Chapter 64

into a _nomen proprium_ in the proper sense, as has, indeed, been done by the LXX. The numerous passages in the prophets, where the name occurs as a designation of the nature and character, _e.g._, Is. ix. 5, lxii. 4; Jer. xxxiii. 16; Ezek. xlviii. 35, plainly show that a name which has merely a prophetical warrant (and such an one alone takes place here, although the name Shallum occurs also in 1 Chron. iii. 15 [in the historical representation itself, however, Jehoahaz is used in the Book of Kings, and 2 Chron. xxxvi. 1], and the name Jeconias likewise in 1 Chron. iii. 16, while Jehoiakim is found not only in the Book of Kings, but also in Ezek. i. 2; for it is quite possible that those later writers may have drawn from Jeremiah), cannot simply be considered as a _nomen proprium_; but, on the contrary, that there is a strong probability that it is not so. And this probability becomes certainty when that name occurs, either _alone_, as _e.g._, Shallum, or _first_, as Jeconiah, (which occurs again in chap. xxiv. 1, xxvii. 20; the abbreviated [Pg 402] Coniah in xxxvii. 1, while, which is well to be observed, we have in the historical account, chap. lii. 31, Jehoiachin) in a context, such as that under consideration; especially when this phenomenon occurs in a prophet such as Jeremiah, in whom, elsewhere also, many traces of holy wit, and even punning, can be pointed out.--With reference to the calamity which more and more threatened Judah, pious Josiah had given to his sons names, which announced salvation. According to his wish, these names should be as many actual prophecies, and would, indeed, have proved themselves to be such, unless they who bore them had made them of no avail by their apostacy from the Lord, and had thus brought about the most glaring contrast between idea and reality. That comes out first in the case of Jehoahaz. He whom the Lord should _hold_, was violently and irresistibly carried away to Egypt. The Prophet, therefore, calls him Shallum, _i.e._, the _recompensed_,--not _retribution_, as _Hiller_, _Simonis_, and _Roediger_ think, nor _retributor_ according to _Fürst_ (comp. _Ewald_ § 154d); the same who, in 1 Chron. v. 38, is called Shallum, is in 1 Chron. ix. 11, called Meshullam--he upon whom the Lord has visited the wickedness of his deeds.--As regards the name Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, we must, above all things, keep in view the relation of these names to the promise given to David. In 2 Sam. vii. 12 it is said: "And I cause to rise up ([Hebrew: vhqimti]) thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish ([Hebrew: vhkinti]) his kingdom." This passage contains the ground of _both_ names; and this is the more easily explained, since both of them have one author, Jehoiakim. Even his former name Eliakim had probably been given to him by his father Josiah with a view to the promise. When Pharaoh, however, desired him to change his name--as the name itself shows, we cannot but supply, in 2 Kings xxiii. 31, such a request to a proposal which was afterwards approved of by Pharaoh--he performed that change in such a manner as to bring it into a still nearer relation to the promise, in which, not El, but Jehovah, is expressly mentioned as He who promised; and indeed the matter proceeded from Jehovah, the God of Israel. As, however, from the whole character of Jehoiakim, we cannot suppose that the twofold naming proceeded from true piety, nothing is more natural [Pg 403] than to account for it from an opposition to the prophets. The centre of their announcements was formed by the impending calamity from the North, and the decline of the Davidic family. The promise given to David shall indeed be fulfilled in the Messiah; but not till after a previous deep abasement. Jehoiakim mocking at these threatenings, means to transfer the salvation from the future into the present. In his own name, and that of his son, he presented a standing protest to the prophetic announcement; and this protest could not but call forth a counter-protest, which we find expressed in the prophecy under consideration. The Prophet first overthrows the false interpretation: Jehoiakim is not Jehoiakim, and Jehoiachin is not Jehoiachin, chap. xxii.; he then restores the right interpretation: the true Jehoiakim is, and remains, the Messiah, chap. xxiii. 5. As regards the first point, he. in the case of Jehoiakim, contents himself with the _actual_ contrast, and omits to substitute a truly significant name for the usurped one, which may most easily be accounted for from the circumstance, that he thought it to be unsuitable to exercise any kind of wit, even holy wit, against the then reigning king. But the case is different with regard to Jehoiachin. The first change of the name into Jeconiah has its cause not in itself; the two names have quite the same meaning; it had respect to the second change into Coniah only. In Jeconiah we have the Future; and this is put first, in order that, by cutting off the [Hebrew: i], the sign of the Future, he might cut off hope; a Jeconiah without the [Hebrew: i] says only God establishes, but not that He _will_ establish. In reference to these names, _Grotius_ came near the truth; but he erred in the nearer determination, because he did not see the true state of the matter; so that, according to him, it amounts to a mere play: "The Jod," he says, "with which the name begins, is taken away, to intimate that his head shall be diminished; and a Vav is added at the end as a sign of contempt, _q.d._ that Coniah!" _Lightfoot_ comes nearer to the truth; yet even he was not able to gain assent to it (compare against him _Hiller_ and _Simonis_ who thought his views scarcely worth refuting), because he took an one-sided view. He remarks (_Harmon._ p. 275): "By taking away the first syllable, God intimated that He would not establish to the progeny of Solomon the [Pg 404] uninterrupted government and royal dignity, as Jehoiakim, by giving that name to his son, seems to have expected." Besides these two, compare farther, _Alting_, _de Cabbala sacra_ § 73.

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

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

It must be well observed that [Hebrew: reiM] is here without the article, but, in ver. 2, with it. _Venema_ remarks on this: "A general woe upon bad shepherds is premised, which is soon applied to the shepherds of Judah, _q.d._, since Jehovah has denounced a woe upon all bad shepherds, therefore ye bad shepherds," &c. By the "shepherds," several interpreters would understand only the false prophets and priests. Others would at least have them thought of, along with the kings. This view has exercised an injurious influence upon the understanding of the subsequent Messianic announcement, inasmuch as it occasioned the introduction into it of features which are altogether foreign to it. It is only when it is perceived, that the bad shepherds refer to the kings exclusively, that it is seen that, in the description of the good Shepherd, that only is applicable which has reference to Him as a King. But the very circumstance that, according to a correct interpretation, nothing else is found in this description, is a sufficient proof that, by the bad shepherds, the kings only can be understood. But all doubt is removed when we consider the close connection of the verses under consideration with chap. xxii. In commenting upon chap. iii. 15, we saw that, ordinarily, rulers only are designated by the shepherds; compare, farther, chap. xxv. 34-36, and the imitation and first interpretation of the passage under review by Ezekiel, in chap. xxxiv. Ps. lxxviii. 70, 71: "He chose David his servant, and took him from the sheep-folds. He took him from behind the ewes to feed Jacob, His people, and Israel, His inheritance," shows that a typical interpretation of the former circumstances of David lies at the foundation of this _usus loquendi_; compare Ezek. xxxiv. 23, 24: "And I raise over them one Shepherd, and he feedeth them, my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be [Pg 405] their shepherd."--What is to be understood by the destroying and scattering, must be determined partly from ver. 3 and vers. 13 ff. of the preceding chapter; partly from ver. 3 of the chapter before us. The former passages show that the acts of violence of the kings, their oppressions and extortions, come here into consideration (compare Ezek. xxxiv. 2, 3: "Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed, &c., and with force and with cruelty ye rule them"), while the latter passage shows that it is chiefly the heaviest guilt of the kings which comes into consideration, viz., all that by which they became the cause of the people's being carried away into captivity. To this belonged, besides their foolish political counsels, which were based upon ungodliness (comp. chap. x. 21), the negative (_Venema_: "It was their duty to take care that the true religion, the spiritual food of the people, was rightly and properly exercised"), and positive promotion of ungodliness, and of immorality proceeding from it, by which the divine judgments were forcibly drawn down. It is in this contrast of idea and reality (_Calvin_: "It is a contradiction that the shepherd should be a destroyer"), that the woe has its foundation, and that the more, that it is pointed out that the flock, which they destroy and scatter, is _God's_ flock. (_Calvin_: "God intimates that, by the unworthy scattering of the flock, an atrocious injury had been committed against himself") [Hebrew: caN mreiti] must not be explained by: "the flock of my feeding," _i.e._, which I feed. For, wherever [Hebrew: mreit] occurs by itself, it always has the signification "pasture," but never the signification _pastio_, _pastus_ commonly assigned to it. This signification, which is quite in agreement with the form of the word, must therefore be retained in those passages also where it occurs in connection with [Hebrew: caN], when it always denotes the relation of Israel to God. Israel is called the flock of God's pasture, because He has given to them the fertile Canaan as their possession, compare my remarks on Ps. lxxiv. 1. It is, at first sight, strange that a guilt of the rulers only is spoken of, and not a guilt of the people; for every more searching consideration shows that both are inseparable from one another; that bad rulers proceed from the development of the nation, and are, at the same time, a punishment [Pg 406] of its wickedness sent by God. But the fact is easily accounted for, if only we keep in mind that the Prophet had here to do with the kings only, and not with the people. To them it could not serve for an excuse that their wickedness was naturally connected with that of the people. This _natural_ connection was not by any means a necessary one, as appears from the example of a Josiah, in whose case it was broken through by divine grace. Nor were they justified by the circumstance, that they were rods of chastisement in the hand of God. To this the Prophet himself alludes, by substituting, in ver. 3: "I have driven away," for "you have driven away," in ver. 2. All which they had to do, was to attend to their vocation and duty; the carrying out of God's counsels belonged to Him alone. From what we have remarked, it plainly follows that we would altogether misunderstand the expression "flock of my pasture," if we were to infer from it a contrast of the _innocent_ people with the guilty kings. _Calvin_ remarks: "In short, when God calls the Jews the flock of His pasture, He has no respect to their condition, or to what they have deserved, but rather commends His grace which He has bestowed upon the seed of Abraham." The kings have nothing to do with the moral condition of the people; they have to look only to God's covenant with them, which is for them a source of obligations so much the greater and more binding than the obligations of heathen kings, as Jehovah is more glorious than Elohim. The moral condition of the people does, to a certain degree, not even concern God; how bad soever it is, He looks to His covenant; and when more deeply viewed, even the outward scattering of the flock is a gathering.

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

In the designation of God as Jehovah the God of Israel, there is already implied that which afterwards is expressly said. Because God is Jehovah, the God of Israel, the crime of the kings is, at the same time, a _sacrilegium_; they have desecrated God. It was just here that it was necessary prominently to point out the fact, that the people still continued to [Pg 407] be God's people. In another very important aspect, they were indeed called _Lo-Ammi_ (Hos. i. 9); but that aspect did not here come into consideration. _Calvin_: "They had estranged themselves from God; and He too had, in His decree, already renounced them. But, in one respect, God might consider them as aliens, while, in respect to His covenant, He still acknowledged them as His, and hence He calls them His people."--The words "that feed my people," render the idea still more prominent and emphatic than the simple "the shepherds" would have done, and hence serve to make more glaring the contrast presented by the reality. The words "you have not visited them," seem, at first sight, since graver charges have been mentioned before, to be feeble. But that which they did, appears in its whole heinousness only by that which they did not, but which, according to their vocation, they ought to have done. This reference to their destination imparts the greatest severity to the apparently mild reproof Similar is Ezek.