Chapter 20

name of Jacob, and another shall write with his hand. Unto the Lord! and boast of the name of Israel." Such an eager desire of the Gentiles towards the kingdom of God regularly took place, either when the God of Israel had revealed Himself by specially distinguishing manifestations of His omnipotence and glory, as, _e.g._, in the deliverance from the Egyptian and Babylonish captivities, in both of which events we find a number of those who had previously been heathens, ערב, in the train of the Israelites;--or when a feeling of the vanity of the idols of the heathen world had been awakened with special vividness, as in the times after Alexander the Great, in which Roman and Greek heathenism became more and more _effete_, and rapidly hastened on towards ruin. In the time of Christ, both of these causes co-operated. If there were soundness in the opinion now generally prevalent, according to which the Church of the New Testament stands quite independent of the Congregation of Israel, having originated from a free and equal union of believers from Israel, and of those from among the Gentiles, [Pg 219] then indeed the promise now before us would have no longer any reference to New Testament times. The New Testament Church would be a generation altogether different, and no longer acknowledge Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as their fathers. But, according to the constant doctrine of the Old as well as of the New Testament, there is only one Church of God from Abraham to the end of the days--only one house under two dispensations. John the Baptist proceeds upon the supposition that the members of the New Testament also must be children of Abraham, else the covenant and promise of God would come to nought. But as the bodily descent from Abraham is no security against the danger of exclusion from his posterity--of which Ishmael was the first example--and as, so early as in the Pentateuch, it is said, with reference to every greater transgression, "This soul is cut off from its people," so, on the other hand, God, in the exercise of His sovereign liberty, may give to Abraham, in the room of his degenerate children after the flesh, adopted children without number, who shall sit down with him, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of God, whilst the sons of the kingdom are cast out.--After these remarks on the promise to the Patriarchs, there can be no longer any difficulty in making out the historical reference of the announcement before us. It cannot refer to the bodily descendants of Abraham, as such, any more than the promise of a son to Abraham was fulfilled in the birth of Ishmael, or than the Arabs stand related to the promise of the innumerable multitude of his descendants,--a promise which is repeated, in the same extent, to Isaac and Jacob, although they were not the ancestors of the Arabs. Degenerate sons are not a blessing; they are no objects of promise, no sons in the full sense. Every one is a son of Abraham, only in so far as he is a son of God. For this reason the phrases "sons of Israel" and "sons of the living God" are, in the passage before us, connected with each other. Not as though the corporeal descent were altogether a matter of indifference. The corporeal descendants of the Patriarchs had the nearest claims to becoming their children in the full sense. It was to them that the means of becoming so were first granted. To them pertained the covenants, the promises, and the adoption, Rom. ix. 4. But all these external advantages were of no avail to them when they allowed them to [Pg 220] remain unused; in these circumstances, neither the promise to Abraham, nor the announcement before us, had any reference to them. Both of them would have remained to this day unfulfilled, although the unconverted children of Israel had increased so as to have become the most populous nation on the face of the whole earth. It thus appears that the announcement before us was first truly realized in the time of the Messiah; inasmuch as it was at that time that the family of the Patriarchs was so mightily increased; and that it will yet be more fully realized, partly by the reception of an innumerable multitude of adopted sons, and partly by the elevation of those who were sons only in a lower sense, to be sons in the highest. That which occurred at the time after the Babylonish captivity, when the Lord stirred up a number of Israelites to return to Palestine, we can regard as only an insignificant prelude; partly because this number was too small to correspond, even in any degree, to the infinite extent of the promise, and partly because there were among them certainly a few only who, in the fullest sense, deserved the name of "Children of Israel." "Israel"--which is the higher name, and has reference to the relation to God--is here used emphatically, as appears especially from a comparison with ver. 4, where it is taken from the degenerate children, and exchanged for the name "Jezreel."--In the second part of the verse, we must first set aside the false interpretation of במקום אשר by "instead of," which is given by _Grotius_ and others. It has arisen from an inappropriate reference to the Latin, which has, however, no support in the Hebrew _usus loquendi_. The words can only mean (compare Lev. iv. 24, 33; Jer. xxii. 12; Ezek. xxi. 35; Neh. iv. 14): "in the place where," or, more literally still, "in the place that"--the wider designation instead of the narrower. The _status constr._ is explained by the circumstance that the whole succeeding sentence together expresses only one substantive idea, equivalent to: "in the place of the being said unto them." The place may here be, either that where the people first received the name Lo-Ammi, _i.e._, Palestine, or the place of the exile, where they first felt the full meaning of it,--the misery being a _sermo realis_ of God. Decisive in favour of the latter reference is the following verse, where the הארץ, the land of the exile, corresponds with מקים in the verse before us. (According to _Jonathan_, the sense is: "In the place to [Pg 221] which they have been carried away among the Gentiles.") It is intentionally that both times the Future יֵאָמֵר is used, which is to be understood as the Present. The difference of time being thus disregarded, the contrast becomes so much the more striking.--By "people" and "children" of God, the same thing is expressed according to different relations. The Israelites were the people of God, inasmuch as He was their King; and children of God, in as far as He was their Father,--their Father, it is true, in the first place, not, as in the New Testament (John i. 12, 13), in reference to the spiritual generation, but in relation to heart-felt love, similar to the love of a father for a son. With regard to the Old Testament idea of son ship to God, compare the remarks on Ps. ii. 7. In this relation, sometimes all Israel is personified as the son of God; thus, _e.g._, Exod. iv. 22: "Thus thou shalt say unto Pharaoh: My son. My first-born is Israel." Sometimes the Israelites are also called the _children_ or _sons_ of God; _e.g._, Deut. xiv. 1: "Ye are children to the Lord your God" (compare also Deut. xxxii. 19), although not every single individual could on this account be called "son of God." In this sense, that designation is never used, evidently because the sonship under the Old Testament does not rest so much on the personal relation of the single individual to God,--as is the case in the New Testament,--but the individual rather partakes in it only as a part of the whole. But there is an easy transition from the sonship as viewed in the Old Testament, to the sonship as seen in the New. The former, in its highest perfection, cannot exist at all without the latter. It is only when its single members are born of God, that the Congregation can be regarded and treated as the child of God in the full sense of the word, and that the whole fulness of His love can be poured out upon it; for this is the only way of attaining to likeness with God, which is the condition of admission to the rights of children. Hence it appears that the υἱοθεσία under the Old Testament was an actual prophecy of the times of the New Testament; and from it, it follows also that the announcement under consideration has its ultimate reference to these times. Earlier fulfilments--especially at the return from the Babylonish captivity--are not to be excluded, inasmuch as the idea comprehends in it everything in which it is, even in the least degree, realized; but they can be considered [Pg 222] only as a slight prelude to Its real fulfilment, which takes place only when the reality fully coincides with the idea; so that we are not at liberty to limit ourselves to the commencement of the Messianic time, but must include the Messianic time in its last consummation.--Another question still remains:--Why is God here called the "_living_?" Plainly, to point out the antithesis of the true God to dead idols, which cannot love, because they do not live; and thus to bring out the greatness of the privilege of being the child of such a God. The same antithesis is found in Deut. xxxii. 3 seqq.: "Where are now their gods, the rock in whom they trusted, which did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink-offerings? Let them rise up and help you; let it be a covering to you. See now that I, I am He, and not is a God beside Me. I kill and I make alive. I wound and I heal." This antithesis still continues; the world has only changed its idols. It still always seeks the life from the dead, from the gross idol of sin up to the refined idol of a self-made abstract god, whether he be formed from logical notions or from emotions and feelings. But how much soever they may strive to give life to their idols, they remain dead, although they should even attain to a semblance of life. The true God, on the contrary, lives and continues to live, how much soever they may strive to slay Him. He manifests Himself as the living one, either by smiting and killing them, if they continue in their impenitence, or by healing and quickening them, if they become His children.--_Finally_,--we must still consider the two citations, in the New Testament, of the passage before us. One in 1 Pet. ii. 10, οἱ ποτὲ οὐ λαὸς, νῦν δὲ λαὸς Θεοῦ· οἱ οὐκ ἠλεημένοι, νῦν δὲ ἐλεηθέντες, must certainly strike us, inasmuch as this epistle, on conclusive grounds (compare _Steiger_ S. 14 ff.), cannot be considered as being addressed to Jewish Christians exclusively. But still more striking is the second quotation in Rom. ix. 25, 26: ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ Ὡσηὲ λέγει· Καλέσω τὸν οὐ λαόν μου, έν μου· καὶ τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην, ἠγαπημένην. Καὶ ἔσται, ἐν τῷ τόπῳ οὗ ἐῤῥήθη αὐτοῖς οὐ λαός μου ὑμεῖς, ἐκεῖ κληθήσονται υἱοὶ Θεοῦ ζῶντος. Here our passage is not only alluded to, but expressly quoted, and, in opposition to the Jews, the calling of the Gentiles is proved from it. But how can a passage which, according to the whole context, can refer to Israel only, be applied [Pg 223] directly to the Gentiles? The answer very readily suggests itself when we reduce the prophecy to its fundamental idea. This is none other than that of divine mercy, which may indeed, by apostasy and unfaithfulness, be prevented from manifesting itself, but can never be extinguished, because it has its foundation in God's nature. Compare Jer. xxxi. 20: "Is Ephraim a dear son to Me, a child of joy? For as often as I speak of him, I must still remember him. Therefore My bowels sound for him, _I will have mercy_ upon him, saith the Lord." Now, in the same manner as this truth was realized in the restoration of the children of Israel to be again the children of God, so it is in the reception of the Gentiles. It is not at all a mere application, but a real proof which here forms the question at issue. It is _because_ God had promised to receive again the children of Israel, that He must receive the Gentiles also; for otherwise that divine decree would have its foundation in mere caprice, which cannot be conceived to have any existence in God. Although the Gentiles are not so near as Israel, yet He must satisfy the claims of those who are more remote, just because He acknowledges the claims of those who are near. The necessity of going back to the fundamental idea appears in the promises as well as in the commandments. We cite only one instance which is especially fitted to serve as a parallel to the case before us. There is no doubt, and prejudice alone could have denied, that in the Pentateuch, by _friend_ and _brother_ the Israelite is to be understood throughout; it is in the New Testament that the command of Christian brotherly love is given. After having commended truthfulness, Paul adds: "Because ye are members of one another"--a reason which can refer to those only who have Christ as their common head. From this limitation, can anything be inferred to the prejudice of love towards the whole human race, or of the duties towards all without any distinction? Just the reverse. It is just because the Israelite is bound to love the Israelite, and the Christian the Christian, that he should embrace all men in love. If the special relation to God as the common Redeemer afford the foundation for the _special_ love, then the _general_ relation to God as the Creator and Preserver must also afford the foundation of _universal_ love; just as from the command to honour father and mother, it necessarily follows that we must also [Pg 224] honour uncle and aunt, king and magistrate. This is the only correct view of the laws and prophecies; and if it be consistently followed out, it will make water to flow out of the rock, and will create streams in the wilderness.

Ver. 2. "_And the children of Judah and the children of Israel assemble themselves together, and set over themselves one head, and go up out of the land; for great is the day of Jezreel._"

The words, "They appoint themselves a king," appear strange at first sight. For it is not, in general, the union of Judah and Israel which the prophet expects from better times;--a _perverse_ union of both, one, it may be, in which the house of Judah shall also give up Jehovah his God, and David his King, only in order to be able to live on a right brotherly footing with Israel, would have been anything but a progress and a blessing;--but such a union as has for its foundation the return of Israel to the true God, and to the Davidic dynasty. This appears clearly from iii. 5. The difficulty is removed by a comparison with the passage of the Pentateuch to which the prophet seems to allude: "Thou shalt set over thee a king, whom the Lord thy God shall choose," Deut. xvii. 15. The prophet seems to have these words before his eyes, as it appears elsewhere also, where he describes the hitherto opposite conduct of the Israelites; compare the remarks on iii. 4. From these it appears that the election of the king by God, who had promised eternal dominion to the house of David, and his election by the people, do not in the least exclude one another. On the contrary, it is _because_ God had elected the king, that now the people also elect him. _Calvin_ remarks: "There appears to be transferred to men what properly belongs to God alone--viz., the appointment of a king; but the prophet expresses, by this word, the obedience of faith; for it is not enough that Christ be given, and placed before men as a King, but they must also acknowledge and reverently receive Him as a King. From this we infer, that when we believe the Gospel, we choose, as it were by our own vote, Christ as our King." That the prophet understands the "setting of a head" in this sense, appears also from the circumstance that the whole verse is based upon the reference to the Exodus from Egypt, which is now to be repeated. To this the words, "They assemble themselves together," likewise refer; for the departure from Egypt was preceded by the assembling together of the [Pg 225] whole people. The mention of a "head" refers back to Moses. In his case, as well as that of David subsequently, the election by the people was only the acknowledgment of his having been divinely called.--Another question is, How are the words, "They go up out of the land," to be understood? There can be no doubt that by "land," the land of captivity is designated. For the words are borrowed from Exod. i. 10, where Pharaoh says, "When there falleth out any war, they will join our enemies, and fight against us, and go up out of the land," ועלה מן הארץ. The prophet, moreover, is his own interpreter in ii. 17, where he expressly compares this new going up to the promised land with the former going up from Egypt: "_As in the day when she went up out of the land of Egypt_;" just as, in other passages, he describes their being carried away, under the figure of their being carried away to Egypt--Assyria being considered as another Egypt. Compare viii. 13: "Now will He remember their iniquity and visit their sins; they shall return to Egypt;" ix. 3: "They shall not dwell in the Lord's land, and Ephraim returns to Egypt." (Compare, on this passage, the Author's _Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, vol. i. p. 121 ff.) Moreover, in the other prophets also, the going up from, or deliverance out of, Egypt, forms throughout the basis of the second great deliverance. And this is quite natural; for both of those events stand in the closest actual connection with each other;--both proceeded from the same Divine Being; and the former was a prophecy _by fact_, and a pledge of the latter. The deliverance of the people of God from Egypt sealed their election; and from the latter the new deliverance necessarily followed;--a relation which repeats itself in individuals also. From this we may explain the fact that in the Psalms, they who celebrate God's former mercies, prove from them to Him and to themselves, throughout, that He must now also be their helper. It is then by no means a mere external similarity which induces the prophets ever and anon to refer to the deliverance from Egypt (compare the passages Mic. ii. 12, 13; Jer. xxiii. 7, 8, which bear so close a resemblance to the passage before us), any more than that the Passover is a mere memorial. Such cannot occur in the true religion which has a living God, and hence knows nothing of anything absolutely past. _Ewald's_ [Pg 226] exposition, that they go up out of the country for the purpose of further conquest, and that of _Simson_, that they go up to Jerusalem, sever the three events which, as the example of previous history shows, are evidently so closely allied; and these expositors, moreover, give, by an addition of their own, that definiteness to the words, "And they shall go up out of the land," which they can obtain only by a reference to the history of the past. In their ambiguity, they almost expressly point to such a commentary.--The article in הארץ, _the_ (_i.e._, the definite) land, is explained from the circumstance that, in the previous context, there had been an indirect allusion to their being carried away into a strange land. If Israel was no more the people of God,--if they no longer enjoyed His mercy, then it is supposed that they could not remain in the land which they had received only as the people of God, and had hitherto retained only through His mercy. But, primarily, the article refers to "the place where it was said unto them," in the preceding verse.--That along with the children of Israel, the children of Judah also assemble themselves and go up, implies a fact which the prophet had not expressly mentioned, because it did not stand immediately connected with his purpose--viz., that Judah too should be carried into captivity. It thus supplements chap.