Part 3
How then could Ephraim, or the ten tribes, it may be asked, bear a part in the triumphs of the Gospel, having previously gone into captivity? The prophecy does not distinctly say so; if we keep to the letter, it is only said that Ephraim as well as Judah was prepared and marshalled for the spiritual conflict: the triumph is declared to _Zion_ over _Greece_; that is, to true religion over Pagan idolatry; and in this warfare, though not in the wars of Judas Maccabeus, Ephraim did bear a part; for it is not to the apostolic age alone that we must look for the accomplishment of the great scheme of Providence for man’s redemption. This was only one act in the great drama; which began under the Old Covenant, and is not yet finally completed under the New. In the former, or the Old Covenant, all the tribes of Israel bore their share, Ephraim as well as Judah; and the warfare not being finally concluded, who shall say but Ephraim may again appear, and bear a further part in it?
Having declared the union of the Gentiles with the Jews, and their joint participation in the blessings of the Messiah’s kingdom, the prophecy goes on to promise the support and protection of Heaven, in terms alike applicable to both.
_And the Lord shall be seen over them, and his arrow shall go forth as the lightning; and the Lord God shall blow the trumpet, and shall go forth with whirlwinds of the south. And the Lord of hosts shall defend them, and they shall devour and subdue with sling-stones; and they shall drink as wine, and they shall be filled like bowls, like __ the corners of the altar._ (which were purposely so constructed as to receive the blood of the sacrifices).
That the whole of these expressions require to be taken figuratively and spiritually, no one conversant with scriptural and prophetic language can surely deny; or for a moment suppose that literal drunkenness and bloodshed are here intended.
Should any doubt remain that the Gentiles are included in these promises as well as the Jews, the next verse appears to decide the question.
_And the Lord their God shall save them in that day, as the flock of his people._
If the Jews be called his people, who but the Gentiles can be meant by the other? But this is followed by the direct declaration that all distinction between them is on the eve of its abolition.
_For the wall of separation is tottering over his land._
A remarkable and striking expression, but strangely perverted in our translation. Why the Jews have laboured to give a different turn to it, by seeking a more figurative and recondite meaning, we need be at no loss to conceive; nor why they apply these verses to themselves alone. See note to the translation of this verse.
But this view, which would limit the bounty of Heaven to a particular race, besides being at variance with the context, seems little calculated to call forth the feelings of adoration and praise with which this chapter concludes.
_For how great is his goodness, and how great is his beauty. Corn shall make the young men cheerful, and new wine the maids._
Corn, wine, &c. in prophetic language ever signify the food of spiritual knowledge, to be henceforth freely bestowed on all, Gentiles as well as Jews.
NOTES TO CHAPTER IX. HEBREW PUNCTUATION.
A Summary of the arguments for and against the antiquity and authority of the Vowel Points, is given at the beginning of the Second Vol. of Horne’s Introduction to the Study of the Scriptures; from which the following considerations seem most entitled to selection. That the earliest traces of the points are to be found in the tenth century—that many of the oldest manuscripts now extant are without them—that the copies of the Jewish Scriptures now used in the Synagogue and esteemed peculiarly sacred, are without them—that the Samaritan letters which were the same as the Hebrew before the captivity, are without them—and the Samaritan Pentateuch is without them—that there are no traces of them to be found in the shekels (coins) struck by the kings of Israel—that the fathers, particularly Origen and Jerome, who treat of the Hebrew pronunciation, make no mention of them—that all the antient various readings of the Jews regard the letters only, not one of them relates to the vowel points—to which may be added, that there are five vowels in the Hebrew alphabet which are quite sufficient for reading the language, though they may not enable us to determine with precision the antient pronunciation. “These considerations,” says Mr. Horne, “have determined the majority of Hebrew scholars in the present day to reject their authority.” Still we may admit their utility in fixing the pronunciation, and perhaps also in facilitating the construction; but the main objection to them is, that by changing the vowels, they frequently alter the sense, as well as the sound, and that in passages where a Jewish interpretation is particularly open to suspicion. Thus in prophecies relating to the Messiah, both their prejudices and their feelings unfit them for becoming guides to a Christian expositor.
Verse 1. :משא דבר יהוה בארץ חדרך ודמשק מנחתו כי ליהוה עין אדם וכל שבטי ישראל
_The heavy burden of the word of the Lord in the land of Hadrach, and Damascus shall be the rest thereof; when the eyes of man, as of all the tribes of Israel, shall be towards the Lord._
These are the words of the translation in our Bible; but the sense of them I must acknowledge my inability to unravel. Of what Damascus is to be the rest, or what period is intimated by the adverb of time _when_, I am at a loss to discover. The separation of Hadrach and Damascus by the insertion of a comma between them, evidently owes its origin to the supposed necessity for rendering the word מנחתו (or ותחנמ) _the rest thereof_. But if deriving it from נח (or חנ) or נוח (or חונ) does not afford any intelligible sense, we are naturally led to seek another derivation; and we find one in the verb נחת (or תחנ) _to descend_ or _send down_, which without violating grammatical construction affords a meaning not only intelligible, but in perfect unison with the context. The Hemantiv מ prefixed, gives the _thing sent down_, while the suffix ו _his_, evidently refers to _the Lord_ who sends the vision or denunciation. The English construction, of course, requires it should be rendered _his sending down_, that is, the Lord’s denunciation, _against_ Hadrach and Damascus, as well as the other cities which are mentioned afterwards; for ב here rendered _in_, may with more propriety be rendered _against_ or _upon_. The verb נחת (or תחנ) _to send down_, occurs in Joel iii. 11 and elsewhere: but the writer freely acknowledges that he has no authority for the participial noun with the Hemantiv מ prefixed to signify the thing sent down, or the act of sending down, as the sense seems to require here. He therefore rests this construction solely on the ground of its being grammatically admissible, consonant to analogy, and in accordance with the context, as affording a satisfactory meaning. Let those who are not satisfied with such reasons furnish a better solution of the difficulty. In the next place, there is no necessity for rendering כי (or יכ) _when_, which more frequently signifies _for_; and when so rendered, it will be found to connect together the latter and the former part of the verse. For this, we only require to render the dative ל, as it frequently is rendered in Hebrew, as well as Greek and Latin, to denote _possession_; and the verse will run thus. _For the Lord’s is_, or to the Lord belongs, _the eye of man_; to wit, the eye of the Seer, who receives the vision, _and all the tribes of Israel_, whom the vision chiefly concerns. Making the tribes a genitive case, by inserting _of_ before them, is wholly uncalled for by the text.
Verse 2. :וגם חמת תגבל בה צר וצידון כי חכמה מאד
_And Hamath also shall border thereby, Tyrus and Sidon though it be very wise._
תגבל (or לבגת) _to set bounds to_, in the Hiphil, occurs in Exod. xix. 12 & 23.—It here appears to be the Huphal or passive of Hiphil—signifying _to be bounded_, or _to be set bounds to_. It is only necessary to remark, that leaving aside the punctuation, the form of the future tense will be identical in both these voices. The sense as it stands is scarcely intelligible. What is meant by _border thereby_, it is not easy to conceive; but by discarding the points we readily obtain a meaning that is perfectly intelligible. תגבל (or לבגת) may then be rendered in the passive voice, instead of the active, and will signify _to be limited_, or _have bounds set to_; and בה (or הב) _on_ or _to her_, which follows, accords with, and seems to demand its being so rendered. _And Hamath also shall have bounds set to her_; that is, her growing greatness shall be checked.
_Tyre, and also Sidon though she be very wise_, חכמה (or המכח), _wise_, no doubt, means here, _worldly wise_, or very subtle.
Verse 5. :תרא אשקלון ותירא ועזה ותחיל מאד ועקרון כי הוביש מבטה
_Ashkalon shall see and fear, Gaza also, and she shall be very sorrowful, and Ekron for her expectation shall be ashamed._
הוביש (or שיבוה) may be derived either from בוש (or שוב) _to be ashamed_, or from יבש (or שבי) _to dry up_, and whither as a plant for want of moisture. The latter seems preferable here, but it is not very material to the sense.
Verse 6. :וישב ממזר באשדוד והכרתי גאון פלשתים
_A bastard shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines._
ממזר (or רזממ) may be rendered a _stranger_, as well as a _bastard_, αλλογενεις in the Septuagint, which renders the sense more obvious.
_And I will cut off the pride of the Philistines._ These denunciations appear chiefly directed against the Philistines, in whom pride, avarice, and ambition, are specified as the great offences. The delivery of Ashdod into the hands of a stranger is the judgment pronounced against them in this verse, as the last means of their humiliation. But here the tone of the prophecy changes, and instead of further punishments, we find repeated promises of blessings and mercy; _he that is left shall be for our God, and as a Governor in Judah_,—and in the verse following—_He_ (the Messiah being manifestly meant here) _shall speak peace to the Heathen_.—Whence then this change? We are led to seek, and naturally expect to find, some ground for it. And accordingly the next verse unfolds the reason, and explains the occasion of this change in the counsel of Heaven; a change resting not on their own merits, but on Divine Mercy. For such a construction will this verse bear, quite as well as the one usually put upon it; and this construction is far more in unison with the context, than the received one.
Verse 7. :והסרתי דמיו מפיו ושקציו מבין שניו ונשאר גמ-הוא לאלהינו והיה כאלף ביהודה ועקרון כיבוסי
_And I will take away his blood from out of his mouth, and his abominations from between his teeth, and he that is left, even he shall be for our God, and he shall be as a Governor in Judah, and Ekron as a Jebusite._
With scarcely any alteration in the translation, the words, even as they stand, admit of a very different acceptation from that in which they are commonly taken; and instead of being a figurative expression, borrowed from the rescuing its prey from the jaws of a lion; in which sense the Jews take it, as a promise to themselves of deliverance from their enemies; the words more literally taken, will convey the promise of mercy and redemption to the remaining Gentiles: whose sin and pollution are to be taken away, who are to be reclaimed to the worship of the true God, and admitted to a full participation in all the blessings, promised to Israel by the coming of the Messiah.
The Gentiles were esteemed polluted by eating things unclean, which were prohibited to the Jews. Certain animals—things strangled—and the blood in particular were among the forbidden food. The new covenant removed this prohibition, thereby taking away the pollution from between his teeth, as it ceased to be a cause of pollution. The command given to St. Peter, Acts x. 14, to kill and eat, where all manner of food was presented to him, was expressly received by him as a command to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, or to admit them into the Messiah’s kingdom; and this admission was unaccompanied with any such prohibition, nor was it subsequently given.
Eating things sacrificed to idols was another cause of pollution which the New Covenant removed, by taking away the cause in the abolition of idolatry. This literal fulfilment of the words of the prophecy may, however, be figuratively understood, to foreshew the remission of sins through Christ, and the admission of the Heathen nations to the hopes of everlasting life founded on the Gospel.
The only change required in the English version is to read _But_, for _And_, which are expressed alike by the Hebrew ו, and to understand שקציו (or ויצקש) _his abominations_, in the sense most appropriate to it, as alluding to the worship of idols, and we have the sense already expressed, which perfectly harmonizes with the context. Whereas, taken in the other sense, what becomes of the antithesis? Who is _he that is left_, that _shall be for our God_, and _as a chief in Judah_? Surely it cannot be the Jew, who shall be as a Jew. But the next words are decisive, declaring that Ekron and the Jebusite, both Gentiles, are here intended.
_And Ekron as a Jebusite._ This mode of rendering leaves, indeed, the force of these words rather ambiguous; but there can be no intelligible sense put upon the כי (or יכ), but that of _in like manner as_, or, _as well as_; that is, Ekron as well as the Jebusite, shall both be as Governors in Judah.
Verse 8. :וחניתי לביתי מצבה מעבר ומשב ולא יעבר עליהם עוד נגש כי עתה ראיתי בעיני
_And I will encamp about mine house because of the army, because of him that passeth by, and because of him that returneth; and no oppressor shall pass through them any more: for now have I seen with mine eyes._
It is not certain, though probable, from 1 Sam. xxvi. 5-7, that the Jews had entrenched camps; if so, the passage would be clearer by rendering וחניתי (or יתינחו) _I will entrench_ instead of _encamp_; though the sense is sufficiently obvious, as meaning to afford protection against the army, &c. The house of God, to which protection is promised, is his Temple, figuratively denoting true religion purified from idolatry; the great spiritual adversary constantly warring with Israel, and, as we learn from Scripture, frequently prevailing; which is probably the warfare here alluded to. But if taken literally, this passage conveys the promise that the Messiah’s kingdom should put an end to oppression and injustice. The exact import of the expression, _for now have I seen with mine eyes_, is not very evident; but may imply God’s foreseeing the unfitness of the Jews to receive a spiritual Messiah; who, in consequence of their rejection of him, would be given to the Gentiles.
Verse 9. :גילי מאד בת ציון הריעי בת-ירושלם הנה מלכך יבוא לך צדיק ונושע הוא עני ורכב על חמור ועל עיר בן אתנות
_Rejoice greatly, Daughter of Zion, shout, oh Daughter of Jerusalem, behold thy King cometh unto thee; he is just and having salvation, lowly and riding upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass._
There is no ambiguity in the purport of this verse, which is the coming of the Messiah, as all commentators allow; but I can in no wise agree with Lowth and others, that this verse is a rhapsodical digression from the subject of the rest of the chapter, in which the Prophet being wrought up to the highest pitch of enthusiasm, breaks off from the immediate object of his vision to foretel the coming of the Messiah, and then returns back to his former subject. On the contrary, I can see nothing like digression here, but one connected and consistent object throughout; this verse being the keystone of the arch, which binds together those which precede and those which follow it, forming the whole into one united and compact body. Instead of a digression from the subject, I regard this verse as the clue to guide us through the labyrinth, by fixing and determining the subject of all the rest.
_Behold thy King cometh unto thee_: יבוא (or אובי) is really the future tense, literally _shall come_, and changing it to the present, _cometh_, seems unnecessary, if it does not in some degree interfere with the chronological order of the events predicted afterwards.
_Just and having salvation._ This is certainly an ambiguous rendering of נושע (or עשונ) the past participle of the verb ישע (or עשי) to save, which literally signifies _being saved_, and the emphatic הוא (or אוה) _himself_, following it, more strongly marks the sense, as _having obtained salvation himself_.
_Riding on an ass, and a colt, the foal of an ass._ The connective ו _and_, should certainly be rendered here by _even_, or, _to wit_, and not by _and_, which makes it appear that the Messiah was to ride upon two asses.
Verse 11. :גם את בדם בריתך שלחתי אסיריך מבר אין מים בו
_As for thee, by the blood of thy covenant, I have sent forth thy prisoners, from the pit wherein is no water._
That the Messiah is apostrophized in these words, cannot, surely, admit of doubt or dispute; and words more forcible, or more pregnant with meaning, upon the Christian’s view of them, it is not easy to conceive. שלחתי (or יתחלש) _I have sent forth_, is really the perfect tense, though written several centuries before the coming of Christ; but it is not at all unusual in prophetic language to use this tense, which represents as already accomplished, what is determined in the Divine purpose, although the fulfilment be still future.
The writer is well aware of a formidable objection presented by the Hebrew punctuation, against the application of this verse to the Messiah, as the pronoun “thee” את (or תא) is by the pointing made to be of the feminine gender. This is one of many instances in which the punctuation tends to embarrass instead of elucidating the subject of the prophecy—instances which have mainly contributed to the determination of the writer to disregard the points. It remains for those who regard them as of paramount authority, to offer a solution of this and other passages equally clear and satisfactory, and equally consistent throughout. If “thee” be meant to apostrophise the daughter of Zion, what blood—what covenant—what prisoners—what pit, are here alluded to? Upon the view here offered, the event foreshewn is the death of the Messiah, an event wholly at variance with the expectations of the Jews, but here distinctly announced, along with the most striking particulars attendant on that event; such as the frustration of the hopes of temporal advantages expected from his coming—the nature of the spiritual blessings which it was really intended to impart; namely, the remission of sins, and the redemption of the Gentile world from idolatry. Along with these is stated the personal character of the Messiah, and the express manner of his coming; not in glory as expected, but in meekness and humility—the peaceful nature of his kingdom—its boundless extent, destined to embrace all nations—yet in apparent contradiction, his death is intimated, but also his resurrection whereby he becomes “_the first fruits of them that slept_.” These are all clearly intimated in this chapter; and of these, how many have former commentators, with or without the aid of points, been able to make out? At most, only three or four verses, as where he is mentioned as riding into Jerusalem on an ass; and here, according to Blaney, the text requires to be altered, to shew that he was a Saviour, נושע (or עשונ) being saved, being altered into משע (or עשמ) a Saviour; while, according to Lowth, all that here relates to the Messiah is to be regarded as a rhapsodical digression from the subject of the context.
Verse 12. :שובו לבצרון אסירי התקוה גם היום מגיד משנה אשיב לך
_Return to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope, even today do I declare that I will repay you double._
Such is the received translation, nor as it now stands, does the sense appear at all ambiguous, signifying, _Return to your prison-house until the day of your promised liberation arrives_; that is, the day of the Messiah’s coming. There can be no doubt who are meant by the prisoners, but the change of number in the personal pronoun, from plural to singular, makes it not improbable that the latter part of this line is addressed to the Messiah, who was apostrophized in the verse preceding. Upon this view the word אסירי (or יריסא) may be rendered, _my prisoners_, instead of _prisoners of hope_, which is rather obscure; and התקוה (or הוקתה) as the imperative hithpael of the verb קוה (or הוק) to wait. And the sense will then be as given in the text; _Return to the strong hold, my prisoners: wait thou till the day I declare that I will repay thee double._
Verse 13. :כי דרכתי לי יהודה קשת מלאתי אפרים ועררתי בניך ציון על בניך יון ושמתיך כחרב גבור
_When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, Oh Zion! against thy sons, Oh Greece! and made thee as the sword of a mighty man._
Here כי (or יכ), which signifies _for_, is rendered _when_, thus imposing a future signification on the verbs that follow. This has, no doubt, arisen from a supposed allusion to the subsequent wars of Judas Maccabeus. But Ephraim, or the ten tribes, having no share in those wars, militates against that supposition; and it seems more probable that this verse, instead of designating the _time when_ the promised blessing would be conferred upon the Gentiles, here declares the _reason why_ the Messiah could not be sent to them directly and unconditionally; namely, because he was previously promised to Israel. _For I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow Ephraim_; that is, I have chosen Israel as my people, and appointed them my instruments for the overthrow of paganism. And, accordingly, to the house of Israel he came, and was by some of them received; nor until the great body of that people declined the office, were the Gentiles called in to fill up the ranks, and carry on the spiritual warfare; a warfare which was thenceforward carried on by both in conjunction, for the first Christians still were Jews, though blindness came in part over Israel.
Verse 14. :ויהוה עליהם יראה ויצא כברק חצו ואדני יהוה בשופר יתקע והלך בסערות תימן
_And the Lord shall be seen over them, and his arrow shall go forth as the lightning; and the Lord God shall blow the trumpet, and shall go forth with whirlwinds of the South._
This and the following verse evidently contain promises of Divine protection, and of triumphant success; but to whom these promises are given may admit of a question. עליהם (or םהילע) _over them_, may mean the Jews last spoken of, or the Gentiles mentioned before, or it may apply to both. And if the triumph of true religion over Pagan idolatry be the victory here spoken of, as this was obtained by both in conjunction, during the Apostolic age at least, so both must be included in the promises. Nor can any construction, worthy of the subject, or adequate in dignity and importance, be put upon the expression, _the sons of Zion_, and _the sons of Greece_, but that which refers to the religion of each. The triumph of true religion over idolatry was one that affected the whole world, including every country, and extending to every age, and regarding the eternal as well as temporal interests of mankind.
Verse 15. .יהוה צבאות יגן עליהם ואכלו וכבשו אבני קלע ושתו המו כמו יין ומלאו כמזרק כזוית מזבח
_And the Lord of hosts shall defend them; and they shall devour, and subdue with sling stones; and they shall drink and make a noise as through wine; and they shall be filled like bowls, and as the corners of the altar._