess in Is. Ixiv. 7, as a parallel to " taking hold of
the Lord." In Joel iii. 5 it is represented as the sole condition
of salvation.

CHAPTEE XIY.

All the nations of the earth are collected together by the Lord
against his holy city. The city is taken ; and the greater part
of its inhabitants are either slain by the sword, or led into capti-
vity (vers. 1, 2). The Lord, however, now miraculously inter-
poses on behalf of his own people, who have still been preserved,
and the judgment is suddenly transferred from the congregation
of the Lord to its enemies. The Lord appears in majesty upon
the Mount of Olives, and whilst an earthquake announces his
coming to judgment and fills all with dismay, the Mount of
Olives is split in two, by which means the valley of Jehoshaphat
is extended, and a safe and easy way is opened for the escape
of the people of the Lord. The Lord then appears with all
his saints to establish his kingdom on the earth (vers. 3 —
5). At first thick darkness prevails ; but at length, when it

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XIV. 119

is least expected, the day of salvation dawns npon the elect
(vers. 6, 7). A stream of living water then issues forth from
Jerusalem, and spreads fertility and life over all the land (ver.
8). The theocracy, which has hitherto been restricted to
one single country, now embraces the whole earth (ver. 9).
That Jerusalem alone may be exalted, all the mountains
throughout the entire land are levelled ; the city rises in splen-
dour from her ruins, to rejoice for ever in the mercy of God,
and is henceforth secure from every change (vers, 10, 11). When
the enemies, who attacked Jerusalem, have been chastised by
the judgment of God (vers. 12 — 15), the remnant will turn unto
the Lord, and will come to Jerusalem every year, to celebrate
the feast of tabernacles (ver. 16). Any who fail to perform this
duty will be visited by severe punishments (vers. 17 — 19. The
distinction between sacred and profane will then cease for ever,
and also the intermingling of the righteous and the wicked
(vers. 20, 21).

Commentators are for the most part of opinion, that this pro-
phecy is merely a repetition and expansion of chap, xii. 1 — 9 ;
and many powerful arguments may be adduced in support of
this conclusion. A fact of importance presents itself at the very
outset, — namely, that there is no fixed boundary line, which
separates it from the passage referred to. Now, on account of
the great similarity in the subject-matter of the two prophecies,
such a division would be all the more necessary, if they referred
to different events. Moreover, another thing which may be
appealed to, as rendering the latter improbable, is the fact that,
so far as the emblematical portion is concerned, the prophecy
contained in chap. vi. 1 — 8 corresponds to these two prophecies
combined, which certainly renders the conclusion a very natural
one, that we have here a resumption of chap. xii. 1 — 9, the
attack of the heathen power upon the kingdom of God, and the
glorious victory attained by Zion. Those who would separate
this prophecy from chap xii. 1 — 9, imagine that, like Rev. xx
7 — 10, it refers to the last conflict between heathenism and the
church, at the close of the millennium, and to the glorification
of the kingdom of God, which immediately ensues. But verse
8 is decisive against this. The living waters, which issue from
Jerusalem, cannot be sought on the other side of the thousand

120 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PKOPHETS,

jears, as the connection between tbis passage and Ezek. xIyii, 1
— 12 clearly shows (see vol. iii. page 65). And in addition to this,
there is no prophecj in the New Testament, which relates ex-
clusively to the last stages of the Church's history. Such a step
in advance as this was not according to the Revelation. The
prophecy in Ezek. xxxviii. and xxxix., to which appeal has been
made, bears throughout an ideal and comprehensive character,
and cannot be limited to one particular event at the end of time.
God and Magog represent the future enemies of the kingdom of
God generally (compare my commentary on the Book of Revela-
tion, vol. ii. p. 304). The reasons assigned for separating this
passage from chap. xii. 1 — 9 do not appear capable of being
sustained. It is said that in chap. xii. the successful resistance
offered by Judah, through the miraculous assistance of God, is
apparently represented as preventing the capture of the city by
the army of the nations, whereas in the passage before us the
coming of a day is announced, in which the army of the nations
of the world will take Jerusalem. But this difference is not of
any importance, unless by Jerusalem we understand the actual
city. If Jerusalem means the Church, the boundary line between
taking and not taking becomes a vanishing one. Moreover,
even here the capture is only partial ; according to ver. 2 only
half the inhabitants are carried away, the remainder of the
people are not cut off from the city. When it is affirmed that
" there is not the slightest trace in chap. xii. of the splendid
prospects which are here presented to the people of the Lord,"
the fact is overlooked that it is not a mere recapitulation of chap,
xii. that we have before us, but, as a matter of course, an ex-
pansion and continuation also. In chap. xii. we find nothing
but the victory over the nations ; here, on the other hand, we
have the glorification of Jerusalem (ver. 10), the healing waters
which issue from Jerusalem (ver. 8), the reception of the heathen
into the kingdom of God, the dominion of the Lord over the
whole earth, and so forth. The result at which we arrive, there-
fore, is that the prophecy does not relate exclusively to the ter-
mination of the Church's history, but to the whole of the Mes-
sianic era from its commencement till its close.

Ver. 1. " Behold a day cometh to the Lord, and thy spoil is
divided in the midst of thee."

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XIV. 2. 121

The day cometli to the Lord, not only because he brings it to
pass, but also, and more especially, because it is the day on which
he is glorified. Every other day has come rather to men,
this belongs to the Lord alone. In the same way is the day of
the overthrow of Gog represented in Ezek. xxxix. 13 as " the
day that I shall be glorified, saith the Lord God." Again, in
Is. ii. 12, a day is said to come to the Lord above everything
high and exalted ; and according to ver. 17, " the Lord alone is
exalted in that day." The glorification of the Lord is the result
of the overthrow of the heathen. The defeat of the nation of
God, which is not mentioned till afterwards, comes into con-
sideration only so far as it is the necessary condition of this
overthrow. No doubt the sufferings of the people of God pre-
suppose their sinfulness, and therefore serve to glorify God,
whose omnipotence and righteousness are displayed in their
punishment (compare 1 Pet. iv. 16, 17). But it is not in this
light that it is referred to, either in this passage or in chap. xii.
1 — 9. — Thy spoil : the prophet addresses Jerusalem, the seat
of the kingdom of God in his day, since it was under the image
of this city that the kingdom was present to his inward view.
The impossibility of adhering strictly to the letter of this an-
nouncement is apparent from its figurative character throughout,
which no one can deny, and especially from the fact that all the
nations of the earth could not possibly gather together to attack
the city of Jerusalem, or come every year to celebrate the feast
of tabernacles after their defeat. According to ver. 2, the spoil
of Jerusalem must be the spoil, which is taken from it (compare ■
Is. xxxiii. 4). The passive side is presented here, the active in
ver. 14.

Ver. 2. " And I gather all the Gentiles to Jerusalem to ivar,
and the city is taken, and the houses rified, and the ivomen ra-
vished ; and half of the city goeth forth into captivity, and the
residue of the people is not cut off from the city."

The assembling of the heathen against Jerusalem, which is
here ascribed to God, is traced to Satan in Eev. xx. 8. But if
even evil is subservient to God, and becomes one of the means
by which his plans are carried out ; if Satan, who is intro-
duced on that account in Job among the angels of God, is still
his servant, though an unwilling one, just as Asshur is called

122 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

the rod of fury ia his hand, and Nebuchadnezzar his servant ; if
he cannot touch a hair of the heads of the members of the Church
of God, the constant object of his attacks, without permission
from God (compare chap, iii.) ; it is evident that the discre-
pancy is only in appearance. There is a parallel in Ezek xxxix.
2 sqq., where the Lord is represented as bringing Gog from the
farthest north to the mountains of Israel, that he may destroy
him there. The expression, " the houses are rifled, the women
ravished," is taken from Is. xiii. 16. When that which properly
telongs to Babylon reaches Zion, the divine re-action cannot
long be delayed. In the declaration, " and the remnant of the
nation is not cut off from the city" a contrast is evidently in-
tended to the former judgment on Jerusalem, which the Chal-
deans had been the instruments employed in executing. lu that
case the advantages enjoyed by those who were left behind, on
the occasion of the first transportation, over those who were
carried away into captivity, was only an apparent one ; a respite
was all that was granted them. Now the advantages will be
solid and lasting. Even in the expression which he employs, the
prophet points to the passages relating to the former exile. Thus
in Jer. xxix. 16 — 18 we find, for thus saith the Lord to the
king, that sitteth upon the throne of David, and to all the
people, that dwell in this city, to your brethren, that have not
gone forth with you as captives, behold I send upon them the
sword, and hunger and pestilence, and scatter them into all the
kingdoms of the earth;" and again in 2 Kings xxv. 11, "and
the remnant of the nation, that was left in the city, .Nebuzaradan
led into captivity." This contrast, which presupposes that no
curse rests upon Jerusalem, but that it is under the protection of
the mercy of God, is entirely set aside by many of the Church
fathers, who imagine that the destruction of Jerusalem by the
Romans is alluded to here {e.g., Theodoret and Jerome). What
follows shows still more clearly that it is with the true Church
of God, and not with the base sediment, that we have here to
do.

Ver. 3. " A7id the Lord goeth forth, andfighteth against those
heathen as in his day of conflict, and the day of the battle."

The connection between this verse and the preceding one may
be explained by referring to Is. xxvi. 20, 21 : " Rise up, my

ZECHARIAH, CHAP, XIV. 4. 123

people, enter thy chambers and shut thy doors behind thee.
Wait but a little while, until the indignation be overpast. For,
behold, the Lord cometh out of his place to punish the wicked-
ness of the inhabitants of the earth against him." dh^j, with
? of the person, always means to fight against any one (com-
pare the remarks on ver. 14.) The rendering adopted in the
Sepficagint xal s^sXsuusroci xvpios X.CCI 'Tra.pacroi'^sToci iv toTs Wvsmv
sxsivoii tended to confirm Theodoret and C>/rtl in their mis-
taken idea that the prophecy referred to the destruction of Jeru-
salem by the Romans. The former observes, '^apacToi^eraci ^s,

ouK ^iov^aluM iiTtspixay^uiv^ dXXx. y.ccr SKsivaJV uTpaiTYiycuv. — " ^.9

the day of Ids conflict" is equivalent to, "as in his day of con-
flict ;" and to this is appended " in the day of the battle." We
may explain this as meaning, either "as he is accustomed to
do," or " as he has done." Those who adopt the former expla-
nation refer the words to all the conflicts, in which the Lord
has engaged on behalf of his people (compare, for example, Josh.
X. 10 ; Judges iv, 15 — 23 ; 1 Sam. vii. 10), Others, again, are
of opinion, that there is a special reference to the Lord's con- -
flict with the Egyptians. Thus Jerome, who follows the Chaldee,
says, " he now goes forth and makes war, as in the day of battle,
when he overwhelmed Pharaoh in the Red Sea, and fought for
the people of Israel." The latter interpretation is to be pre-
ferred. The judgment of the Lord upon the Egyptians is ex-
pressly called a conflict, a battle in Ex, xiv, 14 and 15, 2 sqq. ;
and the deliverance from Egypt towers so high above all the
rest, that it is spoken of as tlie deliverance par excellence ; whilst
subsequent ones are compared to it, to indicate their greatness,
without any further description to single them out from the
mass of the rest (compare Is, xi. 11, " then will the Lord stretch
out his hand tlie second time"). The only means referred to
here, as those which the Lord employs in his conflict, are an
earthquake, and putrefaction which destroys the foe, Ezekiel
is more minute in his description (see chap, xxxviii.),

Ver, 4, '^ And Ms feet stand in that day upan the Monnt of
Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of
Olives is split in two, from east to ivest, a valley very great,
and the hcdfofthe mountain removes towards the north, and the
half towards the south."

124 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

The reason why the Lord is represented here as standing upon
the Mount of Olives, is explained in the clause which follows.
" which is before Jerusalem on the east." Regarded as a mere
geographical notice, these words would have been quite super-
fluous, so far as the contemporaries of the prophet were con-
cerned, who had the Mount of Olives constantly before their
eyes. The situation of the 'mountain is evidently mentioned,
to show that it was this which induced the Lord to select it as
his standing-place. The Mount of Olives stood before and above
Jerusalem. It afforded the most uninterrupted view of the
whole city. From this mountain, therefore, the Lord directs
the attack upon the enemies in the city, and adopts the neces-
sary measures to save his own people. He, at whose presence
the mountains flow away, prepares for them a way of escape,
that they may not be involved in the judgment inflicted upon
the ungodly heathen. That the division of the mountain is to
be regarded as effected by an earthquake, is apparently implied
in ver. 5. An earthquake is also mentioned in Is. xxix. 6, as
one of the punishments with which the Lord will visit the
enemies of Zion, " thou shalt be visited of the Lord of Hosts,
with thunder, and with earthquake, and with great noise, with
storm and tempest, and the flame of devouring fire." But the
passage, which the prophet appears to have most distinctly
before his mind, is Ezek. xxxviii. 19, 20 : "In that day there
shall be a great earthquake in the land of Israel. And the
fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of
the field, and all creeping things, that creep upon the earth, and
all men that are upon the earth, tremble before me, and the
mountains are destroyed, and the hills fall, and every wall will
fall to the ground." (On the earthquake as a symbol of the
omnipotence of God to destroy, see the remarks on Haggai ii. 6,
and my commentary on the Book of Revelation, vol. i. p. 275).
The earthquake which threatens destruction to the foe, is the
signal to the believers to fly ; for they are afraid of being de-
stroyed by the judgment of Grod along with the heathen, in the
midst of whom they are living. In like manner the prophet
had previously urged the members of the covenant nation, who
still tarried in Babylon, to fly with all speed, that they might
not be exposed to the judgments, which were about to fall upon

ZECHAEIAH, CHAP. XIV. 4. 125

her (chap. ii. 6, 7). Jeremiah also had done the same thing in
chap. li. 6, " Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and deliver
every man his soul, that ye be not cut off for her iniquity ; for
it is the time of vengeance for the Lord ; he renders to her the
recompense." — Now, whilst the wish for flight is thus excited in
the minds of the believers, the Lord opens a way for it by
means of the same earthquake, which brings destruction to the
foe. In a case like this, where there was real danger in delay,
to any one desirous of escaping from Jerusalem by means of a
rapid flight, the Mount of Olives, which terminated the valley of
Jehoshaphat, and which David, when he fled, was obliged to
climb (2 Sam. xv. 30), presented an obstacle of no little impor-
tance. But this was removed, when the Lord divided the moun-
tain. The flying multitude of believers poured through the
extended valley of Jehoshaphat, and as soon as they were beyond
the range of the divine judgments, the latter poured down with
violence and without cessation upon the enemies of God, as they
had formerly done upon Sodom, when Lot reached Zoar. It is
very obvious that the whole account is figurative, and that the
fundamental idea, the rescue of believers and the destruction of
their enemies, is clothed in drapery borrowed from the local
circumstances of Jerusalem. — With reference to the manner in
which the mountain is divided, several of the commentators,
particularly Theodoret and Cyril, who were led astray by
the false rendering of the Septuagint, and also Jerome, have
fallen into considerable errors. They erroneously imagine
that d. fourfold division takes place. But the prophet merely
speaks of a simple division of the mountain, in which, accord-
ing to his description, the mountain is divided in two ;
and, almost in the same manner as when the Jordan was
divided, the one half moves towards the north, the other half
towards the south, thus opening a broad valley from east
to west, from Jerusalem to the Jordan. — vyno is correctly
explained by Marck as follows : " not on this side, or that side,
or merely at the extremity, nor into more parts than two, but in
the middle, into two equal parts." The words " towards the
east and towards the west" do not show the direction in which
the two halves fall back, but the direction of the split ; the
mountain is divided across, not lengthways. The I? in Vvno

1 26 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

has been overlooked, and it is this which has furnished occasion
to the false interpretation. Lastly, the direction in which the
two halves move away is also mentioned ; not towards the west,
for in this case the miracle would have afforded no assistance to
the believers, but towards the north and south.

Ver 5. " And ye flee into my mountain-valley ; for tlie
mountain-valley will reach to Azal, as ye fled from the earfh-
(juake in the days of Uzziah, the king of Judah, and the Lord
my God corneth, all the saints ivith thee."

The word ^' for" may be explained on the ground that no one
would think of flying into the valley, if it did not reach to the
other side of the Mount of Olives. The mountain-valley is either
the valley newly made, or the whole of the valley of Jehoshaphat,
with the continuation just added to it. The Lord calls it his
mountain-valley, because, as we learn from ver. 4, it was by him
that the valley had been opened, '"in 'J is an accusative after
a verb of motion. Luther, who is followed by Schmieder, has
<leviated entirely from tlie rules of the language, and renders
it " before the valley," supposing the flight to be an expression
of the fear resulting from amazement. The mountain-valley of
the Lord ; the valley of Jehoshaphat, not merely the valley
between the two halves of the Mount of Olives, which comes
into consideration here solely as a continuation of the valley of
Jehoshaphat. ^5?^ is regarded as a proper name by all the
early commentators, with the exception of Symmachus and
Jerome^ who render it proximus. Cyril observes : xo/ju,-/) Se
avm Tipbs Ifj'/a.rious , ojs "koyos^ rov opovs KEifjAvn. But nearly all of
those, who take it to be a proper name, perceive that it must be
used here with some regard to its actual signification, and not
merely as a geographical term. This is obvious from the char-
acter of the whole account. They differ widely, however, in their
explanations of its meaning. This could not have occurred to
the same extent, if closer attention had been paid to Micah i. 11.
We have there a description, in which several proper names are
introduced, with an immediate reference in every case to their
appellative signification. The prophet is describing the progress
of the judgment of God from city to city, until it reaches Jeru-
salem, and says, " The lamentation of Beth-Haezel will take
away from you her standing-still (will not afford you an inter-

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XIV. 5. 127

niption to the lamentation, as the etymology of the name of the
city might lead you to imagine). For Maroth (which is farther
off) will experience pain ; for evil cometh down from the Lord
upon Jerusalem." According to this passage Beth-Haezel must
have been a city near Jerusalem, and must mean " the house ot
standing still," a meaning which may be easily obtained from the
ordinary signification of ^?n, to lay aside ; whereas the explana-
tion suggested by Gesenius (thes. s. v. n^n), " house of the fixed
root," derives no support from the usages of the language, since
even '?♦??, noble, does not mean " rooted," as he supposes, but
" set apart," as the proper name Azaliah sufficiently shows. Now
if we look at the form of the proper name in the passage before
us, it is evident that ^V?, in pause ^y*?, can only mean " stand-
ing still," " ceasing." The valley, therefore, is to extend as far
as a place which will actually afford to the fugitives, what its
name promises, the cessation of danger, because, when once they
have reached it, they are beyond the range of the judicial punish-
ments of God. Whether this place was the same as that men-
tioned by Micah, is a question that cannot be answered in the
negative, for the Betli in proper names is frequently omitted
(compare Gesenius thes. p. 193) ; and changes of the same kind
as Ezel and Azel are also by no means rare. At the same time,
it cannot be answered with certainty in the affirmative, from the
fact that the situation of the place is not clearly pointed out in
either case, except that, according to Zechariah's description, it
must have stood to the east of Jerusalem beyond the Mount of
Olives. And ye flee ; — namely, for fear of being swallowed up,
along with the enemies of God, by the earth which opens at the
time of the earthquake. Compare Num. xvi, 34, " and all Israel
that were round about them fled ; for they said, lest the earth
swallow up us also." Hofmann says, " they flee, not from the
judgment which falls upon the enemy, but from the enemies
themselves." But ver. 3 precludes such a notion as this. Their
enemies are no longer active, but passive. Moreover, in this
case the comparison, which requires that it should be from the
earthquake that they flee, would be inappropriate. The earth-
quake in the time of Uzziah is not mentioned in the historical
books, but only in Amos i. 1. The manner in which the prophet

128 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

alludes to it, the expression " in the days" as well as the addi-
tional words, " of the king of Judah" by which he guards against
the supposition that Uzziah was a king of Israel, all show that
the prophet lived at a period very far removed from the event to
which he refers. — And the Lord cometh, my God, all the saints
with thee. He cometh to execute a decisive judgment upon the
world, and to glorify his kingdom. The coming alluded to in
ver. 3, is not to be compared with this, and was merely a provi-
sional one. The expression, my God, may be explained on the
supposition that, when the prophet saw the Lord draw near with
the most glorious manifestations of his grace, he was seized with
lively joy at the thought that this God was his God. The suffix
in ijsj: refers to the Lord, whom the prophet beholds by the
eye of his mind, as it were, already present, and to whom, being
no longer content to speak in the third person, he addresses him-
self with triumphant emotions, and with ecstatic joy at the
thought that the long desired and absent One has at length
arrived. By the saints many commentators understand angels •
others, like Vitringa (on Eev. xv. 3), " both holy angels and
holy men." In favour of the former we may adduce Deut.
xxxiii. 2, " he comes from the holy myriads," i.e., the angels ;
and as still more conclusive, ver. 3, " all his saints are in thy
hand," they are engaged in thy service, they are subservient to
thy salvation, 0 Israel ; again. Matt. xxv. 31, " when the son of
man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him ;"
Mark viii. 38, " when he cometh in the glory of his Father, with
the holy angels ;" and lastly Eev. xix. 14 (compare the commen-
tary on this passage.)

Ver. 6. " And it cometh to pass in that day, it will not he
light, tlie precious luill become mean."

The prophet here depicts the transition from the darkness which
accompanies the judgment upon the enemies of the kingdom of
God and the birth-pangs of the new world, to the light which
bursts upon this new world (ver. 7), as at the first creation, when
darkness covered the face of the deep, and afterwards it became
light. — In the second clause the Kethib is to be pointed Il^li?'.,
as the future of nS|'^. The marginal reading is \^^^p.). The
latter is explained by the majority of commentators, after the

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XIV. 6, 129

example of the Septuagint ()tai \}/^'Xi^f y.al irxyoi), as meaning
" cold and frost ;" "there will be no light, (but there will be)
cold and frost." They either assume that nSn,"3» is exactly-
synonymous with ns-i|3 ffrigora, cold), and appeal to Prov.
xvii. 27, where the marginal reading np -^pj, is substituted,
in precisely the same sense, for ni-> -liJi., the reading in the
text ; or they maintain that for ni-ip* we ought to read ^"^y^^
But the rendering throughout has everything against it. It is
extremely improbable that a word of such frequent occurrence
as ip' should be introduced here all at once with a totally new
meaning. The marginal reading in Prov. xvii. 27 proves nothing
more and nothing less than any Jewish conjecture can prove.
The alteration of ninp^'. into nS-iisi. is an arbitrary procedure, so
long as there is any possibility of explaining the reading in the
text. The supposed noun I'iNSi' is never met with. Even as-
suming the existence of such a noun, the meaning suggested,
for which other words actually exist in the language, would not
be established. The construction, too, is a harsh one, — viz., the ad-
dition of 'TO! without a negative. But what is still more im-
portant is the fact, that there is not a word about cold and frost
in any of the parallel passages in the prophetical books. More-
over they are altogether unsuitable here, for in the whole pas-
sage light and darkness alone are referred to (compare ver. 7) ;
and therefore the second clause should contain a description of
darkness as well as the first. And what external authority can
be produced in support of a rendering, which is exposed to so
many difficulties ? As good as none at all. The marginal read-
ing is never anything more than a mere conjecture, even in cases
where, at first sight, it seems to commend itself The obscurity
of this passage necessarily presented a great temptation to ven-
ture upon such a conjecture, as the praise awarded by com-
mentators to the marginal reading clearly shows. Again, the
difference in gender between the noun and the verb, in the
reading in the text, appeared to justify it. How, then, can
the marginal reading have any further value in our eyes, than
a Jewish conjecture, the origin of which is probably to be
found in the attempt of the Septuagint translators to guess at
the meaning of the passage, which they could not understand ?

VOL. IV. I

130 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS,

We will now turn to the different renderings which have been
given of the reading in the text. G. B. Ilichaelts explains it
thus, " for tJie lights fclaritates), if any exist in turn, zvill be
made dense (condensdbuntur ) , and will now change into thick
darkness," but this rendering must be rejected, for the simple
reason that riS-i|5'. is taken in a sense which it cannot be proved
to bear, if?'^ never means anything but precious, glorious, not
even shining (as some have attempted without effect to prove from
Job xxxi. 26), much less claritates. Hence nSn|-3». cannot have
any other meaning than res pretiosce,- valuables. There is a far
better foundation for the explanation given by the acute-minded
De Dieu, " the glorious thing will be dissolved, the creation will
be changed into chaos."^ But it is exposed to this objection, that
the idea, which the passage is supposed to contain, is not found
in any of the parallel passages of the Old Testament, a fact
which is of peculiar importance in the case of Zechariah. In
their descriptions of the judgments of God, they frequently speak
of the darkening of the sun, moon, and stars, but never of a
darkness which arises from all created things being converted
into a new chaos. And the former thought is so prominent in
them all, that we should be greatly surprised if we did not find
it here. Compare the remarks on Joel ii. 31, " the sun shall
be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood ;" on Ezek.
xxxii. 7, " I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof
dark, I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not
give her light ;" and ver. 8, "all the bright lights of heaven will
I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land";" also
Is. xiii. 10, and Amos viii. 9. In harmony with these passages
we render ni-ip^'-. precious things, and regard it as a term applied
to the shining heavenly bodies. We have the greater right to
do this, from the fact that, in Job xxxi. 2G, the moon is repre-

1 Crit. Sacr. p. 305 : " There will be no light ; the precious things will
flow together. By precious things he means the heavens, the sun, the moon,
the stars, the air, the earth, the water, which are really the most precious
objects in the world. These will all be dissolved at the end of time, when
' the elements shall melt with fervent heat,' and ' the heavens being on
fire shall be dissolved ' (2 Pet. iii. 10 — 12) ; and being dissolved they will
flow together and coalesce, as it were in one mass. From this it follows,
that there will be no light, because the objects, which now give light, will be
all mixed up with the rest."

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XIV. 7. 131

sented as walking preciously, or magnificently '!lV.^ iiv). The
whole clause we translate thus, " res pretiosce viles evadent,"
the heavenly bodies will lose their most splendid ornament,
— namely, the light. ^ With this explanation we get rid of the
difficulty arising from the apparent difference in the gender, for
sun, moon, and stars are masculine.

Ver. 7. " And there will be a day, it will he known to the
Lord, not day and not night, and at evening time it will get
light."

We have already found the expression a day used to denote,
comparatively speaking, the shortest period of time, in chap. iii.
9 ; and also a month in chap. xi. 8, used for a comparatively
short period. Cocceius has correctly explained the words before
us thus, " unus dies, tempus non longum." The allusion is to
the transient character of the visitations of God. The words of
Ps. XXX. 5 are applicable to the Church, " weeping may endure
for a night, but joy cometh in the morning." Moreover this
day is hnoiun to the Lord ; it is under his supervision and direc-
tion. It does not come unexpectedly, or interfere with his plans ;
but is subservient to his counsels of mercy for the Church. Not
day, &c. ; i. e. " which is not." Many commentators suppose
that a commingling of day and night is intended, a transition
state of dim twilight, but there are no parallel passages contain-
ing any such idea. We have rather to think of a day, which is
not day at all, in consequence of the lights of heaven having lost
their brightness. " The usual order is miraculously inverted,
the day is turned into night, and the day comes in the evening."
( Schmieder ) . The expression " at evening time it gets light,"
may be explained from the antithesis in Amos viii. 9, " and it
shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord God, that I will
cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will bring darkness
upon the land in clear day." Just as in this case, it becomes

1 The primary signification of xsp is to contract; from this come (1) the
meaning " to curdle,'' and (2) the idea of diminution or deterioration. In

the Arabic (^ •" means contrada, corrugaia fuit res. In the Talmud xsp
means allevare, leve reddere »!|3f5, leve, vile, vilis pretii. In the gloss to the
Talmud it is explained by Sp (see Buxtorf c. 2084). The verb is also found
in Ex. XV. 8, in the sense of contracting, diminishing.

132 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

dark at the time when we should expect and actually possess
the brightest light ; so, in the passage before us, it gets light
at the time, when, according to the natural course of things,
the dark night is apparently about to commence. It is the
exalted privilege of the Church, that with her at evening time it
always becomes light.

Ver, 8. "And it cmae to pass on this day, living luaters
will issue forth from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea,
and half of them to the luestern sea, in summer and in tvinter
shall it be."

The eastern and western seas, that is the Dead Sea and the
Mediterranean, are given here as the limits of the course of the
living waters. There is a difference between this and Ezek.
xlvii., where the sea itself is healed by the waters. By selecting
these two points the prophet intimates, that the water will flow
through the whole of the promised land, which is bounded on
the east by the Dead Sea, and on the west by the Mediterranean.
For what purpose, may be gathered from Joel iii. 18 : " And it
shall come to pass in that day, that the mountains shall drop
down new wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the
rivers of Judah shall flow with waters, and a fountain shall come
forth of the house of the Lord, and shall water the valley of
Acacias."^ Whatever conclusion may be formed with reference
to the more precise meaning of " the valley of Acacias," one
thing is certain, that it is a dry and barren locality ; the inten-
tion of the waters, therefore, — viz. , to fertilize the land, whichis bar-
ren for want of water, and to furnish a refreshing draught to the
thirsty of every age, — an intimation of which has already been
given in the foregoing announcement of plenty in the place of
death, fertility instead of barrenness, — is hereby confirmed. The
figurative character of the whole representation is placed beyond
all doubt by this one fact, that natural water could not pos-
sibly flow to two opposite directions. Water, whether coming
from the clouds, or contained in springs, brooks, and rivers, is
constantly employed as a figurative representation of the blessings

1 The passage before us points back to this and also to Ezekiel. The allusion
to the sea is taken from the latter. A brief reference was sufEcient here, on
account of Ezekiel having entered so minutely into the symbolical represen-
tation.

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XIV. 8. 133

of God in their whole compass and fulness, by which the dry
and thirsty desert of human need is refreshed. To be forsaken
of Grod, and deprived of his mercies and blessings, is represented
as drought. Compare, for example, Is. xli. 17, " when the poor
and needy seek water, and there is none, and their tongue faileth
for thirst ; I the Lord will hear them, I the God of Israel will not
forsake them ;" Is. xxx. 25, " and there shall beupon every high
mountain, and upon every high hill, streams of water in the day
of the great slaughter, when the towers fall ;" Ezek. xxxiv. 26,
" and I will make them and the places round about my hill a
blessing, and [ will cause the shower to come down in his sea-
son ;" — Is. xliii. 20, xlviii. 21, xlix. 10, Iviii. 11. (See also the re-
marks on Ezek. xlvii. 1 at vol. iii., p. 65, and my commentary on
Rev. xxii. 1). The water, the type of blessing and salvation, issues
forth from Jerusalem. Under the image of the central point of
the kingdom of God under the Old Testament, the place which
the Lord made glorious by his typical presence in the temple,
there is here exhibited to the prophet the Church of the New
Testament, from which blessings go forth to the world, and
which may be the more appropriately called by the name Jeru-
salem, since it originated there, and is its legitimate continua-
tion. According to Joel and Ezekiel the water issues from
the temple. In Rev. xxii. 1 it is described as " proceeding
out of the throne of God and of the Lamb." If Jerusalem,
then, stands for its antitype ; the whole compass of the land of
Judea, over which the water from the fountain flows, must denote
that which bears the same relation to the spiritual Jerusalem as
the latter bore to the typical, — namely, the whole of the New Testa-
ment kindgom of God, which is destined, according to ver. 9
and the constant declaration of all the rest of the prophets, to
overspread the whole earth. The entire earth, therefore, is to
be watered by the stream of divine blessings proceeding from the
Church (Ps. xxxvi. 9). The concluding words, " in summer and
in winter shall it be," indicate the constancy of the divine blessings,
as contrasted with the uncertain character of all human posses-
sions. The winter is mentioned as the time, when even the rest
of the streams yield water in abundance. In Job vi. 16 — 18,
the patriarch compares his friends to streams, which swell in
winter, and have an abundance of water, but are dried up in

1 34 MESSIANIC PEEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

summer, when the water is most needed, and in consequence
bitterly disappoint the traveller, who has built his hopes upon
them. In Isaiah Iviii. 11, the prophet represents the mercy of
God, and those who are in possession of it, under the figure of a
spring of water, whose waters do not lie.

Ver. 9. '''And tlie Lord ivill he king over all the land ; in
that day the Lord tvill he one, and his name one."

This is almost always rendered " over all the earth." There
can be no doubt that in substance this rendering is correct, and
that reference is made here to the fact that the dominion of the
Lord will extend over all the families of the earth, in contra-
distinction to its previous restriction to one single nation (chap.
ix. 9, 10 ; Ps. Ixxii. 8—11 ; Ps. ii. ; Dan. ii. 35, &c.). But
notwithstanding this, we agree with Riickert in preferring the
rendering " over all the land." In ver. 8 the prophet depicts
the new kingdom of God under the image of the former one.
In ver. 10 the same mode of representation is adopted ; and it
is certainly hardly likely that \'":;.?J5~''? is used here in a diffe-
rent sense from that in which it occurs so immediately after-
wards, if arc/iJ has justly observed, " it is not the kingdom of
nature and . ordinary providence, which is spoken of here, but
the special kingdom of grace — such as God formerly possessed
in Israel." The liord is naturally the king of the whole human
race ; but this relation was disturbed by the fall, which formed
the commencement of a series of attempts at rebellion, ending
in the renunciation of obedience on the part of nearly all his
subjects, who chose to themselves other lords and kings in
heaven and on earth according to their hearts' desires. The
Lord, to whom it would have been an easy thing to annihilate
all his rebellious subjects by one word of his omnipotence, was
prompted by his love to seek, rather, their voluntary return to
obedience. And because the whole race was not ripe for this,
he commenced by restoring the natural relation between him-
self and one single people. The execution of his entire plan, to
which the special theocracy had merely been subservient, com-
menced with the first coming of Christ. Its final consummation
will coincide with his return in glory, when all his opponents
will either have been subdued by grace so as to become his
servants instead of his foes, or have been exterminated by his

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XIV. 10. 135

punishments from the midst of his kingdom, which will then
embrace the entire earth. The words of Ps. xxii. 27, 28, are
peculiarly worthy of notice in connection with this announce-
ment : " All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn unto
the Lord, and all the families of the heathen shall worship
before thee. For the kingdom is the Lord's, and he ruleth
among the heathen." That all the heathen will one day submit
to the Lord arises from the fact that he is their rightful and
natural king, and that their present attitude towards him is an
unnatural one, and therefore cannot last. — The Lord will be only
one, and his name only one ; the gross system of polytheism will
come to an end ; and also that more refined polytheism, which
looks upon all forms of worship as merely so many different
modes, all equally legitimate, in which the one divine Being is
worshipped (see the remarks on Hosea ii. 18, vol. i. p. 260).

It is possible that the peculiar circumstances of the time may
have induced the prophet to lay stress upon the fact, that in
that day the name of the Lord will be hut one. The edicts of
the Persian kings, which are recorded in the books of Ezra and
Nehemiah, render it very probable, that the Persians, who were
strongly inclined to religious eclecticism, were ready to acknow-
ledge their own god and the God of Israel as one and the same
deity, differing only in name and in the mode of manifestation.
Nothing further would be gained by this, however, for they
naturally meant, that every nation was to abide by its own name
and adhere to the mode in which it had received this manifesta-
tion, the latter being, in fact, inseparable from the name.

Ver. 10. " All the land loill change as the plain, from Geba
to Rimmon south of Jerusalem, and she is high and sits in her
place, from Benjamins goie unto the place of the first gate unto
the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the kiyig's
tainepr esses."

The subject of this verse is twofold, first, the exaltation of
Jerusalem, which is effected by the change of all the rest of the
land into a plain, and secondly, the restoration of the city to
its former grandeur, after its destruction in consequence of being
taken by the enemy (ver. 2), but still more, perhaps, in conse-
quence of the earthquake (ver. 5), and the other judgments
inflicted upon the enemy within her walls. We will first of all

136 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

examine certain points connected with the former of these. " To
change as" is the same as " to change so as to become like."
VT!?5~^?, not the entire district round Jerusalem, but the whole
land. This is evident from the only expression, which could
afibrd any support to the more limited interpretation, — ^namely,
the words " fi-om Geba to Rimmon," For these are the two
extreme points in the land of Judea, the one towards the north,
the other towards the south, and the prophet employs them to
denote its entire extent, just as in ver. 8 he makes use of the
eastern and western boundary. Rimmon, which is described as
situated to the south of Jerusalem, to distinguish it from the
rock of Rimmon, was at the extreme south of the tribe of Judah,
and, like Beersheba, was a city of the Simeonites on the borders
of Edom. (Josh. xv. 32, xix. 7). That Geba was situated at
the northern extremity is evident from the fact, that in 2 Kings
xxiii. 8 the expression " from Geba to Beersheba " is employed
to denote the whole extent of the kingdom of Judah. — i^??V:T
is regarded by many commentators as an appellative noun, and
rendered " a plain." But they have failed to observe, that this
does not make good sense, since the land which is to be changed
into a plain cannot be compared to a plain, and also that the article
stands in the way of such a rendering. It is true that, so far as the
article itself is concerned, it might be used generally, but in He-
brew Arabali with the article always denotes the largest and most
celebrated of all the plains of Judea, the plain of the Jordan, called
by Josephus y^iya. tte^/ov. Compare Hitter xv. p. 481. " Ghor,
like Aulon, «.e., the plain, is the name given to the large valley,
including its plains, extending from the Lebanon, or the Lake
of Gennesaret, to the farther side of the Dead Sea." — The mean-
ing therefore is this : all the mountains of Judea, with the ex-
ception of the mountain of Jerusalem itself, are to be changed
into plains, so that the whole land will resemble the extensive
plain, which has hitherto formed but one portion of it. The
reason of this change is indicated in the words " and Jerusalem
will be exalted." (o^"^ for on is only met with in this pas-
sage ; but the two derivatives of the former occur, — viz., Djf;< and
noiNn). The whole land is depressed, that Jerusalem alone
may appear elevated. — Let us pass on now to an examination of
the meaning of this symbolical representation. As in ver. 8, so

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XIV. 10. 137

in this passage also, Jerusalem represents the central point of
the kingdom of God under the New Testament ; Judea, the
same kingdom in its widest extent, regarded as embracing the
whole earth. What other meaning then can the passage well
have than this, " The Lord alone shall be exalted in that day;"
" his rest shall be glorious" (Isaiah xi. 10) ; his dominion, as
king over all the earth, shall be the only one ; all the outward
glory of the earth, which exalts itself above him, shall be
annihilated. The same thought is expressed in Is. ii. 2 ; Micah
iv. 1 (see vol. i. p. 441), and Ezek. xl. 2 (see vol. iii. p. 60) —
though under a somewhat different figure, which proves that
the literal interpretation given by Jewish and judaising com-
mentators is untenable. In this case everything else is levelled ;
in Micah and Ezekiel, on the other hand, the temple mountain
is represented as rising. The temple mountain is placed upon
the top of all the mountains of the earth. There is a third figure
employed in Dan. ii. 35. The stone, which is the symbol of the
Messianic kingdom, breaks in pieces the colossal image, the
representative of the kingdoms of the world as contrasted
with the kingdom of God, and becomes a great mountain, which
fills the whole earth. The natural situation of Jerusalem forms
the starting point here. On this Robinson says, " upon the
broad and elevated promontory, within the fork of these two
valleys (Jehoshaphat and Hinnom), lies the holy city. All
around are higher hills." This external position of Jerusalem
was also regarded by the writer of the 125th Psalm (ver. 2)
with the eye of a theologian. But whilst, in his view, the
mountains round about Jerusalem were symbols of the protec-
tion of God, to Zechariah the comparative height of Jerusalem
is a symbol of the depressed condition of the kingdom of God
under the Old Testament.

The meaning of the symbolical representation has been entirely
mistaken by many expositors, who imagine that the Arabah is
introduced in connection with the watering. Thus Hitzig writes,
" The valley of the Jordan, so luxuriant in its vegetation, was
rendered so by the extent to which it was irrigated (Gen. xiii.
10). The author has already promised the same to the poorly
watered district (ver. 8), a promise which implied the highest
degree of fertility." But this interpretation, in which the ex-

138 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

pression " she is high " is entirely overlooked, and the connection
between this passage and Micah iv. 1, and Ezek. xl. 2 severed,
is at variance with the natural constitution of the Arabah. The
words of Gen. xiii. 10 relate exclusively to that portion of it,
which was destroyed by the fearful catastrophe that befel the
cities of Sodom and Gomorrha. Josefhus says in his wars of
the Jews (4. 8. 2), " the large plain, ^xiya tte^iov, through which
the Jordan flows, is very parched in summer." According to
Monro (v. Raumer p. 25), the lower portion especially presents
" the aspect of extreme desolation." The Arabah is any thing
but a garden of God. " The heat is concentrated by the rocky
mountains, which keep off the cooling breezes of the west wind "
(v. Raumer p. 51). — The exaltation of Jerusalem, which is a
consequence of Jehovah being king over all the earth (ver. 9),
is attended by its complete recovery from its ruins. Whilst the
former part of the verse, the exaltation, points back to Micah iv.
1, and Ezek. xl. ii ; the latter recals Jer, xxxi. 38, " the city is
built to the Lord from the tower of Hananeel to the corner gate,"
where the restoration of the kingdom of God is set forth under
the image of a restoration of Jerusalem.

The point at which the description of the boundaries com-
mences, is Benjamin's gate. This gate is unquestionably the
one which is called elsewhere the Ephraim gate. The Benja-
min gate led to the land of Benjamin (Jer. xxxvii. 12, 13).
It was on the north side of the city, therefore. But the Ephraim
gate is represented in 2 Sam. xiii. 23, as turned towards
Ephraim ; and the road to Ephraim lay through Benjamin. The
first terminus ad quern is " the place of the first gate." There
is no other passage in which the gate is called by this name.
It is no doubt the same as we meet with elsewhere under the
name of ^^¥';- "'^^- This is evident, first of ail, from the
name itself. nrv£;|'n ny-^ir means "the gate of the old one"
(fem.), not "the old gate." Now Hitzig and Krafft (Topogr.
p. 149), follow Gousset in the opinion that " the gate of the old
one" is equivalent to " the gate of the old pool," which is men-
tioned in Is. xxii. 11. But such an ellipsis is harsh and un-
exampled. On the other hand there is hardly any ellipsis at
all, if we adopt the explanation given by others, " the gate of

ZECHAMAH, CHAP. XIV. 10. 130

the old town." For as cities are personified as women, there
was really no necessity for any addition. We meet with Jeshanah
on two other occasions as names of cities (see Behind p. 861).
The name " old town" was probably applied to that portion of
Jerusalem, which was already in existence in the time of the
Jebusites, to distinguish it from the later enlargements made by
David and his successors— just as at a subsequent period another
portion, which had been recently erected, was called Bezetha,
KxivYi TioKis, by Josephus, in contrast with the whole of the
earlier city. Now the name of the gate in the passage before us
is in perfect harmony with this. \'\-dii-^T} nj?.->y cannot mean
anything but the first gate, not, as Eitzig and Eioald suppose,
" the former gate," or " the gate that was ;" for such a meaning
as this could only exist in cases where a contrast was intended
to some new gate. Now, just as the old town was the first town,
so was its gate the first gate, when compared with all the rest of
the gates in the more recent portion of Jerusalem. Our conclu-
sion is favoured, secondly, by the situation. As the first gate is
represented here as the first terminus ad guem, reckoning from
the Benjamin's gate, so do we find the old gate mentioned imme-
diately after the Ephraim gate in Neh. xii. 39, where the gates
are named in their geographical order. We must look for the
first gate on the east, and not on the west of the Benjamin gate.
For the corner gate is mentioned directly afterwards as the
terminus ad quern to the west of the Benjamin's gate, and it is
evident from the little distance between the two gates,— namely,
400 cubits (2 Kings xiv. 3), that " the first gate" cannot have
stood between them. The position of the gate in the old town
corresponds exactly to this. It was the next gate to the Ephraim
gate towards the east, probably at the north-eastern extremity
(compare Faher Archiiologie p. 332). ^52. before o'ssn nj?;>?
does not denote the terminus ad quern from the first gate, but
as we have already observed, a new terminus ad quem towards
the west of the Benjamin's gate. That the corner gate was not
situated on the eastern, but on the western side, is very evident
from Jer. xxxi. 38, where the tower of Hauaneel, which stood
on the eastern side, is mentioned along with the corner gate to
designate the whole extent of the city. The tower of Hananeel

140 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

was on the eastern side of the city, near the sheep-gate (Neh.
iii. 1, xii. 37, 39). From this tower the prophet draws a new
line — for IP must be supphed before ^r'^'? from the previous
clause, — which he continues as far as the king's wine-presses,
most likely on the southern side of the city, where the royal
gardens are said to have been (Neh. iii. 15 ; compare Faher p.
335). According to this the limits of the city are given towards
the four points of the compass. The prophet mentions] ust those
buildings which were left standing when the city was destroyed
by the Chaldeans, and not a single one which was not in exist-
ence in the time of Zechariah, — i.e., subsequent to the destruction
and previous to the restoration of the walls by Nehemiah, — a fact
which can only be explained on the supposition that the second
portion of the book was actually written by Zechariah himself.
Two gates are first given as termini, the Benjamin's gate and
the corner gate ; for the third, " the first gate," is expressly
shown to have been no longer in existence, by the words " unto the
place," that is, the spot on which it formerly stood. Now both
of these are omitted in the account of the re-building in Neh.
iii. ; and, if we compare chap. xii. 39, the only explanation that
can be given of this omission is that they did not require to be
re-built, but probably needed only some trifling repairs. On
the other hand the old gate, which is represented in this passage
as destroyed, is mentioned in the list of those that were re-built.
The tower of Hananeel is referred to in Neh. iii. 1, as still in
existence. In the case of the royal wine cellars, we can hardly
imagine any demolition to have taken place. In fact this was
scarcely possible ; for even to the present day, in eastern coun-
tries, cellars are hewn out of the rocks, wherever the nature of
the soil admits of it (see Chardin in Harmar, part iii., p. 117 ;
compare also Is. v. 2, and Matt. xxi. ^3). This being the
manner in which the royal cellars were constructed, it is not
improbable that they are still in a state of preservation among
the excavations in the rock, which exist in great abundance,
especially in the neighbourhood of the fountain of Siloah. We
can even bring forward a direct testimony to the fact that
the royal cellars are still in existence. As we have already
observed, there can be no doubt that they were in the royal
gardens, and in Neh. iii. 15 these are expressly stated to have

ZECHAKIAH, CHAP. XIV. 11. 141

been preserved when the destruction of the city by the Chaldeans
took place.

We will now inquire into the prophet's meaning. What are
we to understand by the restoration of Jerusalem, which is the
figure he here employs ? It is evident from the general character
of the prophecy, that we are not to abide by the letter. This is
especially obvious from vers. 8 and 9, where Judah is employed
to represent the whole earth, as well as from the first part of the
verse before us, where the relation in which Jerusalem stands
to the rest of Judea is used as a figurative representation of the
relation, in which the central point of the future kingdom of God
stands to its circumference, which embraces the whole earth.
The restoration of Jerusalem predicted here is closely connected
with the conquest described in vers. 1 and 2, and with the
destruction referred to in ver. 5, as the result of the divine
judgments inflicted upon the enemy within its walls. The
meaning is, that the kingdom of God will rise again in its
ancient splendour, after the Lord has exterminated every trace
of the misery which it has had to endure. The prophet adheres
to the same mode of representation which he adopted before,
when he described the calamities endured, under the figure of a
conquest of the city. He depicts the future glory, under the image
of a restoration of the city to its ancient limits, and, to make the
figure more complete, introduces special notices of particular
points in the city boundaries.

Ver. 11. "And they dwell in her, and there shall be no more
curse, and Jerusalem sits secure."

Dwelling forms the antithesis to going out, whether as cap-
tives or as fugitives (ver. 2 and ver, 5). The expression,
" there shall be no more curse," shows that the Church of God
is to consist of such as are righteous and holy. On the idea
implied in the curse, see the remarks on Mai. iii. 24. It denotes
a judgment, similar to the one described in chap xi., which in-
volves a complete suspension of the state of grace. There are
degrees in the execution of the curse ; the last and most fearful
is announced in Eev. xxii. 3.

Ver. 12. " A7id this luill he the plague, wherewith the Lord
will smite all the nations that have fought against Jerusalem : his
flesh shall consume aiuay, while he stands upon his feet, and his

142 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

eyes shall consume away in their sockets, and his tongue shall
consume away in his mouth."

The prophet, having first depicted the judgment on the house
of Grod, had contented himself with a shght indication of the
destruction which the Lord was about to bring upon the enemies
of his house, who were the instruments, and at the same time
the objects, also, of his punitive justice (vers. 3 — 5). From this
he had proceeded at once to the subject which was most attrac-
tive to his heart, — viz., the blessings to be bestowed in the mercy
of God upon the purified Church. He now interrupts his de-
scription of the latter, to give a fuller account of the punishment
to be inflicted on the foe. In harmony with the general cha-
racter of the symbolical representations of prophecy, in which
everything is presented to the eye and thus assumes a material
form, and also with an evident allusion to earlier judgments, —
such, for example, as the destruction of the Assyrians, — the
punishment is represented here as purely corporeal, just as the
act performed by the enemy had previously been depicted as a
literal invasion of Jerusalem. The essential part of the prophecy
is the punishment alone ; all that the prophet states, with reference
to the mode, is merely drapery. Another form of representation
might have been chosen instead ; as we may see, for example, from
Is. Ixvi. 24, where the enemies of the kingdom of God are figura-
tively described as living corpses, lying outside the gates of the
dwelling place of the saints, — viz., Jerusalem ; the eternal food of
worms and fire. — The infinitive P?n gives prominence to the
simple action for the purpose of directing attention to its fearful
character. The Hiphil shows that the Lord himself is to be re-
garded as the agent. The words, "and he stands upon his feet,"
lay emphasis upon the terrible character of the judgment. They
will be living corpses. Corruption of this kind in the case of a
living body is more fearful than death. Examples of this species
of corruption are to be found in antiquity, — viz., in the Roman
state, and also in modern times, in the Turkish empire. . The
tongue is mentioned, because it had spoken with insolence and
arrogance of God and his people (Ps. xii. 4 ; Is. xxxvii.) ; the
eye, because it had seen the nakedness of the city of God ; the
whole body, because it had proceeded against Jerusalem.

Ver. 13. " And it cometh to ^mss in thai day, great will he

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XI\^ 13, 14. 143

the confusion of the Lord among them, and they seize every man
the hand of his neighbour, and his hand riseth up over the hand
of his neighbour."

There is an allusion here to examples, in the early history of
the people of God, of panics caused by the Lord annong the
enemy, and of confusion leading to mutual destruction ; see Deut.
vii. 23 ; Judg. vii. 22, and 1 Sam. xiv. 20 (" and behold every
man's sword was against his neighbour, a very great confusion"),
but especially to the history of Jehoshaphat in 2 Chr. xx. 23 ;
" and the children of Ammon and Moab rose up against the inha-
bitants of Mount Seir to destroy them, and when they had made
an end of the inhabitants of Seir, they helped to destroy one
another." Discord in the enemy's own camp is one of the prin-
cipal means employed by God for the assistance of his Church.
By the expression, " seizing the hand," we are to understand a
hostile grasp, as the context and the parallel passages clearly
show. But the hostility is indicated still more fully in the words,
" his hand riseth up over the hand of his neighbour." Every
one endeavours to get hold of his neighbour's hand, that he may
disarm him in this way ; and when this is accomplished he falls
upon him, attacking first of all the hand itself, since a man
deprived of this may afterwards be put to death without difficul-
ty or danger.

Ver. 14. " And Judah also will fight at Jerusalem, and the
riches of all the heathen round about ivill be gathered together,
gold and silver and apparel in great abundance."

According to a very ancient and widely circulated rendering,
the first clause means, " and Judah also will make war against
Jerusalem." The Chaldee and Jerome both adopt it. But the
rendering, " Judah will fight in Jerusalem," is at least as old
(see Septuagint : iKxpard^irai tv 'lipovaockri^x). It cannot be
pleaded in defence of the former, that 3 after onSn always
points out the object of attack. As fighting is not infrequently
spoken of, without the object of attack being mentioned at all
(compare ver. 3), it may be regarded as certain that 3 may also
be used in a local sense. It is so in Is. xxx. 32, where the femi-
nine suffix in ."i3j " in the holy land," is not to be referred to
Assyria, and where we are not to read as as the Masoretes have
done. — On the other hand, the following objections may be

144 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

offered to this rendering ; first, a contrast between Judah and
Jerusalem would be something so unparalleled that it would
certainly have been more clearly expressed (of hostilities between
Judah and Jerusalem there is not the slightest trace either here
or in chap. xii. ; seco7idly, such an announcement would be quite
out of place here in the midst of a description of the defeat of
the enemy ;^ and thirdly, in the primary passage in the Chronicles
Judah is not introduced as an ally of the heathen, but comes
up after they have destroyed one another. In ver. 27 Judah and
Jerusalem are spoken of as one. — We may either assume, then,
that Judah represents the whole nation, — in which case the
attack of Judah would be assigned as a second cause of the over-
throw of the enemy, along with the confusion produced by the
Lord, — or that the whole nation is represented by Judah together
with the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In the latter case the con-
test in Jerusalem would be referred to, solely in relation to the
participation in the booty. The latter view is certainly favoured
by chap. xii. 2, " and also over Judah," as well as by the general
distinction made there between Judah and Jerusalem.

Ver. 15. "And so loill he the plague of the horses, of the
mules, of the camels, and of the asses, and of all cattle, which
will he in these camps, as this plague."

We have here an amplification of the crime and the punish-
ment. They have rendered themselves so guilty, that even their
possessions are defiled and fall under the divine ban. The des-
cription given here is based upon the same idea, as that which
lies at the foundation of the Mosaic laws with reference to the
ban. When a whole city had committed the crime of idolatry,
not only the inhabitants, but the animals also, were to be put to
death ; in which case the same law, affecting the relation between
the irrational and rational portions of the creation, was repeated
on a small scale, as that which had caused the creature to be
" subject to vanity not willingly," on account of the sin of man.
We have also an analogous example in the case of Achan, whose
oxen, asses, and sheep were burned, along with himself and his
children. (Josh. vii. 24).

Ver. 16. "And it cometh to pass, every one that is left of all

1 Maurer is obliged to say that " the prophet ought properly to have
omitted the preceding words, since they do not harmonise."

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XIV. 16. 145

the heathen ivhich come against Jerusalem, shall go up from year
to year, to wot'ship the King Jehovah of Sabaoth, and to keep
the feast of tabernacles."

That the approach of the nations to Jerusalem, out of all the
countries of the earth, is to be understood as a figurative re-
presentation, founded upon the manner in which the fear of
God and connection with his kingdom manifested themselves
under the Old Testament, and that the prophet employs this
as a type of the higher form in which they would be mani-
fested in the Messianic times (similarly to chap. vii. 22, 23,
Micali iv. 1, and Is. ii. 3), is evident both from the nature
of the case,' and also from the general character of the whole
prophecy (see the remarks on vers. 8 — 10). The only ques-
tion that suggests itself is, why should the prophet have se-
lected particularly the feast of tabernacles ? That this is not
done without a definite purpose is evident from the fact, that
otherwise it would be impossible to understand his reason for
not retaining the festal periods mentioned in Is. Ixvi. 23, to
which he very closely adheres in other respects, even adopting
the terms employed, and in which it is stated that " it will come
to pass, from new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to
Sabbath, and flesh will come and worship before me, saith the
Lord." In this case the festivals of inost frequent occurrence
are mentioned, for the purpose of pointing out the zeal of the new
citizens of the kingdom of God in the worship of their Lord.
Under the Old Testament only one nation assembled at Jeru-
salem at the three annual festivals ; now " all flesh" congregates
there every Sabbath and every new moon. This parallel passage
also serves to present in a more glaring light the absurdity of a
literal interpretation. — Commentators differ in opinion as to the
reason which induced the prophet to select the feast of tabernacles.
Theodoret, Grotius, and others, adhere to the most material ground
possible, — namely that the autumn is the best time of the year
for travelling. The true reason, on the other hand, has certainly

1 " For how could all the inhabitants of the whole earth, Japanese, Chinese,
and those living near either pole, by any possibility come every year to Jeru-
salem to keep the feast ?" {Daclis, dissert, ad Sack. 14, IG. ad. calc. cod.
Talmud. Succah, Utrecht 1726 p. 547). The difficulty of travelling is pointed
out very clearly in Ezek. xxxiii. 21, where more than a year passes before
Ezekiel receives information of the destruction of Jerusalem.

VOL. IV. ,K

146 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

not being assigned by those who suppose that the feast of taber-
nacles is specially mentioned, because it was regarded by the
Jews as peculiarly holy. This was not the case ; the passover
was the chief festival, and the proof of this is to be found in the
fact that, in reality, it was at this festival alone that all Israel
assembled at the place of the sanctuary. The actual reason has
been given by Backs, C. B. Michaelis. and others, who trace it
to the essential characteristics of the feast of tabernacles. Ac-
cording to Lev. xxiii. 33 it was a feast of thanksgiving for the
gracious protection afforded by the Lord to His people during
the pilgrimage through the desert, which had been the sole cause
of their being purified, instead of destroyed by the dangers to
which they were exposed, and attaining to the possession of the
land of Canaan. But these wanderings of the Israelites were a
type (1 Cor. x. 11), not only of similar dealings on the part of
God with the same people in later periods of the Old Testament
economy, — especially in the time of the Babylonian captivity, at
the termination of which, when God had delivered them out of
the " wilderness of the nations" (Ezeli. xx. 34 — 38), the feast of
tabernacles was celebrated with peculiar earnestness (Ezra iii. 1
sqq., and Psalm cvii.), Zechariah himself taking part in it, — but
also of His dealings with the people of the New Covenant. By
the latter the feast of tabernacles will be celebrated, " when at
the close of their tedious wanderings through the horrible desert
of this world, they shall see an approach to their inheritance, and
an entrance into Canaan fully laid open before them." {Backs) .
It will not be kept outwardly, but spiritually, like the Sabbath
in Heb. iv. 9, and the Passover in 1 Cor. v. 7, 8. In the feast
of tabernacles, just as in the other two great festivals, not only
were the blessings of God in history commemorated, but also the
blessings of God in nature. It was a feast of thanksgiving for
the completion of the harvest. It is possible that the prophet
may also have this view of the festival in his mind, and may
regard the feast of tabernacles as a feast of thanksgiving for the
rich gifts of mercy, bestowed upon the new citizens of the king-
dom of God. A New Testament feast of tabernacles is also met
with in the Book of Revelation (see my commentary on chap,
vii. 9) ; but it is one which is to be celebrated in heaven by those
who have ended their dangerous pilgrimage of suffering and

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XIV. 17, 18. 147

temptation through the desert of life, and have safely reached
the heavenly Canaan, the place of their repose. — The expression
" all that is left," &c., calls to mind a point of agreement between
the type and the artititype. Just as it was not all that came out
of Egypt who entered Canaan and celebrated the feast of ta-
bernacles, but on the contrary the greater portion had been
destroyed by the judgments of God during the march through
the wilderness ; so the heathen, who formerly marched against
Jerusalem, will not all go thither in gratitude and love, but only
the remnant, which has been spared by the mercy of God, after
the obstinate despisers of His name have been destroyed by the
judgments depicted before.

Ver. 17. ''And it cometh to pass, tvhoso will not come up of
the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King
Jehovah of Sabaoth, upon them there loill he no rain."

The rain is a particular example employed to denote ge-
nerally the blessing of God, which is withdrawn from the
wicked despisers. The thought, that the Lord will not then
leave the heathen to themselves, as he does now, but will re-
quire of them the fulfilment of their duties towards him, is
expressed by the prophet thus: all, who do not join the proces-
sion to Jerusalem, will be visited with one of the punishments
denounced in the law against those who transgress it, and one
which was frequently carried out in history, for example in the
case of Ahab, — namely the want of rain.

Ver. 18. " And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come
not, there ivill not (be) upon them (any rain ; but) there will be
(upon them) the plague, loherewith the Lord loill smite all the
7iations, ivhich shall not go up to keep the feast of tabernacles."

The strange notion, that the prophet must necessarily pay
strict attention to the natural characteristics of Egypt, which is
not indebted for its fertility to the rain, but to the Nile, seeing
that the former falls but sparingly anywhere, and not at all in
upper Egypt, — though of course the water of the river must
come originally from the rain, even if it falls beyond the limits
of Egypt, — has led many commentators to adopt the most forced
interpretations. The on^i^v. nS? must be taken in the same
sense in this verse as in the preceding one, and therefore
D^?.'!: !^!,T, must be supplied ; and the plague can be no other

148 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

than the withdrawal of rain. Egypt, which is mentioned here
by way of example, had also been assured by Isaiah of a full
participation, at some future period, in the blessings and privi-
leges of the people of God (see vol. ii. p. 143). But this is also
directly associated with accountability for the abuse of these
blessings.

Ver. 19, " This will he the sin of Egypt, and the sin of all
the nations, which shall not go up to keep the feast of taber-
nacles."

This ; — namely,- that no rain falls upon them. The sin cannot
directly signify the 'punishment of sin : but is looked at here in
the light of its consequences, which, according to the scriptural
view, are to be regarded as an appendage of the sin ; compare
Lam. iv. 6 ; Gen. iv. 13 ; and 1 Sam. xxviii. 10. The insepar-
.able character of the connection between sin and punishment is
apparent from Num. xxxii. 23, " your sin, vihich findeth you."

Ver. 20. ^^ In this day there^ivill stand upon the hells of the
horses ' holy to the Lord,' and the pots in the house of the Lord
will be as the sacrificial boivls before the altar"

Commentators are all agreed as to the rendering to be given
to the first clause, except that many of them give a differ-
ent rendering to n'lWp^ some rendering it bridles, as the Sep-
tuagint and Vulgate have done, and others, like Luther, trap-
pings or armour. It is also generally acknowledged that the
prophet alludes to the sacred plate on the diadem of the High
Priest, upon which was engraved, like the engraving of a signet,
" holy to the Lord" (Ex. xxviii, 36). There are many things,
which are represented in the Old Testament as holy to the Lord,
but this was the only case in which such an inscription was
borne, and the only one therefore in which the analogy was per-
fect ; since it is not merely stated here, that the bells of the
horses will be holy to the Lord, but that on the bells of the
horses, that is engraven upon them, there will be " holy to the
Lord."* But, notwithstanding this agreement, there are no small

1 The passages, which prove that it was a custom in ancient times, parti-
cularly in the East, to suspend bells upon the horses and mules, sometimes
for use, — viz., for the same purposes to which they arg still applied among
ourselves, and sometimes for ornament, have been most diligently collected
]^y Dougtaus (in the analecta sacra p. 297 ed. 2). Thus, for example, Dio-

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XIV. 20. 149

differences in the explanations which have been given. The
Jewish commentators have gone farthest away from the truth
{e,g., the Jew whom Jej'ome questioned, Jarchi, Kimchi, and
Ahenezra). They were kept from the correct interpretation by
the fact that it would involve the abrogation of the entire cere-
monial law, and understood the words as denoting the consecra-
tion of the bells to purposes of religious worship, and their em-
ployment in the manufacture of sacred vessels. The untenable
character of this interpretation is sufficiently evident from the
fact, that Grotius, whose superficial tendencies lead him to
adopt it in the main, insensibly substitutes for the bells the
whole trappings of the horse, from a feeling, no doubt, that the
bells of the horses were too contemptible a gift for the Lord.
But it will be still more obvious, if we compare the second clause
with ver. 21, where there is no reference, such as we should
expect according to this explanation, to gifts consecrated to the
Lord, but to the cessation of the distinction between sacred and
profane. And lastly, by this exposition, the reference to the
plate on the forehead of the High Priest, which is evidently a
deeply significant one, is changed into quite a common allusion.
— There is greater plausibility in the explanation given by
Marck, particularly with the embellishments added by Pels}
Having adduced several examples of the custom prevalent among
idolatrous nations of marking persons and things with the image
or name of an idol (3 Mace. ii. 21 ; Acts xxviii. 11), he proves
from passages quoted from ancient authors, that among the
Persians the horses were sacred to the sun ; and conjectures,
chiefly on the strength of the assertion made by Curtius iii. 3
to the effect that there were figures of gods on the chariot of
Jupiter (Ormuzd), that it was a customary thing with the
Persians to write the name of their deity on the bells of their
horses, and in this way to indicate that they were sacred to the
god. He then proceeds to show that, in the time of the prophet,

dorus says, in his description of Alexander's funeral procession (Bk. 18. ed.

WeSSel. p. 279) : " oitrn rol; aTcevrocs yifiiovovs uvai i^rixoyra xai Tic-rasas' ixaffms
2i TouTut iffTi^avtiiTa, xi)(^puiTui4,'iv'j^ im.(pa,iico koi ■rap ixaTi^av tuv ffiayovav I'X'-*

iln^rtt/iivif icu^ava. ^^uirouv." And Nicetas Clioniatcs says of the PersianK.
" they rode upon beautiful horses, which, in addition to other ornaments,

1 Dissertatio ad Zach. xiv. 20, 21, prses. /. E. Hottinger, Marb. 1711.

150 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

the cavalry was the strength and pride of the Persians. In his
opinion the meaning is, that the glorious day would hereafter
arrive, when the idolatrous nations and everything belonging to
them, which had hitherto been dedicated to their idols, would
be consecrated to the Lord. But the second clause and ver. 21
show, that the reference is not to something to be done for the
Lord, but to something to be effected hy Him. And this is con-
firmed by the allusion to the golden plate on the forehead of the
High Priest, which was not a merely human invention, a sign
that the priest had consecrated himself to God ; but, on the con-
trary, was the symbol of the holiness imparted by God to the
High Priest as the representative of his people. This may be
clearly seen from Ex. xxviii. 38, (" And it shall be upon Aaron's
forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things,
which the children of Israel shall hallow, and it shall be always
upon his forehead, that they maybe accepted before the Lord"),
where it is represented as containing in itself the objective
holiness, imparted by God, by which every imperfection in the
subjective holiness was removed, and in consequence of which
the people were all regarded and treated by the Lord as holy, so
long as this relation lasted, notwithstanding the imperfections
by which their holy services were all defiled. The meaning
therefore is this : in that day the Lord will adorn the horses
with the symbol of holiness, which has hitherto been borne by
the High Priest alone. We have thus an important truth in a
priestly garb (see also chap. ix. 15, where the priestly character
of the prophet peeps out again). The distinction between sacred
and profane originated with the fall. To abolish this distinction
and re-establish the sole supremacy of holiness, was one of the
ultimate designs of the divine economy of salvation ; whilst on the
other hand, the prince of this world endeavoured to exterminate
altogether the other of the two, — namely, everything holy. In
order to secure his purpose more perfectly at last, the Lord
allowed the two to exist for a long period side by side, that the
points of contrast might be more and more conspicuous. He
set apart for Himself a holy nation, in comparison with which
all other nations were profane ; and to this nation he gave a
law, in which the distinction between sacred and profane was
universally maintained in things small as well as great. He

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XIV. 21. 151

was satisfied for a time, that only a certain outwardly defined
territory should be kept sacred as his own ; since, otherwise,
if the two opposing principles were mixed up together, the
evil would completely swallow up the good. With the first
coming of Christ, the ultimate purpose of God drew nearer
to its realisation. The oukoard distinction between sacred and
profane fell into the background ; because a much stronger
support and aid were communicated to the former by the
spirit of Christ. Nevertheless, the two antagonistic elements
still continue, and even in the believer the good does not attain
to complete and sole supremacy in this present life. The day
will come, however, when the Lord will be all in all, and
when every distinction between the holy and the unholy, every
corrupt admixture of the two, and all difierences of degree in the
holy itself, will come to an end (see vol. ii. p. 447 sqq.). Just
as the first clause announces the change of everything profane
into a holy thing ; so does the second clause announce the aboli-
tion of the difierent degrees of holiness. Under the Old Testa-
ment the bowls before the altar, — that is, the basons into which
the blood of the animals slain in sacrifice was received, and
from which it was sprinkled upon the altar and poured out at
the foot of the altar, — were reckoned among the holiest of the
vessels ; for of all the vessels in use, these were the most directly
appropriated to the holiest service of God. On the other hand
the pots, — namely, those in which the meat of the sacrifices was
boiled, were reckoned among the lowest in point of holiness.
We can have no doubt that it is to them that the prophet
alludes (see ver. 21), and they were subservient to human pur-
poses. Even in this instance the Jewish commentators luere com-
pelled by their notion of the perpetual duration of the ceremonial
law, (for a refutation of which either this passage or Mai. i. 1 1
is amply sufficient), to resort to a forced interpretation, in order
to get rid of the correct, but unpalatable meaning. The same
thought, the cessation of all difference in the degrees of holiness,
is expressed by Ezekiel in chap, xliii. 12, though he employs
a different figure. The whole mountain, he says, upon which the
new temple stands, is to be most holy.

Ver. 21. " And every pot in Jerusalem and Judah ivill he
holy to Jehovah of Sahaoth ; a?id all they that sacrifice come and

152 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

tahe of fJiem and hoil therein ; and in that day there will he no
Canaanite more in the house of the Lord of Sabaoth"

Just as the pots in the temple will be quite as holy as the
sacrificial bowls, so will all the pots in Jerusalem and Judah,
which have hitherto been simply clean, not holy, be just as holy
as the pots in the temple. In the closing words, which express
the same idea as the preceding verse, that in the new economy
the profane will become holy, many understand 'Ji?J? to mean
dealer} But by far the majority follow the Septuagint and
render it Canaanite ; and in the main this rendering is greatly
to be preferred. When the prophet says, that at that time there
will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the Lord, it neces-
sarily follows, that in his day there were Canaanites in the house
of the Lord. But this shows that we are not to understand the
word as literally denoting a Canaanite by birth, for even the
Gibeonites, to whom many commentators, including Hofmann,
suppose that the words refer, were not to be found in the temple
itself, from which all foreigners were most scrupulously excluded.
Moreover, it can hardly be imagined that the Gibeonites, who
had been received for centuries without any exception into the
nation of Gog, should be simply represented as Canaanites ; and
it is still more inconceivable that they should be regarded as un-
clean. On the contrary, we have an example here of an idiom,
which is by no means infrequently met with, in which the un-
godly members of the congregation itself are either described as
heathen or uncircumcised, or else directly called Canaanites or
by the name of some other heathen nation, for the purpose of
ridiculing their arrogant pretensions in consequence of their out-
ward connection with the congregation. Circumcision had the
force of a covenant-seal, only when accompanied by the spiritual
condition, of which it was a visible sign ; where this was not the
case circumcision was reckoned uncircumcision. Just as the Pen-
tateuch speaks of a circumcision of the heart, which was rendered
obligatory by the outward circumcision of the Israelites (Deut.

1 Jonathan, for example, says, n»D3 Tiy N3Jn T'Dj? ♦n' nSi NifipD, " and
there will no longer be any one carrying on a trade in the house of the sanc-
tuary ; and Aquila (who is said by Jerome to adopt the rendering mer-
cator, ififTo^o;), Abenezra, Kimchi, Abarbanel, and Grotius, express a similar
view.

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XIV. 21. 153

X. 16, XXX. 6) ; so does Jeremiah speak of the ungodly Israelites
as uncircumcised in heart. Thus in chap. iv. 4, he says, " cir-
cumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of
your hearts, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem,'
and in chap. ix. 26, " for all the heathen are uncircumcised, and
all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart." Ezekiel goes
a step further. In chap. xliv. 9, he represents the ungodly priests
and Levites, not merely as uncircumcised in heart, but also as
uncircumcised in flesh and sons of the stranger. That the uncir-
cumcised and the sons of the stranger mentioned here are not
actual heathen, as many commentators have strangely enough
supposed, but ungodly Levites, is evident, among other reasons,
first, from the fact that priestly actions are attributed to the
persons alluded to, particularly the offering of sacrifices (compare
ver. 7 with ver. 15) ; seconcUy, from dj< *3 in ver. 10, which
these commentators (e. g. Rosenmilller) erroneously render " also,'
" hoivever" (ciber), instead of hut (sondern) ; and lastly, from
ver. 15 and 16, where the announcement of the reward, to be
conferred upon the pious, is opposed to the threat of punishment
to be inflicted upon the ungodly priests and Levites. — Of the
transfer of the name of some one idolatrous nation, which had dis-
tinguished itself by the depth of its moral degradation, to the un-
godly Israelites, the following examples may be adduced. Isaiah,
in chap. i. 10, addresses the princes of Israel without reserve as
" princes of Sodom," and the people as the " people of Gomorrha."
In Ezek. xvi. 3, we find these words, " thus saith the Lord to
Jerusalem ; thine origin and thy descent is from the land of the
Canaanite, thy father is the Amorite, and thy mother a Hittite."
The meaning of the passage before us, therefore, cannot be doubt-
ful. It is a parallel to such passages as Is. iv. 3, " he that is left in
Zion and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy ;"
and chap. Ix. 21, " thy people also shall be all righteous," (compare
the history of Susannah, ver. 48. — At the same time it cannot be
denied that the rendering dealer is to a certain extent correct.
The fact that Canaanite also means dealer shows that the profanity
of the disposition, which characterised this nation, was especially
apparent in the predominance of material interests. In Zeph. i.
11, where the overthrow of the covenant nation is announced in

154 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

the words " all the people of Canaan are destroyed," the Chaldee
has very correctly paraphrased the passage thus, " totus populus
cujus opera similia sunt operibus Cananseorum," and it would be
wrong to render it, "the merchant people,"' as v. Colhi and llaurer
have done. At the same time it is evident from the parallel clause,
" all they that are laden with silver are cut off" (Jonathan,
" divites opibus"), that the reference is not merely to the Ca-
naanites generally, but particularly to their unholy love of gain.
In Hosea xii. 7 the fallen covenant nation is spoken of in these
terms, " Canaan, in his hand is the balance of deceit, he loves to
act unjustly." " The Phoenicians," observes C. B. Michaelis {in
loo.), " as Grrotius and others observe, were (piXoxpviMocroi re xal
rpumToci, avaricious and cheats." In Ezek. xvii. 4 it is certainly
wrong to render Canaan " merchant." Babylon was a second
Canaan (see Hdvernick in loc), but in the next clause " city
of merchants" is introduced, as a parallel to the land of Canaan,
to show that the Babylonians are not called Canaanites on ac-
count of their carnal disposition in general, but on account of their
carnal devotedness to trade. That this has been an hereditary
failing with the Jewish people, experience teaches even to the
present day ; and therefore it is very appropriate, that the pro-
phet should conclude his prophecy with an allusion to the exter-
mination of this evil in the days of salvation, seeing that the loss
of national independence, which causes personal interests to be
thrown into greater prominence, would make the evil stronger
than ever. If, then, the Canaanites represent the essential cha-
racter of the world, from the most material point of view, this
places in a new light the purification of the temple in John ii.
13 — 22. In its general features the latter rests upon Malachi.
But in the fact that the Lord drives out the traders from the
temple as a symbol of the reformation predicted by the prophet,
— that his zeal for a reform manifests itself on the traders in
particular, — there is an allusion to the passage before us, in
combination with that of Malachi. In the purification of the
temple this passage is, as it were, placed upon the stage before our
eyes ; compare especially ver. 14, " and found in the temple those
that sold oxen, and sheep, and doves, and the changers of money

1 The rendering given in the English version. — Tb.

ZECHARIAH, CHAP. XIV. 21. 155

sitting ;" and ver. 16, " make not my Father's house an house of
merchandise." — There were degrees in the fulfihnent of this
announcement ; see the remarks on Is. iv. 3. By the blood and
Spirit of Christ, the material spirit received a heavy blow, and
in every age of the Church there is a powerful reaction. The
ultimate fulfilment is that described in Kev. xxi. 27 and xxii.
15.

( 156 )

THE PROPHET MALACHI.

The question as to the period at which the prophet wrote has
been set at rest by Vitringa fde Mai. 'proph. in the Ohss. vol. ii.)
The reasons adduced by him in support of his conclusion, that
the book was composed under Nehemiah, about the time of his
second arrival in Canaan, subsequent to the thirty-second year of
Artaxerxes, hardly leave any further room for doubt. The prin-
cipal reason which he assigns is the following : in Malachi, and
in the thirteenth chapter of Nehemiah, which is occupied with
the period succeeding his return, the same offences are referred
to as common at the time, and described in nearly the same
words. Compare, for example, chap. ii. 8 with Neh. xiii. 30,
where the sin of the nation, especially of the priests, in marrying
heathen wives, is referred to ; and chap. iii. 1 0 with Neh. xiii.
10 — 12, in which allusion is made to the neglect of the people
to bring the tithes. Of the objections offered by Hitzig, Reinhe,
and others to this conclusion, the only one which has any plausi-
bility is that the governor, mentioned in chap, i. 8, does not ap-
pear to be an Israelite, and certainly not to be Nehemiah, who
had refused to take even such presents as were justly due to him
(see Neh. v, 14, 15). But this passage merely treats of farced
contributions and extortions. Such a position, as that of Nehe-
miah, can hardly be conceived of in an eastern country without
presents. And an absolute refusal to receive them would have
been a manifestation of unfeeling harshness. The only point,
about which there can be any doubt, is whether the public appear-

MALACHI. 157

ance of Malachi occurred shortly before, or shortly after, or pre-
cisely at the period of the reform movement which took place on
the occasion of Nehemiah's second arrival. The last is the most
probable supposition. It cannot be right to fix upon an earlier
period, since the strength of the abuses that had arisen, is repre-
sented in Nehemiah as not in the least diminished, — a fact which
presupposes that God had left the nation to itself for some time,
— and also because a governor over the civil affairs is mentioned
in chap. i. 8 as existing at the time in the midst of the nation.
A later period cannot be thought of, from the very nature of the
case ; and according to Nehemiah's own account, the steps taken
by him to effect a reformation cannot be supposed to have been
altogether without effect. Hence it is probable that the con-
temporaneous labours of Malachi and Nehemiah bore the same
relation to each other, as those of Haggai and Zechariah on the
one hand, and Joshua and Zerubbabel on the other. The out-
ward efforts of Nehemiah to bring about a reform were accom-
panied by the more spiritual efforts of Malachi. Nehemiah cast
forth all the household stuff of Tobiah out of the chamber (ver.
8) ; " if ye do so again," he threatens the Sabbath-breakers in
ver. 21, "I will lay hands on you." He smites the men, who
have taken foreign wives, and plucks off their hair (ver. 25).
Malachi, on the other hand, merely smites with the word of
God. He points expressly to the judgment of God, the be-
ginning of which was already to be seen in the midst of the
nation, and which would continue to increase in distinctness
and strength, in proportion as the germ of destruction, which
already existed, became more and more developed. A similar
parallel in the progress of inward and outward reform is to be
met with on various occasions in the history of Israel ; for ex-
ample, that of Isaiah and Hezekiah, and again that of Jeremiah
and Josiah. There is not a single example of a purely outward
reform.

Vitringa's views with regard to the name of the prophet, —
viz., that Malachi was an ideal name and not the prophet's own
name, have met with far less favour than those with respect to
the date at which he wrote. And yet the reasons, that may be
adduced in support of this opinion, are by no means weak,
though Vitringa himself did not perceive them at all. In the

158 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

first place we cannot but be struck at the outset with the fact,
that the superscription contains no further information as to the
prophet himself, not even the name of his father or his birth-
place. There are only two other instances of this, — both of
them in the case of minor prophets, — Obadiah and Habakkuk ;
though, of course, these two parallel cases are sufficient to pre-
vent our inferring anything with certainty from this fact alone.
Secondly, we cannot fail to be struck with another circumstance,
namely, that doubts were entertained at a very early period, as
to the historical personality of Malachi. It is very certain that the
translators of the Septuagint regarded the name as merely an
official one. They render the words '?nVo 11?^ sv x^'p* a-yylXov
aurov. This is also the case with the Chaldee translator, who
appends to the name Malachi the words " qui alias Ezra scriha
vacatur. " Jerome, who expresses the same opinion, has cer-
tainly followed the Jewish tradition. From these testimonies
so much at least may be inferred with perfect certainty, that
tradition knew nothing of a historical person named Malachi.
And this absence of any traditional account is the more striking,
in proportion to the lateness of the period at which the prophet
lived. But we may even go further with some degree of cer-
tainty. How came it to pass that it was only in the case of
Malachi, and not in that of other prophets, the circumstances of
whose lives were just as little known, that such conjectures were
ever expressed ? This certainly appears to point to the con-
clusion, that tradition was not merely silent with regard to
the existence of any prophet named Malachi, but expressly de-
nied that any prophet of that name really did exist. Thirdly,
The name itself furnishes the strongest argument. This
would not be the case, if it were compounded of ij^Vo and
^Ip! as Vitringa, Caspari (on Micah, p. 28) , and others assume.
Cases of a similar kind, in which the name and the vocation
correspond, are frequently to be met with in the Scriptures ; and
in many instances the Jhfluence of God in producing this result
is unmistakeable. Again, the name would prove nothing, if
the rendering angelicus, suggested by Gesenius and Winer, were
admissible. But the rules of the language will not allow of
either of these explanations. The first is untenable, because not

MALACHI. 159

a single reliable example can be adduced of such an abbreviation
of the word nSn^.i Moreover, nirr -^nSd could not mean a
messenger, but the messenger of the Lord, and therefore, al-
though the whole of the priesthood might be so designated, the
expression could not be properly applied to a single individual.
The second is inadmissible, because the words in '—, when
derived from ordinary nouns, are only used to denote descent or
occupation. But a still stronger reason is, that "i|«Vo is not a
proper name peculiar to the angels, from which such an adjec-
tive as angelical could be derived ; and this is particularly appa-
rent in the case of our prophet, seeing that he only uses the word
once in connection with a heavenly messenger, and twice of an
earthly messenger sent by God. But how could any one think
of rendering '?nVd in the superscription differently from *3n^d
in chap. iii. 1 ? We have here a sufficient disproof, not only of
both the derivations mentioned, but also of the untenable opinion
that the name signifies " messenger," " one sent." That the two
are connected, whatever the nature of the connection may be,
must be at once apparent to every one. Now in chap. iii. 1 the
rendering "my messenger" is not exposed to any difficulty.
But if the same meaning be adopted in the heading, it would be
difficult to find any analogy to such a proper name, except the
perfectly isolated name Hephzibah in 2 Kings xxi. 1 (compare
Is. Ixii. 4). And where should we find another example of a
proper name, the form of which can only be explained on the
supposition that it was given by Grod himself? The actual
state of the case would be a very diff'erent one, if Malachi were
regarded as a name which the prophet adopted for this particular
prophecy. He would then expect every one to gather the mean-
ing from the word itself, as found in chap. iii. 1. We might
imagine it preceded by some such introductory words as these :

1 Caspari appeals to the fact that the name »3n in 2 Kings xviii. 2 is an
abbreviation of n♦^^« in 2 Chr. xxix 1. But the cases are not parallel.
The » in 'ss is not an abbi-eviation of Jehovah, but the name of God is
dropped altogether, a circumstance of frequent occurrence : " Hehrccl nomina
divina scepissime in fine nominum propriorum reticent" Simonis p. 11. The
same remark applies to the name 'bSs, " mj deliverance," of which the
full form is Paltiel, " God my deliverance," 2 Sam. iii. 15.

160 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

Burden of the word of the Lord through " my messenger." If
the name be regarded as dependent upon the passage referred to,
the more precise explanation given will necessarily differ accord-
ing to the different modes in which this passage is explained.
If we understand by " my messenger" John the Baptist in his
historical character, Cocceius ^ is right, and the name must be
interpreted as meaning, " he who has prophesied of the mes-
senger of the Lord," or " he of whose prophecy ' my messenger'
forms the sum and substance." If we tinderstand the expres-
sion "my messenger" as used ideally, so that it is simply be-
cause the idea was most perfectly realised in him, that John
comes principally into consideration, whilst the labours of the
prophet himself are also represented as included in the idea, then
the meaning of the name is, " he whom the Lord himself has
called his messenger," In this case he directs attention to the ex-
treme responsibility incurred by those who refuse to listen to his
message. He says exactly the same thing as Haggai expresses
in the words, " then spake Haggai, the Lord's messenger, in the
Lord's message unto the people" (chap. i. 13). The latter sup-
position is evidently the more natural of the two ; and no other
furnishes any kind of analogy to other proper names. In this
way, too, the name of the prophet himself serves to confirm the
second explanation of chap. iii. 1, of the correctness of which we
shall by and by bring forward still further proofs. Caspari's
objection, that there is no other instance of an ideal name of
this description, may be met by a reference to Agar in Prov.
XXX. 1, and Lemuel in Prov. xxxi. 1. But it is very "ques-
tionable, whether even in the case of the other prophets the
names are to be all regarded as those which they received at
their birth ; whether, on the contrary, many of them do not
resemble the name Peter. The sacred character of the names is
so unmistakeable, and the agreement between the name of the
prophet and the peculiar character of his prophecy is frequently
so striking (for example in the case of Jeremiah), that this
assumption is a very natural one. If the name be really an
ideal one, it might be argued in support of the opinion that
Ezra is hidden under Malachi, that the priestly calling of

1 "In hoc nomine est fnvfioa-woy potissimae prophetise hujus libri, quae
exstat c. iii. i."

MALACHI. 161

Malachi is rendered probable by the excessive interest which
he manifests in the priestly order, and also that the books of
Ezra and the Chronicles favour the conclusion that Ezra took
part anonymously in the completion of the canon. If it be
correct to attribute to Ezra — the only man of God who is
mentioned in the Scriptures along with Nehemiah, as living
at that time — the last four anonymous Psalms, which cer-
tainly belong to the period in which he lived, the works of
Ezra would then form the conclusion of all three departments of
sacred literature, and from his entire position this is by no means
improbable.

The heading of the Book of Malachi, " hurdev} of the word
of the Lord to Israel ," is a sufficient indication of the character
of the book, as containing one single prophetic address, the
tenor of which is threatening and punitive, not comforting or
promising. In the prophecy itself this unity is manifest in the
expressions employed. The charges are constantly followed by
an inquiry on the part of those who are punished, on what
ground the punishment is inflicted, and this again by a fuller
explanation on the part of the prophet (compare, for example,
chap. i. 6, 7, ii. 14, 17, iii. 7, 8, 13). Eichhorn and De Wette
pretend that this uniformity of style is a sign of exhaustion.
But if we look attentively at the plan of the prophecy, if we
observe how, with all that is apparently fragmentary, it forms
a closely connected whole, and how the expressions through-
out are utterances of the very sentiment, against which the
prophet is contending, it will assume a totally different aspect.
To regard punishments in the manner indicated here is the
peculiar characteristic of this state of mind, this Pelagian
blindness, which knows neither itself nor Grod. And the un-
changeable character of such a disposition could not be exhibited
in a more striking manner, than by the adoption, throughout,
of precisely the same mode of expression. The self-righteous
man is thus brought distinctly before the mind.

But if we look merely at the contents of the book, his portrait

1 For nVd see the remarks on Zech. ix. 1. Ilitzig explains it as meaning
" utterance, word of Jehovaii," but in this case it would be rendered super"
fluous by nan, which follows.

VOL. IV. L

162 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

presents itself on every hand. The captivity formed an impor-
tant turning-point in the thoughts and feelings of the Israelites.
Even before that event, ungodliness manifested itself in two
different forms, open infidelity, which either ridiculed all religion
or gave itself up to idolatry, and a dead reliance upon justifi-
cation by works, a hope of meriting the favour of God by a
tattered and imperfect outward righteousness, in spite of cor-
ruptions and enmity to God within. The latter disposition is
depicted and opposed in the 50th Psalm, and the Ist chapter of
Isaiah, but it is still more vigorously resisted in the second part,
especially in chap. Iviii. Previous to the captivity, the former
was by far the more prevalent of the two forms of religion. The
captivity itself made a deep impression upon the nation. At
first a better state of feeling prevailed among those who returned.
Haggai and Zechariah found more occasion to comfort troubled
minds, than to reprove the hardened and terrify them by severe
threatenings. But it soon became apparent, that with the mass
of the people the professed repentance was only hypocritical, and
that corruption was still burning under the ashes, ready to burst
into flames again in due time. Even Zechariah found occasion
to announce a new and destructive judgment upon Judea, as
soon as the wickedness, which existed in the germ in his own
day, should have struck its roots and put forth branches (com-
pare chap. v. and xi). The growth of these germs made rapid
progress between his day and that of Malachi. It was only
upon the form in which irreligion manifested itself, that the
captivity continued to exert a powerful influence. The second
of the two forms referred to now attained to sole supremacy.
The people still shrank back from the open profession of irre-
ligion. It was not till a much later period, that Sadduceeism
arose by a powerful movement from without ; and even after
this, Phariseeism retained its influence unquestioned over the
great mass of the nation. In its leading features the latter was
fully developed in the time of Malachi. To perceive this we need
only consider the prominence of the priestly order, the utter
absence of any deep-rooted convictions of sin and righteousness,
the striving after an outward fulfilment of the law, the thirst
for judgments upon the heathen, who were regarded as the sole
objects of the judicial punishment of God, and the murmuriog

MALACHI. 163

against God, which Calvin has so strikingly described as a dis-
tinguishing characteristic of hypocrisj^ " Thus," he says, " are
hypocrites accustomed, when God does not appear immediately
with his aid, not only to express their disapprobation indirectly,
but even to break out into open blasphemies. They fancy that
God is under obligations to them, and therefore proceed with
the less hesitation, yea, with all the greater arrogance, to exalt
themselves against him. On the other hand, it is a proof of
true piety, when we patiently submit to the judgments of God,
and as Jeremiah admonishes us by his own example, bear his
anger, because we know that we have sinned (chap. viii. 14).
Hypocrites are not conscious of any guilt, since they do not
examine themselves, but rather make excuses and stupify their
consciences, and therefore imagine that God is doing them an
injury, unless he comes at once to their help."

The manifestation of this wickedness, though not its existence,
was promoted by the dealings of God with the nation. The
prophets before the exile had promised an infinite supply of
blessings to such as should return. But the actual circumstances
appeared to stand out in glaring contrast with these promises.
There was no Messiah ; the people of God were servants in their
own land (Neh. ix. 36, 37) ; they were governed by heathens ;
and there was everywhere poverty and distress. Even to the
truly pious this state of things was the cause of many tempta-
tions ; but their doubts, which they overcame by faith, did not
affect the righteousness of God. On the contrary, the circum-
stances in which they were placed seemed rather to furnish
proofs of His righteousness, though they led them to despair of
his grace, which they thought they had forfeited by the great-
ness of their sins. Compare, for example, the prayer in Nehemiah,
chap, ix., which has been described as a parallel to the grievances
referred to in Malachi — a comparison which is quite unwarrant-
able, since the fact is altogether overlooked that, although the
former contains bitter complaints, they relate not to God, but
to the people's own sins. In ver. 31 we read, " Nevertheless,
for thy great mercies thou didst not utterly consume them, nor
forsake them ; for thou art a gracious and merciful God," and
in ver. 33, " Howbeit thou art just in all that is brought upon
us ; for thou has done right, but we have done wickedly." The

1 64 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

merely outwardly pious, on the contrary, could not fail to
murmur against Grod and charge him with unfaithfulness. For
according to their views of the relation, in which they stood
to God, they had really suffered wrong. Since they could not
perceive, that the cause of the very imperfect fulfilment of the
promises was to be found in themselves, they necessarily formed
wrong conceptions of Grod. A theodicee, with regard to suffer-
ings, is only possible from the scriptural view of human sin-
fulness.

We will now give a sketch of the work from beginning to end,
for the purpose of showing that the state of mind against which
the prophet contends, is the same throughout, although mani-
fested in different forms.

The first section embraces chap, i, 2 — 5. " I have loved you,
saith the Lord ;" these are the prophet's opening words, in which
he points to the love of God as the foundation of the complaint
which follows. " Wherein hast thou loved us ?" is the reply of
the hypocrites, who thus display their character at the very
outset. Mistaken notions as to the mercies of God, and ingrati-
tude for those mercies, are distinguishing characteristics of
hypocrisy. Even the greatest of all are regarded by hypocrites
as a merited recompense ; and the smallest, in which the humble
believer rejoices as proofs of undeserved compassion, are treated
by them as a kind of offence. As a proof of the love of God,
the prophet appeals to the fact, that the Lord has brought
Israel back into its own land, whereas the home of the kindred
nation of Edom, which the Lord hates, is still lying waste.
This commencement of mercy was a pledge of its continuance,
if only they did not by their own sins place obstacles in the
way.

A second section extends from chap. i. 6 — ii. 9. The question
with regard to their guilt, in not reciprocating affection, is
directed first of all to the priests. The principal reason for this
was, that in the time of Malachi the priests constituted the heart
of the entire life of the nation ; compare chap. ii. 3, where the
whole nation is addressed in them. The result in this case is a
very mournful one. Instead of humbling themselves and sufi'er-
ing themselves to be stirred up to renewed zeal in the service of
the Lord, by the sufferings inflicted upon the nation at large,

MALACHI. 165

and upon their own order in particular, to which the service of
the Lord aiforded but a scanty means of subsistence, they do the
very opposite, and in their pharisaic blindness look for the
causes, not in themselves, but in God. In the blindness, which
is inseparable from their self-righteousness, they imagine that,
since God does not give them what is due, he cannot make any
great claims upon them. Not only do they come very far short,
therefore, of the fulfilment of the higher duties of their office,
which the prophet expressly enforces upon them at the close,
namely, to live in the fear of God, to be the mediators between
God and the nation, and to bring back many from iniquity,
they are no longer fit to discharge even inferior duties. The
worst sacrifices, in their opinion, are good enough for the Lord.
Even when they offer these, they think that they are rendering
another important service to the Lord. They fancy that he
cannot do without the temple and its sacrifices. The prophet
shows that the outward circumstances of the priestly order are
merely the reflection of its moral condition, and that the breakers
of the covenant are brought into affliction now by the very same
means, by which in former times those who observed the covenant
were made partakers of life, prosperity, and peace. And he
threatens with still greater punishment in the name of the
Lord. Those who have profaned Him, must be themselves pro-
faned. In opposition to the delusive notion, that the Lord
stands in need of the temple and its service, he points to the
future, when the Lord will form for himself a new and incon-
ceivably large Church from the midst of the heathen, which will
serve him with true sincerity, and when 'pure sacrifices will be
offered, instead of those which are offered now and which are
impure in his sight, because they are offered without flxith, with-
out love, and without fear. Compare the important passage in
chap. i. 11, "for from the rising of the sun even unto the going
down of the same, my name is gi*eat among the heathen, and in
every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering ;
for my name is great among the heathen, saith Jehovah of
Hosts." In the expression, " my name is great among the
heathen," there is an allusion to ver. 6, " ye priests, who despise
my name." The name of God springs out of his acts, and there-
fore the announcement, that the name of the Lord will become

166 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

great among the heathen, points to manifestations of a glorious
description on the part of God. The words, " in every place,"
form a contrast to the temple, mentioned in the previous verse.
The wish, which is there expressed, that some one would shut
the temple, seeing that it is no longer a house of God, contains
at the same time a prophecy. The pure gifts of those, among
whom the name of God is great, are contrasted with the impure
gifts of the despisers of God, in which he will not accept (ver.
6), because he has no pleasure in the givers. What a wondrous
insight into futurity, in the case of the prophet whose prophecies
form the top-stone of the Old Testament ! To any one who had
correctly interpreted them, there could be nothing surprising in
the words, " the kingdom of God is taken from you and given
to a nation, bringing forth the fruits thereof" The only thing
that could cause him surprise must have been the long-suffering
of God, which suffered the barren tree to stand for so many
years. This passage is necessary to complete the following
threat of the judgment which is to fall upon Israel. It shows
that the kingdom of God does not perish, when the Lord comes
and smites the land with a curse (chap. iii. 24), but that this
apparent death is the pathway to true life. We have here the
Old Testament foundation of the words spoken by the Lord in
John iv. 21 sqq., and Matt. viii. 11. In the latter of the two
passages (" many shall come from the east and from the west,
and shall sit down," &c.), even the expressions point back to this
passage.

Hitzig, Maurer, and Ewald have endeavoured to rob this
section of its prophetic character, and maintain that it relates to
circumstances which existed in the time of the prophet himself
But the simple fact that there were no such circumstances in
existence in the prophet's days, is a sufficient proof that the pre-
sent is merely ideal, and that he is actually treating of a future,
which he anticipates by faith. At that time the name of the
Lord was twt great among the heathen " from the rising of the
sun to the going down of the same" (a standing phrase for " over
the whole earth"), and incense and a pure offering were not
offered to his name " in every place."^ Moreover the intimate

1 Michaelis : " In omni loco, in Assyria et Mgypto, Ezra xix. 18 sqq.,
sicut olim in uno loco, Deut. xii. 5, 6."

MALACHI. 167

connection between this prophecy and other Messianic announce-
ments, (e.g., Zeph. ii. 11, " and men shall worship him, every one
from his place, even all the isles of the heathen ;" Is. xi. 10,
and Zech. ix. 10) is too obvious to be overlooked, and it is only
by suppressing the exegetical evidence altogether, that the pas-
sage can be severed from this connection. — Reinke (die Weissa-
gunglslsl. i. 11 in the Beiirdge zur Erlddruvig desA. T., vol. ii.)
agrees with us in our Messianic interpretation, but understands
the passage as referring to " the bloodless sacrifice of the New
Testament, the holy sacrifice of the mass." He takes a false posi-
tion, however, especially as he has given a spiritual interpreta-
tion to the incense connected with the pure offering. This he
supposes to relate to prayer (p. 503) ; and at the same time he
even observes, " that Malachi could not refer to literal incense is
evident from the fact, that the offering and burning of incense
could only take place in the holy temple," a rule which was quite
as applicable to the meat-offering. The use of the terms relating
to sacrifice in a spiritual sense, is very common in the Scriptures
of the Old and New Testament ; in fact it could not be other-
wise, on account of the transparent character and symbolical
meaning of the sacrifices of the Old Testament. Compare, for
example, Ps. I. 23, Ii. 19 ; Hosea xiv. 3 ; Is. Ixvi. 20 (where the
presentation of a spiritual meat-offering on the part of the heathen
is especially mentioned, just as in the passage before us) ; Rom.
xii. 1 ; Heb. xiii. 15 ; and 1 Pet. ii. 5. Incense and meat-offer-
ing, the intimate connection of which is attested by Lev. ii. 15
(compare also Is. i. 13), are both employed in a spiritual sense
to denote prayer^ and good works. In this connection the em-
phasis is evidently laid, not upon the outward form, but upon the
spirit of the sacrifice. The spiritless meat-offerings of the Jews,
the Lord had just before declared that he woul({ not accept. The
outward sacrifice was intimately and inseparably connected with
the national sanctuary under the Old Testament (yid. Lev. xvii.
3 — 9, and Deut. xii.) ; and therefore the expression, " in every
place," coupled with the allusion to the closing of the temple in
ver. 10, and with the threat of the ban in chap. iii. 24, lead to
the conclusion that it is not to incense and meat-offering in the

1 Oa incense as a symbol of prayer gee the remarks on this passage, and
also the commentary on Rev. v. 8, and viii. 3, 4.

168 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

ordinary sense that the prophet here refers. The abolition of the
Old Testament form of worship had been expressly announced
even by the earlier prophets (compare Jer. iii. 16 and Dan. ix.
27). It is the more apparent that there can be no reference
here to the " bloodless sacrifice of the New Testament," since
the resemblance on which Reinke lays stress, namely, " that they
are both composed of fine and pure wheaten flour with a mix-
ture of wine," is a purely material one, and there is no essential
connection between the two. The meat-offering, the food to be
ofiered to the Lord by his people, was a symbolical represen-
tation of good works (see the Dissertation on the Pentateuch,
vol. ii. p. 530 ; and " The Lord's Day," p. 24 translation). But
according to the doctrine of the Catholics, the " holy sacrifice of
the mass " has a very different meaning.

The third section embraces chap. ii. 10 — 16. At first sight
it appears as if the prophet is reproving one particular crime,
which has an immediate connection with the corrupt state of
mind to which all the rest is directed, namely, severity and
unfaithfulness towards women. But the appearance vanishes
on closer examination. The prophet traces this crime to its
original cause, to the darkening of the religious consciousness,
which must always take place, where the punishment of sin is
inflicted, whilst the confession of sin is wanting ; he who does
not murmur against this sin will necessarily murmur against
God (Lam. iii. 39). This is evident from ver. 10, which deter-
mines the genus to which the particular crime belongs. " Have
we not all one father ? Hath not one God created us ? Why
then is brother faithless towards brother, to profane the covenant
of our fathers?" The Israelites are children of God, spiritual
brethren. Hence every violation of the duties arising out of
their fraternal relationship, such as the unfaithfulness of which
the men have been guilty towaids their Israelitish wives, is at
the same time a sin against God, and a profanation of his cove-
nant. " He who loveth not his brother whom he hath seen,
how shall he love God whom he hath not seen ?" Whoever
abolishes the distinction between an Israelitish and a heathen
woman, shows by that very fact, that he must, first of all,
have ceased to recognise the distinction between the God of
Israel and the idols of the heathen. This is expressly declared

MALACni. 169

in the opening clause of the following verse, " Judah hath
dealt treacherously." Unftiithfulness in connection with their
earthly marriage is represented here, as the symptom and conse-
quence of unfaithfulness in connection with their heavenly mar-
riage. And the latter, — viz., the profanation of the sanctuary of
the Lord which he loveth, that is of his kingdom in Israel, is
mentioned as the chief cause ; injustice to their neighbour is
described in ver. 13 as merely the second.

In the fourth section, chap. ii. 17 — iii. 6, the fundamental
disposition, against which the prophet is contending, is very con-
spicuous. They say, " Every one that doeth evil is good in the
sight of the Lord, and he delighteth in them ; or, Where is the
God of judgment ?" From their own stand-point they are
quite right in their conclusions respecting God. But the pro-
phet tells them in his reply that their stand-point is a false one.
God is and will continue to be the righteous One, and will show
himself to be so ; not, however, on those whom they regard as
the sole objects of his righteous judgments, but on those who
are so more than any others, — namely on themselves, who in their
infatuation and blindness are longing for the coming of God to
judgment. He, first of all, sends his messenger, to warn them
and lead them to repentance. And then, the divine angel of
the covenant, whom they are eagerly looking for as the supposed
destroyer of the heathen, suddenly appears to punish the trans-
gressors of the covenant. His appearance is destructive to the
wicked members of the Church of God, but to the Church itself
it is a most salutary event, a fulfilment of the promises it has
received from God.

In the fifth section (chap. iii. 7 — 12), the prophet charges
the people with neglecting to bring the tithes and heave-offer-
ings,— a neglect which bears witness to their inward apostasy
from God. He points out the folly of such conduct. Imagin-
ing that they are deceiving God, they are really deceiving
themselves. The curse is already resting upon them ; and yet
they persist in the sin, of which it is the consequence. If they
will only do their duty, the curse will soon be turned into a
blessing.

This section is closely connected with the one which precedes
it. What could be more adapted to put to shame those who

170 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

murmured impatiently against God, and maintained that the
continued afflictions of the covenant nation were a practical proof
of the want of righteousness on His part, than the declaration,
which forms the theme of this section, " Even from the days of
your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not
kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith
the Lord of Hosts." The very thing which appears to them to
be at variance with divine righteousness, affords a striking proof
of its existence. We have here the second part of the reply to
the question which provoked it, " where is the God of right-
eousness ?" The first reply we find in the previous section, " he
will quickly appear, but to your destruction ;" the second we
have here, " he is appearing already in j^our present circum-
stances." You are already acquainted with one side, — namely,
the judicial side of his righteousness; it depends entirely upon
yourselves whether you shall also become acquainted with the
other side.

This section is also closely connected with the sixth or last.
The words of the murmurers against God, who are introduced
as speaking in vers. 13 — 15, are so directly related, often ver-
bally, to the prophet's own words in the foregoing section, that
they can only be regarded as intended for a reply. " Prove me
now herewith (namely, by a faithful performance of your duties
towards me), saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the
windows of heaven, and pour you out blessings in immeasurable
abundance" (ver. 10). In ver. 15 the opponents reply, "they
(the heathen) jyi'ove God, and are delivered." What need then
is there of proving, in the manner to which thou invitest us ?
Even the proving of the heathen is sufficient. If he has not
shown himself to be the God of righteousness, when this test is
applied, what are we to expect from this fresh proof ? In ver.
12 they are told, " all the heathen call you blessed, for ye will
be a delightsome land, saith the Lord of hosts ;" and the mur-
murers reply in ver. 15, "and now we call the wicked happy."
It is the heathen who congratulate us, the faithful servants of
God ; but we, on the contrary, who congratulate those who have
forgotten God. In ver. 7 the prophet says to them, " ye have
gone away from mine ordinances, and have not observed them."
In ver. 14 the murmurers answer, " we have observed him, and

MALACHI, CHAP. II. 17 — III. 6. 171

have walked mournfully before the Lords of hosts." Thou pro-
misest great gain, {/"we do this. We have done it, and what
have we gained ? The same question still retains its force,
'■ where is the God of righteousness ? "

The propliet then proceeds, after quoting these replies, which
testify of the deepest blindness, to notice first of all the conduct
of those who truly fear God, and under the form of a historical
statement to warn Ihem against taking part in expressions, which
are dictated by feelings entirely opposed to their own. The
truly pious, hearing the words of those who have the form of
godliness, but deny its power, express to one another their ab-
horrence of their conduct. The Lord will bless them abundantly,
when his judgments, which are about to break forth, shall fall
upon the ungodly. The prophecy closes with an exhortation to
adhere steadfastly to the law of God ; with a promise that God
will send the prophet Elias before the great and terrible day of
the Lord comes, to revive the spirit of the law in the midst of
the nation ; and with a threat that he will smite the land with
the curse, if it does not hearken to the voice of the messenger ot
God.

We will now proceed to an exposition of the two sections,
chap. ii. 17 — iii. 6 and chap. iii. 13 — 24.

CHAPTEE IL IT-IIL 6.

PRELIMINARY EXPOSITION OF ISAIAH XL. 3 5.

Before proceeding to the interpretation of this section in
Malachi, and especially of chap. iii. 1, we must enter into a
fuller explanation of Is. xl. 3 — 5, which we merely touched
upon in a very cursory manner before. The answer, which
Malachi gives to those who have ventured to impugn the justice
of God, rests upon this passage. And it is of the greater im-
portance that we should examine it here, since the New Testa-
ment citations emphatically show that it is closely connected
with the subject of the present section.

172 MESSIANIC PEEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

"A voice crying : in the desert: prepare ye the luay of the
Lord ! level in the desert a road for our God. Let every valley
exalt itself and every mountain and hill sink down, and the
steep become a plain and the rugged a valley. And the glory
of the Lord is revealed, and all flesh seeth together, for the mouth
of the Lord hath spoken."

Vers. 3 and 4 form an introduction to the coming of the Lord ;
ver, 5 describes the coming itself.

Are we to connect "i?"]?? (in the desert) with the preceding
words, as the translators of the Sej)tuagint and the Evangelists
after them have done (j^mvyi ^ouvros h ty) spinfMcv' sToi.f/,ccaxTs rriv
h^h y.vpiov), or with the next clause, as modern commenta-
tors for the most part suppose ? The decision of this question
is of no great importance so far as the subject itself is concerned.
For even if we connect the word with the following clause, the
voice must be understood as sounding in the place in which the
command itself was to be carried out. There are difficulties
connected with both explanations. The parallel term nmva
favours the connection with the words which follow, whilst the
situation of lanoa at the commencement, before the verb,
favours the connection with the previous clause. It is in any
case a very unusual thing for a subordinate idea to be placed
first, in such a way as this. But here there is the less room to
suppose that it is merely accidental, since nanya is placed
after the verb. If imcs corresponded exactly to !^3"iy3, the
order of the words would evidently be faulty. The arguments
adduced in support of both connections retain their force, if we
place "(3103 in a kind of independent position, between the
two clauses, as Vitringa, Rilckert, and Stier have done, so that
it shall belong equally to both " a voice crying : in the desert :
prepare," &c., equivalent to, "a voice crieth in the desert, pre-
pare in the desert," &c. Again xDip Ssp is not an independent
sentence, but must be explained as a fragmentary expression
arising from strong emotion, as the translators of the Septuagint
perceived. We must supply in thought some such expression as
this, " hark ! what do I hear ? "

To whom does the voice crying in the desert belong, and to
whom is it directed ? Modern commentators, for the most part,

MALACHI, CHAP. II. 17 — III. 6. 173

maintain that the speaker is God, and that the persons addressed
are the prophets. The words, " the way of Jehovah," instead of
" my way," naturally excite suspicion ; at the same time the nin'.
in ver. 2 might be adduced on the other side, though the change to
the third person is not so harsh in this instance, on account of 'ajL
preceding. The question is decided, however, by i^'n'^'*':^, our
Grod. This shows that the voice, which calls, must proceed
from the covenant nation itself Gesenius refers to ver. 6, as a
proof that the voice must be the voice of God. But even there
this explanation is inadmissible ; as we may see from ver. 8,
" the word of our God endureth for ever," (compare also nSn» n>n
in ver. 7). For, if God were introduced as the speaker in vers.
3 — 8, how could we account for the fact, that He is invariably
referred to in the third person ? The only explanation that
remains, therefore, is that, in ver. 6, one servant of God ad-
dresses another, according to the dramatic character of the whole
representation.

The voice, then, must issue from the covenant nation. The
question arises here, whether the person crying can be more
precisely determined. Gesenius and others reply, both here
and in other places, that it catinot be any one but the pro-
phets. It is to them, they say, that the appeal is made in
ver. 1 ; we cannot think of any but a prophet, who has re-
ceived the directions from God, in connection with "i?n in
ver. 6 ; and, lastly, Zion and Jerusalem, the bringers of good
tidings in ver. 9, must be altered into bringers of good tidings
to Zion and Jerusalem, and these again must be the prophets.
But the false materialism, which is apparent in this explanation,
stands out even more prominently in chap. lii. 7, 8, where
'^i?'?'? and o'si'^, the messengers who bring good tidings, and
the watchmen who stand upon the walls, and witness their
arrival with joy, are both said to be prophets. If this method
of interpretation be adopted, what are we to do with the ex[)res-
sion in ver. 0, " break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste
places of Jerusalem." But the confession reaches its highest poin fc
in chap. Ixii. 6, " I have set a watchman upon thy walls, 0 Jeru-
salem, which shall never hold their peace day nor night," on which
this comment is made, " the prophet who had made intercession

174 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

himself according to ver. 1, has placed other watchmen upon
the ruins of Jerusalem, who are to importune Jehovah with un-
ceasing supplications on behalf of the city."

In ver. 1 it is the whole company of the servants and heralds
of God, to which the divine command is issued, and it is they
who here begin to carry out the instructions. As a matter of
fact, the prophets occupy a very important position in this com-
pany. But this is not the point which the prophet at present
has in view. In vers. 1, 3, and 6, just as in ver. 9, it is with an
ideal person, the messenger of the Lord (Mai. iii. 1), that he has
to do, and the real individuals take part in his utterances, only so
far as the idea is realised in them.

When the question is once determined to whom the voice cry-
ing in the desert belongs ; we can no longer have any doubt as to
the persons who are addressed. Members of the covenant
nation, furnished by God with the gifts of his Spirit, appointed
as his heralds, address the covenant nation itself. This is evi-
dent from the use of the expression, " our God," in a connection
in which allusion is made to the God of Israel.

Having determined so much, we can no longer feel any per-
plexity as to what we are to understand by prepariiig the way.
The expression itself is a very common one. It denotes the
removal of everything that can hinder the manifestation of the
Lord. But it is more precisely defined by the fact that the na-
tion itself is summoned to prepare a way. All the outward
preparations for the entrance of salvation belong to the Lord
himself ; the people can only remove the imvard obstacles out of
the way by obtaining help of the Lord, and turning to him with
true repentance. It is this alone, and not something external,
to which Malachi refers ; and it was this which the Saviour him-
self, as well as John the Baptist and the Evangelist, discovered
in the passage.

The meaning of the desert is obvious now. The people are
in a state of distress, both mental and bodily ; and the latter of
the two is to be regarded as merely the reflection of the former.
This condition is figuratively represented as a desert, and the
figure itself is borrowed from the circumstance, that at a former
period the nation had been in precisely the same condition in a
literal desert, not as a matter of accident, but by the appoint-

MALACHI, CHAr. II. 17 — III. 6. 175

ment of God, who selected the outward dwelling place as a true
symbol of its real condition. The Lord is now about to bring
deliverance, but in order that this may be effected, the people
must first of all perform their part. The Lord cannot prepare
a way through the desert, till such a way has been prepared by
the nation itself, and it is this that he sends his servants to ex-
hort it to do.

The connection between vers. 3 — 5 and vers. 1, 2, is also ob-
vious now. In vers. 1 and 2 it is announced to the nation, that
the Lord has resolved to have mercy upon it, and to bestow
upon it the fulness of his salvation. This promise is accom-
panied with an exhortation to the nation, to remove everything
out of the way that can obstruct the course of the coming salva-
tion. John says, " Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at
hand ;" the prophet on the other hand, though with precisely the
same meaning, says, " The kingdom of heaven is at hand, repent
therefore." Every exhortation to repent necessarily presupposes
the grace of God ; and from every promise of salvation there
follows an exhortation to repent. For there is no purely out-
ward deliverance for the covenant nation. There is a perfectly
analogous passage, for example, in Jer. xxxi. 22. Apostate
Israel is urged to return to her lawful husband, for he is now
preparing an entirely new state of things, and is willing to
receive her back, though he formerly put her away on account
of her unfaithfulness.

Different opinions have been entertained as to the meaning of
the closing words of ver. 5. In the Septuagint and the gospel
of Luke they are separated from the previous clause, and an

object is supplied to l^^ : >cal o-^zrai na-aa. atxp'S, ro aurripiow
rov Qbov. On the other hand, Gesenius and others explain it
thus, '" that the mouth of Jehovah hath spoken : — namely, that it
came from God, when the prophets predicted the deliverance
from captivity." Vitrinrja and Slier understand the expres-
sion, " that the Lord speaketh," as intended to represent the
coming of God in Christ as primarily " a speaking." The
first is the correct view. " For the mouth of the Lord hatli
spoken " is a standing phrase with the prophet, who uses
it to strengthen any previous announcement which appears
incredible ; "it will assuredly be fulfilled, for it does not

176 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

originate with a weak and short-siglited man, but with the
omniscient and omnipotent God: (see chap. i. 20, xxxiv. 16,
Iviii. 14 ; and also 2 Pet. i. 21, " for prophecy came not at any
time by the will of man "). " Seeing" is a term which he fre-
quently employs in the sense in which the Septuagint has taken
it here ; sometimes with a definite object, as in chap. lii. 10,
from which the translg,tors have borrowed the words which they
supply, " and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our
Lord," also in chap. Ixii. 6, and Ixvi. 18 ; at other times without
an object, which must be supplied from the context, as in chap.
lii. 14. But even if these analogous passages did not exist, the
glory of the Lord must evidently be regarded as the object seen,
from the fact that i^*"; is too obviously connected with n^^p^ for
any other explanation to be possible. The glory of the Lord is
revealed, and all flesh beholds this glorious spectacle.

But what are we to understand by the revelation of the glory
of the Lord ? The expression is evidently founded upon Ex.
xvi. 10, " And it came to pass, as Aaron spake unto the whole
congregation of the children of Israel, that they turned towards
the desert, and behold the glory of the Lord appeared in the
cloud." The glory of the Lord, his glorious essence, of which
the fire was a symbolical manifestation, was usually concealed
by the cloud, because Israel was not yet prepared for its full
revelation, that is, for immediate contact with the divine. Even
their leader Moses was not ; for, when he asked to see God
without a veil, he was told that he could not bear the sight.
But on this occasion, when it was of especial importance to
convince the doubtful and murmuring nation, that God was in
the midst of it, it shone forth more vividly than usual through
the cloud. And the prophet announces here, that when the
journey through the desert is repeated, and the people have
prepared the way, this covering will entirely disappear. A new
period is about to commence, when God will manifest himself
in a far clearer and more glorious manner, and when the people
will behold him far more distinctly, be much more closely con-
nected with Him, and possess Him with all the fulness of his
blessings, in a far more literal sense than has ever been the
case before.

It need hardly be remarked, that the prophecy is essentially

MALACHI, CHAP. II. 17. 177

Messianic. The return from captivity was merely a prelude and
preparation of the true fulfilment. The extent, to which the
glory of the Lord was revealed, was exactly proportioned to the
extent to which a way had been prepared. The complete revela-
tion was made in Christ, but the seeing was limited to those
who had prepared the way, for only the pure in heart can see
God.

We now return to the prophecy of Malachi.

Chap. ii. ver. 17. " Te weary the Lord with your words, and
ye say, Wherewith do tve lueary him ? Wheii ye say. Every
one that doeth evil is good in the eyes of the Lord, and he de-
lighteth in them ; or lohere is the God of judgment ?"

In expounding these words, the one question to be determined
is, who are the persons introduced as the speakers, in this and
the second section? The necessary data for answering this
question, are most of them contained in the introduction. (1).
There are many who, like Theodoret, suppose that the pious
Israelites, having suffered severe afiiictions and being vexed at
the prosperous condition of their ungodly countrymen, had been
tempted to utter these weak complaints, and to indulge these
doubts with regard to the providence of God. This view
originated in the indefinite terms, which the prophet applies
to those, whose prosperity is the ground of complaint, whom
he describes as ungodly, evil-doers, and proud ; the easiest ex-
planation of which is supposed to be that the prophet avoided
the use of more definite terras from prudential considerations ;
since the Persians were rulers in the land, and spies were actively
employed on every hand. But a whole series of arguments may
be adduced to disprove this supposition. The superscription of
the prophecy itself, burden, is sufficient to show that the people
whom the prophet had in view throughout were not such as
were tempted, and needed to be set right with tender consolation
and gentle correction, but such as were thoroughly wicked in
their hearts, notwithstanding all their outward show of godliness,
and needed therefore to be terrified with threats. We have
already shown that, in all his addresses, the prophet has pre-
cisely the same class of men in his mind. The persons, there

VOL. IV. M

178 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

fore, who are introduced here as murmuring and complaining
must be the same as those who are reproved in chap. i. 6 sqq.
for their contempt of God, in chap. ii. 8 for their apostasy from
him, and in ver. 10 sqq. for their breach of conjugal fidelity.
But even if the indisputable connection, which runs through the
whole, is not admitted, it cannot be denied, as we have already
proved, that chap. iii. 7 — 12 is closely connected with the section
before us, and also with the last. But the persons alluded to in
that passage cannot be the truly pious. Like their fathers, they
have forsaken the laws of the Lord (ver. 7), they have robbed
the Lord of what rightfully belonged to him, with as much folly
as recklessness (vers, 8 and 9) ; the land will become a delight-
some land through their conversion, and only through that,
whereas now, through their sin, it is for the most part what the
land of the Edomites who have sinned against God and his
congregation is altogether, a symbol of wickedness (chap. i. 4) .
But even if we confine ourselves to the two sections, it will still
be evident that the hypothesis cannot be sustained. The nature
of the complaints themselves does not point to persons who are
truly pious. They are essentially different both in tone and
spirit from such complaints, for example, as we find in Ps.
xxxvii., xlix., Ixxiii., to which there is an apparent resemblance.
The strong expressions, " ye weary me" (chap. ii. 17), and " ye
overpower me" (chap. iii. 13), lead to this conclusion. The
haughtiness of fancied righteousness, whose imaginary claims
remain unsatisfied, is very conspicuous. Moreover, the truly
pious are expressly distinguished from the speakers, and con-
trasted with them (chap. iii. 16). That the speakers themselves,
and not those of whom they complain, are pointed out in the
reply, as objects of the divine judgments, is too apparent to be
overlooked. For instance, those who are represented in chap,
iii. 2 as unable to endure the day of the coming of the messenger
of the covenant, are the same as those who seek him according
to ver. 1. Again, the words " I draw near to you to judgment,"
form an evident antithesis to the judgment on the strangers, for
which the speakers had been longing. " That I am the God of
righteousness will very soon be apparent, not, however, on those
whom ye call evil-doers, but on you, who are the greatest evil-
doers of all. Lastly, this hypothesis pre-supposes a very diff'erent

MALACHI, CHAP. II. 17. 179

state of things from that which actually existed in the nation at
the period referred to. The condition of the colony was alto-
gether so wretched and poor, that we cannot imagine even the
wicked to have enjoyed sufficient prosperity, to tempt the pious
to utter such bitter lamentations. Even apart from the fact
that the use of d*'"?'^.?. instead of '"^p". leads to the conclusion
that the heathen are alluded to, and that this is still more
strongly indicated in the evident antithesis, already pointed out,
to the expression " all the heathen call you blessed" in ver. 12,
how could the words, " they prove God and are delivered," in
chap. iii. 15, possibly apply to the ungodly in Israel ?

(2). The opinion entertained by those who imagine that the
complaints are uttered by the whole nation, which is in trouble
on account of its own misfortunes and the prosperity of the
heathen, is much nearer the truth. This was the view enter-
tained by Jerome, who was much more correct than his pre-
decessors and the greater part of his followers, though he erred
in this, that he failed to distinguish between weakness of faith
and proud murmuring against God, and consequently compared
the complaints alluded to here to those contained in Ps. Ixxiii.
In his commentary on our passage he says, " the people who
had returned from Babylon, seeing all the nations round about,
and the Babylonians themselves, who worshipped idols, abound-
ing in wealth, strong in their bodies, and enjoying all the things
which are counted good in the world, whilst they themselves,
who possessed the knowledge of God, were sunk in squalor,
poverty, and slavery, were offended and said, ' there is no Provi-
dence overruling the affairs of men, but all de[)ends upon the
uncertainties of chance, instead of being regulated by the just
judgment of God ; or else evil things please him best, and he
takes no pleasure in the good ; for if aU things are arranged by
God, where is his just and impartial judgment ?' Minds mis-
trustful of the future were daily asking such questions as these."
But the objections, already offered to the first explanation, apply
to some extent to this view also. For example, the contrast
implied in chap. iii. 16 sqq. cannot be explained on this hypo-
thesis. It would have to be restricted, therefore, in its applica-
tion to a portion of the nation, and by the murmurers we should
have to understand the great mass of the people, to the exclusion

180 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

of the truly pious. This view undoubtedly approximates very
closely to the previous one, if we suppose that the wicked mass
of the people far exceeded in numbers the small band of the
truly godly. And it is apparent from chap. iii. 9, where the
vjhole nation is charged by God with robbing him. that tliis was
the case.

It still remains to set aside the erroneous view adopted
by many expositors, who attribute Epicurean or Sadducean
opinions to the persons attacked by the prophet. No doubt, the
opinions they really held were such as would eventually lead
to these, if they were consistent. But it is evident that, as yet,
they were only in the germ, from the fact that, with whatever
unwillingness of heart it may have been done, the murmurers
continued to attest their fear of the Lord by offering sacrifices,
and that among other things they fasted, and longed for the
coming of the angel of the covenant. All this shows, that in the
passage before us and in chap. iii. 13 sqq. they only manifested
one side of their character, that there was still another element
within them, which counterbalanced this one and impeded its
development. The expression " ye weary " shows the greatness
of the crime. What must be the wickedness of words, by which
the long-suflfering Grod, who has such patience with the weakness
of his people, is, as it were, overpowered, and forced to display
his judicial righteousness ! On the words, " ivlierein do loe
weary T Calvin observes, " the prophet shows that they have
hardened themselves to such an extent in their pride, that they
boldly resist every admonition ; for they do not ask this question
as though it were a matter of doubt, nor can we gather from
these words, that they are ready to be taught. On the contrary
it is just as if they had come down armed for a conflict, armed,
I say, with shamelessness and obstinacy, for there can be no
doubt that they despised and even denied the prophet's appeal."

Of the expression, " Every one, that doetli evil, is good in the
eyes of the Lord" the explanation is contained in the remarks
already made. By those who do evil, we are to understand
the heathen. In accordance with the essential character of
hypocrisy, the only sin, which the murmurers are conscious of, is
in others, not in themselves, and the sin which appears to them
peculiarly deserving of punishment, is that by which they them-

MALACHI, CHAP. II. 17. 181

selves are injured. Self-humiliation under the mighty hand of
God (1 Pet. V. 6), which is difficult even to those who know the
object of their sufferings, is altogether impossible from such a
stand-point as this, especially when, as was the case here, the
justice of the cause is still further strengthened by the delusion,
that the individual has actually claims upon God. Moreovei-,
it is very obvious here, that the persons to whom Malachi re-
fers, are different from the open blasphemers, so frequently men-
tioned by the earlier prophets. See, for example. Is. v. 11),
" that say, let him make speed, and hasten his work that we mny
see, and let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw nigh and
come that we may know it ;" and Jer. xvii. 15, " behold, they
say unto me, where is the word of the Lord ? let it come now."
The latter deny the existence of God, or at all events, his omni-
potence, and therefore ridicule and scoff. The former fully
acknowledge his omni[X)tence, and for that very reason think
that they have ground for denying his righteousness. For if
nothing outward could restrain him, and they had acted with
perfect uprightness in relation to him, they might very well be
perplexed as to this perfect righteousness. They murmur.
The nature of their disappointed expectations we learn stili
more distinctly from the following verse, where they are de-
scribed as longing for the angel of the covenant. They had
hoped that as he formerly led their fathers out of Egypt and
punished the Egyptians, he would also come immediately after
their return from captivity to judge all the heathen and pour out
his blessing upon Israel. And he delighteth in them. \Sn^ a
verbal adjective, as both nv"' and d7.?'3 in chap. iii. 1 plainly
show. The expression appears to refer back to chap. i. 1 0. The
Lord there says to them, " I have no pleasure in you." "It is
true," they reply, " thou hast no pleasure in us, who are right-
eous, but thou hast pleasure in the evil doers."

" Or lohere is the God of Justice f This is equivalent to, " or
if this is not the case, if God has no pleasure in the ungodly,
point out to me the facts, in which the righteous God mani-
fests himself" Are not the prosperity of the heathen and the
misery of Israel directly opposed to any such manifestation ?
•iN, or, shows that one of these two things must necessarily be
true, either that God takes pleasure in wickedness, or that his

182 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

righteousness is capable of being demonstrated. But since the
latter is not the case, the former must necessarily be so. The
dilemma is perfectly correct. There is no other alternative.
A righteous God, who does not display his righteousness in any
way in this life, but merely gives letters of credit which are
to be honoured in the life to come, is an absurdity ; at any
rate he is not the Grod of the Scriptures, who will not be, in
the life to come, anything which he has not already been in
this present life. It is impossible to declare ourselves too de-
cidedly in opposition to such a view as this, which can only
result from the want of inward life, — namely that for us God
will first begin to exist in the world to come. Eetribution in
the future is a delusion, if it does not rest upon retribution in
the present. The error in the case of these murmurers consisted
in the fact that they confidently took for granted that the only
possible reply to the question, " where is the God of justice ?"
was " noiohere." The answer was simple enough : " if he is not
to be found elsewhere, he manifests himself in your present dis-
tress, which corresponds so completely to your moral condition ;
and if this is not sufficiently obvious to your minds, he will mani-
fest himself in future in the midst of you in such a manner, that
you will cease to inquire, ' where is the God of justice ?' "
Venema maintains that the article in ^^VTii\:! is a proof that
allusion is made to some particular and well known judgment,
which God had promised to his people. But the article may
very well be used generically, and this is confirmed by the
earlier passage on which this rests, "The Lord is a God of
judgment, blessed are they that wait for him" (Is. xxx. 18),
in which the article is wanting.

Chap. iii. 1. " Behold I send my messenger, and he prepareth
the loay before me, and the Lord whom ye seek, will suddenly
come to his temple, and the angel of the covenant, ivhom ye de-
sire, behold he cometh, saith Jehovah Sabaoth."

The allusion to the prophecy in Isaiah (chap, xl.) is unmis-
takeable here. It is especially apparent in 'J&V ijn.i-nja!! as
compared with nSn| ^7.7. iijs in Isaiah, the resemblance being
carried out even to the omission of the article from "il"}!., which
may be explained on the supposition that "ij"?.! nss was regarded.

MALACHI, CHAP. III. 1. 183

ia a certain sense, as a single word (road-making). Our atten-
tion being attracted by this similarity in the expression, we soon
discover that the same simihirity runs through the contents of
the entire verse. In Malachi the messenger of the Lord pre-
pares the way before him ; in Isaiah the servants of the Lord
are called upon to prepare the way. The meaning is the same
in both. For it is self-evident that it is a moral preparation for
the coming of the Lord, which is intended ; and this is confirmed
by the parallel passage in ver. 24. But, if this be the meaning,
by what other method can the messenger of the Lord prepare
the way, than by calling upon those to whom he is sent to pre-
pare the way themselves, in other words, by crying loudly and
incessantly " repent," ^l"?. «l ? In Isaiah the preparation of
the way is followed by the revelation of the glory of the Lord ;
in Malachi, by the coming of the Lord to his temple. This
agreement cannot be explained by supposing an unintentional
reminiscence on the part of the prophet ; as we may clearly see
from the analogous allusions to Joel in vers. 2 and 23. The
following appears to us the correct explanation. The discontent
of the Israelites after the captivity was occasioned by the pre-
dictions, contained in the second part of the book of Isaiah, more
than by any other prophecies. It was here that salvation was
depicted in its most glowing colours ; and threats were kept in
the back-ground. The whole of it is chiefly adapted to afford
consolation to the believing portion of the Israelites. In the
time of trouble, therefore, it was principally upon these prophe-
cies that the hopes of Israel rested. And when so little occurred
to gratify their hopes after the return from captivity, it was
chiefly upon these prophecies, that the charges brought against
the covenant-faithfulness and righteousness of God were founded.
Now the unfounded character of such charges as these could not
be demonstrated in any better way, nor could the guilt be trans-
ferred from the accused to the accusers, to whom it properly
belonged, in any surer manner, than by proving that they were
not the people, to whom God had made such glorious promises
by the mouth of his prophet. And the words of Is. xl. 3, 4
were peculiarly adapted to afford the evidence required. If the
revelation of the glory of the Lord is preceded by the preparation
of the way, the nation, in its present condition, is not ready for

184 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

the kingdom of God ; and therefore, instead of murmuring be-
cause the appearance of God is delayed, it ought rather to thank
him for first of all affording the means of repentance ; and that
which the nation without exception regarded as an object of
desire, ought to be anticipated by the greater part as an object
of dread. The words of the prophet, therefore, are equivalent
to this, " ye, who complain in your considerate zeal, that the
Lord has not fulfilled his promises, should rather consider, that
according to his own declarations, mercy on his part must be
preceded by repentance on yours. For this he now furnishes
the means, and will continue to furnish them. He will then
suddenly appear and make himself known as the God of justice,
not merely by the blessings which he will bestow upon the godly,
but also by the punishments which he will inflict upon you, the
loicked members of the covenant nation.

The next question that arises is, who is 'a^V? (my messen-
ger). The Jewish commentators are very vacillating (compare
the collection of the expositions, which has been made by Frisch-
muth, de angelo fcederis, Jena 16G0). Ahenezra supposes the
Messias ben Joseph to be intended. Kimchi observes : "an
angel from heaven is meant, just as he says in Ex. xxiii. 20,
" behold I send an angel before thy face." Jarchi conjectures
that the angel of death is referred to, who is to be sent to destroy
the wicked. A harhanel explains the word as referring to the pro-
phet himself. The earlier Christian expositors were unanimously
of opinion that the " messenger of the Lord" was John the Bap-
tist. Among modern commentators, many, like Eichhorn, sup-
pose either the whole body of prophets to be intended, or some
one prophet, though it is uncertain which ; Hitzig and Mcmrer,
again, explain it as indicating the actual return of the prophet
Elias.

We must first of all prove, in opposition to Kimcld and
Jarchi, that it is not a heavenly, but an earthly messenger, who
is referred to here. This is very evident — (1) from Isaiah. We
have already seen that the voice, which there exhorts to prepare
the way, proceeds from the covenant nation itself. — (2). From
the parallel passage, chap. iv. 5. The same person, who is called
in the one the messenger of the Lord, is spoken of in the other
as Elias the prophet ; and the preparation of a way in ver. 5,

MALACHI, CHAP. III. 1, 185

corresponds to the restoration of the spirit of the fatliers, in cliap.
iv. 6. — (3). From the evident antithesis between " my messen-
ger," and " messenger of the covenant." If a heavenly messenger
were intended, this could only be the " Angel of the Lord," for
he is called my angel, not an angel. But the person called
" my messenger" must necessarily be a different individual from
the angel of the Lord, who comes to his temple after him. — At
the same time we must not shut our eyes to the fact, that there
is some truth at the foundation of Kimchis explanation. The
allusion to Ex. xxiii. 20 is unmistakeable, and cannot be merely
accidental, especially when we consider that it is a journey
through the desert which is spoken of here, as well as there, and
the preparation of a way through the midst of the desert. It
serves to direct attention to the essential unity of the two events,
notwithstanding the difference in the persons employed. Both
the mission of the heavenly and that of the earthly messenger
are manifestations of the same covenant fidelity on the part of
God, and of the same mercy to the chosen race, and therefore as
God formerly sent his messenger to conduct the people through
the literal desert, so now he will also send his messenger to pre-
pare the way through the spiritual desert. The truth which
lies ^t the foundation of both is this, God not only bestows the
blessing itself, but also provides the means of obtaining posses-
sion. At the same time, the allusion to the analogous conduct
on the part of God on the former occasion also serves to direct
attention to the responsibility, which would be consequent upon
the abuse of his mercy on this occasion also. The declaration,
which immediately follows the announcement in Ex. xxiii. 21 ,
" Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not ; for he
will not pardon your transgression," was also applicable to the
present circumstances, and this application is made in the next
verse, and also in chap. iii. 6. The mission of a divine mes-
senger is never v/ithout effect, it is always attended by blessings,
or else by the severest punishment.

If we may regard it as established, that the messenger of God,
referred to here, is an earthly one, our next duty will be to
examine the correctness of the most widely adopted opinion,
— viz., that John the Baptist is the messenger intended. But our
inquiry will have respect simply to the form, which this expla-

186 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

nation usually assumes, — namely, that " my messenger " is John,
regarded as a historical personage, to the exclusion of every one
else. The explanation remains essentially correct, even if we
find reason to understand the expression as denoting an ideal
person, in other words, the whole company of the messengers of
God, who were to prepare the way for the coming of salvation,
and make known the approach of the kingdom of grace. For,
as the idea of a messenger was most perfectly concentrated in
John, and God necessarily sent him because he had given this
prophecy, and, on the other hand, dictated the latter because
he would necessarily send him, he is, and will ever be, in the
strictest sense of the word, the subject of the prophecy. It is evi-
dent, however, on the following grounds, that the ordinary form
in which the explanation is given is faulty, and that his coming
was merely the culminating point of its fulfilment, not the per-
fect fulfilment in itself, in other words, that the lorophecy em-
braces all the means, by which God sought to lead his people to
repentance, Jrom the time of the prophet onwards. — (1). This is
favoured by the passage in Isaiah, upon which we have com-
mented already, and in which, as we have seen, " the voice cry-
ing in the desert " belongs to the whole company of the servants of
God. Verse 1, where they are addressed in the plural, shows
this very conclusively. (2). By assuming the name Malachi on
the ground of this passage, the prophet intimated, that he re-
garded his own labours as resulting from the thought to which
he has given utterance here ; although he was certainly very far
from cherishing the notion, that it was fully realised in himself
alone, as we may clearly see from ver. 23. How could he ever
have imagined that Elijah, the greatest of all the prophets, had
come to life again in him as an individual ? (3). We have
no right to separate the judgment with which the covenant
nation is threatened iu this prophecy, from the rest of the threats,
which run through the whole book. But the commencement of
the execution of the latter was evidently to take place in the im-
mediate future, or rather might be witnessed already. This is
obvious, for example, from chap. ii. 1,2. " And now, 0 ye
priests, this commandment is for you, saith the Lord. If ye will
not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my
name, saith the Lord of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you

MALACHI, CHAP. III. 1. 187

and curse your blessings, and curse them a second time, for ye
do not lay it to heart." (Observe particularly the expression, "if
ye do not hear," even in this case the coming of the Lord is
preceded by the preparation of a way by his messenger). It is
also apparent from chap. iii. 9, " ye are cursed with a curse,, and
yet ye rob me, even the whole nation ;" from ver. 10, where the
windows of heaven are represented as already closed, the blessing
as already restrained ; and from ver. 11, where " the devourer"
is described as destroying the fruits of the ground. Now if,
according to the view expressed elsewhere by the prophet, the
coming of the Lord to judge, and therefore also to bless, com-
menced in his own day and continues through every age ; we
certainly must not assert, without assigning definite reasons for
the assertion, that he had in his mind merely the last and most
complete fulfilment, to the exclusion of all the rest, without
which the last would have no reality at all. But if it is only
so far as its perfect fulfilment is concerned, that the predicted
coming of God belongs to the Messianic age, the same must be
the case with the mission of the messenger, which also precedes
the advent. (4). We must not overlook the connection be-
tween these words and chap. ii. 7, 8, " for the priest's lips
should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his
mouth ; for he is the messenger of tJie Lord of hosts. But
ye are departed out of the way ; ye have caused many to
stumble at the law, ye have corrupted the Levitical covenant."
As the order of priests, the ordinary messenger of God, has
ftiiled to discharge its duties, the Lord sends his extraordinary
messenger, who does what they ought to have done, leading
many away from iniquity (compare chap. ii. 6 with the verse
before us and ver. 24). The heavenly messenger then appears
to bless or punish, according to the relation to the covenant, and
the reception given to the call to repentance on the part of the
earthly messenger. Now, if the order of priests, regarded as the
messenger of God, is referred to as an ideal person, we might
expect this also to apply to the extraordinary messenger of God,
who is to fulfil the duties which they have failed to discharge.
The prophet is opposed to the priest ; compare chap. iv. 5. With
this explanation the prophecy before us embodies the same idea,
as that of Joel, respecting the mission of the teacher of righteous-

188 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

ness. In the Messianic era its fulfilment is to be found, not
merely in the appearance of John, but also in the early portion
of the ministry even of Christ and his apostles, inasmuch as this
was a continuation and completion of that of John, and was
intended to announce that the kingdom of heaven was at hatid,
and to prepare the way for its coming. But John is justly to
be regarded as the precise object to which the prophecy points,
since the idea was not merely relatively, but absolutely realised
in him. He was the forerunner of the Lord, and that alone.
Whatever of Christ's ministry therefore partakes of the same
character may be reckoned as a part of his, whilst the special
work of Christ belonged to the second promise, of the Lord
coming to his temple and of the covenant angel. — It is only
in the Piel, that nj3 has the meaning " to sweep," " to pre-
pare." '^I^l n^s is an expression peculiar to Isaiah. We find
it not only in chap. xl. 3, but also in chap. Ivii. 14 and Ixii.
10.

That by l"iif«n fthe Lord) we are to understand God, can-
not for a moment be doubted. The proofs of this are the fol-
lowing : The constant use of 1'^"'n with the article in this
sense ; the fact that it is preceded by '^sV, before me (the
person who comes here, must be the one who sends his mes-
senger before him) : the evident allusion to the question, " where
is the Grod of justice ;" and lastly, the expression his temple,
with reference to the temple of Jehovah, On doctrinal grounds,
namely, to set aside the argument in support of the divinity of
Christ, which the earlier expositors founded upon the fact that
the temple is spoken of here as belonging to the Lord, who is
identified with the messenger of the covenant, Faustus Socinus
explained ^y'^. as meaning the royal palace. It is not difficult

1 Hofmann (Weissagung p. 361) objects to the ideal interpretation of
'3nSd, on the ground that the expi-essions " suddenlt/" and "behold"
both show that one particular prophet is intended. Reinke {der Frojjhet
Maleaclii) adduces the same expressions as favouring the reference to John
the Baptist. But it is a universal truth, which is constantly being fulfilled
again and again, that the Lord comes unexpectedly, whenever through his
interposition a call to repentance is uttered in the ears of his people. " This
' suddenly,' " says Shmieder, " is repeated in every act and judgment of the
Lord. The Lord of glory always comes as a thief in the night, to those who
are asleep in their sins."

MALACHI, CPIAP. III. 1. 189

to show that this is inadmissible. Yer. 3 furnishes sufficient
proof to the contrary. The ''S'n is spoken of there as the place
for priests and sacrifices. At the same time there is some truth
at the foundation of this erroneous interpretation, and that is
our reason for mentioning it. There can be no doubt, that in
this passage Grod is introduced as a king, and the temple as his
palace. The king has long since taken his journey {aTii^riixnaiv^
Matt. xxi. 33, compare chap. xxv. 14) ; or, dropping the figure,
his presence among his people has not been clearly manifested
in blessings and punishments. He is now about to return and
inquire into the conduct of all his servants and subjects during
his absence, that he may reward and punish accordingly.

There can be no doubt as to the person intended by " the
viessenger of the covenant" who is called on other occasions
" the angel of the Lord." That we are not to identify the
messenger of the covenant with the messenger sent by the Lord
before himself and with Elias, as Hitzig, Maurer, and others
liave done, is evident from the order in which the different events
are narrated here ; first, the messenger of the covenant comes ;
and then the Lord himself and the messenger of the covenant
suddenly appear ; compare the term " before" in chap. iv. 5,
and also the expression, " whom ye delight in," which is parallel
to " whom ye seek," They both point back to the words, " where
is the God of justice ?" in chap. ii. 17, in which this delight and
desire are expressed. But even apart from this particular ailu_
sion, the wish for a preacher of repentance to come proceeds
from a state of mind, the very opposite of that which distin-
guishes these " just persons who need no repentance." Again
there would be something very unsuitable in connecting God
with his earthly servant in such a way as this. The singular
N3 also indicates the essential unity of the Lord and the mes-
senger of the covenant. And our conclusion is still further
confirmed by the parallel passages in Isaiah, where the voice is
first heard, and then the glory of the Lord appears. These
reasons are also to some extent decisive against the view ex-
pressed by Hofinann (Weissagung i. p. 359, Schriftbeweis i,
p. 162), that the angel of the covenant is "an antitype of
Moses, a mediator between God and the nation, through whom
God is about to enter into a new, more perfect and eternal

190 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

fellowship with Israel." The very fact that Hofmann is the
first to entertain this opinion, creates a difficulty. The Holy
Spirit would have expressed himself very obscurely if this were
the meaning. But it is a sufficient reply, that, according to ver.
17, the wish of the nation (the angel of the covenant, whom ye
desire) was not for the coming of a second Moses, but for the
coming of God ; not for the appearance of a reformer, but for
the appearance of a judge ; and in vers. 2 — 5 of this chapter it
is not of reformation, but of judgment, that the prophet speaks.
A mediator hy the side of the Lord, a mere counterpart of Moses,
would not be distinguishable from " my messenger," from whom
Hofmann would keep him distinct, though his mission is precisely
the same. It is more difficult to explain the name, which is
given here to the angel of the Lord. Bauer and others, who
adopt the rendering " the promised messenger," in direct oppo-
sition to the rules of the language, have been sufficiently refuted
by Jahn. The " messenger of the covenant" is supposed by
Jahn himself to mean " the messenger with whom the covenant
was concluded." In his idea the covenant referred to is the
Sinaitic. The early commentators, on the other hand, are un-
animously of opinion that the new covenant is intended (Jer.
xxxi. 31), the " messenger of the covenant" being equivalent to
the " mediator of the new covenant" in Heb. ix. 15. The fol-
lowing is probably the correct explanation. We have already
pointed out at p. 189 the reason why the prophet does not speak
of the coming of the Lord only, but also of the divine messenger,
who is essentially one with Him. It is to be found, namely, in
the previous mention of the earthly messengers of God, both
ordinary and extraordinary. The divine messenger is called the
messenger of the covenant, because he is sent in the cause of the
covenant, and his coming to bless, as well as to punish, is the
result of the covenant. The two earthly messengers might have
been called the same. But the prophet had a special reason for
applying this term to the heavenly messenger, in the fact that
his coming had been desired by the murmurers on the ground
of the covenant.^ " The covenant" does not denote one single

1 '•' God here casts reproaches upon the Jews, and appeals to his covenant
in opposition to their impious blasphemies, for their impious murmuring will
not prevent him from fulfilling his promises, and bringing to pass in his own
time what they imagine will never take place." Calvin.

MALACHI, CHAP. III. 1. ]91

act, but the covenant relation of God to Israel, which extends
through every age. The violation of this covenant on the part
of the people, and especially on that of the priests, was the prin-
cipal theme of the previous addresses (chap. ii. 10, 11) ; and the
violation of the covenant on the part of God was the principal
burden of the complaints of the people. The coming of the
covenant angel will prove these charges to be groundless, and
demonstrate the reality of the covenant by the punishment of
those who despise it.

The question still remains, h punishment to be regarded as the
sole object of the predicted appearance of the covenant angel, as
Jahn and others suppose ? Certainly not. If it were, why
should the messenger of the Lord be sent before him ? And
with what right could the divine messenger be called the mes-
senger of the covenant, if he would merely do justice to one
particular aspect of that covenant ? Mere punishment is incon-
ceivable, so far as the covenant nation is concerned. Blessing
must always accompany it, or rather the punishment itself, when
looked at from another point of view, is really a blessing, inas-
much as it removes the ungodly out of the way, and thus gives
free course to the manifestation of the divine mercy towards his
purified nation. The fact that the messenger of the covenant
also comes to bless is very obvious from vers. 4 and 6. It is so
again in vers. 17, 18, and chap. iv. 1, where the mercy and
righteousness of God are represented as equally manifested on
the occasion of his coming. The only thing which has made it
appear as though the sole object of his advent would be to punish
is the fact that, so far as the men were concerned, with whom the
prophet had immediately to do, punishment would necessarily
be the result.

Let us now briefly glance in conclusion, at the whole result,
to the people's complaint, that the idea of a just God is at
variance with what they see, the prophet replies, God will soon
put an end to this apparent contradiction. Though he now
appears to be absent, he will soon come in the person of his
heavenly messenger, and, before that, will make known his co-
venant faithfulness by sending earthly messengers. That this
announcement received its ultimate fulfilment in the coming of
Christ, in whom the Angel of the Lord, the Logos, was made

192 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

flesh, we need hardly stop to observe. It is also self-evident
that this ultimate fulfilment is neither to be looked for in his
state of humiliation, nor his state of exaltation alone, but that
the two are rather to be regarded as constituting together an
inseparable whole. The advent of Christ in humiliation con-
tains the germ of all the blessings which he bestows, and all the
punishment which he inflicts, in his subsequent exaltation. —
We have but one other remark to make ; — namely, that the em-
phatic repetition, " Behold he cometh, saith the Lord of hosts,"
is evidently intended to meet the doubts expressed as to his
coming, and the open denial of the same, which are implied in
chap. ii. 17.

Ver. 2. "And ivho endureth the day of Ms coming, and ivho
shall stand when he appear eth ? For he is like the refiner s fire,
and like the lye of the washers."

The answer to the question, who ? is not " very few," but " no
one;" as in Is. liii. 1. The prophet is addressing the ungodly.
Appealing to their consciences, he endeavours to convince them
of the fearful contradiction between their moral character and
their longing for the coming of the Lord, which must be parti-
cularly disastrous to them. We find a parallel passage in
Amos V. 18, except that the persons alluded to there are openly
ungodly, and are merely scoffing when they express a wish for
the day of the Lord to come, " Woe to those who desire the day
of the Lord ! To what end is the day of the Lord for you ? It
is darkness and not light." The resemblance between the ex-
pression, " who endureth the day of his coming," and Joel Ii. 11,
" the day of the Lord is great and very terrible, and who can
endure it (ish"?; '?i) ? " cannot be regarded as accidental,
especially when we consider the fact that there is a similar
verbal allusion to Joel in ver. 23. The prophet adopts the
same course as in ver. 1, and takes his stand upon the authority
of an honoured predecessor, who wrote centuries before, and
announced the day of the Lord as a disastrous event for the
covenant nation itself ; whereas these hypocrites looked upon the
heathen, as the sole objects of the judicial righteousness of God.
The term, " stand," is used as a contrast to the falling of the
guilty, when overpowered by fear and dread in anticipation of
coming events. This passage is hinted at in Eph. vi. 13, "that

MALACHI, CHAP. III. 2. 193

ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done
all to stand;" in Luke xxi. 36, "Watch, therefore, and pray
always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these
things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of
Man," (in ver. 34 we find the words, " and so that day come
upon you unawares," with evident allusion to the expression,
" shall suddenly come," in ver 1 of this chapter) ; and, lastly,
in Rev. vi. 17, " the great day of his wrath is come, and who
shall be able to stand." These passages bear the same relation
to Malachi, as the words of Malachi to Joel. They are not
merely the result of an unintentional reminiscence, but resemble
a quotation, and show the esteem in which our prophecy was
held by the Lord and his apostles.

In the second half of the verse, Gesenius (Thesaurus s.v.
nni) would change the double figure,^ — the fire by which metals
are refined, and the lye by which clothes are made clean, — into
a single one, on the ground that potash is employed in the refin-
ing of metals. J. D. Michaelis had previously expressed the
same opinion. But the word d'd??)? is a sufficient proof, that
there is no allusion to any such custom here. Moreover, what
ground could we possibly have for getting rid of the second
figure, seeing that it frequently occurs in other passages {e.g. Is.
iv. 4 ? The two figures of the fire and the lye are employed
with a twofold meaning. Viewed in relation to the dross and
the dirt, they burn up and extirpate ; but viewed in relation to
the metal and the clothes, they cleanse and refine. The former of
the two is the more prominent here, as the '3 shows,^ on account of
its being the more applicable to the persons addressed.^ But it
is evident from the following verse, where the refining process is

1 Hitzig has quite mistaken the meaning. In his opinion, the design is
" to represent the ungodly individuals as pure silver, i.e., as righteous." It
is true that he is obliged to substitute the vrork of reformation for that of
punishment, v^hich is so conspicuous here, on account of his having pre-
viously confounded the " angel of the covenant " with the " messenger " who
prepares the way for the Lord. But a comparison of Is. i. ought to have
put him upon his guard against such a view as this. It is evident that the
"ungodly individuals" are there represented as exposed to the righteous
judgments of God. Repentance and salvation are the portion of Zion, not
of tkem.

2 " For although they boasted of their piety, we know that they defiled
the Church of God." Calvin.

VOL. IV. N

194 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

introduced as a promise, not as a threat, that the prophet had
the other also in his mind (compare Is. i. 25).

Ver. 3. " And he sitteth meUiTig and 'purifying silver, and
he 'purifieth the children of Levi, and refineth them, as gold and
as silver, and they become the Lords, offering meat-offerings in
righteous7iess."

The figure employed in the previous verse is still retained,
but somewhat altered. There the Lord is represented as the
fire ; here as the refiner. The covenant nation has this advan-
tage over the heathen, that with all the admixture of dross it
always retains a basis of pure metal, and therefore can be sub-
jected to the refining process, and also that, on account of the
covenant, the Lord must refine it. Such passages as Ezek. xxii.
18, " Israel is all become dross," are to be regarded as rhetorical,
since it is there that the figure of the smelter is most elaborately
carried out. That which is true of the covenant nation as
a luhole, namely that a number of those who are outwardly mem-
bers of the nation have become mei-e dross, also applies to the
individual believer, — 3^; may either be understood as denoting
constancy,^ or as merely contributing to the pictorial character
of the whole description, like i?y in Micah v. 4, " he shall stand
and feed." The circumstance, that the children of Levi are spe-
cially mentioned as undergoing this refinement, may be explained
from the fact, which has already been demonstrated, that,
throughout the entire prophecy, the attention of the prophet is
chiefly fixed upon them, as being at that time in every respect
the centre of the life of the nation. He had already described
them as causing many to stumble at the law (chap. ii. 8), and
therefore as the chief authors of the prevalent corruption ; and
they had certainly been the leaders of the murmurers, to whose
words, as quoted in chap. ii. 17, the prophet is here replying
(compare chap. i. 13). According to the accents, •ivr': vn^
must not be connected with the clause which follows, but must
be rendered, " they are to the Lord," or the Lord's, they belong
truly to him again, whom they so shamefully left, and who cast
them ofi" (chap. i. 10, ii. 8). The explanation given by Jahn,

1 " The Levites were too thoroughly impregnated with the dross, for it to
be removed in one day or without difficulty." Calvin.

MALACHI, CHAP. III. 3. 195

" and the Lord has such as offer meat-offerings in righteousness,
not the priests, but persons generally," has originated exclu-
sively in the endeavour to do away with the allusion to the
priests. But even if we look merely at the period of fulfilment,
such passages as Acts vi. 7, (" and a great company of the priests
were obedient to the faith"), show that there is nothing to
justify such an attempt, whilst it is also at variance with
the fact, that the work of the Lord, so far as the children
of Levi are concerned, is represented in the earlier part of
the prophecy (that is, if we look at the drift of the ivhole),
as refining and not destructive. In consequence of this they
now come forth from the furnace, like (refined) silver and
gold ; or, dropping the figure, " they are the Lord's, offer-
ing meat-offerings in righteousness." The last clause points
back to chap. i. 7, " ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar."
In ver. 11 the prophet had already opposed to the polluted bread,
offered by the priests of his day, the pure meat-offering which
the heathen would one day present ; he now places in contrast
with the former the righteous meat-offerings of the purified
priesthood. — •"'I'Viy? is interpreted by many, as denoting the
outward faultlessness of the sacrifices. But '"ipnx is never used
to denote mere legality, a merely outward conformity to the
commandment of God. It is true, the prophet had previously
reproached them for the outward defects connected with their
offerings, but simply because the outward reflected the inward,
and was a proof of the utter want of fear and love. The little
importance attached by the prophets to outward service, con-
sidered in itself, may be inferred fi-om such passages as Jer. vi.
20, " to what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba,
and the spice-cane, the good, from distant lands ? your burnt-
offerings are not acceptable, and your sacrifices are not pleasant
unto me." It is evident, therefore, that the prophet was far from
thinking of the outward legality of the offerings alone, and ex-
pected something entirely different, when this glorious appear-
ance of the Lord should take place. The contrast between the
present and the npnv of the future, is fully described in ver. 5,
where the particular forms of unrighteousness ai-e mentioned.
There is a parallel passage in Ps. iv. 5, "ofier the sacrifices of
righteousness and put your trust in the Lord" (see the com-

196 MESSIANIC PEEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

mentary on this passage). — With the exception of several of the
Catholic theologians, who make use of this passage, as well as
chap. i. 11, as proofs of the necessity for the sacrifice of the
mass, — an exposition in connection with which " the sons of
Levi " cause no little perplexity, — the earlier commentators for
the most part understand by the meat-offering the spiritual sa-
crifices of the New Testament, spoken of in 1 Pet. ii. 5 (" to off'er
spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ"),
Kom, xii. 1 and Heb. xiii. 15, 16. But it is more correct to say
that the prophet, by representing the essence, which never
changes, under the Old Testament form, leaves it undecided,
whether the essential element, — viz., diligence in good works and
not being unfruitful, would always be manifested in this form or
not. It formed no part of his purpose to settle this point ; and
the question must be answered from other passages. There is
the more ground for this explanation, when we consider that it is
only in its ultimate meaning, that the prophecy is Messianic,
and that it was provisionally fulfilled even under the Old Testa-
ment, when the form was indispensable. Moreover, it is evident
from chap. i. 11, that the prophet did not attribute the same
eternal character to the form as to the substance. The announce-
ment made there, that in all places of the earth a pure meat-
offering will be presented to the Lord, involves a total overthrow
of the form, the abrogation of the stringent laws respecting unity
of worship, and the cessation of the Levitical ceremonial alto-
gether. A great change is also implied in chap. iv. 6. If the
land is smitten with the curse, the temple must also be profaned
and destroyed, and the offering of sacrifice be rendered, in conse-
quence, absolutely impossible.

Ver. 4. ''And the meat-offering of Judah and Jerusalem is
pleasant to the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in the year's
of the past."

We have here the very opposite of chap. i. 10, 13, and ii. 13
(compare Is. i, 11). According to ver, 3 the efficient cause of
the great alteration, and therefore the point of comparison between
these sacrifices and the previous ones, is righteousness. This is
also apparent from chap. ii. 6, where it is stated, with reference
to the priestly order in the earlier and better times, that " the law
of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found upon his

MALACHI, CHAP. III. 5. 197

lips, he walked with me ia peace and equity, and did turn many
away from iniquity." If the priestly order returns to this its
former condition, and the nation with it, after the ungodly have
been cut off by the judgments of the Lord, then the former
mercy of the Lord will also return. The former mercy of tho
Lord. It is not without a reason that the prophet lays stress
upon this. The future will not bring anything absolutely new
to the covenant nation. The change is merely an aTroxaTaTTaTi?
(Acts iii. 21) ; and the guarantee of the reality of the promise
is to be found in that which has existed already. If the former
state of things resulted from the nature of Grod, whenever in
the future the same circumstances should return again, His nature
would necessarily be manifested in the same way (compare Is.
i. 26 and Lam. v. 21). The thoughts of the prophet were
directed more particularly to the time of David, possibly also to
that of the patriarchs, and the earlier years of the sojourn in the
desert (Jer. ii. 2). The complete fulfilment of the prophecy
contained in this verse is still future, and belongs to the period
referred to in Rom. xi. The judgment predicted in the pre-
vious verses is still to be witnessed in all its fulness. The fruit
of the judgment, repentance and mercy, must still to some extent
be patiently waited for ; at the same time a striking commence-
ment has been made, and the fulfilment is still going on under
our own eyes.

Ver. 5. " And I come rtear to you to judgment, and am a swift
witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and
against those wlw swear to a lie, and against those that oppress
ike hireling in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, and that
turn aside tlie stranger and fear not me, saith the Lord of Hosts"

The means in God's hand, for bringing in this better time, are
the infliction of judgment upon those who are longing for judg-
ment, in the vain delusion that it has no connection with them,
and who murmur at its delay. " The meaning of the prophet
is by no means ambiguous. His design is to point out to them
the perversity of their complaints with reference to God, seeing
that they themselves are apostate, addicted to impure lusts, cruel,
avaricious, and faithless, and therefore have deserved to perish
a hundred times" (Calvin). That the prophet is not speaking
of a judgment wliich was simply future, but of one which had

198 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

already commenced, and which would still continue to increase
keeping pace with the increase of sin, until it reached its cul-
minating point, is so very obvious, that many of those who are of
opinion that vers. 1 — 4 must necessarily be understood as relat-
ing to something absolutely future, for example Aharhanel and
Venema, are unable to discover any other escape from the diffi-
culties in which this involves them, than by forcibly disconnecting
this verse from the others, and explaining it as relating to a
totally different judgment from that mentioned in vers. 2 and 3,
notwithstanding the fact that the prophet speaks throughout of
only one judgment, both present and future. That the coming
to judgment had already commenced is especially evident from
the following section, which is closely connected with the one
before us, and where the expression occurs, " ye are cursed with
the curse" (ver. 9) ; compare also ver. 11, where the devourer is
spoken of as existing already. To this we may add the term
"'n'9'?, speedily, in which there is evidently a contrast intended
to the tardiness and delay with which the murmurers had been
charging God.

The words are addressed to all the murmurers, to the whole
body of the ungodly, as we may perceive from the evident allu-
sion to chap. ii. 17. In their otun fate God will so clearly prove
himself to be the God of justice, that the complaint, " he delighteth
in the wicked," and the inquiry, " where is the God of justice ?"
will never be heard again. The witness of God against the
sorcerers, &c., is not limited to words. The punishment . that
awaits them will bear witness to their guilt, which they have so
carefully concealed that they have even gone so far in their
presumption, as to invoke the judgment of God, The particular
crimes alluded to, which are traced in conclusion to one funda-
mental sin in the words " they fear not me," are all such as
were severely punished under the Mosaic law ; and the prophet
intentionally employs the words of the law in nearly every
instance. According to the law witchcraft was a capital crime
(Ex. xxii, 17 and Deut. xviii, 14). The extent to which the
Jews were impregnated with it after the captivity is apparent
from such passages as Acts viii. 9, xiii. 6, and also from
Josephus (Antiquities 20, 6, and Wars of the Jews 2. 12, 23).
In chap, ii, 10 — 16 the prophet had already characterised as

MALACHI, CHAP. III. 5. 199

adultei'y the marriages which had been contracted with heathen
wives, and the consequent wrong done to the women of the
covenant nation, and also the frivolous pretences on which wives
were divorced. When these, the more refined species of adul-
tery, are common, the grosser kinds are never rare. In the words,
" and those who sivear to a lie" there is an allusion to Lev. xix.
12, " and ye shall not swear in my name ("'i?.^!?) to a lie," that
is, so that your oath bears the character of a lie, in other words
if false. In the expression, '* and those that oppress," &c., there
is a reference to Deut. xxiv. 14. The only other passage, in
which the verb is followed by the accusative of the thing, as in
this instance, is Micah ii. 2 ; in every other case we find the
accusative of the person. A rendering is therefore required,
which, though it may be applied poetically to the thing, refers,
strictly speaking, to the person. In the passage before us the
latter is mentioned afterwards ; in Micah it is written first.
''And turn the stranger ;" the allusion here is to Deut. xxvii.
19 and xxiv. 17. We must not assume, on this account, as many
commentators have done, that Q|n4'o, which occurs in these
passages, is also to be supplied here. 'I'^O may be applied to
the person as appropriately as to the right ; compare Amos. v.
12 (** they turn the poor in their right ") and Prov. x\aii. 5.
The law breathes the tenderest affection towards " the stranger,"
that is towards the foreigners, who lived in the midst cf the
Israelites ; and the term is employed in the widest sense, not
merely to denote those who had been incorporated by circum-
cision into the covenant nation itself, but those also who were
not 80 closely connected with the nation (for the former see Ex.
xii. 19, and for the latter Deut. xiv. 21). In this we have the
strongest proof that the charge brought against the religion of
the Old Testament, of odium humani generis, is unfounded, and
that the special iove towards their fellow-countrymen, which is
there enjoined upon the Jews, is not intended to exclude, but
rather to prepare the way for, the love of all mankind. Thus
in Ex. xxiii. 9 it is said, " and thou shalt not oppress the
stranger, for ye know the feelings of the stranger ; for ye were
strangers in the land of Egypt." The words, " and fear not
me," ought properly to stand at the head, as showing the source

200 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

of all the other sins. But the prophet places it last, because he
has to do with hypocrites, to whom it is necessary to show the
corrupt state of the tree from the corrupt character of the fruit.

Ver. 6. " For I am JeJiovah, I change not, and ye children
of Jacob, ye are viot consumed."

♦3 must be regarded here as a causative 'particle. The
attempts which have been made to fix some other meaning
upon the words, are to be accounted for on the ground that the
commentators have failed to observe, how every judgment upon
the people of God, and, according to Kom. xi., even the last and
severest, the effects of which continue still, is also an act of
mercy. There is the less reason to be astonished at the pro-
minence given to this aspect here, from the fact that it has
already been mentioned in vers. 3 and 4. That emphasis is laid
upon the meaning of the name, in the words " I am Jehovah,"
is evident from the next clause, " I change not." The name
Jehovah (properly Jahveh, the future of the verb 'iin, the
earlier form of !^'!^, " he is," or " the existing one ") represents
God as pure existence, in contradistinction to every created
object, the existence of which is always comparatively a non-
existence. Fure existence leads to immutability of essence.
Because God is, He is also that which He is, invariably the
same (compare Ex. iii. 14 and Dissertation on the Fentateuch,
vol. i. p. 231 sqq.). And from the immutability of His nature
there follows of necessity the immutability of His will, which
is based upon His nature. If then God has concluded a
covenant with Israel, if He has sealed its election. He must
cease to be Jehovah and therefore to be truly God, if He suffer
Israel to perish ; and just because He is and remains Jehovah,
the existing one, the unchangeable, He is now executing judg-
ment, that He may preserve the covenant nation from destruc-
tion.— Again the words D{:''V? **^ are also exj)lanatory of the
expression, " sons of Jacob," as 'T'^*? ^^ of the name of
Jehovah ; and, therefore, the meaning would be just the same,
if nothing more had been said than, " for I am Jehovah, and
ye are the sons of Jacob." "Sons of Jacob "is an emphatic
expression for "the covenant nation" (compare Ps. xxiv. 6).
Such individuals as are sons of Jacob in nothing but appearance

MALACHI, CHAP. III. 13. 201

and the name, the faithless children (Deut. xxxii. 20), the souls
which are cut off their nation, for having made the covenant of
none effect, not only can, but must be destroyed by the judg-
ments of God ; but the whole nation can never be destroyed.
For parallel passages relating to the immutability of Jehovah in
general see Num. xxiii. 19, " God is not a man that he should
lie ; neither the son of man that he should repent ; hath he said
and shall he not do ? or hath he spoken, and shall he not exe-
cute ?" — 1 Sam. XV. 29, " also the Eternity of Israel lieth not,
nor repenteth ; for he is not a man, that he should repent ;"
and James i. 17, " with whom is no variableness, neither shadow
of turning." — Parallel passages relating to the indestructible cha-
racter of Israel, as founded upon the immutability of Jehovah,
we find in Jer. xxx. 11, " For I am with thee, saith the Lord,
to save thee ; for I will make a full end of all the heathen, among
whom I have scattered thee, but I will not make a full end of
thee;"^ Lam. iii. 22, 23; and also Kom. xi. 29, where it is
stated with reference to Israel, " The gifts and calling of God
are without repentance."

THE SECTION— CHAP. III. IS-IY. 6.

Ver. 13. " Ye force we loitli your luords, saith the Lord, and
ye say : Wliat do loe say, then, against tliee f "

(sm with Siy ; to be strong over a person, always in the
sense of forcing, overpowering (compare, especially, Ex. xii. 33 ;
Ezek. iii. 14 ; 2 Sam. xxiv. 4 ; and 2 Chr. xxvii. 5). The
rendering to be heavy, hard, troublesome, which the commenta-
tors have generally adopted here, is not confirmed by the usages
of the language. The use of the word Vl^y^ in chap. ii. 17,
which precisely corresponds, is sufiScient to lead us to prefer the
rendering " to force." In relation to his people God is merciful,
gracious, long-suffering (Ex. xxxiv. 6). He restrains his wrath

1 It is upon this passage that our own must be regarded as based ; and in
this we have, therefore, a proof of the correctness of the explanation we have
given.

202 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

(Is. xlviii. 9) ; but they carry their wickedness to such an
extent, that at length they exhaust his patience. — "^aiJ is ex-
pressed in Ezek. xxxiii. 30 by " they speak one to another,
every one to his brother." ' That we are to think of conver-
sation is obvious, not merely from the form of the word, which
cannot mean directly " to say," but also from the words cited in
the present verse, in vers. 14, 15 of this chapter, and also in
chap. ii. 17. They do not speak to Grod, but they speak to one
another about God. This is also apparent from the corres-
ponding words of the godly, which are in the form of a conver-
sation, as the expression " one to another" clearly shows. The
reciprocal meaning of the Niphal is as easily explained as the
reflective. In both cases the action alone is expressed. The
persons engaged must be supplied from the context.

Ver. 14. " Ye say : It is vain to serve God, and what profit
is it that we heep his keeping, and cjo about dirty before the
Lord of Hosts"

The words ^yk'V9 "^^^ followed by a genitive — a construc-
tion which occurs with extraordinary frequency in the Penta-
teuch, and has also been borrowed from it by the later writers
(see Ezra and Chronicles), who have used it very often, but which
is very rarely met with in any book belonging to the intermediate
period — has been variously misinterpreted. The difficulty of
deciding upon the correct interpretation, may be seen in the
fact, that one- rendering is adopted in one passage, and a diffe-
rent one in another, although in the case of so very singular a
phrase nothing but the most cogent reasons can justify the con-
clusion that the expression is employed in different senses.
Gesenius, De Wette, and Bodiger explain the word rini^^'o as
signifying in most passages laiu, command, custom, and under-
stand the whole phrase as meaning " to observe what ought to
be observed towards any one." But Josh. xxii. 3 is quite suffi-
cient to show the incorrectness of this (" and ye shall keep the
keeping of the commandment of the Lord your God"). Compare
also 1 Chr. xii, 29 ; Num. iii. 6 ; Ezek. xl. 45 ; Lev. i, 53 ; xviii.
3 — 5, The true explanation is undoubtedly the following.
nni^tpn means observance, notice, care. See, for example.
Num. xviii. 8, " Behold I give thee the observing of my heave-

MALACHI, CHAP. III. 14. 203

offerings." " To observe the observance" of a person or thing,
is to attend to the one or the other. This meaning may be
applied in every instance. A few examples, taken from the dif-
ferent classes, will suffice to show 'this. In Gen. xxvi. 5 we
read " because that Abraham hearkened to my voice and attend-
ed to me, to my commandments, to my ordinances, and to my
laws ;" compare Lev. viii. 35, xviii. 30, xxii. 9 ; Num. ix.
19, 23 ; 2 Chr. xxiii. 6, " let all the people attend to the Lord,"
and from fear of Him abstain from forcing their way into the
holy places), and 1 Kings ii. 3. In 1 Chr. xii. 29, " and hitherto
the greater part of them had attended to the house of Saul "
(compare KaTavosTv Heb. iii. 1). In Num. iii. 6 — 8, " bring the
tribe of Levi near, and present them before Aaron the priest
that they may minister unto him, and they shall attend to him
and to the whole congregation before the tent of assembly, that
they may do the service of the tabernacle, and they shall attend
to all the furniture of the tent of assembly, and attend to the
children of Israel." In Ezek. xliv. 8, " and ye have not attended
to my holy things, but ye appointed persons to attend to my holy
things." See also vers. 14, 15, chap. xl. 45, 46 ; 1 Chr. xxiii.
32 ; Lev. i. 53, xviii. 4. 5 ; Num. xviii. 3 — 5.

ri'?l"'i?, dirty, refers to the outward appearance while fasting.
It relates not merely to the clothing, but also to the face (compare
the commentary on Ps. xxxv. 14). The expression employed in
the Pentateuch to denote fasting is ^Pl ^p. , to chastise the soul ;
01V with its derivatives is never found in the Pentateuch. By
self-humiliation and self-inflicting sufferings, a practical confes-
sion was made of the consciousness of sin and the desert of every
kind of punishment. In this instance reference is especially
made to voluntary fastings, whether on the part of the whole
nation or of individuals, in which the notion of merit was upper-
most. Allusion is made to voluntary suffering even in the Mosaic
law (Num. xxx. 14), in which the only fast expressly commanded
is the one associated with the day of atonement (Lev. xvi. 29 — 31),
though voluntary fjisting is also indirectly enjoined. For since
it requires penitence for every sin, and fasting was at that time
so universally the form in which penitence was embodied, that ifc
was scarcely possible to think of the thing signified without the

204 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

sign, the latter was virtually included in the law which enjoined
the former. — 'i?? cannot be used as a simple equivalent for
V.^'?. Fasting is represented as proceeding from the face of the
Lord, because it is undertaken for his sake, and for that very
reason the people regard it as unjust, that they reap no benefit
from it. — So far as the meaning of the whole verse is concerned,
we must not look for the indication of a wicked disposition in
the words, " what 'profit have "we ? " The demand for that species
of resignation, which is superior to all the alternations of joy and
sorrow, may do very well for modern philosophers, to whom God
is absolutely restricted to the world to come, but is not in accord-
ance with the Scriptures, which merely teach us to expect the
manifestation of the omnipotence, the justice, and the love of
God in the future, because they are already manifested here.
" Godliness," says the apostle in 1 Tim. iv. 8, " is profitable unto
all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that
which is to come." And where this promise is apparently not
fulfilled, where the state of things which meets the eye appears
at variance with it, we frequently hear sounds of complaint even
from true believers, which outwardly resemble the expression
cited here, though they do not partake of the same sinful char-
acter. Compare, for example, Ps. Ixxiii. 13, " verily I have
cleansed my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency."
The sinfulness of the whole appears to have consisted in the
delusion, that the merely outioard service, which was bad enough
in itself, judging from the prophet's previous reproaches, was
true worship, and that their fasting was true fasting, though it
was nothing but an empty form, a body without a soul. " They
fancy that their life is conformed to all the precepts, and yet they
have not observed a thousandth part. . . . This is no com-
mon thing in connection with the worship of God, to lay aside
all pride and give up all vain confidence, and walk humbly
before Him. But hypocrites copy like monkeys the things lohich
God requires and approves. The change of heart, however, is
entirely overlooked." f Calvin J.

That we are correct in the observations we have made, is evi-
dent from a comparison of Is. Iviii., which the prophet certainly
had in his mind, as we may gather from the allusions apparent

MALACHI, CHAP. III. 15. 205

in other passages also. If this fact bo once admitted, the opinion
that the prophet was writing of those who were truly godly, — an
opinion which there are many other reasons for rejecting, — is at
once overthrown. The reproaches of Isaiah are generally directed
against the one leading form of apostasy, which prevailed in his
day, — namely idolatry ; but in this instance he attacks the other
form, which was afterwards formally organised in Pharisaism,
and in this shape gained entirely the upper hand. Even their
fasting was the outward work, on which the greatest reliance
was placed, and by which the consciousness of the emptiness
within was most completely extinguished. This was perfectly
natural ; for of all outward works fasting was the most painful,
and therefore, assuming the absence of any confession of sin and
the want of any correct idea of the holiness of God, which is
closely related to it, it is with this that the false notion of merit
is most readily associated. Malachi leaves the pretenders for
the most part to their own consciences, which he endeavours to
awake from their slumbers by announcing the judgment of God ;
but Isaiah fully exposes the folly of this delusion, " cry with the
throat, spare not, show my people their transgression, and the
house of Jacob their sins. And they inquire of me daily, and
desire to know my ways (my acts which appear to them incom-
prehensible), as a nation that did righteousness, and forsook not
the ordinance of its God ; they ask of me judgments of righteous-
ness, (compare chap. ii. 17), ' where is the God of justice ?' they
desire (i^SH-.j compare o^ysq Drfi^—\^_p^^ chap. iii. 1), a draw-
ing near on the part of God (compare chap. iii. 5, * and I draw
ne&v to you to judgment'). Why do we fast, and thou seest
not, chastise our soul, and thou knowest not ? Behold, in the
day of your fast ye find your pleasure ; (the reality is the very
opposite of the idea, implied in ^.?;. 'isy 'afflicting the soul;'
the rendering ' ye carry on your business ' is not only at variance
with the usages of the language, but also distorts the sense);
and ye oppress all your dependents," &c.

Ver. 15. " And now, we call the 'proud happy, they that work
ivickedness are built up, they tempt God and yet escape."

The allusion to ver. 12 has already been pointed out ; and this
allusion is a sufficient proof that by the on.T we are to under-

206 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

stand the heathen (Is. xiii. 11). They are built up ; that is,
they prosper. Compare Jer. xii. 16, 17, and Ex. i. 21, *' And it
came to pass, because the midwives feared God, he built them
houses." It is probable that the murmurers had the latter
passage more particularly in their mind. How can God stiU
continue to be God ? In former times he built houses for those
who feared him ; and now, for those who proudly despise him.
— A comparison of ver. 10 will show us what sense we are to
attach to the expression tempt God. The prophet had then
called upon the nation to test God by true righteousness and see
whether he would not bestow his blessing upon them, and prove
himself to be the God of justice. What necessity is there, the
murmurers reply, for this test, so far as we are concerned ? The
heathen have already applied such a test. They devote them-
selves, as it were intentionally, to the task of bringing out the
righteousness of God by means of their sins. Now if God is not
affected by the test they apply, if he does not manifest his
righteousness by punishing them, what reason have we to expect
that he will prove himself to be the God of justice, by bestowing
blessings upon us ?

Ver. 16. " Then they that feared God conversed one with
another, and the Lord listened and heard, and a book of remem-
brance was written before him for those who fear the Lord and
think of his name."

The conversations of the truly pious handful, in defence of
God, are here opposed to the charges brought against him in the
conversations of the ungodly mass of the people (the whole
nation in ver. 9), who thought themselves religious, in, then,
shows that the former were occasioned by the latter, and are
here contrasted with them. The substance of what they said is
sufficiently indicated by this contrast, and there was the less
necessity for any verbal account of their creed, from the fact
that it must have been essentially the same as that of the pro-
phet himself They said the same as Peter in similar circum-
stances, during the closing period of the Jewish state, when the
spirit of murmuring had not only reached its height among the
Jews, but had even extended from them to the weaker Jewish
Christians. Compare 2 Pet. iii, 9, " The Lord is not slack con-
cerning his promise, as some men count slackness, but is long-

MALACHI, CHAP. III. 17. 207

suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that
all should come to repentance" (see also ver. 15 and 17).
Since, then, the substance of the conversation is sufficiently
determined, we have no reason to attribute to the prophet a
citation of the very words, as has been done by us v. Til, J. D.
Michaelis, Schmieder, and others, who render the verse thus :
" On the other hand they that fear the Lord say among them-
selves, Jehovah observes," &c. That this is incorrect is sufficiently
evident from the fact, that a new address never commences with
a future with vav conversive. Moreover, it is self evident that
we have here an injmiction to such as were pious, clothed in a
historical form. The prophet, by describing what they have
done, shows them what they are to do, 8.nd that in a more em-
phatic manner, than if he had merely expressed it in the form of
a comjnand. He clearly shows, that no injunction is really
required ; that faith, from its very nature, expresses itself in this
way ; and that he who does not speak thus, must renounce all
claim to the possession of faith. — The promise is also clothed in
a historical form, as well as the injunction. — The figure em-
ployed, the writing in a book of remembrance before the Lord,
may be explained from the custom of the Persians, to enter in a
book the names of all such persons as had performed anything
meritorious in the service of the king, along with an account of
the peculiar services they had rendered, that they might in due
season receive their reward. (With Esther vi. 1, compare Dan.
vii. 10, and Ps. Ivi. 9).

Ver. 17. ^^ And they shall he to me, saith the Lord of Hosts,
in the day which I create, for a possession, and I ivill spare
them, as a man spareth his son, ivho serveth him."

The reason is here assigned for the entry in the book of re-
membrance. According to the accents (for example, the
Munach under ncy^ which indicates a connection with the
following word), the words ought apparently to be rendered.
" and they shall be mine in the day when I create a possession."
This rendering undoubtedly furnishes a very good meaning. It
gives peculiar prominence, in harmony with ver. 18, to the fact,
that the design of the great day, which is coming, will be to create
a i^J?, to erect a wall of partition in the midst of Israel itself,
and not merely between the whole of the Israelites according to

208 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

the flesh and the heathen world, as these hypocrites anticipate.
But the other construction, " they shall be to me for a possession
in the day that I create," which is adopted in the Septuagint
(xost smtiTx-i fjt.01 sU 7)[ji.spacv ^v lycu Troicu its it^piTtoinaiv) ^ is Un-
doubtedly sustained by the earlier passage, upon which this is
founded, Ex. xix. 5, " and ye shall be to me a possession," &c.,
and also by chap. iv. 3, where there is a similar allusion to the
day which the Lord creates. — J^^jt? does not mean a posses-
sion in general, but one of peculiar worth, and highly esteemed,
strictly speaking what is treasured up and laid by, a treasure ;
compare Eccl. ii. 8, " I gathered me silver and gold, and a trea-
sure of kings and provinces." (Even the word Trspiovaios,
which is frequently used as an equivalent to SeguUaJi in the
Septuagint and New Testament, does not mean proprius alicui,
pecuUaris ; the Gloss, in Oct. is perfectly correct, Tupiovam,
siaipsTov, literally " what is over," " what is stored up," compare
Bengel on Titus ii. 14). In the passage before us there is evi-
dently an allusion to the passages in the Pentateuch in which
!^'?..?!? is used of Israel in contrast with the heathen, for example,
Ex. xix. 5, " now therefore if ye will obey my voice indeed, and
keep my covenant, ye shall be to me a -"iVjp out of all nations ; "
Deut. vii. 6, "for thou art a holy people unto the Lord thy Grod:
the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be to him a people of
possession out of all nations that are upon the earth ;" and Deut.
xxvi. 18 (c/ Ps. cxxxv. 4). As God at that time made Israel
a Segullah out of all nations, so does he now make the true
Israel a Segullah out of the whole of Israel according to theflesh,
or rather he points out, as his Segullah, those who alone have
always been so. For the expression " if ye will hearken to my
voice and keep my covenant," is a proof that the new exaltation
to the position of a Segullah, which is predicted here, is to be
regarded as merely the continuation of the former condition, and
that the ungodly, strictly speaking, never did form a part of the
Segullah at all. In the word " if," the prophecy which is here
plainly announced is already implied. According to this, God can
just as little allow, that those who fulfil the required conditions
should continue to be deprived of the promised blessings on ac-
count of their connection with the others, as that those who fail

MALACHI, CHAP, III. 18. 209

to fulfil these conditioas should be treated as part of the SegitUah,
for the sake of such as are faithful. After the preparatory
siftings, which run through the whole course of history, there
must at last come one grand sifting, when the uncircumcised in
heart will be mixed up with the outwardly uncircumcised (com-
pare Jer. ix. 24, 25), whilst the true children are fully installed
in all the rights of children. This great division took place at
the coming of Christ. The expression " to spare," in the sense
of to manifest tender affection, is evidently used as a contrast to
the treatment of those who are not children, and therefore are
" not spared." A similar antithesis, implied but not expressed,
is found in 1 Sam. xxiii. 21, where Saul says, with reference to
the unsparing conduct of others towards the Ziphites, " blessed
be ye of the Lord, for ye have spared me." The expression
" that serveth him" is peculiarly emphatic here. If the love of
the father is to be manifested in all its strength, there must be
something more in the son than a merely physical descent, which
is simply the first foundation of the connection between father
and son. He must assume the character of a son by an act of
free will. The same rule was applicable to Israel in its relation
to God. Admission to the family of God by circumcision cor-
responds to physical descent. Many relied upon this, and fancied
that nothing more was wanting, to constitute the ground of a claim
upon fatherly treatment on the part of God. But the prophet
shows, that if what had been merely received continued outward
alone, it would not only not support any claims at all, but would
rather tend to heighten responsibility, and render their ultimate
retribution the more unsparing.

Ver. 18. " And ye ivill see again the difference between the
righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God, and
him that serveth him not."

The evident allusion to the complaint of the murmurers, that
God made no difference between the righteous and the wicked,
a distinction which, in their estimation, coincided with the divi-
sion between the nation of Israel and the heathen, is a proof
that the hypocrites are here addressed. " Ye will discover that
your complaint is unfounded, but ye will find it out to your
shame." The expression " ye return" refers to similar distinc-
tions that had ah-eady been made, for example in Egypt (Ex. xi.

VOL. IV. • 0

210 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

7, " that ye may know how that the Lord doth put a difference
between the Egyptians and Israel"), and to which the hypocrites
appealed, as proving that Grod could not be Grod now, seeing
that no traces of such a distinction as this could any longer be
found.^ — r? is regarded by most commentators as a noun,
(difference). But among the whole mass of passages in which
r? occurs, it would be difficult to find one in which it must be
taken as a noun. (In Is. xliv. 4, the meaning of r?? is in the
mean time, and in 1 Sam. xvii. 4, the preposition is merely
treated as a noun). The rendering " betiveen" is also perfectly
suitable here. " We do not see," say the murmurers, " what
' between the righteous and the wicked ' means." " The time will
come," replies the prophet, " when you will see once more the
between, in relation to the righteous and the wicked." In a
similar manner a grand division, in the midst of the covenant
nation itself, is announced by Isaiah, in chap. Ixv. 13, 14,
" Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungiy : behold,
my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty : behold, my
servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed : behold, my ser-
vants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall howl for vexation of
spirit" (compare Dan. xii. 2). In its fullest sense this division
will only take place in the future state (compare the description
in Matt. xxv. 31 sqq., which embodies the same idea, and there-
fore is essentially the same). But as surely as God not merely
will be, but from all eternity and through all ages is, the God
of justice, so surely must the fanning of the floor, the burning
of the chaff and the gathering of the wheat into the barn, be car-
ried on in every age.

Chap. iv. 1 (chap. iii. 19). " For behold the day cometh burn-
ing as an oven, and all the proud, and every one that doeth loick-
edness, shall be stubble, and the coming day burnetii them
up, saith the Lord of Hosts, luho will not leave them root or
branch."

In the previous verse a great division was announced,, to be
made between the righteous and the wicked. We have here a

1 Possibly 3ir, the primary meaning of which is to turn, may be used
here to denote simply the contrast to their previous condition. Compare
Zech. i. 6, viii. 15.

MALACHI, CHAP. IV. 1. 211

description of the judgment upon the wicked, and the blessings
upon the righteous, by which this division will be followed.
Commentators differ as to the day alluded to. " Some suppose
the prophet to refer to the last and general judgment, others to
the particular judgment inflicted upon the Jews by the Komans,
and others again to both" (Venema). But even if we adopt
the last explanation which embraces the other two, we shall
still come short of the whole truth, just as they do, who enter-
tain the same view in connection with the declaration made
by Christ in Matt xxiv. and xxv. For what right have we to
exclude the striking examples of the fulfilment of this prophecy
which are to be met with in the centuries that intervened
between the utterance of the prediction and the destruction of
Jerusalem by the Romans, such, for example, as occurred in the
time of the Maccabees, when the ex.vofji,oi, -jrapaiw/jioi, Epya^ofjiSMOi
rrt-y dhyitxy, d/ysfiHs, av^pss Xoi/xol, as they are Called in the Book
of Maccabees with evident reference to this prophecy, learned b}*
experience the truth at which they scoffed, that God is the God
of justice ? Or what ground have we for passing over the con-
stant fulfilment, which runs through the whole of this period,
though imperceptible except to the eye of faith, including the
manifestation of the righteousness of God in the fate of particular
individuals ? Or lastly, what right has any one to look upon the
entire period between the destruction of Jerusalem and the judg-
ment day as having no connection with this prophecy, just as if
the first and last leaves had been written with the finger of God,
and the rest had been left a perfect blank ? The judgment of
God upon the bad seed, the dead members of his Churcb, is here
depicted. But his Chui'ch is one and the same in every age ;
and therefore the prophecy cannot be regarded as terminating
with the commencement of the New Testament times. The
fulfilment both commences along with the object especially re-
ferred to — namely judgment, which is never very far off, and also
keeps pace with judgment through all ages to the end of the
world. It is seen most conspicuously, though not exclusively,
at the close of the two economies (at that of the latter so far as
it is a kingdom of grace). — With reference to ".?n Calvin says,
" he calls the attention of the Jews, as it were, to something
actually present, tliat they may perceive that the judgment of God

212 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

is not far off, but is already threatening their own heads." The
life giving sun is opposed in the following verse to the destroying
fire. 113I?? " as the (burning) oven," serves to strengthen the
announcement. In the furnace the fire burns more fiercely than
in the open air. Fire consuming chaff and stubble, has already
been used by Isaiah (v. 24) as a figurative representation of the
fate of the ungodly. " The proud" and " they that do ivicked-
ness " are evidently introduced with special reference to ver. 15 :
"Ye to whom this pre-eminently applies, not those whom ye
have so designated." "^W. is not to be referred to the Lord,
but to the coming day. We find the same antithesis " root
and branch" in Job xviii. 16. The tree in this instance, as in
Amos. ii. 9, is a figurative representation of the nation generally,
or of the whole body of the ungodly.

Ver. 2 (chap. iii. 20). ''And upon you, that fear my name,
the Sun of righteousness arises, and healing is under his wings,
and ye go out and ship like fattened calves."

The Sun is righteousness itself. It is compared to the natural
sun, because, though not obscured, it will then shine brightly,
but more especially because it will so thoroughly invigorate
those that are cast down. It is not subjective righteousness, but
the righteousness imparted by God on the ground of this, which
is an inseparable attendant of salvation, or rather, strictly speak-
ing, it is salvation itself, though from a different point of view,
— namely, regarded as actual justification and acknowledgement
as righteous. Compare, for example, Ps. cxxxii. 9, " Let thy
priests be clothed with righteousness, and let thy saints shout
for joy." We must not regard it as meaning, in this instance,
justification in the sense of the forgiveness of sins. This would
be at variance with the entire context ; for here the judgment is
spoken of, the great division to be made, between those who are
already righteous and those who are still wicked (compare ver.
18). A reference to the forgiveness of sins would be as much
out of place here, as in Matt, xxv. 31 sqq. The righteousness
mentioned here corresponds, rather, to the oLitoLvrpojais in Luke
xxi. 28, with which the reign of appearances is brought to an
end, the harmony between the outward and inward restored,
and every secret thing brought to light, whether it be good or

MALACHI, CHAP. IV. 2. 213

bad. The fathers, from Justin downwards, understood by the
Sun of righteousness Christ {Suicer p. 1320), and they have
been followed by the majority of modern commentators.' This
explanation is on the whole well-founded. According to chap,
iii. 1, he through whom the godly are to become partakers of
righteousness, with whose coming the Sun of righteousness
rises, is the Angel of the Lord, the heavenly mediator of the
new covenant, who fulfils its promises and threats, the Logos.
But two things are to be observed in connection with this ex-
planation. (1). Its supporters discover here a distinct allusion
to the person of Christ ; he is said to be himself the Sun of
righteousness, because righteousness is represented as the sun.
The distinction, however, merely affects the form. For he, who
causes the Sun of righteousness to rise, may also be regarded as
the Sun of righteousness himself, just as the bringer of peace in
Micah V. 4 is also called peace, and Jehovah is represented as
the sun and hght in Ps. Ixxxiv. 12 and Is. Ixvi. 19 (compare
John i. 5, 9 and viii. 12). (2). They understand by righteous-
ness, at least principally, the forgiveness of sins. Thus, for
example, Luther explains the Sun of righteousness as meaning,
" the sun which makes righteous, which emits such splendour
that the people thereby become righteous, and are delivered
from sins." The difference in this case is of a more essential
character. The murmurers had o^sked for the judgments of
righteousness, for God to give to every one according to his
vjorks, to the just and also to the unjust ; and the prophet con-
fines himself to the judgment, — namely to the reward of the
righteous and the punishment of the ungodly. Hence there is
no allusion here to the forgiveness of sins. This was involved
in the more general announcement, that God would send his
messenger to prepare the way before him. Whoever permits
this messenger to fulfil the duties of his ofiice upon him will
receive forgiveness of sins ; but if any refuse, the wrath of God
remaineth on them. When once the Lord himself has come to
judgment, there is no longer any question of a change of relation
towards him, but only of its manifestation. The passage before
us, therefore, is parallel to Ps. cxii. 4, " unto the upright

1 For proofs see Joh. Heinr Majus, de Christo sole justitice, Giessen 1710.

214 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

there ariseth light in the darkness." Wings are attributed
to the dawn in Ps. cxxxix. 9, as they are here to the sun,
and also to the wind in Ps. civ. 3 ; in both passages to
represent swiftness.^ In this case, then, the wings are to be
regarded either as furnishing the means by which the sun ap-
proaches swiftly with the healing that he brings, or as spread
out over his own people to afford them warmth and protection,
compare Ps. xxxvi. 8, xci. 4, and Matt, xxiii. 37. The latter is
the. better explanation. For it is the healing itself, not the
rapidity with which it is effected, that is attributed to the wings.
In the healing spoken of, there is an allusion to the healing,
refreshing, and invigorating energy of the natural sun. The
winter and night of suffering have thrown the righteous into a
state of exhaustion and distress. The expression, " go forth,"
implies that their former condition was one in which they were
shut up and imprisoned (Micah ii. 13 ; Ps. Ixxxviii. 9). But
now they are led out of their gloomy dungeons to the open fields,
which are lighted up by the cheering rays of the sun.^

Ver. 3 (chap. iii. 21). ^^ And ye tread down the ivicTced,for
they shall he ashes under the soles of your feet, in the day that
I create, saith the Lord ofBosts."

In the figure of the ashes there is an allusion to that of the
fire in ver. 19. According to the entire context, the contrast
between the righteous and the wicked is of an inward character.
The little flock has much to suffer for the ungodly multitude.
The conflict arising out of this, is met by a reference to the day
appointed by the Lord, in which everything will be entirely
changed (Luke xxi. 38).

Ver. 4 (chap. iii. 22). " Remember ye the law of Moses, my
servant, which I commanded unto him in Horehfor all Israel,
laius and judgments"

1 Macrobius (Sat i. 19) " hoc argumentum j^gyptii lucidius absolvunt,
ipsius solis simulacra penaata fingentes." Euripides. Jon. v. 22) ay.' rn'y.icu
rr'-Quyi ^o*i. Virgil (Mn. viii. 39C) " nos ruit et fuscis tellurem amplec-
titur alls." On the pillar of Antoninus, Jupiter himself is represented under
the image of a winged sun.

2 The meaning, " stall," which is given by many to [sann, — namely, a stall
in which cattle are confined, does not suit the expressions, " go out " and
^^ skip." The latter indicate a state of freedom. ^

MALACHI, CHAP. IV. 4. 215

Tliis injunction, to the great importance of which the Septua-
gint directs attention by phxcing it at the close of the whole book,
and the Masoretes by the littera majuscula t, was generally mis-
understood by the earlier expositors, who interpolated the idea
oi provisionallij} There is nothing to ivarrant such an inter-
polation ; for Elias introduces nothing new ; he only brings the
ohl to life again, and the angel of the covenant does not come to
teach and legislate, but to judge. There is also no inducement
to make it. The law is referred to here (and this is the very
point which has been overlooked), not according to its accidental
and temporary yorm, but according to its essential character, as
expressive of the holiness of God, just as in Matt. v. 17. In this
light it is eternally the same in the eyes of God, and no jot or
tittle of it can pass away. — It is only from this point of view, that
we obtain a correct idea of the connection between the verse
before us, and the adjoining verses both before and after. The
prophet has announced a coming judgment, and here he traces
it to its source, and shows at the same time in what manner the
whole nation and every individual may successfully avoid it.
The law of God and his people are inseparable. If the law is
not fulfilled in the nation, it must be executed upon the nation.
But before God accomplishes the latter, before he smites the
land with the curse, he does everything to bring about a refor-
mation, which is the only safeguard against the ban. He sends
Elias, the prophet. — The two expressions, " my servant," and
" which I commanded him," serve to eliminate every Imman
element from the law, and consequently to enforce the duty of
observing it. Moses was merely an instrument ; God was the
law-giver. From this fact it necessarily followed, — as is expressly
stated in the words, " for all Israel," — that it did not merely
apply to the generation to which it was originally given at Horeb,
but that its demands extended to all generations. Compare Deut.
xxix. 14, 1.5, " neither with you only do I make this covenant
and this oath, but with him that standeth here with us this day

1 Thus, for example, v. Til says, " he enjoins this upon them, as long as

they should continue in expectation of Christ and without the jn-ophets,

. . until Elias is sent." And Michaelis, " in the meantime attend to

the instruction contained in the whole of the Pentateuch, more thoroughly

than ye have hitherto done, until better things shine forth when I appear."

216 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

before the Lord our God, and also with him that is not here with
us this day.^ — The laws, which were afterwards given in the plains
of Moab, are also included in the expression " in Horeb." For
they were merely a continuation and further development ; the
foundation was fully laid at Sinai. — In the injunction " remem-
ber," there is an allusion to chap. iii. 7, " from the days of your
fathers ye have gone hack from my commandments." It is not
without cause that the prophet exhorts them. He is not merely
warning them against a future apostasy. The axe is already
laid at the root. Let Israel of its oion accord remember the
law, before the Lord arouses it from its sleep offorgetfilness by
the thunders of his righteousness.

Ver. 5 (chap, iii, 23). " Behold, I send you Elias, the pro-
phet, before tlie great and terrible day of (he Lord come."

There can be no doubt whatever, that Elias the prophet is
identical with the messenger, whom the Lord will send to pre-
pare the way before him (chap. iii. 1). If, then, we have already
proved in our remarks upon that verse, that the reference there
is to an ideal messenger, the personified preacher of repentance,
the same proofs are equally valid in connection with the passage
before us. The same idea is expressed in both cases : before
God proves himself to be the covenant God by inflicting punish-
ments and bestowing blessings, he shows that he is so, by placing
within the reach of the children of the curse the means of be-
coming the children of the blessing. Of course we must not
separate the power of the Spirit of God from the outward mission
of his servants, and thus change the gift into mockery. There
was no necessity to allude particularly to this, because it alivays
accompanies the outward preaching, and in fact is in exact pro-
portion to it ; so that we may infer with certainty the amount of
inward grace, from the extent to which the outward means of
grace are enjoyed in any age.

1 The prophet appears to have had Deut. iv. particularly in his mind. The
whole chapter contains an earnest injunction to fidelity in the observance of
the law. D'jsn and D'^S's^'d are connected together in vers. 1 and 8^
and Horeb is mentioned in ver. 15. Compai*e also ver. 5, " Behold I have
taught you law and judgments, even as the Lord, my God, commanded me ;"
and ver. 14, " And the Lord commanded me at that time to te»ach you laws
ivnd judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to posse&s
it ;" (see Lev. xsvi. 46).

MALACni, CHAP. IV. 5. 217

The only point which we have to examine, in connection with
this passage, has reference to the one thing which is peculiar to
it, the designation of the messenger by the name of Elias. The
reason for this must be sought in the prophet's own description
of the office and work of the messenger and of Elias, — namely,
" to prepare the way of the Lord," and " turn back the heart of
the fathers to the children and of the chikh-en to the fathers."
Hence the messenger, as a reformer raised up by God, is called
by the name of that one of the earlier messengers of God, who
exceeded all the rest in spirit and power, who lived in a remark-
ably corrupt age, and whose rejection was followed by a particu-
larly terrible day of the Lord, — viz., first the calamities inflicted
by the Syrians, and then the captivity of Israel, the ban, with
which the land was smitten, because it did not realise its desti-
nation to be a lioly land. The name of Elias recalled all these
circumstances ; when the people heard this name, they were wake-
ened out of their dream of self-righteousness, and found them-
selves placed upon a level with the corrupt generation of the time
of Elias. The coming of the Lord in that former age afforded
a firm foundation for his future coming. Again, the reason why
Elias should be especially selected, becomes still more obvious,
if we trace the view, which is very perceptible in the his-
torical books, that he was the head of the prophetic order in
the Israelitish kingdom, or rather in a certain sense the only
prophet, inasmuch as his successors merely received the spirit indi-
rectly ; — a view, to which we are also led by the striking resem-
blance which the acts of Elisha bore to his own. We find a
perfectly analogous resemblance in the case of Isaac and Abra-
ham, Joshua and Moses. In 2 Chr. xxi. 12 there is brought to
the king a writing from " Elijah the prophet," for Elijah as an
individual had departed this life long before. In 1 Kings xix. 15,
16, the Lord says to Elijah, " thou shalt go and anoint Hazael
to be king over Syria, and Jehu the son of Nimshi, shalt thou
anoint to be king over Israel." Elijah himself did not perform
either of these acts ; but Elisha anointed one (2 Kings viii. 13),
and a pupil of Elisha the other (2 Kings ix. 4 — 6). Elisha,
who modestly acknowledged that his relation to God was not
originally the same as that of his leader, desired the portion of
the first-born in his spiritual inheritance ("ini"^^, 2 Kings ii. 9).

218 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

Hence he also looks upon the rest of the prophets as the spirit-
ual children and heirs of Elijah, and as standing in the same re-
lation to him, in which the seventy elders, upon whom God put
of the spirit of 3Ioses, stood to Moses himself. According to
2 Kings, ii. 15, the sons of the prophets said, " the spirit of
Elijah (that is, the spirit of God in the particular form which it
assumed in Elijah) doth rest upon Elisha." And as an out-
ward sign that his ministry was merely a continuation of that of
Elijah, Elisha received his mantle. But a similar relation as this
may be found existing altogether apart from scriptural ground.
Look for example at the connection which existed between Luther
and Jonas or Bugenhojgen, or again between the reformers gene-
rally and the churches of which they were the founders. It might
also be shown that since this relation is an appointment of God
himself, the words which are so frequently abused, " be not the
servants of men," do not apply to it at all ; though sin creeps
into this, as into everything human. But this does not form
part of our present subject. We merely call attention to the
fact, that if, according to these proofs, we are not limited to one
single historical character, even when the Elijah of former times
is referred to, but everything is attributed to Elijah, which con-
stituted a continuation of his mission till the coming of the
terrible day upon Israel, there is still less ground for seeking the
Elijah of the future exclusively in one individual. — We have
already observed that the prophet intentionally borrows from
Joel (ii. 31), the expression, " Before the great and terrible day
of the Lord come." The day foretold by Joel, the judgment on
the enemies of the kingdom of God, was ardently desired. By
the announcement of the coming of a preacher of repentance
(/xETotvota), the prophet shows how wrong it is for them to
identify themselves with the kingdom of God, and expressly
declares in the following verse, that, if his preaching makes no
impression, the great day will inevitably be terrible to those who
fancy themselves the supporters, but are in reality the enemies
of the kingdom of God. — Our remarks on ver, 19 are also ap-
plicable to the " day of the Lord" alluded to here.

MALACHI, CHAP. IV. 5. 219

HISTOEY OF THE EXPOSITION OF VEE. 5.

1. Among the Jeius. It is well known that, on the strengtli
of this passage, the Jews anticipated the re-appearance of Elijah
in the flesh, before the coming of the Messiah. The earliest
traces of this view we find in the Book of Wisdom (chap, xlviii.
10),^ and the Septuagint, in which n'?3D n;^« rix is rendered
'Hx/av Tov 0£^/3iTy)v instead of 'Hx/av rh T[po(prirr,v. The pro-
phet adds N*3^D for the express purpose of showing that the
point in question is not the person of Elijah, but his office, his
TtMiv^ua. and ^vvoifjiis ; ^ but Jesus the son of Sirach, and the trans-
lators of the Septuagint, change the official allusion into a personal
one. It is true that, if we had nothing but this single fact, we
could not draw any certain inference from it, any more than we
should be able to conclude from the word '3^!?ri, if it actually
stood in the Hebrew text, that the prophet referred to the per-
sonal re-appearance of Elijah, seeing that nothing is more com-
mon, than for the recurrence of the essence of a thing to be
figuratively represented, as the re-appearance of the form in
which the previous manifestation had taken place. But since we
find the belief in a personal coming of Elijah the prevailing one
at a later period, we are warranted in attributing demonstrative
force to the passages referred to. There are several codices of
the Septuagint, it is true, in which we find the reading tov '7rp(p75Tr,v,
and it is also to be found in the Ed. Complut. But this is un-
doubtedly an unintentional emendation.

The passages in the New Testament, which serve to show
that the expectation of Elijah was very prevalent among the
people at that time, are well known. We shall have occasion to

1 The fallacy of the arguments adduced by Bretsclmeider against the
genuineness of this passage, which has every external authority in its favour,
is very obvious.

2 It was equally intentional on his part, that, before mentioning Elijah,
he spoke of the messenger of the Lord loithout any further personal allusion.
This is sufficient to prove that he did not refer to the re-appearance of Elijah
in the flesh. Chap. iv. 5 must evidently be explained from chap. iii. 1. If
the prophet wished to bo understood as announcing a personal appearance,
he ought to have mentioned it at the commencement of the third chapter.

220 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

notice them more particularly by and by. — In the Dialog, c.
Tryphone c. 40 (ed Ven. p. 152) Tryplio says, " We all expect
that the Messiah will be born a man of men, and that Elias will
anoint him when he comes." And from the fact that Elias has
not yet come, he argues that Jesus is not the Christ. The pas-
sages from later Jews may be found collected in Frischmuth (de
Elice adventu, Jena 1659 ; reprinted in the Thesaurus antiquus)
and in Eisenmeyer (Book ii. chap. 13). In the Book Chissuk
Emunah (p. 1, c. 39, ia WagenseiVs tela ii. 318), Rahhi Isaac
says, " It is well known in the nation of Israel, that the Mes-
siah would not be manifested till Elias the prophet had come,
as we find from this passage (in Malachi)." According to the
Scliulclian Aruch (in Frischmuth) the Jews were in the habit
of remembering Elias every Sabbath, and praying that he might
at length come and announce their redemption, which they
regarded for the most part as the sole object of his coming, thus
erring more grievously with regard to his work than they did
even with regard to his person. And Ahenezra concludes his
commentary on Malachi with the words, " deus propter miseri-
cordiam suam vaticinium suum impleat, finemque adventus illius
acceleret."

The sole origin of this view was the crude literality which
characterised the expositions of the Jews, the "realism" which
is so strongly recommended in the present day. The earlier
Christian commentators very properly brought forward such pas-
sages as 2 Kings ix. 31, where Jezebel addresses Jehu as Zimri
the murderer of his lord, a neiv Zimri (see Thenius on this
passage) ; and Is. i. 10, " Ye rulers of Sodom, ye people of
Gomorrha ;" not to mention such expressions as " alter erit tum
Tiphys," and " Homerus aut Maro pro Optimo poeta, Meecenas
pro benefico in doctos, Cato pro homine severo," &c. They also
appealed to a passage in Jcdkut Chadasch, where the current
phrase Pinchas est Elias, which many employed with equally
rude literality, is interpreted as merely denoting an ideal iden-
tity : " Hoc est, quod dixerunt Rabbini b. m. : Pinchas est Elias.
Non est res secundum litteram intelligenda, &c., sed quia Pinchas
venit, ut in ordinem redigeret Nadab et Abihu, ita etiam Elias,
quod ille reliquit in ordinem redigendum, id ipse perfecit." At
the same time there were not wanting men of intelligence, who

MALACHI, CHAP. IV. 5. 221

not only perceived the fallacy of the current interpretation, and
felt the force of the argument, that no other example can he
found in the whole of the Scriptures, of one, who had already
entered the church trium'phant, returning to tlie church militant
to discharge the duties of an ordinai^y office, but had also no
wish to enter into the wearisome dispute as to what became of
the body of Elijah. (The different opinions which were enter-
tained on this question have been collected by Pococke in the not.
m,isc., p. 218). The observations made by Bahhi Tauchum on
the passage before us are very remarkable. He says, " We have
here undoubtedly a promise of a prophet, who was to appear in
Israel shortly before the coming of the Messiah, and some of the
doctors think that this prophet will be Elijah the Tishbite
(an opinion which is to be found in most of the homiletical
writings) ; but others are of opinion that a great prophet will be
raised up of the same rank, eoderaque loco constitutum quod
cognitionem dei et nominis ejus promulgationem, and that
he is called Elias on this account, as the learned doctor
Maimonides has said" (Pococke p. 219). Maimonides was
probably the first of the Jews to depart from the popular
view. It is true, the manner in which he speaks of this view
(" there are some of the learned men, D'Dsnn p t", who
think that Elias himself will be sent before the Messiah ") seems
to imply that there had been dissentients already ; and hence
this view may have been but partially adopted after all. But
we cannot lay much stress upon this. It is probably only a ruse
on his part.

2. Among the Christians. Even among the Christians them-
selves the opinion was very ancient, and at certain periods very
widely spread, that Elijah himself was intended here. In John
the Baptist and the judgments upon Israel the prophecy was
supposed to have been only imperfectly and not literally fulfilled ;
the literal and complete fulfilment was still to be looked for in
the personal appearance of Elijah and the general judgment.
Thus, for example, the author of the dial. c. Tryph. appeals to
the words, " before the great and terrible day of the Lord come,"
which, he says, " is the second coming of Christ." Elias is to
come before that event occurs. Christ himself has declared as
much, by speaking of the coming of Elias as still /w^wre (Matt.

222 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

xvii. 11). In support of the opinion that the fulfilment com-
mences in John, he affirms that " the prophetic spirit which was
begotten of God in Elias, was also begotten of him in John."
Chrysostom observes (in the 57th homily on Matthew), " as
John was the forerunner of the first coming, so will Elias be
the forerunner of the second coming," and again, " Christ called
John Elias on account of his performing the same service."
Theophylact (on Matt. xvii. II, 12) says, " by saying that Elias
cometh, he shows that he has not yet come ; he will come as a
forerunner of the second advent, and will restore to the faith
of Christ all the Jews who are open to persuasion, restoring, as
it were, to their family inheritance those who have fallen away."
In his notes on Matt. xi. 14 he endeavours to make it appear
that the Redeemer himself represented John as being merely in
a figurative sense the promised Elias, " if ye will receive it, he
says, that is if ye will understand it wisely (if ye will not take it
too literally), this is he whom the prophet Malachi spoke of as
the coming Elias. For the forerunner and Elias perform the
same service." (For other quotations from Chrysostom and
Theophylact see Suicer s. v. ^Hxixs p. 1317 sqq.) Among the
Latin Fathers the same view prevails, TertulUan (de anima
c. 50) says, " Enoch and Elias were translated, their death was,
as it were, deferred. They are reserved, however, for death,
that they may destroy Antichrist with their blood." — Jerome
observes (on Matt. xvii. 11), " Elias himself, who will truly come
in the body at the second coming of Christ, has now come in the
spirit through the medium of John the Baptist." He also
says in another place, " not that the same soul animated the
bodies of Elias and John, as some heretics afiirm, but that they
had the same grace of the Holy Spirit," from which it is evident
that there were some, probably Jewish Christians, who thought
to do more justice to the express declaration of Christ that John
was Elias, by assuming that the soul of Elias passed into John."
— Augustine says {de civ. del. 20 c. 29), " that the Jews, when
their law has been explained to them by this great and wonderful
Elias in the last days before the judgment, will believe in the
true Christ, that is, in our Christ, is a thought which is con-
stantly cherished in the discourses and hearts of believers. It
is not without reason that we anticipate his coming before the

MALACHI, CHAP. IV. 5. 223

advent of the Judge and Saviour, since it is also not without rea-
son that he is believed to be still alive. For he was taken from
the earth in a chariot of fire, of which we have the surest testi-
mony in the sacred Scriptures." — There were undoubtedly some
who strongly dissented from the general opinion, even in the
days of the Fathers (see Grotius on Matt, xvii, 11), but there
were no opponents of any importance. (In addition to those
already mentioned, OiHgen, Cyril, and Theodoret, expressly
declare themselves in its favour). The expectation of Elias pre-
vious to the last judgment was even entertained by Mahometans
(Herhelot s. v. Ilia), who had undoubtedly imbibed the view
from the Christian Church rather than from the Jews. That
the commentators within the Catholic Church would adhere to
the opinion entertained by the Fathers, we should expect at the
very outset. BeUarmin says the opposite view is " vel haaresis
vel haeresi proximus error" (de Kom. pontif 1. 3. c. 6). The
expositors belonging to the Protestant Church, on the other hand,
unanimously reject this view, and maintain that the passage
refers exclusively to John the Baptist. Lately, indeed, the
earlier explanation has found defenders, including von Aimnon,
Hitzig, 3Iaurer, and even Olshausen.

Grotius and others speak of this view as having arisen simply
from trusting to the Jews ; whilst Frischrmith and others trace
it merely to the use of the Septuagint. But both explanations
are superficial and unsatisfactory. Such slender reasons would
not suffice to produce so general an agreement. The principal
cause was undoubtedly the fear of deviating from the letter,
arising from a conscious inability to defend the ideal interpreta-
tion, and strengthened by a reference to the Jews, who adhered
to the literal interpretation, as the dial c. Tryph. clearly shows,
and to whom it would have been impossible with any consist-
ency to refuse the same liberty in other cases, if the letter were
given up in this instance without sufficient and conclusive rea-
sons. The change made in the Septuagint of tov 7rpo(prirriv into
Tov 0eT/3iTy)v (the early Latin version has also Theshiten) simply
served to strengthen the opinion of the necessity for the literal
interpretation. A second reason, which led to its adoption, was
the general opinion that " the great and terrible day of the
Lord" meant the general judgment. The two supported each

224 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

other. That the second was not the sole ground for the first is
evident from the fact, that many, who regarded John as Elias,
supposed the fioal judgment to be the one referred to. We have
akeady seen that there is a certain truth at the foundation of
this view. The prophecy so evidently depicts judgment in its
most complete form,^ that any interpretation which regards the
passage as referring exclusively to some inferior judgment, even
to one of so terrible a character as the destruction of Jerusalem,
must always leave a feeling of dissatisfaction, especially if we
consider the blessing which accompanies the judgment. A
third reason was the connection supposed to exist between the
translation of Elias and his re-appearance (compare Augustine
I.e.).

It must be admitted that it is just as correct to refer it to a
future Elias, as to restrict it exclusively to John. They are
both wrong in their own way ; and both are based upon the
same unfounded assumption, — namely, the opinion that prophecy
must necessarily relate to one definite point of time, and one single
individual. It is only in connection with the passages in the
New Testament, which bear upon the question, that the former
appears the less feasible of the two. The difficulty of sustaining
a literal reference to Elias, and a merely figurative one to John,
is evident from the very forced expositions, to which all these
commentators, including even Olsliausen, have been compelled
to resort.

Ver. 6 (chap. iii. 24). "And he turneth the heart of the
fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their
fathers, lest I come and smite the land with the curse"

Very different explanations have been given of the first part
of the verse, notwithstanding its simplicity. There are many

who follow the Septuagint (os d.itoy.a.ra.armii x.a,p^iav TTxTpos
TTDOS vloy Kocl y.a.pB[oi.M txiiOpcuTrou Trpos tov TrXftaiov avrov)' and

1 " This difference between rewards and punishments, which distin-
guishes the righteous from the wicked, is not seen amidst the vanities of
this present life, but when it is displayed in the manifestation of the future
life under the Sun of righteousness, there will then be judgment, such as
never had been before." Augustine.

MALACHI, CHAP. IV. 5. 225

the Book of Wisdom (chap, xlviii. 10), in which the -restoration
of love in the midst of the covenant nation is treated as the
germ, and understand the passage as rehiting to the cessation oj
strife in the midst of the covenant nation, of which the restora-
tion of peace between parents and children is introduced as one
particuhir example. But this furnishes by no means a fitting
conclusion to the last prophecy of the last prophet ; nor was
this the sin, which primarily and especially led to the curse.
The crime laid to the charge of the nation in chap. iii. 5 was
something very different. Moreover, the leading hack would by
no means harmonise with the preparation of the loay announced
in chap. iii. 1, io which it ought to correspond. Even Isaiah
had something far more exalted before his mind. — Passing over
a number of pointless expositions, which have been given by
Jews, and which may be found in Frischmuth, we will merely
notice that of KimcM, " He converts alike both fathers and
children,"^ which has been approved of, even by Christian ex-
positors. But this explanation, which is defended by Steudel
and Hofmann, is open to the following objections: (1) that
such an use of ^TD as this, without anything to indicate
whence or whether, is altogether without analogy ; (2) that if
this were the meaning, we should expect ^^ to be repeated
before the first o'J^ and before o^i'^?*., whilst the omission
shows that it is to the fathers and children that the heart is
turned ; and, lastly, that " the fathers with the sons" and " the
sons with the fathers " would be mere tautology. — We find the
true explanation in the New Testament, and in Augustine, who
expressly affirms that the Septuagint rendering is false (de civ.
Dei. 20. 29). Its most able defender is Conr. Iken (see his
dissertat. de anathem., &c., on Matt. iv. 6 [iii. 24] Bremen
1749). — The fathers are the pious forefathers, the patriarchs,
particularly David and the godly belonging to his day.^ The

1 " He will persuade both fathers and children together to turn with all
their heart to the Lord, and such as retui'n will be delivered from the day of
judgment." Ahenezra gives the same explanation. Michaelis interprets it
thus, " All the Jews, both high and low, parents and children, will believe
in Christ with unity of heart."

2 Iken: " When the whole of the Jewish nation is intended, the term
' parents ' is usually applied to the ancestors, and ' children ' to posterity.
Ezek. xviii. 2, ' the fathers have taken,' &o., Ps. xxii. 5, and Mai. iii.
0, 7."

VOL. IV. r

226 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

hearts of the pious fathers and the ungodly children are estranged
from one another. The bond of union is wanting, — viz., common
love to God. The fathers are ashamed of their children, the
children of their fathers. The great chasm between the two is
filled up once more by Elias the prophet. He leads the chil-
dren back to Grod, and in God the fathers and children are
reconciled again. 3W" is not infrequently construed with ^y,
even where a literal return is intended. Compare, for example,
Job xxxiv, 15, "man returneth to the dust" ("'SV'^y) ; Prov.
xxvi. 11, "as a dog, that returneth to its vomit ; and Eccl. xii.
7. In the case before us, however, it is still more appropriate,
since inclination is very commonly regarded as resting upon its
object, which renders ^y more graphic than ^??. An dTroxara-
sraaii, a restitutio is also predicted here (see the notes on
chap. iii. 4). If there had not been pious fathers already,
if the Lord had not proved himself to be a covenant God
in former times, by giving them a heart to fear him, the
hope of a reformation of the children, to be efiected by him,
would be a mere fancy. The hopes of the future, so far as
the kingdom of God is concerned, are always founded upon
the past. This is not only a guarantee of the possibility, but
also a proof of the necessity for a repetition. Every word ad-
dressed by the prophet to the corrupt priestly order would be
entirely lost, if its former purity (chap. ii. 5,6) had not afforded
a pledge that the idea could and must be realised again. The
meat-offering of Judah and Jerusalem is not to become pleasant
to the Lord for the first time, after the lapse of many centuries, but
it is once more to become, what it was in the days of old, arid in
former years (chap. iii. 4)^ Isaiah complains (in chap. i. 21)
that the city, which was once faithful, has become a harlot, and
that whereas righteousness dwelt in her, there are now murderers.
Compare ver. 26, " and I will give thee thy judges again as at
the first, and thy councillors as at the beginning." We have only
to observe further, that the outward work of Elias is not to be
separated from the work of the Spirit of God, by which it is ne-
cessarily accompanied (compare 1 Kings xviii, 37, where the

1 Hofmann's question, " What is there to show that the fathers were more
pious than the sons ?" is fully answered in chap. iii. 4 and chap. ii. 5, 6.

MALACHI, CHAP. IV. 5. 227

first Elijah says to God, " thou turnest their heart back again"),
and also, that a'?'.'? does not denote the effect, so much as the
divine intention, though this of course can never be really with-
out effect. That the prophet was well aware that the great mass
of the people would despise the mercy of God, which was offered
to all (Luke vii. 30), and therefore would be exposed to the
judgment threatened, is evident from the earlier passages, in
which this judgment is unconditionally announced.

In the second half onn may either be rendered " with the
ban" {Ewald § 204, a.), or " as a ban," that is, so that it shall
become " a ban." All the dreadful things that can possibly be
thought of are included in this 07ie word.' The meaning of the
Cherem has already been discussed in another of the author's
works (see the Dissertation on the Pentateuch, vol. ii. transl.,
Art., " The right of the Israelites to Palestine.") We will first
of all quote the passage referred to. "The conduct which the
Israelites were commanded to observe, and actually did observe
towards the Canaanites, is designated throughout as banning
fVerbanmmg, proscribing or laying under the ban). This
designation shows that the highest object of the war of extermi-
nation against the Canaanites was the vindication of the Divine
glory, which had been dishonoured by them. The idea of
banning is always that of the forcible dedication to God of such
persons, as have obstinately refused to dedicate themselves volun-
tarily to him, the manifestation of the Divine glory in the
destruction of those who, during their lifetime, would never
serve as a mirror for it, and therefore refused to realise the great
I)urpose of man's existence, and of the creation of the world.
God will sanctify himself on those, in whom he is not sanctified.
The temporal destruction of anything which does not serve him
makes known his praise. His glory shines forth in the wailings
of the lost, which are typified by this temporal destruction.
This idea of the ban, which J. D. Michaelis describes in a truly
characteristic manner as " a master-stroke of legislative sagacity"
is very conspicuous in Deut. xiii. 16 — 18, where the command

i " There can be no doubt that God intended to say, that he would give up
to certain destruction, both the obstinate transgressors of the law and also
their city, and that they should suffer the extreme penalty of his justice as
heads devoted to God, without any hope of favour or forgiveness." ( Vitringa).

228 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

is issued to han every Israelitish city which should introduce
idolatry (compare ver. IG), " and thou bannest the city and its
spoil entirely to tlie Lord thy God, and it becomes an eternal
heap, it shall no more be built again." So again in the account
contained in Num. xxi. 1 — 3. The Canaanitish king of Arad
opposed the Israelites, " and Israel vowed a vow unto the Lord,
and said, if thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand,
I will han their cities. And the Lord heard the voice of Israel,
and delivered up the Canaanites, and Israel banned them and
their cities." The banning is evidently represented here, not
as something resulting from human caprice, or subservient to
human purposes, but as an act of worship enjoined by God,
which was regarded by Israel as a sacrifice offered up for the
sake of God. And so again in 1 Kings xx., where the king
of Israel, himself an ungodly man, is doomed to destruction
for neglecting to execute the ban pi-onounced by God upon
Benhadad, the king of Assyria, and haughty despiser of God.
The ban, pronounced upon the Canaanites generally related to
their persons alone ; and, strictly speaking, it was solely to these
that it actually applied. Their cities and possessions were con-
ferred upon the Israelites. But, in order that it might be seen,
that the former possessors had not been destroyed by a mere act
of caprice on the part of man, but by the vengeance of God, and
also that their country and possessions had not been acquired by
the Israelites as booty, but as a confiscated fief which was now
conferred by God upon another vassal, to see whether he. would
faithfully render the services appertaining to its possession, in
the case of the first city that was taken, — viz., Jericho, the ban
was laid upon the city itself and all the property found within
the walls." To this we have now to add the following remarks.
(1). That the word o^n does not mean a holy thing generally,
but rather a thing which is holy in the sense of being devoted
to God by being destroyed, and therefore is distinct from ^^.P,

is evident from its connection with ^^; resecuit, succidit, ex-

scidit, abscidit, from which the Hebrew word ann (a man with
a short or mutilated nose) is derived, and probably also o'^n, a
net, so called on account of its causing destruction to the fish.
Hence Vitringa's remark (on Is. xi. 5) is incorrect. He says,

MALACHI, CHAP. IV, 5. 229

*' the word onnn sigDifies to set apart a thing or person from
common use, which is done either by conseo'ation, or by devoting
it to destruction with imprecations, as an accursed thing ; hence
to cut off, to destroy, to exterminate with a curse." The only
part of this which is correct is contained in the words " devoting
it to destruction," <fec. In the sense of consecrate it is never
used. — (2). J. D. Micliaelis says (§ 146), " Moses speaks of the
Cherem in one passage in a manner which presupposes that a
man sometimes consecrated his own field, and that such a field
of Clierem as this could be redeemed in the ordinary way,
Lev. xxvii. 28." If this explanation of the passage were
correct, we should have to alter the notion of Q^n alto^e-
tlier. But this very passage furnishes a proof that it cannot
be correct. The things which are devoted to the Cherem, are
always represented simply as an appurtenance of the persons.
There is not a single instance to be met with of the persons
being spared, and the property alone put under the ban. Com-
pare, for example, Deut. ii. 34 ; 1 Sam. xv. 3, and Ezra x. 8,
" and that whosoever would not come within three days, all his
substance should be banned, and he himself separated from the
congregation of those that had been carried away." A voluntary
devotion of the person or property to the Cherem cannot there-
fore be thought of, since the fundamental idea of the d^.D is
that of a forced dedication, in opposition to a voluntary one.
God takes what belongs to himself, when men have refused to
give it to him. Hence the Cherem and a disposition to give,
mutually exclude each other. How are we to interpret the
passage in Leviticus then ? The explanation may be obtained
from ver. 29, " everything banned, which is banned of men,
shall be put to death." In the previous verse the possessions are
alluded to ; here the men. If by the men we are to understand
those upon whom God had pronounced the ban, then by the
cattle and the field we can only understand that which had
formerly been in the possession of persons who were banned,
which had afterwards been seized by the conquerors, and thus,
regarded merely in a material point of view, had become their
property. If this was once placed under the ban, it could on no
account be redeemed again. In many instances a special com-
mand of God was issued, to decide whether the possessions were

230 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

to be banned along with the men (c/! 1 Sam. xv. 3 ; Josh. vi.
18) ; and he who under these circumstances took any part of
the things that were banned, became Cherem himself in conse-
quence (Josh. vii. 12). In other cases it was left to the covenant
nation itself, to determine what it would lay under the ban, and
what it would retain for its own use. In a certain sense the
latter was also a Cherem (see Micah iv. 13). — The want of a
clear perception of the nature of the Cherem is also apparent in
the remark made by Michaelis, to the effect that Jephtha's vow
was an abuse of the Cherem. How could a Cherem be sacri-
ficed as a burnt-offering ? A sacrifice and a Cherim stood in
the same relation to one another as a-vd^^sfxa. and dvx^nfxx. —
(3). The prophet undoubtedly alludes to those passages of the
Pentateuch, in which the banning of the Canaanites is spoken of
Even in the Pentateuch this is described as a visible prophecy
of the future fate of Israel. Israel obtained possession of Canaan
as the holy nation of the holy God ; and had simply to choose
between holiness and Cherem. If Israel became Canaan in heart,
it would also become Canaan in its fate (Lev. xxvi. ; Deut. xii.
29 sqq., and xxviii.)

THE

x\EW TESTAMENT AND THE PEOPHECIES OF MALACHl.

We intend in the present section to adduce facts to prove
that the connection between the Old and New Testaments is
much closer than is commonly supposed ; and that it is impos-
sible to arrive at either an inward or outward acquaintance with
the latter, without the closest and most careful study of the
former. To the prophecy of Malachi we add that of Isaiah,
which is inseparable from it.

MATTHEW III. 1 — 12.

Matthew simply quotes the words of Isaiah. But it can be
proved that both the Evangelists and the Baptist himself re-

THE PROPHET MALACHI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. 231

garded the prophecy of Malachi as a necessary expansion and
completion of that of Isaiah, and that they had the former con-
tinually in their minds. The word " repent" is sufficient of
itself to indicate this. Elias the prophet is expressly described
by Malachi (iv. 6), as producing repentance. And the account
of John the Baptist's mode of life (in ver. 4), leads to the same
conclusion ; " and the same John," we read, " had his raiment
of camel's hair , and a leathern girdle about his loins, and his
meat was locusts and wild honey." The design of John, — viz.,
by means of an outward resemblance to Elias, to call attention to
the inward one, is very conspicuous here. In 2 Kings i. 8
(Sepiuagint), Elias is said to have been oi-vrip locnus^ xal <^wvnv
dspfjixTtvYiv 'nepiBt^cjdfjLivQs TTjv 6(j(pyv avTov. "Coccus does not refer
to his person but to his clothing, to the rough garment of
camel's hair. — On ver. 7, Lighffoot has observed, " there is au
allusion here to the closing words of the Old Testament, ' lest I
come and smite the land with the curse,' and the disastrous fate
of the nation is represented as already impending over it." We
must also add the reference to the coming day predicted in Mai.
iv. 1 ; compare the y.oTtaia.i opyriv 'npo Qvjj.ov of the Book of
Wisdom (chap, xlviii. 10). John declares that the great day of
decision and separation, foretold by the prophets, has now arrived.
Happy is he who listens to him, the risen Elias, and is led to
repentance, the only means of escaping the coming wrath. —
In ver. 8, " Bring forth, therefore, fruits meet for repentance,"
there is an allusion to Mai. iv. 1, " which shall leave them
neither root nor branch." Compare ver. 10, " and now also the
axe is laid unto the root of the trees (Bengel, ' the axe is not
directed against the branches alone') ; therefore every tree which
bringeth not forth good fruit, is hewn down and cast into the
fire." The bad trees must become good through repentance, and
consequently bring forth good fruit ; otherwise according to
God's own threat through the mouth of his prophet, neither root
nor branch will be left. In ver, 11, "I indeed baptize you with
water into repentance (cf. Mai. iv. 6), but he that cometh after me
is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear," the allu-
sion to Mai. iii. 1 is unmistakeable. John is merely the human
messenger of the Lord, sent to secure the ij^srcivoia embodied
in baptism, that is, to prepare the way. After him, the heavenly

232 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

messenger, the angel of the covenant, the Lord himself, comes to
his temple. This allusion is the more important on account of
its affording an insight into the opinion, which John himself
entertained of Christ. He was not in his estimation, as in that
of the mass of the people, a man endowed with extraordinary
gifts, but the revelation of the glory of God, predicted by Isaiah,
the Lord whose way he was to prepare, the angel of the cove-
nant, and the Lord, foretold by Malachi. And lastly, in ver. 12,
" whose fan is in his hand and he will thoroughly purge his
floor, and gather his wheat into the garner, but he will burn up
the chaff with unquenchable fire," there is a reference to Mai.
iv. 1, " behold the day cometh burning as an oven, and all the
proud and all the wicked become stubble, and the coming day
burneth them." Thus the prophecy of Malachi is, throughout,
the text upon which John comments, in precisely the same man-
ner in which Malachi himself comments upon Isaiah. The close
connection between prophecy and fulfilment is pointed out by the
Evangelist in the particle yap in ver. 3, upon which 5f?i^e?observes,
" the reason why John necessarily appeared at that time in the
manner described in ver. 1 and 2, was because it was so foretold.
We will now cite a few examples, which show the importance
of a clear perception of the connection referred to, in its bearing
upon the present section. The reason for the sojourn of John
in the desert is thus explained by Oishcmsen : " But the real
character of this witness to the truth is to be seen in the fact,
that John preached in the desert and not in cities. It was an
essential characteristic of John, that he avoided men, and preached
to those who sought him out, whereas the Redeemer sought the
men to whom he preached." The inappropriateness of this ex-
planation is at once apparent, if we bear in mind the connection
with the prophecy. In Isaiah the desert is the symbol of that
state of natural and spiritual destitution, in which the nation
was, at the time referred to, and in which it had formerly been
after the exodus from Egypt. By appearing in a desert, then,
John proclaimed in deeds, what he afterwards expressly de-
clared in words, that the nation was a spiritual desert, and that
he was the messenger sent by the Lord to prepare the way be-
fore him, in other words, the preacher of repentance. (Com-
plete conformity with the prophecy would have required that he

THE PROrHET MALACHI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. 233

should appear in the desert, — viz. the Arabian, but this would
have operated prejudicially to his design, and therefore, just as
in the case of the temptation of Christ, only the essential features
were exhibited in an outward form). According to the recep-
tion given to his preaching, the bodies of some were to fall in
the desert, whilst others would be conducted into the promised
land by the Lord, who was coming after him to punish and to
bless.

Different opinions have been entertained as to the meaning of
the outward mode of life adopted by John. The majority re-
gard him as an ascetic. Grotias, for example, says (or chap. iii.
4) : " habitus hand dubie severior, victus parsimoniiie congr Li-
ens." The correct explanation can only be obtained, by seeking
for the reason why a similar outward mode of life was adopted
by Elijah ; for John copied it from him, not indeed as some-
thing purely external, — this would have been peurile and very
unworthy, — but as something highly significant, the symbol of
an inward relation between himself and Elijah. Now there can
be no doubt that in the case of Elijah this mode of life was a
" sermo propheticus realis." The preacher of repentance comes
forward as repentance personified. In his own conduct he shows
the people what their conduct ought to be. Take as a single
example 1 Kings xxi. 27, where Ahab imitates the marks of
repentance which the prophet had set before him. " And it
came to pass, when Ahab heard those words, that he rent his
clothes, and put a garment of hair upon his flesh, and fasted."
The words " and fasted" also serve to sliow in what light we are
to regard the fact that " his meat was locusts and wild honey."
Fasting in connection with the wearing of a garment of hair
were the ordinary signs of repentance under the Old Testament.
John's eating was a kind of continuous fast, and the Saviour
himself describes it as being so, when he calls it in Matt. xi. 18,
" neither eating nor drinking," an uninterrupted 'i}p.>. "^V- He
would have fasted altogether, if this had not been an impossi-
bility. Regarded in this light,^ the mode of life adopted by John
is most intimately connected with his sojourn in the desert. The

1 This was the view entertained by Bengcl, " even the dress and food of
John preached in accordance with his teaching and office. This minister of
repentance led the same life as penitents themselves should always lead."

234 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

two together serve to represent the condition of the people as a
deeply degraded one, repentance as indispensably necessary, as
the work of the age, and punishment as close at hand. The
latter also shows the essential unity of the time of John and that
of Elijah. In Ehjah's days there was the same degradation ;
compare, for example, 1 Kings xix. 10, " 1 have striven for the
Lord, the God of Hosts ; for the children of Israel have forsaken
thy covenant." There was also the same call on the part of the
prophet to lead them to repentance ; compare 1 Kings xviii. 37,
where, in perfect accordance with Mai. iv. 6, Elijah says to God,
" and thou hast turned their heart back again." Punishment
was also just as close at hand ; the mission of Elijah, of which
that of Elisha and his disciples is to be regarded as a continua-
tion, was the last grand attempt on the part of God to rescue
Israel, which, after this attempt had failed upon the whole,
moved forward without interruption towards destruction, the
o:;!n, which certainly awaited it.

If we look back from the fulfilment to the prophecy, we see
at once the incorrectness of the view entertained by many, and
lately adopted by Olshausen, with regard to the office held by
John. " The fji^Brdvoia." he observes, " was something purely
negative, which required a positive side to make it complete,
— namely the Spirit, which was brought by Christ, and which men
received by faith," Repentance answers to the " turning of the
hearts of the fathers to the children and of the children to the
fathers," of which Malachi speaks. But this is something more
than purely negative. It presupposes an inward renovation, a
change in the character of the entire life. This is apparent
from the fact that the mission of Elias is followed immediately
by the appearance of the angel of the covenant with a blessing
and a curse. If the repentance of John had been something
merely negative, he would have been inferior to all the prophets
of the Old Testament, and in this case the prophecy of Malachi
could not be regarded as fulfilled in him. Even Josephus
judged differently from this, when he said that the baptism of
John, the embodiment of the repentance which he preached,
served e(p' ccyvsia. rov aoj^aros^ ars ^rt xa-i rns -^v/jhs TipoytiKa-

Qcx-piJ^ivri^. How could repentance be conceived of as something
purely negative ? This would deprive it of the character of

THE PROPHET MALACHI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. 235

repentance altogether. Kepentanee and faith must necessarily
be the same thing from different points of view, " thou shalt
cease from thy doings" (repentance), " that Grod may have his
work in thee" (faith). The faith is exactly proportioned to the
repentance. The difi'erence between the baptism of John and
that of Christ, was not that in the former there was repentance
and not faith, but that though it contained them both it was in
a very inferior degree. They are both the work of the Spirit,
and the contrast, which is represented as absolute in the words
of John (ver. 11), so far as the form in concerned, is really only
relative. Otherwise the work of John would have been merely
a mockery and delusion. But if this were the case, the idea
which was symbolically represented in his person could not
have been so perfectly realised in Christ, that in this respect
there should have been nothing more than a difference of
degree in the work which he performed (the work of Christ, as
the Lord and the angel of the covenant, was of a different kind) ;
compare the remarks of Mai. iii. 1. Moreover, the disputed
opinion with regard to the office of John is quite as much at
variance with the words of the evangelist, as with those of the
prophet. According to Matt. iii. 6, those who repented were
baptized in Jordan, " confessing their sins." That we have not
to imagine the sins confessed as reserved for forgiveness at some
future time, but that on the contrary forgiveness Was associated
in this instance, as in every other, with confession (compare Ps.
xxxii. 5) — of course in proportion to the confession made — is
evident from the parallel passages in Luke (iii. 3) and Mark
(i. 4), in which the baptism of John is represented as " the
baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." It is true that
Olshausen follows TertulUan (see Grotius on Mark), — who ex-
plained SIS a(pcffiv as meaning, " for the remission at some future
time," and who so completely shared the whole view with regard
to the office of John that he understood by jw-aravoia not a change
of life, but merely certain external rites, — and says, " the preach-
ing of John was not intended to secure remission, but to prepare
the way for the remission to be effected by Christ." But Bengel
overthrows this explanation by appealing to Acts ii. 38, where
Peter says, " repent and be baptized every one of you, . . •
for the remission of sins." If the remission of sins is repre-

236 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

sented there as belonging to the time then present, the same
must be the case here also. Otherwise how could the baptism
of John be represented in Matt, iii. 7 as protecting from the
coming wrath, in the same manner as Christian baptism, which
is essentially the same, is represented by Peter in 1 Pet. iii.
20, 21 ?

If we bear in mind the allusion to the prophecy, we shall not
be inclined to follow Olshausen, and take rtyyiyce in the sense of
the present, " it is already in existence, — namely in the person of
the Messiah." In Isaiah, there is first the cry, " prepare ye,"
and the7i the glory of the Lord is revealed. In Malachi the
messenger yirs^ prepares the way, and then the Lord suddenly
comes. On comparing the prophecies we see that the kingdom
of heaven does not come, till the Lord has appeared as Lord,
both blessing and punishing, according as the preaching of re-
pentance has been received.

•Lastly, a sure basis for the interpretation of the words, " and
with fire," in ver. 11 (Luke iii. 16), can only be obtained from
the prophecy. Such remarks as those of Beiigel, who says " the
Holy Spirit, with which Christ baptizes, has the force of fire,"
and Olshcmsen, who says, " the baptism of fire indicates the trans-
formation of the new-born, higher life in its peculiar nature,"
need no refutation then. The fire cannot be any other than that
which Malachi frequently refers to, as associated with the coming
of the Lord, the angel of the covenant. That John regarded
liim as the Messiah is evident, not only from ver. 11, but also
from ver. 12, where the same things are directly attributed to
the Messiah, which Malachi ascribes to the angel of the cove-
nant. The fire alluded to by Malachi is exclusively destructive,
it does not affect the righteous at all (they rejoice in the beams
of the sun), but simply the ungodly. That John adheres closely
to the prophecy in this respect is obvious from the expressions,
" cast into the fire," which occurs immediately before, and " he
will burn up the chafi" with unquenchable fire," which he em-
ploys immediately afterwards.

In the parallel passage, Mark i. 1 — 8, the manner in which
the quotation is made attracts our attention. It is headed with
the words, " as it is written in Isaiah the prophet." Then follow
first the quotation from Mai. iii. 1, and afterwards that fi:om

THE PROPHET MALACHI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. 237

Isaiali. The only clue to the reason of this is to be found in the
connection between Malachi and Isaiah, to which we have already
alluded. We saw that the prophecy of the former was not an
independent one, but ,that Malachi was merely the auctor secun-
day^ius ; and the evangelist indicates this by quoting both com-
mentary and text as belonging to the auctor iwimarius, and
placing the commentary first as being indispensably requisite to
the correct interpretation of the text. From this it is obvious
that there is a perfect analogy between Mark i. 2, 3, and Matt,
xxvii. 9 ; (compare the remarks on Zech. xi. 13). It also fol-
lows from what has been stated already, that Matthew had the
words of Malachi in his mind, though he only quotes those of
Isaiah, and that there is an essential agreement between Matthew
and Mark, the peculiarity in the latter being restricted to the
form. — And lastly, this serves to overthrow all the attempts
which have been made to get rid of the difficulty (to which even
Porfhyry appealed as an argument against the credibility of the
Evangelists) on external grounds alone, reckoning from Beza^
who thought the passage from Malachi had crept from the margin
into the text, and coming down to Olshausen and De Wette, who
maintain that Mark copied the formula of quotation from Matthew
and Luke, and then, without having altered the heading, intro-
duced into the text the passage from Malachi, which accidentally
occurred to his mind.

MATTHEW XI. 1 — 14,

This passage is founded upon the question, which John, who
was then in prison, sent two of his disciples to propose to Christ,
" art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?"
(ver. 3 ; compare Luke vii. 19, 20). AVhatever then will throw
light upon this passage must contribute to the interpretation of
the whole section. It is admitted by most commentators, that
the expression 6 epyJixEvos (the coming one) had a doctrinal
meaning, and was one of the proper names of the Messiah, which
had been taken from the Old Testament, and were current at
the time. But they differ as to the place from which it was

238 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

originally taken. Grotius says, " ille, de quo verbum illud
veniendi usurpavit Jacobus, Gen. xlix. 10, et Jes. xxxv. 4."
Bengel supposes that there is an allusion to Ps. xl., and Olshausen
to Ps. cxviii. 26. For our part we have no hesitation in decid-
ing in favour of Mai. iii. 1 , and that on the following grounds.
— (1). Since, as we have already seen, the prophecy of Malachi
formed the text of the preaching of John, the centre of his
thoughts and of his whole spiritual existence, the idea which
most naturally suggests itself, is, that this is the prophecy to
which he refers. — (2). There is no other prophecy in which such
prominence is given to the idea of coming, as in this prophecy
of Malachi. The prophet first announces, " he will suddenly
come," &c., and then at the close of the verse strengthens his
announcement by the assertion, " behold he cometJi, saith Jeho-
vah of hosts." Hence there is no passage which would be more
likely to give rise to the current expression, " the coming one."
— (3). We must not overlook the words of the Saviour himself
in ver. 14, " this is Elias, which was for to come (o ixiWojM
spx£<y&oci)." This leads us at once to the conclusion, that the
expression is to be traced to a prophecy, in which both the com-
ing ones, Elias and the Messiah, are connected together, especi-
ally when we observe that in the previous verse (" all the pro-
phets and the law prophesied until John, . . this is Elias,
which was for to come")^ the Saviour himself alludes to a pro-
phecy, in which the two coming ones are associated together, and
represents the coming of the one as a visible prediction of the
coming of the other, precisely as we find it announced in Malachi.
If there is an allusion throughout to the prophet, the declaration
" this is Elias, which was for to come," contains at once the an-
swer to the question, " Art thou the coming one ?" Since the
two were inseparable, John could not doubt whether Christ were
the coming one, without at the same time doubting whether he
himself were " Elias, who was to come." — (4). On comparing
the expression, " he that cometh after me" (chap. iii. 11 and
elsewhere) we are also reminded of Malachi. — (5). The whole
affair is perfectly unintelligible apart from the allusion to Malachi.

1 a //.iXXav 'iox,iir6a.i ; Bengel observes, with reference to /^iX^uv, " the
expression is employed, as it were, by one who is looking forward from the
Old Testament to the New."

THE PROP BET MALACHI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. 239

It may now be regarded as fully demonstrated, that John sent to
Christ on account of his own doubts, and not because of those of
others. These doubts appear to have been chiefly founded upon
the prophecy of Malachi. The conflict which arose in the mind
of John in consequence of his gloomy confinement in prison,
could not but become peculiarly dangerous, if the word of God
itself, by which those doubts ought to be met and removed,
should apparently afford a foundation for them. Now, there
was no prediction so calculated to do this, as the very one,
around which the whole spiritual life of the prophet revolved.
According to this, it seemed as if the coming of the Lord and
of the angel of the covenant to punish and to bless was to follow
immediately upon the appearance of the forerunner and the
preaching of repentance. In the Septuagint the prophecy read,
y.a\ HoLif^MfiS Yi^st bU tov vaov acvrov y.ufios x.. r. X. 'i^ou eovsTai.
John was therefore astonished to see that the work of the
Saviour was pre-eminently an Elijah-work, a simple continua-
tion of his own. But he overlooked the fact, that, along with this
continuation, there was an absolutely new beginning, — namely,
the manifestation of the Lord and of the angel of the covenant ;
and to this the Saviour refers him in His reply in ver. 4 and 5.
Hence there arose doubts in the mind of John, both as to his
own vocation and that of Christ as well ; at the same time they
were doubts which remained simply upon the surface. For how
would he otherwise have sent to Christ to have them set at rest?
If, then, it may be regaided as established, that the expression
h ipxpfxiws (the coming one) was founded upon Malachi, it may
also be regarded as certain, as we have already proved, that John
possessed a far deeper insight into the person and work of Christ,
than is commonly attributed to him. He had no doubt about
the Messiah being "the Lord" and "the angel of the cove-
nant."

In ver. 10, " for this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I
send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way
before thee," the double TOi/ (thy) instead of {ij-ov) strikes us at
once. There is the stronger reason for supposing it to be inten-
tional, from the fact that it is also found in Luke vii. 27, and
even in Mark i. 2, where the passage is quoted in a totally difle-

240 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

rent connection.^ There is nothing in the Septuagint that could
give rise to the alteration. The quotation is treated throughout
in a perfectly independent manner. {Sept. l^ou eyu aSccTronreXXoj
Tov ayysXov /xou xa-i £7ri(3Xi-4^crcn ooov iipo 'jcpoaw'jiov gov • the
Kal ^^% heing erroneously substituted for the Piel nas). The
reason for the change was probably the following. The more
precise representation of the Lord as the angel of the covenant,
in the prophecies of Malachi, pointed to a difference between the
sender and the sent. But this difference falls into the back-
ground behind the unity of essence. Before Jehovah himself,
his messenger prepares the way ; the Lord comes to his temple.
The Saviour on the other hand, in a manner befitting the time,
when a clearer insight had been obtained into the relation be-
tween the sender and the sent, the Father and the Son, through
the incarnation of the Logos, gave greater prominence to the
difference, and spoke of the sender as addressing him the sent.
Examples of a similar deviation from the form, for the pur-
pose of a closer approximation to the substantial reality, we
have already pointed out in the discourses of the Saviour (see
the remarks on Zech. xiii. 7). Moreover this very deviation is
a proof of the most lively consciousness, on the part of Christ, of
the essential unity with the Father. For how could he other-
wise have applied to himself the words, which Malachi has em-
ployed with reference to God f

In ver. 11, a comparison of the passage with Malachi will
serve to show, that there is no ground for the assumption,

that in the words o Vb ixntporipos Iv rri (SarnXiiac TwV ovpa,-

vaiv f/.si^Mv avTov eariv, the Comparative is used for the su-
perlative. If the least in the kingdom of heaven was greater
than John, he cannot have been in the kingdom of heaven
at all, and must have been without true repentance or true
faith, the sole conditions of an entrance into the kingdom.
Olsliausen does not shrink from this conclusion. He describes
the Baptist as a I'lKoaos in the legal sense of the word, a true
representative of the law, to whom the higher life of faith, even

1 Meyer has justly observed that " this agreement appears to furnish evi-
dence, that the passage was quoted in this y^aj by Jesus himself, and there-
fore fixed itself in this form in the traditions of the church."

THE FllOPHET MALACHI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. 241

to the extent to which it was manifested in Abraham and Israel,
and therefore the whole sphere of regeneration, was entirely
closed. But if we turn to Malachi, and notice his connection
with Isaiah, the mission of such a preacher, who would have
been in reality nothing but a sounding brass and a tinkling
cymbal, would not certainly be appealed to, as the strongest
proof of the covenant faithfulness and mercy of God ; unless
indeed the intention was, to carry out the doctrine of the
e^cacia muneris irregenitomm to the furthest possible extent.
He who is to prepare the way before another, must first have
made a way in his own desert ; he who is to turn the hearts of
the children to the fathers, must first have been truly and
thoroughly converted himself. Besides, as Lightfoot has shown,
such a use of the comparative for the superlative is at variance
with the rules of the language. The examples brought forward
by Grotius (Luke ix. 48 and Matt, xviii. 1) are not conclusive.
If ixii'^ojM must be construed as a comparative, iJAx.p6rBpoi must
be the same. And the description of John, as the greatest under
the Old Testament, and yet less than the least under the New
Testament, would contain an inward contradiction. For even if
the former refers primarily to official dignity (Luke vii. 28,
" among those that are born of women there hath not arisen a
greater prophet," &c.), the possession of this presupposes maturity
in the inward life. If this were not the case, there would be no
ground of comparison at all. The true meaning is the fol-
lowing, John is the greatest under the Old Testament ; but
one who under the New Testament is comjKirativel// smaW, in
greater than he; the spiritual quality of the man, who occupied
the highest place among the members of the Old Covenant, is
equal to that of one who occupies a comparatively inferior place
among the members of the New Covenant, to whom the Spirit
of Christ is given, a higher manifestation of the Spirit of God,
which stands in the same relation to it as Elohim to Jehovah.
Hence, according to the grammatical interpretation, the Baptist
has his place expressly assigned him within the kingdom of
God, and not only so, but even a higher place than that occupied
by the /xot/^oi within it, the ixiKponpoi alone being greater than
he. Fi'om this it ibllows that he had been the subject of re-
generation, and that this belonged to the Old Testament quite
■< OL. IV. g

242 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

as much as to the New. For regeneration is the indispensable
condition of participation in the kingdom of God.

Ver. 13. " For all the prophets and the law prophesied until
John." The prophecy throws light upon this passage also.
According to the former, in Elias the prophet there is both the
highest concentration and also the conclusion of the preaching
of repentance to Israel. The prophets and the law come to life
once more in him ; and the Lord himself appears, to bless the
penitent, and for judgment (upbn, see chap. iv. 4) upon the
impenitent. This momentous day of decision has now arrived.

The expression "if ye will receive it" has frequently been
adduced to support the opinion, that a reappearence of Elijah is
actually to take place at some future time. Olshausen observes,
" the words, ' if ye will receive it,' point unmistakeably to the
fact that it was only in a certain sense that the Eedeemer called
him by his name — Elias, that ardent preacher of repentance,
had as it were his antitype in John." But the express declara-
tion in ver. 10, " this is he of whom it is written," where the
prophecy of Malachi (chap. iii. 1) respecting the forerunner of
the Lord is directly referred to John, is sufficient in itself to
render it probable that this view is incorrect. As the forerunner
and Elias must evidently be identical, whatever applies to the
one must be applicable to the other also. We obtain still
greater certainty from ver. 15, " he that hath ears to hear let
him hear." This phrase is always employed in connection with
a subject, the meaning of which does not lie upon the surface,
and for the understanding of which something more is required
than merely the outward ear (for proof of this see the Disserta-
tion on Daniel, p. 211 , 212, translation). Accordingly, the words,
" if ye will receive it," serve to intimate that the truth about to
be announced is one which cannot be forced upon a person's
mind, or drummed into his head, but for the comprehension and
reception of which a willing heart is also indispensable. The
carnally minded, who were destitute of this, were constantly
ready with their " Elias is Elias," that they might shut their eyes
to the fearful fact that the time of decision had arrived, and
might not be frightened out of the pleasant slumber of false
security. The phrase, " he that is able to receive it, let him re-
ceive it" (Matt. xix. 12), is perfectly analogous (see the Disser-

THE PROPHET 5IALACHI AND THE KEW TESTAMENT. 243

tat ion on Daniel, p. 212). Ability and willingness are most
intimately associated. The truth is not dependent upon either.
The true explanation has been given by Lighffoot, Heumann,
and others. In the words of the former, " the expression im-
plies a kind of suspicion, that they would not receive this doc-
trine ; and we have a proof of this in the obstinacy with which
the nation, even to this day, clings to the expectation of the per-
sonal advent of Elias." — It follows, therefore, that the expression
" if ye will receive it," instead of modifying the assertion, " this
is he," rather tended to strengthen it, by showing that the failure
to discover Elias in John proceeded from some fault in the dis-
position of the mind (for examples of a similar use of the phrase
il diXsTB dt^aa^xi by classical authors, see Wetstein in loc).

MATTHEW XIV. 2, XVI. 14.

In the former of these passages Herod expresses the opinion,
that Christ is John the Baptist risen from the dead ; in the latter
the same opinion is expressed by some of the people. The source
of this opinion is apparently to be looked for in the prophecy of
Malachi. Elias the prophet is represented there as appearing
first, and as followed by the Lord himself, who comes to punish
and to bless. Now, as it was generally supposed that Elias the
prophet was simply an individual, and as it was also believed
that Elias had reappeared in John, there appeared to be no other
way of explaining the existence of another preacher of repent-
ance, who was indisputably sent from God, than by assuming
that John had come to life again, or that a second incarnation
of Elias had taken place in him ; in other words, that there were
two distinct manifestations of Elias in John and Christ, the
latter more glorious than the former. The truth which lay at
the foundation of this error was that, from one point of view, the
work of Christ, as well as that of John, was actually included in
the prophecy of Malachi.

MATTHEW XVII.

The appearance of Elias, along with Moses, as the representa-
tive of the prophetic order, is not altogether unconnected with our

244 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE rROPHETS,

prophecy, the only one in which the two are so immediately con-
nected together, the former is founded, the latter as restorer (chap,
iv. 4, " Moses, my servant ;" ver. 5, " Elias, the prophet ").

The question put by the disciples in ver 10, " why then say
the scribes that Elias must first come ?" is correctly regarded by
the majority of commentators as occasioned by the disappearance
of Elias. His appearance threw the disciples into perplexity as
to the previous assertion of Christ, that John, was Elias ; and
his sudden disappearance they were unable to bring into har-
mony with the opinion of the scribes, which was founded upon
the prediction of Malachi, — namely that Elias was to come before
the Messiah, to engage in permanent and successful labours.

In the answer given by Christ, the former declaration, that John
is the Elias predicted by Malachi, is confirmed. The Saviour then
removes another discrepancy which appeared to exist between the
fulfilment and the prophecy. Tlie Elias of the prophecy was
apparently to efiect something far superior to what the Elias of
the fulfilment actually had efi'ected, — namely the turning back of
the hearts of the fathers to the children, and of the hearts of the
children to the fathers, — an uTrox.cx.rai.'yrami on a large scale and
embracing everything. Into this expression the substance of
chap. iv. 6, according to our explanation, which lies at the foun-
dation of it, is strikingly condensed. The manner in which the
Saviour met this objection may be seen most clearly in the form
in which his words are reported by Mark (chap. ix. 12, 13) :
" And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first and
restoreth [uTrox-xOiarx) all things ; and how is it written of the
Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at
nought ? But I say unto you, that Elias is indeed come, and they
have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him."
The present d-Tioyca^L^yrx in this passage, and the future dTioxartxn-
T^TSi in Matthew, show very clearly with what justice the infer-
ence has been drawn from the expression o /xixxuv \y:j:a^a.\. in
Matt. xi. 14, that there will be a future appearance of Elias. In
both passages the Saviour determines the meaning of the pro-
phecy from itself, irrespectively of the fulfilment. The objection
that " in the prophecy there is merely an announcement of the
gift and grace of Grod, and his purpose in sending Elias, the full
realisation of which is rendered impossible by sin (compare Luke

THE PROPHET MALACHI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. 245

vii. 30, " the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the counsel of
God against themselves, not being baptized of him"), is merely
answered indirectly by a reference to the predictions of the
Scriptures, respecting the severe sufferings of the Messiah which
proceed fi'om the same cause, by which the greater part of the
nation is excluded from the salvation intended for all, — namely
from sin. The Saviour goes somewhat farther. He shows that
John could not be Elias, if he did not endure opposition, rejec-
tion, and sufferings at the hand of sinners, " When the prophet
culls the baptist Blias, he intends that at the same time it shall
be understood that there will not be wanting either Ahabs or
Jezebels" (Grotius). In this world of sin, hatred and persecu-
tion are the necessary consequence of the preaching of repentance,
and the strength of the hatred is always proportioned to the
earnestness and force of the preaching. Hence all the opposi-
tion, endured by Elias,' is to be regarded as a visible prophecy
of the fate of John. If John resembles Elias in the earnestness
of his demand for repentance, he must also resemble him in tlie
sufferings and persecution which he endures. It was arranged
by the providence of God that the essential equality, which
necessarily existed, should also assume a definite form, that
Ahab should re-appear in Herod," and Jezebel in Herodias.
Olshausen is of opinion that the history of Elias cannot be
regarded as typical of that of John, because the former did not
sutfer a martyr's death. But this objection is perfectly analo-
gous to the one which the disciples founded upon the fact, that
no a.Ttrxy.oLrd.aroi.ms could be pointed out. As in- the one case we
have only to look at the will of God, so in the other we must
look only at that of men. But in this respect Jezebel completely
resembled Herodias. She was very desirous of putting Elijah

1 In Ecclesiasticus xlviii. 15, after a sketch of the labours of Elijah and
Elisha, we find these words, " for all this the people repented not, neither
departed they from their sins, till they were spoiled and carried out of their
land, and were scattered through all the earth." This statement may be
applied to the second Elias without the least alteration, a fact wliich may
easily be explained, if Ave only bear in mind that Grod is always the same,
and that man is so too.

2 The words of Mark vi. 20. "for Ilerod feared John, knowinjj; that he
was a just man and a holy, and observed him ; and when he heard him, he
did many things, and heard him gladly," apply without the least alteration
to Abab.

246 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

to death, and the fact that God delivered him out of her hands
does not make the least difference. The hatred was the same,
and upon this everything depends. The sufferings of Elijah
were also quite as great. He would certainly rather have died
once for all, than have died daily. In fact he once entreated of
God, as the greatest favour, that he might die.

MATTHEW XXI. 12, AND JOHN II. 13 — 22.

In both these passages we have an account of Christ driv-
ing the buyers and sellers from the temple. In Matthew,
just as in Mark arid Luke, it is placed at the end of Christ's
ministry ; in John at the commencement.

We may see at the first glance that these are symbolical acts.
They would, otherwise, be indefensible. In fact Origen was led
to deny the historical credibility of the accounts, in consequence
of his failing to keep this distinctly in mind, and Lampe, for the
same reason, brings forward a considerable number of difficulties,
which he solves in a very unsatisfactory manner. Nothing but
the most superficial observation could have led any one to
regard the abuses, which existed in the outward temple, as the
immediate object of Christ's attack. If we look at the whole
state of things in existence at that time, we shall see that it was
a matter of comparative indifference whether a few buyers and
sellers, more or less, transacted their business in the temple. An
intimate acquaintance with human nature shows, that every
kind of outward purification, unless preceded by an inward one,
is thoroughly useless. Of what avail is it to keep back for a
time the water of a brook, if the fountain itself is not stopped
up ? To overlook the symbolical meaning of the transaction
is derogatory to Christ ; especially as such an outward mode of
proceeding would have encouraged the disciples to have recourse
to similar acts of a merely outward character. A John the
Baptist never acted like this. With him repentance is always
a thorough change of the disposition and character. How much
less then could the Saviour act in this manner, when his own
words, " first make the tree good," put the stamp of worthless-
ness upon every attempt at a merely outward i-eformation.

THE PROPHET MALACHI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. 247

But if we look upoQ the whole affair as symbolical, it assumes
a totally different aspect. The abuses in the temple come into
consideration in that case, merely as representing the sin of
the covenant nation, and gross sins were better adapted for this
purpose, than such as were more refined, though the latter might
really be far worse in themselves.

But what is the meaning of the repetition of this symbolical
action ? Here is a new rock on which many have foundered.
They start with the assumption, that the meaning in both cases
is the same. By this assumption they put weapons into the hands
of those who, like Liickc, change the two occurrences into one,
thus impugning the credibility of the Evangelist, and suppose
the chronological data to have been lost by tradition.

They are both connected with the prophecies of Malachi, and
merely embody a twofold figure which is employed by him-
Under the figure of a double purification of the temple, he
announces a double purification of the theocracy. There first ap-
pears the messenger of the Lord, who prepares the way before
him, — that is, the way to the temple and mto the temple, since
it is to the temple that the Ijord afterwards comes, — and then
the Lord himself, even the angel of the covenant, suddenly ap-
pears, who purifies and refines the children of Levi, and draws
near to the sinners to judgment. The actual meaning of the
two representations is subsequently given in plain terms in chap,
iv. 5, 6. Elijah the prophet first appears, and seeks to rectify
everything (7'eformation) ; he is then followed by the Lord him-
self, who smites the land with the curse {revolution). The
mes.senger makes the last attempt to sanctify the Lord in his
people, and then the Lord sanctifies himself on those, upon
whom this attempt has produced no effect. Now by the first
act the Saviour declared that the idea, of which John had
hitherto been the representative, — namely, the mercy of God,
which calls sinners to repentance, was most completely realised
in hira.self By the second he declared that he was now about
to unfold the other side of his nature, that he would ho longer
act as a prophet, but as the Lord and angel of the covenant, and
would destroy the obdurate sinners. It was certainly not with-
out a reason, that in both instances the covenant festival, the
feast of the Passover, was close at hand. On the first occasion

248 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

the despisers of the covenant were threatened with the destroy-
ing angel conditionally (compare the expression " lest I come''
in Malachi), — namely, if they did not restore the covenant, the
only thing that could secure his passing them by ; in the other
case, the threat is absolute.

That our explanation of the first expulsion is correct, is most
obvious from the whole connection in which the account stands.
That, at that time, the ministry of Christ resembled chiefly that
of John, that its central point was the demand for repentance
(" repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"), is evident
from Matt. iv. 17. With such a ministry as this, a symbolical
declaration of the unconditional decree of destruction, at the very
outset, would have been altogether irreconcileable ; since any
symbolical action, performed on entering upon an office, must
necessarily embody a prediction of the work about to be per-
formed. The quotation in John ii. 17, from Psiilm Ixix. 10,
must also be borne in mind. From this it- is evident that the
first act was not one befitting Christ alone. This passage could
not have been quoted in connection with the second. We have
here no longer the culminating point of those labours, which
were common to all the true servants of God (compare the ex-
pression used by Elijah, " I have been very jealous for the
Lord "), but a work peculiar to Christ, the Angel of the Covenant-
We should also observe the mild expression employed on the
first occasion, as compared with that which is used in connection
with the second. In John the temple is called " a house of
merchandise ;" in the first three Evangelists " a den of thieves."
In the latter greater prominence is given to the contrast between
the reality and the idea, which rendered the continuance of the
former absolutely impossible.

In the second instance also, the meaning must be determined
from the circumstances. It happened immediately after the
entrance of Christ into Jerusalem as a king, and constituted a
positive declaration, that his prophetic labours were drawing to
an end. Just as his entrance had symbolised the immediate
fulfilment of the prediction of Zechariah, announcing salvation,
the sole object of which was to set forth the relation of the
Saviour to his own disciples ; so did his entrance into the temple
symbolize the approaching fulfilment of the threatening prophecy

THE PROPHET MALACHI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. 249

of Malachi.^ It is the Lord and angel of the covenant, who
comes to Ids temple. Closely connected with this (Matt. xxi.
18 — 20) there is another symbolical action, the cursing of the
fig-tree, the meaning of which is precisely tlie same, and which
embodies the figure contained in Micah vii. 1, where we may find
an explanation of the much tortured ou yo^p rv y.a.ipQi avKw-n of
Mark. The prophet goes to look, after the harvest, and finds
nothing. In the case of the spiritual fig-tree, it is its own fault
if it is not the time of figs. All that follows is of the same
description. The purification of the temple forms the com-
mencement of a whole series of discourses, symbolical actions
and parables, all relating to the same subject. The Pharisees
are never introduced as the objects of any reformatory efforts.
The reckoning is represented in every instance as already closed ;
the staff is broken, the sentence pronounced. In Matt, xxiii.
38 the Saviour exi)i-esses in words precisely the same, as he here
sets forth in deeds, " Behold your house is left unto you deso-
late." The temple is represented here as the home of the whole
nation, the previous inhabitants of which have been expelled
(compare Luke xix. 27). — The fact of John's omitting to men-
tion the second incident, may be explained on the ground that,
80 far as the history of the closing part of the ministry of Christ
was concerned, whilst the first Evangelists described it more
according to its outward aspect, and therefore narrated all the
events to which the purification of the temple formed an intro-
duction, John confined himself more to that which was internal,
of which the entrance into Jerusalem might be regarded as the
superscription.

Josepltus (Wars of the Jews 5, 9,4) says, " you have not
avoided so much as those sins that are usually done in secret, 1
mean thefts and treacherous plots against men, and adulteries.
You are quarrelling about rapines and murders, and invent

1 The appropriateness of this symbolical representation of judgment, in
connection with the approaching death of Christ upon the cross, may be seen
fi'om the following remarkable passage of Joxeplius (Wars of the Jews, 4, 5,
2), wlio eiTcd in the person alone : " I can hardly be wrong in asserting, that
the death of Ananias opened the way for the conquest of Jerusalem : that
the walls of the city crumbled to ruins, and the national existence of the
Jews was at an end from the day on which they saw the high-priest, on
whom their own welfare djpendeu, murdered in the midst of the city."

250 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

strange ways of wickedness. Nay, the temple itself is become
the receptacle of all." Here, then, we have the " den of thieves ''
once more, a description which is sufficient in itself to show the
symboHcal character of the whole transaction. It proves that
those, whom the Redeemer expelled, were simply the represen-
tatives of far greater and more hardened sinners. And, as we
have already said, the reason why these representatives in par-
ticular were chosen, is to be found in the fact, that the Lord had
Zech. xiv. 21 in his mind as well as Mai. iii. 1.

Lastly, we need hardly direct attention to the tangible proof,
afforded by these two purifications of the temple, of the correct-
ness of the explanation, which we have given of the prophecy of
Malachi, so far as its leading features are concerned, especially
with reference to the identity of " my messenger" and Elias ;
or to the explanation, which Christ here gives with reference to
his own divine nature, by performing on the second occasion the
work, which Malachi ascribes to the Lord and Angel of the
Covenant, as a work peculiarly his own.

MATTHEW XXI. 24.

" And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask
you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in likewise ivill tell you by
ivhat authority I do these things."

The explanation generally given by commentators is that the
words, " I also will ask you one thing," &c., are simply a counter-
question, with which, in their opinion, the Lord dismissed the
Pharisees and evaded their enquiry. But if we compare the
prophecy of Malachi, we shall see that the counter-question con-
tained at the same time a reply to their enquiry, or at least
furnished the ground- work of such a reply. For if John received
his authority to baptize, that is, to preach repentance, and impart
the forgiveness of sins, from God ; if he was the messenger sent
by Grod (compare the expression "from heaven"), the Elijah,
who was to turn the hearts ; then the infinitely greater follower,
who was to come immediately {s'ixl(pvr,s) after the forerunner,
must be already in existence ; and if this was the case, who else
could he be but Christ, who had already proved himself to be so

THE PROPHET MALACHI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. 251

both by words and deeds. This evasive reply was naturally
followed by the declaration '• neither do I tell you." They
showed plainly enough, that their hearts were not turned. With-
out faith in the divine mission of John, they could not believe in
Christ, for the very same reason, that belief in the former would
necessarily have led to belief in the latter. They had not said
A, and therefore could not say B, and every attempt to lead them
to do so would have been in vain.

LUKE I. 16, 17.

The angel says to Zechariah : " And many sons of Israel
shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go hefore
him in the spirit and poioer of Ellas, to turn the hearts of the
fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the ivisdom of the
just, to make ready a peojole prepai-ed for the Lord."

The two principal passages in Malachi relating to the coming
of John (chap, iii. 1, and iv. 5, 6), are here combined. To the
former belongs, first of all, the clause, " and he shall go before
him QvoJmov avrov)" where the avrov refers to the y.upios o
^co.T which goes before, — a fresh proof of the divinity of Christ
and his identity with the Lord and the angel of the covenant.
To the first passage also belongs the last clause hroi^jniaai, &c.,
which is to be regarded as a paraphrase of "=1^1 nss, " he shall
prepare thy way." Grotius explains this clause as meaning " a
people ready to receive the kingdom of heaven ;" and Bengel
says, " the people is to be made ready, lest the Lord, finding the
people not ready for him, should crush them with his majesty."
All the rest belongs to the second passage. The careful manner
in which the words, " and he shall turn the hearts of the fathers
to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers,"
are explained, apparently presupposes the existence at that time
of misinterpretations, such as we find, in fact, in all the Jewish
expositors, from the Septuagint downwards, and also in most of
the Christian. First of all the essential element of the whole is
brought out in the words, " he will turn to the Lord their God."
The restoration of their union with God through true conver-
sion lays the foundation for the restoration of the union between

2rj2 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

the pious fathers and their ungodly chil dren. Further light is then
thrown upon the thought in its more particular form. This is done
by the omission of the second half of the passage in Malachi,
— namely, the clause, "and the heart of the children to their
fothers," which is necessarily implied in the first half, inasmuch
as the relation is a mutual one, — and substituting in its place
the explanatory words Kal dTrsidsT? ev (ppovriuBt ^lytulcjv. The
u.7ieMis were the existing rebellious generation ; the liy.ocioi their
pious ancestors, ippovmn is used in the sense of disposition.
" In the disposition," &c., is equivalent to, " so that they will
have the disposition." The ordinary construction of verbs of
motion with ?, when the object moving remains in the place to
which its moves, is perfectly analogous. " The angel says, in
the prudence, not itito the prudence. The feeling (sensusj of
those who are just, is immediately put on in conversion. Hence
the hearts of the fathers are brought back to the children, that
is, the bond of affection is restored between them, in consequence
of the pious dispositions of the former being reproduced in the
latter. By this means they become a " people prepared." Par-
ticular attention should also be paid to the tioK'kovs. Care is
taken here to guard against a mistaken notion, which the Saviour
afterwards expressly condemns, — namely, the idea that a uni-
versal a-TroxaraTTacrij- was to be expected from the forerunner of the
Lord, an idea which would never have existed, if the fact had not
been overlooked, that Malachi simply speaks of the gift and pur-
pose of God. The words, " in the spirit and power of Eljas,"
were also as thoroughl}'' opposed, as any of the rest, to the no-
tions prevalent at the time. They teach that " the flesh pro-
fiteth nothing." Wherever the pars melior of Elias, his spirit
and power may be, there is Elias himself.

LUKE I. 43.

" And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord shoidd
come to me ?"

By direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit (ver. 41), Elizabeth
recognised the Lord in the unborn child of Mary, who, because

THE PROPHET MALACIII AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. 253

he was the Lord, was also Acr Lord, the Angel of the Covenant
foretold by Malachi, and whose advent had been announced by
the angel. Such a recognition as this belonged to the same
sphere as its object, and equally transcended the limits of
nature.

JOHN I. 6.

" There luas a man sent from God, lohose name was John."
In the expression oLmarakixiwi Ttafo. fieoy, there is evidently
an allusion to the words of Malachi, " behold I send my mes-
senger before me." The whole of the description which follows
forms a simple commentary upon his prophecy. A verbal refer-
ence is apparent again in ver. 9.

JOHN I. 9.

" That was the b^ue light, luhich lighteth every man, coming
into the luorld."

Why does John say m . . . apxoixswv, (was .
coming) and not more briefly and clearly vX'^cv els rov x6?t/xov (he
came into the world) ? The reply is, that the former gives
greater prominence to the connection with the prophecy. The
great s^xoM-svos- (the coming one) was in every mouth, au tJ h
spyoyaws (art tliou the coming one ?) Matt. xi. 3, h oTtliu /xoy
ipy^Pixsws in vers. 15, 27, 30, of this chapter. The Evangelist
retains the form of the prophecy, but shows by the h which he
prefixes that it had already been fulfilled, he loas a coming one.
The elaborate way in which the relation between John and
Christ is afterwards described, evidently refers chiefly to Ma-
lachi, and is intended to hold up Christ as the Lord and Angel
of the Covenant foretold by Malachi, an intention which was
more likely to exist in the case of John, the theologian, than in
that of the other Evangelists. The contrast between the heavenly
and the earthly one is made as mai'ked as possible (compare the
a-^^poj'jios in ver. 6, which is certainly not equivalent to nV in this
connection).

254 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

JOHN I. VER. 15 COMPARED WITH VER. 30.

" John bare witness of him and cried, saying, Tliis was lie of
tvJiom I spake, he that cometh after me is preferred before me :
for he was before me."

" This is he ofiuhom I said, after me cometh a man which is
preferred before me : for he ivas before me " {li/.Ttpoa^sv iJ,ou ygyovEv,

on TTpaiTo? ixov riv).

My successor is my predecessor, for he is (according to the very
prophecy, which forms the centre of my own existence) infinitely
older than I. John alludes to Mai. iii. 1, where the sacred enigma,
to which he gives utterance here, was already to be met with. He
who follows " my messenger (o oTtlaco i^ov ipyj)(j.imi) , also sends
" my messenger." He is therefore his predecessor, and, as the
Lord and Angel of the Covenant, is infinitely older than he, or
rather than everything else in existence (for an .explanation of
'jipaJTo? [J.OV compare sv dpxri vv). There is nothing like tauto-
logy here. The absolute pre-existence, which is clearly implied
in the names " the Loi'd" and " Angel of the Covenant," that
occur in the original prophecy, constitutes the antecedent. We
have no ground, therefore, for interpreting sfXTrponQ^v as denoting
superiority in rank, an explanation for which we can find no
warrant either in Gen. xlviii. 20, or in the passages which Lilcke
has quoted from Plato. — If the Baptist everywhere expressed
the firm conviction, that the Messiah was the Lord and Angel of
the Covenant foretold by Malachi, we cannot possibly see on
what ground it can be maintained that he had no clear or well
defined idea of His divinity. And if the Baptist was not igno-
rant of the divinity of the Messiah, if it was because he was
aware of it that he declared npuros ixou h ; then, whenever we
meet with the assertion, " the Baptist was certainly not thinking
of the Xoyor when he used the words itpairos ixov riv" we must
erase the not to make it correct. A time will come when the
artistically constructed edifice, into which the doctrine of the
Xoyoi has been built in modern times, will have to be pulled to
pieces, and the materials used for a little outhouse adjoining the
principal building, which will be formed exclusively of stones
taken from the Old Testament. In fact, if they were lost alto-

THE PROPHET MALACHI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. 255

gether, no harm would be done to to the question itself, and only
some trifling injury in cases where verbal criticism was concerned.
That in " the Lord, even the Angel of the Covenant," predicted
by Malachi — (as explained by everything contained in the Old
Testament with reference to the "Angel of Jehovah") — the
essence of His Logos is fully contained, is shown clearly enough
by the Evangelist, in the fact that he takes the words of Malachi
as the basis of the remarks, which he has made upon the subject
of the Logos.

JOHN I. 21—23.

" And they asked him, ai-t thou Elias ? And he saith, I am
not. Art thou that prophet f And he ansivered, no. Then
said they unto him. Who art thou ? that we may give an ansioer
to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said,
I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight
the way of the Lord, as said the ^prophet Esaias."

In what has already been stated, we have sufficient evidence
that the Baptist merely gave a negative answer to the question
whether he were Elias, on the ground that those who asked it
had in their minds the false notion of a personal re-appearance
of Elias himself. We would only remark, in addition, that to
the relative denial in this case a relative affirmation (in ver.
23) is immediately afterwards opposed. For by declaring him-
self to be " the voice crying in the desert," as foretold by Isaiah,
he at the same time asserts that he is the Elias and " my mes-
senger," predicted by Malachi. The proof of this is also to be
found in what has already been said. We have shown that the
prophecy of Malachi is merely a resumption of that of Isaiah,
and that it was constantly referred to in this light by the Bap-
tist, by Christ, and by his Apostles. There can be no doubt
whatever, that John regarded the ytvpios of Isaiah as the Christ,
and therefore also as truly God.

256 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.

JOHN I. 27.

" He it is, wlio coming after me is 'preferred before me, whose
shoe's latchet I am not ivorthy to unloose"

" It was the duty of a slave, to carry the sandals of his fore/,
and to untie them when they were taken off." He who is repre-
sented by Malachi as first sending " my messenger " and then
coming himself, is p'lN'n^ the Lord ; for him, therefore, the ser-
vice rendered by a servant to a lord is far too small.

JOHN I. 31.

" And I knew him not ; hut that he shoidd he manifested
unto Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water."

The allusion to Is. xl. 5 is unmistakeable here, — a fresh proof
of the knowledge possessed by John of the divinity of the Mes-
siah. The design of his baptism, which was equivalent to the
preparing of the way announced by Isaiah, the latter being
a figurative description, the former a symbol ( Verlwrperung , lit.
embodiment) of repentance, was to manifest the glory of the
Lord, which was now concealed. This allusion is i-endered the
more certain by comparing the words in chap. ii. 11, "and
manifested forth his glory." In the miracle of Christ recorded
there, John perceived a fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah,
respecting the " manifestation of the glory of the Lord." As
Christ is Jehovah, the manifestation of the glory of Christ
necessarily involves a manifestation of the glory of Jehovah.

1 COR. XVI. 22.

" If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him he Ana-
thema, Maran-atha."

The word Maran-atha, which is so striking in an epistle written
in Greek and written to Greeks, is in itself a sufficient indica-
tion of an Old Testament foundation. The retention of the
Aramean form can only be explained on the supposition, that

IMPORTANCE OF THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES. 257

it was a kind of watchword, common to all the believers in
Israel ; and no expression could well have come to be so used,
if it had not been taken from the Scriptures. There can
hardly be any doubt, that it actually was taken from Mai. iii. 1.
We have ah-eady shown that this passage was regarded as the
basis of the anticipation of the coming of the Lord. And to
this we may add that r,rco av^cQe/Aa is evidently also taken from
JMalachi, — namely, from chap. iv. 6, where there is a similar
reference to coming. For the preparation of the way, and the
turning of the hearts, mentioned by Malachi, the apostle substi-
tutes love to the Lord Jesus. They both refer to the same thing,
though in different relations. One cannot be conceived of with-
out the other.

VOL. IV.

( 259 )

APPENDIX I.

IMPORTANCE OF THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES,

The term Messianic is derived from Ps. ii. 2, and Dau. ix.
25, 26, where the Redeemer is called n^u-c, " anointed one."
In the symbolical phraseology of the Scriptures, anointing re-
presents the communication of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
The kings of Israel, especially, were called anointed men ;
because they received a peculiarly abundant measure of the
Spirit for their exalted oflSce, whenever they opened their hearts
to the grace of God. In Ps. Ixxxiv. 10, and cxxxii. 10, 17,
David is called the anointed of the Lord, with reference to the
occurrence recorded in 1 Sam. xvi. 13, 14, where the figure is
embodied in a symbolical action ; and the whole family of David
is similarly described in Ps. xviii. 51, Ixxxix. 39, 52 ; Hab. iii.
13 ; and Lam. iv. 20. In the highest sense, however, this term
was applied to Him in whom the family of David reached its
culminating point, and who received the Holy Spirit without
measure. (John iii. 34 ; compare Is. xi. 1).

When we observe that the Messianic announcements, which
are peculiar to Israel alone, have their origin in the primeval
age, that for many successive centuries they continue to re-
appear again and again, that they do not occur merely inciden-
tally and in an isolated form, in the midst of other prophecies,
but constitute the very centre and soul of all prophecy, that they
stand out in great prominence even in the Psalms, in which
utterance is given to the living faith of the people of God, under
the quickening influence of the law and the prophets, we cannot
for a moment doubt, that to the people of the ancient covenant
the anticipation of a Messiah must have been one of all-absorb-
ing importance.

260 APPENDIX I,

1. The members of the ancient covenant were in imminent
danger of looking merely at the present, and indulging, in con-
sequence, a spirit of narrow-minded exclusiveness, which could
not fail to lead to the most disastrous results. It led them, on
the one hand, to form low and unworthy conceptions of God,
and to detract from either his love or his power (for if the God
of Israel were to be regarded as nothing more than this, he
would cease to be God altogether) ; and, on the other, to form
extremely pernicious ideas of their own merits, since it was very
natural that, supposing the pre-eminence of Israel above the
heathen nations to be permanent in its character, they should
trace it to a certain innate superiority, which rendered them
more worthy than any other to be the recipients of the grace of
God. It was of the utmost importance, therefore, for the main-
tenance of a living faith in Israel, that its view should be
directed beyond the preparatory institutions to the ultimate
issue, in order that the means should be fully recognised as
means and nothing more. Hence, even before the establishment
of the Old Testament economy, it was distinctly announced, and
after its establishment the fact was again impressed upon the
minds of the people, that the peculiar relation in which God
stood to Israel was merely a temporary one ; that the day would
come when the Redeemer and King of the whole world would
appear, and that, until the time of his appearance, the form
assumed by the kingdom of God was merely provisional. The
necessity for this announcement is especially obvious when we
observe how, notwithstanding these lucid prophecies, the greater
portion of the Jews were blinded by a carnal mind, and were the
victims of the most disastrous exclusiveness.

2. The announcement of the Messiah was one of the means
employed to maintain the fidelity of the nation towards the
Lord in the midst of troublous circumstances. Proclaimed by
the different messengers sent by God with the confidence pro-
duced by the Holy Ghost, depicted in the most glowing colours,
and brought, as it were, from the future into the present, the
Messiah became more and more the banner, around which all the
downcast, the spiritually downcast of Judah and the dispersed
of Israel, collected together. Thus, for example, in Is. vii. 14,
the image of Immanuel is placed before the eyes of the nation,

IMPORTANCE OF THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES. 261

which is in despair on account of Aram and Ephraim. And
thus also do Jeremiah (in chap, xxiii. 5, 6), and Ezekiel (in
chap xxxiv. 23) comfort those who are terrified at the aspect
of the imperial power, by directing their minds to the coming
Redeemer. And if it not infrequently happens that the pro-
phets administer consolation, by pointing to joyous events of an
inferior kind in the immediate future ; they almost always come
back to this as the most important, the condition of all the rest,
the centre of all the hopes of salvation. For example, when
the existence of the nation is threatened by Assyria, Isaiah first
of all predicts the overthrow of Assyria in chap. x. 5 — 34, and
then in chap. xi. points to the complete salvation to be effected
in Christ for the peoiile of God, which constitutes the pledge of
every inferior communication of blessing. This design of the
Messianic prophecies had respect to the entire nation, and was
partially secured, even when they were falsely interpreted, in
consequence of a misapprehension of their figurative disguise.
For that portion of the nation whose Messianic expectations
were for the most part sinfully carnal, was thereby preserved
from outward apostasy ; and even this was of consequence, since
the maintenance of the outward form of the kingdom of God was
the primary condition of the coming of Christ, and, in addition
to this, the kernel was protected by the shell.

3. The glaring contrast, between the idea of the nation of God,
and the form which it actually assumed during the whole of the
Old Testament period, would inevitably have given rise to
erroneous opinions as to the former, if the fact had not been
forcibly impressed upon the minds of the people, by the constantly
repeated announcement of the Messiah, that the contrast was
only a transient one. In the outward condition of the nation
this contrast was especially apparent. The nation of God, which,
from the very fact that it was such, was necessarily called to
universal dominion, was for many a long and anxious century
kept in subjection by the powers of the world. The " kingdom
of priests " groaned in utter prostration under the oppression of
the heathen. Such a state of things would have been intoler-
able, if hope had not furnished a counterpoise. From this point
of view, for example, Isaiah predicts in chap. ii. 2 — 4 that the
kingdom of God, which is now despised, will be exalted in the

262 APPENDIX I.

days of the Messiah above all the kingdoms of the world, and
will become an object of desire even to the proud heathen them-
selves. From the same point of view Daniel also announces,
in chaps, ii. and vii., that the kingdom of Christ will follow
the four kingdoms of the world, and bring in the world-wide
dominion of the people of God. Haggai, again, in chap. ii. 1 — 9,
points to the completion of the kingdom of God in Christ, as a
solace to the people, who have just been awakened to a conscious-
ness of the glaring contrast between the idea and the reality, by
the comparative insignificance of the new temple. When Amos has
foretold (in chaps, ix., xi., and xii.) the passing away of every
kind of glory from Israel and Judah, he passes at once to an
announcement of the restoration of the tabernacle of David and
the extension of the kingdom of God far beyond the limits of
the heathen. The hope that the time would arrive, when the
actual condition of the nation of God would be brought into har-
mony with its primary idea, could never have taken root, unless
in the reference to the person of a mediator, at once human and
divine, there had been given a pledge of the reality of such a
hope, which could not have been realised in any other way ; —
unless, in fact, this exalted person had been placed before the
eyes of the people in as distinct a form as possible, and the Logos
had, as it were, become a partaker of flesh and blood in this
prophetic announcement, even before the period of his incarna-
tion.

At the same time, there was no less ground for anxiety on
account of the contrast, between the true idea of the nation of
God, and its visible realisation in a moral point of view. Under
the Old Testament the nation of God was still, to a great ex-
tent, destitute of the gifts which are its essential characteristics,
and by which it is distinguished from the world. The righteous
and the wicked were also mixed up together, and in most ages
the latter had the upper hand. But if this contrast were re-
garded as permanent, as surely as the commandment, " be ye
holy, for I am holy," involved a promise, so surely would the
contrast give rise to errors respecting the kingdom of God. In
allusion to this, Joel announces that in the times of the Messiah
the Lord will pour out his Spirit upon all flesh ; Jeremiah
speaks of the new covenant, which will be attended by more

IMPORTANCE OF THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES. 2G3

abundant provisions of transforming grace ; and Ezekiel declares
that in future the Lord will take away the heart of stone, and
give in its place a heart of flesh. But these hopes would never
have acquired their proper consistency, if there had not been set
before the mind, in the personal appearance of the Redeemer, a
new and hitherto unheard of union between heaven and earth,
and between God and man. In this alone could a reasonable
basis of such hopes be found. But. along with the inwardly-
transforming power, an outwardly-sifting and judicial process
must take place, even to remove the existing contrast so far as
morality was concerned. It is from this point of view that we
are to understand such announcements as that of the Messianic
judgment in Zech. v. and xi., and that of the destruction of
the city and temple in Dan. ix. " Thy people all righteous ;"
this is a necessary postulate of the kingdom of God, which is
sure to be realised in due time, though possible not till the
development is complete. The wheat must eventually be
separated from the chaff, and the latter burned up with un-
quenchable fire.

4. The announcement of a Messiah contained within itself
the strongest motives of an ethical description. As the Messianic
era was represented as the consummation alike of blessing and
of punishment, the contemplation would inevitably act, in the
case of the righteous, as a powerful impulse to steadfastness, and
in that of the wicked, as an impulse to conversion. We may
learn from Micah ii. 12, 13 ; iv. 1 — 8 ; Is. xl. 3 — 5, and
Mai. iii. 19, sqq., in what manner the prophets availed them-
selves of this announcement, as a motive of repentance.

5. Even under the Old Testament, the gospel, which proclaims
the forgiveness of sins through the mercy of God, existed side
by side with the law. How greatly then must it have facilitated
the acceptance of mercy, in the case of those, in whom the object
of the law had been secured, to have the condition of salvation,
the coming of Him who was to bear their sins as He has borne
our own, placed before their minds in such prophecies as that
contained in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah ! That the pro-
phecy did answer its end in this respect is evident, to take a
single example, from John the Baptist, who bore witness, on the
simple ground of Is. liii., to " the Lamb of God that taketh away

264 APPENDIX I.

the sin of the world." According to Luke i. 77, forgiveness of
sins was the centre of all the hopes of salvation, indulged by the
more earnest minds.

6. But the principal design of the Messianic prophecies was
to prepare in such a way for the coming of Christ, that, when he
should come, he might at once be recognised from a comparison
of prophecy with its fulfilment. And the very fact that, not-
withstanding this preparation, the greater portion of the people
failed to recognise him, is in itself a proof of its necessity. As
it was, the only persons who did not receive him, were such as
had lost their capacity for an iropartial examination of prophecy
and history, through their ungodliness of mind. But if there
had been no signs at all, the recognition would have been ren-
dered infinitely difficult even to the uiyright in heart. The im-
portance of the Messianic prophecies from this point of view is
attested by New Testament authorities. When John the
Baptist says in John i. 20, " I am not the Christ," he points to
Jesus as the Christ. As Bengel says, " by thus limiting his
speech . . ( Z") . .he gives a handle to the thought which
suggests itself, that the Christ is not far off." He speaks of Him
with evident allusion to the prophecies of the Old Testament, as
" he, who coming after him was before him " (vers. 27, 30), and
with a reference to Is, liii. as " the Lamb of God." Andrew, his
disciple, on the strength of what he has heard from him, says to
his brother Simon in ver. 41, " we have found the Messiah." It
is true that Christ himself teaches, that the first pre-requisite to
a recognition of himself is a certain state of mind, which creates
a susceptibility for the outward proofs of his divine mission
(John vii. 17), and traces the unbelief of the Jews to the fact,
that this is not their state of mind (John v, 39 — 47) ; see vol.
i. p. 99. He represents himself as the promised Messiah, in
John iv. 25, 26 ; Matt. xxvi. 63, 64, and xi. 3 sqq. In Luke xxiv.
25, 26, he reproves the apostles a being " fools and slow of
heart," because they do not discern the harmony between pro-
phecy and its fulfilment, which is so conspicuous in his history.
In Luke xxiv. 45, he is said to " open their understanding" that
they may understand " the prophecies relating to his person,"
and in this way to strengthen their faith. He sets forth these
prophecies in various ways, describing their great importance as

IMPORTANCE OF THE MESSIANIC PBOPHECIES. 265

the force by which history is determined, in such words as these,
" thus it is written," and " thus it must be ;" Luke xxiv. 26, 46,
and Matt. xxvi. 54. The importance which he attached to
the agreement between prophecy and its fulfilment, as forming
part of his credentials, is apparent from the fact that on the
occasion of his last entry into Jerusalem, he arranged all the
incidents in such a way as to insure an exact correspondence to
the statements of prophecy. Matt. xxi. 1, and John xii. 12 — 16.^
The first of the Evangelists brings forward proofs at the very
outset, that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah promised in the Old
Testament. This was the problem that had first of all to be
solved. That Jesus was the Christ was one of the leading topics
in the preaching of the apostles (Acts iii. 18, x. 43 ; 1 Cor. xv.
3, 4 ; 2 Cor. i. 20). In Acts xxvi. 22, Paul claims to obtain a
hearing for his preaching of the gospel, on the ground that he
says nothing but what Moses and the prophets have already fore-
told ; and in ver. 27 he expressly asserts that whoever believes
the prophets must of neoessity believe in Christ as well.

There can be no doubt, therefore, as to the great importance
of the Messianic prophecies, so far as the people of the Old Tes-
tament were concerned. But the question still remains whether
they are of the same importance to the Christian Church. To
this question an affirmative reply has been constantly and de-
cidedly given. A passage written by the excellent Pascal may
serve to exhibit the attitude which the Church has assumed
towards these prophecies. In his Fensees, (Art. 10, Preuves de
Jesus Christ par Us propheties), he says, " La plus graude des
preuves de Jesus Christ ce sont les propheties. C'est aussi a

1 According to DcUtzsch (die bibl. propJietische Tlieologie \). 170), the con-
nection between the two is the opposite of this. Ho appropriates the words
of Augustine, " Christ did not act thus because the prophet had foretold it ,
but the pi'ophet made the announcement, because this was the way in which
Clirist would act." That this statement of Augustine s, however, is not appli-
cable to the form, but only to the essence, that is to the fundamental idea
contained in the prophecy and expressed in the word ^jy, is evident from
this, that there were circumstances connected with the affair which were un-
important in themselves, and derived their importance solely from their con-
nection with the prophecy, such, for example, as the fact of tho she-asa
being taken as well as the foal. If the attention to individual traits, such,
for example, as the riding upon an asa, is to be rejected without hesitation us
a reprehensible attempt to " idealise ;" what are we to do with such passages
as Is. 1. 6, '• and my cheeks to them that plucked off tho hair," of which no
historical fulfilment can be pointed out ?

266 APPENDIX I.

quoi Dieu a le plus pourvu ; car I'evenement qui les a remplies
est un miracle subsistant depuis la naissance de I'Eglise jusqu' a
la fin. Aussi Dieu a suscite des prophetes duraut seize cents
ans ; et pendant quatre cents ans apres, il a disperse toutes ces
propheties avec tons les Juifs, qui les portaient, dans tous les
lieux du uionde. — Quand un seul homme aurait fait un livre des
predictions de Jesus-Christ, pour le temps et pour la maniere,
et que Jesus-Christ serait venu confer mement a ces propheties,
ce serait une force infinie. Mais il j a bien plus ici. C'est une
suite d'hommes qui, constamment et sans variation, viennent
I'un en suite de I'autre, predire ce meme avenement. C'est un
peuple entier, qui I'annonce." But, following the example of
the rationalists, Schleiermaclier in particular has broken away
from this common conviction of the whole Christian Church.^

The question, of primary importance here, is whether there are
really any Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. Schleier-
maclier answers this in the negative. He found nothing but
indefinite presentiments, utterances of a subjective consciousness
of the need of redemption, " a yearning of human nature for
Christianity," such as may be proved to have existed in heathenism
as well. In making such an assertion, he placed himself in de-
cided antagonism to the authority of Christ and his apostles.
For it is evident, not only from the passages just quoted, but
from many others which have been referred to in the course of
this work, that they did acknowledge the existence of actual
prophecies in the Scriptures. And the fallacy of the assertion
is quite as apparent, if we examine the prophecies themselves.
We have brought forward proofs, that the Scriptures contain a
long series of genuine prophecies. Compare, for example, what
has already been observed in vol. iii., p. 299, with reference to
Zechariah's description of the future. Compare also Dan. ix.,
where the anointing of Christ with the Holy Grhost, his death,
the forgiveness of sins to be secured by him, and the judgment
to be executed on Jerusalem by a foreign prince, are announced.
The nation from which the Redeemer is to arise, is foretold in
the Old Testament, and even the tribe (Gen. xlix. and other pas-
sages), the family (first of all in 2 Sam. vii.), the place (Micah v.),

1 Glauhenslehre i. 116 (105. 6,) Zweites Sendschreiben an Liicke, Studicn
und Kritiken 29, p. 497.

IMPORTANCE OF THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES. 267

and the time of Ms birth, — viz., during the period of the political
existence of Judah (see vol. i. p. 62), previous to the destruction
of the second temple (Haggai), in the time of the fourth mo-
narchy (Dan. ii. 7), and in the seventieth week (Dan. ix.).
The prophets point out clearly and distinctly the condition of
both the family and nation at the time of the coming of Christ,
and fully agree in predicting, that before that event all the glory
of Israel will pass away (vol. i. p. 516), the tabernacle of David
fall into ruins (Amos ix. 11), and the line of David sink into
the obscurity of private life, (vol. ii. p. 110). The prophets
foretel that with Christ's coming a new spiritual and vital prin-
ciple will begin to work in the human race (Joel iii.; Jer. xxxi.
31 — 40 ; Ezek. xi. 19), and history has confirmed the announce-
ment. " All nations," says Pascal, " were sunk in infidelity and
concupiscence ; but the whole earth now burned with charity
princes forsook their glory, and girls endured martyrdom.
Whence came this power ? The Messiah had arrived." The
prophets also place in connection with the coming of Christ a
severe judgment upon Judah, and its expulsion from the Lord's
own land (e.g. Zech v. and xi. : Mai. iii.). The fulfilment is
before our eyes, as well as that of the prophecies, which announce
the spread of the kingdom of God among the heathen in the
days of the Messiah, such for example as Ezek. xvii. 22 — 2-4-
and Mai. i. 11, " from the rising of the sun unto the going down
of the same, my name shall be great among the Grentiles."

Again, the assertion, that an agreement between the pro-
phecies and the actual result, in matters of detail, is of no im-
portance whatever, is no more reconcileable with the authority
of Christ and the apostles, than the denial of the existence of
genuine prophecies. For if this be the case, why is the har-
mony between prophecy and fulfilment ex})ressly pointed out in
connection wi th the most remarkable circumstances of the life of
Christ ? Why did Christ explain to his apostles, after his
resurrection, the passages in all the Scriptures relating to his
sufferings and glory ? Why did he add, after saying to his dis-
ciples " all ye shall be offended because of me this night," " for
it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the
flock shall be scattered abroad?" (Matt. xxvi. 31). Why did
he say to the disciples (ver. 54), " how then shall the Scriptures

268 APPENDIX I.

be fulfilled ?" and to the crowd (ver. 56) " all this was done that
the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled ?" He that is
of the truth will listen in this matter to the voice of him who
has said, " I am the truth," If Schleiermachers views were cor-
rect, how could it be recorded of the people at Berea as a thing
deserving praise, that they carefully compared the gospel state-
ments with the Scriptures of the Old Testament, " searching the
Scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Philip would
rather be deserving of blame, for founding his address to the trea-
surer of Queen Candace upon Is. liii. If it was a matter of im-
portance to that age, that the perfect agreement between pro-
phecy and fulfilment should be clearly demonstrated, it is of no
less importance now. This is obvious from the fact, that the
apostles themselves do not attach importance to it, solely when
they have to do with Jews, but also when writing and preaching
to the Gentiles. In the present day, not merely the great mass
of the Jews, but also a great portion of those who are living in
outward fellowship with the Christian Church, are in just the
same condition as the Jews of the time of Christ. They have
no true knowledge of Christ, but have yet to learn to know him.
It is true that this knowledge can no more be obtained by them
from the Messianic prophecies alone, than by the Jews of that
day. On the contrary, external evidence of the truth of Chris-
tianity, whatever its objective validity may be, can never accom-
plish anything, without the existence of the only state of mind,
that can create a susceptibility for the impression, which evi-
dence of this description is fitted to produce. But where this
state of mind does exist, a perception of the harmony between
prophecy and fulfilment may produce the most beneficial results.
There is the less room to deny this, on account of the clear testi-
mony of history itself Conscientious converts from Judaism
are hardly ever to be met with, whose convictions are not to a
great extent attributable to this.^ And even in the case of many
who had fallen victims to rationalistic unbelief, such prophecies

1 Thus, for example, the unbelief of Augusti gave way when he was en-
gaged in writing a work upon Isaiah, and came to the fifty-third chapter.
See the account of the life and conversion of i^. A. Augusti, formerly a
Jewish E,abbi, but afterwards for fifty-three years a teacher of Christianity,
Gotha 1783. Other examples are to be met with in Hausmeister' s Bekehrungs-
gescliichten Jiidischer Proselyten.

IMPORTANCE OF THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES. 269

as Is. liii. have frequently afforded important aid in leading
them back to the way of salvation. But the importance of the
Messianic prophecies is not restricted to the first stages of Chris-
tian experience ; it continues even in the case of such as are
further advanced. For on the one hand there are none whose
faith is so strong that they can afford to despise one of the means
of fortifying it, which have been provided by God himself; and
the more firmly a Christian holds by the Msiorical Christ, and
breaks away from the nebulous image of an ideal Saviour, who,
if be want no credentials, can afford neither strength nor con-
solation, the greater is the improbability of his ever doing this.
On the other hand, advanced Christians feel more and more the
need of comprehending the divine institutions of salvation as a
connected whole, and tracing the whole plan devised by the
wisdom of God. This is a delightful study, full of incitement
to seek the knowledge and love of God. In this nothing can be
regarded as trivial, since even the smallest line acquires impor-
tance from its connection with the whole. There is nothing
isolated ; action and reaction are visible everywhere, and whilst
light is thrown by the fulfilment upon the preparatory stages,
the later throw light upon the fulfilment in return.^

Another objection adduced by Schleiermacher against the
Messianic prophecies is this, that we cannot desire to base our
firm faith in Christianity upon our much weaker faith in Judaism.
But Steudel has justly replied to this, that we do not attribute
the force of proof to the prophecies themselves, but to the har-
mony between the prophecies and their fulfilment. And Sack
(Apologet. p. 258) has pointed out the unscriptural character
of the contrast, which is thus drawn between Judaism and Chris-
tianity, by showing that prophecy ibrms no part of Judaism as
dissociated with Christianity, but according to the New Testament
view the prophets are organs of the Holy Ghost, of the Spirit of
Christ, who thus manifested himself to the Church of God
through their instrumentality, before his actual appearance in
the flesh, 1 Pet. i. 11.

1 "Estetinm pars verbi divini propheticu suavissimum studii perpotui
exercitium, ubi incrementum successive capimus, quod fastidiuni detcrgit, sed
fiucm nuncjuam reperimus, gaudemus tamen alimento spirituali, fidem, epem
et caritatem roboraute et excitante."

270 APPENDIX I.

The really classical passage of the New Testament, by which
this thoroughly abnormal and unchristian theory of Schleier-
macher is completely refuted, is contained in 2 Pet. i. 19 — 21, a
passage the depth of which is a sufficient proof of its apostolical
origin. " We have," says the apostle, " a more sure word of
prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a
light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the
day-star arise in your hearts : knowing this first, that no pro-
phecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, for the
prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men
of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." The
Messianic prophecies (that the " word of prophecy " relates espe-
cially to these is evident from the connection with what precedes)
are of even gi'eater importance to Christians than to Jews. The
word of prophecy is to them a surei" word, since they can com-
pare the predictions with the fulfilment. The apostle's preaching
of Christ did not rest upon arbitrary speculations, but according
to ver. 16, upon the fact that the apostles were " eye-witnesses
of his majesty." From these historical facts, the word of pro-
phecy acquired still greater firmness and importance. — For this
reason it is doubly advantageous to Christians to pay attention
to those things, from which ScJdeiermacher attempted with all
his might to draw away the Church of Christ. The apostle
does not say " ye did well," but " ye do well." It is not Jews but
Christians whom he praises, for giving heed to the word of
prophecy, and that not merely as the foundation of faith, but
also as the means of strengthening their belief. It could only
lead to confusion^ to connect siis- ot &c., with Trpoai-x^ovrss,
instead of (ptxlMovri. (compare Matt. xi. 13-). In this case the
present would be unsuitable. The apostle is writing to those
who already are, not to those who are to become Christians, " to
them that have obtained like precious faith with us" (ver. 1).
Hence he does not say how long they are to be attentive, but
how long the light has shined. The period, when the light
first shone in the dark place (a light which could only be
kindled by the inspiration of God), was the coming of Christ in
the flesh, when the day-star immediately rose in the hearts. It

1 See on the other hand Knapp, opuac. p. 16.

IMPORTANCE OF THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES. 271

is to those, on whom the day has dawned, that the light shining
in a dark place first gives a really brilliant light. {Bencjel :
" By the greater light the lesser is both acknowledged to be
less, and is strengthened"). The importance of Messianic pro-
phecy depends upon the relation between the preparatory, or
preliminary stages, and the thing itself, and this relation cannot
be properly discerned till the fulfilment has taken place. —
" Knowing this first" {=^ " first of all," 1 Tim. ii. 1) : he who
is ignorant of this, is blind as to the whole affair, a blindness which
is far more culpable since the day has dawned. What the
apostle here represents as the first step, — namely, the inspiration
of God, without which it would be impossible to speak of a light
shining in a dark place, is the very thing which ScJdeiei'macher
denies. For prophecy he substitutes a merely subjective presenti-
ment, and in his estimation the " prophecy of the Scripture "
is throughout I^/ar l-niKv<jzojs. It is evident from the passages
in Philo, which may be found quoted in Wetstein and Knapp

(e.g., Ttpoiprirrii j'Siov ov^h a.7ro(pQsyy£Txi, aXkorpia. ^i irocvrx vTtfiyovMTOs

kripou), and also from the entire context, that it is not
to the interpretation of the prophets by others that the apostle
here refers. The explanation is given afterwards : in pro-
phecy throughout we have not a mere production of" Judaism,"
or certain disclosures made by the prophets on their own autho-
rity. The prophecies of the Bible do not belong to the sphere
of personal conjecture, like those of heathenism ; and the pro-
phets of the Scriptures are not, like the false prophets referred
to in Jeremiah, to whom ScJdeiermachers theology would com-
pare them, " prophets of their own heart."

( 272 )

APPENDIX IL

MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS AMONG THE HEATHEN,

In heathen antiquity we find indications of a hope of the
arrival of a period of restoration, and sometimes even of the
coming of a personal redeemer. To these anticipations a cer-
tain independence has frequently been attributed. They have
been placed on a level with those of the Bible, and traced to
some primitive revelation. But a critical examination of the
whole of the material in our possession^ leads to the conclusion,
that all such expectations, so far as they have a definite character
at all, and have any essential connection with those of the Bible,
are merely the echo of the latter ; just as in the case of the crea-
tion, the fall, the flood, and the tower of Babel, the result ob-
tained from a truly critical investigation is, that the heathen
analogies are not in any instance traceable to a primeval revela-
tion, but, on the contrary, are invariably dependent upon the
biblical accounts to which they present an analogy.

From the energy which characterised the belief in a coming
Messiah among the Jews, we should naturally expect at the
very outset, that it would exert an influence in various ways
upon the heathen world around ; especially as the religious con-
sciousness of the heathen was always distinguished by uncertainty,
and resembled a soft clay, upon which impressions could easily
be made by the stronger and more definite convictions of the
people of revelation. An Old Testament proof of this depen-
dence on the part of the heathen we find in the case of Balaam ;
a New Testament example in that of the wise men from the
East. That the Messianic anticipations of the latter had no
independent root is perfectly obvious. It is apparent from the

1 See the collection in Siolha-g's Religions-geschichtc i., Beilageiv. ; Eosen-
miiZZcraltes und neues Morgenland i., p. 13 sqq. ; and Tholuck \on derSiinde
und vom Versohner.

MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS AMONG THE HEATHEN. 273

evident connection between their star and that of Balaam (see
my work on Balaam, p. 177, p. 480 translation). According to
Matt, ii. 2, they are seeking " the king of the Jews," the ruler
who is to come forth from the Jews and extend his kingdom
from the midst of them. And where they expect the dominion
to commence, there will the source of their expectations be found.
They travel to Jerusalem to learn something more as to the new-
born king ; and if they go for further instruction to the centre of
Jewish life, it must certainly have been from the same centre that
the first impulse was received.

Let us direct our attention first of all to the nations of classical
antiquity. Hesiod clearly anticipated the return of better days :

" 0 that I had not been bom a companion of the fifth of men !
O that I had died before, or eUe had not been born so soon !
For the present race of men is one of iron !
Zeus will also one day destroy this race of diverse men." i

Among the Platonists and Stoics this expectation was subse-
quently developed into the doctrine of the great year of the uni-
verse.2 On this subject Voss says, " The idea of a great year of
the universe arose, and to a great extent took its shape, in part
from the earlier descriptions which poets had given of four suc-
cessive ages of the world, the golden, the silver, the brazen and
the iron age, and in part also from the dreams of astrologers as
to the influence of the stars upon the fate of men. The great
year denoted the period of time in which all the stars and planets
complete their revolutions and return to the same place in the
heavens, a7roxaTial(TTa«Tis-, and thus bring back the previous order
of events once more. It was called the great or greatest year,
the celestial year or year of the universe, the year of the scecu-
lum, and also the Platonic year." This great year of the universe
is evidently not an object of faith, but partly a poetic fancy, and
partly a scientific or pseudo-scientific hypothesis.

Everything on classic ground, in which an actual agreement
with the Messianic anticipations of the Bible is manifest, is un-
questionably dependent upon the latter. This is especially true

1 From Voss's translation.

•■^ See Heyne's Virgil, vol. i., p. 96, ed. 1800, and Voss's Virgil, vol. i., p
85 sqq. ' ^

VOL. IV. . g

274 APPENDIX II.

of the two well known passages of Suetonius ( Vita Vespasiani ,
chap. IV. : " percrebuerat oriente toto vetus et constans opinio,
esse in fatis ut eo tempore Judtea profecti rerum potirentur,")
and Tacitus (historia 5. 13, " pliiribus persuasio inerat, antiquis
sacerdotum literis contineri, eo ipso tempore fore ut valesceret
oriens profecti que Judeea rerum potirentur"). In Tacitus it is
evident from the context, that the reference must be to Jewish
expectations. It is after relating some miraculous events, which
had taken place among the Jeius, that he says, " which things
caused a few to fear, for they had a conviction in their minds, that
it was recorded in the writings of the ancient priests," &c. The
priests here referred to are the Jewish priests. The passage con-
tinues thus, " qua3 ambages Vespasianum ac Titum prasdixerat.
Sed vulgus more humanae cupidinis sibi tantam fatorum mag-
nitudinem interpretati, ne adversis quidem ad vera mutabantur,"
and we find the commentary upon the whole in the Jewish War
of Josephus (vi. c. 5, § 4), where he says, " but now, what did the
most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous
oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how about that
time (Tacitus: eo ipso tempore fore) one from their country should
become governor of the habitable earth. The Jews took this pre-
diction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise
men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle
certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was ap-
pointed emperor in Judea." We have already shown (vol. iii.
p. 258) that the Jewish anticipations, referred to by Josephus,
rested upon a prophecy of Daniel. We have all the more
ground for tracing the opinion, mentioned by Suetonius, to the
influence of this prophecy, from the fact that it was not restricted
to the merely general notion, that a Jewish empire would arise,
but bore a more special character (esse in fatis ut eo tempore
Juda3a profecti rerum potirentur), and also from the fact that
it was not a rumour of recent date, but had been handed down
from ancient times. Moreover, it was not by any means fluctu-
ating in its character, but assumed a fixed and constant shape,
" percrebuerat oriente toto vetos et constans opinio." We are
thus shut up to Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks of years,
which was more than five centuries old {vetus), possessed an
authority so trustworthy, that the belief reposed in it could not

MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS AMONG THE HEATHEN. 275

but be characterised by constancy {constans) , and pointed pre-
cisely to that time (eo tempore).

The fourth Eclogue of Vinjil has frequently been adduced as
a proof of the existence of certain Messianic anticipations of an
independent character in classical antiquity. Virgil there ap-
peals to the Sibylline books in support of his announcement,
that the period predicted in the Cuniiean Song is close at hand
(ultima Cumaii venit jam carminis aitas), and that even during
the consulship of Pollio, in whose honour the ode is composed,
the expected boy will be born and the golden age return.
(■' Even daring the consulship of Pollio his son will appear as
the first-fruits of the new creation, to occupy, along with other
god-befriended heroes, the highest offices of the kingdom of
peace in the reconciled and purified world : " Voss). The em-
peror Constantino believed this eclogue to contain a Messianic
prediction, taken from the prophecies of the Cumrean Sibyl (see
Eusehius vit. Const, v. 19, 20). Atigustme also maintains the
same opinion in several places, but more especially in his de
civitate del, 10, 27, and epistola ad Martianum (155) where he
says, " Nam omnino non est, cui alteri prgeter dominum Christum
dicat genus Immanum :

Te duce si qua manent sceleris vestigia nostri
Irrita perpetua solvent formidine terras.

Quod ex CumjBo, i.e. ex Sibyllino carmine se fassus est trans-
tulisse Virgilius, quoniam fortassis ilia vates aliquid de unico
salvatore in spiritu audierat, quod necesse habuit confiteri."
There can be no doubt that Virgil actually refers to a prophecy
of the Cumaian Sibyl. The supposition that he alludes to Hesiod,
whose father came from Cumte, is untenable, for this simple
reason, that a poet is not a sufficient authority for the question
in hand, and that the charm of the ode is derived from its being
based, at least in appearance, upon a genuine prophecy. But
whilst it is certain that Virgil refers to the Cunijcan Sibyl, it is
just as certain, on the other hand, that he does not allude to the
ancient and genuine Sibylline prophecies. The latter had been
consumed long before, when the capital itself was burned (see Voss

276

APPENDIX II.

p. 182 sqq.). But there were forged Sibylline prophecies in cir-
culation even at this period, by means of which the Jews attempted
to give validity to their national hopes among the heathen,
and thus to secure respect for themselves. The proof of this
has been furnished by Bleek in the theologische Zeitschrift von
Schleiermacher, &c., i. p. 148 sqq. A prophecy of this descrip-
tion, in which the glory of the Messianic age is depicted, chiefly
in accordance with Is. xi., and which embraces the greater por-
tion of the third of the Sibylline books, has been referred by
Bleek (p. 236) to the years 170 — 168 before Christ ; and in all
essential points he is supported by Friedlieh {Oracula Sib.),
and Hilgenfeld {die jiidische Apocalyptik p. 57 sqq.). Now
there is a most striking resemblance between this prophecy and
the eclogue of Virgil. In the prophecy, just as in the eclogue,
there is a combination of the Grecian doctrine of the ages of the
world with other things that are unmistakeably an echo of the
Jewish anticipations ; (see Bleek p. 167 sqq.). Pollio's son and
Pollio himself, in connection with other god-befriended heroes,
are described by Virgil as occupying just the same position,
which the pretended prophecy assigns to the Messiah and the
chosen race. Compare, for example, the words of Virgil in
ver. 7.

Jam nova progenies coelo demittitur alto, and in vers. 48, 49 :

Aggredere o magnos (aderit jam tempus) honores
Oara deum soboles, magnum Jovis incrementum ;

with the following verses from the third of the Sibylline books
{Gallceus, p. 356) :

xai TOT sSvoy (XByakoio Qbov itaki Kxprspov s^Tai
01 'na.Mrzam ^pordiai jiiov xaQo^Tjyol suomtoci;

and again,

xai TOTS ^rt Qew oupa-voQev 7riix\\/Si ^acaiXria ;

also {Gallceus, p. 460) :

xai TOT (XTt' YisXtoio Qsof Trifx^l/Ei ^a-dikrioc
OS Tiaaay yaTav Tiavazi iioXsixoio xanoXo.

MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS AMONG THE HEATHEN. 277

and lastly {GoMceiis, p. 366) :

6TTI ^s Tjy (pvX^ ^«.<yiKriios, r,s yivos 6'TTai
a.'KTxi'jroy xat tqvto y_p6mis TrspiTsKkofjiivoKsi
api^ii xac.\ KstJVQv (jyikov Qsou xp^sT syeipsiv.

There are also many very striking points in the description
given in the prosperous character of the future. For example,
that lions will lose their savage nature (Virgil nee magnos
metuent armenta leones. Sib. aacpao^opo^ re Xeov ayvpm tpxysTxi
sm (pxTvm ojs ^ovi, Gallceus, p. 478), and that snakes will
cease to hurt (Virgil occidet et serpens. Sib. kxI /3p£(f»££T'Ti
opxMvTBs a^jucc 'j(pl'yi y.oiy.movra.i.') Constantine and Augustine
were to a certain extent right. They were correct in the feeling
that we have here a close analogy to the predictions of the
Bible. But they failed to trace the genesis of this analogy. Vir-
gil read the Sibyllines, which had been forged by a Jew, simply
as a poet. Whether genuine or false, they furnished him with
materials for a pleasant Jew d esprit. That he actually employed
them in this way, and applied to PoUio and his unborn son,
what is there affirmed in evidently a very different sense, is a
proof that in his estimation these views were anything but an
object of faith. We might even fancy that there was irony iu
the back ground, directed against the Messianic hopes of the
Jews.

But those who maintain the existence of an independent
Messianic anticipation in the heathen world, which is traceable
to the primeval revelation, appeal with the greatest confidence to
certain facts connected with the religion of the Persians ; and
it cannot be denied that at first sight there is something very
plausible in the argument. In a brief summary of these facts
Spiegel (die neueren Forschungen ilber das Avesta, Ausland 56
p. 725) writes to the following effect : " The existence of the
soul after death was appealed to, even in the earliest writings,
as an established fact. The end of the world, the coming of a
new prophet, who helps to overcome the Angra-mainyus and
restores the happiness of the world, which he has destroyed, is
at least hinted at in the Avesta." A passage of great importance
occurs in Plutarch de Iside et Osiride c. 47. " Orrauzd, sprung
from the purest light, and Ahriman from the darkness, make

278 APPENDIX II.

war upon each other. — But there comes a previously determined
time, when Ahriman, after having brought hunger and pesti-
lence upon the world, will be destroyed and utterly annihilated.
The earth will then be all one plain, and all its inhabitants,
being perfectly happy and speaking one language, will be one in
their mode of life, and united in one constitution. But Theo-
pompus says that, according to the teaching of the Magi, each
of these gods will be alternately victorious and defeated for three
thousand years ; after this, the two will contend together for
three thousand years more, when the one will defeat the other,
and destroy all the works that he has brought to completion.
But the god of the lower world will eventually be utterly de-
prived of his power ; and then men will be happy, and will no
longer stand in need of nourishment, or throwa shadow." A similar
picture of the happiness of men, after the renewal of the earth,
is to be found in the books of the Zend and the Bundehesh, in
which the entire period of the world's duration up to that time is
fixed at twelve thousand years. " There will then be neither
night, nor cold nor hot winds, nor decay, nor fear of death, nor
evils caused by Dews ; and the enemy, this ambitious prince, will
never rise again" {vid. Anquetil du Perron mKleukers Zenda-
vesta, Anhang 1 p. 1 38) . These hopes are associated in the minds
of the Persians with the appearance of one who is endowed with
superhuman power and dignity. In the Vendidat xix. (according
to Spiegel's translation : Avesta vol. i. der Vendidat p. 244) we
read, " I will smite the Pari, whom men worship, until Gaoshyanc
{i.e. the useful one) the victor is born from the water of Kancavya,
From the eastern country ; from the eastern countries."' Spiegel
remarks on this passage, " Caoshyanc : the useful one, the helper.
This is the title of the Saviour King, whom the Persians ex-
pected at the consummation of all things to bring to pass the
resurrection, and then establish a dominion full of undisturbed
prosperity." An elaborate description of this Saviour we find
in the Bundehesh. It is stated there, among other things, that
" Sosiosh will then bring the dead to life. The dead will be

1 The introduction of two other Saviours into this passage, along with
Caoshyanc, has been pronounced by Spiegel an interpolation, which had no
existence when the Huzvaresh version was made, and which he has there-
fore erased ; see p. 242.

MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS AMONG THE HEATHEN. 270

brought to life by that which passes from the bull and from the
white horn. Sosiosh will give to all men to drink of these
liquids ; and they will be great and incorruptible as long as
beings last. All the dead who have ever died, whether great or
small, will drink thereof and come to life. At length Sosiosh,
by command of the just judge Ormuzd, from an exalted place,
will render to all men as their works deserve. The dwelling-
place of the pure will be the splendid Gorotmann. Ormuzd
himself will take up their bodies to himself on high." To this
deliverer two others are subsequently added, Oshedarbami and
Oshedarmah. " The earliest reference," says Spiegel, p. 32, " is
in a Huzvaresh gloss to the Yagna, chap, xxviii. But, in this
case, the first is simply called Hoshedar, the second Hoshe-
darmah." Shahistani says {Hyde de rel. vet. Pers. p. 388, ed.
2) " Zoroaster (Zaradusht) teaches in his book Zenda vesta, that
in the last days a man will appear, named Oshanderberga, i. e.,
man of the world, who will adorn the world with religion and
righteousness. Pentiareh will then appear, and oppress his
kingdom and his affairs for twenty years. After this Osiderbega
will appear to the inhabitants of the world, and will give new
life to righteousness, put to death unrighteousness, and reinstate
the order of things which has been destroyed. Kings will obey
him, and everything prosper in his hands. He will make true
religion victorious ; rest and peace will reign in his day, all con-
tentions will cease, and all grievances disappear."' Tavernier
reports the same thing, as heard from a Persian priest {Reise-
beschreibung iv. 8, vol. i. p. 181, also given in an appendix to
Hyde). In this case the restoration is attributed to three
persons, begotten in a miraculous manner, the last of whom is
the most glorious, and will effect the conversion of all meu. He
will bring about a general resurrection, and the judgment will
immediately follow. The kingdom of darkness is then to be
entirely destroj'ed, the mountains to be levelled, and so forth.

Formerly this striking agreement betw^een the Persian hopes
of the future, and those entertained by the Jews, was explained

1 The rendering of this passage given by Haarbriicker, in Schahrastani' n
Reliqionspartein und PJiilosophemchulcn, corresponds in all essential points
to that of Eydc. But instead of Oshandorbcga and Osiderbega, he writes in
both instances Ashidsarbaka, which he renders " the knowing one."

280 APPENDIX II.

on the simple hypothesis that the Persians borrowed from the
Jews. Thus Hyde, for example, says, " the so-called prophecy
of Zerdusht evidently points to the Messiah, the announcement
of whose coming he had learned from the Old Testament, with
which he was well acquainted." The blind enthusiasm in favour
of the religious books of the Persians, which prevailed after their
publication by Anquetil du Perron, along with the depreciation
of the Old Testament by the rationalists, caused this explanation
to be given up, and led to the hypothesis that the Messianic
anticipations of the Persians were traceable to the same source
as those of the Jews. But there is at present a manifest dis-
position to return to the earlier view.

Stulir says in his Beligions-systeme des Or mites, p. 371, seq.,
" the doctrine of the fire-worship recognises most distinctly the
belief in an ultimate healing of the strife and discord which prevail
in this life, in a complete annihilation of evil and misery at the
end of time, and in a resurrection of the body to take place
immediately afterwards. Sosiosh, the heroic conqueror, the
restorer of holiness, who will render the whole world both great
and happy, and purify all the bodies in the world, will then
appear. He will abolish every kind of pain, and utterly destroy

the germ of every sin and the tormentor of the pure

If we bear in mind, now, the historical connection in which the
Persians stood to the Jews, and contrast the friendly bearing of
Gyrus and Darius towards the latter, with the intolerance of the
fire-worshippers towards those forms of heathenism which differed
from their own, we cannot but feel inclined to resort to the con-
clusion that Jewish opinions, which were connected with the
worship of Jehovah, exerted a considerable influence upon the
development of the views referred to here, as forming part of the
religious consciousness of the Persians. The similarity between
the two names Sosiosh and Joshua is of no slight importance as
bearing upon this opinion, seeing that Joshua, who led the
Israelites into the promised land, most decidedly pointed to
Jesus." To this we may also add that Zechariah, who prophe-
sied at the time when the intercourse was closest between the
Persians and the Jews, introduced Joshua the High Priest as a
type of Christ. Spiegel (A vesta, 1 p. 37), also points to the
intimate connection between the Persian doctrines and those of

MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS AMONG THE HEATHEN. 281

the Jews. The dependence of the former upon the Jewish chris-
tology will be rendered still more obvious by the remarks which
we shall make in the following chapter, upon the period of Zoro-
aster's life, the recent date of the Zend books, the inclination of
the Persians for synkretism, their readiness to adopt from foreign-
ers, and most especially tlicir dependence upon the Jews. Even
for the doctrine of a plurality of saviours there are points of con-
nection to be found in revelation. Think, for example, simply of
Elias the prophet, and Christ who appears in humiliation and
sways the sceptre of the universe.

According to Ahtdfaraj (in the Mstoria dynastiarum, p. 54),
Zoroaster taught that in the last times a virgin would conceive
without intercourse with a man, and at the period of the birth of
her child a bright star would appear by day, with the sign of the
virgin in the centre, and that on its appearance his disciples
would arise to worship the child and bring him their presents.
This is the word, which founded the heaven. It is possible that
the subject is carried out rather clumsily here. But it is just as
possible that some of the pupils of Zoroaster did actually go as
far as this in the appropriation of the doctrines which they ob-
tained from revelation.

That the Indian Krishnu, which is adduced by Stirm (Apolo-
gie des Christenthums, p. 181, ed. 2), as a heathen analogy to
the Messianic anticipations, may probably be traced to Christian
influence, so far as there is actually an agreement, has been point-
ed out by Wutthe {Geschichte des Heidentlmtns^ ii., p. 339).

( 282 )

APPENDIX III,

THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD
TESTMIENT.

No one will venture to deny that the Messiah was announced
by the prophets, as one who was to be a partaker of human na-
ture. He was not to manifest himself in a merely transient form,
like Jehovah and his angel under the Old Testament, but to be
born (Is. vii. 14 ; Micah v. 2) , and to grow up by degrees to
greatness and glory (Is. xi. 1, liii. 2). With reference to his
human nature and descent, he is called a sprout of David (Jer.
xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15), the shoot from the root of Jesse (Is. xi. 1),
the fruit of the land (Is. iv. 2). In the primary prophecy in Gen.
xlix. he is referred to as the descendant of Judah, and on the
ground of 2 Sam. vii., he is described in prophecy universally as
a descendant of David.

There is less agreement as to the question, whether the doc-
trine of the divinity of the Messiah is contained in the Old Tes-
tament, particularly in the writings of the prophets. The early
Church answered this question most decidedly in the affirma-
tive ; rationalism, on the other hand, has given in many ways a
negative reply.

But it must be admitted at the very outset that this doctrine
was found in the writings of the Old Testament by Christ him-
self. In Matt. xxii. 41—45 (Mark xii. 35—37 ; Luke xx. 41—
44), he opposes the Pharisees, who expected merely a human
Messiah, and adduces Ps. ex. to prove his divinity.

We are brought to the same result by an impartial examina-
tion of the Old Testament passages themselves. No doubt the
early collection of materials requires to be sifted, but of the large
number of passages, brought forward as bearing upon the divi-
nity of the Messiah, there are not a few which will stand even
the most rigid test.

THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 283

We have already proved in vol. i., p. 48, that there is a hint
at the superhuman nature of the Messiah even in the priraary
passage in Gen. xlix.

More distinct allusions occur in the Psalms, and, what is not
accidental,' there are some to be met with in all the Messianic
Psalms. The crowning point is found in Ps. ex. The Messiah
is represented there as the Lord of the Church and of Uavid him-
self, who appears here as the mouthpiece of the whole congrega-
tion (see my commentary in loc), and also as one who is seated
at the right hand of Omnipotence, and fully participates in the
power of God over both heaven and earth. In Ps. ii. 12, the
Messiah is introduced as the Son of God absolutely, as that Be-
ing in whom to trust is salvation, and whose wrath is destruc-
tion. In Ps. xlv. 7, 8, he is called God, Elohim. In Ps. Ixxii.
5, 7, 17, everlasting dominion is attributed to him.

The central prophetic passage is Is. ix. 5, " Por unto us a
child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall
be upon his shoulders, and his name shall be called Wonderful,
Counsellor, Divine Hero, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.''
What is said here directly of the Messiah as Counsellor, that he
is a wonder, unconditionally exalted above everything ordinary,
earthly, and human, on which account all the counsels of the
heathen in opposition to him are of no avail, is applicable to
everything connected with his person. The Messiah, moreover,
is a divine hero ; in his appearance there is an unconditional
pledge of victory over the whole world, since he is infinitely
superior to all human heroes from the simple fact that he is
God. The same Everlasting Father also points to his divine
supremacy.

In connection with this passage, we must understand by the

1 The reason was pointed out in my commentary, vol. iv. p. 614, 015-
" The deeper the consciousness of the sinfulness, weakness, and worthless-
ness of man in the minds of the Israelites, the greater the impossiliility of
their resting satisfied with a purely human Redeemer, wlio would be able to
accomplish but very little, according to Israelitish ideas. A human king
(in all the Messianic Psalms in the strict sense of the word the Messiah
appears as a king), however glorious, could never effect, wdiat the idea of tlie
kingdom of God imperatively demanded, and what had been promised in the
very first stages of Messianic prophecy, the In-inging of tiie nations to obe-
dience, the conferring of Ijlessings upon all the families of the earth, and the
acquisition of world-wide dominion."

284 APPENDIX III.

name Immanuel in cliap. vii. 14 something more than a king
who is blessed of God.

In chap. xi. 4 divine omnipotence is attributed to the Messiah
in the administration of punitive righteousness. Like God him-
self he inflicts punishment by the mere utterance of his almighty
word.

The words of Micah v. 2, " His goings forth are the olden
time, the days of eternity," give prominence to the majesty of his
divine origin, in contrast with the humility of his human birth.
In ver 4, " And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the
Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord," he is represented
as so intimately connected with God, that the whole fulness of
the divine strength and majesty is His, a description which rises
far above any merely human level. Hand in hand with this pas-
sage goes Is. xl. 5, where the glory of the Lord is represented as
revealed in the coming of Christ.

Daniel also recognises the union of a human and superhuman
nature in the Messiah (chap. vii. 13, 14). The Messiah appears
with the clouds of heaven, as Lord of nature, and omnipotent
judge. The fact that he is compm^ed to the son of man, indicates
that along with his humanity there is another side, which reaches
far beyond his merely human nature.

In Zechariah we find various intimations, that the Messiah is
partaker of the divine nature. According to chap. xii. 10, Jeho-
vah himself is pierced in the Messiah. In chap. xi. 13, Jehovah
calls the miserable wages, paid to the good shepherd or Messiah,
the goodly price, at which he, the Lord, is prised. In chap. xiii.
7, Jehovah calls the good shepherd the man, his neighbour, and
thus points to the fact that he is connected with him by a secret
unity of nature.

A distinct testimony to the participation of the Messiah in
the divine nature is to be found in the last prophecy, that of
Malachi. In chap, iii. 1, Jehovah says, that he will send a
messenger to prepare the way before Mm ; and immediately
afterwards it is declared that, when this has been effected, the
Messiah will come. Hence the coming of Jehovah and that of
the Messiah are represented as identical. The Messiah, like the
supreme God, is called i^Kn, the Lord. The temple, which is
spoken of everywhere else as belonging to the supreme God, is

THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 285

referred to here as belonging to the Messiah. In ver. 2 sqq. a
divine work is attributed to the Messiah, — namely, the execution
of judgment upon the ungodly, which is ordinarily imputed to
Jehovah.

The unity of God is one of the fundamental doctrines of the
Old Testament, Deut. vi. 4. Since, then, it cannot possibly be
admitted that this doctrine is in any way contradicted, every pas-
sage in which the names, attributes, and works of God are imputed
to the Messiah, contains a distinct declaration of his essential
oneness with Jehovah. To this we must add the passages of
Zechariah and Malachi, which have been already quoted, and
in which this unity is expressly declared. If, however, we
would enter into a deeper investigation of the relation in which
Jehovah is represented as standing to the Messiah in the Old
Testament Scriptures, we cannot do this without discussing the
Old Testament doctrine of the Angel of God, ch'^n ■(^'"0^ cn^xn

We have already (in vol. i. p. 108) pointed to the fact, that i
this doctrine is not only most intimately connected with Christo-
logy, but contains its theological basis and fundamental condition.
We have also collected together the most important materials
to be found in the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua in rela-
tion to this doctrine. Our first task now, is to complete the
collection from the matters of fact contained in the remaininir
books. But before doing this we shall enter into a brief philo-
logical discussion.

What is the primary meaning of the word "(n'^o ? Eiuald
(§ 160 p. 357) says : " "l^^^o, a messenger, literally a sending,
the occupation itself and the end to be accomplished being gene-
rally considered, rather than the man." But it cannot be proved
that ^N"? means to send. In Arabic this meaning only occurs
in the fourth conjugation. And here it may readily^be traced to
the meaning " to labour," " to work," hence " to make a person
work." The meaning to work is established by the derivative
nsNSc (work, opus, artificium), from which it is evidently not
allowable to separate "jn'^c. According to Ewakl, forms with
c denote, " that ivith luhich anything is done, the instrument
employed in the work, e.g., nr;?? {quo aperitur) a key, ^;!0!?,

286 APPENDIX III.

a vintage-knife." '\^^^, therefore, is the person through whom
anything is effected, guo opus efficitur. The restriction to one
who is sent is not attributable to the derivation, but to the usages
of speech.^

It cannot but be pronounced a hasty assertion on the part of
Hofmann,^ that it necessarily follows from the word "jn^o
itself, that reference is made to an inferior angel, and cannot
possibly be made to one who is connected with God by unity of
nature. " What can be more obvious," he says, " than that
-jxSd -|Snn cannot be l^on himself, nor Jiin* yhii mn», him-
self, but a being distinct from him, and therefore not God the
son, but a created being, a finite spirit, through whom and in
whom the eternal God makes himself known ?" A distinction
is undoubtedly involved in the name nin» i^Soj but it is not
correct, that it must necessarily be the distinction between finite
and infinite. The messenger may be of the same nature as
the sender. The king may certainly send his son as a messenger
(Matt. xxi. 37). According to Hofmanns premises, Christ
himself must be " a created being, a finite spirit," on account of
the numerous passages in the gospel of John, in which he. is
spoken of as sent by God.

Must D'nSNn -^nSd, mn' -^xSa necessarily mean the angel
of God, the angel of the Lord, or may they also mean an
angel of God, cm angel of the Lord ? To this we reply that the
former alone is correct. u>rhvt inSd might certainly mean,
an angel of God, just as d'^Sn njnc may mean a camp of
God, and d^'i'^n n'D a house of God. For it is evident that
d'hSn had originally an appellative character, from the fre-
quency with which it takes the article. At the same time,
according to ordinary usage, the word Elohim has generally the
force of a proper noun, whilst nin'^ is a proper noun in the
fullest sense of the word. So far as D'hSkh -(nSd is con-
cerned, the rule is applicable in this case, that " when two nouns
are each of them definite, the article is merely prefixed to the

1 Thus Govsset also explains it : " D'snSd inter omnes operationes et
occupatioiies illam nuntii specifice designat. " He calls attention to the fact

' " ' ' y '

2 Weissagung und Erjiillung i. p. 127.

THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 287

second " (Eiuald § 290 a) ; to nin* yhi2 the rule applies, that
" when a proper name or pronoun stands as the second noun, it
has the same force as a noun with the article ; e.g., in '^" p
the son of Jesse, the first noun is rendered definite through the
influence of the second, quite as much as in ttf'vs'n-]?. the son of
the man" (Ewald 290 b). Ewald asserts (§ 290 a) that under
certain circumstances an individual member of a species may be
connected, in the construct state, with a noun with the article
prefixed, or with a proper noun. " If the first noun," he says,
" is to be regarded as indefinite, whilst the second is necessarily
definite, the first may stand even before the article in the con-
struct state, provided no ambiguity can arise, . . . but if
this would be the case, seeing that in the first word the indivi-
dual would of necessity be described in the species, the first word,
must not be written in the construct state." (According to §
292 the genitive is indicated by ''j " whenever the second noun
is definite and requires to be separated from the first, in order
that the latter may retain its indefinite character"). We have
some doubts, as to the possibility of establishing this limitation.
The facts which appear to speak in its favour admit of a different
explanation. But we have no interest in entering into any
further proofs of this ; for the one case, which Eivald singles
out as an exception, is not the one with which we have to do
here. In the present instance ambiguity would certainly arise.
The passages brought forward by Hofmann ( Weissagung und
Erfiillung i. 129), and others, for the purpose of upsetting the
rule altogether, will not bear a closer examination. In Mai. ii.
7 the priest is not described as a messenger of Jehovah ; but
Hitzig has quite correctly translated and explained it as mean-
ing " for he is the messenger, <fec. — As the expounder of the law,
the revealer of the will of God, he is the constant and ordinary
messenger of Jehovah." In Haggai i. 13, it is not an angel of
the Lord that is intended, but Haggai is called tlie angel of the
Lord, as distinguished from others of the same name, but different
vocation. In 1 Sam. xvii. 58, David replies to the question put
to him by Saul, " whose son art thou ?" not a son, but tlie son of
thy servant Jesse. The son of Jesse is opposed to the sons of
other fathers. Whether he had any brothers or not, was not a

288 APPENDIX III.

point in consideration at the time. In 1 Sam. xix. 9, the proper
rendering is not " an evil spirit of the Lord," but " the spirit of
the Lord as an evil one." That 'iin' "]nSo is the angel of the
Lord is very obvious from 1 Kings xix. 5, " and behold an angel
l^^o, touched him ;" compare ver. 7, " and the angel of the
Lord touched him a second time," — first an angel, then the angel
who is already known from what has been mentioned before.
In 1 Chr. xxi. 15 we find, first of all, " and God sent an angel
to Jerusalem, to destroy it ;" and then in vers. 15, 16, "j^'^o
mnij the angel of the Lord, is mentioned. — There is no force in
Steudel's objection (bibl. Theol. p. 259) : " In the very passage
to which Hengstenberg refers, as speaking of the angel xar
ihyri-o, — viz., Ex. xxxiii. 20, yhi:> is written without the ar-
ticle, just as in chap, xxxiii. 2, where he supposes a different
angel from the angel of Jehovah to be intended." The angel is
certainly also an angel. We have first of all a general term,
and then a more particular description, from which we may see,
that it is not an ordinary angel that is spoken of, but one of
exalted dignity and a superior nature.

But, however certain it is, that nin» -(nSd can only mean the
angel of the Lord, it would be wrong to assert, that the gram-
matical reason is sufficient to prove, that in every case, in which
the nin» yhrz is mentioned, without an angel being spoken of
before as in 1 Kings xix. 5 — 7, the Logos must necessarily be
intended. The angel might also be an ideal person, and denote
an actual plurality. In this sense the priest occurs in the pas-
sage quoted from Malachi, where the priests are addressed im-
mediately afterwards in the plural, (ver. 8) ; and so again the
fugitive is mentioned in Gen. xiv. 13, whilst it is left uncertain,
whether one individual is intended or several. It is probably in
the same sense, viz., as an ideal person, that the angel is spoken
of in Gen. xxiv. 7, " he wiU send his angel before thy face," the
actual meaning being " his angel," or " an angel." Among the
passages in which the ^"^^^ y^^^ is mentioned, there are in
fact some, in which this explanation is a very obvious one, e.g.,
Ps. xxxiv. 8 ; 2 Sam. xxiv. 16 ; and 2 Kings xix. 35, But to
explain in this manner all the passages, wliich speak of the angel
of the Lord, is by no means admissible, altogether apart from

THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, 289

the fact that, in the great majority of cases, there is a distinct
allusion made to a personal angel, and on the general ground, that
the figure of speech is of so singular and extraordinary a nature,
that it would be entirely opposed to every analogy, to imagine its
ramifications to be as extensive as this. Moreover, even this
would fail to explain the fact, that in the passages in which the
names of God alternate with nin* i^Sdj and also in those, in
which divine attributes are imputed to the nv-i» -(nSq, he is
usually called the angel of the Lord from the very first ; whereas,
on the other hand, in passages, in which unmistakeable refer-
ence is made to ordinary angels, an angel is spoken of first, and
it is only after he is known to the reader, that he is called the
angel at all.

We will now proceed, in continuation of our discussion in the
first volume, to examine the various passages, in which the angel
of the Lord is mentioned. In addition to those already noticed
in the books of Moses, there is a passage in Ex. iii., which de-
serves especial consideration. In ver. 2 the angel of Jehovah is
said to have appeared to Moses in the fiery flame of a thorn-
bush. In ver. 4 we read, " Jehovah saw that he drew near to
look, and Elohim called to him out of the thorn-bush." In vers.
6, and 14 — 16, the angel of Jehovah assumes to himself all the
attributes of the true God, calls himself the Eternal One, the
God of the fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and promises to
deliver the children of Israel out of Egypt, and inflict severe
punishment upon the Egy[)tians. In ver. 5 Moses is commanded
to take off his shoes from ofi" his feet, because the place where he
stands is holy ground. And in ver. 6 he is said to have hidden
his face, because he was afraid to look upon God.

Those who maintain, that by the angel of the Lord we are
always to understand an inferior and ordinary angel, dispose of
this and similar passages by the simple remark, that the messen-
ger represents the person of the sender, the angels speaking and
acting in the name of God, and being addressed and treated as
God. We cannot pronounce this supposition absolutely unten-
able, as many do.^ There is one unquestionable instance in the

1 For example, /. D. Michaelis, who says (supplem. p. 1395) "what am-
bassador of our own sovereign would reply to the inquii'y, who art thou ?
' I am George the Third, I^ng of Great Britain, this is my name for ever ? ' "
VOL. IV. T

290 APPENDIX III.

Old Testameot of ordinary angels appearing in the nanie of the
Lord ; and in this case the liOrd is also addressed in them. In
Gen. six. 18 Lot addresses the two angels by the name 'J^K,
which belongs to God alone, and from the words which follow,
" thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast mag-
nified thy mercy, which thou hast showed in saving my life,"
&c., it is evident that, whilst addressing the messengers, he has
the sender in his mind. The angels, again, in the same manner,
reply in Jehovah's name, not in their own, " see, I have accepted
thee concerning this thing also," &c.^ The notion expressed by
Justin Martyr in the dialogue with Trypho, that Jehovah sud-
denly returned, after the two angels had been engaged for some
time in conversation with Lot, is evidently nothing but a loop-
hole. For there is not the slightest ground for any such
supposition in the text itself, but, on the contrary, it is over-
thrown by the fact that in ver. 18 it is stated that " Lot spake
to them" evidently to the same persons, who are represented in
ver. 17 as having conducted him out of the city, and instructed
him to flee to the mountains. At the same time, neither this
passage nor Rev. xxii. 7, which is generally classed along with
it, is fitted to counteract the blow inflicted upon the hypothesis,
respecting the ordinary angel, by Ex. iii, and the pacallel passages.
If these passages prove, on the one hand, that the personation of
the sender by the messenger sent is not absolutely inadmissible,
yet, on the other hand, their very isolation^ proves that it was
anything but customary, to employ such a mode of address as
this. The fact requiring explanation is not, that in one parti-
cular instance, in which the angel of the Lord is mentioned, the
Lord himself is spoken of immediately afterwards, but that as a

Nor is there any greater force in the reasoning of those who appeal to the
example of the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, who reads the royal speech,
addressed to the Houses of Parliament, in the first person. For it is one
thing to read, and another to speak.

1 '' Although he sees two, he directs his words to one : from which we may
infer that the mind of Lot does not rest upon the angels, for he is fully per-
suaded that they do not possess supreme power, and that his safety, is not in
their hands. He uses their faces as a mirror in which to contemplate the
face of God." Calvin.

2 The other passages adduced by Ckricus (on Gen. xvi. 13), — viz. 1 Kings
y. 3 and Luke vii. 6 (Quinctilian. inst. orat. iv. 4), are not conclusive, for
here the sender is mentioned first, and the messengers show at the very out-
set that they are not speaking in their own name, but in that of the person
by whom they have been employed.

THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 291

rule there in an immediate transition from the angel oj the Lord
to Jeliovah or Elohim, and vice versa. That there is something
altogether peculiar ia Gen xix., and therefore that no general
conclusion can be drawn from this example alone, we have
already fully shown in vol. i. p. 112. The apparent analogy in
the case of the prophets, to which appeal has been made, also
loses its force on closer inspection. The passages referred to are
those in which it is asserted of the prophets, that they them-
selves will do what they foretel. Thus, for example, in Gen.
xlix. Jacob says with reference to Simeon and Levi, " I will
divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel." In Jer. i. 10
God says to the prophet, " behold I have this day set thee over
the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out and to pull down,
and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant''
(compare Gen. xxvii. 37, Ex. xiii. 19, xxxii. 18, xliii. 3). Un-
doubtedly in these passages the limit, which separates the
instrument from the actual performer of the work, is broken
through ; the pi-ophets are transported, as it were, into God, and
invested with his omnipotence, in order that they may most
emphatically disarm the objection, that their word has but little
force, as being simply the word of feeble men. But these
passages, from their very isolation, only make it the more con-
spicuous, that the co-ordination of Jehovah and the angel of
Jehovah, which is so universal a thing, does not admit of the
same explanation. What is in the one case but a rare exception
becomes in the other a rule.

Let us now turn first of all to the book of Judges. In Judges
ii: 1— 5 the angel of Jehovah is said to have appeared to the
assembled Israelites, in the place which was afterwards called
Bochim. He speaks of himself as having made them to go up out
of Egypt, and brought them into the land which he sware unto
their fathers : and then declares that, on account of their disobe-
dience, he wnll not drive the heathen nations out of the land.
" He speaks in his own words as one who has authority" (Matt,
vii. 29). The expression, " thus saith the Lord," which is cus-
tomary in other cases, is not added here, nor is there anything said,
to indicate that the angel is speaking in the name of another.*

' Bertheau, who has attempted, as well as Studer, to revive the notion,
which was long since exploded, that by the angel of the Lord a prophet is

292 APPENDIX III.

In ver. 1 the angel of the Lord says, " and I said, I will never
break my covenant with you." Bat the covenant had been con-
cluded between Israel and Jeliovali. According to ver. 5 the
reply, which the children of Israel made to the appearance of
the angel of the Lord, was to sacrifice at the place where he
had appeared. Now the very fact of their sacrificing at Bochim
presupposes that the Lord himself had appeared there (we know
nothing as to the form of his appearance, but so much is certain,
that the people were convinced that Grod had drawn near to them
in an extraordinary manner). In the book of Judges there is
not a single sacrifice mentioned, as being offered by the Israelites
in any other place than by the ark of the covenant, with which
the offering of sacrifice was associated in the law of Moses, except
in the case of an extraordinary appearance on the part of God.
For the proofs of this see the Dissertation on the Pentateuch}
In Judges vi. 11, ^7ie angel of the Lord is said to come to
Gideon. This is the title given to the person who appears, with-
out an angel having been mentioned before. In ver. 14 we read,
" the Lord, ^i^', turned to him and said. Go in this thy might
and thou shalt save Israel . . . have not I sent thee f On
this Studer remarks, " The angel of Jehovah becomes all at once
Jehovah himself ;" and in his opinion the whole phenomenon is
traceable to the speculative and mythical notions which charac-
terised the early Jewish theology, and according to which the
angel of Jehovah was simply a manifestation of the deity him-
self, who from his very nature and essence is not only invisible to
men, but inconceivable and unapproachable by them. — The Sep-
tuagint substitutes for Jehovah o ayytXos xvpiou both here and
in ver. 16. Bertheau, on the other hand, observes that it was
only fitting that Jehovah should appear with more and more dis-

intended (see Witsius miscell. vol. i. B. i. chap 18, § 10, 11. Ode de Ange-
lis, p. 1042), is obliged to admit that " it is very striking, that the VFords of
God, which the prophet introduces into his discourse, are in this instance not
preceded by the clause, '' thus saith Jehovah the God of Israel j" compare,
for example, Josh. xxiv. 2, and Judges vi. 8.

1 The sacrifice here offered to the Lord away from the sanctuary contains
in itself a sufficient proof, that by the angel of the Lord we cannot possibly
understand a prophet, — a supposition which the parallel passages in chaps, vi.
and xiii. ought to have been sufficient to preclude. The appearance of the
Lord alone contained in itself a practical summons, to arise and offer sacri-
fice.

THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 293

tinctness. In the words, " I have sent thee," the person who
appears attributes to himself a divine work : and it is by these
words that Gideon recognises them. " And he said unto him,"
it is stated immediately afterwards, " Ah, Lord, V""*) vvhere-
with shall I save Israel." " The Masoretes," says Studer, " altered
the pointing (in ver. 13 Gideon addresses the person who appears
to him as 'Jin >???/ lord), for the purpose of indicating that
Gideon by this time had recognised Jehovah." That they were
correct in this opinion is evident from the words in ver. 17,
" that it is thou who talkest with me." Vitringa opposes the
Septuagirit rendering Kvpii ^xov on the following ground : " quod
'J"'K cum kametz angelo heic non tribuatur nisi postquam Ange-
lus quid divini de se preedicasset. . . . Etiamsi Gideon
hactenus certo non esset persuasus hanc personam esse divinam,
advertens tamen hanc personam sibi adscribere divina et aliquid
forte de ipsius divinitate subodoratus, illam vocat 'Jin. — When
Gideon appeals to his weakness, the Lord says to him in ver. 16,
"for I will be with thee." These words alone reach beyond the
sphere of an inferior angel. " To promise his grace and assist-
ance for the accomplishment of such a work as Gideon had tf)
perform, was not in the power of any but the true God."
( Vitringa). But a still stronger proof that God is here intended
may be found in the fact that the verbal agreement between this
passage and Ex. iii. 11, is so close as to be really equivalent to a
direct reference. In this earlier passage, upon which the one
before us is based, and which was so full of encouragement for
Gideon, Ha-Eloldm is speaking to Moses. And in ver. 17
Gideon says, " if now I have found grace in thy sight, then show
me a sign that it is thou who talkest with me." The words
would have no meaning, unless Gideon had previously come to
the conclusion, that it was the Lord himself who was speaking
to him, and not an inferior angel. Bertlieau has even constrained
himself to acknowledge this. " It is evident," he says, " that the
angel who was speaking to Gideon wished to be regarded as
Jehovah," The offering presented by Gideon does not prove
anything to the contrary. Gideon places his offering before the
angel of the Lord, that he may do what he pleases with it ; at
the same time he hopes that the angel of the Lord will manifest

294 APPENDIX III.

his divine character by some such sign as that which is actually
given. But his humility will not suffer him to present a direct
request to that effect. — In ver. 21 the angel is said to have
touched the offering with the end of his staff ; whereupon there
rose up fire out of the rock and consumed the offering. In the
meantime the angel of Jehovah suddenly disappears, " As the
bursting out of the flame, which consumed the food, and the dis-
appearance of the angel are represented as contemporaneous
occurrences, we may assume that in this case, as well as in chap,
xiii. 20, the angel is to be regarded as ascending to heaven in
the flame." (Bertlieau). Fire does not bear any close affinity
to the nature of inferior angels, but to the nature of God
himself It is an image of the intensity of the divine action.
The earnest God, cf whose assistance Gideon stood in need
for the accomplishment of the work which lay before him,
here manifested himself under the symbol of fire. In ver. 22
it is stated that " Gideon perceived, that it was the angel
of the Lord." His conviction of the real divinity of the per-
son addressing him was confirmed by this miraculous occur-
rence (chap. xiii. 19). " The extraordinary manner in which
the offering was consumed, was a proof of higher power, and
therefore afforded to Gideon the sign which he desired, that it
was Jehovah, who was talking with him," Gideon is now afraid
that he will die, because he has " seen the angel of the Lord
face to face," The fear of death we invariably find resulting
from close contact with the Lord himself, but not from contact
with an inferior angel (vol. i. p. 110). When the fear is taken
away from him, Gideon builds an altar and calls it " Jehovah-
peace." He is assured that Jehovah himself has appeared to him,
and by Jehovah he has been spared.

In chap. xiii. 3^ " the angel of Jehovah" appears to the wife
of Manoah. According to ver. 6, " the woman came and said
to her husband, the man of God (the ideal impersonation of God,
p. 288, in 1 Sam. ii. 27, a man of God) came to me, and
his appearance was as the angel of God, very terrible, and I
asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name."
The woman did not recognise him with absolute certainty, but
his majestic appearance led her to suspect his divine nature,
hence she did not venture to inquire whence he was, but the

THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMEN1. 295

question died upon her lips. Even on the occasion of his
second appearance, the angel of the Lord was not recognised at
first with certainty hy Manoah and his wife, as is expressly
stated in ver. 16. Studer has followed Aharhanel in adducing
this verse, as a proof that the angel of the Lord must have been
an ordinary angel. It is then stated that " the angel of the
Lord said unto Manoah, though thou press me, I will not eat of
thy food, and if thou wilt offer a burnt-offering, offer it unto
the Lord. For Manoah knew not that he was the angel of the
Lord." To the words " offer it to Jehovah," Studer adds, " not
to me, who am merely his messenger and servant ;" and to the
words " Manoah knew not that he was the angel of the Lord,"
he adds, " hence neither a man, who would partake of earthly
food, nor a Gk)d, to whom alone the divine honour of sacrifice is
due." But this explanation has long since been overthrown by
Vitringa in his treatise de angelo sacerdote, ohss. vi. 14. It
would be at variance with the attitude invariably assumed by
the angel of the Lord, for him absolutely to jirohibit the offering
of sacrifice. Vitringa has also overthrown another explanation,
according to which the angel of the Lord makes an express
declaration here as to his divine nature, and intends to say, " if
thou wilt offer a burnt-offering, offer it to the Lord, luJio re-
veals himself in one." According to this interpretation, because
Manoah did not know that it was the angel of the Lord, the
latter had first of all to make this known, and to draw him away
from his human ideas. But as Vitringa observes, " the simple
explanation of the words is this, if thou wilt prepare a holo-
caust, then it will be lawful for thee to offer it to God, or offer it
to God if thou please." The words " for Manoah knew not" do
not refer to the context immediately preceding, hut are intended
. to offer an apology for Manoah, who had made preparations
for a simple meal. The angel of the Lord makes himself known
in ver. 18, by his refusal to tell his name, because it is wonder-
ful. " In the same manner," says Studer, " Jehovah refused to
tell his name to Jacob who was wrestling with him (Gen. xxxii.
29), either because it was too holy to be uttered, or out of con-
sideration for mortal man, who is afraid of death, whenever he
comes into personal contact with the divine being. A name of
infinite glory, wonderful, surpassing the powers of human con-

296 APPENDIX III.

ception, would not befit a created being. What is stated here
of the angel of the Lord is also aiBrmed of Christ in Rev. xix.
12, " he has a name written, which no man knows, but only he
himself." The connection, on the one hand, with this passage,
which points back to the one before us, and on the other hand
with Gen. xxxii. 29, upon which the latter rests, shows that
something more than an inferior angel must certainly be in-
tended. Compare also the word n^s, which is applied to
Christ in Is. ix. 5. The angel of the Lord furnished a proof of
his miraculous nature by the miraculous burning of the sacrifice.
The words riiryS n'Sdd in ver. 19 point back to 'K^a in the
the previous verse, " and Manoah took the kid and the meat-
offering, and placed it upon the rock for the Lord, and he (the
Lord) did toondrously, and Manoah and his wife looked on."
The wondrous deed would not befit a creature. In every ana-
logous case in the Old Testament it is God himself who performs
the miracle. He acted, as Vitringa observes, " just as God was
accustomed to act in similar circumstances during the Old Tes-
tament economy."

It is perfectly obvious that there is nothing whatever in the
three narratives contained in the hook of Judges, which
points to a created angel. On the contrary we find on every
hand exclusive evidence of the divine nattcre of the angel of
Jehovah.

The prophecies of Zechariah are of peculiar importance, in
connection with the doctrine of the angel of the Lord. They
contain in themselves materials amply sufiicient for a correct
settlement of the question. In the very first vision, " the angel
of Jehovah" appears surrounded by a company of inferior angels.
He is represented there, as absolutely exalted far above them all.
They bring their reports to him, as to their king and Lord, and
give him an account of their proceedings.^ The hypothesis of
an ordinary angel completely breaks down here. — The supposi-
tion, again, that the angel of Jehovah is nothing but a form of
manifestation of Jehovah himself, founders on ver. 12, " 0 Lord
of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and
on the cities of Judah." The personal distinction between

1 Ode, de angelis p.1061, " Cum Angeli ministri accurate distinguantur
ab illo Viro, patere potest ilium esse ^rmcipem exercitus Jehovae Jos. v. 14."

THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 297

Jehovah and his angel is very apparent here. The angel of the
Lord addresses the Lord and intercedes with him. — The angel
of the Lord appears in this first vision as the protector of the
covenant people, the mediator between them and Jehovah of
hosts, their intercessor at the throne of grace. This is a dignity-
far too exalted for an ordinary angel. It would be a deep
humiliation to the Church, to bestow it upon such a being as
this. In the New Testament, Christ is represented as invested
with it. He prays for his own (John xvii. 9), appears in the
presence of God for us (Heb. ix. 24), and is the mediator be-
tween God and men (1 Tim. ii. 5). The assumption that the
angel of the Lord is an ordinary angel, leads to the inadmissible
conclusion that the angels and Christ are equal.

In the vision in chap, ii., the surpassing dignity of the angel
of God is manifest in ver. 4, where he speaks to an inferior
angel, as the Lord to his servant. But ver. 8 — 11 are of peculiar
importance. We there read as follows : "for thus saith the
Lord of hosts" (equivalent to " thus I say, as the representative
of the Lord of hosts ;" 31ichaelis, " God the son, who commands
the angelic hosts"), " after the glory" (in other words, " after ye
have been brought to glory"), hath he sent me to the heathen,
who spoil you, for whoso toucheth you toucheth the apple of his
eye." And in ver. 9, " For behold I shake my hand against
them (according to ver. 8, I, the angel of the Lord), and they
become a spoil to those who serve them, and ye perceive that the
Lord of hosts hath sent me. (From what I shall do, ye will
discern the truth of the joyful message, which I bring you then).
In ver. 10 again, " Sing and rejoice, 0 daughter of Zion, for be-
hold I come, and dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord ;"
and in ver. 11. " And many nations shall be joined to the Lord
in that day, and shall be my people, and I will dwell in the
midst of thee, and thou shalt know that Jehovah hath sent me
unto thee." The angel of the Lord attributes to himself in ver.
Sand 9 the judgment of the heathen. In ver 10 and 11 he
foretels his future appearance in the midst of the nation ; the
verbal agreement betwen this passage and the prophecy in chap.
ix. 9, respecting the future king of Zion, is evidently intentional.
The essential unity between the angel of Jehovah and Jehovah
himself, is pointed out in ver. 8, 10, and 11. — In the opimon|of

298 APPENDIX III.

Ewald, Hofmann (Scliriftbeweis i., p. 90), and others, tlie words
in the 8th verse from " after the glory," to " toucheth the apple
of his eye," are to be regarded as a parenthetical address of the
angcel's ; and the words of Jehovah himself follow in ver. 9.
" Between the address of Jehovah in ver. 9, which is introduced
with ' thus saith the Lord/ and that in ver. 10, which is intro-
duced with a n"in» dsj, the angel steps in. The object aimed
at, — namely, to dispose of inconvenient facts, is attained at too
great a cost." Tlie number of the parentheses which the passage
contains, according to this explanation, is very suspicious. '3
in ver. 9 cannot mean " yea," nor can it form the commence-
ment of a fresh address. If we assume that the words in ver.
9 — 11, with the exception of the supposed parenthesis, belong to
the Lord, as contrasted with the angel, the latter is restricted to
the sphere of simple prediction, in opposition to ver. 8, where he
speaks of himself as acting independently, and executing judg-
ment upon the heathen. Moreover, to change the angel of the
Lord into a mere herald, is at variance with the exalted position
which he assumes in ver. 4. By this hypothesis the link between
ver. 10 and 11 is broken. But in that case Jehovah alone is
referred to in the latter, and the king of Zion alone in the
former. Lastly, it is j ust in the case of Zechariah, that we have
the least ground for attempting by forced assumptions, to explain
away such statements, as point to a unity of nature between
Jehovah and his angel. For this is expressly maintained by
him in very many of the clearest passages.

In chap. iii. 1 Joshua stands before the angel of the Lord, to
offer his services and await his commands. Such a servile posi-
tion the High Priest would never assume in relation to an inferior
angel. Like the latter, he is a servant of the Lord (Mai. ii. 7).
In ver. 4 the angel of the Lord appears attended by a company
of angels who are his servants. According to the same verse he
grants to Joshua, and in him to the nation, forgiveness of sins,
as one who has absolute authority, (" and he said to Joshua, I
take away from thee thine iniquity"), and in this respect exer-
cises a divine prerogative, just as Christ himself does in Matt.
ix. 2 — 6. The seraph in Is. vi. 6 merely announces the forgive-
ness of sins, he does not grant it. Lastly, the angel of the Lord
also exercises j udicial authority in the contest between the High

THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 299

Priest and Satan (" he sits as judge in an affair of the greatest
moment, affecting the salvation of his people," Ode). Satan is
obliged to yield unconditionally to his decision. In this judicial
authority the angel of the Lord is a type of Christ, who says in
John V. 22, " the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed
all judgment unto the Son."

In chap. xi. the angel of the Lord appears on the one hand as
personally distinct from the Lord. The Lord addresses him in
ver. 13, and the casting away of the thirty pieces of silver could
not apply to the invisible God. On the other hand, however,
there must be the most intimate connection between Jehovah and
his angel. For in the same verse Jehovah speaks of the miser-
able wages, paid to the angel of the Lord for his services as
shepherd, as the goodly price at which He, the Lord, was prised.
The position here assigned to the angel of the Lord is fixr supe-
rior to that of an ordinary angel. He is represented as having
the fate of the covenant nation completely in his control. It is
by him, and not by any other, that it i^ said to be defended from
outward foes and inward strife (ver. 7), and according to ver.
10 the effect of his rejection is that the nation once more falls a
prey to these two destructive powers. According to ver. 8 he
cuts off the shepherds in one month, deals with the three classes
of shepherds or rulers, existing in the theocracy, as " one having
authority" (Matt. vii. 29, compare xxviii. 18), and deposes them
from their pastoral office, which has its roots in him, and which
they fill merely by virtue of a ijotesfas delegata. Every idea of
an inferior angel is excluded by the announcement of a personal
appearance of the angel of the Lord in the midst of the nation,
to undertake the office of shepherd himself. The angel of the
Lord exhibits himself here as Christ, with whom an ordinary
angel has nothing to do. In the history of Christ, the thirty
pieces of silver are mentioned again. And in John xxi. 15 — 17
Christ represents himself as the subject of this description.

That the angel of the Lord is highly exalted above the ordi-
nary angels is evident from the gradation in chap. xii. 8, " and
the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord be-
fore them." Here we have something more than Elohim, the
ordinary angels on the other hand are only sons of God. Again,
according to this passage, the angel of the Lord is to appear in

300 APPENDIX III.

the Messiah, and to enter into the closest connection with the
house of David, an announcement which could not apply to an
ordinary angel. Reference is here made to such an union of
the divine and human natures, as actually took place in Christ.

In chap. xii. 10 it is said, " they shall look upon me, whom
they have pierced." Jehovah is speaking here, and represents
himself as pierced by Israel, and afterwards mourned for with
bitter lamentation. It cannot, however, be the invisible God as
such, who is pierced. And the fact that, notwithstanding this,
he does refer the piercing to himself, points to an essential unity
as existing between the pierced one, the angel of the Lord in his
capacity of the good shepherd, and the supreme God.

In chap. xiii. 7 the Lord of Sabaoth describes the shepherd,
who is slain by the nation according to his counsel, as the " man
his fellow," and thus exalts him far above the rank of angels
even to that of God ; whilst at the same time he represents him
as personally distinct from himself

In the two prophets of the captivity also, Ezekiel and Daniel,
the angel of the Lord is described as personally distinct from
the invisible God, essentially different from the inferior angels,
and identical with the Logos of John.

In Ezek. ix., the prophet Ezekiel sees six men come to exe-
cute judgment upon apostate Jerusalem, each man with an
instrument of destruction in his hand. In the midst of them
there is one clothed with linen, and with writing materials at his
side. And they come and stand beside the brazen altar, which
has been polluted (see the remarks on Amos ix. 1). The man
clothed in linen, the angel of the Lord (see the proofs in vol. i. p.
358), sets a mark upon the foreheads of the men, that sigh and
that cry for all the abominations that are done in the midst of
the city. His peculiar task is to take care of the elect. At the
same time he also superintends the infliction of punishment, and
the six inferior angels act as his servants (see vol. i. p. 359, and
the commentary on the Rev. vii. 3). Thus the angel of the
Lord manifests himself, as at once the fountain of salvation and
of punishment to the covenant nation. The dress worn by the
angel of the Lord points back to the sacred clothing, worn by
the earthly mediator between God and the nation (Lev. xvi.
4, 23). By this attire the angel of the Lord represents him-

THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 301

self as the heavenly High Priest, just as in Zech. i. 12, the
angel of the Lord appears as the heavenly Mediator, Inter-
cessor, and High Priest. In the appearance of the angel of the
Lord as High Priest, there was a prophetic manifestation of
the high-priestly office of Christ (compare Zech. vi. 9, 10). In
Rev. vii. 2, 3, the sealing is superintended by Christ.

In Daniel the angel of the Lord is introduced under the
name of Michael. (For proof of the identity of Michael and
the angel of the Lord, see the Dissertation of Daniel, p. 135).

Two different views are entertained with reference to Michael.
In the opinion of some, Michael is no other than Christ, or, to
speak more correctly, the Word which was in the beginning with
God, and which from the very first has been the medium of all
his communications to the Church on earth. There are others,
again, who regard him as a created angel, to whom is intrusted
the care of the Church of the Old and New Testament ; or,
according to Hofmanns view (Schriftbeweis i. p. 295, 296),
" the angel who conducted the affairs of Israel," " the angel-
prince who ruled in Israel, as a nation." That the former is the
correct view, we have proved in the commentary on Rev. xii, 7
sqq. But we will strengthen our assertion still further, by
entering into a thorough examination of the passages in Daniel
which bear upon this subject.

Michael is mentioned first in Dan. x. 13, " And the prince of
the kingdom of Persia stood before me one-and-twenty days,
and behold Michael, one of the first princes, came to help me,
and I remained there with the kings of Persia." The reason is
here assigned by Gabriel remaining away so long. In ver, 12,
Gabriel says that he would gladly have come, on the very first
day on which Daniel humbled himself before God. Daniel con-
tinued mourning for twenty-one days ; and it was not till after
this that Gabriel came. That Michael must be the possessor
of superior power and exalted far above the ordinary angels, is
very obvious from this. Gabriel by himself is powerless. Michael
must fii'st come to his help, and set him free, before he can bring
the joyful tidings to Daniel.

On the other hand, however, it appears as though Michael
were called " one of the great princes," to show that he is not
endowed with unequalled nature, dignity, or power. According

302 APPENDIX III.

to this passage it appears impossible, that Michael should be
specifically different from the highest angels. But it is merely
an appearance, though many have been deceived by it ; and
among others Slier, in his commentary on the epistle of Jude.
The " first princes" are not angels, but, as ver. 20 and also the
previous mention of the prince of Persia in the present verse
clearly show, the ideal representatives of the" imperial powers,
" the prince of Persia," " the prince of Greece," &c. We must
not attempt, as Hdvernick has done (to whom Hitzig has given
a very correct reply), to expound away the guardian angels
from these passages ; at the same time they have purely an
ideal, not a real signification. In point of fact the imperial
powers themselves are intended. The actual existing guar-
dian of the covenant nation suggested this purely poetical
description. Nowhere do we find, either in the Old or New
Testaments, any intimation of the existence of guardian angels
of heathen empires. Such an idea as this, is one which does
not admit of being carried out, and is diametrically opposed to
the fundamental doctrines of the Scriptures respecting the rela-
tion in which God stands to the powers of the world. In the
passage itself, however, we have all but an express declaration
of the purely ideal character of the " princes." In the end the
kings of Persia take the place of " the princes of the kingdom
of Persia." Here toe have the real import of the ideal represen-
tation. Until the kingdom of God shall have reached the goal
set before it at the very outset, — namely, world-wide dominion,
Michael its prince will be merely " one of the chief princes.
In the time of Daniel it was a very great thing, to talk even of
equality with the powers of the world. But in due time
Michael will set his foot upon the necks of the other " chief
princes," and will be a king of kings and a lord of lords (Rev.
xix. 16). Just as Michael is ranked among the chief princes
here, so is the Messianic kingdom ranked among the other
monarchies of the world in chap. ii. ; but " it will break in
pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it will staiid for
ever," The absolute superiority of Michael to all the other
powers, which is expressly indicated by the name itself (" who
is as God," equivalent to "as surely as I am God, no one can
contend with me"), is just as little affected by Dan. x. 13 as the

THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAIIENT. 303

absolute superiority of Christ by Is. liii. 12, " therefore will I
give him a share of the many, aud he shall divide the spoil with
the strong," where Christ is first of all ranked, in just the same
manner, along with the powers of the world, by which the
kingdom of God was deeply oppressed at the time when the
prophecy was uttered. We have already given the following
explanation of this announcement, " through Christ and his
sacrificial death, the kingdom of God first enters into the rank
of world-conquering powers."

In vers. 20 and 21 Gabriel says, " and now will I return to
fight with the prince of Persia, and when I go away (have
finished with the Persians), the prince of Greece cometh, . .
and no one helps me against these but Michael your prince."
In Hitzig's opinion " there is a discrepancy between ver. 13 and
ver. 21, since Michael is represented in the latter as on an
equality with Gabriel." By no means. The expression, " your
prince," clearly shows that Gabriel is only a subaltern. " Unde
simul efficitur," says Michaelis, " ut populus Judaicus huic
Michaeli tanquam unico suo patrono summopere sit obstrictus."
To be the prince of the covenant nation is a dignity which could
not be possessed by a created angel, but one by which Michael
was exalted, in harmony with his name, into the sphere of
divinity, and by which he is also identified with Christ, who,
when he appeared in the midst of Israel, came to " his own
possession."

As an argument against the absolute superiority of Michael,
Hofinann (Schriftbeweis i., p. 289) adduces chap. xi. 1 : " there
is none to help him in this contest except Michael, to wlioni
on the other hand he had also been a helper and a fi'otector in
the first year of Darius the Mede." Chap. xi. 1 relates to the
transfer of the government from the Chaldeans to the Persians,
which led to the return of Israel. " As at that time (this is in
general the explanation which Haver nick has correctly given)
the Lord caused the change in the monarchy to conduce to the
good of the covenant-nation, so will he also continue to prove
himself the faithful and merciful God, whatever may occur in
the heathen monarchies to disturb the peace of Israel." Luther,
it is true, has adopted this rendering, " for I also stood by him

304 APPENDIX III.

in the first year of Darius the Mede, to help and to strengthen
him." But it would be much more correct to render it thus :
" and I (under the auspices of Michael your prince) also stood
in the first year of the Mede, that I might assist and strengthen
him, Darius." To refer i^ to Michael is opposed to all that is
said elsewhere with reference to him, and more particularly at
variance with the context immediately preceding (compare, on
the other hand, Hitzig's commentary).

Michael is not mentioned again, after chap. x. 21, until chap,
xii. 1, where it is said, " at that time shall Michael stand, the
great prince, which standeth for the children of thy people."
"The great prince" (equivalent to the King of kings in the
Eevelation), serves as the complement to " one of the chief
princes." The rescue of Israel is here ascribed to Michael alone,
and the subordinate task of Grabriel entirely vanishes. Bertholdt
supplies, in an arbitrary manner, '' against the guardian spirit of
the Gr^eco-Syrian kingdom." Michael has to deal directly with
the imperial power. The personification is dropped, as a proof
that it has no reality.

The two passages in the New Testament, in which Michael is
mentioned, serve to confirm the result already arrived at. That
the Michael referred to in Rev. xii. 7 is no other than the Logos,
has already been proved in my commentary upon that passage.
Eofmann (Schriftbeweis i., p. 296) objects to this explanation,
and says, " in this case it is impossible to imagine why the
Archangel should be mentioned as fighting with the dragon,
and not the child that was caught up to the throne of God."
But we have already replied to this in the commentary, where
we said, " if Michael be Christ, the question arises why Michael
is mentioned here instead of Christ. The answer to this is, that
the name Michael contains in itself an intimation that the work
referred to here, the decisive victory over Satan, belongs to
Christ, not as human, but rather as divine (compare 1 John iii.
8). Moreover, this name forms a connecting link between the
Old Testament and the New. Even in the Old Testament,
Michael is represented as the great prince, who fights on behalf
of the Church (Dan. xii. 1)." The conflict there alluded to
was a prediction and prelude of the one mentioned here. The

THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 305

further objections offered by Hofmann rest upon his very remark-
able interpretation of chap, xii., which is not likely to be adopted
by any who are capable of examining for themselves.^

The second of the New Testament passages is Jude ver. 9,
•'' yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he
disputed about the body of Moses," &c. The attitude of oppo-
sition, in which Michael here stands to Satan, and which answers
so exactly to the relation in which Christ stands to Satan
throughout the whole of the New Testament, is a positive proof
of this (see our commentary on Rev. xii). It might be objected
on the other hand, that Michael is here described as " the
archangel," and that the passage contained in 1 Thess. iv. 16,
" the Lord himself shall descend sv KiXsvaiMZTi, iv ipojv^ a.pyjx.y-
yi\m x«l gv ad^inyyi ^soS, appears to imply that there is a
plurality of such angels. And if this be the case, Michael the
archangel can only be a created being. But the passage rather
tends to prove the opposite, — namely that there is only one
archangel, and that he possesses a divine nature. The apx^^y-
jbXos can hardly be personally different from the x.vpm and
Oew, The ev which recurs three times must have the same
sense throughout. " The xtXBv^fj.a.," as Olshausen observes, "is
Grod's command, and therefore tlie voice must also be His voice."
To this we add, that if the trumpet of God be the trumpet which
God himself blows (compare the original passage in Zech. ix.

14, " the jjord Jehovah will blow the trumpet"), the voice must
also belong to God himself. It is called the voice of an arch-
angel (equivalent to " the voice of God in his capacity of an
archangel," i.e., as the prince of the heavenly hosts. Josh, v.), with
direct allusion to Dan. x. 6, where it is said of Michael, " and
the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude." What is
said of Michael in the book of Daniel, and of the archangel in
the Epistle to the Thessaloniaus, is applied to Jehovah in Ezek.
xliii. 2, " and his (the Lord's) voice was as the voice of many
waters." And what is applied to Michael in Daniel, and to
Jehovah in Ezekiel, is used with reference to Christ in Eev. i.

15, " and his voice as the voice of many waters." It is objected
by J. Koch in his commentary on 1 Thess. iv. 16 that "the

1 See, on the other hand, Auherlen, der Prophet Daniel and die Offcnha-
ruag Jolumnis, p. 407.

VOL. IV. U

306 APPENDIX III.

absence of the article apparently precludes any reference to one
particular archangel." But to this we reply, that the absence
of the article may be explained from the fact, that the apostle is
speaking of the voice of the Lord, in his capacity of archangel,
with direct allusion to Daniel. Moreover, a plurality of arch-
angels is a priori inconceivable, for the Old Testament never
speaks of more than one " prince of the army of Jehovah " (Josh.
5), and the New Testament also speaks of only one, to whom
angels and principalities and powers are subject (1 Pet. iii. 22).

After this description of the actual facts, the decision to he
arrived at, respecting the different views that have been enter-
tained as to the angel of the Lord, cannot long he doubtful.

The views referred to are the following :

1. According to a very widely spread opinion, whenever the
angel of the Lord is mentioned we are to understand, not a person
connected with God by unity of essence, but an inferior angel,
through whom God issues and executes his commands, and who
speaks and acts in his name, or, as Delitzsch expresses it (Com-
mentary on Gen., Ed. 2, p. 331), "It is an angel, whom God
employs as the organ of his own self-attestation." The fact that
divine names, operations, and attributes, are ascribed to these
inferior angels, and that divine honours are paid to them, is
explained on the ground that the angels themselves lost sight alto-
gether of their own personality, and, because they were engaged in
the service of God, spoke and acted in the person of God ; and on
the other hand, that those to whom they were sent, and the sacred
writers themselves rose from the secondary agents to the great
first cause. This view, which appears to have been favoured by
Origen,^ was defended by Augustine with peculiar zeal and skill.^

1 In the 16th homily on Jeremiah (0pp. t. 3. p. 329 ed. Ruaei), he speaks
to this eifect of Ex. iii. : " God then was here beheld in the angel."

2 The most important passage is in his de ^n'm'toe 1. iii. c. 11. " Proinde
ilia omnia, quse patribus visa sunt, cum deus illis secundum suam dispen-
sationem temporibus congruam praesentaretur, per creaturam facta esse,
manifestum est. Et si nos latet, quomodo ea ministris angelis fecerit, per
angelos tamen esse facta non ex nostro sensu dicimus, no cuiquam videamus
plus sapere, sed sapimus ad temperantiam, sicut deus nobis partitus est
mensuram fidei, et credimus, propter quod et loquiinur. Exstat enim
auctoritas divinarum scripturarum etc. (He appeals to Heb. ii. 1, where the law
given by angels is opposed to the gospel proclaimed by the Lord himself.) Sed
ait aliquis : cur ergo scriptum est : dixit dominus ad Moysen, et non potius :
dixit angelus ad Moysen ? Quia cum verba judicis praeco pronuntiat, non

THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 307

Jerome also expresses himself in favour cf the same view.^
(rregory the Great has given it briefly and forcibly in his Mor.
B. xxviii. 1.2 It was afterwards defended by several Jewish
commentators, e.g. Abenezra, who observes on Ex. iii. 2, " pSrs
iD-i» nSr> inVir" (the messenger speaks in the name of the
sender). It was then adopted by many Roman Catholic exposi-
tors, as well as by the Socinians and Arminians.^ And in
modern days, also, it has not lacked defenders. Many rational-
istic writers declared themselves in its favour, e.g. Nater on
Gen xvi. 7 ; Gesenius on Is. Ixiii. 9 ; Br etschne icier, Dogm. i., p.
429— all of whom, however, waver between this hypothesis and
the one to be mentioned under No. 3— and also Bcmmgarten-
Crustus, bibl. Dogm., p. 307. Hofmami, and those who adopt
his views, have modified this hypothesis, by assuming that it is

scribitur in Gestis :ille pi-feco dixit, sed iUe judex, sic etiam loquente pro-
pheta sancto, etsi dicamus propheta dixit, nihil aliud quam domiuum dixisse
mtelhgi volumus. Et si dicamus : Dominus dixit, prophetam non subtrahi-
mus, sed quis per eum dixerit admonemus. . . ' . Sed jam satis quantum
existimo demunstratum est, quod antiquis patribus nostris ante incarna-
tionem balvatons, cum deus apparere dicebatur, voces illte ac species cor-
porales per angelos factae sunt, sive ipsis loquentibus vel agentibus aliquid ex-
persona del, sicut etiam prophetas solere ostendimus ; sive assumentibus
ex creatura, quod ipsi non ossent, ubi deus figurate demonstraretur homini-
bus, quod genus signiHcationum, nee prophetas omisisse, multis exemplis
docet scriptura." — See tract. 3 in Jo. xvii. 18, de civ. dei 16 29

iQuod autcm ait lex ordinata per angelos, hoc vult intelligi, quod in
omniV. 1., ubi angelus immum visas refertur et postea quasi deus loquens
inducitur, angelus quidem vere ex ministris pluribus quicunquc sit visus sed
in illo mediator loquatur, qui dicat : ego sum deus Abraham, deus Isaac, deus
Jaocb. iNec mirum si deus loquatur in angelis, cum etiam per ano-elos qui
in hominibus sunt, loquatur deus in prophetis, dicente Aggeo : et ait° ano'elus
qui loqueljatur in me, ac deinceps inferente : haecdicit dominus omnipotens "
.lerome had before his eyes the passages in Zechariah, chap, i 9 13 14 ii 7
where he renders o nn^n ^s-^an after the example of the Septuagint
(J,x«.>.Zv hlfiu-)^ qui loquebatur in me. See the remarks on Hosea i 2
Vol. 1. p. 192. '

- "Modoangeli, modo dominus vocantur, qui angelorum vocabulo expri-
muntur, qui exterius ministrabant, et appellatione domini ostenditur qui eis
interius prteerat. '

3 See, especially, (yy-o^ms on Ex. XX., and CZe?7Ci^s on Gen. xvi. 13; xviii.
1 ; Ex. XX. 1 ; xxiii. 20 : " Nomen Jehovae si proprie loquamur, non tribu-
itur angehs, sed deo in lis apparenti, quemadmodum nulla ratione instru-
mcnti habita, ei, qui instrumento utitur actio tribui solet. Nee periculum
fuit, ne Israelitae pro deo angclum propterea colerent ; observabatur enim
eorum animia deus deorum, caeli et terrae creator, sen ipse loqueretur seu
per interpretem angelum, nihil intererat, recte ad eum ferebatur eorum
cultus."

308 APPENDIX III.

always one and the same spirit, who speaks and acts in the
name of God.^

The reasons which led to the adoption of this hypothesis were
very various. The Fathers already mentioned believed that it
was rendered necessary by certain passages of the New Testa-
ment. The Roman Catholic writers were actuated by the wish
to secure a biblical foundation for the worship of angels. The
Socinians, like the Jewish commentators before them, were im-
pelled by their dread of the doctrine of the Trinity. The
Arminians were influenced partly by their low estimate of the
worth of the Old Testament, and partly by their secret Socinian
tendencies ; and the rationalists by their dislike of everything
deep, and their antipathy of the doctrine of the Trinity, which
could not be true, unless the way had been prepared for it from
the very first commencement of revelation, and the truth of
Avhich would be rendered a priori more probable, if this could be
proved to have been the case.

2. The view expressed by Herder (Hebr. Pa3sie, ii. 47), that
by the angel of the Lord we are to understand some natural
phenomenon or visible sign, by which Jehovah made his presence
known, may at once be pronounced untenable. He refers to the
fiery bush in Ex. iii., and the pillar of cloud in the march through
the desert, as cases in point. But it is very obvious that, in the
majority of passages in which the angel of the Lord is mentioned,
this hypothesis is utterly unsuitable. In Gen. xxi. and xxii.,
for example, the voice of the angel of God is heard from heaven
without any visible sign. In the only two cases in which there
is a visible sign, the angel of God is expressly distinguished
from the " natural phenomenon." Thus in Ex. iii. 2 it is said,
" the angel of Jehovah appeared to him in a flame of fire out of
the thorn-bush," and in ver. 4, " the angel of Jehovah called to
him out of the thorn-bush ;" whereas, according to Herders
hypothesis, it should read, " Jehovah appeared to him, and
Jehovah called to him." In chap. xiv. 19 it is first of all stated

1 Weissagung und Erfullung, i. p. 130 : " Between Israel and the eternal
God there stands a finite spirit, to act the part of a mediator," and p. 131,
"From the first book of the sacred Scriptures to th« very last Tve find one
and the same finite spirit maintaining that peculiar relation, in which the
Almighty stood to one family and nation, to Ahraham and Israel."

THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 309

that the angel of God went behind the Israelites, and then that
the pillar of cloud did the same.

3. Others imagine the angel of Jehovah to have been, not a
person distinct from Jehovah, but merely a form in which
Jehovah himself appeared. This opinion is expressed by Sack
(commentationes Uieol.^ Bonn, xxi., p. 19), who would render
-55*^0 a mission, rather than one sent (see, on the other hand,
his own Apohgetik, p. 307) ; and also by Piistkuchen (Unter-
suchung der bibl. Urgeschichte, Halle xxiii. p. 61), who main-
tains that the angel of the Lord corresponds, in every instance,
to the Greek Tlieophcmia. Bosenmiiller also speaks to the same
effect in his commentary on Gen. xvi. 7 ; " that visible symbol,'
he calls it, *' by which God showed himself to men." At the
same time he is not consistent with himself. In his remarks on
Zech. iii. 2, for instance, he says, " the messenger is called by
the name of his principal." Gesenius, who is equally wavering,
says in the thesaurus, p. 736, " the angel of God is nothing
else than that secret and invisible deity, which now became
manifested to the eyes of mortals." De Wetfe, again, in his
Dogmatik i. § 108, says, " the angels are personifications of
natural forces, or of the extraordinary works and ordinances of
God ; hence ' the angel of Jehovah,' as havihg nothing personal
in himself, is interchanged with Jehovah or Eloliim." We have
■^ already brought forward the passages which overthrow this
hypothesis. Josh. v. 13 and Zech. i. are amply sufficient to set
it aside. It founders on the declarations of Zechariah and
Daniel, who expressly affirm the personal identity of the angel
of the liOrd and the Jilessiah. What seems to favour it at the
first glance, may be explained by the simple remark tliat under
the Old Testament economy the strong pressure of polytheism
rendered it necessary that the em[)hasis should, first of all, be
laid chiefly upon the unity of the divine nature, and that in the
wisdom of God the distinction between the sender and the sent
was kept in greater obscurity, and the truth respecting the dif-
ferent persons in the Godhead only exhibited in the germ.

4. That the angel of the Lord is the Logos of John, who is
connected with the supreme God by unity of nature, but personally
distinct from him, was, if we except the Fathers mentioned above,
the universal doctrine of the early Church, The Fathers of the

310 APPENDIX III.

first Synod in Antioch, in a letter sent to Paul of Samosata before
his deposition (Colet. cone. coll. Venet. i, p. 866, 70), affirm
that " the angel of the father, being himself Lord and God
fxEyixXYis ^ovXr,s ayy^'Kos, appeared to Abraham and to Jacob, and
to Moses in the burning bush." Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue
ivitli Tryplion, § 59 — 61, proves that Christ spoke to Moses
out of the thorn-bush, and says that he is called the angel of the

Lord, EK rov SjayysXXsjv rois a.vQpai'Tiois xa. Trapoi rov 'Ka.rpos xal

TToiTiTou Tuiv 0.71 d-^r CUV. '^ See, further, Constitutt. Apost. v. 20
b., Coteler. i. p. 325 ; Irenceus, c. hceres. iv. 7, § 4 ; Theojpliilus,
ii. 31; Clemens Alex., Peed. i. 7; Tertullian, c. Prax. c. 16;
Cyprian, c. Jud. ii. 6 ; Hilary, de trin. iv. § 32 ; Eusebius,
demonstr. evang. v. 10 sqq, ; Cyril, Hieros. p. 322, ed. Ox. ;
Chrysostom, horn. 48 in Gen. ; Amhrosius, de fide ad Grat. opp.
t. ii. p. 460. Theodoret says (interr. 5 in Ex. opp., t. i. ed.
Hal. p. 121, on Ex. iii. 2), xal oXqm Se rb '/upiov ^si)tvu(H 9&0V ovTd
Tov oipQivToc )t£KXr/)t5 ^£ auTov Kou ayyeXov' "vac yvuiixcv us o 6(p68is'
ovif. srjTiv 0 Seor xa.1 Tracrvip, aXX' 6 /Aovoycvrir ulos, h (/.syakfis ^ouXris
ayy sXos.^

We will now proceed to point out certain general grounds,
which favour the conclusion that the angel of the Lord is the
Logos, in addition to the argument which we have aheady
drawn from the separate passages of the Old Testament ; and to
reply to all those who adopt a different hypothesis.

1. The testimony of the New Testament is of the utmost im-
portance. This is given in many different ways. The most
direct is Heb. iii. 1, " wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the
heavenly callihg, consider the apostle and High Priest of our
profession (Christ) Jesus." " There is something very remark-

^ Compare Apol. i. C. 63. 'lov^aioi oSv Yi'yn(ra,[/,t)K>t au roy ■Tra.ri^a. raJv l'Xa>»
kiXaXtixitcci tS 'iAu(ru, rov Xa'Krura.i'roi aurtu ovro; viov rov 6iov, o; xai ayyiXos xai
a.'JtoaroXoi xixXtiTcei, '^ixa.'tui; ixiy^ovTOii xai S/a vou 7r^o(pnrt»av -Trtivf/.a.ro;, xa) oi' aurov
rov Aoifrov, u; ovn t6v 'TTanpoc euri rov vio> lyvurav. . . . xai •v^ort^Of oia rrn
rov Tv^o; fio^ipHs xa) tixovos ao'u/x.arov ra) TAouffU xa.) roi; tri^oi; ^^txpmrais 5ipav»' vuv
y 'iv ;t;{0»«'5 T?f i)/iiri^as a^^ris, us KT^ouTe/jLiv, oia Ta^^ivov avfipu^o; yivo//,ivos xark
Tfit rov 9rar^o; fiovxhv iiTfip ffcarri^ia; ruti Triffrivovruv avru xa) i^ovSivnSnvai xa) ora^ii*
iirifitiviv.

2 See the collection of passages from the Fathers, maintaining the identity
of the angel of the Lord and the Logos, in Keil's Opusc. acad., p. 303, and
in Ode de angelis.

THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 311

able," says Bleek, " in the application of the term a^roTToXoy to
Christ." It is the more striking, from the fact that, when the
author wrote, the word apostle had already acquired the force of
a proper name. The most natural course, therefore, would have
been to avoid the appearance of placing Christ upon a par with
the apostles. There can be no doubt, however, that the expres-
sion is used for the purpose of pointing out the identity of Christ
with the angel of Jehovah under the Old Testament (Bengel :
" legjatum del patris" ), and is thus a kind of proper noun. It
is only on this supposition that it has any bearing upon the
exalted dignity which the context necessarily requires. 'A^roff-
ToXov is followed by a.px^ipix. And so also there are passages
of the Old Testament (Ezek. ix. and Zech. i. 12^), in which the
angel of the Lord is represented as " High Priest."

This passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews is closely con-
nected with other passages in the New Testament, in which
Christ is spoken of as sent by God {aito'^riWcj is the word com-
monly employed, and on some occasions nsfxTtoj). These pas-
sages are too numerous to be regarded as accidental. There is
the less room for such a supposition, from the fact that the fre-
quent use of the expression is apparent solely in the discourses
of Christ and in the writings of John, who has moulded his style,
far more than the others, after the model of his Master, and in
whose writings the independent use of these terms goes hand in
hand with the fact, that he inserts them more frequently than
the other Evangelists in the sayings of Christ. The explana-
tion of the latter circumstance is, that he paid peculiar attention
to the deeper significance of these terms ; and the same reason
necessarily led to his own frequent use of them. As the expres-
sion " Son of man," which the Saviour applied to himself, always
points to Daniel, so do these expressions invariably contain an
allusion to the personal identity of Christ and the Old Testament
angel or messenger (Gesandte, one sent) of the Lord. This is
all the more obvious, from the fact that it is a customary thing
with John to introduce nice and obscure allusions to the Old
Testament, and that in this respect he differs widely from Mat-
thew, who prefers what is obvious and lies upon the surface.
Compare Matt. x. 40, " he that receiveth me receiveth him that
1 See the remarks on these passages.

312 APPENDIX III,

sent me" (t6v dTroarslXavrd /xe) : i.e., "he that receiveth you,
my apostles, receiveth me, and he that receiveth me, the ^»^c
ni'i', receiveth the Lord himself." Again, chap. xv. 24, ouy.
aTTiaTakriv, "I am not sent;" and chap xxi. 37. Also, Luke
iv. 43, " I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also,
for therefore am I sent" (d'jriaTaXfxat). And in addition to the
passages already quoted from John in vol. i. p. 42, compare
chap. iii. 17, " for God sent not {ov ydp aiciuTHX^v) his Son
into the world to condemn the world ;" ver. 34, " for he whom
God hath sent (dTriarsiXsv), speaketh the words of God ;" chap.
V. 3G, 37, " the works that I do bear witness of me, that the
Father hath sent me (xTrifjrakyts), and the Father himself, which
hath sent me (o TriiJ^-^as fxs) hath borne witness of me : " ver. 38,
" and ye have not his word abiding in you, for whom he hath
sent (aTTHCTTsiXsv), him ye believe not ;" chap. vi. 29, 57, and vii.
28, " he that sent me (6 ■7r£>-4/as- pts) is true, whom ye know not ; "
ver. 29, " I know him, for I am from him, and he hath se7it me"
(aTTs'iTTEiXe) ; chap. viii. 42, " if God were your father ye would love
me, for I proceeded forth and came from God, neither came I of
myself, but he sent me " (d'TtBaniXs) ; chap. x. 36, xi. 42, xvii. 3, 8,
18, 21, 23, 25, XX. 21 : " then said Jesus to them again, Peace be
unto you, as my Father hath sent me (aTrsVraXjcs), even so send
(tte/xtto;) I you ; " 1 John iv. 9, 10, " in this was manifested the
love of God toward us, because that God sent (d.'nl'jra'kKiv) his
only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and
sent (airsVTsjXg) his Son to be the propitiation for our sins ; " ver.
14, " the Father (a-^rlffraXxs) Jmth sent the son to be the Saviour
of the world."

In John xii. 41, again, we read, "these things said Esaias,
when he saw his (Christ's) glory, and spake of him." According
to Is. vi. Isaiah saw the glory of Jehovah. But if it be main-
tained that the angel of Jehovah is an ordinary angel, and is not
in any way connected with Christ, the link between Jehovah
and Christ is broken. It is perfectly obvious, however, that John
does not assert the identity of Jehovah and Christ on his own
authority, but stands upon such firm and clear scriptural ground
that he is under no necessity of entering into discussions. De-
litz&ch objects (p. 355), that Isaiah did not see the glory of the

THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 313

angel of Jehovah, but the glory of Jehovah himself, and that,
notwithstanding this, John speaks of him as seeing the glory of
Jesus. But we have already observed (vol. i., p. Ill, 114), that
the passages in which the angel of Jehovah is mentioned prove,
that in every case, in which appearances of Jehovah are referred
to, these appearances are to be understood as occurring through
the medium of his angel, even where this is not expressly stated.

John speaks of himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved
(chap xiii. 23 ; xix. 26 ; xx. 2 ; xxi. 7, 20). That this ex--
pression takes the place of a proper name is evident, not only
from the frequency with which it is employed, but also from the
tact that it is used in cases, in which there is no immediate re-
ference to the love of Jesus to the apostle. It is obviously a
paraphrase of the name John. The actual meaning of this name
is " whom Jehovah loves " and in the love of Jesus John beheld
a fulfilment of the pious wish, which dictated the name.

In chap. i. 11 John sets out with th« view, that Christ was the
angel of the Lord who had come in the flesh. He says Christ
came sU rx I'^ia, and the I'^joj did not receive him. If we sup-
pose the angel of the Lord to have been an ordinary angel, there
is no foundation for this expression. The Israelites are described
in the Old Testament as the people and inheritance of Jehovah
(Ex. iv. 22, 23, and 2 Sam. vii. 24, " and thou preparedst for
thyself thine Israel as a people for ever, and thou didst become
their God"), and of his angel, through whom all his intercourse
with his people was carried on. Compare Ex. iii. 2 (" and the
angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire"), and ver. 7
(" and the Lord said, I have surely seen the afiliction of my
people which are in Egypt"). In Mai. iii. 1, again, the temple
is spoken of as belonging to the Lord and his covenant angel.

Not John alone but the other " pillars" in the apostolic office
start with the assumption, that Christ is the self-revealing
Jehovah of the Old Testament, and thus confirm the view that
has been maintained by the Church respecting the angel of the
Lord. According to 1 Pet. i. 11, " the prophets searched what,
or what manner of time the spirit of Christ which was in them
did signify." But the prophets ascribe their revelations to the
spirit of Jeliovah. How, then, came Peter to substitute Christ
so directly for Jehovah, unless he found a warrant for this in

314 APPENDIX III.

the Old Testament doctrine of the angel of the Lord ? That
the latter is always implied when the prophets speak of Jehovah,
is apparent from Judges v. 23, where Deborah expressly refers to
the angel of .Jehovah a prophetic revelation, which she had
received in a purely internal manner. In 1 Cor. x. 4, Paul says :
" and did all drink the same spiritual drink ; for they drank of
the spiritual rock that followed them ; and the rock was Christ."
Here, then, we have what Delitzsch felt to be wanting in John
xii. 41. The preservation of the people during their march
through the wilderness, and their admission into Canaan, is ex-
pressly ascribed in the Old Testament to the angel of the Lord.
Compare 'KSm. xxiii. 20, 21, "behold I send an angel before thee,
to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which
I have prepared. Take heed to him, and obey his voice, rebel
not againt him, for he will not pardon your transgressions, /or
7ni/ name is in him," (vol. i. p. 118) ; also Is. Ixiii. 8, 9, " the
angel of his presence saved them." According to 1 Cor. x. 9 —
(" neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and
were destroyed of serpents"), — Christ was the leader of Israel
through the desert, and was tempted by them. In Num. xxi.
5 — 7 they are said to have tempted Jehovah, who is represented
in Exodus as leading them in the person of his angel. The
reading x-upiov, which Lachmann has adopted, is evidently trace-
able to short-sightedness. According to Heb. xi. 26, Moses
esteemed the reproach which he endured for Christ's sake (tov
av£t^t/T/Aov rov Xpiarov) greater riches than the treasures of
Egypt. But according to the Mosaic account, he made all his
sacrifices in the service of Jehovah and his angel.

In John V. 37, when Christ is telling the Jews that they will
lose God if they reject him, he says, " ye have neither heard his
voice at any time, nor seen his shape." It is inconceivable that
Christ should have spoken in this manner with the giving of
the law at Sinai before him, as well as Is. vi. and other passages
in which Jehovah appears and speaks, except on the assumption
that whenever manifestations of Jehovah are mentioned in the
Old Testament, they always take place through the medium of
his angel, who is connected with him by unity of nature, and
who came in the flesh in Christ. That the remarks of Ode are
correct, to the effect that ' ' it was he himself who had formerly

THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 315

spoken to the patriarchs, and had appeared in the form of the
angel," cannot for a moment be doubted, especially as there is
an allusion both before and afterwards to the personal identity
of Christ and the angel of the Lord in the manner already indi-
cated,— viz., ver. 36, " the Father hath sent me," ver. 38, " foi-,
whom He hath sent, him ye believe not." the same may also
be said of the expression in John i. 18, " no man hath seen God
at any time ; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the
Father, he hath declared him." That no one has ever seen
God must be an assertion entirely without foundation, and alto-
gether at variance with history, unless we recognise a divine
mediator in the angel of the Lord. For, otherwise, such passages
as speak of appearances and utterances on the part of Jehovah,
have no connection whatever with those which mention the angel
of the Lord. And so, again, when Christ tells the Jews in John
viii. 28, that from not knowing Him, they do not know God, and
by rejecting him they cut themselves off from any participation
in God, light is thrown upon his words by the distinction, already
made in the Old Testament, between the unseen God and his
revealer, who is the medium of all api^roach to Him.

That the words of Christ in John viii. 56 assume the identity
of Christ and the angel of the Lord, has already been pointed
out in vol. i., p. 40.

In Col. i. 15, Christ is described as " the image of the invisible

God," and in Heb. i. 3, as i.Tiavyacy.oi. rris ^o^ris Ka.1 y^a.pQcxrr.p

rris imoard-ascds rov 9eov (" the brightness of his glory and the
express image of his person"). Further investigation will show,
that in these passages, expressions which were current among the
Jews in connection with the Metatron or angel of the Lord, are
transferred to Christ. There is something strange in the passages
themselves. One cannot but feel throughout that they do not
enunciate the doctrine in question for the first time, but point
to something already in existence, and ultimately to the Old
Testament, which alone could possibly afford a pledge of cer-
tainty. It is only so far as the expressions themselves are con-
cerned, that they are in any way connected with the Jewish theology
of the time. Bcihr has correctly remarked that " the idea of a
revealer of the deity was to them one of the primary truths of
religion, which they expressed in language current at the time."

316 APPENDIX III.

The same remarks apply to the doctrine of John respecting the
Logos. The manner in which John treats of the Logos shows
very clearly, that his intention is not to make known this doc-
trine for the first time, but simply to show the relation in which
Clirist stands to the doctrine alluded to. The very name Logos
was not originally a term peculiar to John, and does not occur
at all among the terms which he ordinarily employs. That there
must be some connection between the Logos of Philo and the
Logos of John is a thought which immediately suggests itself,
and the attempt to do away with this connection has been alto-
gether futile. And, beside this, the correspondence between the
Logos and the angel of the Lord, which strikes any one at the
first glance, would be very remarkable if it were merely elicited
by exegesis. — Whenever Jesus speaks of having lived before man
or before the world, he assumes the existence of the doctrine of
the angel of the Lord, in the form maintained by the Church.
There would, otherwise, have been no link of connection whatever
between these doctrines and the minds of the hearers. What
was new was simply the personal application.

Lastly, the angel of the Lord, whom we meet with constantly
throughout the whole of the Old Testament, disappears entirely
from the New. — ^We will not confine ourselves to the name, but
look also at the facts of the case. An angel, who usually speaks
in the name of Jehovah, and is represented as the guardian of
the Church, has completely disappeared (the passage in Eev.
xxii. 7, where an angel speaks in the name of Christ, stands
quite alone in the whole of the New Testament), unless he is to
be found in Christ. With the Church's view of the Maleach
Jehovah the enigma is solved, and the connection between the
two Testaments, as well as their perfect harmony, brought into
the clearest light.

With these distinct and manifold confirmations, which the
orthodox view receives from the New Testament, the few plau-
sible arguments, by which the attempt has been made to prove
that the New Testament regards the " angel of Jehovah," re-
ferred to in the Old, as merely an ordinary angel, are deprived
of all their force.

Delitzsch observes (p. 334), "Wherever ayyikos xupiov (the
Greek rendering of ^ih' 1«^o), is mentioned in the New

THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 317

Testament, wliether he be called a-yyiXos xvpiov or o ay-yeXof
xupiou, confessedly a created angel is intended." But as we
have already shown, o ayyeXoi n-upiou (the angel of the Lord)
and not uyyeXos Kuplov (an angel of the Lord) corresponds
to nvT "|nSd ; and the former is never found, except in
cases in which the angel has been mentioned before. Matt, i.
24, for example, " he did as the angel of the Lord (o xyysXos
Kvplov) had bidden him," is very instructive in this respect, when
compared w4th ver. 20, " behold an angel of the Lord (ayysXof
xupiov) appeared unto him in a dream ;" also Luke i. 11, " there
appeared unto him an angel of the Lord" (xyyeXos xvpiov,) when
compared with ver. 13, " but tJie angel (h ccyy^Xos) said unto
him." Compare also Matt, xxviii. 2, with ver. 5, and Acts xii.
7 with ver. 8. But if the case had been different, if o xyyeXoi
Kupiou (the angel of the Lord) were used in any instance en-
tirely by itself, with reference to an ordinary angel, this would
prove nothing. We have already admitted that n"in< -jnSd
does not of necessity denote the Logos, but that there are pas-
sages in which the angel may possibly be regarded as an ideal
person. And o IxyyiXos nupiou would in such cases have to be
explained in the same way. The proof that in a considerable
number of passages in the Old Testament the angel of the Lord
can only be the Logos, we have already found in the fact that
this term, which points to a person exalted infinitely above the
angels, is applied to the angel who speaks and acts in the name
and person of God. It would be necessary therefore to point out
the same fact, in connection with those passages (if any existed),
in which o xyy eXos Kupiov occurred,

" But," continues Delitzsch, " the New Testament furnishes
still more direct testimony against the divine nature of the Old
Testament '"iin* -jnSc. In Acts vii. 30, Stephen calls the
angel of Jehovah, who appeared to Moses in the burning bush,
oLyyiXos y.vp'iov" — In the Original passage, Ex. iii. 2, it is stated
that " the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire
out of the thorn-bush." In Acts vii. 30, " There appeared to
him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai a-yy^Xos Kvplov in a flame of
fire in a bush." Thus in the Acts of the Apostles we find first of
all a general term. But this proves nothing. The angel is also

318 APPENDIX III.

an angel. And it is evident from what follows immediately
afterwards that it is not an ordinary angel that is intended. In
ver. 31, we read of " the voice of the Lord" and in ver. 32, " I
am the God of thy fathers," &c. On ver. 30, Bengel observes,
" The Son of God (see following verses) : at first Moses did not
know who it was, but immediately afterwards he recognised Him
from the voice."

" Again," says Delitzsch, p. 335, " the angel, of whom he says
in ver. 38 that he spake to Moses in Sinai, cannot have been
regarded by him as a divine being, for in ver. 53 he says, ' who
have received the law by the disposition of angels (sis- Siarayas^
ayyg'Xwv)' ; and with this Paul agrees in Gal. iii. 19 and Heb.
ii. 2." — In Acts vii. 38 we read, " this is he that was in the
church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in
the Mount Sinai, and spake with our fathers, who received the
lively oracles to give unto us." Moses is placed between the
angel and the congregation, in connection with the giving of the
law. Bengel correctly observes, that " Stephen does not say
with the angels, but with the angel of the covenant ;" compare
Mai. iii. 1. In the original account there is no allusion to an
angel at all. Moses converses with Jehovah. But the angel is
understood as a matter of course, since all the revelations of
Jehovah are made through him. Moreover there is in Mai. iii.
1, a distinct scriptural authority, for the intervention of a Medi-
ator on this occasion. And, on the other hand, Stephen would
never have ventured to supply the mediation of an angel on his
own authority merely. Let any one read Ex. xix. and -see for
himself, whether the scene is one befitting an ordinary angel.
And even ver. 53 (" who received the law by the disposition of
angels") does not favour such a hypothesis ; (compare Gal. iii.
19, where the law is called ^jarayslj li dyysXojv.) Again, if an
ordinary angel were intended in ver. 38, the expression in ver.
53 would be directly contradictory. In the one case we have an
angel (only one can be regarded as speaking rov XocXovvtos
avra> ;) in the other, on the contrary, we have a plurality of
angels. But the case is entirely difierent, if the angel of the
Lord is alluded to there. He is usually attended by a retinue
of inferior angels,^ and so far as Sinai is concerned, the presence

THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 319

of such a retinue is expressly attested in such passages. Deut.
xxxiii. 2, "he comes with myriads of holy ones ; ver. 3, "all his
holy ones are in thy hand {i.e., serve thee, 0 Israel) ;" and Ps.
Ixviii. 17, " the chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thou-
sands of thousands, the Lord is among them, Sinai in the sanc-
tuary." " The chariots are attended by hosts of angels. In the
midst of them is the Lord, as formerly on Sinai. The one thing,
which is common to Zion and Sinai, is the presence of the Lord
in the midst of the numerous hosts of his angels." In ver. 38
the angel of the Lord occupies just the same place as Jehovah
in Ex. xix. The angels in ver. 53 and Gal. iii. 19 are taken from
Deut. xxxiii. In the latter passage, however, the angels are
not mentioned m the place of the Lord, but the Lord comes
attended by them.

The only passage in the New Testament, which presents a
difficulty at first sight, is Heb. ii. 2, 3, where the law is appa-
rently placed below the gospel, on account of the latter being
" spoken by the Lord," whereas the former was merely " spoken
by angels." But it cannot have been the author's intention to
ascribe the giving of the law, the most glorious work of the Old
Testament, to merely inferior angels, without any direct partici-
pation on the part of the Lord and his revealer, in direct
opposition to the Old Testament ; for in chap. xii. 2G he distinctly
affirms that " the voice of the Lord shook the earth at the giving
of the law." The only ground, therefore, upon which he can
possibly intend to exalt the gosj^el above the law, is that the
revelation of the Lord as ^''^'' l^'^i^, was not so perfect as in
his incarnation, and for this very reason there is a certain sense
in which we must make a distinction between the angel of the
Lord and the Son of God, instead of saying directly, as the
Fathers and most of the early theologians do, that " the angel of
the Lord is identical with the Son."^

There is the less ground for astonishment at finding in

1 Compare Sohar fol. 96 ed. Solisbac. (Edzardi tract. Talm. Borachoth. p.
227), " quando divina majestas habitat circa hominem, turn innumeri alii
exercituy sancti adsunt ibisimul."

2 Compare the remark of Grofius on Ex. 20, " errant graviter, qui hie per
angclum intelligunt secundam dei hypostasin. Variis enim multiplicibusque
modia deus locutus est patribus ; at per filium ultimis demum temporibus."

320 APPENDIX III.

the Old Testament the doctrine of a revealer of God, who is
equal to God, and yet distinct from him, a mediator between
God and the world, and we have the less excuse for attempting
to remove the traces of this doctrine in a forcible manner, from
the fact that there are echoes of the same doctrine to be found
elsewhere. We will confine ourselves to the Persians, since the
resemblance to the biblical doctrine is most apparent in their
case. Tlie religious books of the Persians make a distinction
between Zervane Akerene, the unseen God and source of all
things,^ and Ormuzd the first of the Amshaspands (" the angel-
prince of Jehovah"), who is the creator cf all things, possessed of
majesty equal to that of God, the mediator of all intercourse
between God and the world, and from whom Zoroaster received
all his revelations. Compare Bhode, die heilige Sage des Zend-
volkes p. 317, where he says, " Ormuzd, this first of the Am-
shaspands, and this Being swallowed up in glory, appears
under two aspects in the Zend writings. On the one hand
as a creature (?), possessed of a body and nerves, and pro-
duced by Zervane Akerene like the rest of the Amshas-
pands. He belongs to the x\mshaspands, and, though the first
and greatest, is himseif an Amshaspand. But on the other
hand, he is also represented as the almighty creator of the heaven
and the earth, as the creator and God of the six other Amshas-
pands, above whom he is infinitely exalted." According to
Schlottmann (on Job i. p. 88) Zervane Akerene represents ' ' the
Deity in his absolute character, as distinguished from the God
who reveals himself in time, and who is not created, by the
former, but contained within him." How is it possible to
overlook the resemblance between the angel of the Lord, or
Michael, and Ormuzd, as here described?^ This agreement

1 According to Rotli (Etymologisches zum Avesta Zeitschrift der D. Mor-
genl. Gesellschaft vol. 6 p. 247) Zarvan Akarana means time, which has no
limits, and knows no end.

2 Whilst this resemblance serves on the one hand as a refutation of those
views respecting the angel of the Lord, which deviate from the doctrine held
hj the Church, on the other hand it is opposed to the assertion made by
Baur (das Manichaische Religions-system p. 11, 12), J. Miiller, Spiegel (Zeit-
schrift der D. Morgenl. Gesellsch. vol. v. p. 225), hoth (Anzeige von Roths Ges-
chichte unserer abendldndischen Fhilosophie in Fichtes Zeitschr. 47), that
Zervane Akerene in the Persian religion is by no means an actual being,
in the same sense as Ormuzd and Ahriman, that instead of possessing a na-
ture superior to Ormuzd, he is simply an attribute of Ormuzd. It would be

THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 321

cannot be traced, as it has been by many (among the last
by Schlottmann) to the common dependence of both the Old
Testament and Persian doctrines upon some primary reve-
lation. This view, as well as the notion, which was current for
a long time (see J. A. L. Ricliter and others), that the religion
of the Old Testament was to a considerable extent derived from
Parseeism, has become antiquated in consequence of the progress
of science in modern times. The birth of Zoroaster himself is
now assigned by not a few learned men to a comparatively recent
date. Stuhr i^ays (p. 354), "the most distinct historical marks
may be discerned, which justify us in maintaining that Zerduscht
and his religious teaching belong to the period of Darius."
According to Moth (Geschichte unserer Ahendlundischen Philo-
sophie i. p. 350 sqq.), Zoroaster lived under the father of Darius ;
according to Kruyer (in the Geschichte der Assyrier 7md Iranier,
which deserves but little confidence), eleven years after the
destruction of Jerusalem. And even though others, such as
Spiegel, for example (Avesta die heiligen Schriften der Parsen,
vol. i. p. 44), place Zoroaster in the prte-historical times, all are
agreed that the religious hooks of the Persians belong to a very
recejit date. Stuhr, after having endeavoured to prove that the
Zendavesta is a comparatively recent work, says p. 342), " even
Biirnouf {le Ya^na, p. 351) does not manifest any disinclination
to assign the composition of the Zendavesta to a period in which
the fire-worship had ceased to exist in Iran in its original purity."
Spiegel (Avesta, p. 13) says, " in the writings of the Avesta,
which have been received by us, it is evident that very little is

a very remarkable thing, if the striking agreement should have arisen from
mistaken views, on the one hand, respecting the angel of the Lord, and on the
other respecting Zervane Akerene, and especially if these mistakes had arisen
altogether independently of each other. The passages, taken from a modern
Parsee catechism, to which Spiegel, who follows Miiller, has appealed as
favouring his views, and also " the express testimony of the Persians of our
own day " (p. 220), are more recent paraphrases, in which there is a reaction
of the original Parseeism against the interpolated element. They are not
even sufficient to counterbalance the testimony of TJieodore of Mo2)suestia.
The realistic view has the greatest pretensions to originality. And as a rule,
the idealistic views are later paraphrases. Scldottmann' s defence of the
earlier view respecting Zervane Akerene, which is strongly supported by its
agreement with the Jewish theology, from which in all probability the Per-
sian doctrine was originally derived, has not been weakened by Spiegel, and
this defence might even be rendered considerably stronger.

VOL, IV. X

322 APPENDIX III.

traceable to Zarathustra himself, perhaps nothing at all ; the
greater part has been composed by various, and generally recent,
authors ;" and again in p. 54, " the evidence brought to establish
the authorship of Zarathustra cannot possibly be sustained."
[n addition to the recent date of the Zend books, the evident
tendency of the Persians to syncretism and to the adoption of
anything foreign mast also be taken into consideration, Hero-
dotus (i. 135) speaks of the Persians as being particularly fond

of adopting foreign customs, " ismxai ^s wiMaia. na'prai 7r/)0T-

jEvraj avlpaiM fxotXiryra." Ammianus MarcelUnus (xxiii. 6) re-
presents Zoroaster as transferring many of the mysteries of the
Chaldeans into his religion. x\rabic writers (quoted in Pri-
deaux) say that he was instructed by one of the pupils of
Jeremiah. Modern investigations have thrown the clearest
light upon this eclectic character of the Persian religion. " In
former ages," says Studer, p. 344, " a confusing and confused
eclecticism had everywhere gained the upper hand." And with
reference to the influence of JeioisJi doctrines he also observes,
p. 374, " among the Persians there was nothing whatever to
prevent ethical principles, which had been matured in the his-
torical development of the worship of Jehovah, from being trans-
ferred into the forms already prepared in this nature-and-spirit-
worship." Spiegel (A vesta p. 11) remarks, " in this historical
age the Persians certainly borrowed a great deal from their more
cultivated Semitic neighbours." In p. 270 he lays down the
rule that " if we find any views expressed in the later books,
which contradict, in so many words, those of the earlier, we need
not hesitate to pronounce them of later origin, and if they clearly
resemble anything foreign, in the majority of cases ive may
assume that they are horrowed." Kruger, who imagines Zoro-
aster to have been " a younger contemporary of Jeremiah,"
detects the influence of Judaism in the doctrine respecting the
first parents and their fall. And thus, after a long period during
which the connection was inverted and the borrowing was attri-
buted with the greatest confidence to the Jews, the state of the
case, in all essential points, is exactly what it was about two
hundred years ago. The learned and sober Prideaux (Old and
New Testament) supposes Zoroaster to have lived under Darius
Hystaspes. He also maintains that he borrowed to a consider-

THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 323

able extent from the Old Testament, and draws a parallel
between him and Mohammed, " from this," he says, " it is suffi-
ciently obvious that the founder of this doctrine was well versed
in the sacred writings of the Jews, from which the whole seems
clearly to have been taken, and that the cunning deceiver reduced
it into the shape, that corresponded best to the ancient religion
of the Medes and Persians, upon which he propped it." Hyde,
whose researches are of the most thorough description, in his
work veterum Persarum religio, c. 10, affirms that " the religion
of the Persians coincided in many respects with that of the Jews,
and to a great extent was taken from it," and at p. 176 he writes,
" in genere autem innuam, quod ex lege Mosaica eis plurima
suggessit eorum propheta Zerduscht, quern in ilia satis versatum
fuisse constat."

In the case of the doctrine of Zervane Akerene, however, there
are very special reasons for supposing it probable that it was
borrowed. In the religious books of the Persians it has a some-
what obscure and uncertain character. " It is only, so to speak,
through a vail," as de Sacy observes (in Spiegel's Blorgenl.
Zeitschrift, vol. v., p. 20), ^' that this important doctrine can be
discovered, either in the books which the Parsees have preserved,
or in the teaching of their priests." Moreover, it never assumed
any fundamental importance, and occurs in but comparatively
few passages. Roth {Anzeige von Roths Geschichte der ahe7tdl.
PMlos. p. 253) says, " Among the invocations, contained in that
portion of the Yacna, which has been sufficiently explained by
Bllrnov/, there is not one which expresses the so-called highest
notion of the deity. And it is easy enough to see from the
translation of Anquetil,, that this notion is mentioned very rarely
in those portions of the Zend books, which are confessedly the
earliest. This might have directed the attention of the author
to the possibility of the abstraction in question being of a later
date. To this we may add that no Greek or Latin author, be-
fore the Christian era, mentions any such idea (? Aristotle) ;
but, on the contrary, Theodore of Blopsuestia is the first
to mention the name of Zaruam. As examples the author
quotes one passage from the recent Pehlewi-book Bundehesh,
another from a prayer to the sun, and lastly a third from
the 19th section of the Vendidad, the most complete of the
Zend books." Lastly, this doctrine is apparently at variance

324 APPENDIX III,

with the original religious system of the Persians, and hence
appears to be merely grafted upon it, Spiegel maintains
this most distinctly in the Avesta, p, 271, where he says,
" From the Persian mythology I might select with the greatest
confidence (as an example of borrowing), the doctrine of Zervana-
akarana, or infinite time. This doctrine is but sparingly hinted
at in the Parsee books. ... In the whole of the original
religious system of the Persians this doctrine is a complete dis-
cord." Be also says {Morgenl. Zeitschrift, vol. v., p. 230), " At
all events we repeat that the doctrine of infinite time (a supreme,
abstract deity, p. 224), is foreign to the original Parsee system,
and was interpolated into it at a comparatively recent period ;"
and again in vol. vi., p. 79, '• Zervana-akarana is a recent in-
terloper and a disturbing element, which was never even fully
recognised as belonging to Parseeism."'

If this result, then, is obtained, that the doctrine of Nervane
Akerene did not exist originally among the Persians, but, on
the contrary, was borrowed from the Jew.s, the argument will
assume this unanswerable form : to produce such an impression
upon the Persians, the conviction of the divine nature of the
Maleach Jehovah must have become a settled national doctrine
among the Jews. But such a doctrine could hardly have origi-
nated in any other way, than as the result of a lively tradition,
dating from the period in which the sacred writings were com-
posed. Hand in hand with this argument goes the following,
from which it is evident, that the doctrine respecting the angel
of the Lord, which we have defended, had taken deep root among
the Jews.

The testimony of the Jews confirms the Church's view of
the doctrine of the angel of the Lord. In all the passages, in
which the angel of God is spoken of, the early Jews understood
neither an inferior angel, nor a natural cause, nor the invisible
God himself, but the one mediator between God and the world,
the author of all revelation, to whom they gave the name
Metatron. This name was originally an appellative, which
might therefore be used of difierent beings,- and a careful dis-

1 Spiegel is somewhat wavering, for at one time he tries to explain away
this doctrine, and at another recognises its existence, but is at great pains to
prove, that it cannot be original.

2 Very different opinions have been expressed as to the etymology of the
name. The most probable is that of Danz (p. 727 sqq.), and Buxtorf, who

THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 325

tinction must be made between the higher and the inferior

trace it to the Latin metator, which Suidas has explained as meaning « t^o-
a-r»irTi>.>.i,uiiii>s ityyiXo; irao tou a^x'""^''^- The expression appears to have been
derived from Is. Ixiii. 9, where the revealer of God is called the angel of
Jehovah's countenance. Com}3arc Elias Levita, Tischbi f. 536, Eisennun-
ger, p. 380. " The Metatron is the prince of tlie countenance (d*;S ir),
and it is declared of him, that he is the angel, who always beholds the coun-
tenance of God." This derivation is favoured by the fact, that metator \s, very
commonly met with in the Rabbinical writings in the sense of legatus, and
as a synonyme of ni'^u- (see Buxtorf, c. 1191, Danz, p. 725) ; that Metatron
may be shown to )je used as an appellative, with the same signification (see
Brescliit Rabha in Buxtorf, c. 1193), that the Rabbins almost universally give
oltiyt; as the literal meaning of the name, though they differ as to the
etymology ; and lastly, that several of the Rabbins give this etymology with
out any hesitation (see the passages quoted by Danz, p. 724 sqq.). The
derivation, which has comparatively the greatest probability next to this, is
from the Latin mediator. In the Sohar the Metatron is called ^<^1cy
n'KScxn, columna mediciatis (see Soiiimer theol. Sohar, p. 36). But
mediator is not met with anywhere else in the Rabbinical writings ; and in
addition to this, none of the arguments, by which the former derivation is de-
fended, can be adduced in support of this one. Another derivation, which
was suggested by Majus (thcol. Jud., p. 72), and has been repeated by v. Meyer
{Blatter fiir Iwhere Wahrheit iv. 188), — viz., from fura. and ^^ovos, equivalent

to a fiiTo^o; rov Spovou, i <ruv6oovo;, haS Still leSS in itS faVOUr. Uirdfi^ovo:

is not even a Greek word, and it would be impossible to show that
it was ever admitted into the Rabbinical language. Moreover, the
Rabbins base the whole doctrine of the Metatron upon passages from the
Old Testament, and in all probability they borrowed the expression itself
from the Old Testament also. Now there is not a single passage in
which the angel of God is called by the name Metk^^ovd;. But it is a
decisive objection, that the name was not originally restricted to the angel of
Jehovah. We will quote only one j^assage, in which it occurs with this gene-
ral signification {Jalket Ruheni in Danz, p. 731), " Si non fuerit Justus in
hoc mundo, tunc Schechina vestit sese in quodam Metatron." Compare
all the passages, in which the inferior Metatron is mentioned. But Schmie-
der's hypothesis (in the Prograrmn. nova inferpr. 1 Gal. iii. 19) is the one
which least commends itself to our approbation. He derives the word from
the Persian Mithras (p. 41 sqq. excursus de Mitalrone). There is nothing
whatever to favour this derivation except the comparatively trifling resem-
blance in sound. The similarity between the two beings, on which Schmie-
der lays particular stress, is only in appearance. As we have already shown,
the Metatron of the Jews, the supreme revealer of the invisible God, the
participator in his nature and glory, stands on the same level as Ormuzd,
from whom all revelations are derived. Mithras, on the other hand, is an
inferior being created by Ormuzd, a brave warrior in his army, it is true, but
standing far behind the great Bahman, the king of the Amshaspands. It is
only in appearance, again, that those passages in Plutarch (de Is. et Os. c.
46) and the Zend books, in which Mithras is called a Mediator, establish a
connection between Mithras and Metatron. The Metatron of the Hebrews
is the medium of all intercourse between the invisible God and the crea-
tion. Mithras', on the contrary, is called a mediator only " so far as he in-
tercepts (comes between) the influences of Ahriman, during the conflict
between him and Ormuzd, so as to render them harmless." Moreover, the

326 APPENDIX III.

Metatron, the latter of whom stands in the same relation to the
higher, as the latter to the supreme God, Examples of this
may be found in numerous passages of the Jewish writings
themselves.^ The doctrine concerning the lower Metatron, who
is supposed by many to be Enoch, is probably founded upon Ex.
xxxii. 34. The higher Metatron is not infrequently identified
with the Shechinah. Thus, for example, in the book Tikkune
Sohar (Gkeseners theol. Soharica, p. 37) we read, " Metatron
est ipsissima Schechina et Schechina Metatron Jehov^e vocatur,
quia corona est decern Sephirarum." (Compare the elaborate
proof in Danz, p. 733, sqq., and Edzardi. Tract. BeracJi., p. 232).
There are other passages, however, which show that the Metatron
and the Shechinah were distinguished in other respects, and that
the two were identified only so far as the latter was concentrated
and personally manifested in the former. In the book of Escliel
^ firo/iam, for example {Danz, p. 735), it is stated that " Co-
lumna medietatis est Metatron, in quo apparet sanctus ille bene-
dictus in Schechina sua." And in another passage in Sommer,
(p. 36) : " Deus 0. M. ej usque Schechina suat intra Metatronem,
quippe qui vocatur Schaddai." This is expressed still more
clearly in a passage of B. Moses Corduero (Danz, p. 734),
" Angelus hie vestimentum est Schechinee et Schechina occultat
sese in ejus medio, suasque ipsa ostendit operationes per eundem.
Non tamen Schechina ipsa — sed si dicere fas esset Schechina?

doctrine concerning Mithras has a physical, rather than a moral signification
(see Rhode das Religions-system des Zendvolkes, p. 264 sqq.). Lastly, whilst
on the one hand the original appellative signification of the word would
lead us to conclude, that it was not borrowed from the Persians, on the
other hand no analogy whatever can be adduced in its favour ; whereas it is
possible to prove, that names have frequently been borrowed from the Greek
and Latin. Compare, for example, Armillus, the Greek Ij>i^oXa«;, and Matrona,
which occurs so frequently in the Cabbalistic writings.

1 The omission on the part of Eisenmenger to distinguish between these
two has caused great confusion. We will quote one or two passages only.
R. Rilbenjil. Hoschke {Danz, p. 736) says " Shechina longe excelsior est
Henocho convenienter cum illo quod per traditionem accepi, fore metatorem
magnum et metatorem parvum, quorum magnus est ipsissima Schechina e
qua ille emanat et de nomine ejus Schechina vocatur Metatron;" and in
another passage, " Invenimus in Sohar, quod duo sint metatore's, Metatron
maximus et Metatron parvus creatus." For other passages see Danz, p. 730
— 735. The assertion made by several Rabbins, to the effect that iiitota'O
with Jod denotes the higher Metatron, and without Jod the lower, is incor-
rect, as Schmieder (p. 28) has proved from the paraphrase of Jonathan, Gen .
v. 24, where the word is written with Jod, though the lower Metatron is re-
ferred to.

THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 327

vocarem exilium." For other passages see Knorr a Rosenroth,
Kahhala denudata, l, p. 528 ; also Sommer, p. 37, where B.
31oses Corduero says, piassa ■^iina nomn nrar, " the Shechina is
enclosed in the Metatron." — The Metatron is not created, but an
emanation. Compare R. Mose hen Hoshke, in Danz, p. 737,
" Manifestum hinc est, quod sit Metatron emanationis et Meta-
tron creationis, qui est nuutius. Metatron autem emanationis
est ille, qui Mosi apparuit in rubo." He is connected with the
supreme God by unity of nature. R. Becliai (in Edzardi Tract.
Talm. Beraclioth, p. 231), says, " Kabini p. m. verba i3 ion Sy
explicarunt : ne permutes me in illo (ut alium me, alium ilium
esse putes) dicitque hoc ideo deus ad Mosem, ut intelligeret,
utrumque unum esse et arctissime unitum, absque separatione.
. . . Est ille dominus ipse et legatus domini." In the Tal-
mud (see the passages in Sommer, 1. c. p. 45) he is called
D'7iyn itt', " the prince of the world." He is the visible revealer
of Grod. Vid. Sohar, in Sommer, p. 38, " Indumentum rod '"it*
est Metatron." He is designated the angel, " cujus nomen sicut
nomen domini sui." Talm. tract. Sanliedrin in Sommer I.
c). He rules over every created thing : " Metatron servus
Jehov^, senior domus ejus, qui est principium creaturarum ejus,
dominium exerceus super omnia, qufe ipsi sunt tradita. Tradidit
vero ipsi dominium deus 0. M. super omnes exercitus suos."
(Sohar in Sommer, 1. c. p. 35). Othioth Rabbi Akkiva, in
Eisenmenger ii., p. 396 says, " the Metatron is the angel the
prince of the countenance, the angel the prince of the law, the
angel the prince of wisdom, the prince of strength, the prince of
glory, the prince of the temple, the prince of kings, the prince of
governors, the prince of the high and lofty, the many and glori-
ous princes, who are in heaven and on earth," All the glorious
titles, which are given to him singly in other passages, are col-
lected together in a remarkable passage of the cabalistic book
Rasiel in Edzard, p. 234.

That this doctrine was originally of Jewish origin, and not
borrowed from the Persians, is evident from the fact that, in all
the passages in which it occurs, its connection with the Old Tes-
tament is very obvious. On every hand we either find the pas-
sages of the Old Testament, in which the nin' "ijnVd is men-
tioned, distinctly quoted, or an evident allusion to them. Many

328 APPENDIX III,

proofs might be adduced of its great antiquity. That the doctrine
was in existence, when the Septuagint version was made, is
apparent from Is. ix. 5, where '^n vV''* '^^s is rendered y.aya.'krt^
^ovKrts a.<yy€koi, — probably, as Gesenius observes, on theological
grounds, to show that it would not be the Supreme Deity himself,
who would appear in the Messiah, but his revealer. B. Alsckech
on Gen. xviii. 2 {Danz p. 734) , speaks of this doctrine as tradi-
tional, " omnis angelus absolute dictus in Scriptura est princeps
facierum Metator, cujus nomen est sicut nomen domini ejus
secundum sermonem doctorum nostrorum p. m. ad textum bibli-
cum : ecce ego missurus sum angelum ante facies tuas etc. , et
ecce angelus meus ibit etc." If this doctrine had been one of
recent origin, it would be difficult to account for the extent to
which it had spread ; for it occurs, not only in the Cabbalistic
writings,^ but in the works of the most diverse tendencies. And
there are not a few passages in the New Testament, particularly
in Paul's epistles, which favour its antiquity — passages in which
it is impossible to resist the conclusion, that expressions, which
the Jews were in the habit of applying to the Metatron, are
transferred to Christ.^ The similarity between these passages
from the New Testament, and those from the Kabbinical writings,
is too great to be accidental. Lastly, the antiquity of this doc-
trine may be inferred from its occurring in Philo (quis rerum
divinarum h^eres p. 50) : ru ^e dpy^ayyiXco xou Trp&a^vrairu)
Xoyco ^t' oocTrjv s^aipsTov s^wxsv 6 ra oXa ysyvin<Tocs irocrrip, *va
fjicBopiov aras to yavo/xsvov ^jax^/vip rov TTSTtoiriyioTos' o os auroi
iKsrris ixiv iari rov Qiinrov x.rjpa.ivovTOi uh upos to a(^^aproVj

1 Although Tholuck (de ortu Cabbalce, Halle 37, p. 21) assigns the com-
position of the Cabbalistic writings to a recent date, he supposes the ground-
work to have belonged to an early age. And Sclimieder (p. 25) has correctly
observed " Cabbalistica de Mitatrone doctrina in libro Sohar ita exculta est,
ut nee ilia astate recens inventa, sed variis multorum meditationibus versata
et aucta jam fuisse videatur."

2 Compare the passages quoted from Othioth R. Akkiva with Eph. i. 21 sqq.
In Sohar f. 77, Sulzb., (Sommer p. 35) the Metatron is called nnSn
D'po Stt' vnvna, " the beginning of the creatures of God."- Compare Col. i.
15, " the firstborn of every creature." The Metatron is called " the glory,
the covering of God," " he through whom God is known," " he who
bears the image of God," " the being in whose image man was created," {B.
Bechai, in Edzard, p. 232 : Jalkut Cliadasch, p. 237 ; Sohar I.e. ; and p. iii.
f. 91 ; Sidz. Sommer p. 36). Compare Col. i. 15, " the image of the invisible
God ;" Heb. i. 3, "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his
person ;" and 2 Cor. iv. 4.

THE DIVINITY OF TEE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, 329

TrpeajoevTYiS ^s rou riyijxovos upos to vTrriy.oo-v. At the same time,
in maintaining the antiquity of the doctrine, we do not intend to
maintain the antiquity of the name Metatron, as an exchisive
title of the archangeL On the contrary, it is evident from the
remarkable passage of R. Menachem von Bekanat (in Eisen-
menger, p. 374), that the angel was already called by a number
of different appellatives, until at length one of them, — ^namely
Metatron, became a standing title and a kind of proper name.
In Jonathan on Ex. iii. the angel of Jehovah is called Segan-
sagel ; in Jalkut Schimoni (Eisenmenger, p. 375) and many
other passages (see Daiiz, p. 733, 734), Michael.

We believe that we have now adduced sufficient reasons to
prove, that by the angel of Grod we are to understand the revealer
of God, who shares in His divinity, is associated with Him by
unity of essence, and was the medium of all his communications,
first of all to the patriarchs, and afterwards to the Mosaic eco-
nomy. We have also shown, that this revealer of Jehovah was
expected to appear as a Redeemer. This is implied in such
passages of the Old Testament as ascribe to the Messiah divine
names, attributes, and operations. For if the Messiah was to be
Divine, according to the Old Testament system of religion he
must necessarily stand in the same relation to God, in which the
angel of the Lord is said to have stood. Distinct declarations
are first made by the prophets after the captivity, — namely in the
passages already quoted, and also by Malachi, who calls the
Messiah the angel of the covenant (chap. iii. 1), applying this
term, the angel of the Lord, on account of his being employed
as a messenger in the interest of the covenant, and because his
coming to punish and to bless would be the necessary conse-
quence of the covenant.

This identity of the angel of Jehovah or Metatron with the
Messiah was also admitted by the later Jews, as the passage cited
from the Septuagint version sufficiently proves. The New Tes-
tament writers, as we may learn from the passages already
quoted, assume it as a generally admitted fact. We will simply
add a remarkable passage from the Sohar (Sommer 1. c. p. 35),
" Cum dicitur servus ejus, intelligitur servus Jehovc'e, senior
domus ejus, paratas ad ministerium ejus. Quis vero ille est ?
Metatron hie est, sicuti diximus, futurus ut conjungatur corpori

330 APPENDIX III.

{i.e. corpus humanuin adsumat) in utero materno." For other
passages see Edzardi Cod. Talm. Berachoih, p. 230.

Let us sum up briefly the result of the whole enquiry. In the
writings of the prophets there is ascribed to the Messiah a divine,
as well as a human nature. At the same time every polytheistic
idea is precluded by the fact, that His essential unity with the su-
preme God is always assumed. It was expected, that the angel or
revealer of Jehovah, who had previously appeared in a transient
manner, and who had been the medium of all communications
from Jehovah to the Israelitish nation, would at some future
period assume human nature, and appear as the Saviour of Israel
and the heathen world.

But the question arises here, if the distinction between the
revealed and the unseen God was already known, even under the
Old Testament economy, wherein consists the superiority, in this
respect, of the New Testament above the Old ? In the fact, we
reply, that under the Old Testament the distinction between the
revealing one and the Unseen necessarily retreated more into the
background, and therefore might appear to be founded less upon
a relation existing in the Godhead itself, than on a relation be-
tween the Deity and those to whom the revelation was made.
Under the Old Testament the Mediator generally spoke and
acted in the name of the God whom he revealed — it could not
be otherwise, so long as the Logos had not yet been made flesh
— and hence the revealing one and the being whom he revealed
were lost, as it were, the one in the other, and such ideas as
those of SaheUius might easily arise. Under the New Testa-
ment, on the other hand, the distinction between the revealer
and the revealed assumed the form of the distinction between the
Father and the Son. This was an advance in two directions.
On the one hand religion became more spiritualised, whilst, on
the other, it was brought more completely within the range of
the senses. It was spiritualised, inasmuch as the contracted
notions of the spirituality, omniscience, and omnipresence of
God, which had arisen out of the failure to distinguish between
the revealing one and the revealed, now fell away ; and it was
brought within the range of the senses, since the Son of God, by
his life, suffering, and death, brought the divine being nearer to
the human race, than the occasional appearances of the angel

THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 331

of God under the Old Testament would ever have permitted.
But this perfect condescension on the part of God to fallen man
was the indispensable condition of the deification of the latter ;
and this alone could render possible the perfect fulfilment of the
Old Testament command, " thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy strength."

( 382 )

APPENDIX lY.

THE SUFFEEING AND ATONING C HEIST IN THE OLD
TESTAMENT.

The question, whether there is any reference in the prophecies
of the Old Testament to a suffering and dying Messiah in gene-
ral, or to his vicarious suffering and death in particular, has
received from rationalism a most decided and negative reply. ^
The Israelites are represented as having expected simply a
glorious king, who would bring all the enemies of the covenant
nation into subjection to it, and exalt it to universal dominion.
The actuating motive in this case has been a wish to represent the
idea of a Messiah, as being purely the product of natural inclina-
tion and of the national spirit of the Jews. It also served to
remove the difficulties which lay in the way of the rationalists,
arising out of the miraculous agreement between prophecy and
its fulfilment.

There can be no doubt whatever that such a view as this is
opposed to the authority of the Lord and his apostles. There
are numerous passages, in which they at once assume, that the
Old Testament foretels a suffering Christ. In Matt. xxvi. 24
the Lord says : "the Son of Man goeth as it is written of him ,"
that is to say, there is no cause for astonishment, in the fact
that the Messiah suffers and dies, for you may see from the cir-
cumstance that the Old Testament prophecies predicted this long
ago, that it forms a necessary part of his mission. In Matt. xxvi.
54 the Lord points cut to Peter the folly of his conduct,, on the
ground that, if he choose to employ them, he had forces at com-
mand of a very different kind, and that the reason for his not

1 Compare the commentaries on Is. liii. but more especially De Wctte, de
morte J. Chr. expiatoria, Berlin 1S13, p. 13 sqq., and Baumgarten-Cmsius
bibl. Theol. p. 419.

THE SUFFERING AND ATONING CHRIST IN THE 0. T. 333

employing them was simply, that the Scriptures, which could
not be broken, predicted his suffering and death : " how then
shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be ?" And again,
in ver. 56, he anticipates the conclusion, which his enemies might
draw to his prejudice from his utter humiliation, by the repeated
declaration, that he is not without sufficient power to withstand
them, but gives himself willingly into their hands, that the
predictions of the Scriptures concerning his sufferings and death
may be fulfilled/ In Luke xviii. 31 , during his last journey
to Jerusalem, Christ announces to the apostles, that everything
which the prophets have foretold respecting his suffering and
death is now about to be fulfilled. According to Luke xxii. 22,
" the Son of ]\Ian goelh as it was determined," i. e. in accor-
dance with the predetermination of God, as declared in the pro-
phecies of the Old Testament. In Luke xxii. 37, the Saviour
says that the prophecies relating to his sufferings are about to
be fulfilled, and that, in direct agreement with prophecy, he
must be reckoned among the transgressors (compare Mark xv.
28). In Luke xxiv, 25 — 27, where Christ is addressing the
two disciples, who are on their way to Emmaus, overwhelmed
with grief and amazement at his death, he says to them, " O
fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have
spoken : ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to
enter into his glory ?" He then expounds to them the principal
prophecies of the Old Testament, relating to himself, and es-
pecially those in which his sufferings are foretold. In Luke
xxiv. 44 — 46, he says to the apostles, after his resurrection,
that what he told them before his death, namely, that all the
prophecies of the Old Testament concerning himself must be
fulfilled, has now taken place. Upon this he opens their un-
derstanding that they may understand the Scriptures, makes
known to them, as he had also done before his death," the

1 That the words, " all this was done, that the Scriptures of the prophets
might be fulfilled," belong to Christ and not to the Evangelist, is evident
from Mark xiv. 49, " but the Scriptures must be fulfilled."

2 Vid. Matt. xvi. 21, "from that time forth began Jesus to show unto his
disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suS'er many tilings
of the elders and scribes, . . . and be killed." The Lord proved the
necessity for his sufferings and death from the prophecies of the' Old Testa-
ment, which could not remain unfulfilled, without imperilling the honour
of the God that cannot lie. That this is the meaning of "^u {Baujel, (juia

334 APPENDIX IV.

meaning of those passages, in which the suffering and death cf
the Messiah are foretold, and says to them, " thus it is written
and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead
the third day." In Acts iii. 18, Peter says, " those things,
which God before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets,
that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled." Precisely the
same sentiment is expressed in 1 Pet. i. 11, the spirit of Christ
in the prophets foretold the sufferings, which would be endured
by Christ, and the glory that would follow. In Acts xvii. 3,
Paul is said to have reasoned in the synagogue at Thessalonica,
adducing from the Scriptures of the Old Testament the proofs
that Christ must suffer and rise from the dead ; and it is very
evident from Acts xxvi. 22, 23, that this was his usual method
of instruction, that he was accustomed to draw from the writings
of the prophets the proof that the Messiah was TraQr/rw, capable
of suffering, and that instead of suffering being opposed to his
nature, as the Jews maintained, it was rather a necessity of his
nature. In 1 Cor. xv. 3 Paul distinctly affirms, that one of the
leading points, in which he had instructed the Corinthians, was
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. And
according to Acts vii. 35, Philip interpreted the fifty-third
chapter of Isaiah as a prophecy of the sufferings and atonement
of Christ.

At the same time it is possible to deny, with a certain plausi-
bility, that any of these passages have the force of proof In
general it must be admitted that Tlwluck is correct, when he
says,^ " The typical view of the Old Testament has far greater
predominance in the discourses of the Redeemer than is gene-
rally admitted. He regards the Old Testament, with its institu-
tions and history and in certain of its utterances, as pre-eminently
typical." A characteristic specimen of this typical mode of
treatment we find in Mark ix. 13 : " But I say unto you that
Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever
they listed, as it is written of him," where the history of Elias is
regarded simply as prophetic of John the Baptist. In addition

pra&dictuin erat), is evident from the parallel passages, chap. xxvi. 54 — 56,
Luke xxiv. 25, and others. The prophecy, again, vpas under a still higher
law of necessity.

1 Das Alte Testament im Neuen Testamente, Ed. iii. p. 28.

THE SUFFERING AND ATONING CHRIST IN THE O. T. 335

to this, among the single passages, which are referred to the
suffering Christ, there are several, in which indisputably there
is not a direct and exclusive allusion to the Messiah. Com-
pare, for example, the reference to Psalm Ixix. 22, in Matt,
xxvii. 34, Mark xv. 23, and John xix. 28, where the Lord is
represented as saying, " I thirst," in order that this passage from
the Psalms might be fulfilled, although it does not refer directly
to him, but to the righteous sufferer in general. See, also, John
xiii. 18, where the Lord treats the 41st Psalm, the subject of
which is also the righteous sufferer, as a prophecy of the treachery
of Judas, because the general idea embodied in the Psalm neces-
sarily embraced this particular fact.^ Such an admission, how-
ever, appears to take away the right to maintain, that the Lord
and his apostles regarded the passages quoted, as containing
direct Messianic utterances. Moreover, we find Moses mentioned
along with the prophets in Luke xxiv. 27, and Acts xxvi. 22,
23, and it is universally admitted that in the former there is no
direct announcement of a suffering Christ. Lastly, not only the
sufferings and death, but the resurrection of Christ is also traced
to the writings of the prophets, in which no direct allusion to
that event can be found.

But these reasons are not conclusive. If it must be admitted,
that, according to the representations of Jesus, all the types
point to his sufferings ; the same feature must have characterised
the direct Messianic prophecies, in which the figure is so fully
carried out, and the Lord and his apostles must therefore have
found certain distinct passages in which the announcement was
made.

At the same time, such is the confidence and emphasis, with
which the Old Testament is appealed to as asserting the suffer-
ings of Christ, that we must not stop at the types alone ; but
on the contrary there must be the germ of a direct prediction of
a suffering Messiah, around which the rest are simply grouped.

The result already obtained is confirmed by an examination

1 The quotations from Ps. xxii. are not so thoroughly in point as others,
since there is a direct Messianic element in the Psalm, though not an exclu-
sive reference to the Messiah, (compare my commentary on the Psalms, vol.
ii.). There is a complete analogy, however, in Acts i. 16 — 20, where Peter
finds the fate of Judas predicted in Ps. Ixix. and cix., two Psalms in which
allusion is made, not specially and primarily to Judas, but to the righteous
sufi'erer and his enemies.

336 APPENDIX IV.

of the particular passages, which are cited in the New Testa-
ment as pointing to a suffering Messiah. Among these there
are several, such as Is. liii. , Zech ix., xi., xii., and xiii., which,
judging from internal evidence, refer directly and exclusively to
Christ.

As a question of fact, the resurrection is positively predicted
in all the passages, which speak of the glory of Christ subse-
quently to his sufferings, such for example as Is. liii. and others.
In Acts xxvi. 23 Paul points expressly to the resurrection as
necessarily following from the prediction of Isaiah (xlii. 6, 7),
that he was to be a light to Israel and the Gentiles.

At all events, the impression made by the declarations of the
Lord and his apostles ought to be of such a nature, as to deter
any one from denying at the outset the existence of any predic-
tions of the suifering Christ in the Old Testament, to produce a
readiness and willingness to admit their existence wherever they
present themselves to an unprejudiced mind, and to lead to a
complete renunciation of the thought, that they are a py^iori im-
possible, or even at all improbable.

The rationalistic view, however, is not only at variance with
the authority of the Lord and his apostles, but may be quite as
strongly resisted on internal grounds.

In the first place, it is impossible to overlook the fact, that the
Old Testament throughout is based upon the supposition of a
suffering and atoning Christ.

And here the first thing which presents itself is the teaching
of the Old Testament, with reference to the innate depravity of
man. If " every imagination and disposition of the heart of
men is only evil continually" (Gen. vi, 5 ; compare viii. 21), — if
the prevalence of sin upon the earth is such as we find described
in Ps. xiv. and Iviii. 3 — 5, where it is expressly intimated that
the corruption of man is of so fearful a character, because it
rests upon original sin, " the wicked are estranged from the
womb, they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
They have poison like the poison of a serpent, like a deaf adder
he stops his ear. She hearkeneth not to the voice of the charmer,
charming never so wisely ;" — then it is impossible to imagine
anything else than that, if the Messiah came as the perfectly
righteous man, as the pure manifestation of the divine upon

THE SUFFERING AND ATONING CHRIST IN THE 0. T. 337

earth, he would iaevitably experience a powerful opposition from
human wickedness, and pass through the midst of conflict and
suffering. It is a ftict of permanent importance in this respect
that, at the very threshhold of the sacred history, we are met by
the opposition between Cain and Abel, which issues in the death
of the latter. From Cain and Abel we ascend the more directly
to the fall, on account of the evident connection in which the
two are placed in the book of Genesis. The doctrine of the fall
would not be treated in so serious a manner, as an unprejudiced
examination of Gen. ii. and iii. shows it to be, if the career of
the Messiah had been regarded as without exception a joyful
one. Moreover, the sufferings which the men of God had to
endure in the earliest times, from human wickedness, led to a
very different conclusion. And if Moses describes the result of
his own personal experience, in such terms as these, " ye have
been rebellious against the Lord from the day that I knew you"
(Deut. ix. 24), and again in Deut. xxxi. 21 sqq., " I know their
mind, which they have even this day . . . Behold, while
I am yet alive with you, ye rebel against the Lord, and how
much more after my death ? " what must be the opposition
endured by the Messiah at the hands of sinners !

It is also a point of peculiar importance that the wickedness
of man does not stand alone, but that, according to the represen-
tation contained in the very first chapters of the sacred Scriptures,
it rests upon a Satanic background. Is it conceivable that he
who bears the name of Satan, the adversary, fi'om his opposition
to the righteous, should leave the righteous one, in the strict
sense of the word, unopposed ? The book of Job constitutes an
indirect prophecy of the suffering Christ. " The history of Job,"
as I have already stated in my discourse on the book of Job, p.
36, " contains a typical representation of the Messiah in his
sufferings, and the glory that follows. The ardent desire of
Satan to destroy the " much opposed one,"^ against whom he
raises up enemies on every side, should be particularly noticed.
For if the fiiulty and meagre righteousness of Job excited such
hatred on the part of Satan, how must he burn with malignity
against the truly righteous one."

1 This is the meanino; of the name Job.

338 APPENDIX IV.

The righteous sufferer is a standing figure in the Old Testa-
ment. In a long series of Psalms, in particular, righteousness
and the deepest suffering, arising out of the hostility of the
ungodly world, are described as inseparably connected {e.g., Ps.
vi., xvi. xxii., xxxv., xxxviii,, cii., cix.). The righteous man is
represented in the Old Testament as the distressed one, 'Jy.
A Messiah, regarded as not itd^rtros (Acts xxvi. 23), would be
violently separated from those, with whom he is most intimately
connected. If the righteous man has to utter such lamentations
as these, " my soul is among lions, and I lie even among them
that are set on fire, even the sons of men whose teeth are spears
and arrows, and their tongue a sharp sword," a Messiah to whom
the whole nation should surrender itself with readiness and good
will, is an inconceivable idea.

With every century that passed away, it became more and
more impossible to think of the Messiah in any other light than
as a sufferer. All the experience obtained from the whole course
of the Old Testament history, from the journey through the
desert, and the time of the Judges downwards, showed the im-
possibility of any other anticipation, than that the coming of
Christ would be the signal for a severe conflict with the cor-
rupt spirit of the nation. And in Stephen's address, the crime
committed by the nation in the rejection of Christ is clearly
shown to be merely the termination of a long historical process.

The office of the Messiah was to be a comprehensive one. He
was to combine in his own person the three leading offices in
the economy of the Old Testament, those of the prophet" priest,
and king. And the contemplation of either of these offices could
not fail to excite the anticipation of a suffering Messiah.

The type of the Messiah in his regal capacity is always
David, whose name is even transferred to him. " But who," to
borrow the words oi Eichhom, " who suffered more, in a greater
variety of ways, or more undeservedly, than David ? From a
shepherd he rose to be a king. Through what envious and
hostile crowds had he to force his way, till he had reached the
throne ! He had more than once to fly from the javelin of
Saul. How often had he to wander through the desert, either
alone or with his attendants, pursued by the man, who ought
to have loved and protected him, as a member of his house and

THE SUFFERING AND ATONING CHRIST IN THE 0. T. 339

his destined successor ! Ishbosheth opposed him as a rival,
and he never knew the enjoyment of peace, till the royal house
was thoroughly exterminated. After this he was engaged in
successive wars with all the neighbouring states, from Egypt to
the Euphrates, and after his many victories was doomed even-
tually to discover his most dangerous foe in his own son, the
rebellious Absalom." The intensity of David's sufferings is
apparent from the motto, which we find at the head of Ps. Ivii.
59, rnrn Sx, " do not destroy." What could be more natural
than that David, who recognised in himself the type of his great
.successor, should be disposed from the very first to regard his
own experience as the type of that of his Lord (Ps. ex. 1), and
that subsequent prophets should merely wait for a higher sanc-
tion to their presentiment that the great king of the future, for
whom they longed, would pass like the celebrated king of 'past
times, whose life and sufferings were depicted in his own Psalms,
and who took pleasure, even when seated upon the throne,
in describing himself as " the afiiicted one," through suffering
to joy, through humiliation to glory, and through reproach to
honour ? It is also of importance to notice, that in a series of
Psalms, in which David treats of the future history of his race,
such, for example, as Ps. cxxxviii.— cxlv., he infers from his own
personal experience, that they will have to pass through severe
sufferings, and seeks to fortify them against the strong inward
temptations, to which sucli a cross would be sure to expose them.
How then could it possibly be imagined, that He, in whom the
family was to culminate, would be spared the endurance of their
sufferings ?

As the Prophet, again, in the full sense of the word, the idea
of suffering would still be associated with the Messiah. The
hves of suffering, which the Prophets led, are vividly depicted
m Heb. xi. 37, 38 : " they were stoned, they were sawn asunder,
were tempted, were slain with the sword, they wandered about
in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented ;
of whom the world was not worthy ; they wandered in deserts,
and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth." Com-
pare with this, 2 Chr. xxiv. 17 sqq., 2d Kings xxi. 16 seq., ver.
10, sqq. Neh. ix. 26, and the words of Christ in Matt, xxiii. 29
sqq. The most complete picture of the conflicts and sufferings

340 APPENDIX IV.

of the prophets is found in the life of Elias, whom Jezebel
swore to put to death (1 Kings xix. 2), who prayed that his
soul might die, and said, " it is enough ; now, 0 Lord, take my
soul" (ver. 4), and who complained to the Lord, " the children
of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars,
and slain thy prophets with the sword ; and I, even I only, am
left, and they seek my life to take it away." The suffering pro-
phet is also very strikingly depicted in the prophecies of Jere-
miah. " Your sword," he says in chap, ii. 30, " hath devoured
your prophets, like a destroying lion." " I was like a lamb," he
says in chap. xi. 19, " or an ox that is brought to the slaughter,
and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, and
said, let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut
him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no
more remembered." " Woe is me," he complains in chap. xv.
10, " my mother, that thou hast borne me a man of strife and a
man of contention to the whole earth ! . . . 0 Lord, thou
knowest, remember me, and visit me, and revenge me of my
persecutors, take me not away in thy longsuffering ; know that
for thy sake I have suffered rebuke. . . . Why is my pain
perpetual, and my wound incurable, which refuseth to be healed ?
Thou art become unto me as a fountain that will no more flow."
And again in chap. xx. 7, sqq., " 0 Lord, thou hast deceived
me, and I was deceived : thou art stronger than I and hast
prevailed : I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me. .

I heard the defaming of many, fear on every side.
Accuse him, they cry, yea we will accuse him. All my familiars
watched for my halting, saying peradventure he will be enticed,
and we shall prevail against him, and we shall take our revenge
on him." In vers. 14 — 18 his agony increases to such an extent
that he curses the day of his birth. Truly a terrible omen for
the Messiah ! — But, notwithstanding all these sufferings, the
opportunity was very often afforded to the prophets to discover
that the Lord, their helper, was mightier than the men their
foes. The Lord acknowledged them, bore witness to them by
the fulfilment of their prophecies, and not infrequently proved
that they were his messengers, and avenged them of their adver-
saries, by the exercise of his miraculous power. — If, then, the
prophets lived in this manner (especially in the periods which

THE SUFFERING AND ATONING CHRIST IN THE 0. T. 341

immediately preceded the outpouring of the judgments of Grod,
and which called forth, in a peculiar manner, the reaction of pro-
phecy, through the intensity of the prevailing corruption) , in the
midst of a constant alternation of the extreme wickedness of man
on the one hand, and the power of God which is infinitely greater
than that of the wicked one, on the other ; how could they fail to
anticipate that their great successor, in whom the idea of their
office was to be fully realised, and who was but imperfectly
represented by them, would pass in a similar way through re-
proach and suffering to glory ? For he was to appear in the
midst of the very same nation, whose corruption was the source
of their sufferings. — There are several passages in which the
Saviour points out the inseparable connection between the
sufferings, to be endured by himself and his followers, and those
of the prophets of the Old Testament. " It cannot be," he saj^s
in Luke xiii. 33, " that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem."
Jerusalem, the destroyer of the prophets, must also take the life
of the Lord (compare ver. 34, Matt, xxiii., and v. 12). — In Acts
vii. 51, 52, Stephen declares to the Jews, the " stiff-necked and
uncircumcised in heart and ears," that what they have done to
Christ is only the last link in a long chain of injuries inflicted
upon the prophets, that they have merely shown their consistency,
" which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted ? and
they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the
Just One, of whom ye have been now the betrayers and mur-
derers."

In the first passage, in which the Messiah is called High
Priest (Ps. ex. 4), the ground of this is the forgiveness of sins
and reconciliation to be obtained by him. In Matt. i. 21, " thou
shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their
sins," this is represented as the leading work of the Saviour, and
even from an Old Testament point of view this was indispensable,
since the forgiveness of sins is regarded as the condition and
foundation of all the other blessings of salvation (compare Ps.
xxxii. 51), and therefore the Messiah would be no true Saviour,
if He were unable to grant this first of all. All the rest may be
regarded as simply additional. The forgiveness of sins is, strictly
speaking, the fundamental benefit, of which the poor human
family stands in need. David, who was merely a king, might

342 APPENDIX rv.

very well bring the judgment of God upon the nation by his
sin (2 Sam. xxiv. 17), but he could never atone for the nation.
He therefore looks forward with longing eyes for the king, who
is also High Priest. A nation of sinners could only be sure of the
victory, spoken of in Ps. ex., when the king was also High Priest.
" That the mediation of the High Priest consisted chiefly in his
presenting an atonement and procuring forgiveness, is espe-
cially evident from Lev. xvi., where we have a description of the
ceremonies to be performed on the great day of atonement, the
crowning point of the work of the High Priest." But how was
the Messiah to present an atonement, and procure the forgive-
ness of sins ? The fact that witliout shedding of blood there
is no remission of sins, was deeply impressed upon the minds of
the Israelites through the Mosaic law. " There is something
very remarkable," says Hirscher in his Moral, " in the thought,
which runs through the Jewish ceremonial, that no sin can remain
by itself, but every one demands its own particular (bloody)
expiation." In Heb. ix. 22 we read, " and almost all things are
by the law purged with blood, and without shedding of blood is
no remission," on which Bengel observes, " this axiom is found
in so many words in the Talmud in the book Joma." We are
not even left to deduce the general principle from the particular
cases, but it is expressly declared in the law itself, " for the life
of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the
altar to make an atonement for your souls, for it is the blood
that maJceth an atonement for the soul." If then, according to
this, the Messiah can only procure the forgiveness of "sins by
means of blood, this blood cannot possibly be the blood of bulls
and goats. For if this were fitted to effect a true expiation, the
latter would not have been associated, first of all, with the coming
of the Messiah, since such means of expiation as these were
always at command. " The sin-offering is vicarious," — as I have
stated in my work on die Opfer der heiligen Schrift, p. 14, — " but
what kind of representation are we to think of ? It is very ob-
vious, that the sacrifice in itself was thoroughly unfitted to effect
the object, ' for it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of
goats should take away sins' (Heb. x. 4). In the place of the
blood of the guilty there is required as a ransom the blood of an
innocent, sinless, righteous, and holy one. The sacrificial animal

THE SUFFERING AND ATONING CHRIST IN THE 0. T. 343

might serve as a symhul of moral perfection, in consequence of
its external faultlessness, but it stood altogether outside the
circle, within which the contrasts of sin and holiness are found.
True representation again, which has regard to sin that has
originated within the limits of the representation, must neces-
sarily be voluntary in its character ; whereas in the sacrifice of
animals it was compulsory. Lastly, there must be a vital con-
nection between the representative, and those whom he repre-
sents ; but there is no such link of connection between man
and beasts. That the representative character was not depen-
dent upon anything in the sin-oifering itself, was pointed out
distinctly enough in the provision made, that under certain
circumstances something else might be substituted, an arrange-
ment which would have been perfectly inconceivable, if the ex-
piatory worth had resided in the blood. According to Lev. v.
11 — 13, a poor man was allowed to offer meat instead of an
animal, and the effect was precisely the same. Hence the sa-
crifice was accepted by Grod as an expiation for sin, solely by virtue
of an arrangement, which gave to this particular act a worth
it would not otherwise have possessed. This could only take
place from regard to the true sin-offering, which the typical sin-
offering merely fore-shadowed." What could the true sin-offer-
ing be, but the self-sacrifice of the High Priest ?

There were nio^wj points of contact, tiierefore, for the doctrine
of a suffering and atoning Messiah. At the same time, if this
doctrine was to be announced by the prophets, there was still a
necessity for an express revelation from God. For the system of
divine instruction, contained in the sacred Scriptures, does not
rest upon inferences and probabilities, but, on the contrary, is
derived in every case directly from God, and the instruments
employed by him were very careful not to confound human pro-
babilities with divine certainties. That such a revelation was
actually made, is attested by all the passages in which allusion
is made to the humiliation, sufferings, and death of the Messiah.

These passages are divisible into four classes.

1. Passages in which the Messiah is represented as coming at
a time, when his nation and family, — viz., that of David, had
fallen into deep poverty and wretchedness, a condition with
which at the outset his own lowliness must of necessity bo

344 APPENDIX IV.

inseparably connected. That this is a fundamental view in the
prophetic books, was pointed out in our remarks on Is. xi. 1,
where the Messiah is described as a sprout of the family of
David, which is sunk into the deepest depression, and as a shoot
from the stem of Jesse, just as in chap. liii. 2, he is called a
root or sprout from the root, out of a dry ground. With this
the announcement of Micah, respecting the birth of Christ in
Bethlehem, goes hand in hand. For Bethlehem is introduced
here as the seat of the family of David in its prostrate condition
(see vol. i, p. 508.) In Ezekiel (chap. xvii. 22), the Messiah
appears as a slender twig from the summit of a great cedar.
And according to Zech. ix. 10, chariots and horses are to be all
exterminated from Israel, that is to say, are to be brought down
to the very lowest condition, before the coming of Christ.

2. Passages in which the humiliation and sufferings of the
Messiah himself are directly alluded to. In connection with Is.
xi. 1, the image of the lowly and suffering Messiah is especially
elaborated in the second part of Isaiah. In chap. xlii. the
gentleness and humility of the Saviour, and his inward sympathy
with the suffering (compare ver. 2, 3, " He shall not cry, nor
lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised
reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not
quench"), point to the fact that he will come, not with pomp
and show, but with unassuming quiet and even in the midst of
suffering, not only as an uj? but also as an 'i)f. Compare Heb.
ii. 18, " For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he
is able to succour them that are tempted." In Is. xlii. 4, " he
will not be weary or hasten away," there is an express allusion
to the great hindrances and difficulties, which will lie in his
way. These oppositions are pointed out still more distinctly in
chap. 1. The people of the covenant manifest such ingratitude
in their remuneration of the servant of God for his faithful work,
that he is obliged to exclaim, " I have laboured in vain and
spent my strength for nought." In ver. 7 the Messiah is repre-
sented as despised of every one, the abhorrence of the people,
the servant of rulers. In chap. 1. 4 — 11, the sufferings which
the servant of God has to endure, in the fulfilment of the duties
of his vocation, form the leading theme. In Zech. ix. 9, the
whole of the lowly, wretched, suffering condition of the Messiah,

THE SUFFERING AND ATONING CHRIST IN THE 0. T. 345

is called by most expressive of all the words that could be
employed, 'JV.^ The expression " riding upon an ass," which is
used to describe the utter lowliness of the king, goes hand in
hand with this. In chap. xi. Zechariah depicts the hard and
severe conflict, which the good shepherd has to sustain with the
wicked, and which ends in the offer of the contemptible wages
of thirty pieces of silver. In Mai. iii. 1 — 6 (in harmony with
Zech. xiii. 8), the prophet announces, that the Messianic era will
^ be attended by a severe judgment upon the covenant nation, the
occasion of which, as a comparison of his immediate predecessor
clearly shows, is their contempt of the salvation offered, their
opposition to the Messiah, and the sufferings endured by him.

3. Passages in which the death of the Messiah is predicted.
In addition to the passages to be examined presently, — viz., Is.
liii., and Dan ix. 26, distinct allusions to this may be found in
Zech. xii. 10, where the Jews are represented as looking upon
the Messiah, whom they have previously pierced, and xiii. 7,
where the sword is drawn against the shepherd of Jehovah, and
he is torn away from his flock by a violent death.

4. Passages in which stress is laid upon the atoning efficacy
of the sufferings and death of the Messiah. The leading passage
in this case is Is. liii., where the vicarious satisfaction to be
rendered by the servant of God is distinctly mentioned, and he
is described as the true offering for sin. The atoning efficacy
of the death of Christ is also taught in Dan. ix. 24, in combina-
tion with ver. 26. Making reconciliation for iniquity, and
bringing in everlasting righteousness, are associated with the
cutting off of the Messiah.

According to Zechariah the Messiah is invested with the

1 The assertion of Hofmann {Schrijihewels il. 1, p. 123). that •'jj? is not
appUed to a suiFerer, but to one who keeps himself low, is at variance, not
only with the whole of the usages of the language, but also with the relation
in which this prophecy stands to the second part of Isaiah, orpecially to chap,
liii., of which 'jy is a condensation. Even if we are to understand by the
servant of God in the second part of Isaiah, not the Messiah, but the pro-
phetic order, or the better portion of the nation, so much at least ought to be
learned from it, that we have no warrant for forcibly removing the doctrine
of the suflering Messiah, whenever it lies clearly before our eyes. At all
events, whatever interpretation may be given to the passages relating to the
servant of God, the second portion of Isaiah does teach indirectly the doctrine
of a sufferins; Messiah.

346 APPENDIX IV.

office of High Priest (chap. vi. 9 — 15) ; in his day the sin of the
land is wiped off in one day (chap. iii. 9) ; a fountain is opened
for sin and for imcleanness (chap. xiii. 1) ; the source of this is
his death and the shedding of his Wood, and it possesses healing
virtue for such as appropriate it by faith (chap. xii. 10).

The theory of the rationalists is thus proved to be thoroughly
untenable, whether we base our arguments upon the New Tes-
tament or the Old. It is impossible even to maintain the asser-
tion, that " a suffering, or at least a dying and atoning Messiah,
was first set before the Israelites in the period succeeding the
captivaty, when their minds had been prepared for the reception
of such a doctrine by the sufferings which they had endured
themselves."^ This assertion rests upon the erroneous assumption,
that there was nothing very serious in the declaration of the pro-
phets, " thus saith the Lord," and that prophecy was of a purely
human, and therefore temporal origin. It starts with a denial
of the authenticity of the second part of Isaiah, the germ of
which, so far as its descriptions of the suffering Messiah are
concerned, is contained in chap. xi. 1. It utterly ignores the
fact, that the righteous sufferer is more adapted to serve as a
type of the suffering Messiah, than the suffering people, and that
this righteous sufferer is everywhere met with in David's time.
It also ignores the fact that the atoning Messiah was not in any
way typified by the nation, when suffering in captivity on account
of its sins. And lastly, it overlooks the fact, that it is precisely in
the prophets of the captivity, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, that we find
the /aiWes^ traces of the doctrine of a suffering Messiah." The
greater the misery of the nation, the more glorious were their
descriptions of the coming Messiah.

So much, however, is correct, that the prophets speak less fre-
quently of a suffering and atoning, than of a glorified Messiah.
This may be explained from the fact, that as'a rule the character
of prophecy was determined by existing circumstances, and was
dependent upon the historical events to which it owed its origin ;
though the second part of Isaiah formed a striking exception.
By far the greater number of the Messianic predictions (as well
as nearly all the Psalms of a later age than that of David) arose

1 Umhreit, Studien und Kritiken 1838. Eeft l,p. 15, vom Knechte Gottes,
p. 72.

THE SUFFERING AND ATONING CHRIST IN THE 0. T. 347

out of the conflicts betwen Israel and the imperial power, and
the destruction wliich appeared to await the people of God at the
hands of the powers of the world. They are chiefly grouped
around the Assyrian or the Chaldean catastrophe. The mental
eye was then directed to the, so to speak, political Messiah. The
prophets held up before the view of the people, who were tremb-
ling on account of Assyria or Babylon, the future conqueror and
ruler of the whole heathen world. This will serve to explain the
reason, why Jeremiah and Ezekiel speak so much of the Messiah
in glory. But deeper wants were not left unsatisfied. Whoever
first read the second part of Isaiah, especially chap, liii., with a
mind prepared by the study of the Pt^alms, and then turned to
the prophecies of Zechariah, would possess, in reality, everything
that could be given before the period of fulfilment arrived.

We must now enter upon the inquiry, wlietlier the Jeics in
the time of Christ held the doctrine of a suffering and atoning
Messiah. For if we are correct in asserting that this doctrine is
contained in the Old Testament, it is impossible to come to any
other conclusion, than that it must have been discovered by the
more studious and intelligent. If, on the other hand, this can-
not be proved, as De Wette (who has devoted the whole of the
first part of his word de moi^te expiatoria to this subject), Bretsch-
neider (Dogm. i., p. 134 sqq.), Baumgarten-Crusius (bibl, Theol.,
p. 133), and others maintain, there would be good ground for
suspecting the correctness of our conclusion. But we must bear
in mind, at the outset, that the camp of the rationalistic theolo-
gians is not at one on this matter, and that the existence of the
doctrine of a suffering Messiah among the Jews is not onl}'' -
maintained by all the earlier Christian theologians, but by a con-
siderable number of rationalistic authorities, such, for example,
as Corrodi, Schmidt, Hartmann, Berfholdt, and others.^

There can be no doubt whatever, that the great mass of the
Jews not only knew nothing, but did not wish to know anything,
of a suffering, dying, and atoning Messiah, and merely expected
a Messiah in glory. The doctrine of the cross was to the Jews a
stumbling-block (1 Cor. i. 23). The Pharisees and Scribes

1 The earlier writings are cited by De Wette at p. 3 — 5. StiiudUn has
clearly pointed out the doctrinal motives which have prevailed in this inquiry
in the Gottinger Bibl. f. theol. Lit. i. p. 252 sqq.

348 APPENDIX IV,

looked upon the sufferings and death of Jesus as a proof that he
could not he the Messiah ; "let him save himself if he be the
Christ," they exclaim in Luke xxiii. 35. According to John
xii. 34 the opinion was widely spread among the people that the
Messiah would not die.

This fact need not astonish, or lead to inferences at variance
with the existence of the doctrine of a suffering Messiah in the
New Testament. We may learn from daily experience, how
great an influence inclination exerts upon opinion. Even in
our own day, the most obvious doctrines of the sacred Scriptures
are either ignored, or openly contested, by the great majority
of the educated members of the Church. How many educated
men there are, who are only half acquainted with the teaching
of the New Testament respecting the wrath of God, his inexor-
able justice, and the inevitable condemnation of all who are not
reconciled in Christ ! The righteousness of works, in which the
Jews believed at the time of Christ's coming, could not fail to
close their eyes against the announcements of a suffering Messiah
— announcements which are by no means prominent, but rather
kept in the back ground, and were therefore discovered and
regarded by the earnest and inquiring alone. The example of
the apostles themselves is sufficient to show us, how great is the
disinclination of the natural man to receive the doctrine of the
suffering Christ, the direct and evident consequence of which is
the suifering of the Church and its individual members, — how
difficult it is for him to reconcile himself to such a doctrine, —
and therefore how little warrant we have for maintaining the
non-existence of the doctrine in the writings of the Old Testa-
ment, on the ground that it was not apprehended by the great
mass of the Jews. When the Lord spake of his sufferings and
death, Peter would not hear of them : "Be it far from thee.
Lord," he says in Matt. xvi. 22, " this shall not be unto thee."
The actual ground of his fear is laid bare by the Lord in ver.
24 sqq. It is the dread of the cross, wliich is so deeply, rooted
in the faint-hearted saint. Peter shrinks back, when the cross
of Christ is announced, from a presentiment of the cross which
awaits himself. After the most distinct and repeated announce-
ments on the part of the Lord, of the sufferings which awaited
him, it was still true of the apostles, " they understood none of

THE SUFFERING AND ATONING CHRIST IN THE 0. T. 349

these things, and this saying was hid from them, neither knew
they the things that were spoken" (Luke xviii. 34 ; compare
chap. ix. 44, 45, and Mark ix. 32). With the sufferings of
Christ their own were in part immediately connected, and in
part foreshadowed. Thus they at once shook off whatever would
lead to such a result. Now it cannot be doubted that the Jews
did just the same with the declarations of the Old Testament
concerning the suffering Messiah, as the disciples did with the
words of the Lord in relation to his own sufferings. At the
same time, it must be borne in mind that the sayings of the
Lord did remain fixed in the minds of the apostles, though it was
nothing more than dead knowledge. In fact it is through them
that we have received it. The point in question has respect simply
to a living knowledge, and that more thorough comprehension,
by which the inner life is influenced. This remark is adapted
to teach us prudence, and to put us on our guard as to the con-
clusions which we draw from such passages as John xii. 34.
They merely show, that the mass of the people had no effective
knowledge of a suffering Christ, and not that such a doctrine
was altogether strange and unknown. Fragmentary notions of
a suffering Messiah, upon which they could base no conclusions,
and with which they did not know how to deal, when the circum-
stances occurred, may nevertheless have been widely spread
throughout the nation.

So much, however, we should certainly expect, that if the doc-
trine of a suffering Messiah really existed in the Old Testament
there would be some men among the Jews, of more profound
minds, who would attain to a living acquaintance with it. And
there are not wanting solid proofs that it actually was the case.

In this inquiry our attention must be directed chiefly to the
New Testament. The apocryphal writings of the Old Testa-
ment are for the most part occupied with descriptions of the
Messianic times ; the hopes of a personal Messiah, as in the
case of Josephus, are expressed in a brief and enigmatical way,
for reasons which I have explained in my work F'dr Beihe-
haltung der Apokr. Berlin 1853, p. 39 sqq. ; and they make no
allusion whatever to a suffering and atoning Messiah, the sub-
ject of the books themselves furnishing but little occasion for the

350 APPENDIX IV.

introduction of such a topic. At the same time, what is affirmed
in the second chapter of the Book of Wisdom concerning the
righteous sufferer, points indirectly to a suffering Messiah. For
no one, who entertained such views as these respecting the position
of the righteous man in the world, could possibly be altogether
ignorant of the doctrine of a suffering Messiah ; that is, if he
believed in a Messiah at all. The description presents such
striking points of resemblance to the history of Christ, that not
only Tertullian, Ambrose, and Augustine, but even Grotiusaxidi
Stier (Psalmen i. p. 240) believed that it must be understood
as relating to the sufferings of Christ.^

In the New Testament there are two passages, which bear
particularly upon this subject. In Luke ii. 35 the aged Simeon,
" a just and devout man, waiting for the consolation of Israel,"
foretels to Mary, that a sword will pass through her own soul

also (ytou nov Se avrr,s ty/v y^/v/^rtV ^LsXaviBToci foix(paioc^. The

assumption is, that the sword would first of all be drawn against
the son (thine oivn soul also), who, from what goes immediately
before, would meet with powerful opposition at the hands of

sinners (ouros xsTrai elf Tircoaiv y.a.\ di/ci/yracuLV ttoXKum). The

severest and bitterest sufferings are here clearly represented as
awaiting Christ. Simeon was not a prophet in the strict sense
of the word, though the Holy Ghost was upon him (ver. 25) ;
— the stronger the ground, therefore, for concluding that this
extremely peculiar expression is based upon a passage of the Old
Testament, in which he found the proof of his words ; just as vers.
29 — 32 point back to Is. xlix. (compare vol. ii. p. 226), and the
words, " he is set for a snare to many in Israel," to Is. viii. 14.
The passages quoted by Bengel from Ps. xlii. 11 and Ixxiii. 21
are somewhat far-fetched. There appears to be no doubt that
Simeon had Zech. xiii. 7 in his mind, " Awake, 0 sword, against
my shepherd, .... smite the shepherd," (Sept. foix(pa.i(z
ViiyipB-nri) , in which case Simeon, and John the Baptist who
refers to Is. liii., share between them the two leading passages
relating to the death of Christ. The sword passes through the
soul of Mary, because it passes through the body of her son.
The death of her son, which, according to ver. 34, is occasioned

1 Grimm on the Book of Wisdom, p. G7.

THE SUFFERING AND ATONING CHRIST IN THE 0. T, 351

by the wicked among the covenant people, will be the cause of
mortal agony to her.

If the knowledge of a suffering and dying Messiah is apparent
here, it is evident from John i. 29 — 36, that the enlightened
Israelites in the time of Christ also learned from the Old Testa-
ment the doctrine of an atoning Christ. John there exclaims,
when he looks at Christ, " behold the Lamb of God, that taketh
away the sin of the world." The Socinian explanation, accord-
ing to which the Lamb is not a sacrificial lamb, but merely an
image of gentleness and innocence, is now almost universally
given up. The notion of a sacrifice is involved in the very ex-
pression 0 oiij.-ios rov (isov. It points first of all to Is. liii. 7, (it
arose from a combination of this verse with chap. lii. 13, " m//
servant"), and secondly to Ex. xii. 7,^ and represents Christ as
the pure paschal lamb. It has been maintained, but without
the least foundation, that the figure cannot be borrowed from the
paschal lamb, since this was not a real sacrifice, at any rate not
a sacrifice for sin. But I have already proved, in my work on
" the Sacrifices of the Bible," that the paschal lamb was the
actual root of all the sin-offerings. The name itself, which
signifies fbst redemption and then a redeeming and atoning
sacrifice, implies this, and it is most decidedly hinted at in con-
nection with the original institution. The blood of the innocent
lamb was an equivalent for the blood of the sinners, who made
confession of their sins. The distinction between the paschal
lamb and the rest of the sacrifices for sin was not an essential
one, and may be explained on the ground that a " communion"
was connected with it, that it was not merely a sacrifice, but a
sacrament also. It was only in forin that it belonged to the
D»n3T (Ex. xii. 27, xxiii. 18) ; but even Paul affirms, that it
was essentially a sacrifice for sin, when he speaks of Christ, who
has been sacrificed for us, as the true paschal lamb (" for even
Christ our passover is sacrificed for us"). — That the lamb is
not merely an emblem of submissiveness and patience, but that
its bleeding and dying are also taken into consideration, in other
words, that it is regarded as a paschal lamb, is evident from

1 " 0, the article, has respect to the prophecy deUvered concerning him
under this figure, Is. liii. 7; also under the type of the Paschal lamb.
Moreover the passover itself was then near, ch. ii. 13." Bengel.

352 APPENDIX IV.

John xix. 36, where the apostle applies to the dying Saviour
what is written in the Old Testament of the paschal lamb, and
also from those passages of the Book of Revelation, in which
Christ is called " the lamb slain," or where "the blood of the
lamb" is spoken of (chap. v. 6, 12, vii. 14, xii. 11, xiii. 8). Also
in 1 Pet. i. 19, Christ is represented as a lamb without blemish
and without spot, by whose blood we are redeemed. — But if the
expression " the lamb of God" is sufficient in itself to suggest
the thought of vicarious suffering and death, still more thoroughly
is all doubt removed by the clause which follows, " that taketh
away the sin of the world." If the lamb be regarded as an image
of patience and gentleness, this clause has no connection what-
ever with the figure. Moreover, there can be no doubt what-
ever, that John had the .53d chapter of Isaiah in his mind. But
the servant of God, who is compared to a lamb in ver. 7, is de-
scribed as an offering for sin, d^'**, who bears in a representa-
tive capacity the sins of the world, and takes the punishment of
them upon himself (compare ver. 4, rais tzfji^ocprias riij.wv (pipsi ;

ver. 5, eTpauixxriaQri ^la, rocs x/xocpTiocs ri/xaiv ; ver. 11, xou Tixs
a,^a,prixs avraiM avTos avo/crjt ; ver. 12, )tat avros a:.f/.xprixs itoWai'j

av»jveyxe, &c.) ; and therefore the expression 6 alpwv, &c,, must
also be understood as denoting representation and atonement,^
from which it necessarily follows, that unless the whole pas-
sage is to be broken to pieces in a most unnatural manner,
the lamb mentioned here must be a sacrificial lamb.

1 De Wette says (p. 55), " ubi locutiones de Jesu munere Messiano ad
hibitas deprehendimus, quae ad ilium locum referendae videntur, de ex-
piatione cogitemus necesse est." It does not follow from this undeniable
allusion to Is. liii., that ai'^s/v must necessarily mean "to bear," and not to "take
away ;" but this we must say, that if the latter meaning be adopted, the taking
away must be the result of an atonement, and not merely of teaching and
example. The meaning "to take away," however, is favoured by the fact,
that although al^m occurs in the SejJtuagint (Lam. iii. 27), and also in the
New Testament (Matt, xxvii. 32), in the sense of " carrying," yet a"^ii>
k/jt-a^ria.; is used in the former to denote, not the bearing, but the taking
away of sin (see 1 Sam. xv. 25, xxv. 28 ; and Lev. x. 16, where aipai^uv is
employed), and in John iii. 5, it has the same signification, "and ye know
that he was manifested J'va t«; a^ajr/acr hf^uv &^yi." On the other hand, the
meaning " to carry " is favoured by the frequent repetition of the verb in
original passage in the sense of "to carry," e.g., ver. 4, ras afia^r'ias

rifiuv (p'i^ii ; ver. 11, ayoiaru ] VOr. 12, dv^viyKi ; SymmachuS, ver. 11, ko.) rets
am^l'ia-i avrav auTo; u-Ttiy'iyxu. It is bcst to aSSUmC, aS OlsliaUSeU doCS,

that the two meanings are combined together in the same verb.

THE SUFFERING AND ATONING CHRIST IN THE 0. T. 353

We have already observed, that the correct interpretation of
the Baptist's words is pretty generally adopted now. On the
other hand, however, an attack is made upon the historical
credibility of the account. The message sent by the Baptist to
Christ, as recorded in Matt. xi. , is made to furnish conclusive
evidence to the contrary. " If the Baptist had formerly spoken
in the manner described by John," says Strauss in his Leben
Jesu, " he could not afterwards have put such a question as
this. And if such a question was really put by him, his pre-
vious testimonies with regard to Jesus are impossible."

But it shows a very narrow mind to draw conclusions in such
a way as this. The events of actual life do not take so direct
and simple a course, as mere logicians seem to imngine. The
human heart is much more complex than they suppose. And
if these logicians had but their eyes open, they might learn as
much from themselves. The knowledge of the Messiah, previous
to his coming, like our own knowledge of the kingdom of glory,
was of a very fragmentary character. It v/as as strictly irue of
the one as of the other, " we know in part, and we prophecy in
part" (1 Cor. xiii. 9). This gave a certain warrant, or at any
rate furnished a powerful motive to bring into onesided promi-
nence certain passages, which appeared to have peculiar impor-
tance under existing circumstances. In the present instance
John had his mind fixed upon the words of Mai. iii. 1 ; for we
have already proved (p. 237), that the Baptist's inquiry, ah
gf 6 hpyJiiMcvos ri srspov 7rpoiy^ox.wixsv, has reference to this pas-
sage. In Malachi the coming of Elijah the prophet is connected
immediately with that of the angel of the covenant, who pro-
ceeds to punish and destroy the enemies of the kingdom of God.
John might imagine that it was not his place to reconcile this
passage with such passages as Is. liii ; but that he was warranted
in desiring that Christ would at once furnish proofs of his Mes-
siahship, founded upon this particular passage, which spoke in
his favour. At the same time, we must not overlook the fact,
that the Baptist, on the one hand, did not attach any decisive
importance to his doubts, for if he had, he would not have sent
to Christ himself to have them removed ; and from this we may
also infer, that he found other announcements in the Scriptures
concerning the Messiah, which presented a counterpoise to his

VOL. IV. z

354 APPENDIX IV.

scruples, and kept him from at once renouncing Christ, and that
Christ, on the other hand, detected in the doubting inquiry of
John a weakness and a sin, as we may clearly see from ver 6,
" blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me," and also
from ver. 11, where his weakness is explained, " he that is least
in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." The Lord could
not have looked upon the conduct of John in such a light as
this, if the Scriptures had not put within his reach the means of
attaining to a higher knowledge, and if he had not, in the heat
of temptation, forgotten the more correct views at which he had
formerly arrived. There are some, who adduce the fact that
the apostles could not reconcile themselves to the sufferings
of Christ, as a proof that the Baptist could not possibly have
been possessed of any such knowledge as this. But in this case
the conclusion is erroneously drawn from Matt. xi. 11, that
previous to the ascension of Christ and the outpouring of the
Holy Spirit the apostles stood upon a higher eminence than
the Baptist, whereas the words of Christ imply the very
opposite ; and with just as little correctness, it is also assumed,
that the apostles had no knowledge whatever of a suffering
Christ, whereas it was merely a living knowledge of which they
were destitute. We have already observed, that after the dis-
tinct declarations made by Christ, they could not fail to possess
a theoretical knowledge ;^ but this was so overgrown by their
inclinations, that it could not attain to any vigour.

It may be regarded as proved, therefore, that the doctrine of
a suffering and atoning Messiah was not unknown to the more
enlightened Jews in the time of Christ. For it is evident that
John the Baptist did not receive it first of all through direct
revelation from God, as we may infer from the fact that he
traces it to Is. liii., and assumes, as undeniable, that this pas-
sage relates to the Messiah. And the result, which we have
thus obtained from the New Testament, receives a most im-
portant confirmation from another quarter, — namely, from the
early 'Jewish writings. A suffering and atoning Messiah was
not unknown, either to the authors of the Talmud, or to those

1 That they did possess so much knowledge as this, is evident from Matt.
XX. 22, where the Lord says to the sons of Zebedee, " can ye drink of the
cup that I shall di-ink of V" and they reply " we can."

THE SUFFERING AND ATONING CHRIST IN THE 0. T. 355

of the Cabbalistic and other wi-itings, although they differed
widely from one another, as to the manner in which the Messiah
would atone for sin. There is the less necessity for quoting par-
ticular passages here, since we have already quoted several of
the most important in our remarks on Is. liii. We shall merely
refer therefore, to the collections in Schotten hor. Eehr. t. ii. on
Is liii., and Ps. xxii. and p. 551 ; to Hulsius, theol. Judaica,
]). 309 ; CorrocU, Chiliasmus, i. p. 281 sqq. ; Schmidt christol
Fragmente, p. 18 sqq. and p. 43 sqq. ; De Welte, p. 61, and
the works which are mentioned there.

But we must now proceed to examine the arguments, by
which De Wette has attempted to weaken the force of these
passages. He relies upon one fact, which must certainly be
granted,— viz. that all the Jewish writings, in which the doctrine
of a suffering and atoning Messiah occurs, were composed after
the time of Christ, and endeavours to prove (p. 41 sqq.), that
this doctrine, which was unknown to the earlier Jews, was first
introduced into the Jewish scheme from Christianity itself, and
that after lliis had taken place, it was foisted by the Jews upon
certain passages of the Old Testament, either of their own
accord, because these passages, though ihej did not strictly re-
late to the Messiah, from their very nature invited to this false
interpretation, when once the idea of a suffering Messiah had
been entertained, or else because the Christians had already set
the example (see p. 70).

But this assertion of De Weite is proved to be untenable by
the simple fact, that the testimony already obtained from the
New Testament establishes the existence of the doctrine of a
suffering and atoning Messiah in the time of Christ. And in
addition to this the following reasons may be adduced, which
suffice to demonstrate its fallacy.

1. From the attitude, which the Jews assumed towards the
Christians from the very outset, it is a jjrlori scarcely conceiv-
able, that they should have borrowed from the latter the doctrine
of a suffering and atoning Messiah. De Wette appeals, it is
true, to other things, which are also said to have been adopted
from the Christians,— namely the baptism of proselytes, certain
petitions in the Lord's prayer, and a few parables from the New
Testament, to which something very similar is to be found in

356 APPENDIX IV.

the Talmud. But apart from the fact that the borrowing attri-
buted to the Jews is very doubtful and a contested point, it is
evidently one thing to borrow a single custom, — which might
have been done almost insensibly, since all that was needed was
to give a more precise and limited character to the custom in
existence already, — or a single sentence, which bore an Old Tes-
tament character, and therefore might easily be regarded as
common property, and a very different thing to adopt a doctrine
which was altogether foreign to those they had hitherto held,
and presented no attractions to a carnal mind, and which formed,
in addition to this, the very centre of the system of doctrines
held by the opponents. This is certainly a case, if ever there be
one, in which we may apply the rule laid down by Schmidt in
his Christol. Fragm., p. 6, for testing the antiquity of Jewish
dogmas : " Messianic modes of thought, which are as remote
from those of the Jews, in which the Messiah is represented as
a political monarch, as they approximate to those of Christians,
and which it is evidently a very difiicult matter for modern
Jews to bring into harmony with the rest of their notions, are
ancient, and were already current in the time of Christ."

2. It is impossible to adduce any analogy from the Christology
of the Jews in support of this assertion ; on the contrary, it is in
every respect at variance with it. The whole of the Christology
of the Jews rests upon an Old Testament basis, though very
frequently it is founded upon a thoroughly erroneous interpre-
tation of the prophecies. We refer here simply to the doctrine
of " the pangs of the Messiah," n'tt-on 'San, which, as De
Wette himself observes (p. 61), is connected with the doctrine of
a suffering and atoning Messiah, and the Old Testament origin
of which he also acknowledges. Even in the case of the most
distinct Messianic ideas, they may be traced to some interpreta-
tion, either true or false, of the Old Testament, or at least to the
attempt to bring the apparently discrepant statements of the Old
Testament into harmony, by means of certain intermediate ideas.
In this way, for example, the fable of the leprosy of the Messiah
arose out of a false interpretation of Is. liii. 4, as we may see
from the passage of the Talmud quoted in vol. ii. p. 311.

3. If the Jews derived the doctrine of a suffering, atoning, and
dying Messiah from the Christians, it is difficult to see why they

THE SUFFERING AND ATONING CHRIST IN THE 0. T. 357

should not at the same time have adopted, what the Christian
religion also offered them, the readiest means of reconciling
this doctrine with that of a Messiah in glory. The apparent
discrepancy between the passages in the Old Testament, in which
these two doctrines are found, is removed in the easiest and most
natural manner in the Christian system, by the doctrine of a
twofold coming of the Messiah, first in poverty and then in glory,
and a twofold condition, — viz., that of humiliation and that of
exaltation. The Jews, on the contrary, resort to the most re-
markable and unfounded hypotlieses, for the purpose of removing
the apparent discrepancy, and prove thereby that they have
elaborated the doctrine of a suffering, atoning, and dying
Messiah from the prophecies of the Old Testament, without the
slightest influence on the part of Christianity, whilst at the
same time, for want of the light which is shed upon these pro-
phecies by the fulfilment, they were necessarily involved in great
obscurity. The principal hypotheses of this description are the
following : —

(1). The doctrine of the Messiah ben Joseph, and the Messiah
ben David. The former of these is to be slain in the war with
Gog and Magog, whilst the latter is to complete the deliverance
of the covenant nation, and to live and reign for ever.^ The
origin of this fiction was evidently the inability to remove the dis-
crepancy,— which is so easily overcome in our case by the doctrine
of the two natures of Christ, and by his resurrection from the dead,
— and the consequent inference, that such passages as spoke of the
death of the Messiah necessitated the belief in a twofold Messiah.
Of this the following proofs may be adduced. That the origin
of this doctrine is to be found in Zech. xii. 10 will be very appa-
rent, if we compare a passage from the Gemara of Jerusalem
(probably compiled about the year a.d. 230 or 270) with the
Gemara of Babylon (probably belonging to the sixth century).
In the former the following words occur with reference to Zech.

1 That this doctrine is of recent date has been proved by Gldsener, de
gemino Judceorum Measia (Ilelmst. 1739 p. 145 sqq.), tSckottgen (p. 359),
and Be Wette who borrows from them, from the fact that the earliest para-
phrasts, Jonathan (on the propliets) and Oukelos (on the Pentateuch) refer
to Messiah ben David, all the passages which the more modern writers apply-
to Messiah ben Joseph.

358 APPENDIX IV.

xii. 10, *• there are two diiferent opinions as to the meaning of
this passage ; some suppose it to refer to the lamentation of the
Messiah, others to lamentation on account of the existence of
innate sinful desires." In the second passage (in the Tractate
Succoth, fol. 52, col. 1, copied into Glaeseners de gem. Jud.
Messia, p. 46) we find these remarks on Zech. xii. 12, " And
the land will mourn, every family apart. . . Why will this
mourning take place ? B.. Dusa and the doctors are not agreed
on this point. According to one opinion, on account of Messiah
ben Joseph, who is to be put to death. Peace be with him, who
supposes the passage to refer to the death of Messiah ben Joseph.
To him does Zech. xii. 10 refer, and they will mourn for him,
as one mourneth for his only son." In the first passage Zech.
xii. 10 is interpreted without reserve, as relating to the dying
Messiah ; and yet there is a sign of perplexity and uncertainty
in the opinion that the lamentation has reference, not to the
Messiah himself, but to the sin which has caused his death.
(For the meaning of the passage in the Talmud compare the
remarks on Zech. xii. 10). In the second the knot is cut by
the fiction of a Messiah ben Joseph. That the origin of this
doctrine is to be traced to the passage, which we have quoted from
Zechariah, is still further apparent from the fact that the Jewish
writers constantly base it upon this, and mention it in connection
with words taken from the verse in question. (Compare the
passages in Glaesener I. c. p. 56, 57, 147, append, p. 9). Lastly,
the doctrine of the Messiah ben Joseph has completely the cha-
racter of a doctrine, invented for the simple purpose of getting
rid of a difficult passage in the Bible, which is afterwards laid
on one side, as being no longer needed. All that is done with
the Messiah ben Joseph is that he is made to die, after the help
of another prophecy (Ezek. xxxvii.) has been called in, and a
possible occasion for his death discovered. Beyond that no fur-
ther questions are asked, as Glaesener has correctly observed (p.
91 : " Altum nunc est in scriptis Judteorum de Messia ben Jo-
seph silentium. Postquam enim cum reliquis a Messia ben
David et Elia a mortuis excitatus fuerit, nihil de eo ulterius
deprehenditur. Nulla ei pr^erogativa prse reliquis Israelitis in"
regno Messioe ben David coneeditur, nullumque prjemium pro-

THE SUFFERING AND ATONING CHRIST IN THE 0. T, 359

clade perpessa imoque ipsa morte pro illis suscepta propositum."^
We must now turn to the objections brought by De Wette (p.
79) against this explanation of the origin of the doctrine. " If
this fable," he says, " was merely invented with a view to get rid
of the idea, that the Messiah ben David would endure suffering,
how is it that we find the doctrine of the Messiah ben Josepii
referred to by writers, who have no hesitation in speaking of the
Messiah ben David as suffering and atoning, such for example
as the author of the book Sohar and the Babylonian Gemarists ?"
This objection only applies to such as Schmidt, Stdudlin, and
many earlier writers, who maintain that the doctrine of the Mes-
siah ben Joseph was invented, simply for the purpose of having
some one, to whom it would be possible to transfer all the pas-
sages, which speak of a suffering and atoning Messiah ; but it
does not affect us, who merely trace the doctrine to the difficulty,
which was felt, of believing in the deoih of the Messiah ben
David. The former assertion is certainly incorrect. There is
not a single instance, in which suffering and deep humiliation
are spoken of in connection with the Messiah ben Joseph pre-
vious to his dying, and so far as we know, except in one passage
which is quoted by Eisenmeiiger i. p. 720, and De Wette, p. 76,
atoning efficacy is never attributed to his death. But this
passage is taken from the book Shne Luclioth Haherit, a work
of R. Jeshala Horwitz, who died 1610 (vid. Wolf Bibl. I, p.
703). It cannot, therefore, be taken into consideration here, on
account of its recent date. On the other hand, in the earliest
writings, such as the Sohar and Talmud, suffering and atone-
ment are always attributed to the Messiah ben David, most
probably because the possibility of representation was supposed
to be founded excJusivel}'' upon his higher, superhuman nature.
But that it was just with this higher superhuman nature of the

1 It 13 true, Glaesener (append, p. 11) has revoked this statement, and quotes
two passages, in which the Messiah ben Joseph is represented as a kind
of under-king in the Messianic kingdom ; but he is wrong in this, for the
passages in question belong to two very recent authors, llabbi Meier Aldabi,
and Menasse ben Israel, and therefore hardly come into consideration at all.
In this instance, as in fact throughout his work, Glaesener lays himself open
to the charge, brought against him by Schottgeii (p. 3GG), of confounding to-
gether the doctrines of the ancient and modern Jeivs.

360 APPENDIX IV.

Messiah that his death was regarded as irreconcileable, and that it
was this which led to the doctrine of a second Messiah of an inferior
nature, is evident from a passage of the Sohar, m Sommer tlieol.
Sohar, p. 91. " Illo ipso die proveniet Messias, proprietatibus
vitalibus, perfectionibus et prterogativis convenientibus in-
structus. Quce tamen natura non rehnquetur sola, sed adjun-
getur ipsi Messias alter, filius Josephi. . . . Quia vero iste
erit coUis inferior, destitutns proprietatihus vitalibus, morietur
hie Messias et occisus in statu mortis permanebit ad tempus,
donee recolliget iterum vitam hie collis et resurget." " On this
assumption," continues De Wette, "it is impossible to explain
why the lower Messiah is called Messiah ben Joseph or ben
Ephraim, and yet the name cannot have been given without any
reason." But we must make a distinction here between the
source of the doctrine of a Messiah ben Joseph generally, and
the origin of the name. When the doctrine of a second Messiah
had been once invented for a totally different reason , the attempt
was made to secure another end by the name which was given
him. The opportunity was embraced of paying a compliment
to the ten tribes, by allotting to them at least the lower Messiah,
whilst the higher, being a descendant of David, was to spring
from the tribe of Judah. That this is the correct explanation
of the origin of the name, is evident from the fact, that the lower
Messiah is called ben Joseph and ben Ephraim interchangeably,
not merely in later writings, but also in numerous passages of
the Sohar (see, for example, Scliottgen 1. c. p. 551), and that
there is a passage in Scliottgen p. 360, in which he is Assigned
to the tribe of Manasseh, whilst the Messiah ben David is also
called Messiah ben Judah. (See Glaesener, p. 53).^ At the same
time, that the wish to do honour to the ten tribes was not the
principal motive for the selection of the name, but merely a
subordinate one, is apparent from the fact that, as we have
already shown, after the history of the Messiah ben Joseph has

1 The fact that the Messiah is called ben Joseph and ben Ephraim inter-
changeably, is a proof that the patriarch Josejih must Ixs intended. This is
a sufficient objection to the hypothesis suggested in Colhi's hihl. Tlieol. i. p. 497,
that the doctrine of a Messiah ben Joseph originated in a misunderstanding
of certain New Testament expressions, especially iu the fact that, in the New
Testament, Jesus is not merely called the Son of David, but also the Son of
Joseph, Luke iii. 23, and iv. 22.

THE SUFFERING AND ATONING CHRIST IN THE 0. T. 361

been continued to his death, and even his resurrection has been
mentioned, he is forgotten altogether.

De Wette (p. 81), who follows Glaesencr, accounts for the origin
of the doctrine of a Messiah ben Joseph, on the ground that the
Jews desired thereby to indicate the fact, that the ten tribes
would be gathered together out of all the countries of the earth
by the Messiah, and introduced by him into the land of Canaan.
But, even apart from the positive grounds, whicli may be adduced
in favour of the explanation given by us, the improbability of
this hypothesis is at once apparent. And, with the exception of
two passages from the book ]\Iikveh Israel, written by Jt.
Manasseh ben Israel, which cannot be taken into account at all,
both on account of its recent date (it appeared for the first time
in 1650, JVoJ/B'ihl. i., p. 783), and also because of the untradi-
tional character of its contents, in not one of the passages quoted
by Glaesener (p. 202, sqq.) and De Wette (p. 81), is the task
assigned to the Messiah ben Joseph of gathering the Israelites
together out of the different countries of the earth, and bringing
them to the holy land. On the contrary, the Israelites them-
selves assemble together out of the different lands, and come to
him after his resurrection. But what inducement could this
hold out to the invention of such a doctrine, seeing that they
might just as well have come together at the very first to the
Messiah ben David, under whom, even according to the doctrine
of the Jews, the most important gathering together would first
take place (Vid Glaesener, p. 69). We have already seen,
that the death of the Messiah ben Joseph forms the central
point of the whole doctrine. But if we adopt De Wette' s ex-
planation, it is impossible to see what reason there was for mak-
ing him die at all. It is very evident that the reasons assigned
by De Wette (p. 82) are not satisfactory, — viz., that " only one
Messiah could reign, and therefore it seemed advisable to remove
the other out of the way." He completely overlooks the fact
that the Messiah ben Joseph is to be raised, along with the rest
of the dead, by the Messiah ben David and Elias. If, then, the
difficulty actually existed, which it does not, since it was quite
possible to assign to the Messiah ben Joseph a subordinate posi-
tion in the kingdom of the Messiah, it would not be removed by
his death. — " The need of an atonement might furnish an

362 APPENDIX lY.

opportunity for inventing the account of his death." But we
have already seen that the death of the Messiah ben Joseph was
not supposed to possess an atoning efficacy ; on the contrary it
was from the vicarious sufferings of the Messiah ben David that
an atonement was expected. — " The sin of Jeroboam appeared
to demand his death." This is proved by one single passage from
the book Jalkut Chadash, which is of very recent date, and was
not held in much respect by the Jews themselves (see Wolf
Bibl. ii., p. 1308). That this was not the inducement in the
case of the earlier Jews, is evident from the simple feet, that they
did not regard the death of the Messiah ben Joseph as possess-
ing any atoning virtue. Moreover, the guilt of Jeroboam is
washed away along with all the rest by the vicarious sufferings
of the Messiah ben David.

(2.) The second hypothesis, invented for the purpose of recon-
ciling the passages which treat of a suffering Messiah, and those
which represent him as coming in glory, was the doctrine that,
previous to his appearance upon earth, he atoned in Paradise for
the sins of men by indescribable sufferings. This explanation is
found in the book Sohar, and is very rarely met with elsewhere.
(Compare the passages quoted by Elseninenger ii., p. 320) ;
Glaesener, p. 28, sqq. ; BertholcU, Christologia § 25 ; and De
Wette, p. 65. See also the leading passages from the Sohar in
vol. ii., p. 313). How could so romantic an idea have ever
entered any one's mind, if the doctrine of a suffering and atoning
Messiah had been borrowed from the Christians, who connect
together the sufferings and glory of the Messiah in so perfectly
natural a way ?

(3.) To the same end another opinion, which was quite as widely
spread, was first adopted, — namely, that the Messiah was already
born, but that up to the time of his manifestation he would be
engaged in atoning for the sins of the Is}'aelitish nation, an
opinion, the antiquity of which is evident from the fact, that it
occurs in the dialogue with the Jew Trypho. The existence of
two hypotheses, so different in their character as these, shews
clearly enough how difficult it was, to know what to do with a
suffering and atoning Messiah. That the latter of the two owes
its origin solely to the difficulty caused by the doctrine of a
suffering Messiah, is apparent from the fact, that the birth of the

THE SUFFERING AND ATONING CHRIST IN THE O. T. 363

Messiah, wherever it occurs, is associated with his sufferings and
atonement. (Compare the passages in Glaesener, p. 22 sqq. ;
Corrodi i. p. 284 seq. ; and De IVette, p. 66). It is true, De
Wette asserts (p. 63) that the notion of the Messiah being already
born, was founded upon certain calculations, which led to the
conclusion that the Messiah must have come already. But of
all the passages mentioned, the whole of which are taken from
Glaescnei', p. 15 sqq., who quotes them for a different purpose,
there is not a single one at all conclusive, or even one which
bears upon the subject. The question discussed in all these
passages, is not why the Messiah must be already born, but why
he has not yet appeared. The cause is traced to the want of
penitence and good works on the part of the Israelites, and with
this explanation every calculation that failed to be verified could
be easily disposed of, and therefore there was no necessity to
resort to the theory that the Messiah was already born, a loop-
hole, moreover, which is nowhere to be met with. Our explana-
tion of the origin of the hypothesis respecting the birth of the
Messiah, is also confirmed by the period fixed upon for that event.
It is affirmed with tolerable unanimity, that it occurred in con-
nection with the conquest of the city, and in fact on the day
when the temple was destroyed. (Consult the passages in
Glaesener, p. 25). The destruction of the temple prevented the
possibility of the sacrifices being continued, and as the interrup-
tion of the means of reconciliation with Grod which had hitherto
existed, was naturally the cause of great lamentation. In order
to obtain a substitute, the birth of the Messiah, which it was
thought necessary to assume, in order to gain time for his suf-
ferings, was transferred to the very time when the former ceased,
and it was then that his sufferings and atonement were supposed
to commence.

The result, then, which we have obtained is this : the doctrine
of a suffering and atoning Messiah existed among the Jews from
the very earliest times, and was not the result of Christian
influence, but derived from the Old Testament. So much, at
least, may be granted, that this doctrine was more widely spread
and met with a more ready reception among the Jews, subse-
quently to the time of Christ. This may possibly be accounted
for, in part, on the ground that the prominence given to the

364 APPENDIX IV.

doctrine of a suffering Messiah among the Christians, caused the
attention of the Jews to be more particularly directed to this
point in their own doctrines concerning the Messiah. But the
true cause is certainly to be found in the fact, that, after the
destruction of the temple had deprived the Jews of their apparent
sufficiency, their attention was more closely directed to the
Messiah. This is obvious from a passage which is quoted from
the Sohar in Sommers tJieol. p. 94, " while the Israelites were
in the Holy Land, they got rid of all these diseases and punish-
ments by means of holy works and sacrifices ; but now (the
Levitical worship having ceased) the Messiah must take them
away from men," a passage from which De Wette, p. 6Q, rashly
attempts to prove, that the doctrine of a suffering and atoning
Messiah originated with the destruction of the temple. Does it
follow, however, from the fact that in later times so much import-
ance was attached to that which had disappeared, that the same
importance must have been attached to it while it was still
standing ? The sacrificial worship, even while it lasted, could
never satisfy the longings for redemption, which were felt by the
more earnest minds ; and we have abeady seen, that they were
looking with eagerness for the higher satisfaction, which the Old
Testament promises set before them.

( 3G5 )

APPENDIX Y.

HISTORY OF THE INTEEPRETATION OF THE MESSIANIC
PEOPHEGIES.

The study of tbe Messianic prophecies was pursued with
great interest from the very earliest times. The true principle,
that Christ was the central point of the whole of the Old Testa-
ment, and especially of prophecy (Origen on Matt., vol. iii. of his
works, p. 272), was falsely applied, and the attempt was fre-
quently made to discover direct allusions to Him, where context
and the usages of the language were both unfavourable, either
by literal or historical interpretation. In adducing proofs from
the New Testament, the first glance was frequently thought
sufficient, and the fact was entirely overlooked, that the treat-
ment of the Old Testament in the New is of a very refined and
spiritual character. Very frequently the opinion was openly
expressed, that it is better to look for Christ ten times where he
is not to be found, than to omit to seek him once where he is to
be found. In the case of passages which were correctly regarded
as Messianic, commentators often allowed themselves to resort
to forced interpretations, for the purpose of giving to the allu-
sions to Christ a thoroughly individual character, or with a
view to increase the number of arguments brought against the
non-Messianic expositors. Moreover, justice was not done to the
historical interpretation. The historical starting point of the
Messianic announcements was not thoroughly investigated. In
the time of the Fathers this was the prevalent mode of exposi-
tion. And even in the churches of the Eeformation, in the
Reformed no less than the Lutheran, it soon gained the upper
hand, although Calvin had made the attempt to pave a new

366 APPENDIX V.

way, and had even frequently gone too far^ in the opposite
direction, by denying a direct Messianic allusion, even where it
rests upon the surest foundation. But the Lutheran and Ee-
formed theologians are superior to the Fathers in this respect,
that they entirely renounce the allegorical interpretation, or at
least keep it within more limited bounds, and that they have not
only a great dread of mere caprice, but impose upon themselves
the task of thorough demonstration.

Of the works which give the results of the church-theology in
a condensed form, the most important is the Nucleus prophetice
of Anton Hidsius (Leiden 1863. 4), in which the Jewish inter-
pretations are diligently collected and carefully refuted. Of
much less worth are the two works of the Cocceian A hr. GuUch,
theohgia propJietica (Amsterdam 1675. 4 Ed. 2, 1690. 4), and
Nicol. Gilrtler, Systemo tlteologia propli. (Amsterdam 1702. Ed.
2, Frankfort 1724). Professor Oporin, of Gottingen, (in his
work " die Kette der in den Bilchern des A. T. hefindliclien
VorlierverMindigungen von dem Heilande, Gottingen 1745),
proposes to trace the connection between the four " solemn pre-
dictions" in Gren, iii. 15, Gen. xii., Deut. xviii., and 2 Sam. vii.
and all the other prophecies, and to point out the constancy with

1 That Calvin was influenced by his dislike of forced explanations, and not
by any rationalistic tendencies, is everywhere apparent. Thus, for example,
after quoting the opinion of those who understand by the seed of the woman
(in Gen, iii. 15) Christ, he says : " Eorum sententiam libenter meo suffragio
approbarem, nisi quod verbum seminis nimis violenter ab illis torqueri video.
Quis enim concedet, nomen collectivum de uno tantum homine accipi ?-" In
opposition to such as suppose the expression in Jer. xxxi. 22 (see vol. ii. p.
426), " a woman shall compass a man," to refer to the birth of Christ from
Mary, he observes, " merito hoc ridetur a Judceis." And again, on Is. liii.,
" Hoc caput violenter torserunt Christiani, quasi ad Christum hgec pertinerent ;
cum propheta simpliciter de ipso deo pronuntiet : atque finxerunt hie rubi-
cundum Christum, quod sanguine proprio madidus esset, quem in cruce
fuderit." He opposes the interpretation of Hag. ii. 7 as alluding to a per-
sonal Messiah on this ground : " Quia statim subjungitur : meum argentum
et meum aurum, ideo simpUcior erit sensus, venturas gentes et quidem in-
structas omnibus divitiis, ut se et sua omnia offerant Deo in sacrificium."
The work of ^l?/(/. Hunnius, entitled Calvinus judaizans (Wittenberg • 1595),
must be regarded as in the main incorrect. In most cases in which Calvin
differs from the current interpretation he is in the right, and when he goes
too far, the fault is not so much his own as that of the orthodox party, whose
dogmatic narrow-mindedness and arbitrary expositions excited a well-
grounded mistrust in his mind. It is impossible to hit the true medium in
every case, when such errors as these render a thorough revision and reform
imperatively necessary.

HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION OF THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES. 367

which references to the earlier prophecies occur in those of a
later date.

It could not possibly be expected that this mode of interpre-
tation would remain without opposition. And it was also a very
natural thing, as one extreme produces another, that it should
not make its way without exaggeration. In the early church
Eusebius of Emesa first attempted to sift the passages, which
were supposed to refer to the Messiah, and to distinguish those
which could only be made to apply to him by means of allegorical
interpretation, from those which literally referred to him, {Hiero-
nymus catal script, ecdes. c. 119). Diodorus of Tarsus trode
in his footsteps, and set down many passages which were applied
by others exclusively to Christ, as only admitting of being so
applied in a higher sense. He also maintained that there were
very few passages which i-eferred directly to Christ, ^^.owv xod
xupias;, xara pvjTov and xocQ' laropixv. Theodorus of Mopsuestia,
the pupil of Diodorus, who wrote a book against those who
followed Origen s method of interpretation, went further still.
His own method was pronounced heretical, and condemned. It
found therefore but few adherents, who went so far as he. One
of these was Cosmas Indicopleustes, who divestedof their meaning
even the most obvious of the Messianic prophecies, such, for
example, as Zech. ix. 9, 10, which he referred primarily to
Zerubbabel. Tlieodoret and Chrysosfom attempted to discover
a middle way, which should combine all that was true in these
two opposite systems.^ Grotius went far beyond all his prede-
cessors in the early church. It was not quite honest on his
part to state, as he did in his preface to the Old Testament, that
he had referred " a few passages " (locos nonnullos) which are
usually supposed to apply to Christ, to events which were nearer
to the prophets' own times. For there are only six or seven pas-
sages, more especially Gen. xHx. 10, Dan. ix. 21, tiag. ii. 7, 8,
Mai. iii. 1, in which he finds any direct and literal allusion to
Christ. Not a single passage of Isaiah is regaixled by him as,
strictly speaking, Messianic. The hostile attitude which he thus

1 For a fuller account see EmestVs learned narratio critica de intcrpreta-
hone prophetiarum Messianarum, in Ecclesia Christiana in his Opuscul p.
495 sqq. ^ ^

368 APPENDIX V.

assumed to the New Testament he endeavoured to cover by the
hypothesis, that many declarations, which referred primarily and
literally to nearer events and persons, relate, in a higher sense,
to New Testament times, a supposition which, in his case, is
obviously merely a loophole, and which by no means does justice
to the authority of the New Testament. For example, if Ps. ex.
is not to be regarded as directly Messianic, the whole of the
argument employed by the Lord himself in Matt. xxii. is utterly
without foundation. A similar system of interpretation to that
of Grotius was also adopted by Hammond, Clericus (particu-
larly in his earlier period), Limhorch, and the Socinians, some
of whom preceded Grotius.^ This method of interpretation is
evidently not traceable soleli/ to the same cause, as that which
led Calvin in many instances to deviate from the current expla-
nation, even when it rested upon a sure foundation, — viz., to a
reaction from the opposite extreme. Other causes must have
co-operated with this. One of the principal reasons was a strong
impulse towards a historical interpretation, and, at the same
time, a want of acquaintance with the nature of the prophetic
intuition. It was difficult to explain, how the anticipations of
the Messianic salvation, in the case of the prophets, should be so
closely connected in many cases with declarations, which indis-
putably referred to their own times and the immediate future.
Grotius himself observes that it was this which chiefly determined
his own method of interpretation : " feci autem hoc, quod viderem
male cohasrere verborum rerumque apud prophetas seriem, quae
cajteroquin pulcherrima est." His cold prosaic mind unfitted hiiu
for comprehending such intuitions, as far transcend the limits of
ordinary experience. Moreover, just as love to Christ and firm
faith in him had led the adherents of the opposite method to
resort to many a forced interpretation, so, on the other hand, is
it impossible to overlook the fact, that want of love and weakness
of faith were among the determining causes here. The very
persons, who refer the clearest passages of the Old Testament to
any other subject rather than to their Lord and Saviour, when
they come to interpret the New Testament, manifest a similar
disposition to resort to a superficial, jejune, and spiritless expo-

1 For details see Reuss, opusc. theol. ii., p. 118, sqq.

HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION OF THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES. 369

sition, and we are certainly not wrong in referring both to the
same source.

The venerable Leipzig theologian _Chr. Aug. Crusius (in his
hypomnemafa ad theologiam propheticam, 3 vols., Leipzig 1764,
sqq.) endeavoured to avoid both by-paths. Although in the
main he took the side of the orthodox theology, in opposition to
Grotius and his supporters ; yet he spoke against the " prascipi-
tantia de Christo interpretandi quas et quatenus de isto non
agunt, quo fit, ut suspecta etiam reddantur, qua3 de illo recte
intelliguntur.'" There are some general treatises in this work,
in which we meet with very striking thoughts.^ In many
respects it furnishes the clue to new and correct ideas, especially
with reference to the nature of prophetic intuition.^ At the
same time it is very evident, that Delitzsch* has considerably
overrated both the man and his work. Whoever passes from
DeUtzsch to the work itself, will very soon be undeceived. The
labours of Crusius, in connection with the Old Testament, cannot
by any means be compared with what Beiigel has done for the

1 Vol. i. p. 113.

2 Thus, for example, we find in his work the correct explanation of the
idea of Israel, which so many are now inclined to distort in a thoroughly
.Judaizing manner. Although he rejects — and quite properly so — the dis-
tinction between the natural and the spiritual Israel, he finds the legitimate
continuation of Israel in the whole Christian Church, in which he follows the
apostle Paul, who speaks of the Christian Church as the Israel of God (Gal. vi.
16), and says, with reference to all the true members of the Christian Church,
whether circumcised or uncircumcised, " we are the circumcision " (Phil. iii.
3). In Part i. p. 173, Crusius says, " Omnes veri Christiani accensentur
Israeli, non tamen eo modo ac si Israel vetus, proprie dictus, typus sit Israelis
spiritualis, improprie dicti. Vetus Dei Israel etiam, antequam Christus venit,
p:oselytas sinu suo excipere potuit, qui deinde partem gentis faciebant.
Multo magis vi foederis et promissionis, postquam Christus venit, cujus fide
verus Israel etiam antea coram deo censebatur, et a maculis gentis (Deut.
xxxiii. 5) discernebatur, gentibus quam plurimis secum coalescentibus jam-
jam amplificatus est, et postremum omnem oranino terram possidendam
accipiet. Totum hoc ecclesias corpus, cujus basis fuit pars fidelis Israelitarum
secundum carnem, aliquando reliquias posterorum partis degeneris itidem in
sinum suum recipiet." Compare with this our own remarks in Vol. i. p. 210
sqq., and Vol. iv. p. 56, also the Commentary on Rev. vii. 4 and xi.

3 For example, Part i. p. 621, " Res, quas prophetae prajdicunt, plerumque
sistuntur complexe, ita ut in universo ambitu summatim spectentur, vel xuto.
TO avoTiXKriAo., h. e. sccundum id, quod res erit, ubi ad fastigium suum perti-
gerit, non item adduntur partes singulge, nee successiva graduum consccutio,
aut periodorum temporis distinctio, etiam ubi de remotis, vel per tempora
longe dissita divisis dicitur. ,

•1 " Die bill. 2)rop}ietische Theologie ihre FoTibildung durch Crusius
Leipz. 45.

VOL. IV. 2 A

370 APPENDIX V.

New. (Bengel directed but little attention to the Old Testa-
ment, and his merits in this respect, which are so highly cele-
brated by Delitzsch, — viz., in the introduction of chiliasm, &c.,
are of a very questionable character). The very things for which
Bengel is so distinguished, his spirit of submission to the Scrip-
tures, and his microscopic observation, are those in which
Crushes is very deficient. He has spun out for himself a philo-
sophical system, and with this he approaches the Bible. His
merits are altogether restricted to general points of view.
Whenever he enters into the details of criticism, he is quite
unprofitable. For historical interpretation his mind is but little
adapted. You may read, for example, through the whole of the
long section on Balaam, without finding a single remark which
really helps you forward.

Hitherto the conviction had been so universally entertained,
that the Old Testament contained in general a genuine revela-
tion from God, and in particular, predictions of the Messiah,
dictated by His spirit, that the disputes had been restricted to
details alone. It is since the last quarter of the eighteenth
century, that a complete division of opinion has gradually taken
place with reference to the fundamental view itself. Starting
with the doctrinal premises, that nature forms a complete and
independent whole, upon which God will not and cannot operate,
either by inspiration from within or miracles from without, a
totally new attitude was of necessity assumed in relation to the
Messianic prophecies. Their very nature was destroyed. C. F.
Ammon, who was the first to enter into an elaborate treatment
of the subject from this point of view, in his " Entivurf einer
Ghristologie des A. T." (Erl. 94), describes the purport of his
work in these terms : "it seeks to prove, that by means of the
entire history of the mental culture of the Jews, and even by means
of the patriotic desires of the prophets, the way was indisputably
prepared by providence for the coming of Jesus ; but that there is
nothing in the oracles of the Hebrew seers, to show that they had
any clear and distinct view of the person and career of the
divine founder of our religion.^" We see here, that even in this

1 If consistency in itself and under all circumstances be really an honour'
this honour must be awarded to Ammon in connection with this subject. In
his " Weltreligion," which appeared a generation later, and in which he has
compressed the attitude of his life into a single word, he writes exactly
to the same effect.

HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION OF THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES. 371

respect, the influence of rationalism is, without exception, of a
destructive character, and repudiates all connection with the
Christian Church of every age.

The leading points in the rationalistic opinions were the fol-
lowing. The Messianic hopes are nothing more than a patriotic
fancy of the so-called prophets, who are all open to the charge
brought by Jeremiah against the false prophets, of prophesying
" from their own hearts." They arose in a purely natural way,
and without any direct intervention on the part of Grod. Under
David and Solomon the nation had reached the summit of power
and prosperity. But shortly afterwards it sank down again.
The strength of the nation was first of all broken by the separa-
tion of the ten tribes ; and the invasions of the Assyrians, and
at a later period of the Chaldeans, brought it very near to
destruction. Hand in hand with outward disaster went inward
decay. Idolatry and immorality gained more and more the
upper hand. What was more natural under such circumstances
as these, than that the prophets, raising themselves above the
present, should look forward to the return of the times of David
and Solomon, and should associate these hopes with some great
successor of David, under whose righteous government the na-
tion would again be prosperous in proportion to its godliness,
and would overcome its unjust oppressors ?^

To establish this view, which was hitherto quite unknown in
the Christian Church, was not a very difficult thing for rationalism,
which is nothing but atheism in the germ, and the whole ten-
dency of which is to shut out God from earthly things, and thus
prepare the way for a denial of his existence. The rationalists
were aware of the sympathies of their contemporaries. We will
just collect together the remarks, which we find scattered about

1 Vid. De JVettehihl. Dogm. § 138, " David was the first who united the
divided and shattered nation, and raised it to prosp ^rity and power. With
the division of the kingdom this golden age came to an end. It was natural
that the hope of its futiire return should be connected with the house of
David, and that a hero should be expected to arise resembling his great
ancestor. In the period anterior to David it is possible that the hope of
reformation, common to all men, may have been entertained ; but the hope of
the Messiah could not arise till after the time of David, for it was under him
that the nation, as it were, first came to its senses, and di8C(jvered the advan-
tages of the theocratic kingdom. From this it naturally follows tliat the
hope was of Jewish origin."

372 APPENDIX V,

here and there, and submit them to investigation. (1). " The
human form of the Messianic idea is apparent from the fact, that
it changed with the changing circumstances of the nation. But
it is impossible, that the variable image of diiferent ages should
be realised at one particular period, in a certain unchangeable
subject."^ To this we reply, the Messianic announcement
was only so far changeable, that those views were always pre-
sented, which were best adapted, under certain circumstances, to
edify the people of God in accordance with the universal custom
in the Scriptures, the searching effects of which are due to the
fact, that they do not teach after the manner of a dogmatic com-
j)endium. but in living connection with the necessities of the
times. The only thing, that would give any force to this argu-
ment, would be the discovery of actual contradictions. But these
no one has ever been able to point out. The apparent discre-
pancy, for example, between the announcements of a suffering
Messiah and those of a Messiah in glory, is removed by the fact,
that in Is. liii., which forms the central point of all the announce-
ments of a suffering Messiah, the suffering is represented
as the pathway to glory, and its necessary condition. But what
is decisive against the " human origin of the Messianic idea" is
this, that notwithstanding all the variations in the announce-
ment itself, the scattered features do admit of being combined
together, so as to form one harmonious portrait, and this portrait
tallies exactly with the historical appearance of Christ. The
only possible explanation of this is, that behind the human
instruments employed a divine causality lay concealed, which
secured the manifold against degenerating into contradiction and
disunion, and which completed this image in the course of cen-
turies, by constantly adding fresh features, as the necessities of
the Church demanded. (2). It is maintained that there is " not
even a plain and distinct announcement of Jesus of Nazareth as
the sole source of blessedness to both Jews and heathen," but
that we meet on every hand with nothing but " poetical, indefi-
nite and ambiguous delineations of the future."^ But it is the
universal plan adopted by Grod in the Scriptures, to afford so
much clearness, that faith, for which alone the Scriptures are

1 Ziegler in Henke's Magazin I. i. p. 83.

2 V. Ammon. Forthildung des Christenthums zur Wdtreligion i. p. 189 sqq.

HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION OF THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES. 373

designed, may find its way, and so much obscurity, that unbe-
lief may mistake the road, just as tlie nature God not only reveals
himself, but also hides himself, that he may be found by the
seekers alone. Such passages as Is. liii., and in general all the
Messianic prophecies, when taken in connection with these cen-
tral points, are in their nature perfectly plain and definite, and
not poetical or ambiguous ; but in the form, which is inaccessible
to the common mind, care has been taken that the words of the
Lord himself shall be carried out, " I thank thee, 0 Father,
Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from
the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." The
Scriptures are not to be understood by all. The apostle speaks
of such as are appointed or ordained of God not to comprehend
the word (1 Pet. ii. 8), and if there are such men at all, it must
be the men of the world-religion (Weltreligion), the psychikoi
(natural men), who have no spirit. — (3), The Messianic pro-
phecies are said to be of a " purely political character, and to
bear the marks of Jewish nationality and selfishness" (v. Am-
nion.) This would inevitably have been their character, if they
had been of human origin. But we shall by and by adduce
the fact that this is not their character, as a proof of their
divine origin. It it true that if any one is desirous of find-
ing out that this is a characteristic, care has been taken that
the letter of these prophecies shall contain many things,
which seem to favour such a conclusion. But whoever is
qualified by the spirit of Christ, for interpreting what the
spirit of Christ has foretold, perceives everywhere the spiritual
background, and is able to distinguish between the thought
itself and the dress in which it is clothed. The necessity for
making this distinction is evident, to take a single example, from
Is. xix. 19, where an altar of the Lord is represented as being
erected in the midst of the land of Egypt in the days of the
Messiah (see Vol. L, p. 141, 142), as compared with Is. ii. 2 sqq.,
and Ixvi. 23, in which the heathen are described as coming to
Jerusalem in the Messianic age. — (4). We are told that there
is very much, which has not been fulfilled in any way in the
New Testament times. But the proofs, which are adduced here,
rest in part upon false interpretation. This is the case, for
example, with the assertion which has been made, that in Ezekiel

374 APPENDIX V.

Jehovah promises to give to the restored nation his servant
David as king/ instead of a mere Davidic sprout — (according
to Ezek. xvii. 22, the Messiah is a tender twig from the top
of a lofty cedar, a sprout and offshoot from the great Davidic
stem, not David himself) — and it is also the case, when the old
error is renewed, that Malachi announces in chap. iii. 23, the
actual return of the old prophet Elijah as the forerunner of the
Messiah, " probably by means of transmigration,"^ which is
entirely foreign to the whole of the Old Testament. There are
other proofs, again, which rest upon the blindness of rationalism
with regard to the true nature of Christ. For example, when
it is affirmed, that " the Messiah is represented as king, and
Christ has not fulfilled this representation ; the Messiah was to
reign for ever upon the earth, and Christ left it after a very
brief period of labour," we have here the evidence of a shameful
disregard of Him, who declared himself to be a king (John xviii.
37), the possessor of a ^ocaCkzia,, which is the more thoroughly
world-wide in its extent, from the fact that it has its origin, not
in the world, but immediately from heaven (ver. 36), the son
of the heavenly king (Matt. xxii. 2, compare xxi. 37), and who
solemnly declared, before his departure from the earth, that all
power was given to him in heaven and on earth, and that he
would be with his people always even to the end of the world. —
(5). On the ground of Christ's assertion in Luke vii. 28, and
Matt. xi. 11, that, although John the Baptist was the greatest
of the prophets under the Old Testament, he was less than the
least of the members of the new kingdom of Grod (according to
the correct explanation, he merely stands upon the same level
as the little ones under the New Testament ; Vol. iv., p. 240),
Ammon and Baumgarten-Crusius maintain, that it must be
wrong to form any exalted conceptions of the illumination of
the prophets. But these words of the Lord had reference simply
to the ordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit, which John possessed,
and to his state of grace. This is apparent from the circum-
stances under which they were spoken, and from their con-
nection with the declaration, " Blessed is he whosoever shall not

1 D. Strauss, Glaubenslehre i., p. 80, see Vol. iii. p. 37.

2 Srauss andu. Ammon.

HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION OF THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES. 375

be offended in me." The object of Christ was to show, that
there was nothing surprising in the fact that the faith of John
had been shaken. With reference to his personal state of grace,
John occupied but a low position, when measured by the stan-
dard of the New Testament, on account of his not having
entered into close association with Christ, and still more because
he did not possess the gifts, which were only bestowed as the
result of Christ's atoning death, John vii. 39. But the greater
the imperfection of the ordinary gifts under the Old Testament,
the more necessary was it for extraordinary gifts to be con-
ferred upon the servants and instruments of God, and the
more miraculous was the form which they inevitably assumed.
In the very same passage Christ defends the prophetic dignity
of John in the fullest sense, and at the same time refers to the
genuineness of the prophetic character of Malachi, who had
spoken in the spirit of this forerunner of the Lord. " This is he,"
says the Saviour, " of whom it is written, Behold I send my
messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before
thee." If it had been the Lord's intention to deny the divine
illumination of the prophets, he would have placed himself in
opposition to the tenor of the whole of the New Testament.^
(6). The assertion of L. Bauer''- rests upon exegetical incapacity.
He says, " the hopes of the prophets were not fulfilled. After
the captivity, their state never reached this lofty summit of pros-
perity, and instead of this politico-religious kingdom enduring
for ever along with all its rites and ceremonies,' it has ceased to
exist for more than 1700 years." We have already proved that
the legitimate continuation of Israel is the Church of Christ,
against which the gates of hell are not to prevail and have not
prevailed, and in which there resides a strong and irresistible force,
urging it towards continual extension to the ends of the earth.
The destruction of Jerusalem was not the overthrow, but the
triumph of Israel, Luke xxi. 28, 31. The prophets were so
far from promising salvation to the great mass of the Jews in
conneciion with the coming of the Messiah, that they expressly

1 CrusUis, Theol. proph. 1. p. 5. Scriptura fidem superstrui vult prophetis,
quod docet praxis Christi nee non pioi'um hominum tempore Christi, v. g.
Zacharite Luc. i, 70, Marine, Luc. i. 54, et omnium apostolorum, ut et di-
serta effata, Job. v. 39, 2 Tim. iii. 15, 1 Pet. i. 12, 13.

2 Theolojie des A. T. Ldpz. 1796 p. 404.

376 APPENDIX V,

associated their rejection and the destruction of their city, as well
as the entire cessation of their rites and ceremonies, with that
event.

It is evident, then, that the views of the rationalists are utterly
destitute of any tenable foundation. On the other hand the fol-
lowing positive arguments may be adduced against them.

(1). The view of prophecy, which lies at the foundation of this
hypothesis, is a thoroughly false one, and is at variance alike
with the Old Testament itself, and with the testimony of Christ
and his apostles. Herder has already observed (Briefe, p. 234),
that we cannot pronounce the prophets dreamers and fanatics,
as this hypothesis does, without at the same time giving up the
entire history of the Jewish nation, the economy of God with
regard to it, in brief, its whole existence in and with the Old
Testament, as a dream, or else condemning it as a delusion.
Prophecy formed the necessary part of the economy of the Old
Testament. Its position is assigned to it by the founder himself
In Deut. xviii. God declares through him, that he will raise up
a prophet, that He will put words into his mouth, that they shall
speak all that He shall command them, that whosoever will not
hearken unto their words, which they shall speak in His name,
He will require it of him. And thus do all the arguments,
which attest the divine origin and divine superintendence of the
Old Testament, speak against this hypothesis. Again, this
hypothesis falls to the ground with every special prophecy,
whether Messianic or not, which can be shown to have been
fulfilled. For if God acknowledged the prophets to be his servants
in other instances, we have no right to pronounce the Messianic
idea the mere offspriag of caprice. Whoever subscribes to this
hypothesis must also consent to the forcible operations, by which
rationalism has endeavoured to conceal the remarkable agree-
ment between prophecy and its fulfilment. One single predic-
tion, such as those of Jeremiah, respecting the seventy years'
captivity in Babylon and the fall of Babylon (chaps. 1. and li.),
or such as Zech. ix. 1 — 8, is amply sufficient to show the un-
founded character of this view of prophecy, and therefore the
unfounded character of the whole hypothesis. It is also opposed
by everything, which the prophets adduce in attestation of their
divine mission ; compare, for example, the confidence with

HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION OF THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES. 377

which Isaiah promises to give to Ahaz a sign from the height
above or from the depth (chap, vii.), and the sign which he
actually gives to Hezekiah (chap, xxxviii.). Again, the prophets
themselves are most firmly convinced that they do not speak of
their own caprice, but through the inward prompting of the
Holy Spirit (compare, in addition to the frequently repeated
expression, " thus saith the Lord," Amos iii. 7, " the Lord doeth
nothing, he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets ;"
also ver. 8, Jer. i. 9, 10, xx. 7 sqq., and the whole series of
extracts from Isaiah given in Vol. ii. p. 181) ; and in this con-
viction they cheei'fiilly endure all the sufferings which their
prophecies bring upon them. The irresistible force of this con-
viction may be seen in the example of Jeremiah, and also in that
of the earlier Micah (Micaiah) in 1 Kings xxii. To prophesy
out of one's own heart, and on one's own account, was regarded
by the prophets as an unmistakeable mark of false prophecy
(Jer. xiv. 14, xxiii. 21, xxvii. 14, 15, xxix. 9). From this they
knew that they were separated by a wide gap, which rationalism
has attempted in vain to fill up. That the conviction of the
prophets, that they were the instruments of God, was a well-
founded one, is attested by the imposing attitude which they
assumed for centuries in connection with the history of the
nation. This attitude rationalism is utterly unable to explain .
The example of Savonarola shows how quickly the prophets would
have been put to shame, especially in so extremely difficult a
situation, if they had not been endowed with truly supernatural
gifts. Again, it is impossible to bring forward anything which
leads to the conclusion, that the prophets gave themselves up
to sanguine hopes. On the contrary, when such hopes were
indulged by every one else, and when the false prophets were
sustaining them by fictitious prophecies, the prophets themselves,
without heeding the danger which threatened them in conse-
quence, fearlessly proclaimed the impending calamities (see, for
example, Jer. xxviii.). On the other hand, we have not the
slightest indication, that the false prophets, who endeavoured to
make themselves agreeable to the nation by setting before it
the brightest prospects, ever prophesied by the Messiah. They
rather confined themselves to the immediate future (Jer. xxviii. ;
1 Kings xxii. 11 ; Micah iii. 5). The province of Messianic

378 APPENDIX V.

salvation, which was sacred from the very first, they never
ventured to enter. Lastly, whenever Christ and the apostles
mention the prophets, they speak of them as extraordinary mes-
sengers of God, who were moved by the Holy Ghost, and the
doctrine, which is expressed with dogmatic emphasis in 2 Pet.
i. 21, " prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but
holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,"
is invariably taken for granted.

(2). This hypothesis is quite as directly at variance with the
express declarations of Christ and his apostles, respecting the
Messianic prophecies. According to the hypothesis in ques-
tion, the agreement between prophecy and its fulfilment was
merely accidental. But Christ frequently declared, that one of
the designs of the events of his life was to fulfil the prophecies,
and thus to attest his own divine mission. He proclaimed
himself to be the Messiah foretold by the prophets ; and gave
expression to the conviction that everything which happened to
him had been previously foretold by them. In Luke xxiv. 25
he reproves the disciples for their weak faith in the prophets,
whereas according to the rationalistic hypothesis such faith was
really a weakness. In Luke xxiv. 44 he explains to the apostles
the prophecies in the Books of Moses, the prophets, and the
Psalms, which refer to him. In numerous passages the apostles
point out the agreement between prophecy and its fulfilment.
In Acts XX vi. 6, Paul speaks of the promise made to the fathers
hy God, whom the rationalists shut out altogether from the
Messianic predictions. In the same manner Peter, the apOstle on
whom Christ founds his Church, smiles rationalism directly in
the face, by tracing the Messianic announcements to revelation
(d7rsKaXu(p9ri^ 1 Pet. i. 12), which he contrasts with their in-
quiring and searching diligently, and which he ascribes to the
spirit of Christ working in them (ro sv avToTs Tivsvfjix Xpiurov,
1 Pet. i. 11), in other words, to an infinite, supernatural source;
whereas, according to the rationalistic hypothesis, the source
from which they drew was their own minds. ^

1 We avail ourselves of this opportunity to direct attention to the fact,
that the whole passage (1 Pet. i. 10 — 12) serves to confirm the exposition
which we have given of Dan. ix. The allusion to Dan. ix. was pointed out
by Bengel, who says in his notes on ver. 12, " the times, for example,

HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION OF THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES. 379

(3). Our opponents themselves only pretend to be able to ex-
])lain the natural rise of such hopes as these, in the times suc-
ceeding the division of the kingdom. But it can be proved that
the Messianic hopes were indulged by Israel from its very earliest
history. Messianic expectations run all through the Pentateuch.
Our opponents, however, have resorted to diiferent expedients,
for the purpose of escaping the consequent difficulty. Some
attempt, though in vain, to get rid of the Messianic passages by
giving to them a different interpretation. Others {e.g. Ziegler,
p. 61 sqq.) maintain, that the anticipations of the Pentateuch
cannot be called Messianic hopes, since they are not associated
with the person of a king. But in doing so they arbitrarily
select the idea of a king, as the sole characteristic of the Mes-
sianic prophecies.

In this case, however, we should be forced to the conclusion that
such passages as Is. xlii., xlix. and liii., where the Messiah is
represented as prophet and high priest, could not justly be called
Messianic prophecies, even if it could be proved that every other
explanation was inadmissible. But it is not correct, that
there are no allusions in the Pentateuch, to the royal dignity of
the Messiah, as we should naturally be led to expect from its
fundamental character. It is a point of great importance, that
even at the very outset the declaration, " kings shall come forth

defined by the seventy weeks of Daniel exactly extend to the time of Christ's
appearance upon eai-th, and to the faithful then living ; this is the force of
' unto us.' And these weeks came to an end during the ministry of Peter. "
Steiger and others, who have overlooked this reference, have completely mis-
taken the meaning. The intention is to bring the reader to a knowledge of
the privileges possessed by him. The inquiry of the prophets sprang from
the desire, that it might be granted to their age to behold Christ. What
they longed for was granted to the contemporaries of the apostle, for whom,
according to a revelation that had been made to the prophets, it w.is expressly
intended. Let us be duly thankful. Dan. ix. is the only passage, in which
there is any indication of the inquiring and searching diligently for the
time of the Messiah, which Peter certainly does not mention without
foundation. We have already shown (Vol. iii. p. 93), that the main question
in Dan. ix. is whether the Messianic salvation was to be looked for immedi-
ately at the close of the seventy weeks of Jeremiah. — ;ai>r«7j, the sixty-
ninth year had already arrived. 'E|£^>)7-o(rav and lln^'-vvt)(ray when taken
in connection with ver. iii. of Dan. ix.,.show the earnestness of the inquiry
and search. Again, Dan. ix., where the divine reply is found, that the
Messianic salvation would not be manifested then, — viz., at the end of the
seventy years of Jeremiah, but after seventy weeks of years, is the only
passage in the Old Testament where there is a distinct declaration, ihat the
coming of Christ was to take place in that particular age Qif^i^, to us).

380 APPENDIX V.

from thee," is so very prominent in the promises made to the
patriarchs. This leads us to expect, that the fulfilment of the
promises in Gen. xii. 1 — 3 and the parallel passages will be
grouped around a kingdom, and that this will be not only the
channel through which the blessings intended for the race of
Abraham will flow, but also the channel through which the same
blessings will flow from Israel to the Grentiles. Again, the king-
dom of the Messiah is very conspicuous in Gen. xlix. 10, which
even BosenmilUer, Winer, and Baumgarten-Crusius regard as
Messianic. The dominion of Judah is represented there as
culminating in Shiloh, the peaceful one, who will be obeyed by
the nations of the earth. In Num. xxiv, 1 7, Balaam prophecies
of the star, which comes out of Jacob, and the sceptre which
rises out of Israel. — Others, again, like De Wette, appeal to the
recent date of the Pentateuch ; but even apart from the fact,
that their theory does not rest upon a sound basis, the Messianic
prophecies contain within themselves the proofs of their origi-
nality. Their gradual progress from obscurity to distinctness,
their germinal character, the unmistakeable difference between
the announcements in the Pentateuch and those which were made
subsequently to the establishment of a monarchical government,
all this can only be explained on the assumption that we have
truth and not fiction before us. Moreover the predominant
influence excited by the Messianic hopes upon the spirit of the
nation, can only be explained on the supposition that the roots
of their hopes reached to the very earliest period of the nation's
history.

The hypothesis is also proved to be incorrect by the existence
of the Messianic prediction in 2 Sam. vii. and of the Messianic
Psalms belonging to the time of David. Our opponents admit
that it can neither be reconciled with, nor explained by the
theory in question. Thus, for example, Ziegler says (p. 73) :
" but in the time of David, and also in that of Solomon, there
was nothing whatever to lead to either the desire or anticipation
of a greater benefactor to the nation ; for they were at that time
the most successful rulers that the nation had ever possessed.
Hence it is extremely probable that the Psalms in our collection
do not contain any expectations of greater things to come, but
that the sacred singers found the materials fur their psalms in

HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION OF THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES. 381

the circumstances of their own or the previous age." L. Bauer
(p. 374) also says, " if this explanation of tlie gradual inse of the
Messiah he correct, it cannot have originated before the time of
the kings, or even before the second period ;" and again in p.
375, " what was there in the time of David and Solomon to lead
to the idea of a deliverer of the nation, seeing that the kingdom
was powerful, and the nation was extending its borders towards
the east and the west, the north and the south." The force
applied, for the purpose of eliminating the Messiah from the
Psalms of the time of David and Solomon, is a clear proof, that
existing facts are entirely irreconcileable with the rationalistic
hypothesis. Another proof of its fallacy is to be found in the
fact, that the Messianic hopes were common to the kingdoms of
Israel and Judah, whereas according to the assertion of our op-
ponents they originated entirely in Judah, and bear the specific
character of that tribe. In this case also it was necessary to em-
ploy forcible means in order to get rid of unmanageable facts.
Thus Ch'ambe7y maintains (in his Religionsgesch. i. p. 585), that
Hosea intended nothing more in chap. iii. 5, than to announce in
a perfectly general manner the return of the nation to Jehovah
under the guidance of the rightful theocratic royal race, and that
he had no particular individual in his mind" (for the contrary
view, see vol. i. p. 282). He also says at p. 590 with regard to
Amos : " he had naturally no thought of a personal, individual
Messiah, in fact, as he spent most of his time in Israel, he had
no particular interest in the family of David." (For the opposite
opinion see Vol. i. p. 385, 386). All salvation, the glorification
of the kingdom of God by its extension far beyond tlie borders
of the Gentiles (ver. 12), and by the communication of the whole
fulness of the divine blessings (ver. 13 — 15), is represented by
Amos as dependent upon the restoration of the fallen tabernacle
of David, and he points, if not directly, yet indirectly and with
sufficient distinctness, to the person of the Messiah.

(4). Our opponents make no pretensions to anything more,
than to be able by means of this hypothesis to explain the idea
of such a merely human Messiah in glory, a political Messiah,
who was to raise the theocracy to greater power and wider domi-
nion. De Wette^ gives the following explanation of the nature

1 Beitrag zur Characteristik des Hebraismus in den Shidien von Daub und
Creuzcr. 1807. ii. p. 307.

382 APPENDIX V.

of the Messianic hopes : " what no philosophy, no faith could
solve, was to be solved by him in deed and in truth. Such as
were to be happy, were to be made happy by him, the pride of
the wicked, the ungodly, the barbarians he was to bring down,
and the poor, the suffering, the oppressed Israel was to triumph
over them. Those who had been so long a byword and ridi-
cule to the nations, were to be henceforth their rulers and
kings." But this is the Messianic anticipation of later and
carnally-minded Jews, not of the prophets. In the very fact
that a necessity is felt for falsifying the idea of the Messiah, a
confession is made, that the true idea cannot be traced to natural
causes. It is absolutely necessary first of all, by means of a
forced interpretation, to get rid of all the passages, in which the
doctrine of the divinity and sufferings, of the death and vicarious
atonement of the Messiah is to be found, in a word, of all the
passages which speak of a Messiah in humiliation. Such pas-
sages as treat of the regal dignity of the Messiah must be insisted
on, in an exclusive and one-sided manner, and the attempt must
be made to get rid of all those, in which he is represented as pro-
phet and high priest as well. Steudel has justly observed that
" the Messianic idea is far too comprehensive and deep, for it to be
possible that it should have been founded upon the life and times
of David the hero."^ In contrast with the politico-national cha-
racter attributed to it, from its first and germinal commencement,
the Messianic prophecy assumed a religious and universal aspect.
The blessing of Shem consists, according to Glen, ix., in the fact
that God enters into the most intimate fellowship with him, and
reveals himself in the midst of him as Jehovah, whilst Japhet
finds Jehovah in the tents of Shem. " In thee shall all the
families of the earth be blessed," is the declaration made to
Abraham. Salvation is not a low, political thing, it consists in
the removal of the curse, which has rested on the whole earth
from the time of the fall, and it belongs not to one single nation,
but to the whole family of man. — Again, if these hopes were
merely the offspring of patriotism, how are we to explain the
fact, that the prophets so unanimously foretel, that the Messiah
will not come till the family of David has fallen into oblivion,
and all the glory, not merely of Israel, but also of Judah, has
1 Die Theologie des A . T., p. 429.

HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION OF THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES. 383

passed away ?^ That the prophets, even those who prophesied
in times of comparative prosperity, such, for example, as Isaiah
and Micah, gave utterance to this conviction, is a proof that they
did not speak according to the mind of the flesh, but were the
instruments of God. Patriotic fanatics would not have given up
anything of the existing possessions, but would rather have taken
these as the basis of their visionary hopes. And how are we to
explain these passages, in which the coming of Christ is repre-
sented as connected with a heavy and just judgment upon the
covenant nation itself, as being associated with unbelief on the
part of the greater part of the nation, and followed by its rejec-
tion and the destruction of Jerusalem ? (Compare, for example.
Is. xlix. : Dan. ix. ; Zech. xi. and xiii. ; and Mai. iii.). How,
again, are we to explain the fact that the prophets not only do
not restrict the Messianic salvation to the ancient covenant
nation, but without exception extend it to all the nations of the
Gentiles, and that this is precisely the one point in the Messianic
prospects, upon which they dwell with peculiar delight, and to
which they constantly return ? If, indeed, these predictions
were all of the same nature as Hag. ii. 7, where the flocking of
the heathen with all their possessions and gifts is regarded as
heightening the glory of the kingdom of God, and ministering
consolation to the poor, miserable, and despised Israel, which was
gioaning under the oppression of the heathen world ; or if they
were all alike Is. Ix., where it is foretold that " strangers will
build thy walls and their kings shall minister unto thee," they
might then with some degree of plausibility be traced to natural
disposition ; though even in this case it would be a very strik-
ing thing, that the heathen should be admitted to a full partici-
pation in salvation, in accordance with the promise constantly
repeated in the book of Genesis, that through the seed of Abra-
ham all the nations of the earth would be blessed. When Ziegler
says (p. 67,) " for the rest of the nations on God's earth the
period of the Messiah's kingdom would be called an iron age,
which assumed more and more the character of iron, in pro[)or-
tion as the Hebrews had' to endure hardship from other nations
and submit to the yoke of the barbarians of the east," he des-

1 Sec Vol. i., p. 1G4, 357, 517 ; ii. 105, 110; iii. 409.

384 APPENDIX V.

cribes most accurately the character which the Messianic predic-
tions would have borne, if they had been the mere offspring of
patriotism. But by the side of these we find other announce-
ments, in which, as in the declaration of the Lord in Luke xiii.
28, 29, the introduction of the heathen is represented, not as the
means of the glorification of Israel, but, on the contrary, of its
rejection. In Is. xlix. 5, 6, the Lord gives to the Messiah the
heathen for his possession, as a compensation for the rebellious
Israelites. In Is. Ixvi. 18, the Lord declares, " and I . . .
their works and their thoughts (what a contrast ! which can
only be removed by the judgment, the ban, the removal
of the hypocrite's mask), the time cometh to gather all the
heathen and witnesses, and they come and behold my glory."
(Compare Mai. i. 11). Again, it does not look much like
patriotism, when in Is. Ixvi. 21 (see Vol. ii., p. 359, 466),
the heathen are represented as not merely entering generally into
connection with the nation of Grod, but also as sharing in the
honours of the priesthood. We must not overlook the fact,
that according to the rationalistic hypothesis the Messianic
anticipations are to be regarded as the product of the poetic
spirit of the nation, of which the prophets were but dependent
and individual organs. But this is altogether at variance with
the circumstance, that in history the Messianic hopes of the nation
always assume the appearance of an echo only, that they seem to
have been introduced from above into the spirit of the nation, and
that each particular element was to be found in a prophetic com-
munication, before it took possession of the mind of the nation.

(5). According to the hypothesis of the rationalists, necessity
was the mother of the Messianic hopes. But there is something
very strange in the fact that it should have been in the case of
the Jews alone, that necessity produced such an effect as this, and
that precisely in their case these subjective nations should have
been confirmed in so striking a manner by the result. Bow
many nations have been hurled down from the summit of great-
ness and renown ! How is it, that the eyes of the others are
turned sorrowfully to the better days that are gone, and that
those of Israel alone look forward in joyful anticipation ? It is
no valid reply that, even in the case of other nations, we meet
with anticipations of a better time for the whole world. For we

HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION OF THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES. 385

have already shown, that whenever these anticipations assume
anything more than the most general form, they are taken from
the Israelites. For this very reason they have never attained to
anything like consistency or a complete development, and have
never exerted a pervading influence upon the national life. On
the other hand, in Israel the Messianic expectations form the
very central point of the life of the nation. Simeon spoke the
mind of every true Israelite, when he said (Luke ii. 29), " Now
lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, 0 Lord, according to
thy word, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation ;" the end of his
existence had been attained, when he had seen the Saviour.
The strength of the hopes of salvation, particularly at the period
of Christ's coming, to which Dan. ii. and vii.. and still more
distinctly Dan. ix., had pointed, is apparent from Luke ii. 38,
where Anna is said to have spoken " to all them that looked for
redemption in Jerusalem." Paul shows us the intensity of the
Messianic belief in Israel, and the impossibility of its being
merely the offspring of a patriotic delusion, in Acts xxvi. 6, 7,
where he says, " And now I stand and am judged for the hope
of the promise made of God unto our fathers : unto which pro-
mise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night,
hope to come." When De Wette says (hibl. Dogm. § 141),
" The prophets at one time lose themselves in the lofty soaring
of their hopes, and at another come down again into the gloom
of present realities," he merely describes the character, which
the Messianic hopes would assume, if they were of human origin.
But the Messianic anticipations which are actually to be found
in the Old Testament are, on the contrary, always the same
throughout the long course of centuries, and are proclaimed and
believed with the most unshaken conviction. They were decidedly
practical in their tendency ; and furnished the nation with a
light in its dark road, and an antidote against despair. We
may see at once how inconvenient this strong confidence, in the
case of the Messianic predictions, has proved to our opponents,
from the fact that they feel impelled to weaken and explain it
away as much as they possibly can. Thus, for example, Gram-
berg (p. 576) speaking cf the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, says:
" The intention of the oracle was to awaken cheerful hopes by

VOL. IV. 2 B

386 APPENDIX V.

the assurance, that there might one day come a prince of the
family of David who would introduce better times."

(6). On this hypothesis it still remains perfectly inexplicable,
that the most minute details in the Messianic predictions of the
prophets, such, for example, as the birth of the Messiah in Beth-
lehem, of a virgin, and at a time when the royal family of David
would have fallen into the deepest obscurity, his labouring chiefly
in Galilee, &c., should have been reproduced in his history.
And even more than this, in all the leading points prophecy goes
hand in hand with the history of Christ, and we find in the for-
mer a comprehensive account of the life of Christ. Looked at in
this light the fallacy of the rationalistic hypothesis would strike
every unprejudiced mind, even if we had nothing more than
the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, Bonnet the philosopher has
written on this subject to the following effect (Paling, philos. 10,
vol. 16, p. 372), " Je tombe sur un ecrit, qui me jette dans le
plus profond etonnement. Je crois y lire une histoire anticipee
et circonstanciee de Tenvoye ; j'y retrouve tous ses traits, son
charactere, et les principales particularites de sa vie. II me
semble en un mot, que je lis la deposition meme des temoins.
Je ne puis detacher mes yeux de ce surprenant tableau ; quels
traits ! quel colorit ! quelle expression ! quel accord avec les faits !
que dis je ? ce n' est point une peinture emblematique de
I'avenir fort eloigne ; c'est une representation fidele du present :
et ce, qui n'est point encore, est peint comme ce, qui est." If we
were to assume, as some have done, that God had directed the
events of history in such a way as to cause these prophecies,
which had originally preceded from human caprice, to be to a
certain extent fulfilled ; on the one hand, we should gain nothing,
for this would be an admission of thie interference of God in the
affairs of the world, and if justice be done to facts, the inter-
ference in this case would be just as immediate and abrupt as
that from which there is a desire to escape ; on the other hand,
in the place of the simple and natural explanation of events
which is supported by the testimony of Christ and his apostles,
there would be substituted a forced and unnatural solution. For
if the interposition of God in producing the agreement between
pi ophecy and history is not denied, which of the two is the more

HISTOKY OF INTERPRETATION OF THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES. 387

natural assumption, that the Spirit of God was at work in the
prophets, and testified beforehand of the life and sufferings of
Christ and the glory that should follow, or that he sanctioned
human error by his subsequent direction of events ? What
would the latter be, but to make the holy God the author of a
vain show, and to represent him as confirming human presump-
tion, and spreading a dazzling halo over an act of daring which
is classed in Deut. xviii. 20 among capital crimes : " the prophet
which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have
not commanded him to speak, even that prophet shall die ?"

The first vigorous assault upon the rationalistic views was
made by J. Jalin} Then followed the first edition of the pre-
sent Christologi/, against which Hofmann^ has brought forward
the objection that " Hengstenberg shows himself perfectly indiffe-
rent to the relation of prophecy to the prophet's own times, to
which, both in its source and ultimate intention, it primarily
belonged." Even Belitzsch^ has repeated this charge, without
observing that in the case of Hofmann it was made in a totally
different interest from that of the orthodox theology.

The author has always aimed at a well founded historical
interpretation. For example, in the present edition (Vol. i. p. 1
sqq.), we have traced the continual progress of prophecy towards
greater clearness and precision, as seen in the book of Genesis.
And so again in p. 143 of the same volume, we directed attention
to the fact, that the progress made by Messianic prophecy in the
time of David, the fresh light thrown upon the regal office by the
historical circumstances, is to be traced to the new substratum
which prophecy then received from existing events. We ob-
served there, that it was a very appropriate thing that David,
who was well used to the cross, and had been proved thereby,
should be the first to introduce the thought of a suffering Mes-
siah into the mind of the Church, a thought, which had only a
germinal character in his case, and was first fully expanded by
Isaiah. We also pointed out how the Messianic prophecies are
continually placed by the prophets in the closest connection with

i Appendix Hermeneuticce s. exercitationes exeyeticct auct. J. Jahn,fasc. i.
2. Vaticinia de Mcssia. Wien\'6l'6.
- Weissagunij nnd Erfiillung, i. p. 3.
3 Die hihl.proph. Theol. p. ICG, l67.

388 APPENDIX V.

the announcement of the ruin to be caused by the powers of the
world (Vol. i. p. 156) ; and we have throughout endeavoured to
prove, that the Messiah was first of all set before the eyes of con-
temporaries, for their consolation and the furtherance of their
faith in the midst of their distresses, and as a warning in their
temptations.

The weak point in the early orthodox view was to be found in
this very department of historical interpretation ; and the lesson,
which the Church has to learn from rationalism, is just to provide
a remedy for this particular weakness. But we must still bear
in mind, that another and far more serious danger threatens from
the same side ; and this danger the author has been most careful
to avoid. It is of importance, it is true, to deprive rationalism
of its relative justification ; but it is also important to take care
not to be caught in its snares, and to see to it that, in the effort
to trace the " organic development " of Messianic prophecy, we
do not lose sight of its essential characteristics, that we do not
bind the prophetic word to the events of history, but content
ourselves with pointing out, as far as possible, a historical point
of contact, in doing which we must restrain ourselves within ver}'^
modest bounds. It would hardly be possible, for example, to find
anything in the historical circumstances, which vrould explain the
reason why Micah fixed upon Bethlehem as the birthplace of
Christ. And the fact of Isaiah being the first to depict the high-
priestly office of the Messiah, can only be traced to the compre-
hensive character, which was given by God to the predictions of
this prince among the prophets. The necessity for proceeding
cautiously is the more apparent, from the fact that we may per-
ceive how disastrous the influence of rationalism has been in other
departments of the orthodox theology, especially in connection
with the doctrine of Christ.

Hofmann himself has yielded to this temptation, so far as the
Old Testament Christology is concerned. His method of treat-
ing the prophecies relating to Christ is distinguished from
that of the rationalists solely by its orthodox dress, which is by
no means an improvement.

It has always been admitted by orthodox theologians, that
even history possesses a prophetic importance. By the side of
the prophecies, strictly so called, they have recognised acted

niSTOllY OF INTERPRETATION OF THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES. 389

prophecies, or types. It is undeniaje that " history is also pro-/t^nii6)itiU? vJ"?
phecy. The past enfolds the present in the germ, and in par-
ticular points, which are discernible by the eye of the mind, tlie
greater may be seen in the less, the inward in the outward, and
the present or the future in the past."' But it is perfectly obvious,
that verbal prophecy is the pre-requisite and condition of the
acted prophecy, and that the type is "a subordinate kind of
divine testimony, which merely serves to complete the word of
the Spirit, from which at the same time light is thrown in re-
turn."^ Without the light which it receives from prophecy,
the type by itself cannot possibly be understood ; and hence, for
the whole of the long ages preceding the fulfilment, it would
be entirely useless. Its reality must therefore be questionable,
if the necessary condition of its efficiency could not be proved to
exist. If the evident proof is not to be found in prophecy, that
there is a God, who rules above the world, and moves all events
towards their ultimate destiny according to a preconcerted plan ;
then in the place of the type or the acted prophecy, we have
nothing but a vague impulse, which cannot rest, till that which
exists already in the design has been fully worked out in history.
Hence if prophecy, in the strict sense of the word, be overthrown,
the acted prophecy, which is undoubtedly worthy of its name,
must fall with it, and it is nothing but an illusion, to attempt to
elevate types at the expense of prophecy.

This is the plan proposed by Hofmann. A truly prophetic
character he attributes to history alone. In his opinion the
prophets do not reveal the secrets, which the Lord has communi-
cated to them, his servants, as they ate said to do in Amos iii.
7 ; on the contrary they are nothing but interpreters of history,
and they proclaim nothing more, than is put within the reach of
an acute and far-seeing mind by the circumstances of any age.
They do not stand above history to mark out its cause with the
eagle glance of a seer absorbed in God ; in reality, they are no-
thing but what the rationalists thought them (see, for example,
Gesenius on Is. xxxix.), far-seeing politicians, who could discern
in the present the germs of future times. Prophecy is not a light

1 B. Jalcobi in Sack's Apologdik, p. 356.

2 Sack, p. 253.

390 APPENDIX V.

shining in a dark place (2 Pet. i. 19), but is simply raised a few
inches about the ordinary standpoint, the distinction between
the two being nothing more, than that between genius and the
common understanding. As the actual state of things is greatly
misunderstood, we must prove our assertion by a series of ex-
tracts.

" Every triumphal procession," says Hofmann f Weissagung
und Erfilllung i. p. 15), " which passed through the streets of
Rome was a prophecy of Augustus Cassar ; for what he dis-
played through the whole of his career, was here displayed by
the triumphant general on his day of honour, — namely the God
in the man, Jupiter in the Roman citizen. In the fact that
Rome paid such honours to its victorious commanders, it pointed
to the future, when it would rule the world through the great
emperor, to whom divine honours would be paid. And after
the apostle John has related how it was that, when Jesus was
crucified, not a bone of him was broken, he adds, thus was ful-
filled the saying, concerning the paschal lamb, ' a bone of it
shall not be broken.' Thus in the paschal lamb he sees a type
of Jesus, and in that which happened to Jesus he sees the ful-
filment of a prophecy of, or allusion to, the future, which was
associated with the paschal meal. The meaning of the triumph
was not fully realised in the constantly recurring triumphal pro-
cessions ; and so also the meaning of the passover was not fully
realised in the yearly paschal meals ; but the essential meaning
of both was to be fully developed at some future period, when
the prophecy contained in them would also be fully confirmed."
Thus, instead of prophecy, we have nothing more than the vague
generality of an allusion to the future. Rome and Zion are
placed on the same level. As the life which pervaded Rome
was at length clothed in flesh and blood in Augustus Ceesar, so
was that which animated Israel, in Jesus Christ. Everything
is left to the ordinary processes of nature, which, after a long
series of subordinate productions, at length brings forth the most
perfect, according to an innate law of necessity.

Again, at p. 52, " Every new epoch in history is a prophecy.
And therefore, by handing these down to us in their proper
succession, and their true shape, the Scriptures place us in a
position to write prophetic history." Prophecy is no longer

HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION OF THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES. 391

knoiving sometliing about the future. It is an unconscious
paving of the way for the future. It consists in the preludes
" of the present God, who lives in the world, but especially in
man" (p. 16), — and who knows no more about what he is doing,
than man whom he employs as his instrument.

At p. 54, again, Hofmann says, " The distinguishing charac-
teristics of a nation I can discern in the topstone and culminat-
ing point of its history ; and as Augustus C^sar enables us to
understand the history of Rome, so does Jesus Christ the history
of Israel."

At p. 55, " At the very outset we should expect that the
word of salvation would keep jjace with the facts of salvation.
The hope of a coming Messiah will be founded upon, and arise
out of, the events of natural life." If history is ruled by a blind
impulse, the " word of salvation " will naturally be also unable
to break through the magic circle of unconsciousness.

At p. 56, " There is never more than one passage of prophetic
history, which manifests itself in one deed or one word, one
prayer or one prediction," " The age and its utterances have
the same vocation."

Starting with the view that prophecy is merely a product of
history, Hofmann has attempted, as it were systematically, to
extinguish its light in all those ages in which he cannot discern
any distinct Messianic predictions.

Of the Protevangelium nothing is left, that deserves the name ;
and in its place we have simply trifling (we cannot choose any
other word). " All that we read here, is that the enmity between
the woman and the serpent was to be transmitted to the posterity
of both "(p. 75).

On Noah's prophecy in Gen. ix. 25 — 27 he observes, " this
curse and blessing do not profess to be a prediction, but they are
both fulfilled, because they are dictated by a just conception of
the nature of the event which has just occurred " (p. 91).

Even the announcement made to Abraham is robbed of its
deeper meaning, according to the example set by rationalistic
commentators, " In thee and in thy descendants will the whole
world discern, what it regards as its own blessing, and in thee
will it find such prosperity as it will desire for itself" (p. 98).

Gen. xlix. 10 is said to refer, not to Christ, but to Judah only,

392 APPENDIX V.

and to mean that Judab will at length come to the enjoyment
of peace, and be obeyed by whole nations, p. 118, " That all
this would be really a good, and that it is just the blessing which
we should necessarily expect for Judah in this series, needs no
proof whatever." The naturalistic disposition, which measures
everything by a human standard, is well saved by such exposition
as this.

With reference to Ps. ex., in the face of the clearest declara-
tions on the part of the Lord in Matt, xxii., he says (p. 176),
" We have met with nothing in this Paalm that carries us beyond
the limits of David's reign. Circumstances, with which we have
already become acquainted in other ways, are all that are here
expressed .''

" The 45th Psalm brings Solomon in his regal glory before
our minds," (p. 118). In ver. 17, where the Psalmist says to
the king " whom (thy children) thoumayest make princes in all
the earth," according to Hofmann, " the poet means nothing
more, than that the king will have sons enough to be able to
appoint them as superior officers over all the land, wherever he
may require them," (p. 188).

" In Ps. Ixxii. Solomon prays for a reign of righteousness and
peace."

The origin of the Messianic idea is described as follows (p.
200) : " Under the reigns of David and Solomon the Israelitish
nation had become acquainted with the blessings of common
life, and simply desired that they should continue. But in order
to continue, it was necessary that they should be differently
constituted ; and the pious especially perceived that, without a
thorough conversion on the part of the whole community to
the law of Jehovah, it would enjoy no true and lasting peace,
to say nothing of the extension of peace over the whole world.
The hope, that this would eventually be the case, continued to
be entertained in connection with the family of David, upon
whom in fact the promise rested. A descendant of this hero of
God (Is. ix. 5 !) will ultimately secure the complete enjoyment
of the prosperity which has been destroyed, having first removed,
not merely all the disturbing elements, but also all that brought
them into existence."

We are unable to detect any essential difference between such

HrSTORY OF INTERPRETATION OF THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES. 393

views as these and the early rationalistic hypothesis. The diffe-
rence between De Wette^ and Hofmann appears to consist in
the mode of expression alone. With both of them the Messianic
idea is a patriotic hope, the natural product of certain circum-
stances connected with the nation. The prophecy is nothing
more than a wish in disguise. It did not enter the minds of the
people from above, but sprang from the soil of the nation itself,
which looked forward to the future, for the perfect satisfaction
that the present denied.

If this be the genesis of the Messianic hopes, then so far as
the prophecies are concerned, in which Hofmann admits that
these hopes are expressed, it is absolutely necessary to remove
every feature, which cannot be explained from the stand-point of
ordinary historical observation. Hofmann is particularly care-
ful, therefore, to eliminate everything relating to the divinity and
sufferings of Christ. In his opinion, it was " the declaration of
Christ himself, and the confirmation it received from his life,
which first gave rise to the doctrine, that there is an internal,
divine connection between God, the Father of Jesus Christ, and
Jesus the Son of God."- " In the Old Testament Scriptures,
there is no mention made of any such distinction in the God-
head, as corresponds to the distinction between the Father and
the Son."^ " In the Old Testament predictions there is no inti-
mation, that the coming Saviour is already in existence, and is
simply not yet manifested, or that he will even be in existence
previous to his appearing" (p. 9). — To arrive at this result, not
only are all the passages, which clearly attest the pre-existence
of Christ and his divinity (such, for example, as Micah v. 1 and
Is. ix. 5) , robbed of their meaning, but every effort is made so
to distort the Old Testament doctrine of the angel of the Lord,
which forms the basis of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ,
as to destroy the connection between the angel of the Lord and
Christ. It cannot be denied, that by such a procedure as this,
if not intentionally, yet actually, the truth of the doctrine of the
divinity of Christ is endangered. If there be any reality in this,
it must be attested by the revelation of the Old Testament. —
Again the passages, which contain the clearest announcements

1 P. 129. 2 ScTiriJtbeweis i. p. 154. 3 Schriftbeweis ii., p. 1.

394 APPENDIX V.

of the sufferings of Christ, are also put aside (e.(/., Zech. ix. 9,
xii. 10, xiii. 7). In his earlier work " Weissagung und Er/iil-
lung," it is expressly denied that there is awj allusion in the Old
Testament to the sufferings of Christ. The " Schrifibeioeis,"
however, makes some concessions. Isaiah is allowed to have
foretold the sufferings of Christ, so far as the prophetic institu-
tion, with which he had primarily to do, culminated in Christ.
" In these sufferings, incident to the vocation of prophet, he will
also share, through whom it receives its ultimate fulfilment.

In the opposition, to which he is subjected, he

exhausts the whole mass of sufferings which a prophet can
possibly endure on account of his vocation" (Schriftheiveis ii. 1,
p. 126). This reminds us of Grotius, and does not go a step
beyond him. Every sacrifice is made, for the purpose of robbing
the prophecies of Isaiah, concerning the suffering servant of God,
of their specific Messianic contents, so as to make them appli-
cable to an ordinary prophet. According to Hofmann it is not
the death of the servant of God, considered in itself, which is
represented in Is. liii. as a blessing to Israel, but his fidelity
to his vocation. Such sufferings as these the prophets might
undoubtedly attribute to the Messiah, on the ground of merely
human conjectures.

But Hofmann is not consistent with himself. Whilst, on the
one hand, he agrees with the rationalists in seeking to elimi-
nate the supernatural element, altogether, from that portion of
prophecy, which has respect to the Messianic predictions ; on
the other hand, in direct opposition to the rationalists, he main-
tains that prophecies in the ordinary sense are to be found in
other parts of the Scriptures. Thus, for example, he retains the
prophecy in the book of G-enesis respecting the 400 years, during
which the posterity of the patriarch was to sojourn in a land
that was not its own Weissagung und ErfUllung), and also
Jeremiah's prophecy, that Israel was to be restored to its own
land, after enduring the tyranny of the Chaldeans for seventy
years (Schriftbeweis ii. 2, p. 542). Again, he maintains the
genuineness of the book of Daniel, and is therefore obliged to
admit that actual predictions are to be found in all the details
which are contained in chap. xi. And the question naturally
arises here, if prophecy enters into such details as these in con-

HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION OF THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES. 395

nection with lower objects, why should it not rise above the
circumstances of the times, when the highest of all was concerned.
Through this inconsistency on the part of Hofmann, he is placed
at a scientific disadvantage in relation to rationalism, which denies
that the supernatural element is to be found anywhere in pro-
phecy, and as far as possible sets it aside. We may see very
clearly from Dan. ix. how Hofmann connects discordant things
together in a thoroughly inadmissible manner. The Messianic
features are all removed, evidently to serve a purpose, and give
place to predictions of events in the period of the Maccabees.

The present Christology is based upon the heartfelt conviction,
that we have a sure word of prophecy, that holy men of God
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, and that in the
Spirit they testified beforehand of the sufferings of Christ and
the glory that should follow. May this revised edition help to
strengthen a conviction, of such importance to the Church !

( 396 )

APPENDIX TI.

THE NATUEE OF PEOPHECY.

A deeper insight into the prophecies of the Old Testament
concerning Christ, is contingent in many respects upon our
knowledge of the nature of prophecy, and the state in which the
prophets were, at the time of their prophesying.

Ever since the controversy with the Montanists, the opinion
lias almost universally prevailed in the Church, that the essential
difference between the prophets of the Old Testament and the
heathen soothsayers, was that the latter were in an ecstatic con-
dition when their oracles were delivered, whereas the former
prophesied in a state of perfect consciousness, and with a distinct
comprehension of what they were saying.

The views held by the Montanists are given most concisely by
Tertullian (adv. Marcionem iv. c. 22), " Defendimus in causa
novae prophetias, gratite ecstasm, id est ementiam convenire.
In spiritu enim homo constitutus, prjesertim cum gloriam dei
conspicit, vel cum per ipsum deum loquitur, necesse est excidat
sensu, obumbratus scilicet virtute divina, de quo inter nos et
Psychicos ("i.e. catholicos, adversarios Montani," /S'e^wZer) quEestio
est. Interim facile est amentiam Petri probare. Quomodo enim
Moysen et Eliam cognovisset nisi in spiritu."

The orthodox view, on the other hand, was represented by
Miltiades, who is said by Eusebius (Church-history, v. 17), to

have written a book " inpi rov y.-h Sen/ itp'^rirri)/ Iv Ittarcinii

7.ocX57v." Origen says (c. Celsum vii. c. 4), "si Se YlvQlx e^/t-
ra.Ta.1 viou ouyt iv Bccurri ettjv ore f^xvrsuzrcctj TTo^aTTov voptJTTaov
Ttvsvfj^x, TO ayioros xccray^sov rov vov xai ro/v y^oyi'jfj.uv "). " How,"
says Basil (commentary on Isaiah, Frooem c. 5), " can the
spirit of wisdom and knowledge deprive any one of his senses ?
The light cannot produce blindness, but, on the contrary, calls

THE NATURE OF PROPHECY. 397

out the natural power of vision." Epiplianius (adv. hcens.

Montani C. 2), observes, " oaa. yap ol Trpoiprirxt ilp-nxQCJi fxsrci

'7u)ii<yicos Tiocpa.x.oXovBouvTBs £(pOiyyovTo" and in c. 3, sqq., he argues
that the prophets always spoke " £v ippoofxivri liawix nal l\ ccu(ppoyt.
"koyiaii.^ xal o'uk ev Ttoi.poi.Tt'kriiioc." Jerome also writes in many
passages to the same effect. Thus, for example, in the preface
to Isaiah he says " neque vero, ut Montanus cum insanis feminis
somniat, propheta3 in ectsasi locuti sunt, ut nescierint quid
loquerentur et, cum alios erudirent, ipsi ignorarent quid

dicerent Legimus et in alio Apostoli loco : spiritus

prophetarum prophetis subjecti sunt." Again, in the preface to
Nehum, " Non loquitur propheta ev UoT'xryzi, ut Montanus et
Prisca Maximillaque delirant, sed quod prophetat, liber est vi-
sionis intelligentis universa qua3 loquitur ;" and in i\iQ Prolog, in
Habak. : " Adversum Montani dogma perversum intelligit quod
videt, nee ut amens loquitur, nee in morem insanientium femin-
arum dat sine mente sonum. Unde et Apostolus jubct, ut si
prophetantibus aliis, alii fuerit revelatum, taceant qui prius
loquebantur. Et statim : non est enim, inquit, deus dissensiouis
sed pacis. Ex quo intelligitur, quum quis voluntate reticet, et
alteri locum dat ad loquendum, posse et loqui et tacere quum
velit. Qui autem in ecstasi, id est invitus loquitur, ncc tacere
nee loqui in sua potestate habet." Chrysostom, in the 29th
homily on the Epistles to the Corinthians, speaking of the dif-
ference between the heathen soothsayer and the true prophet,

says : rovro yoi.p [xccvnus I'^iov, to efcTrr/Ksvai, to avayx^iv u-^Oj[X£V£»v,
TO w^zi'^boi.i, TO eXxc'tO'ZI, to ryvpifyQaci, w'^Tiip |W,atv6pt£vov. 'O Ss
'7Tpo!pYirri<: ouy^ ovrojs, oiXkci fxsrix. ^lacvoloci Mriipouans nocl '7Cij(ppovou'yr,s
xxTQCJT'jifycCiJi Kxl sl^cis cc (p^iyycToci, (prifyiv a-Ttavrx' wtte jcal npo
TTis sK^dfJicos y.acvTSvQav yvaipi^s Tov /xavTJV )taj tov 7rpo(pYiTriv. Modern

theologians have for the most part followed in the steps of the
Fathers.

The truth in this controversy lies in the middle. The ortho-
dox theologians have allowed themselves to be carried too far by
their opposition to a serious error. They contended with perfect
justice against the amentia or unconsciousness attributed to the
prophets, but they also denied their ecstacy, and thus lost sight
of the distinguishing characteristic of the prophetic state.

That we are not to regard the prophets as entirely deprived of
intelligent consciousness, may be seen from the passage, on which

398 APPENDIX VI.

stress has already been laid by the Fathers, " the spirits of the
prophets are subject to the prophets" (1 Cor. xiv. 32), when
taken in connection with the verse immediately preceding, " ye
may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be
comforted." According to this, the prophets were not merely
instruments in the hands of a superior power. They did not
lose their self-possession. On the contrary, they knew what they
said, and spoke with a full apprehension of the existing circum-
stances. At the same time we must not overlook the fact, that
there was evidently something in the prophetic state, which might
be cultivated to a disproportionate extent, and in this case would
easily lead beyond the limits laid down by Paul. In the case of
such as possessed the gift of "teaching" (^j^aTKaX/a), the rule
laid down by the apostle would have been taken for granted,
and there would have been no necessity for impressing it upon
their minds.

But we have a still more decisive proof in 1 Cor. xiv., espe-
cially vers. 14, 15, and 19. The apostle here speaks of it as a
defect in the gift of tongues, when compared with that of pro-
phecy, that the '^vBVf^x, which was common to both, operated in
too violent and one-sided a manner in the case of the former,
whereas in prophecy the ecstacy went hand in hand with the
vow, or intelligent consciousness, from which it followed that
prophecy was better adapted to influence others. As the under-
standing ceased to act, the utterance itself became unintelligible.
The Montanistic amentia could not be more decidedly excluded,
than it is by this passage.

The Fathers were also correct, in stating that the character of
the prophetic utterances is directly opposed to anything like
amentia, for, instead of showing anything like Montanistic con-
fusion, they are universally characterised by clearness and preci-
sion of thought.

But there are also not less decisive proofs that the intelligent
consciousness of the prophets was something secondary and
superadded, and that when in the Spirit, they were in a state
altogether distinct from their ordinary condition.'

The preparatory measures adopted by the prophet seem also

1 " As there are manifestations of the Spirit's life, which anticipate the
retlective self-consciousness, so are there others which force the existing con-
sciousness into the background." Belitzsch, bibl. Psychol., p. 309.

THE NATURE OF PROPHECY. 399

to lead to this result. In 2 Kings iii. 15 Elisha says " but now
bring me a minstrel. And it came to pass, when the minstrel
played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him." The fact
that the prophet prepares himself for prophesying by means
of music, presupposes that there was an intimate connection
between (sacred) music and prophecy. This is also confirmed
by 1 Sam. x. 5, " thou shalt meet a company of prophets coming
down from the high place with a psaltery, and a tabret, and a
pipe, and a harp before them," from which it is evident that in
Samuel's time the sons of the prophets were in the habit of
prophesying, with musical instruments as an accompaniment.
A still further confirmation may be found in 1 Chr. xxv. 1,
where Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun are called " prophets upon
harps," &c. ;^ in ver. 2, where Asaph is represented as " prophe-
sying" (n3j) ; and in ver. 5, where Asaph, Heman, and Jedu-
thun, in their capacity as musicians, are called " the king's seers,"
tVie name which was usually applied to the prophets alone being
thus transferred to them. All this leads to the conclusion,
that there must have been an intimate connection between truly
sacred music and prophecy. The one feature, which is com-
mon to both, must be the elevation above the sphere of mere
reflection, which does not necessarily involve a complete suspen-
sion of the intelligent consciousness, but on the contrary may
even assume the form of increased clearness of mind. " Music,"
says NovaUs (Sckriften ii. p. 359), " speaks a universal lan-
guage, by which the spirit is set free, and for a moment finds
itself at home." — It was not with music only that prophecy was
associated, but according to 2 Chr. xxix. 30, it was also con-
nected with poetry. Asaph, in his capacity of Psalmist, is there
called HTH, the seer, a term which is usually applied to the pro-
phets alone. This connection is also attested by the Imujuage of
the prophets, which is very nearly allied to poetry,^ and the cha-

1 Clericus makes the superficial and unsatisfactory remark, " the reason
is to be found in the fact that the prophets were accustomed to sing the
praises of God accompanied by such instruments as tliese."

'- Many facts might be adduced to prove, that the effect of a state of
ecstacy is to ennoble the speech. In an account sent by Pastor Kern in
liernhausen to the Prussian government in Halbertstadt, in the year 1738,
he says, " after the Lord's supper had been received in a believing and
cheerful frame of mind, the invalid fell into a state of torpor, and was

400 APPENDIX VI.

racter of whlcli is scarcely intelligible, if the prophetic ecstacy be
overlooked.

Cornelius a Lapide (on Ezek. i.) observes that the prophets
frequently took up their abode by the side of a river, that the
quiet and lovely scenery, and the gentle rippling of the stream,
might refresh their minds and prepare them for their divine
raptures. According to Ezek. i. 3, it was by the river Chebar
that Ezekiel beheld the glorious vision of the Cherubim. That
this was not a mere accident, but that the river was intimately
connected with the prophecy, is apparent from Dan. x. 4, " in
the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the
side of the great river, which is Hiddekel," when compared with
chap. X. 1, 8, where Daniel is said to have seen a " great vision"
there, which denoted " a great war." The great river, as the
Hiddekel is so emphatically called, is evidently connected with
the great vision. The appearance and the noise of the river
prepared the way for the vision. That the river was closely
connected with the prophecy (there is a connection between the
life of the spirit and the life of nature) is evident from chap,
viii. 2, where Daniel is said to have been transported in the
vision to the river of Ulai. Hence the locality noticed in chap.
X. cannot have been altogether accidental or indifferent. Ac-
cording to Acts xvi. 13 ("we went out of the city by a river
side, where prayer was wont to be made"), the Jewish place of

laid upon the straw under the impression that he was dead. When he at
length awoke, he sent for the minister, and told him that he .had had
wonderful visions dui'ing his death-like sleep, that tlie whole of his past
life, and all tlie sins which he had long since forgotten, had passed before
him, and that after this he had heard delightful sounds, and had seen an
indescribable splendour. The minister adds, that the sick man, who had pre-
viously been very weak, as soon as the torpor was over, appeared to be quite
healthy and free from pain, and that his face had all the freshness of youth.
This must I confess, that after his last trance his intellect had considerably
improved. For he no longer s^joke like a common man, or as he had done
before, hut his words were all forcible, emphatic, and telling, as if he had
learned the art of oratory during the brief period of his insensibility. — I had
previously been his teacher and comforter, but now the tables were turned.
I was like a little child by the side of him, and listened to his words with
admiration." Steinbeck says (p. 451), " Clairvoyants, who were accustomed
to a dialect full of provincialisms when in their ordinary condition, have
been known to speak in the purest style and with the most select expressions,
when in this exalted state. As the features of the face assume a noble
expression, so is the language also ennobled, and acquires a dignity, fervour,
and meaning, of which it possessed nothing before."

THE NATURE OF PROPHECY. 401

prayer was by the side of a river. Prayer is frequently repre-
sented as the first preliminary to being in the Spirit.

With the ordinary view of prophecy it is impossible to under-
stand the reasons why, from the time of Abraham (Gen. xxii. 3)
downwards, the night should have been selected as the time for
prophetic communications. In Num. xxii. 8 we are told that
Balaam waited till the night came, before he gave an answer to
the messengers of the king of Moab. The Lord first revealed
himself to Samuel, when he was lying upon his bed in the house
of the Lord. In 2 Sara, vii., Nathan is said to have given David
a general reply immediately ; but the special revelations in re-
lation to his question he did not receive till night. " And it came
to pass that night, that the word of the Lord came unto Nathan
saying :" a fact, which is sufficient of itself to prove, that the
state of the prophets was altogether an extraordinary one, and
that the gift of prophecy did not abide in them in the same way
as faith, hope, and charity. It was certainly not a mere acci-
dent, that Zechariah received the whole series of visions, recorded
in the emblematical portion, during the night (chap. i. 8). The
night, which draws a veil over all visible objects, facilitates that
deep concentration of the soul, which is the pre-requisite of inspi-
ration.^

The connection between the prophetic vision and a dream,
which is mentioned on several occasions, also points to an ecstatic
condition. Abraham the prophet (Gen. xx. 7), has first of all
a vision (Gen. xv. 1), and then falls into a prophetic sleep (ver.
11). In Num. xii. 6 the Lord says to Aaron and Miriam, " If
there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known
unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream." Accord-

1 See Steinbeck, der Dichter ein Seher, p. 114 : " It is but natural that during
the bustle of the day, when our senses are constantly called into exercise
from without, the dissipation of the mind should render it more difficult to
collect our thoughts, than it is in the night, when the senses are at rest, and
are seeking to gather fresh vigour from within ;" and Tholuck, vermischte
Schrijten i. p. 59 : " There are two different stages in the spirit's life, that of
direct, undivided, and more potential consciousness, and that in which the
consciousness is unfolded and divided, and has more of an actual character.
. . . Just as the unfolded, conscious life is more closely connected with the
day, in which every object stands out alone with distinct outlines, so has the
involved genius-life greater affinity with the night, in which things all flow
together. As genius, the spirit is most active in the night ; as a conscious
spirit, in the day."

VOL. IV 2 C

402 APPENDIX VI.

ing to the view held by the Fathers, there is no ground for this
association. The bridge, which connects the vision and the
dream, they have entirely broken down. In Joel. iii. 1, it is pre-
dicted that " your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your
young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream
dreams." In Dan. i. 17, Daniel is said to have "had under-
standing in all visions and dreams." According to chap. vii. he
has in the night a prophetic dream. In the dream he receives
the explanation of what he has previously seen. In chap. viii.
1, he says, " In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar, a
vision appeared unto me, like that which had appeared to me at
the first." The allusion here is to a revelation received when he
was awake (compare C. B. Micliaelis and Hitzig). As a further
proof of the intimate connection between these two forms of
revelation, they are both called by the same name litn. They
have this in common, that in both the dream and the vision the
external senses are at rest, and reflection is forced into the back-
ground by intuition, though in the case of the vision we are not
to regard the former as absolutely quiescent.^ That the con-
dition of the prophets was an extraordinary one, and entirely
different from their common life, is evident from such passages
as Ezek. i. 3,^ " and the hand of the Lord was there upon him,"
Jarchi " prfevaluit ipsi prophetia etiam invito," and iii. 14,
" the hand of the Lord was strong upon me." We are led to

1 " Every deep sleep, it is true, so far as the soul is drawn away from its
relation to the outer world into its relation to itself, and to the spirit, and
through this to God, is an iKSTaixtz ; but there is also natui-ally, even in our
waking condition, a state of absorption resembling this, and spiritually, one
produced expressly by God, for purposes of revelation. This is the state of
ecstasy (from Ixo-r^va;, the opposite of (ru(p(^i>vih^ the clear sober discursive
thought. 2 Cor. v. 13)." — Delitzscli bibl. Psychol., p. 239.

2 Many of the passages, which are frequently adduced to prove that the
natural life was forcibly suppressed by the influence of the spirit of God, are
not conclusive. The illness of Daniel, which followed the vision according
to chap. viii. 27, was not caused by the excitement attending the ecstatic
state, but by what he saw, the visions of his head frightened him (chap.
vii. 15). In Dan. x. 8 — 10, the utter exhaustion and prostration are caused
by the glory of what he had witnessed, " and I saw this great vision (the ap-
pearance of Michael), and there remained no strength in me." Even upon those
who did not see the vision there fell great terror, and they fled and hid them-
selves (ver. 7). The same objection applies to Gen. xv. 12 ; Ezek. i. 28, iii.
23, and xliii. 3 ; Kev. i. 17 ; (see my work on Balaam, p. 141, and my com-
mentary on Rev. i. 17.)

THE NATURE OF PROPHECY. 403

the same conclusion by the words of Peter, " holy men of God
spake as they were (pspofxswi by the Holy Ghost," with which
Knapp, in his treatise on this passage, compares such expressions
from profane authors as " xaTs'xe'T^aj s^ Qsov" " corripi deo,"
" deum pati." Crusius {theol. proph. i. p. 94) justly regards the
fact that the condition of the prophets at the time of prophesying
was an unusual one, as explaining the phenomenon, that tlie
formula " thus saith the Lord" is so constantly repeated in their
case, whereas the apostles, whose divine illumination was con-
tinuous, very rarely employed it, and then only when they wished
to distinguish their own counsels from the commands of the Lord,
as in 1 Cor. vii. 10.

In the eyes of men of the world, the prophets were nothing but
madmen. There must therefore have been a point of contact
between the prophetic state and insanity. In 2 Kings ix. 11,
when a prophet had been with Jehu, the courtiers said to him,
" wherefore came this mad fellow yai^o unto thee ?"^ " Every
man that is mad and prophesies" (sojhdi j?jc'c) : this is the
way in which a false prophet speaks of the true in Jer. xxix. 26.
KeiTs opinion (in his notes on the passage) that the prophet is so
described simply on account of his belief, "just as those who fear-
lessly profess their faith before the world in the present day, are
derided by unbelievers as out of their mind," founders on the
second passage, where the madness is place^l in immediate con-
nection with the prophesying. But even when applied to the
former passage alone, it is found to be unsuitable. The expres-
sion " is peace," and the behaviour of the people, when they
heard what the prophet had said, shows that yj^'a was a pro-
fane term, which was used not of a believer, but of an instrument
of God. As they discerned such an instrument in the man who
had arrived, they did not rest till they learned what he had said.
The point of comparison can only be this, that the condition of
the prophets was an abnormal one, just as much as that of the
madman, if our ordinary consciousness be taken as the standard.-

1 Michaelis : " The prophets generally appeared as if they were not alto
gether sane."

2 " From the ordinary stand-point of perception and feeling, the truly in-
spired man and the madman are insane, their actions are not determined liy
the senses as in our ordinary waking existence, they are in a certain sente
ouiofihev' sennes," Steinbeck 'p. 540.

404 APPENDIX AT.

In Num. xxiv. Balaam introduces his prophecy thus, " Ba-
laam the son of Beor prophesied, and the man with closed eye
prophesied (ver. 3). The hearer of the words of God prophe-
sieth, who seeth the vision of the Almighty, falling down and
with opened eyes" (ver. 4). Balaam describes himself as the
man with closed eye, with reference to the ecstacy, in which the
closing of the outward senses kept pace with the opening of those
within. " The greater the repose of the soul, and the more it is
abstracted from the world, the clearer do the intuitions of the
seer become, and the more intense and pure the poet's flame."
(Steinbeck, p. 121 sqq.). In the case of those who had reached
the highest stage of inward culture, inspiration might undoubt-
edly take place, without any outward closing of the senses ; but
with men like Balaam who were on the lowest stage of the in-
ward life, and were simply raised above it for a moment by the
influence of the Spirit, the closing of the eye formed the indis-
pensable pre-requisite to the opening of the eye. But it is evident
from the expression, " the man with closed eye," as a common
description of the prophetic state, that the prophet durst not be
drawn away by impressions from the outer world, that he must be
at rest and abstracted from the world, and must be carried away
into a higher region.^ — A second condition requisite to the open-
ing of the eye seems to have been falling down : " falling down
and with his eye open." '^Si refers to the violence of the inspira-
tion, which came upon the seer like an armed man, and threw him
to the ground. But it was only in such cases as that of Balaam,
where there was impurity before, that the inspiration assumed
the violent character, and prostrated both body and soul. The
more the ordinary consciousness was pervaded by the Spirit, the
less necessity was there, for it to place itself in a hostile attitude

1 What Novalis {Schriften, Th. ii., p. 472) has said of poetic inspiration is
to a certain extent applicable to prophetic inspiration : " the most arbi-
traiy prejudice is to deny to man the power to be out of himself, and to
preserve his consciousness apart from his senses. A man can at any moment
become a supersensual being. . . . It is true that it is very difficult to
preserve one's presence of mind and self-consciousness in this state, since
they are so constantly and necessarily bound up with the changes in our
other modes of existence. But the more we are able to attain to a conscious-
ness of this condition, so much the more lively, strong, and satisfactory does
our consequent conviction become, — namely, our faith in genuine revelations
of the Spirit. It is neither seeing, hearing, nor feeling. It is a compound
of all three, more than all three, a feeling of immediate certainty."

THE NATURE OF PROPHECY. 405

on the occasion of its extraordinary manifestations. But it is
evident from the use of tlie term " falling down," as a general
mark of the prophetic state, that so long as it lasted there was
an unusual suppression of the natural life, of the sensuous per-
ception and desires, and of worldly thoughts, a much more forcible
suppression than takes place in prayer, which is to be regarded
as the first stage in the ecstatic process.

That the prophetic state, even in its outward manifestations,
was very different from the ordinary condition, is evident from the
account contained in 1 Sam. x. Samuel says to Saul (ver. 6),
" the Spirit of the Lord will come upon thee, and thou wilt pro-
phesy with them." And in ver. 11 we read that when Saul
prophesied among the prophets, all who knew him said with
amazement, " what is this that is come to the son of Kish ? Is
Saul also among the prophets ?" There must have been some-
thing more in the appearance of Saul, than his merely taking
part in the songs of the pupils of the prophets.

According to chap. xix. all the messengers, who are sent by
Saul to take David, the first, the second, and the third company,
as soon as they see the prophets prophesying, are overpowered
by the Spirit of God, and begin to prophesy as well. At last
Saul goes himself, and although everything divine is quite strange
to him, yet even he cannot resist the overpowering influence, the
Spirit of God comes upon him also and he prophesies. In ver.
24 we are told that " he stripped ofl' his clothes also and pro-
phesied before Samuel in like manner, and fell down naked all
that day and all that night. Wherefore they say : Is Saul also
among the prophets ?" That the condition of the prophets was
an exalted one, one of ecstasy, is evident from the effect which
it here produces upon rude minds, estranged from God. From
internal heat Saul takes off his clothes — (oiy does not mean
•perfectly naked; compare Is. Iviii. 7, Job xxiv. 7, 10), — and at
the same time falls to the ground crushed down by the power of
God.' Of peculiar significance is the expression, " and he also"
Nin Dj, We must not resard the messensers as alone referred

1 The difficulty of reconciling the ordinary view of prophecy with such
passages as these, is evident from the glosses of MicJiaelis, " exuit vestes con-
suetas et induit sacras, pauciores et leviores, ut David coram area ;" and again
on tbe words, he Jell down, " humilis coram deo ut reliqui discipuli."

406 APPENDIX VI.

to here ; such a limitation as this would have been more precisely
defined. The whole of the company, with the sons of the pro-
phets at their head, did the same as Saul. The only exception
is Samuel, who is represented in ver. 20 as occupying a superior
position, and in whose case the inspiration did not manifest
itself by any such violent symptoms, since he had reached a
higher state of the spiritual life.

There is a passage in Jeremiah (xxxi. 26), of great importance
in its bearing upon the prophetic state, After making the most
glorious announcement to the despondent Zion, the prophet
says, " therefore (to receive so glorious a revelation) I awoke,
and beheld ; and my sleep was sweet to me." The condition of
the prophets, when prophesying, was at the same time both
sleeping and waking ; sleeping on account of the quiescence of
the outward senses, and waking on account of the activity of the
higher sense. Upon this passage, which has been variously mis-
understood, light is thrown on the one hand by Num. xxiv. 3, 4,
(the closed eye there answers to the sleep here, and the opened
eye to the waking and seeing), and on the other hand by Zech.
iv. 1, " and the angel that talked with me came again, and
waked me as a man that is wakened out of his sleep," where the
ordinary condition is represented as one of spiritual sleep, and
the prophetic state as one of spiritual waking. See Vol. iii.
p. 335).

If we examine the prophecies separately, there are many things
which point to a condition entirely different from the ordinary
one. Look for example at the prophecy against Babylon in Is.
■xxi. That we are here taken entirely away from the ordinary
ground is evident from the following passages: (ver. 6), "go,
set a watchman, let him declare what he seeth " — (the watch-
man, whom the prophet appoints in his trance, is himself) ;
— ver. 7) " and he sees chariots, riders in pairs, chariots
with asses, chariots with camels, and he observed them with great
diligence ;" (ver. 8) " and he cries out as a lion (with a lion's
voice ; Kev. x. 3, ' and he cried out with a loud voice, as a lion
roareth ') I stand continually on the Lord's watch-tower, and I
stand in my watch every night — (ver. 9, and behold, there come
chariots, every one with two horsemen, and he answered and
said : fallen, fallen, is Babylon, and all the images of the gods

THE NATURE OF PROPHECY. 407

he broke to the ground." See also ver. 3 and 4, where the pro-
phet comes forward in the person of Babylon, and that not the
Babylon of the present, but of the future. (Vol. i. p. 424). So
lifelike is the vision, that the prophet forgets himself, as it were,
and takes his tone from the persons in the midst of whom he is
placed. We may also see how completely the prophet is carried
away from the stand-point of his ordinary being and thought,
from the address to the enemy in ver. 2, " go up, 0 Elam : be-
siege, 0 Madai," and in ver. 5 to be besieged, " arise ye princes,
anoint the shield." The whole serves merely to confirm ver. 2,
" a Imrd vision was shown me," which shows that we have here
not the result of intelligent contemplation, but a vision which
passed before the eyes of one who was carried away from the
level of common reality.

Ideal persons are introduced by the prophets upon the scene,
such as the voice, which calls from Seir ; " watchman, what of
the night" (Is. xxi. 11), the spy appointed by the prophet (ver.
6), the voice crying in the desert (chap. xl. 3), the voice which
says, " cry" (Is. xl. 6), the spies of Zion (chap. Hi. 8), the watch-
men on the walls of Jerusalem (chap. Ixii, 16).

The lively intercourse with the angel- world, which is espe-
cially characteristic of Daniel and Zechariah, also points to an
ecstatic state. This intercourse is everywhere a distinguishing
characteristic of religious ecstacy. So long as the wm main-
tains its supremacy, the present world lies before us with its out-
lines clear and well defined. The gates of the world beyond are
opened in the ecstatic state. And what is obscure and confused
in the lower kinds of ecstasy, on account of the phantastic dreams
which mingle with it, is clear and distinct in the higher or pro-
phetic form. In this a direct communication is opened with the
state beyond, where sight takes the place of faith in the realities
that are beyond the reach of sense.

According to Ezek. viii., the prophet is carried to Jerusalem
" in visions of God." It seemed to him, as if he had actually
been taken there. Thus in ver. 3 he says, " he put forth what
looked like a hand, and took me by a lock of my head, and the
Spirit lifted me up between the earth and the heaven and
brought me to Jerusalem." At another time he is taken to
Chaldea in a similar manner. The state in which he was, when

408 APPENDIX VI.

he received the revelations contained in chap. viii. — xi. is directly
contrasted with his ordinary condition in chap. xi. 24, and repre-
sented as one of ecstacy ; " and the Spirit," says the prophet.
" took me up and brought me to Chaldea to the captivity, in
the vision, in the Spirit of God, and the vision that I had seen
went up from me."

In 2 Cor. xii. the apostle Paul gives a description of a pro-
phetic state, in which he himself once was.^ Buckerf observes,
in his commentary on this passage, " so far as the doubt is con-
cerned, as to whether Paul was in the body or not, when he was
carried into heaven, ... we have here the strongest proof
that, when this took place, he was in a state in which the in-
telligent consciousness had so thoroughly left him, that he could
not trust himself afterwards to pronounce any opinion on the
matter." That the intelligent consciousness could never rise to
such immediate perception, as that to which Paul attained in
this ecstatic condition, but that the vovs must always keep at a
modest distance behind the Spirit, is evident from ver. 4:

rmovasv app-nra ^o^/xara, a oux. s^ov ccv^paiTlco XacX^aoci.

The distinction, which is drawn in 1 Cor, xii. 28, 29, and
Eph. iv. 11, between the prophets and teachers, can never be
understood by those who refuse to admit the ecstatic condition
of the prophets.

After all that has been adduced, it will be impossible to arrive
at any other conclusion, than that it was in an sxaraaim that the
biblical prophets prophesied as well as the heathen seers. The
expression occurs in the Sephmgint as early as Gen. xv. 12. It
is the more difficult to understand how the Fathers could have
denied this, from the fact that in the New Testament we not
only read of the thing itself, but frequently meet with the very
word (e. g. Acts x. 10, xi. 5, xxii. 17). In chap. x. 10 and xxii.
17, the iKoraais is represented as distinct from the prayer which
preceded it. Hence it must have been something different from a
merely elevated state of mind in the ordinary sense. " Prayers fit
the mind for receiving a revelation ; and the trance fortifies a man
against his own spirit " {Bengel). The ecstasy is represented as
something coming suddenly and even unexpectedly, a something

1 With reference to the prophetic state of the apostles, see my commentary
on the Revelation, ^ol. i. p. 54 sqq.

THE NATURE OF PROPHECY. 409

abnormal : kitinimv In' avTov sxryrams. Tilings are perceived,
which lie far beyond the reach of the ordinary perceptive faculty,
and which differ from those within its reach, even in their form.
It is not thinking, but seeing and hearing. The opposite con-
dition to the EXTTaTjs- is mentioned in Acts xii. 11, " when Peter
was again in or with himself" (ysvoiw-svoy ev huvrui). A parallel to
the passages in which the ecstacy is mentioned is to be found in
Rev. i. 10, " I was in the spirit on the Lord's-day," where the
expression " in the spirit" is used in its highest sense, to denote
a state of inspiration, in which the natural life is completely over-
powered.

Steudel (ilher Auslegung der PropJiefcn, Tiibinger Zeitschrift
xxxiv. 1, p. 119) opposes the idea of a prophetic ecstacy on the
following ground : " If we look at the prophecies of a Haggai,
there is nothing there to suggest the idea of the prophets being
deprived of their ordinary consciousness. He directs attention
to the opinions of the Jews, as they were, and as they ought to
have been, and shows how a visible blessing would descend from
above upon their affairs." The same is said to be the case with
a considerable portion of the prophecies of Jeremiah.

But it is certainly not a right course to adopt, to form con-
clusions as to the nature of a magnificent historical phenomenon
from its last phases. In the latest of the prophets, we see pro-
phecy passing into biblical learning. Now, from the very outset,
there can be no doubt whatever, that the prophetic gift had its
different degrees. The true method, by which to form a correct
conception of the prophetic state, is to look, first of all, at the
Coryphaei of prophecy. And when we have once obtained
from these a deeper insight into the nature of the prophetic
ecstacy, we shall then be in a position to detect its less con-
spicuous signs even in the latest offshoots. That there must
have been more in Haggai, than the first glance would lead us
to suppose, is evident from the effect, produced by his brief and
unpretending addresses. The only possible explanation of this
is, that he was a seer, that divine truth had been communicated
to him by direct revelation, and therefore exerted a powerful
influence upon the hearers. Whoever has his mind open, will
see the signs of the prophetic ecstacy standing out with peculiar
distinctness in these, the least striking of all the indications.

410 APPENDIX VI.

Philo fquis rerum divinarum sit hceres, p. 404) has given
the following description of the prophetic state : " hw? posv st*

TTspiKxfji'Trsi Kou irepi-TroXH y)ixuiv o mvs //,E<Ty)/>t/3/;»vov oioc (^lyyoi eir 'nana.v
TriV vVfj^TiV xvay^^icuv , ev sixvToTi ovrss ov Kxrey^ofAsQac' ETTsi^av ^s TCpbs
^vaixxi yivriixij holtx to sIkos SKiyraiti xai -h ev^sos hTim'mrn yiCLra.yiioyr\
T£ Kal ixavlix.. "Oth /xev ya.p <pcus hm'Kxi/.^ii to Qhov, "^vctoci to
txvQpw'ffivov' OTS OS exeTvo Sj/ej, tout aviTp(^£j xai avaTEXXii" TW Ss
'npo(pYiTix.ai yivsi (pjXsi touto lyvix^aivsiv' s^oiKi^sTaj yip Iv :^/x7v 6 voSr

X.aT3C T7)V Toi) QsiOU 7rV£://AfliTGS' OOpl^lV' KO-TOC ^£ T'/iV /AETlZVa'JTa'TJV a^TOU

frxKiv EryoiKi^^ETXi' Biixis yocp ovx. buti Qvyitov dQavoiru aumtyiriaai' Si«
toSto ri ovfjis Tov XoyiufjiOu y.xl to tts^i auTov ffxoTOS", EKdraaiv Jtal

9Eo(popr;Tov (juxvlxv ocyivw^uE. We have correct and deep biblical
truths here, but, according to PMlo's usual method, mixed
with views borrowed from heathen philosophers, and particularly
from Plato, who speaks of the nature of prophecy in the
Ion and Pheedrus, and explains it as consisting in a complete
suppression of human action and intelligent consciousness. PMlo
is correct in asserting that the prophetic state was an ecstatic
one, and that it was produced by the 'rrnvvac overpowering the
vour; but when he also affirms that the vovs was altogether
quiescent, instead of assigning to it a subordinate and subser-
vient place, and proceeds to speak of fj^xvix, he passes into heathen
ground.

In what relation does biblical prophecy stand to heathen sooth-
saying ?

The points of contact are evidently more numerous than the
Fathers admit. They have in common the extraordinary and
ecstatic features, with which their temporary duration goes hand
in hand (we have a proof of this in 2 Kings iv. 27), also the
deep concentration of soul caused by the suspension of the
activity of the senses, and of the intelligent consciousness, and
at the same time the opening up of the inner sense, and of a
capacity for immediate perception.

At the same time there are fundamental differences. That
this must be the case will be at once apparent to every one, who
simply considers the derivation of the Greek /xavrjj from (mxIvco^

1 Ndgelsbach (die nachhom. TTieologie der Griecfien p. 174) . " Such a
fknihat is also attributed, to the sibjls, several of whom are mentioned by

THE NATURE OF PROPHECY. 41 1

or the description given of the Pythia, in the Scholiast to the
Plutus of Aristophanes and in Liicanus, Book v.

Bacchatur demens aliena per antrum
CoUa ferens, vittasque dci, Phoebaeaquo scrta
Erecta discussa comis, per inania templi
Ancipiti cervice rotat, spargitque vaganti
Obstantes tripodas, magnoque exjestuat igne
Iratum te, Phoebe, ferens.

The account given of Cassandra in the Agamemnon of
iEschylus 1072 — 1172, and also in Lykophron, is to the same
effect. According to Lucian the seers foamed at the mouth,
their eyes rolled, their hair stood on end, and their whole ap-
pearance resembled that of a madman.

But the principal difference is to be seen in the fact, that the
heathen prophets, and the false prophets among the Israelites
were " prophets out of their own hearts," as Jeremiah calls them ;
that the essential principle of true prophecy, the spirit of God,
was wanting in their case ; and that they endeavoured to obtain
a miserable substitute, by making every exertion in their power
to produce the highest state of excitement, accompanied by the
suspension of the action of both the senses and the understand-
ing. Passavant (Vorivort, p. 6), is quite correct it stating
that there were two kinds of ecstatic clairvoyance : "In the
phenomena of ecstatic clairvoyance many regard the immediate
perception as a lower faculty of the spirit, inferior to reflection ;
others again suppose it to be a higher one. But it is evident
from the nature of the powers of the human soul, that there are
two species of this direct perception, a lower, corresponding to
the nature of instinct, as an attribute of the animal soul, and a
higher, which consists of the unfettered action of the spirit.
The instinctive perception and foresight, which is possessed
by animals in even a higher degree than by men, is evidently
a lower faculty than the reflecting understanding. On the other
hand, the clear vision with which the ins})ired man of genius,
the thinker, poet, or composer, takes in at a glance the whole of
his work, is a direct intuition of a far higher description, and

Pausanias (x. 12, 1), and of one of whom he says TaZm f/,lv h (ra. eVk)

412 APPENDIX VI.

certainly superior to the reflecting understanding." He says
again at p. 129, "as the keys, which open the depths of the
soul, differ, so also do the secrets disclosed. Hence it is the
greatest mistake, to apply the same standard to all circumstances
of this description. For the highest and the lowest, truth and
error, the clearest and the most disturbed conditions of the soul
can manifest themselves in this form of life." It is to be observed,
however, that Passavant's attention is fixed upon the lowest
phases of the higher kind of ecstacy, — viz., the artistic and poeti-
cal, as exhibited in such facts as Mozart and Raphael record,
the former of whom says of himself, " all inventing and com-
posing resemble in my case a very vivid dream," and the latter
of whom writes concerning one of his works as follows, " it was
completed as in a pleasant dream, and while engaged upon the
work, I always thought more of the subject itself, than of the
manner in which I should present it ;" or such as Schiller had
in his mind, when he wrote the words which occur in Wallcn-
stein, " there are moments in the life of man, when he is nearer
to the world-spirit than at other times." But these are merely
faint copies of the genuine ecstasy, from which it is impossible
to discover the true nature of the latter, and which merely serve,
as slight analogies, to prepare the mind for the comprehension
of the true spirit-vision, which comes before us in prophecy.
The same distinction was also made by Tertullian between the
two ecstatic states. He distinguishes between sKara.ais and
/xavi'a (furor), and attributes the latter to the false prophets.

There was also a difference in the preparatory processes, and
in the means by which this result was produced. In the case of
the sacred ecstasy, prayer and sacred music were the means
employed. The heathen seers, on the other hand, made use of
narcotics, for the purpose of inducing an unnatural condition.
The proofs of this may be found in von Dale de oraculorum
ethnicoruiifh origine atque auctoribus, p. 140 sqq. Straho speaks
of a iivBvixa £vQovc!ia<yri>i6v, the vapour of which inspired the
Pythia, " The disturbance connected with this condition (says
Fassavant, p. 340), is also evident from the means employed to
produce it. Its unnatural and therefore immoral character is
apparent in the disorganisation produced by these semi-poisonous
materials. It was not by any elevation of the soul, as in the

THE KATURE OF PROPHECY, 413

pure ecstasy, but by an organic and physical dissolution, a kind
of suicide, that the soul was cut off from its ordinary intercourse
with the body, in such cases as these."

A third difference is to be found in the fact that the voDy, the
intelligent consciousness, was completely suspended in the case
of the heathen seers ; whereas, in that of the sacred prophets,
although it certainly occupied a subordinate position, it was not
quiescent, but, on the contrary, was elevated, and equipped, and
sought to follow the intellectual vision to the farthest limits of
its upward flight. The consequence of this was, that the heathen
seers, like modern clairvoyants, had no recollection of what had
passed, when they returned to a waking condition. " When the
ecstasy is over," says Justin with reference to the sibyls, " the
memory of what has been said is entirely gone." On biblical
ground, on the contrary, even in the highest kinds of ecstasy,
the vision remained clearly and deeply impressed upon the mind.
The prophets did not need the help of another, as the sibyls did,
to write down and interpret their oracles. " And the vision,
that I had seen, went up from me," says Ezekiel (chap. xi. 24, 25),
" and I spake unto them of the captivity all the words of the
Lord, that he had shewed me."

Lastly, there was not only a difference in the condition itself,
but also in the results. The heathen soothsaying, like modern
clairvoyance, did not issue in any genuine disclosures. The
biblical prophecy, on the other hand, brought to light an abun-
dance of divine truths, which have worked for centuries as the
salt of the earth.

From the fact that, in the case of the prophets, the intelligent
consciousness did not predominate at the time of their prophe-
sying, as at ordinary times, but that they were in a state of
eKTTaats-, we deduce the following important conclusion. All
the divine revelations were discerned by the prophets by imme-
diate perception. The impressions were made upon their in-
ward sense, which was roused into action by the Spirit of the
Lord, whilst the outward senses were quiescent and the power
of reflection was for a time suspended. Sacred ecstacy had
this in common with the lower kind. " Ecstatic persons," says
Passavant, p, 52, invariably describe their inward activity as see-
ing, and talk of an inward light." But from what has already been

414 APPENDIX VI.

stated, it will be evident that the agreement is merely a formal
one, " A vision," as Tholuck (p. 86) has justly observed, " is a
species of inward sight, which decides nothing as to the truth
or error of what is seen and heard ; and it is only so far as the
form is concerned, and not at all in relation to the substance,
that we compare the visions of the Bible to the phenomena of
somnambulism."

The p^oo/ of the visionary character of the prophetic revela-
tions is undoubtedly involved in the proof of the ecstasy of the
prophets themselves ; but we are also in a position to establish
the former apart from the latter, and by this means to add con-
siderably to the strength of our arguments in support of the
ecstasy itself For it is evidently an inconsistency to admit the
visionary character, and deny the ecstatic condition, as Hdver-
nicli (Einl. ii. p. 36 sqq.) and several others have done. We
refer, first of all, to Num. xii. 5 — 8. The distinction is there
pointed out, between the divine revelation made to Moses and
that which the prophets received. The work assigned to Moses,
as the founder and legislator of a new economy, demanded per-
fect clearness of mind in all respects. Hence the divine revela-
tions were made to him both inwardly and outwardly, in the
clearest terms, and without any figures of speech, ov 11 aiviy-
laarwv, as PMlo has expressed it. The communications made
to the prophets, on the other hand, were always made in visions
(ns-i.sn) or in dreams, and, therefore, always with the power
of reflection suspended and the outward senses at rest, this being
sufficient to answer the purpose of prophecy. We are also led
to the same result by the terms d'N"^ and cm (seers), so fre-
quently applied to the prophets, and also by the names given to
the prophecies themselves |V|n njqp, p'tn, niiin, niiq, vn, and
HK-io.i In these terms -seeing is used in a wider signification,
as including every kind of immediate perception, as on other occa-
sions, e.g., Ex. XX. 18. The words of St Hildegard quoted by Pas-
savant serve as an explanation, " I was astonished to find that,
whilst I saw inwardly in the spirit, I had also an outward faculty of

1 Maimonides (Moreh Neb. ii. 36) : " Nomen nsi?: or riNi significat quod
ad facultatem imaginatricem tanta perveniat actionis perfectio, ut homini ita
res appareat ac videatur acsi exterius sibi exhiberetur, eamque sensibus
externis percipcret."

THE NATURE OF PROPHECY. 415"

vision, and as I had never heard this of any other man, I concealed
the visions, which I had in ray soul, as much as I possibly could."
Our conclusion is also confirmed by the term tvatchmcn, which
is frequently used with reference to the prophets, e. g., Micah vii.
iv. ; Jer. vi, 17; Ezek. iii. 17, xxxiii. 7. The point of compari-
son between them and ordinary watchmen, who stand upon a lofty
tower from which they can survey the whole country round
about, that they may give information of what they see there
(2 Sam. xiii. 34, xviii. 24—27; 2 Kings ix. 17—20), is dis-
tinctly pointed out in Is. xxi. 6, " go, set a watchman, let him
announce what he seefh ;" (compare also Hab. ii. 1, "I will stand
upon my watch-tower, and station myself upon the fortress, and
look out to see what he will say to me.") Blichaelis, in his com-
mentary on Micah vii. 4, explains " the day of thy watchmen
and thy visitation cometh," as meaning " the day of thy watch-
men, the day of divine wrath and punishment foreseen by the
prophets, as it were, from a watch-tower." — In Num. xxiv. 3, 4,
Balaam speaks of himself as the man, whose eye is opened, who
sees the visions of the Almighty, whose eyes are opened when he
falls to the ground. " According to all these words," it is stated
in 1 Chr. xvii. 15, and according to all this vision, so did
Nathan speak unto David." " Vision," says Koster on this pas-
sage, " is the form of revelation ; word, the substance." In
2 Chr. xxvi. 5, the prophet Zechariah is spoken of as the
man " who had understanding in the seeing of God." God
is the chief object of prophetic vision. All the rest is seen
in him. To this w^e must add the numerous passages, in which
the prophets say that they see or hear things, which are not
within the range of the outward senses. " 1 see him," — viz. the
future King of Israel — says Balaam, in Num. xxiv. 17, " but
not now, I behold him, but not nigh." Isaiah sees the Lord
seated upon a throne, high and lifted up, and surrounded by
kSeraphim. In one Kings xxii. 19 Micah (Micaiah) is made to
say, " I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of
heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left." In
Is. xiii. 4 we read, " the voice of the tumult in the mountains, the
appearance of many people, the voice of the tumult of the king-
doms of assembled nations, the Lord of hosts mustering the host
of the battle." The most remarkable expression here is the

416 APPENDIX VI.

" appearance of many nations." This shows that the spiritual
sight is analogous in some respects to that of the body, to which
objects become gradually more and more distinct. In Is. lii. 7
the prophet sees upon the mountains the feet of him that pub-
lisheth peace, &c. Habakkuk (chap. ii. 1) places himself upon
his watch-tower, from which he has a distant view of an ex-
tended horizon, — in contrast with the contracted vision of natural
consciousness, — " to see what the Lord will say to him." Ezekiel
(chap, xxxvii.) beholds a field full of dry bones, which are made to
live by the breath of the Lord. Daniel (chap. x. 5) lifts up his eyes,
and looks, " and behold (the term njn, which occurs with such
remarkable frequency in the prophets, is easily explained from
the visionary character of prophecy) a man clothed in linen, and
his loins girt about with a golden girdle." He hears a loud
voice from Ulai. In Zech, ii. 1 we read, " and I lifted up mine
eyes and saw, and behold four horns." (See also Amos vii. ;
Ezek. xl. 3, 4 ; Rev. iv. 1, xxi. 10). The close connection be-
tween the ecstatic state, and the activity of the inward sense, is
clearly pointed out in Ezek i. " The hand of the Lord was
there upon him," we read in ver. 3 ; and immediately afterwards
in ver. 4, " and I looked and behold there came," &c. In Acts
X. 10 it is said of Peter, " there fell upon him sKuraffiy ; in ver.
11, "he saw heaven opened," &c. ; in ver, 13, " and there came
a voice to him ; in ver. 17, " now while Peter doubted in him-
self what this vision lohich he had seen should mean." In Acts
xi. 5 Peter says, " I saw a vision h sKardriEi" In Acts xxii. 17,
18, Paul also speaks of seeing, as the immediate result -of the
ecstasis. " I was in a trance, and saw him saying unto me."
In Rev. i. 10 hearing follows upon being in the spirit, and in
chap. iv. 2 seeing: " And immediately I was in the spirit, and
behold a throne was set in heaven, and one sat upon the throne."
— The visionary character of the prophetic discourse may also be
inferred from the frequent change of persons, without any par-
ticular explanation. The prophecy of Nahum is peculiarly
instructive in this respect. In chap. ii. 1, for example, the
prophecy passes suddenly from Judah to Nineveh : " the de-
stroyer Cometh near thee." In ver. 3, " the shield of his heroes
is made red," the suffix belongs to the enemy of Asshur, though
the previous verse refers to Israel. In ver. 5, " he remembers

THE NATURE OF PROPHECY, 417

his heroes," &c., the subject is the king of Assyria ; but the two
previous verses relate to his enemies. The ground- work is always
the inward vision, and the prophet merely describes, as he passes
rapidly from one thing to another, whatever presents itself to his
view. In chap. i. 11 Asshur is addressed without being named ;
in vers. 12 and 13, Zion ; and in ver. 14, Asshur again. In every
case the contents alone enable us to determine who is intended.
In every instance the prophet appears in the capacity of seer.
This is also the case with chap. i. 8, " he bringeth her place to
nought." Except in the superscription, Nineveh has not been
mentioned at all. The suffix, therefore, can only refer to the
object, which was present to his inward view. Lastly, the opinion,
that this was the mode in which the divine conmiunications
were made to the prophets, is confirmed by all the facts, which
we shall immediately prove to have been the necessary conse-
quences of the adoption of such a mode.

The majority of commentators have not entirely overlooked
this view of prophecy.^ At the same time, they have for the
most part restricted it to those portions of prophecy, in which it
is peculiarly obvious, such as Is. vi., Ezek. i., the first part of
Zechariah, and the second portion of Daniel, to which, for that
reason, the name of visions has been exclusively applied.^ But
the difference between these prophecies and the rest is a vanish-
ing one, the arguments we have brought forward are equally
applicable to all (compare, for example, Is. xxi. 2, " a hard vision
was shown me," with Zech. ii. 1), and, on the whole, if we but
possess the power and the ability to look more deeply into them,
the marks of the vision may be discerned.

We will now proceed to examine the peculiarities, which result
from these characteristics of prophecy.

I. If this be the nature of prophecy, no one, who has carefully
considered the subject, would expect that the prophets should

1 The best explanation is to be found in Maimonides, doctor perplexorum
ii. 36 sqq. ; in John Smiih, in the dissertatio de prophetia et 2)ropTietis,
reprinted at the commencement of " Clericus on the prophets ;" and in
VeWmsen : de optica rerum J'uturarum descripAione, ad illustr. Is. Ixiii., re-
printed in the commentat. theol. of Velthvsen and others vi. 75 sqq.

3 The interpretation, which follows the visions, is quite as much a part of
the'ecstasy, as the vision itself. Maimonides (c. 43) explains this, by ima-
gining a man in a dream, relating to another the dream, which he lias just
had, and receiving an explanation, under the idea that he is awake.

VOL. IV. 2 1)

418 APPENDIX VI.

always describe the events referred to, in a connected form or
with all their bearings. " The prophet," says Herder, Brief e, p.
108, " was not a preacher in oar sense of the word, much less
the interpreter of a system of doctrines." Such a complete and
connected mode of representation could only be looked for from
a teacher, in whom the reflective faculty predominated. The
attention of the prophets was chiefly concentrated upon lumina,
flashes of light. They merely expressed on each occasion what
was presented to their inward view, and there was presented
simply what was suitable, and likely to produce an effect under
existing circumstances. This is especially apparent in the
Messianic prophecies. The doctrine of the Messiah is never
taught by the prophets in a complete form, but all the Messianic
predictions have a one-sided character. Sometimes they direct
their attention chiefly to the person of the Messiah. At other
times this is not mentioned at all, and they merely describe the
nature of his kingdom. It not infrequently happens, that they
speak only of the Messiah in glory. Malachi, for example,
passes by the first coming of Christ in humiliation altogether,
and leaves the interval between his forerunner and the judgment
on Jerusalem a perfect blank. Very often the most minute cir-
cumstances are mentioned, and others of far greater importance left
unnoticed. On many occasions, when consolation is the thing de-
manded by the existing state of affairs, prominence is given to the
future events of a joyous character alone ; on another occasion the
attention is principally directed to the more gloomy prospects.
Jeremiah, for example, in chap, xxiii. 5, 6, connects together
the bestowal of salvation upon the elect portioii of the Jews, and
the restoration of their full number, which is to be expected in
the future, and overlooks the rejection of the greater portion,
which is to intervene. Ezekiel does the same in chap, xxxiv.
24 — 31, xxxvii. 21 — 28. Daniel and Malachi, on the contrary,
give greater prominence to the other side, — viz., the rejection of
the nation, the devastation of the land, and the destruction of
city and temple. Very frequently the prophets overlook all the
obstacles, which will hinder the progress of the Messianic king-
dom, and consequently embrace in one picture the weak com-
mencement and glorious end.

It is to this peculiar feature in prophecy that the apostle Paul

THE NATURE OF PROPHECY. 419

appears to allude, when he says in 1 Cor. xiii. 9, " we know in
part and we prophesy in part." A necessary consequence is,
that all the separate predictions can only be regarded as frag-
ments, and that we cannot possess a complete picture, till we
collect and combine the individual features. We can do this
with the greater facility, on account of our possessing a clue in
history, which enables us to determine the exact position of
every one.

In modern times, not only has the nature of prophecy generally
been entirely misunderstood, but this peculiarity, which neces-
sarily results from it, has also frequently been overlooked. The
attempt has been made by some, to prove from the facts in
question, that in the different prophets the Messianic idea was
presented in different ways ; and on this they have founded an
argument in favour of the human origin of prophecy generally.
From the fact that Joel, for example, merely describes the king-
dom of the Messiah, not the Messiah himself, it has been argued
that his expectations were not directed towards a Messiah at all.
And because Jeremiah merely speaks of a Messiah in glory, he
is said to have known nothing at all of a suffering Messiah.
The incorrectness, however, of such a mode of arguing as this,
may be demonstrated even from the stand-point of our opponents
themselves. If it were correct, it would follow as a necessary
consequence, not only that the prophets were irreconcileable with
one another, but that they were inconsistent with themselves.
Thus, for example in chap. ii. of the prophecies of Isaiah, just
as much as in Joel, we have a description of the Messianic times,
without any allusion to the Messiah himself. On the other hand,
the Messiah is mentioned in the prophecy contained in chap, iv.,
which is connected with it, and was delivered at the same time.
And so again in the second part there are many Messianic de-
scriptions of a general character, side by side with passages
announcing a personal Messiah; e.g., chap, liii., Iv. 3, 4, and
others. In chap, xxxi., 31, sqq., Jeremiah is occupied exclu-
sively with the nature of the Messianic kingdom ; and, on the
other hand, in chap, xxiii., &c., with the personal Messiah alone.
There are many passages in which Isaiah sets before us only
the glorified Messiah ; whilst in chap. liii. we find a complete

420 APPENDIX VI.

picture of his humiliation, which is represented as the cause of
his subsequent glorification.

If now we adopt the same course with the prophets, which we
are accustomed to adopt with profane writers, when, for example,
we determine the doctrines taught by Plato, not from one single
passage but from the whole of his writings, it is obvious that M^e
can only know what are the Messianic views of any prophet, when
we have brought together into one picture the features which are
scattered thioughout different passages. If this be admitted,
it must also be granted, that the fact of certain large portions of
this picture having been left unnoticed by other prophets, does
not prove that they were not acquainted with them. If we had
received a larger number of Joel's prophecies, the various fea-
tures would complete one another, quite as much as in the case
of Isaiah. If Jeremiah had prophesied under the same circum-
stances, as Isaiah in the second part, the suffering Messiah would
not have been omitted. But the fallacy of such a view, as the
one referred to, is evident from the fact, that it shuts us up to the
conclusion, that the later prophets were ignorant of the contents
of all the previous prophecies ; that the faith of the whole nation
was entirely unknown to them ; or else that they had renounced
this faith ; an assumption which would be perfectly absurd in
the case of Jeremiah, for example, who drew his life entirely from
the prophecies of the earlier men of God.

The reason for the incorrect views, entertained by the ration-
alist, is to be found in the fact that the prophets are regarded
too much as merely doctrinal teachers, and that it is expected
in consequence, that they will bring forward on every occasion
the whole of their doctrinal system. But if we regard them as
what they really were, — viz., seers, it will be thought a perfectly
natural thing, that they should never give more than they have
seen, without mixing with it the things which they have already
learned, through the mere exercise of their intellects, from other
men of God, and from the general faith of the Church of God.

II. If the medium, through which the prophets received their
revelations, was the inward sense, the whole must of necessity
have appeared to them as occurring at the time. There are
many peculiarities, of which this will furnish an explanation.

THE NATURE OF rROPIIECY. 421

1. In tliis case it will not surprise us, when we find the prophets
speaking of coming events and pei'sons, and even such as belong
to the remote future, as if they saw them, and could point to
them as standing before them. Forgetfnlness of this peculiarity
has led many commentators to suppose, that in such passages as
these, the prophets are speaking of persons actually and outwardly
present, and has therefore given rise to false interpretations and
conclusions. Nahum, for example, lived a considerable time
before the fall of Assyria, which he predicts. According to
chap, i, 12, the power of Assyria has lost none of its vigour and
beauty. The instruments, by whom the judgments of Grod upon
Assyria are to be inflicted, are not pointed out. There is no trace
as yet of the Chaldeans. Judah has no threatening enemy
except Assyria. And it is evident from the position assigned to
his prophecy in the collection of Minor Prophets, which is ar-
ranged chronologically, that Nahum preceded Habakkuk. There
are strong grounds for believing that the prophecy was written
under Manasseh, and that the historical starting point was the
time when he was led into captivity by the Assyrians. Yet in
chap. ii. Nahum describes the capture and destruction of Nineveh,
as if he had been an eyewitness of the event. "The enemies," as
Hitzig says, "draw near (chap. ii. 2), place themselves in order
of battle (chap. ii. 4), and with a confidence which admits of no
doubt, Nahum anticipates the siege and eventual destruction
of Nineveh." From the facts in our possession Hitzig infers,
that Nahum prophesied in view of the events ; but by such a
conclusion as this, he is led into inconsistency. For not only are
the preparations represented as present, but also the final issue,
which Hitzig allows to be future, — viz. the capture and complete
destruction of Nineveh, and the utter ruin of the imperial city.
The words of chap. i. 15, " Behold upon the mountains the feet of
him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace ! 0 Judah,
keep thy solemn feast, perform thy vows," presuppose that the
blow has already fallen. The preparations and the result must
evidently be looked at from one point of view. So again in
Obadiah, the present is an ideal one. The prophet is carried
away into a far distant future. The fall of Judah is represented
as having already taken place, and also the wrong done by Edom
to the covenant nation. The judgment on Edom is beheld by

422 APPENDIX VI.

the prophet as actually present, as well as the restoration of
Israel. From this, in spite of the most decisive evidence to the
contrary, commentators who had no deep insight into the nature
of prophecy have been led to conclude, that the book was not
written till the period of the captivity. Habakkuk says (chap,
iii. 6), " in the midst of wickedness I see the tents of Cushan."
At a time when the Chaldean power is still in its infancy, and
before it has commenced its victorious course through Asia, the
prophet beholds how the Kushan Rishathaim (of the double, that
is of the great, wickedness) mentioned in the book of Judges, of
the country on the other side of the river, which revives again
in her, is visited with the -punishment of wickedness. Other
analogous examples have already been given in Vol. ii. p. 170
sqq. We will give a few more here, connected with the subject
under our immediate notice. Isaiah, referring to the future
Redeemer, says (chap. ix. .5), " unto us a child is born, unto us a
son is given." So again in chap. vii. 14 he speaks of the Mes-
siah as really present, and Ewald, Bruno Bauer, and others, for-
getting that they have to do with a seer here, have substituted the
actual for the ideal present. See also chap. xlii. 1, " behold my
servant, whom I support, my chosen one, in whom my soul de-
lighteth." According to Micah a long period is to intervene
between his time, and that in which " she which travaileth " is to
bring forth (Vol. i. p. 417) ; and yet, in chap. iv. 1 — 3, the Mes-
sianic kingdom appears to him already present, and in chap v.
3 he sees the Messiah stand and feed in the strength of the
Lord. Even the times of suffering, which are to precede the
coming of the Messiah, are anticipated by the prophet in the
spirit. The prophet is so completely transported into the future,
that he suddenly loses his own consciousness and that of his
suffering people (Vol. i. p. 423), and even personates the
Babylon of the future, (Vol. i. p. 425). The triple nnj? in
chap. iv. 9, 11, 14, is very characteristic. It points out on each
occasion the opening of a new scene of the future in the form of
the present. — 2. The fact that the prophets are seers, serves to
explain the frequency with which they make use of the preterite,
when speaking of the future. The preterite represents an event
as having already taken place, and, according to the rules of
grammar, can only be applied to the present or the past. The

THE NATURE OF PROPHECY. 423

reason of this frequent use has been entirely misapprehended, not
only by rationalistic expositors, but even by many of the earlier
orthodox commentators. When such passages occur, we com-
monly find them dismissed with the remark, " the prophet
employs the preterite to denote the certainty of the event." Even
Vitringa gives this explanation in his notes on Is. vii, 14.' —
3. For the same reason the length of the interval must, as a
rule, have been unknown to the prophets, unless they received a
special revelation, as in Is. vii., Jer. xxv., and Dan. ix. They
were not chronological historians, so much as describers of pic-
tures. When they saw the Messiah, for example, standing
before them, how could they possibly know the length of time
that would intervene previous to his appearing ? As Crusius
(theol. proph. i., p. 622) has very forcibly observed, " the prophets
looked upon future events, with the divine light with which they
were illuminated, for the most part in the same way in which we
look upon the starry heavens. We see the stars above us, but
do not perceive how far they are off, nor even which are the
nearer and which the more remote." In connection with this
chronological indifference on the part of the prophets, one of
their peculiar characteristics is the formula d^o'd n'-.nsts (ia
the last days) which is frequently used by them to denote the
Messianic times, and applied exclusively to these (see the remarks
on Hos. iii. v.) It merely serves to indicate, in the most general
way, that these times are still far off, and also to contrast them
with the existing state of things, which has, first of all, to com-
plete its course.

On the same ground, as was observed in the first edition, we
may explain " this peculiar characteristic of the prophecies, that
events, which are separated by long intervals, are represented as
continuous. In the prophetic vision there was, as a rule, a
juxtaposition, not a succession. Babylon received the first blow
from the conquest by the Persians ; but more than a thousand

1 The true reason was perceived by Ikcn (on Is. liii. ; Bihlioth Hag. ii.
p. 238 s(|;|. " Fundamentum talis styli dispositionis ex modo, quo prophetis
futura revelabantur, repetendum potius censco. Non semper illud fiebat
expressis verbis. Toti interdum corripiebantur spiritu ; fiicultas mentis, cujus
ope res nobis repraisentamus, in iis acuebatur, ita ut recondita futuri teraporis
fata in imagine quasi ipsis exhibita non alitor contcmplarentur, acsi oculis
ea cernerent. Hinc non potuerunt non pntsenti aut prteterito tempore uti,
cum naturalis dicendi ordo id flagitaret," ifcc.

424 APPENDIX VI,

years passed by, before its complete overthrow and almost utter
annihilation. Yet Jeremiah (chap. 1. and li.) connects the con-
quest with the complete destruction, the germ of which was con-
tained in the conquest, without noticing the succession at all. In
the prophecies relating to the kingdom of God, after the pro-
phet's mental eye has been directed to the joyous or mourn-
ful side, the nearer and lesser manifestations of mercy, and the
nearer and lesser judgments, which are about to take place, are
generally so closely connected in the representation with such as
are greater and more remote, that the immense interval which lies
between is not alluded to at all. In this case the connection rests
upon the internal relation between the nearer events and such as
are more remote. Thus Isaiah, for example, in chap, xi., passes at
once from the deliverance from Assyria to the deliverance by the
Messiah, and leaves all the intermediate events unnoticed. And in
the same way do Isaiah, Micah, Hosea, Amos, Ezekiel, and Jere-
miah, very frequently connect together the deliverance from cap-
tivity and the redemption by Christ, although no prophet has ever
o-iven utterance to the thought, that the Messiah would be the
leader of those who returned from their exile. In the descrip-
tion of the Messianic kingdom itself, its historical development
is not noticed ; the commencement of the kingdom and its
glorious close are connected immediately together, Zechariah,
for example (chap. ix. 9, 10), passes at once from his description
of the coming of Christ in humiliation, to the glorious completion
of his kingdom.

It not infrequently happens that, instead of being placed side
by side, the events enfold each other ; just as in a distant pro-
spect the objects melt away the one into the other, and things,
which in reality are far removed from one another, appear to be
closely connected. This remark will throw light upon the
second part of Isaiah particularly, where we often find the de-
liverance from captivity and the redemption by Christ placed
side by side, whilst at other times they pass before the eye of
the prophet, here with the one more prominent, and there with
the other. In like manner, all the judgments of the future are
frequently embraced in one view ; the foreground and the back-
ground passing the one into the other. (" Just as by a similar
optical delusion, a tower at a great distance ofi seems to rest

THE NATURE OF PROPHECY. 425

upon the top of a house close at hand, or the moon's disk ap-
pears to be contiguous to the mountains and the groves," Velf-
husen, p. 89). But this view is too mechanical. It is over-
thrown, too, hy the flict, that there is a similarly connected view,
of things which are separated by long intervals of time, in the
discourse of Christ in Matt. xxiv. and xxv., which has nothing
of a visionary character about it ; as in fact there is not the
slightest indication anywhere of Christ passing into an ecstatic
state. The facts in question are rather to be explained, as they
have been in the article entitled Zur Auslegung der Propheten
in the JEvang. Kirchcn-Zeitunf/ 1833, from the ideal character
of the prophetic style, and from the fact that, as a rule, the
prophets had to do with general truths, not with events in their
empirical separation, a rule, undoubtedly, to which there are in-
numerable exceptions, since the mere statement of general truths
would never have been sufficient to meet the wants of the weak
faith of the Church of God, and therefore the prophets were
frequently obliged to enter into details. But these exceptions
cannot do away with the rule. " The prophets are not sooth-
sayers, they do not predict future events simply as such, without
regard to God and to His kingdom. With every one of their
predictions, so far as the germ is concerned, a pledge of its truth
was given long before the fulfilment. To look into the very
nature of God, to behold in his light the laws of eternity,
according to which he governs the Church and the world, is
something infinitely higher than a mere knowledge of the future,
which is itself a matter of indifference." In order that the glory
of the idea itself may shine forth with the greater brilliancy,
the prophets frequently abstract themselves from the particular
events in which it is eventually to be realised, in other words,
from the circumstances of the time. " With a greater concentra-
tion of the mind, says Passavant, p. 109, "'a view may be obtained
apart from the condition of time, the things being observed, not
in their succession, but as a whole, and as co-existent. In such
a view as this, there is something very exalting and edifying to
those who live in the midst of the course of history. It quiets
their hearts, when the latter fails to satisfy them. It teaches
them how to see the end in the beginning.

III. If the prophets received their revelations in a vision, it

426 APPENDIX VI.

follows that imagery would necessarily be very extensively em-
ployed in prophecy. It is too much, indeed, to affirm, as some do,
that " all knowledge obtained from direct perception is figura-
tive, and that the abstract idea belongs to direct (? indirect)
perception alone." The tenor of the prophecies is at variance
with this, for a wide space is allotted to teaching, of the most
liberal kind. It is also disproved by those passages, in which
the ivord is represented as the object of vision ; e.g., Is. ii. 1,
" the word that Isaiah saw ;" Amos i. 1, " the words of Amos
which he saw concerning Israel " {Michaelis : " mentis intuitu,
per revelationem dei ") ; Ezek. xii. 23, " the days draw nigh and
the word of every vision," equivalent to " the words of all the pro-
phetic visions are about to be fulfilled;" and 1 Chr. xvii. 15, where
we have not only the juxtaposition of the loords and the vision, but
also the fact that Nathan's prophecy does not possess a figura-
tive character. The intellectual vision of the prophets can per-
ceive the word, even without its being clothed in imagery. At the
same time it is undeniable that all mental vision, preserving its
affinity with bodily sight, has a preference for imagery. We
may see this from an examination of poetry, which invariably
avoids what is merely abstract, and loves to paint the objects
themselves. And the first glance at prophecy will show us the
same thing. One need only read Is. ii. 2 — 4, for example, to be
convinced that prophecy does not dogmatise, but paints, and
that not in mere chalk sketches, but with colours. The con-
nection between the imagery and the vision is also attested by
express statements, made by the prophets themselves. The
prophetic utterances of Balaam are introduced in Num. xxiv. 3,
&c., with the words " he took up his simile and said." In Hos.
xii. 10, in the account of the benefits conferred by the Lord upon
his people since the time of their deliverance from Egypt, we
read, " I multiplied visions, and by the prophets I speak (the
present describes what has been constantly repeated and still
continues to take place) in similitudes " (Michaelis : "as when
Israel was compared to a harlot or an adulteress"). In Ezek.
xvii. 2 the prophet receives these instructions, " Son of man,
compose a riddle (' ni'n : every figurative expression, the idea
conveyed by which is different from the actual meaning of the
words,' Hitzig) ; and prepare a figure for the house of Israel."

THE NATURE OF PROPHECY. 427

And in chap. xx. 49, he utters the complaint, " Ah Lord God,
they say of me, Doth he not speak parables ?" (Afichaelis : " he
utters nothing but parables, which are neither coherent nor in-
telligible").

The figures under which the future was presented to the pro-
phets, were necessarily such as lay within the circle of their ideas,
and were taken from the circumstances amidst which they lived.
For on the one hand, God does not work upon the minds of those,
to whom his communications are made, in a magical way, but in
a manner suited to their peculiarities and the extent of their
knowledge, and on the other hand, if the prophecies had been
composed of unknown figures, they would have failed of their
object and been perfectly unintelligible. But the strongest
reason is to be found in the relation, in which the future
history of the people of God stood to the past, a relation which
rested upon the connection in which both stood to the divine
Being himself. When the prophets describe the restoration
of the rejected Israelites to the kingdom of God and a state of
grace, as a return to the land of Canaan, they furnish at the same
time a proof of their prediction ; for the fact that God had for-
merly manifested his mercy to his faithful people in this parti-
cular form, was a pledge, that if they drew near to him again, he
also w^ould again regard them as worthy of his presence. When
they speak of the deliverance of the nation as a fresh passage
through the Red Sea, they obliterate, as it were, the fact that
this took place " centuries ago," and call it up from the dead, to
be a living witness "to the truth of the deliverance which is yet
to come. And when Egypt, Assyria, and Edora are employed
as names denoting the enemies of the future, the very names
pronounce their doom.

It could not be otherwise, therefore, than that the kingdom
of Christ should be represented in the Messianic prophecies by
figures borrowed from the earlier form of the kingdom of God,
and that the names of the various things and persons, connected
with the latter, should be directly applied to the things and
persons belonging to the former, the two being closely connected
by their internal similarity. This mode of representation was
the more natural, on account of the Mosaic economy having been
arranged with distinct reference to the economy to be founded

428 APPENDIX VI. '

by Christ, and being at the same time typical of it. This was
pointed out by Eusehius in his Church History, i. 3, in connection
with the prophetic, royal, and high-priestly offices ; and he sums
up the result in the following words : " &;$■ toutqus aTravra?

TTiV i'TTt TQV aXri^ri Xpurrov, rov evOeov Kat ovpxMiov Xoyo-v^ a.^^x(popaiv sy^si-y,
fj^ovov dpyj^picc rav bXwv, xai (jiovov ccny-rsris rrts ytrlrssus jotzaiXia, kolI
fji.6vov Ttpo^nTuv dp-)(^i7ipo(p'nrriv tov 'narpos rvyy^d-jovra,"

We will now illustrate what we have said by means of examples.
In the description of the person of the Messiah, the existing form
of the kingdom of God furnishes the prophets with a triple sub-
stratum, to which they add on each occasion the features dis-
tinguishing the antitype from the type. The Messiah appears
to them as an exalted king, and they introduce into the picture
of a distinguished sovereign under the Old Testament economy,
whose glory was but a faint reflection of the glory of his great
successor, all the characteristics wliich are peculiar to the latter.
Compare, for example, Micah v.. Is. xi., and Jer. xxiii. They
even call him by the name of David, the one monarch in whom
the idea of the typical king was most perfectly realised (Jer. xxx.
9 ; compare Ezek. xxxiv. 23 ; Hosea iii. 5). There is also an
allusion to the name of Solomon in Is. ix. 5. Again, the Mes-
siah is represented as the prophet, who is endowed with all the
fulness of the spirit of the Lord, and who, whilst perfectly real-
ising the idea of prophecy, does not confine his labours to the
narrow limits of Canaan, as the typical prophets did, but teaches,
warns, and reproves, among all the nations of the earth (Is. xlii.,
xlix., and 1.). Lastly, the Messiah is represented as a High
Priest, who is actually to procure by the sacrifice of himself that
forgiveness of sins, which the High Priest of the Old Testament
might point out, but could never secure (Zech. vi. ; Is. liii.).
And whilst the Messiah is thus described as the greatest king,
prophet, and high priest, his kingdom also is not represented as
something dissevered and different from the kingdom of God
under the Old Testament, but as the completion and highest form
of that kingdom. Very frequently Jerusalem or Zion, as being
the capital of the kingdom of Grod under the Old Testament,
is used to denote the church of the New (see the remarks on Is.
xi. 9, and Zech. xiv. 1). Joel (chap. ii. 32) expresses the thought

THE NATURE OF PROPHECY. 429

that, when the judgments to be inflicted in tlie Messianic times
shall fall, the true members of the kingdom of God will escape,
in such words as these, " in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall
be that which has escaped." Micah, Jonah, and Ezekiel, speak
of the future victory of the Church over the world as the raising
of the temple hill (see Vol. i. p. 439) ; and with reference to the
temple as the symbol of the kingdom of God in Israel (Vol. iii.
p. 61), the reception of the heathen into the Church is regarded
by the former as a flocking on their part to Mount Zion, and by
Jeremiah, in chap. xxxi. 39, 40, as a great extension of Jerusa-
lem. The sufferings of the people of God, which would precede
the coming of the Saviour, are represented under the symbol of
the wilderness, in which the sufferings of Israel had formerly
been endured (see the remarks on Hos. ii, 16, 17, and Jer.
xxxi. 2). The hindrances to deliverance, which the Lord will
overcome in the Messianic times, are figuratively described as
the Red Sea (Is. xi. 15 ; Zech. x. 11). The redemption by
Christ is to the prophets the antitype of the redemption from
Egypt (compare the notes on Hos. ii. 2). The universality of
the operation of the Spirit in the Messianic times is spoken of
by Joel (chap. ii. 28), as a universal diffusion of the extraordi-
nary gifts of the Spirit, which were common under the Old Tes-
tament. The thought, that in the Messianic times all nations
would worship the true God, and be received into the fellow-
ship of his Church, is expressed by Zechariah (chap. xiv.
16 ; see Vol. iv. p. 135) in the form of an announcement that
they will celebrate the feast of tabernacles at Jerusalem ; whilst
Isaiah describes them as coming to Jerusalem every Sabbath,
and at every new moon (chap. Ixvi. 23). The perfect love and
fidelity towards God, which are to distinguish the Israel of the
future, are predicted by Hos. ii. 18, 19, and Zech. xiii. as con-
sisting in the abolition of whatever, under the Old Testament
economy generally, or in the times of the prophet in particular,
had interfered with the connection between the nation and its
God, such, for example, as their readiness to adopt heathen
customs, their idolatry, their reliance upon the help of Assyria,
and their encouragement of false prophets. — In the view of the
prophets the prosperous times of the kingdom, under David and
Solomon, form the substratum of the glory and prosperity of the

430 APPENDIX VI.

Messianic age (compare Jer. xxiii. 5, 6 ; Micah iv. 4, and Zech.
iii. 10, with 1 Kings v. 5). In the detailed descriptions of the
victorious power of the kingdom of God in the days of the Mes-
siah, the nations are mentioned, which had formerly been subject
to David (Is. xi. 14). The general truth, that peace and love
will prevail in the nation when it has been truly reconciled to
God, is presented to the view of the prophets under the figure of
a cessation of the mournful division, which took place under the
Old Testament, — viz., the separation of the two kingdoms of
Israel and Judah. — The enemies of the Israel of the future are
frequently called by the name of some particular nation, which
had been distinguished in the past, or was distinguished at the
time for its enmity or its power. Thus Zechariah (chap. x. 11),
introduces Assyria and Egypt as the representatives of the
oppressors of the people of God; Isaiah (chap. xxv. 10 — 12),
calls them by the name of Moab ; in Is. xxxiv. 63, and Amos
ix. 12, the ungodly world is represented by Edom ; and Obadiah
also illustrates the general truth, that judgment is afterwards
to be poured out upon the heathen, by the example of Edom ;
whilst Ezekiel (chap, xxxviii.) applies the name Magog to the
ungodly imperial power.

If the visionary character of prophecy be admitted, it neces-
sarily follows that there must be a difference between the figure
and the fact. At the same time it must not be forgotten, that
the figurative style employed by the prophets is moderated by
the endeavour, to render themselves intelligible to the people, and
to exert an influence upon them ; and this constitutes the great
distinction between a strictly poetical style and that employed
by the prophets (see my work on Balaam, p. 77 sqq.).

Many erroneous views have been entertained, with regard to
this connection between the figure employed and the facts re-
ferred to. There are two opposite views, both equally wrong, to
which we would especially direct attention. The representatives
of the first are the carnally-minded Jewish commentators, in
whose footsteps most of the rationalistic expositors have trodden,
though under the influence of different motives. The latter
either ignore the figurative character of the prophecies altogether,
or insist upon a literal interpretation, without the guidance of
hermeneutical principles, in every case in which they obtain a

THE NATURE OF PROPHECY. 431

result, that will serve to confirm their preconceived opinions.
And even of the commentators, who believe in the Scriptures,
the same error has been fallen into by those, who insist ujjon the
strictly literal interpretation of such portions of the prophecies
as have not yet been fulfilled. This view has been chiefly adopted
in England (for proofs see v. Oettingen die synagogale Elegik
des Volkes Israel, p. 24) ; but it has also found many supporters
in Germany, particularly in Wiirtenberg. In relation to one
preconceived notion, peculiar to the supporters of this view, it
has already been remarked in the article previously referred to
" zur Avslegung de Propheten :" "We cannot possibly under-
stand, how the supporters of the strictly literal interpretation of
the prophets can maintain that it is the result of stronger faith.
We should have thought, that history would suffice to save them
from such an error. This mode of exposition is essentially the
very same, as that which the Jewish commentators adopt ; and
we may see clearly enough from their example, that no peculiar
assistance from the Holy Spirit is needed, to bring a man to
believe, on the ground of Is. ii., that in the Messianic age the
temple-hill was to stand upon the top of the loftiest mountains,
which were to be piled up under it, or on that of Zech. xiv.,
that the Mount of Olives was to be split in two. According to
this theory, J. D. Michaelis, another predecessor of these com-
mentators, must have possessed a faith that would remove moun-
tains. And there are many Dutch expositors in the present day
fPa7m and others), who tread in their footsteps, but of whose
faith we can form no very high opinion, seeing that it is but too
obvious, that they are destitute of any vital acquaintance with
the simplest truths of the gospel." But the strongest argument
that can be brought is this, it was this very method of inter-
pretation which led to the crucifixion of Christ. In the other
wrong road we find those who rob the prophecies of their actual
meaning, by laying excessive stress upon their figurative cha-
racter. This method has been adopted by not a few of the
rationalistic expositors ; and whilst the supporters of the former
were chiefly actuated by a desire to establish a positive opposi-
tion between the Old Testament and the New, the leading object
in the case of the latter was to generalise as much as possible,
and thus to do away with the harmony between correctly inter-

432 APPENDIX VI,

preted prophecy and its fulfilment.^ It is by no means a rare
thing to find the same expositor adopting both methods, just as
it suits him. And to some extent we find the latter course
pursued by those of the believing commentators, who give such
an interpretation to any of the prophecies, which look beyond the
coming of Christ in humiliation and the present condition of the
Church, as to do away as much as possible with the actual facts
to which they refer, and rob the kingdom of God of its glorious
termination. Luther was not altogether exempt from this fault.
In his later writings, for example, he declares himself a decided
unbeliever in the future conversion of the Jews. " To convert
the Jews," he says (Works, vol. xx. p. 2528), " is quite as im-
possible as to convert the Devil. The heart of a Jew is as hard
as stone or iron, as heard even as the heart of the Devil himself,
and nothing will ever move it." " Others may cherish what
hopes they please, I have no hope of the whole herd " p. 2529).
In the article " zur Auslegung der Propheten" it was said of
Calvin, " he was repelled by the scrupulous literality of earlier
commentators. For forced interpretations, such as necessarily
result from this literality, were exceedingly distasteful to his
sound exegetical feelings. And in addition to this, he was so
firmly convinced that the sacred Scriptures must everywhere
possess the characteristics attributed to them by the apostle, that
he could not look on with complacency, and see a considerable
portion robbed of the light of life by being referred to something
absolutely past or absolutely future. But he, again, went to the
other extreme. For the purpose of connecting the whole with
the present, he proceeded invariably to generalise, overlooked
those cases in which there is evidently an announcement of a
special realisation of the idea, and robbed the kingdom of God
of its glorious termination, by completely identifying its present
and future condition." In the orthodox exposition of the 17th
century, that of a Ccdovms for example, we find a great deal of
this system of interpretation. Whether v. Oettingen . is cor-
rect in charging it upon the author himself, as he does at p.
23, where he speaks of a " rationalising spiritualism represented

1 See, for example, Meier's Heinneneutik des A. T. Part 2.

THE NATURE OF PROPHECY. 433

by Hengstenherg and his school," will appear from the remarks
which follow.

If we would avoid these two bypaths, having proved that the
figurative character of prophecy, generally, results inevitably from
its very nature, we must look round for safe rules by which to
determine the limits between the figure and the fact.

1. Where we can compare the fulfilment, the distinction may
be determined, with the greatest certainty, under its guidance.
But even then prudence is necessary, for, as we have already
shown, the prophets frequently represent events, which ai«e sepa-
rated by long intervals of time, especially the weak commence-
ments of the kingdom of Christ and its glorious termination, as
though they were continuous. The first inquiry, therefore, must
be, whether a prophecy has been fulfilled at all ; and, if so, to
what extent ? In deciding this question, the statements of the
New Testament, respecting the future history of the kingdom of
God, will render the best possible service. The Book of Kevela-
tion is of peculiar importance, inasmuch as it takes up the
unfulfilled portion of the prophecies of the Old Testament, and
represents their fulfilment as still in futurity.' — So far as that
portion of prophecy is concerned, which can be proved to have
been already fulfilled, either by simply comparing the prophecy
with history, or fi:om the statements of Christ and the apostles,
it is quite right to make use of history, for the purpose of drawing
the line between the mere figure and the literal meaning. But
we must take care to distinguish between the two questions, what
was the meaning which the prophets found in their prophecies ?
and what was the meaning which Grod intended ? The two ques-
tions may be shown to be distinct, if it can once be proved that
the prophets spoke in a state of ecstasy, and in the Spirit (see 1
.Pet. i. 11 ; 2 Pet. i. 21). The reply to the first question cannot

1 No one, who notices the careful and systematic way, in which the pro-
phecies of the Old Testament are repeated in the New, could possibly fail to
observe, that it is altogether out of place, to assume that any portion is unful-
filled, merely on the ground of the Old Testament. And for this reason, if
for no other, the return to Zion, in the prophecies of the Old Testament,
must not be understood literally. The New Testament knows nothing of a
return to the outward Zion. And Paul, in particular, who professedly treats
of the future of Israel, merely announces its conversion, but not a national
restoration. This silence, in what is really the chissical passage, is of very
great importance.

VOL. IV. 2 E

434 APPENDIX VI.

be found in this way : nor is it of any great importance. The
reply to the second question can be thus obtained. The same
God, who opened up to the prophets a vision of the future, far
beyond the power and comprehension of their own minds, was
He, who afterwards brought about the fulfihiient. The rule of
hermeneutics, that the meaning intended by the author must
invariably be what we look for, is not violated here. The simple
diiference between us and our opponents has respect to the ques-
tion, who is to be regarded as the true author of the prophecies ?
Our opponents confine their attention to the human instrument ;
we ascend to the divine Author.

At the same time, there are not wanting boundary remarks
between the figure, and the literal signification in the prophecies
themselves ; and therefore they were within the reach of the pro-
phets and their contemporaries, although the want of the leading
mark, — namely fulfilment, must have prevented them from arriv-
ing at any safe and satisfactory result. — We have now to exa-
mine the marks in question.

2. Descriptions are undoubtedly to be regarded as figurative,
in which there is an evident allusion to earlier events in the
history of Israel. In this case we have only to extract the gene-
ral and fundamental thought, which links together the future
and the past. Examples of this are to be found in Habakkuk
(chap, iii.), who prays in ver. 2, " 0 Lord, revive thy work in
the midst of the years " — in other words, do the same to us now
as thou didst of old — and who then sees, not only the glorious
phenomena connected with the giving of the law repeated, but
also the victories over Cushan and Midian ; and in Is. xi, 15,
16, where we find it stated that, when the redemption of Israel
takes place, the Lord will dry up the Arabian gulf, and divide
the river into seven brooks. The thought, intended to be ex-
pressed here, is merely that all the obstacles to the deliverance of
the covenant nation will be removed. When Hosea says, in
chap. ii. 14, 15, that Grod will lead Israel into the desert, speak
to her there in a friendly manner, and then conduct her into the
land of Canaan, it is evident that it is merely in substance, that
he expects a repetition of the former dealings of God with his
people. (See the remarks on Zech. x. 11 ; Is. iv. 5, and
xii. 3).

THE NATURE OF PROPHECY. 435

3. In many other passages we are shut up to a figurative
explanation, unless we would make the prophets contradict
themselves. If, for example, we were to follow in the steps of
many of the Kabbalists {Glaesener de gemino Judceorum Messia,
p. 52), and interpret all those passages literally, in which the
prophets call the Messiah King David, and were to attribute to
them the belief, that David would rise from the dead and assume
the government again, we should bring these passages into con-
tradiction with the very many others, in which they speak of the
Messiah as the offshoot or son of David (see the notes on Ex.
xxxiv. 23). If we were to interpret Jer. xxxiii. 18 literally, and
understand it as predicting the continuance of the Levitical
priesthood and the sacrificial worship, this passage would be at
variance with chap. xxxi. 31 sqq., and iii. 16 (see Vol. ii. p.
464). When we read in Is. xiv. 2, '•' nations shall take them
and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel shall possess
them in the land of the Lord for servants and handmaids ; and
they shall take them captives whose captives they were, and they
shall rule over their oppressors," the idea of outward slavery is
excluded by the opening words, " nations shall take them," &c.,
(compare Ixvi. 20), and still more by the numerous passages to
be found elsewhere, in which the Grentile nations are promised an
equality with Israel in the kingdom of God, for example, chap.
xix. 23, and Ixvi. 21, where the Gentiles are even promised a share
in the priesthood. From this it is evident, that the idea intended to
be conveyed cannot be any other, than that the Israelitish principle
will become the predominant spiritual power. The drapery is
selected from a regard to the outward servitude, which awaited
Israel. If we were to understand Is. xlv. 13, " the labour of
Egypt, "and the merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans,
men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine ;
they shall come after thee ; in chains they shall come over, and
they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplibation unto
thee, saying. Surely God is in thee, and there is no God besides,"
as denoting outward bondage, the passage would stand in direct
contradiction to chap. ii. 2 — 4 ; in fact, there would be a con-
tradiction in the passage itself, for if the heathen submit of their
own accord — they shall " come over" — the thought suggested is
not that of outward subjection, but rather of dependence in a

436 APPENDIX VI.

spiritual point of view. This spiritual dependence is repre-
sented under the image of servitude, because at the period, into
which Isaiah was carried, Israel followed the power of the world
in chains. Again a literal interpretation of Is. xi. 14, " they
shall fly upon the shoulders of the Philistines towards the west,
they shall spoil them of the east together ; they shall lay their hand
upon Edom and Moab, and the children of Ammon shall obey
them," would be a direct contradiction, on the one hand, to ver.
iv., " he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and
with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked" — (the
people of such a king are not appointed to make war after the
manner of David ; and the fact that, according to the announce-
ment of the prophets, the nation was to become utterly defence-
less before the coming of Christ — Vol. i. p. 578 — is a sufficient
])roof that the allusion could not be anything of this kind in
the kingdom of Christ) — and on the other hand to the prophetic
anticipation, which is especially obvious in Isaiah, that the
neighbouring nations mentioned here would be entirely de-
stroyed before the coming of Christ by the empires which were
afterwards to arise, and would entirely lose the importance which
they possessed previous to the rise of these imperial powers. In
this passage the idea of the victorious power of the kingdom of
God is clothed in imagery, taken from the circumstances of David's
times. A literal interpretation of Is. Ixvi. 23, where all flesh is re-
presented as coming from month to month, and from Sabbath
to Sabbath, to worship at Jerusalem, would not be in harmony
with chap. xix. 19 (Vol. ii. 238), Zeph. ii. 11 ; Mai. i. 11 (" in
every place incense shall be offered into my name, and a pure
o^ering :" Michaelis, " sicut olim in uno loco"), and Deut. xii.
5, 6 (Vol. iv. p. 166). In such cases as these, the figure is always
to be sought for in those points, in which the idea can be proved
to have been suggested by something within the range of the
prophet's -vision.

4. Other passages contain within themselves the proof, that
they cannot be understood otherwise than figuratively. Thus,
even if we were to look altogether away from history and the
testimony of Christ, we could not regard Elijah the prophet,
whose coming is predicted by Malachi, as meaning the lite-
ral Elijah, as the earlier Jews and some of the moderns have

THE NATURE OF PROPHECY. 437

done, but must necessarily understand it as meaning a prophet,
who would come in the spirit and power of Elias. For we could not
attribute to the prophet so abnormal a thought as this, unless it
were impossible to find any safe analogies, on which to found the
figurative interpretation. So, again, the literal interpretation
of Is. liii. 12 is proved to be untenable, from the simple fact
that worldly triumphs are not obtained by the deepest humiliation,
and the worldly rulers do not confer upon their subjects the for-
giveness of sins and justification. The literal explanation of the
last nine chapters of Ezekiel is disproved by chap, xlvii. 1 — 12,
where the spiritual meaning is very conspicuous. That Edoni
is a figurative term, employed to denote the epemies of the king-
dom of God, in Is. xxxiv. and Ixiii., is evident from the whole
context, where the judgment predicted is represented as falling
upon all the nations of the earth. Very often a literal explana-
tion leads to romantic ideas, which a sound exegetical feeling at
once detects as at variance with the sacred Scriptures ; for ex-
ample in Is. ii., where, according to the literal reading, Mount
Zion is to be raised upon the top of the loftiest mountains of the
earth, and in Zech. xiv. 10, where the mountains of Judea, with
the exception of those in Jerusalem itself, are said to be turned
into plains.

5. In distinguishing between the figure and the fact, we must
never lose sight of the general character of each particular pro-
phet. It is undeniable that, although in many respects they all
see the truth in a figure, yet in the case of some the figure bears
a much greater resemblance to the fact, and the covering is
much more transparent, than in that of others. Several of the
Jewish scholars noticed this (see the passages quoted by J.
Smith ; also Maimonides, c. 45), and attempted to make a classi-
fication of the prophets accordingly. In Isaiah, for example,
much more could be said in defence of a literal interpretation of
such a description as that contained in Ezek. xl. — xlviii., than
in the case of Ezekiel himself.

6. Sometimes the figurative character is expressly pointed
out, and the clue is given to the literal meaning which lies
beneath it. Thus Zechariah (chap. x. 11) explains the figu-
rative expression, " they pass through the sea," which is borrowed
from the deliverance from Egypt, by adding the words, " the

438 APPENDIX VI.

affliction." In Is. ii. the figurative view is suggested at once, by
the frequency with which mountains are employed to represent
kingdoms; and in Ezek. xl. — xlviii., by the fact that the temple
is undoubtedly used elsewhere as a symbol of the kingdom of
God.

7. In prophecies, which have not yet been fulfilled, the boun-
dary line between the figure and the fact is always to be drawn
according to the analogy of faith. On this ground, as Theodoret
(on Ezek. xlviii. ; opp. ed. Hal. ii. p. 1045 sqq.) has conclusively
shown, all those explanations of the prophecies relating to the
future are to be rejected, in which, through a false adherence to
the letter, such doctrines are maintained as the future restoration
of the exclusive privileges of the Jewish nation, the rebuilding
of the temple, the renewal of the Leviticai ceremonies, and con-
sequently a return to the " beggarly elements," which the Church
has left behind it. Those passages, which speak of the return of
Israel to Zion in the Messianic times, must be regarded as figura-
tive, because Zion always means the seat of the kingdom of God.
And under the Old Testament it was merely the local sanctuary,
which gave to Zion this central importance. That the sanctuary
would lose its importance, when the Messiah came, was expressly
declared by Jeremiah, in chap. iii. 16. With his coming the
kingdom of God received a new centre, and the temple bore the
same relation to Him, as the shadow to the substance. This is
also the case with such passages as announce the coming of the
converted heathen to Zion, passages which cannot be literal, for
the simple reason that, if they were, we should be compelled to
maintain in opposition to the evident fact, that their fulfilment
belonged exclusively to the future. Isaiah (chap. ii. and ixvi.
23), Micah, and Zechariah speak of Zion, as being without ex-
ception the only place of salvation for the heathen world, so that
whoever does not come to Zion can have no part in salvation
itself (compare Zech. xiv. 17 — 19) ; from Zion alone goeth out
the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem, and whoever
does not fetch it thence is excluded altogether : Zion is the only
place of prayer for the whole earth, and therefore the only place,
where any one can have part in God himself. These consequences
of a literal interpretation ought to be well considered, before any
one resolves to adopt it. v. Oettingen has made a perfectly vain

THE NATURE OF PROPHECY. 439

effort to escape them. We have but one of two alternatives in
this case, and all attempts at reconciliation, or at steering a middle
course, must be regarded as unscientific. If Zion be once under-
stood locally, in direct contradiction to the New Testament,
where the temple, Jerusalem, and Zion, all assume a spiritual
character, it will also be necessary to go a step farther, and to
conclude that the end will come back to the beginning, that the
clear and decisive declaration of the Lord in John iv. 21 will
lose its force, and that the Church will relinquish its universal
character (see my commentary on the Revelation i. p. 558). A
preference for literal interpretation leads eventually to a renewal
of the early error of the Jewish Christians, which has long been
overcome and rejected by the Church ; and the fact cannot be
concealed, that there are many, who not only approach it, but
have reached it already.

8. Just as the prophets and their contemporaries were not
always able to distinguish the figure from the literal meaning,
by means of the marks alluded to ; so are we also not always
in a position to make this distinction with certainty, in the case
of prophecies that are still unfulfilled. We must take care
therefore, that our conclusions do not go beyond the marks we
possess. And since history has proved, in connection with that
portion of prophecy which is already fulfilled, that many things
are literal, which must have appeared figurative, and others again
figurative, which must have appeared literal, before the fulfilment
took place : there are many instances connected with unfulfilled
prophecy, in which the question can be decided by history alone.
IV. Another result of the state in which the prophets were at
the time of their prophesying, is the obscurity of the prophecies
themselvefs previous to the fulfilment. This obscurity is the
consequence of the three peculiarities mentioned above. — 1.
The prophets generally had clear visions of only a few detached
portions of the great future. Their prophecies need to be dove-
tailed together, and the fragments assorted, so as to form a per-
fect whole. This is not a difficult thing for us to do, since his-
tory has shown us, how each particular feature is to be arranged ;
and even those who were living before the fulfilment, as we have
already seen, were not left without any directions as to the
manner in which the arrangement should be made. At the

440 APPENDIX VI.

same time, it must have been a much more difficult task for
them, and the prophets themselves may frequently have failed.
That it was a difficult matter, for those who were without the
light of fulfilment, for example, to combine together the pas-
sages which proclaim a Messiah in glory, and those in which he
is represented as coming in humiliation, is evident from the fact
that it was this which led the Jews to resort to the fiction of a
double Messiah. — 2. Obscurity must in many instances have
been caused by the fact, that the visions of the prophets, as a
rule, were abstracted from the relations of time, and that things
are in consequence connected closely together, which the histori-
cal development has proved to be far removed from one another.
The prophecies, for example, in which the deliverance from the
Babylonian captivity and the redemption by Christ are repre-
fsented as continuous, might easily lead to the conclusion, that
the two events would also be historically connected (see the
remarks on Mai. ii. 17, and the introduction to Zechariah).
From the fact that the weak commencements and glorious end of
the Messianic kingdom are combined together in the prophecies,
even John the Baptist and the apostles previous to the out-
pouring of the Spirit (Acts i. 6), were unable to arrive at any
other conclusion, than that the coming of Christ would be closely
connected with the setting up of the kingdom of glory. — 3.
A still greater cause of obscurity was the figurative character of
the prophecies. We have seen, it is true, that even apart from
the fulfilment, there were not wanting marks, by which the figu-
rative and literal might be distinguished ; but, notwithstanding
this, it must have been very difficult and frequently impossible
to make this distinction, where the particular prophecies were
concerned. The members of the Old Testament stood in pre-
cisely the same relation to the prophecies generally, in which we
stand to those which relate to the future development of the
kingdom of God. Still greater misconceptions would also of
necessity result from the figurative character of the prophecies,
when the difficulty of interpretation inherent in them was in-
creased by the fact, that the commentators themselves approached
them with a carnal mind and a desire to find their cherished
hopes confirmed by the predictions they contained. The national
pride of the Jews led them to despise the means within their

THE NATURE OF PROPHECY. 441

reach, of attaining to a correct understanding of the prophecies ;
and by a literal reading of tlie theocratic imagery, they drew
their carnal notions of the Messiah and his kingdom from the
prophecies themselves.

That this partial obscurity of the prophecies was not unknown
to the prophets themselves, is obvious from many of their own
statements. Isaiah (chap. vi. 9, 10, and xxix. 10 — 12), and
Jeremiah (chap, 'xxiii. 20, and xxx. 24), both expressly state,
that the prophecies are unintelligible to the carnally minded
portion of the nation, and will not be understood by them till
they issue in their hurt. Zechariah says, on several occasions,
that he cannot understand the visions which he has received ;
and it is not till afterwards that their meaning is explained to
hira.^ From this it follows, that in the case of visions, such as
Ezek. xl. — xlviii., which are not followed by any explanation,
there must have been some obscurity about the meaning, even
to the prophet himself. Daniel was told, that his prophecy
would be shut up and sealed for the present, and even for a long
time to come, and that the Church of the future alone would be
able to make a proper use of it (chap. xii. 4, 9, viii. 26 ; see
Dissertation on Daniel, and the commentary on Rev. x. 14).
And in Kev. xxii. 10, it is also stated that, so far as the pro-
phecies relate to anything absolutely future, they are as it were
shut up and sealed.

The rationalistic writers refused to compare the prophecy with
the fulfilment, and thus, going back to the stand-point of those
who lived before the fulfilment had taken place, deduced from
the obscurity of the prophecies, which they were perpetuating
through their own fault, an argument against their divinity.
Thus Amman, for example (Christologie, p. 12) says, " such
simple sentences as the following : Israel has not to expect a king,
but a teacher ; this teacher will be born at Bethlehem during the
reign of Herod ; he will lay down his life under Tiberius in attesta-
tion of the truth of his religion ; through the destruction of

1 Zech. iv. 4, 5, " So I answered and spake to the angel that talked with
me, saying, what are these, my Lord ? Then the angel that talked with me
answered and said unto me, knowest thou not what these be ? And I said,
No, my Lord." A similar confession of ignorance is to be found in ver. 12,
13. (Compare i. 9, and ii. 2).

442 APPENDIX VI.

Jerusalem and the complete extinction of the Jewish state he
will spread his doctrine in every quarter of the world — a few
sentences like these, expressed in plain historical prose, would
not only bear the character of true predictions, but, when
once their genuineness was proved, they would be of incom-
parably greater worth to us than all the oracles of the Old
Testament taken together." Our first remark in reply to this
is, that the Christ of rationalism is here substituted for the
historical Christ, the mere "teacher" for the prophet, high
priest, and king. If this be done, the distinction between the
Christ of the Old Testament and the Christ of the New is no
longer simply one of form, but the gi'eater part of the prophecies
are changed into mere chaff. If, however, the Ttpcurov -^ivlos of
the rationalists, from which every Christian mind shrinks back
with abhorrence, be removed out of the way, it will not be diffi-
cult to defend the form, in which the Old Testament revelations
of the future were made. — (1). It is opposed to the nature of
God, to force men to believe. He hides himself in history, as
well as in nature, that he may be found of them that seek him.
And thus in the prophecies also, there was sufficient clearness,
for those whose hearts were prepared to be able to discover
whatever was essential and important to themselves, and every-
thing that related to the salvation of their souls, and on the other
hand so much obscurity, that those who did not desire the truth,
might not be forcibly constrained to see it. It would be just
as reasonable to demand that God should work miracles every
day, for the purpose of convincing those that despise his name
of the folly of their conduct, as to require that there should be
greater clearness in the prophecies. That there was sufficient
light to lead the elect to Christ, is evident from the living ex-
amples of Zechariah, Simeon, John tlie Baptist, Mary, Anna,
and others. — (2). If the prophecies had possessed the clearness
of history, their fulfihnent would have been rendered impossible.
If the light of Christ, his rejection by the Jews, and the mourn-
ful consequence, — viz., the destruction of Jerusalem, had been de-
scribed in the prophecies as clearly, as literally, as connectedly,
as circumstantially, and even for the carnally-minded as intelli-
gibly, as in the New Testament, the decree of redemption, which
required the death of Christ, would never have been carried into

THE NATURE OF PROPHECY. 443

effect. — (3). Even upon believers themselves, the obscurity
which rests upon certain portions of prophecy, must have
exerted a more beneficial influence, than greater clearness would
have done. If, for example the Old Testament believers, who
lived before the coming of Christ, had known that his appear-
ance would be so long delayed, how greatly would this have
tended to cool their love and cripple their hopes ! How could the
Messianic expectations, in this case, have become the centre of
their whole religious life ? If the Christians of the first cen-
turies had foreseen, that the second coming of Christ would not
take place for 1800 years, how much weaker an impression
would this doctrine have made upon them, than when they were
expecting him every hour, and were told to watch, because he
would come like a thief in the night, at an hour when they
looked not for him ? (4). A considerable portion of the Mes-
sianic predictions were intended to produce an immediate eifect
upon the whole of the people, and to preserve at least its out-
ward fidelity towards the Lord. But if prophecy had all the
clearness of history, this end would never have been realised. It
was attained, on the other hand, by such an arrangement of the
prophecies, as made even a wilful misunderstanding salutary in
its results. The people laid hold of the shell and thought that
they necessarily possessed the substance also. And this contributed
to the maintenance of such outward conditions, as were adapted
to give life to the actual substance of the prophecies. (5). If
the question be asked, what end was answered by such of the
prophecies, as were obscure in themselves, and not merely in
consequence of the carnal minds of the readers, it is a sufficient
reply that the prophets did not utter the predictions for their
contemporaries alone, but for posterity also, and the Church of
every age. Those portions which were clear, were amply suffi-
cient for contemporaries.

V. A further consequence of the state, in which the prophets
were at the time of their prophesying, was the dramatic charac-
ter which so frequently distinguishes the prophecies. Events
and persons are all presented to their inward sight : this is as it
were the stage, on which the latter come forward, to act or to
speak. Very frequently this takes place without any previous
notice or introduction ; as for example, in Is. xlix., where the

444 APPENDIX VI.

Messiah suddenly comes forward and speaks. The discourse
also is often suddenly directed to those, whom the prophet be-
holds by his inward sight : for example, to Christ in Is. lii. 14,
" as many were astonished at thee." The changes made without
any further notice in the persons speaking or addressed, have
frequently given rise to differences of interpretation, as. for ex-
ample, in Nahum i. 9, " what think ye of the Lord," where
many suppose Assyria to be addressed, though, according to the
correct view, Judah is intended (ver. 11).

VI. From the state of the prophets we may prove the correct-
ness of the assumption, that the symbolical actions, which they
describe, took place for the most part inwardly, and not out-
wardly, an assumption which, as Maimonides says (chap, 46), is
imperatively demanded by the nature of the actions themselves.
For as the sphere of the prophets, as long as they were in an
ecstatic state, was not the outward world, but the inward, every
action performed by them in this state of ecstasy must have
been an inward action also. The few instances, in which it can
be proved that the symbolical actions were performed outwardly,
are to be regarded as exceptional cases, in which the prophets
passed away from their proper element.^

1 Prophetica scena, intra quam omnes peragebantur apparitlones, fuit
ipsius prophetse phantasia, omniaque, quae deus ei revelata volebat drama-
tice in phantasia gerebantur, ita ut plures interdum inducerentur in scenam
personae, inter quas propheta partes etiam suas agebat. Itaque prout drama-
ticus ille apparatus postulabat, oportuit eum, ut ci3eteros actores partes suas
agere, aliquando verbis et narratione rerum gestarum, aut propositione
quaestionum, aliquando eas partes ferentera, quas jussus erat per alios agere,
adeoque eum non tantura sermone, sed etiam gestibus et actionibus locum
«uum inter alios obtinere.

INDICES.

I.— I NDEX OF PASSAGES

Genesis.

Chap.
Hi. 14—15,
ix. 18—27, .
xii. i. 3,
xvi. 13,

xviii. and xix.,
xviii. 18,

xxiii. 18,
xxvi 4,
xxviii. 14,
xxxi. 11 sqq.,
xxxii. 24, .
xlviii. 15, 16, .
xlix. 8—10,

Paoe

Vol. i. 4. iv. 391

. i. 29. iv. 391

. i. 36, iv. 391

i. 109

i. Ill

. iv. 290

i. 44

i. 114
i. 115
i. 117
iv. 392

Exodus.

iii. 2 sqq.,
xxiii. 20,
xxxii. 34.

xvii. 11,

i.47

. iv. 289

iv. 118, 288

i, 119, iv. 326

Leviticus.

Numbers.

xii. 5—8, .
xix.. 17— 19,
xxiv. 17—19, .

Deuteronomy.

xviii. 15 — 19, .

JosnuA.
V. 14. . . .

Judges.

ii. 1—5, . . . ,
V. 28, . , .
vi. 11 sqq.,
xiii. 3 sqq

iv. 342

iv. 414
iii. 47

1 Samuel.

xvii. 58,
xix. 9,

2 Samuel.

rii. 1 sqq.,
xxiii. 1 — 7,

. 90

121

iv
iv
iv.
iv.

291
314
292
294

iv.
iv.

287
288

i.
i.

123
14

1 Kings.
Chap. Page

xix. 5 sqq., . . Vol. iv. 288

2 Kings.

ix 6 sqq..

Isaiah

11 .-IV.

ii. 2— 4, .

iv. 2 sqq.,

vii. 1 sqq.,

viii. 23— ix. 6,

ix. 5.

xi and xii.,

xi. 4,

xi. 14, .

xi. 15, 16,

xii. 1 sqq.,

xiii. 1 — xiv. 27,

xiii. 4,

xiv. 2,

xvii. and xviii.,

xix 18 sqq.,

xix. 19,

xxiii. 15,

xxiv. 14—23, ,

XXV. 6 — 8,

xxvii. 1,

xxviii. — xxxiii.,

xxviii. 16,

xxii. 13, 14, .

xxxiii. 17,

XXXV. 1 — 10, .

xl.-lxvi.,

xl. 3—5,

xiii. 1—9,

xiii. 5,

xiv. 14,

xlix. 1—9,

1. 4—11,

Ii. 16,

Iii. 13— liii. 12,

Iv. 1—5,

Ix. 10, .

Ixi. 1—3,

Ixvi. 18, 21, .

Jeremiah.

i. 197

ii. 10
i. 413
ii. 12
ii. 26
ii. 67
iv. 283, 393
ii. 94
iv. 284
iv. 436
iv. 434
ii. 133
ii. 135
iv. 415
iv. 464
ii. 137
ii. 143
iv. 373
ii. 147
ii. 150
ii. 152
ii. 154
ii. 154
ii. 154
i. 457
ii. 156
ii. 158
ii. 163
iv. 171
ii. 195
iv. 62
iv. 435
ii. 225
ii. 246
ii. 256
ii. 259
ii. 312
iv. 383
ii. 350
iv. 384

iii. 14-17,

ii. 372

446

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

Jeremiah.
Chap. »
xi. 19,
XV. 10,
xviii. 1 sqq.,
XX. 7 sqq.,
xxiii. 1 — 8,
xxxi. 31—40,
xxxiii. 14 — 26,

Vol.

EZEKIEL.

ix. 1, 2, .
X. 2 sqq.,
xi. 14—21,
xvi. 53 — 63,
xvii. 2,
xvii. 22—24,
xix. 2,
xxi. 5,
xxi. 80—32,
xxxiv. 23 — 31.
xxxvi, 22—32,
xxxvii. 22-28,
xl. — xlviii.,
xlvii. 1—12,

Page
iv. 340
iv. 340
iv. 42
iv. 340
ii. 397
ii. 423
ii. 559

i. 359, iv. 357

i. 369

iii. 5

iii. 15

iv. 426

iv. 374

i. 85

iv. 427

iii. 29

iii. 36

iii. 44

iii. 51

iii. 58

iii. 65

iii. 24.
i.' 85,

HOSEA.

i. 1, ii. 3,
ii. 4—25,
ii. 16, 17,
iii. 1—5,
xii. 4,
xii. 11,

i. 1, ii. 17, .
ii. 23.
iii. 1—5, .
ii. 32,

iii. 7,

ix. 1 sqq.,

Ver. 17—21,

i. 177
i. 191
i. 223

iv. 434
i. 267
i. 115

iv. 426

Joel.

Amos.

Obadiah.
Jonah.

MiCAH.

295

319

326

428

389

357

Chap.

i. 12,
ii. 2 sqq.,

iii. 2,
iii. 7,

iii. 8—13,

i. 13,
ii. 6—9,

i. 7—17, .
i. 18—21,

i. and ii.,
iii. 1—4, 8,
iv. 9—14,
v. 1,

V. 2—5, .
vi. and vii.,

i. 8 sqq.

i. 475, iv

Nahdm.

i. 402

i.419
i. 435
i. 459
284, 393
i. 509
i. 517

iv. 417

Nahum.

Habakkuk.

Zephaniah.

Haggai.

Page

Vol. iv. 421
iv. 416, 421

iv. 434
iv. 422

356

iv. 287
iii. 267

Zechariah.

ii. 8—11, .
iii. 1—10,
iv. 1 sqq.,
V. 1—4, .
V. 5—11, .
vi. 1—8, .
vi. 9—15,
vii. and viii ,
ix. 1—10,
ix. 1,
ix. 9,

ix. 11-x. 12,
xi. 1—17,
xi. 13,

xii. 1, xiii. 6,
xii. 8,
xii. 10,
xiii. 7—9, .
xiii. 7,
xiv. 1—21,

iii. 305, iv, 296

iii. 312

iii. 314

. iv. 297

iii. 317, 298

iii. 335

iii. 341

iii. 342

iii. 345

iii. 349

iii. 367

iii. 369

iii. 371

iv. 345, 394

iii. 423

iv. 1

iv. 284, 299

iv. 55

iv. 299

iv. 284, 300. 394

iv. 107

iv. 284, 300, 894

iv. 118

Malachi.

i. 2—5, .
i. 6— ii. 9,
ii. 7,

ii. 10—16,
ii. 17, iii. 6,
iii. 1,

iii. 1—6, .
iii. 7—12,
iii. 13, iv. 6,
iv. 5,

xlv. 1 sqq.,
Iviii. 4 — 6,
Ixxii.,
ex. 1 sqq., .

Psalms.

Proverbs.

XXX. 1,

iv. 164
iv. 164
iv. 287
iv. 167
iv. 169
iv. 284, 329
iv. 182
iv. 169
iv. 201
iv. 874

iv. 392

iv. 326

iv. 892

iv. 283, 392

iii. 382

INDEX OF PASSAGES,

447

Proverbs.
Chap. Page

XXX. 18 sqq„ . . Vol. ii. 46
xxxi. 1 iii. 382

Job.

Song of Solomon.

Daniel.

iv. 337
i. 151

ii. 1 sqq.,
vii. 1 sqq.,
vii. 13, 14,
ix. 24—27,
ix. 24,
ix. 25,
ix. 2G,
ix. 27, ,
X. 18, •
X. 21,
xi. 1, .
xii. 1, .

. iii. 79

iii. 82, iv. 284

iii. 92, iv. 379

. iii. 97

. iii. 128

iii. 145

. iii. 160

. iv. 801

. iv. 303

. iv. 308

. iv. 304

1 Chronicles.
xxi. 15, ... . iv. 288

2 Chronicles.

XXXV. Zb,

iv. 12 sqq.,

Ezra.

iv. 91

iii. 203

VIatthew

i. 21, iv.341

ii. 6, .

i.500

ii. 23, .

ii. 106

iii. 1—12,

iv. 281

iii. 16,

ii. 114

iii. 17,

ii. 197

iv. 12—17, .

ii. 78

V. 29, .

i.37I

viii. 11,

iv. 166

xi. 1 sqq..

. 237, 353

xi. 11,

iv. 374

xi. 22—24,

iii. 20

xii. 41,

iii. 20

xiii. 82,

Hi. 25

xiii. 38,

. i. 9

xiv. 2,

. iv. 243

xvi. 14,

iv. 243

xvi. 21,

. iv. 834

xvii. 1,

. iv. 243

xvii. 5,

. ii. 197

xix. 29,

. iii. 289

XX. 28,

. iii. 90

xxi. 1 sqq..

iii. 420

xxi. 12,

. iv. 246

xxi. 24,

. iv. 250

xxiii. 2, 3,

. iv. 32

xxiii. 83,

i. 9

xxiv. 15, 16,

iii. 179

xxvi, 24,

iv. 382

Matthew

Chap.

Page

xxvi. 56,

Vol. iv. 333

xxvi. 67, 68,

. ii. 248

xxvii. 9, . . .

. iv. 47

Mark.

i. 1—8,

. iv. 236

ix. 13, . . .

. iv. 384

xiii. 14, . . .

. iii. 179

Luke.

i. 16, 17, .

. iv. 251

i. 48, .

. iv. 252

ii. 21, .

. ii. 226

ii. 29, .

. iv. 385

ii. 30, 31, .

. ii. 226

ii. 35

. iv. 350

ii. 38, .

. iv. 385

iii. 1, . . . .

. iii. 821

vii. 28,

. iv. 374

xviii. 81, 32,

ii. 247, iv. 333

xix. 41 — 44,

. iv. 37

xxi. 20,

. iii. 181

xxii. 22,

. iv. 333

xxii 37,

. iv. 333

xxiii. 48,

. iv. 75

xxiv. 25—27, .

iv. 383, 378

xxiv. 44 — 46,

iv. 338, 378

John.

i. 6—9,

. iv. 253

i. 11, .

. iv. 313

1.15, .

. iv. 254

i. 18, .

. iv. 314

i. 21, 23, 27,

. iv. 255

i. 29, .

ii. 330, iv. 851

i. 31, .

. iv. 256

i. 82, 33, .

. ii. 114

ii. 13—22, .

. iii. 246

iv. 21 sqq..

. iv. 166

V. 1, .

. iii. 241

V. 37, .

iv. 314

V. 45_47, .

i. 98

vi. 35,

. ii. 844

vii 28,

. iv. 315

vii. 41, 42, .

. i. 487

viii. 44,

. i. 7

viii. 53 sqq..

i. 41, iv. 315

X. 1 sqq..

. iv. 33

xi. 52,

. ii. 130

xii. 41,

. iv. 812

Acts.

ii. 3, .

. ii. 114

ii. 16 sqq., .

i. 342

iii. 21,

. iii. 22

iii. 25, 26, .

i. 43

vii. 30,-88,

. iv. 317

vii. 51, 52, .

. iv. 341

xiii. 10,

. i. 10

xiii. 34,

. ii. 347

xiii. 46. 47,

. ii.226

XV. 16, 17, .

i. 390

xvii. 3.

. iv. 334

448

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

Acts.

Chap.
xxvi. 6.
xxvi. 22, 23,

Romans.

iv. 13, .
V. 12, .
ix. 25, 26
X. 15, .
xi. 29 sqq.,

1 Corinthians.

X 4—9,
xiii. 9,
xiv. 14—19,
xiv. 32,
XV. 3. .
xvi. 22,

xi. 3,

iii. 16,

U.7,

i. 15,

iv. 16.

2 Corinthians.

Galatians.

Philippians.

Colossians.

1 Thessalonians.

Page

Vol. iv.

378

. iv.

334

ii.

216

ii.

262

iii.

. iv.

314

iv.

419

iv.

398

334

iv.

256

199

. iv

315

305

2 Thessalonians.

Chap.
ii. 8,

i. 11,
ii. 10,
iii. 19,
iv. 6,

i. 19,
i. 19-

iii. 8,

-21,

Ver. 9,

i. 3,
i. 5,
ii. 2, 3,
iii. 1,
ix. 22,
X. 4,
xi. 26,
xi. 37,
xii. 26,

V. 5, .
xii. 7, .
xii. 9, .
xxii. 16,

Page
Vol.ii. 97

1 Peter.

iv. 313, 334, 378
. iii. 19
. iii. 19
. iii. 19

2 Peter.

iii. 116, iv. 390
iv. 270, 378

1 John.

i. 10

JUDK.

Hebrews.

Revelation.

. iv. 305

iv. 315
i. 133
iv. 319
iv. 3]0
iv. 342
iv. 342
iv. 314
iv. 339
iii. 278

ii. 97

iv. 304

i. 10

ii. 97

( 449 )

II-HEBEEW WORDS AND PHRASES CRITICALLY INVESTIGATED
OR EXPLAINED.

Page

IXIX

Vol. iv. 43

nvV

Vol. iv. 43

nSx .

ii, 52, iii. 328

pNS,-5.*

. iv. 128

nins?

iv. 51, note.

n'-n,"?^

iv. 129

r\'>'^r\ii .

. i. 367, 368

n-iaa

. i. 382

|«N and |»N

iii. 148, &c. ; 155
iv. 67

i. 277

-T

. iii. 104
. iv. 152

tt/lN .

. i. 262

iii. 168, &c, ; 184, &c.

-T

i. 271, &c.

nsa

. iii. 112

njriN •

. i. 243, 244

D'anND

. iv. 103, &c.

D'D'n nnpiNS

i. 437, 438

nyiD

i. 241—242

Sys .

. ii. 375—433, &c.

nsia

iii. 327

."iiyi

i. 433

vnNxio

i. 482—486

Dnnn rxia .

. i. 438— 440

yha

iv. 286—289

^P-^J •

. iv. 77

♦dnSi?

. iv. 184

rnT •

. ii. 125

niDo

. iii. 392

ftri

ii. 456

nava

i. 277

Nsn .

. iii. 155, &c.

nSyo

. i. 378

P??

. iv. 188

nSVyo

iv. 148

nvom .

. i. 230, 231

rsjva

. iii. 32

1V-I

iii. 357

n'^d

iii. 380—385 ; iv. 60, &c.

, ■? •'^ •

. iv. 188, &c.

Sro

i. 311

npTvS mion

i. 319—325

tt^iro

. i.241

iv. 69

~ • T

iii. 132, &c. ; 146, &c.

♦jisyn

i. 312

nuj

iii. 135, &c.

nSai .

. i. 258

y^\i

. iii. 397, &c.

y'l-ij

iii. 172

HTJ

ii. 267

. iii. 116
: iii. 30

Svj

. ii. 106, &c.

Dj'ij nnpri .

. iii. 280, &c.

iii. 192, &c.

V^^P •

. ui. 143

. iv. 208

Dnn :

iv. 227—230

X^.\%

. iii. 31

inn .

. iii. 102

nSiiav

. iii. 853

onn

. iii. 108, &c.

D»DJ?

i. 419, 420

VOL. IV.

450

INDEX OF HEBREW WORDS AND PHRASES.

n*!?j?

Vol. iv. 108, &c.

njv

iii 324

iii. 400, &c.

a'h'v ny^.

iii. 359

Diny

i. 423

oixv- a

. iv. 115

HD^Ss

i. 338, &c.

niNsy

. i. 375, &c.

ptv

i. 265

nov

ii. 13—19 ; iii. 330, &c.

nrj^v

iii. 25

w^tJ^p^ ^:)p

. iii. 119

r'jni,-?

iv. 203

Syn

Page

Vol. iv. 62

V!«2ttf •

iii. 98—101—198

D'va^'

ibid. ibid.

■i3i:> .

ii. 243

VS»«>

i. 423

T T
•• T

• i. 257
iii. 194, &c.

D^VHjStt; .

iii. 168

nnott?a nc^"

. iv. 202

nnSn .

i. 442 ; ii. 436

Ton

. iii. 172

( 451 )

III.-SUBJECTS MOEE OR LESS FULLY DISCUSSED.

Abominations of desolation, iii. 168-189.

Abraham, his calling, i. 36 ; a blessing,
37, 45, 46 ; saw the day of Christ, 41 ;
his seed, 44.

Acceptable year of the Lord, ii. 352.

Accepted time, the, ii. 245.

Accommodation, divine, iii. 288.

Achor, the valley of, i. 256.

Adultery and fornication, their spiri-
tual meaning, i. 226, 227.

Ahriman and Ormuzd, iv. 277, &c.

Alexander's expedition, as predicted by
Zechariah, iii . 369.

Alphabet, the Atbash, iii. 377, 378.

Altar, the, i. 361-364.

Altar, and pillar in the midst of the
land of Egypt, ii. 144.

Amos the prophet, i. 347-349.

Amos, the prophecy of, its definiteness,
i. 349 ; character and time of com-
position, 351, 252; plan and arrange-
ment, 353-357.

Anathema Maranatha, iv. 256, &c.

Angel of the Lord, i. 42 ; as exhibited
in the Pentateuch, 107-120; in the
the Book of Joshua, 121-123 ; in
Amos, 351-361 ; in Zechariah, iii.
306 ; fuller investigation of the sub-
ject— investigation of the meaning of
the Hebrew phrase, 285-289 ; investi-
gation of the various passages in
which the phrase occurs, 289-306 ;
the various views which have been
entertained on the subject, 306-310 ;
the New Testament testimony ex-
amined, 310-319 ; echoes of the Old
Testament doctrine on the subject
found elsewhere, 319-329 ; the results
of the investigation, 329-331.

Angel, the Interpreting, of Zechariah,
iii. 316.

Angel, the destroying, i. 351-361.

Angel, with the measuring line of Zec-
hariah, iii. 314.

Animals, wild and tame, harmonised
under Messiah's reign, is the repre-
sentation to be taken literally or
figuratively, ii. 119-123

Anointed One, the, iii. 132; cut off;
145, &c., " and then there is none for
him," 147.

Anointing a Most Holy, iii. 118-127.

Anointing, the figurative import of, iii.
124, &c.

Apostle and High-Priest of our profes-
sion, iv. 310.

Archangel, the, iv. 305, &c.

Arabah, the, 370, &c. ; its symbolical
import, ibid. ; all the land changed
into, iv. 136-138.

Ark of the covenant, ii. 283 ; no more
sought after by Israel, ibid. ; the
throne of Jehovah, where he mani-
fested himself, 384, &c. ; its import-
ance as the heart of the Israelitish
religion, 387-389 ; did it exist in the
second temple ? 391 ; its typical im-
port, 395.

Arm, making bare the, ii. 263.

Arm of the Lord, ii. 276.

Artaxerxes, the beginning of his reign,
iii. 223.

Ashes of the burnt-sacrifices, the sym-
bolical import of, ii. 456.

Ashur, the type of the future enemies

. of the kingdom of God, i. 464-515 ;
destined to break the power of the
ten tribes, ii. 5, 6.

Ass, the king of Zion riding upon an,
iii. 395-402, &c. ; degree of esteem in
which it is held in the East correctly
stated, 403, &c. ; not ridden by kings,
404 ; Christians and Jews confined to
the use of it in Egypt, 405 ; and a
foal of the she-asses, 406-409 ; the
prophecy of the king riding on, vindi-
cated for Christ, 420-423.

Assyrians, the power of, passes unto the
Chaldeans, ii. 364.

Atbash alphabet, the, iii. 377, 378.

Atoning and suffering Christ in the Old
Testament, recognised by the Lord
and his Apostles, iv. 332-336 ; pas-
sages from the Old Testament on the
subject examined, 336, &c. ; typical
predictions of, 337-343 ; classification
of passages on the subject, 343-346 ;
the rationalist theory on the subject
untenable, 346, &c. ; did the Jews in
the time of Christ hold this doctrine,
347-350 ; passages from the New
Testament specially bearing on this
subject, 350-364.

Azal, iv. 126, &c.

Baalim, the days of, i. 245.

Babylon, rise of its power predicted by

Isaiah, ii. 7.
Baalam's prophecy of the Messiah, i.

90-95.
Ban, the Hebrew, what, iv. 227-230.

452

INDEX TO SUBJECTS DISCUSSED.

Baptism with fire, iv. 236.

Baptist, John the, is he " My Messen-
ger," spoken of in Malachi, iv. 185,
&c. ; was he Elias '? 221-224, 231, 242,
246 ; meaning of his sojourn in the
desert, 232 ; meaning of his outward
mode of life, 238 ; the fitTccvma which
he preached, 234-236 ; his message
to Jesus, 287 ; relation to the king-
dom of heaven, 240, 241 ; his mission,
251 ; his testimony to Jesus, 254-256.

Bearing the sin of many, ii. 309.

Beauty and bands, iv. 25, &c., 36, &c.

Bells of the horses holiness to the Lord,
iv. 148.

Benjamin's gate, iv. 138.

Bethlehem, Ephratah, the birth-place
of the Messiah, i. 475-478 ; its little-
ness, 478-482 ; historic view of the
prophecy relating to, 486-500 ; a
quotation of in Matthew, ii. 500-512.

Birth, its figurative import, i 510, &c.

Black, its symbolic import, iii. 347.

Blessings of Abraham, the, i. 145.

Blind and deaf, individualising desig-
nations of the wretched healed by
the Messiah, ii. 159, 160.

Blood, its symbolic import, i. 834.

Blood, to be taken out of the mouth of
Philistines, iii. 892.

Blood of the covenant, iii. 425.

Blood of remembrance, iv. 207.

Bozrah, i. 432, 433.

Branch, or sprout, of the Lord, ii. 13-
19 ; iii. 327, 354 ; the righteous, ii.
411.

Brand plucked from the burning, iii.
322.

Brass, mountains of, iii. 846.

Breath of the lips, i.e., of Messiah's, ii.
118.

Brethren, the Messiah's, who '? i. 512 ;
Ezekiel's, iii. 9, &c.

Building the Temple of the Lord, iii.
356, &c.

Bundehesh, the, its description of a
Saviour, quoted, iv. 278, 279.

Burden, import of the word, iii. 280-
385 ; iv. 60, &c.

Burdensome stone, Jerusalem a, iv. 65,
&c.

Butter and honey, eating, the import of
the phrase, ii. 56.

Buy wine and milk, ii. 344.

Called, to be, meaning of the phrase in
Scripture, ii. 20.

Canaan, import of the word, i. 23, 24 ;
why cursed, 25-26 ; a servant of ser-
vants, 28, 35, 36.

Canaan, the land of, where the true is
found, ii. 408.

Canaan, the language of, ii. 143.
Canaanite, a, no more in the House of

the Lord, iv. 152-155.
Candlestick, Zechariah's vision of the

golden, iii. 336.
Canon, the place of the Book of Daniel

in, and reason of the arrangement, ii.

219.
Caoshyanc, the Persian, iv. 278.
Carmel, i. 371-373.
Captivity, figurative import of, iii. 17.
Captivity of Sodom, Jehovah's return to

the, iii. 18.
Cedar of Lebanon, its figurative import,

iii. 24.
Ceremonies of a sacrificial kind, in what

respect abolished by the death of

Christ, iii. 166-167.
Chaldeans, the, succeed to the power of

the Assyrians, ii. 364.
Chariots, the four of Zechariah, iii.

845.
Chariots and horses cut off from Eph-

raim, iii. 409, &c.
Chastisement of our peace laid on

Christ, ii. 283, &c.
Cherem, its nature, iv. 227-230.
Child born and son given, the, 285, &c.
Christ, his prophetic and priestly oifices

depicted by Isaiah, ii. 3, &c. — see

Messiah.
Christian Church, the, the legitimate

continuation of Israel, iv. 58.
Chronological data of Daniel, their de-
finite character proved, iii. 200, &c.
Chronology of prophecy, its use, iii. 198,

&c.
Circumcision of the heart, iii. 14.
City of destruction, ii. 143.
Cloud, the, the visible symbol of Je-
hovah over the Ark, ii. 884 ; iii. 88.
Clouds, their symbolic import, iii. 141.
Coming of the Lord and all his saints

with him, iv. 128 ; the day of, 192.
Corner-gate, the, iv. 138.
Counsel of peace between them both,

iii. 358-860.
Covenant, the making of a, ii. 428 ; the

old and the new, 481.
Covenant, Ark of the, ii. 283, &c.
Covenant confirmed to many, iii. 160-

163.
Covenant of the people, the servant of

the Lord, the, ii. 220.
Covenant of the Sun and covenant of

Moon, ii. 468.
Covering of iniquity, iii. 112, &c.
Crown and Diadem, iii. 32.
Crowns, Zechariah commanded to make,

iii. 353.
Cup of trembling, Jerusalem a, to all

who fight against her, iv. 62.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSED.

453

Cypress and cedars, their figurative im-
port, iii. 358-3G0.
Cyrus, or Koresb, ii. 162, &c. , 191, &c.

Daniel, liis position and propliecies, iii.
77; object of liis prophetic mission, 78.

Darkness, i. 304.

Darkness of Death, ii. 77.

Darkness, walking in, ii. 254.

Dates, the precision of, in the Book of
Daniel, iii. 197, &c.

Daughter of my dispersed, the, ii. 358.

Daughter of troops, i. 472.

Daughter of Zion, called on to rejoice at
the coming of her king, iii. 395.

Daughter of Zion, who, ii. 21.

David, the promise of the Messiah made
to, i. 123-141 ; the last words of, 145-
151 ; the family of, how perpetuated,
ii. 246, 447 ; the multiplication of,
469, &c. ; splendour of the house of,
iv. 68 ; the house of as God, 69 ; a type
of Christ in his royal capacity, 338.

David, their king, who ? i. 282.

David, the sure mercies of, ii. 346.

David, the Tower of, i. 453.

Day, known to the Lord, iv. 131.

Day of the Lord, i. 297.

Day of his coming, iv. 192 ; 210, &c.

Dead Sea, the, iii. 70, 71 ; 74, 75 ; its
symbolic import, 71-73.

Decree to rebuild Jerusalem, the going
forth of, iii. 128, &c.

Deportation, the first of Judah, ii. 367.

Desert, the symbolic meaning of, iv.
174.

Desert of the Sea, iii. 377.

Desire of all nations, [the beauty of the
heathen], meaning of the phrase, iii.
280-286.

Destroyer, the, on the summit of abom-
inations, ii. 168, &c.

Diadem and crown, iii. 32.

Dissolution of the earth, its symbolic
meaning, i. 376.

Divide the spoil, the Messiah shall, ii.
307.

Dominion, the universal, of the king of
Zion, iii. 409-413.

Dramatic character which prophecy
often assumes, accounted for, iv. 443.

Dreams, their connection with prophetic
vision, iv. 401, &c.

Dumah, iii. 377.

Dumbness, spiritual, ii. IGl.

Dust, eating, i. 15.

Ear, opening the, ii. 251.

Earth, the dissolution of, its symbolic

meaning, i. 376.
Earthquakes and storms, their symbolic

import, iii. 273.

Eat, the figurative meaning of the word,
ii. 344.

Ecstacy, the prophetic state of, iv. 398-
410 ; diiierence between it and that
characteristic of heathen soothsayers,
410-417 ; peculiarities of prophecy
which result from it, 417-444.

Eden, the new, iii. 42, &c.

Edom, the remnant of, i. 387.

Ekron, like a Jebusite, iii. 392.

Election, not a prop for false security,
i. 379.

Eliakim, King, change of his name to
Jehoiakim, ii. 401, &c.

Elias, the prophet, his coming, iv. 210 ;
history of the interpretation of the
pi'ophecy, respecting, 219-224 ; de-
scribed, 231 ; is John the Baptist he ?
221-224; 242-246.

End, the. i. 367, 368.

End of days, the, i. 437, 438.

Ends of the earth, iii. 411. ■

Ensign for the Gentiles, ii. 125-129.

Ephah, the, and the woman sitting in
the midst of it, iii. 342, &c.

Ephod, the, i. 277.

Ephraim, when broken from being a
people, i. 37, 38 ; a hero, iii. 442.

Ephraim and Judah, reconciled, ii. 129.

Ephratah, see Bethlehem.

Escaped, the, i. 338.

Espouse, the use of the word in relation
to Israel and Jehovah, i. 263.

Evening, time, light at, iv. 131.

Evidences of Christianity, variously
adapted, iii. 199.

Exile, the, predicted in the Pentateuch,
ii. 189.

Extasis, prophetic, ii. 170.

Eyes, seven, upon one stone, iii. 333, &c.

Egypt, the African world-power, ii. 128;
the burden of, 141 ; five cities of,
speaking the language of Canaan,
143 ; the altar and pillar in, 144 ; Is-
rael's predicted return from, iii. 446-
446.

Ezekiel, bis relation to Jeremiah, iii. 1 ;
time of his first appearance us a pi'o-
phet, ibid ; his sphere of action, 2-4 ;
division of his prophecies, 4 ; threat-
ings and individual promises of, 4, 5 ;
his vision of abominations in the
Temple.

Ezra, his relation to the restoration of
Jerusalem, iii. 203.

Face, meaning of the word, i. 120.
Face, hiding the, ii. 279.
Father of eternity, the, ii. 89, 90.
Fathers, the heart of the, turned to the

children, iv. 224.
Feeding the flock of slaughter, iv. 8, &c.

454

INDEX OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSED.

Feeds in the strength of the Lord, the
Messiah, i. 513.

Fellow, the Man Jehovah's, iv. 108-110.

Fields of Kidron, ii. 457.

Fig-tree, the parable of the, iii. 248 ;
cursing of the, its symbolic import,
iv. 249.

Filthy garments, their symbolic import,
iii. 223 ; the removal of, its significance,
324.

Fire, its symbolic import, i. 806 ; the
refiners, iv. 193-212, baptism with,
236.

Firebrands, the two tails of the smok-
ing, ii. 35.

First gate, iv. 139.

First Father, iii. 324.

Fishers and Fishes, their symbolic im-
port, iii. 73, 74.

Five cities of Egypt speaking the lan-
guage of Canaan, ii. 143.

Flock of my feeding, ii. 404.

Flock, the scattered, iv. 107-113.

Flock of slaughter, feeding the, iv. 8 ;
meaning of, 17 ; their buyers and sel-
lers, 18, &c.

Flying roll, the ; of Zechariah, iii. 341.

Foal of an ass, the Messiah riding upon,
iii. 406-409.

Former things and new things, ii.
224.

Foolish shepherd, the instruments of a,
iv. 51.

Fountain for sin and uncleanness, iv.
97, &c.

Four chariots, the, of Zechariah's vision,
iii. 345.

Four winds, their symbolic import, iii.
346.

Fruit of the earth, a title of the Mes-
siah, ii. 15.

Fuller's soap, iv. 193.

Gabriel, the angel, iv. 301, &c.
Galilee of the Gentiles, ii. 73-76.
Gareb, the hill so called, ii. 450.
Garments, filthy, on the High Priest,

Joshua, iii. 323 ; their removal, 324 ;

clean, ibid.
Geba and Rimmon, iv. 136.
Generation, the Messiah's, ii. 286, 290,

291.
Gentiles, thee, seeking the root of Jesse,

as their ensign, ii. 125 ; labour for the

restoration of Israel, 358.
Giants, or Rephaim, ii. 153.
Giddiness, its symbolic meaning, iv. 62,

&c.
Gifts presented to Messiah, the import

of, i. 504.
Gloi-y to the God of Israel, the Ark so

called, ii. 387.

Glory to the Lord, the revelation of the,

iv. 176.
Glory to the latter House, iii. 286, &c. ;

prophecy respecting, how fulfilled,

289, &c.
Goah, the place so called, ii. 452.
God-hero, the, 87, &c.
Goel, the, iii. 9, &c.
Goings forth of Messiah from of old, i.

482-486.
Golgotha, the derivation of the word, ii.

453.
Gomer, the wife of the Prophet Hosea,

meaning of the name, i. 186-188.
Good and evil, choosing or refusing, ii.

55-58.
Grace, the spirit of, iv. 72, &c.
Grape cakes, i. 271.
Grave, the Messiah's, appointed with the

wicked, ii. 292. ^

Habitation, the sun and moon standing
still in their, i. 258.

Hadadrimmon, the mourning of, iv. 91,
&c.

Hadrach, the land of, confounded with
Adraa or Edrei, iii. 371-373 ; not a
proper name at all, 373 ; meaning of,
375-380 ; the kingdom denoted by,
379, &c.

Haggai, the prophet, the meaning of his
name, and circumstances of his first
appearance, iii. 265, &c.

Hail, its figurative significance, iii. 347.

Hairy garment, the dress of the pro-
phets, iv. 101.

Hananeel, the tower of, iv. 140.

Hand, bringing back the, iv. 113.

Handmaids and servants, the spirit
poured out upon, i. 332, &c.

Head and Heel, the signification of, i.
16, 17.

Healing through Christ, ii. 285.

Heart of stone and of flesh, iii. 14.

Heathen, the, their susceptibility of sal-
vation illustrated in the book of
Jonah, i. 403 ; missionary activity to-
wards, not belonging to the vocation
of the prophets, 406 ; Messianic ex-
pectations among, iv. 272-281.

Heavens, shaking of the, iii. 269, &c ;
moral effects of, 275 ; relation of the
idea to history, 276 ; how realised
previous to the first coming of Christ,
277 ; the prophecy of, quoted in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, 278, &c.

Herod, his attempt to fulfil the prophecy
relating to the glory of the latter
house, iii. 289 ; his opinion of John
the Baptist, iv. 243.

Hesiod's anticipation of the return of
better days, iv. 273.

INEDX OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSED

455

Hiding the face, ii. 279.

High Priest, his yearly entrance into
jffoly of Holies, ii. 385 ; the represent-
ative character of, iii. S21, o:c. ; the
Messiah called a, iv. 341, &c.

Hill of the Daughter of Zion, i. 456.

Hinnom, the valley of, ii. 454 ; iv. 40-43.

Holiness, the fundamental notion of, ii.
19, 20.

Holiness to the Lord, on the bells of the
horses, iv. 148, &c.

Holy of Holies, the anointing of a, iii.
118-127.

Holy place, standing in the, iii. 181.

Holy Spirit, the bestowal of the, under
the old dispensation and the new, i.
326, &c.

Horns, the four of Zechariah's vision,
iii. 312, &c.

Horses, among the Persians, sacred to
the sun, iv. 149.

Hosea, the prophet, his origin, i. 158-
162 ; time of his ministry, 162,-167 ;
the substance of his prophecies, only,
committed to writing, 167, 168 ; his-
torical circumstances of. 168-174;
prophecies of, characterised by threat-
ening, 174, 175; sum and substance
of his prophetic announcements, 175,
176 ; peculiarity of the Messianic
prophecies as compared with those of
the time of David and Solomon, 176 ;
division of the book of, 176, 177 ; mar-
riage with a wife of whoredoms, not
a parabolic, nor an outward, actual,
but an inward transaction, 177-191.

Hosts, meaning of the words as applied
to Divine names, i. 375.

Hosts on High, ii. 153.

House, the glory of the latter, iii. 286, &c.

House of David, iv. 68 ; as God, 69 ; a
fountain opened for, 92.

House of Jacob, i. 382.

Hypocrisy, its distinguishing charac-
teristics, iv. 163.

Hyrcanus and the Idumeans, i. 390.

Ideal, past and present of prophecy, ii.
170-175.

Idols, the names of cut oif, iv, 98, &c.

Immanuel, ii. 48 ; the Messiah so named,
49, 50 ; objections to this view re-
futed, 50-54.

Imprisonment, its S3'mbolic import, ii.
223.

Incense, its spiritual significance, iv.
167.

Iniquity covered, iii. 112.

Intercession, the Messiah's, for many, ii.
309.

Interpreter, the Angel, of Zechariah,
not the same as the Angel of the Lord,
iii. 306, &c.

Instruments of a foolish shepherd, iv.
51.

Isaiah, signification of his name, ii. 1 ;
the clu-onological principle on which
his prophecies are arranged, 2 ; de-
picts the prophetic and priestly offices
of the Messiah, 3 ; Messianic features
of his prophecies, 4 ; his prospects
into the future, 4-9.

Isaiah, the Book of, genuineness of the
second part of, ii. 174, 195; Jewish
interpretations of the 53d chapter of,
310-319 ; Christian interpretations,
319-326 ; examination of the objec-
tions to the Messianic interpretation,
326, &c, ; arguments in favour of the
Messianic view, 330, &c. ; examina-
tion of non-Messianic interpretations,
333, &c.

Israel, the servant of the Lord, why so
called, ii. 284.

Israel, a son of God, i. 501.

Israel, the kingdom of, the twofold ele-
ment of destruction which it carried
within it from the beginning, i. 168-
174; recovery of, to Messiah, ii. 126.

Jaazaniah, iii. 6.

Japhet, his blessing, i. 28-36 ; how he
dwells in the tents of Shem, 33, 34.

Jareb, King, who? i. 164, 165.

Javen, the war between the sons of, and
the sons of Zion, iii. 428.

Jebusite, Ekron like a, iii. 392, 393.

Jehoahaz, or Shallum, ii. 400.

Jehoiakim, King, ii. 398-401.

Jehoiakim, ii. 367, 398, 400.

Jehosaphat, the Valley of, i. 294.

Jehovah, the import of the name, iv.
200.

Jeremiah, the prophet, meaning of the
name, ii. 361 ; his typical relation to
John the Baptist and Jesus, ibid ;
entrance on his office, 362 ; reproof of
Israel, 365 ; preservation of by God
against dangers and enemies, ibid. ;
his preaching unconditional submis-
sion to the Chaldeans justified, 366 ;
remains among the ruins of his own
country in preference to following
the brilliant promises of the Chal-
deans, 368 ; his grief and sufi"ering3
under the circumstances, 369 ; his
hope, 370 ; his style, 371.

Jerusalem, the throne of the Lord, ii.
393, &c. ; restoration of, its figurative
import, 447 ; the decree to restore
and build, iii. 125-132; rebuilt by
Nehcmiah, 209, &c., 216, &c. ; the
Kadytis of Herodotus, 217 ; a cup of
trembling to all who fight against her,
iv. 62 ; a burdensome stone, 35, &c. ;

456

INDEX OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSED.

all nations gathered against, 121 ;
living waters proceeding from, 132,
&c. ; image of the central point of the
kingdom of God, 133-138, &c.

Jews, the restoration of, ii. 407.

Jezreel, import of the name, i. 196 ; a
place of judgment, 197 ; a great
battle field, 202.

Job, the sufferings of, typical, iv. 337.

Joel, the prophet, preliminary remarks
on his prophecy, i. 285-296.

John the Baptist, is he " My Messen-
ger " of Malachi? iv. 185, &c. ; was
he Elias ? 221-224, 231 ; meaning of
his sojourn in the desert, 232 ; meaning
of his outward mode of life, 233. The
fAfravoia which he preached, 234-236;
his message to Jesus, 237, &c. ; rela-
tion to the kingdom of heaven, 240,
241 ; Herod's opinion of, 243 ; his
mission, 251 ; his testimony to Jesus,
254, 256.

Jonah, the prophet, his age. i. 402 ; ob-
ject of his mission, 403 ; reason of his
anger at the sparing of Nineveh, 403-
404 ; symbolical object of his mission
404 ; parallels between his histoi'y
and the history of Jesus, 407.

Jordan, the pride of, iv. 7 ; the valley
of, 137, &c.

Joshua, the High Priest, standing be-
for the angel of the Lord, iii. 31 7 ;
clothed in filthy garments, 223, &c. ;
arrayed in clean raiment, 324 ;
crowned, 349.

Josiah, King, ii. 362 ; mourning for,
491, &c.

Jubilee year, the, ii. 352.

Judah, meaning of the name, i. 48 ; a
young lion, 62-53 ; his sceptre, 64,
&c. ; history of Jacob's blessing upon,
76-90; the first deportation of the
tribe of, ii. 367 ; the state-horse of
Jehovah, iii. 438^39 ; the centre of
Israel after the captivity, 443, &c.

Judge of Israel, the, i. 473.

Judgment on the Gentiles, its nature, i.
295 ; on Israel, its relation to the
Gentiles, 421-422.

Judgments, inflicted before the coming
of Christ, their provisional character,
iii. 19.

Justification through the knowledge of
the Messiah, ii. 304.

Kadytis, the, of Herodotus, iii. 207.
Keeping the keeping of the Lord, iv.

202.
Kidron, the brook and fields of, ii. 457.
King, the Lord the, over all the earth,

iv. 134.
King coming to Zion described by

Zechariah, iii. 395-413 ; history of
the exposition of the prophecy re-
specting, 413, &c.

King, Messiah, the, adorned with jus-
tice, ii. 116, &c. ; his kingdom, 119,
&c. ; prosperous rule, 412.

King in his beauty, ii. 156.

King of Israel, the importance attach-
ing to, over every other king, i. 146,
&c.

Kingdom of God, the, its permanence,
iii. 28.

Kingdom of priests, ii. 469-471.

Knowledge of the Messiah, the means
of justification to sinners, ii. 304.

Koresh, or Cyrus, ii. 167, &c. 191.

Lameness, its spiritual import, ii. 161.

Ijand, all the, changed into a plan, iv.
135.

Land afar ofi^, ii. 157.

Land of Hadrach, iii. 371, &c.

Last works of David, i. 145-151.

Latter house, the glory of the, iii. 286,
&c.

Law, import of the word, i. 443, &c. ; ii.
436 ; written on the heart, ibid. ; the
expression of God's nature, 439.

Least in the kingdom of Heaven, iv.
240, 241.

Lebanon, open thy gates 0, iv. 2.

Lebkamai, iii, 379.

Leaping and shouting, the lame de-
scribed as, ii. 161.

Lepers, the laws respecting, ii. 450.

Leprosy, the outward image of sin, ii.
461, &c. ; the theocratic punishment
of sin, 452.

Leviathan, ii. 154.

Levitical priesthood, how to be per-
petuated, ii. 463-466 ; their multi-
plication, 469, &c.

Life, to be written in, ii. 20, 21.

Light, its symbolic import, ii. 76, 153,
154, 221.

Light, of the Gentiles, the servant of
God, the, ii. 220.

Light at evening time, iv. 131.

Lions, the shepherds of the nations,
compared to, iv. 8.

Living waters proceeding from Jeru-
salem, iv. 133.

Locusts, as described in Joel, i. 298-
319.

Looking to Him whom they pierced, iv.
73, &c.

Lord, the one, and his name one, iv. 134.

Lord, the, whom ye seek, iv. 188.

Lord our righteousness, the, ii. 417-422.

Lo-Buhamah, i. 203, 204.

Maccabees, their times, i. 466-469.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSED.

457

Magi, the representatives of the Gentile
world, i. 505.

Majesty, to wear, iii. 357.

Malachi, time and circumstances of his
ministry, iv. 156, 157 ; his name an
ideal name, 157 ; early doubts as to
his historical personality, 158-160;
heading of his book, 161 ; contents of,
161, &c.; sketch of, 164-171.

Manasseh, King, iii. 263.

Maran-atha, iv. 256, &c.

Marriage, Jehovah's with Israel, ii. 375,
&c., 438, &c.

Matthew, his object in chapters i. and
ii. of his gospel, i. 503, &c.

Measuring line, iii. 314, &c.

Meat-oiFering and drink-offering cut off,
i. 305.

Mercies, the sure, of David, ii. 346.

Messenger of the Covenant, iv. 189, &c.

Messenger, My, iv. 184-188.

Messengers from Ethiopia, to the name
of the Lord of Hosts, ii. 139.

Messiah, his lowly birth at Bethlehem,
i. 475 ; yet lofty dignity, 482, &c. ; as
depicted by Isaiah, ii. 8, 9 ; the child
born, yet God-hero, 85, &c. ; a twig of
Jesse, 94 ; the servant of Jehovah, 195,
&c. ; destined by the salvation of the
Gentiles, 225, &c. ; sufferings and
glory, 259, &c. ; a witness of the people,
247 ; anointing of, to his office by Je-
hovah, 351 : a tender twig from a
cedar of Lebanon, iii. 25, &c. ; the
shepherd of the flock, 37, &c., 56, &c. ;
the Son of Man, 82, &c. ; a Holy of
Holies, 118-127 ; the Anointed One
cut off, 145-155; the Branch, 327,
&c., 354 ; the Temple-builder, 355 ;
the Priest on his throne, 357, &c ; the
King of Zion coming riding on an ass,
395-413; the Divinity of, taught in
the Old Testament, iv. 282-331 ; suf-
fering and atoning, 332-364.
Messiah, the Jewish fiction of a hidden

one, i. 492.
Messianic expectations among the Hea-
then, iv. 272-281.
Messianic features, the peculiar, of Is-
aiah's prophecy, ii. 4.
Messianic prophecies, their progressive-
ness, i. 1-4 ; remarks on their char-
acteristics, 155-158 ; their importance
unfolded, iv. 259-266 ; are there really
any '? — Schleiermacher's views refut-
ed, 266-271 ; history of the interpre-
tation of, down to the 18th century,
365-371 ; among the Rationalists, 370-
376 ; rationalistic views of, examined
and refuted, 376-396.
Metatron, the Jewish, iv. 324-329.
Micah, the prophet, his name, i. 404 ;
time of his prophecy, 409 ; unitv of
the book, 409-418 ; contents, 418, 419.

Michael, the Archangel, who ? iv. 301-306.
Moab, the representative of the power

hostile to the church, ii. 153.
Moses, a type of Christ, i. 503.
Mountain, symbolic import of, i. 440 ;

iii. 337-346 ; iv. 3.
Mountain, the high of Israel, ii. 27.
Mountain of the House, i. 438-440.
Mountain of the "Valley, iv. 126.
Mountains of Brass, iii. 346.
Mourning as for an only son, iv. 75.
Myrtle tree, its symbolic import, iii. 308.
Naked, meaning of the word, i. 423.
Name of the Lord, i. 446,
Name of the Lord, to be called upon any

one, i. 388 ; walking in the, iii. 44 ;

to call upon the, iv. 118.
Names of God, the accumulation of, its

purpose, i, 375.
Nation, the import of the word, i. 303.
Nazarene, he shall be called a, ii. 106-1 1 3.
Nazareth, meaning of the name, ii. lOG.
Nehemiah, the state of Jerusalem before

his arrival there, iii. 208, &c. ; the

restorerof Jerusalem, 209,&c,; 215, &c.
Nile, the floods of, smitten, iii. 448.
Numbered with transgressors, ii. 308.
Obadiah, the prophet, the time of, i.

394 ; objects of his mission, 396-398 ;

events predicted by, 398 ; divisions of

his prophecy, ibid.
Odium humani generis, the imputation

of, to the Jews unfounded, iv. 199.
Oil, its symbolic import, iii. 337 ; sons

of, 339,
Olive trees, their symbolic import, iii.

338, 339.
Olives, the mount of, Jehovah's feet

standing upon, iv. 123 ; cleft asunder.

125.
One of a city and two of a family, taken,

ii. 379.
Opening the ear. ii. 251.
Ophel, i. 456-457.

Ordinances of the moon and stars, ii. 445.
Ormuzd and Ahriman, iv. 277, &c.
Ornament of the shepherds, iv. 8.
Paradise restored, iii. 42, &c.
Peace, the Messiah, our, i. 514 ; increase

of, upon his throne, ii. 91-93 ; the

chastisement of our, laid on Christ,

283 ; the counsel of, iii. 358-360 ; to

speak, 410.
Peculiar treasure, Jehovah's people, a,

iv. 208.
People of wonder, iii. 327, &c.
Peoples, i. 419, 420.
Persian Messianic expectations, iv. 277-

281.
Persians, their syucretistic tendency, iv.

322.
Phariseeism, iv, 204, 205.
Phenomena at the death of Christ, their
import, i. 341, 342.

458

INDEX OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSED.

Philistia, her conversion predicted, iii.
391-393.

Piercing tlie Messiali, iv. 76, &c. ; his-
tory of the interpretation of the pro-
phecy relating to the, among the
Jews, iv. 78-86 ; among Christians,
86-90.

Pillar of a cloud and pillar of fire, ii.
23-25.

Pillars consecrated to idols, 277.

Pit, wherein there is no water, ii. 425,
426.

Plague, the, inflicted on all nations that
fight against Jerusalem, iv. 141, &c.

Platjah, the son of Benajah, iii. 8.

Platonic year, the, iv. 273.

Pot, every, in Jerusalem holy to the
Lord, iv. 153, &c.

Praeterita prophetica, ii. 170.

Preparing the way of the Lord, iv. 174,
&c., 182, &c.

Presence of God over the Ark, ii. 286 ;
its prefigurntive object, 388 ; the high-
est prerogative of Israel, 394.

Price, the goodly, iv. 40, &c.

Pride of Jordan, the, iv 7.

Priesthood, the Levitical, to be per-
petuated in the universal, ii. 463-
466, 470.

Priests, the types of the Messiah, iii.
332 ; their character in the time of
Malachi, iv. 164, &c.

Prince of Peace, ii. 90, 91 ; the anointed,
iii. 132 ; the coming, 155 ; on his
throne, 357, &c.

Progressivenessof Messianic prophecies,
i. 1-4.

Profitableness of godliness, iv. 204.

Prophecy, its peculiar character, ii. 170-
1 75 ; appealed to in proof of the God-
head of Jehovah, 181-188 ; keeps in
view the substance, 408 ; the nature
of, investigated at length, iv. 396-444.

Prophecies Messianic. See Messianic
Prophecies.

Prophet, the, like unto Moses, i. 95-107.

Prophets, the schools of the, i. 348 ;
• false, iii. 436, 437; iv. 97 ; the false, put
to death, 98 ; the false, ashamed, 99.

Prophetic and priestly offices of Christ
depicted by Isaiah, ii. 3.

Uaea-xvvnri;, civil and religious, i. 54, 55.

Protevangelium, the, i. 4, &c.

Purification, material, its symbolic im-
port, ii. 268 ; iii. 47, &c.

Purification of the Temple by Jesus, iv.
246-250.

Purim, the feast of, iii. 241, 245, 246, &c.

Rain, a fiery, iii. 193.

Rebuke, force of the word when used of

God. iii. 322, 323.
Red, the colour, its symbolic import,

ii. 309, &c. ; 347.
Red horse, iii. 308, &c.

Refiner's fire, iv. 192.

Refining as silver, iv. 117, 194.

Restoration of all things by Elias, iv.
244, 245.

Restoration of the Jews, ii. 407 ; of
Jerusalem, 447.

Resurrection of the dead, known to the
Jews, iii. 51-52, 81 ; its symbolic
import, 52-55.

Revelation of the glory of the Lord, iv.
176.

Rich, Messiah with the, in his death,
ii 293.

Rider, the, under the myrtle trees in
the visions of Zechariah, iii. 805 ;
riders, 310.

Righteous and wicked, to see the dif-
ference between the, iv. 209.

Righteousness, an everlasting, brought
in by the Messiah, iii. 113, &c.

Righteousness, the sun of, iv. 212-214.

Rimmon and Geba, iv. 136.

Robbing God, the sin of, ii. 301.

Roll, the flying, of Zechariah, iii. 341.

Ruler of Israel, the i. 75.

Rules for determining the limits be-
tween figure and fact in prophecy,
iv. 433-444.

Sacred, and profane, the origin and
cessation of the distinction between,
iv. 150.

Sacrifice, its spiritual significance, iv.
167, &c.

Sacrifices, their substance and form dis-
tinguished, ii. 467.

Sacrificial rites abolished by the death
of Christ, iii. 166-167.

Salt, its symbolic import, iii. 75.

Sanctuary, God a, to his people, iii. 11,
12, 56, 57,

Satan, the real tempter of our first
parents, i. 6-14 ; standing at the right
hand of the high-priest Joshua, iii.
319, &c.

Saul among the prophets, iv. 405.

Saviours on Mount Zion, i. 401.

Schools of the prophets, i. 348.

Sea, from, to sea, iii. 411-413.

Sea of affliction, iii. 448.

Sealing, the vision of, iii. 115, &c.

Sealing up sin, iii, 107, &c.

Seed of the woman, i. 16-20 ; of Abra-
ham, 44.

Seeing, the import of the word, iv. 176.

Seek, to, the import of the word, ii. 125.

Self-righteous man, the, described by
Malachi, iv. 161, &c.

Servant of the Lord, the, his endow-
ments, ii. 195-207 ; the covenant of
the people and light of the Gentiles,
220, &c. ; his high destination and
calling, 225, &c. ; not the people of
Israel, 228, 336, &c. ; nor the better
portion of the people, ibid. ; nor the

INDEX OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSED.

459

prophet himself, 229 ; nor the col-
lective body of the prophets, 839-341 ;
in the fulfilment of his vocation, 246 ;
his atoning sufferings, 259-310 ; the
Messiah, 336.
Servants and handmaids, the Holy

Spirit poured out upon, i. 331-332.
Serpent, the, i. 4-19.
Seven eyes on one stone, iii. 333, &c.
Seven shepherds, i. 516.

Seven spirits, iii. 337.

Seven Weeks, iii. 137.

Seventy Weeks, the, the general sum
of, iii. 92-101 ; events comprehended
in, 101, 197 ; commencement of, 202-
220 ; termination of, 220-222 ; har-
mony between the prophecy and its
fulfilment in relation to the beginning
and termination of, 222-239 ; non-
Messianic interpretation of, reviewed,
249-260 ; modern non-Messianic ex-
positors of. 260-264.

Shaking the heavens, iii. 269, &c. ; the
moral effects of, 275, &c. ; relation of
the idea of to history, 276, &c. ; how
realised previous to the first coming
of Christ, 277, &c. ; quotation of the
prophecy of, in the epistle to the He-
brews, 278.

Shallum, import of the name, ii. 398-400.

She that Beareth i. 509-512.

Shearjashub, ii. 33-35.

Shechinah, the, ii. 894 ; the true, 24.

Shem, his blessing, i. 26-28; tents of, 88.

Shepherd, the One, iii. 37 ; the foolish,
iv. 51.

Shepherds, symbolic import of, ii. 381 ;
the bad, their woe, 403 ; raised up by
God, 409, &c. ; three cut off, iv. 28, &c.

Sheshac, or Sesac, iii. 377-379.

Shiloh, i. 59, &c. ; 63, &c.

Shimei, the family of, iv. 95, &c. '

Sibylline Oracles, iv. 275-277.

Sieve, the, i. 382.

Sign, the character of a, ii. 39-42 ;

1' may relate to the future. 52.

Sin, a robbing of God, ii. 301 ; pardon
of provided by the new covenant,
442 ; sealed up, iii. 107.

Sin bearing, ii. 319.

Sinful kingdom, the, i. 381.

Sitting, the import of, i. 273.

Sixty-two Weeks, iii. 137, &c.

Sling Stones, what '? iii. 432.

Sodom, the Lord's return to the cap-
tivity of, iii. 18-21.

Solomon, import of the name, i. 83 ;
typical relation to Shiloh, 83-84.

Son of Man, iii, 83 ; like a,84-86 ; a title
of the Messiah, 89, &c. ; arguments
against this view obviated, 88, &c. ;
positive arguments in favour of, 89, &c.

Song of Solomon, i. 151-153.

Sons of Israel, who ? i. 512.

Sons of Oil, iii. 339, &c.
Soothsaying, relation of Biblical pro-
phecy to heathen, iv. 410-414.

Sosiosh, the Persian Saviour, iv. 278-
280 ; similarity of the form to Joshua,
280.

Soul, the, makes restitution, and is
everytliing in sacrifice, ii. 298 ; poured
out 308.

Speckled Horses of Zechariah's Vision,
iii. 347.

Spirit, the Holy, the outpouring of, pre-
dicted, i. 326, &c. ; resting on the
Messiah, ii. 113, &c. ; of grace and
supplication, iv. 71, &c.

Spirit of judgment and of burning, ii.
22-23.

Spirits in Prison, iii. 19.

Splendour of the house of David, iv. 68.

Spoil, Messiah shall divide the, ii. 307.

Sprinkling many nations, ii. 267.

Sprout of the Lord, ii. 13-19 ; 276 ; iii.
327, 354.

Staff of Beauty, iv. 25, &c., 36, &c.

Standing before and at the right hand,
meaning of the phrases, iii. 318-319.

Star, the, to arise out of Jacob, i. 90-96.

State-Horse, Judah, the, of Jehovah,
iii. 438-439.

Sticks, the two, in Ezekiel's hand, iii, 55.

Stone, a foundation, ii. 154-155 ; with
seven eyes upon it, iiL 334 ; a bur-
densome, iv. 65.

Storms and Earthquakes, their symbolic
import, iii. 273.

Stranger, the, how regarded by the law
of Moses, iv. 199.

Substitution of the Messiah for his
people, ii. 282.

Summit of Abominations, iii. 168, &c.

Sun, the, turned into darkness, i. 336-
337.

Sun and Heat, their symbolic import,
ii. 25.

Sun of Righteousness, iv 212-214.

Sword, the invoked to smite the Shep-
herd, iv. 107-114.

Sword, the mouth a sharp, iii. 233.

Swords beaten into ploughshares, i.

^ 443, &c.

Symbolism, animal, in Scripture, ii. 120.

Syrio-Ephramitic War, the, ii. 26-32.

Tabernacle cf David, i. 384, &c.
Tabernacle-, the Feast of, kept by all

nations at Jerusalem, iv. 145.
Teaching, tlie, promised under the New

Covenant, ii. 440 ; human and divine,

441, cS:c.
Temple, the Jewish, the seat of the

kingdom of God, iii. 287, &c. ; the

first and second. 291 ; glory of the

second, 286, 293, «&c. ; purification of

by Jesus, iv. 240-250.

460

INDEX or SUBJECTS DISCUSSED.

Temple, the new, Ezekiel's vision of,

iii. 58, &c. ; not to be taken literally,

58-61 ; its true symbolic import, 61-

64 ; to be built, by Messiah, 356, &c.
Temple, vision of the abominations

committed in, iii. 6, &c.
Temple-mountain, the, exalted, iv. 136.
Temple Waters, Ezekiel's vision of the,

iii. 65-76.
Ten Tribes, the, their return, iii. 444-

445.
Tents of Shem, i. 33-34.
Teraphim, What ? i. 278, &c. ; iii. 437.
Themistocles, the period of his flight,

iii. 224.
Theophany, description of a sublime,

i. 420.
Thirty pieces of Silver, the goodly

price, iv. 38.
Thousands of Judah, the, i. 479, &c.
Three Shepherds, the, iv. 28 ; their

cutting oif, 31, &c.
Throne, the Priest upon his, iii. 357.
Tongue of a disciple, the, ii. 250.
Tophet, ii. 455.
Tower of David, i. 453.
Tower of the Flock, i. 449, &c. ; false

views of refuted, 450-452 ; the correct

view established, 452-454 ; reason

of the appellation, 454-456.
Transgressions shut in, iii. 104.
Transgressors, the Messiah numbered

with, ii. 308.
Trees, lofty, their figurative import, iii.

24, <ic. ; iv. 4, &c.
Twig of Jesse, ii. 95, &c., 99, 101-113 ;

from the Cedar of Lebanon, iii. 26.
Tyre, forgotten seventy years, ii. 147 ;

her whoredom and reward, 148 ; her

wisdom, 386, &c. ; destruction of, by

Alexander, 388, &c.
Unclean Spirit, the, removed, iv. 99.
Uncleanness, Levitical, iii. 47-49 ; a

fountain opened for, iv. 97, &c.
Upper Chamber of God, i. 378.

Valley of the Carcasses, ii. 454 ; of Hin-
nom, ibid.

Valley of Jehosaphat, i. 294.

Vicarious Suffering of Christ, the, ii. 284.

Vine and Fig-tree, sitting under the, i.
445, &c.

Virgin, the, conceiveth, ii. 44-48.

Vision sealed, the, iii. 115, &c.

Voice crying in the desert, iv. 173, &c.

Watchman of Israel, ii. 262.

Water, the symbol of salvation, ii. 342.

Water of purification, iii. 47-48.

Waters, living, proceeding from the
Temple, iii. 65-76 ; flowing from Jeru-
salem, iv. 132, &c,

WayoftheLord,preparingthe,iv.l74, &c.

Wearying God, iv. 177.

Weeks, the seventy, general view of, iii.
92-97 ; determined, 97-101 ; divided
into seven, sixty-two, and one, 137-
165; the last of, 240, &c. ; non-Messi-
anic expositions of reviewed, 249, &c. ;
modern non-Messianic expositors, 260,
&c.

White, its symbolic import, iii. 310.

Whoredom, its symbolic import, ii. 148.

Whoredom and adultery, i. 266-267.

Wife of Whoredoms, Hosea's, i. 177-191.

Wilderness, alluring into the, i. 247-255.

Wind, its symbolic import, iii, 55, &c.

Winds, the four, iii. 346.

Wine and Milk, the symbolic import of,
ii 444.

Wisdom, and foolishness, ii. 115.

Witness, the Messiah a, ii. 347.

Woman, a, compassing a man, ii. 426, &c.

Woman, a, sitting inanEphah, iii. 842, &c.

Wonderful, the, ii. 86, &c.

Wonders, i. 322.

Year, the acceptable, of the Lord, ii.
252, the Jubilee, ibid ; the great, of
the Universe, iv. 273.

Zeal of the Lord, meaning of the phrase,
ii. 93.

Zebulun, and Napthali, the land of
blessed by Messiah's presence, ii. 71,
&c., 76-80.

Zechariah, the prophet, his priestly de-
scent, iii. 296; his youth, 297; historical
circumstances under which he com-
menced his labours, 297, &c. ; the
classes of persons among whom he
laboured, 298 ; picture of the future
derived from the combination of scat-
tered notices in his prophecies, 319,
&c., arangement of his prophecies, 301 ;
alleged obscurity of his prophecies, 302.

Zedekiah, ii. 367 &c.

Zemach, the, iii. 328, 337.

Zend, the quoted, as to the future happi-
ness of men, iv. 278.

Zephaniah, the prophet, ii. 355.

Zerubbabel, made a signet-ring by Je-
hovah iii. 271.

Zervane Akerene, iv. 320 ; the doctrine
of, borrowed by the Persians from the
Jews, 323.

Zion, her establishment, i. 438 ; mourn-
ing at being carried into captivity,
461 : in travail, 462 ; profaned by her
enemies, 466 ; victorious, 470, &c. ;
powerless, 472; founded, ii. 154; called
on to rejoice at the coming of her king,
iii. 395.

Zion, Mount, all nations flowing into, i.
441.

Zoroaster's teaching respecting the com-
ing deliverer, iv. 279, 281.

FINIS.

BS648.5.H5131861V.4

Christology of the Old Testament, and a

Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library

00054

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Christology of the Old Testament, and a commentary on the messianic predictions"

See other formats