Chapter 66

more turn away from them to do them good, and I will put my fear in their hearts that they shall not depart from me."--The closing words of ver. 32 are frequently misunderstood. [Pg 434] The erroneous interpretation of [Hebrew: awr] by "_quia_," which is found with most expositors, is of less consequence. [Hebrew: awr] indicates, in general, the connection with what precedes. We may explain it either by: "which my covenant they brake," as is done by _Ewald_; or, "since (Deut. iii. 24) they brake my covenant," in which latter case, [Hebrew: awr] refers at the same time to "I marry them unto me." We have here farther carried out and detailed that which previously was said of the making of a new covenant; and the sense is: Although they have broken my former covenant, yet I marry them unto me, or make a new covenant with them. Of greater importance is the difference in the interpretation of [Hebrew: belti]. By far the greater number of interpreters understand this _sensu malo_; the ancient interpreters in doing so refer to the words [Greek: kagô êmelêsa autôn], (Heb. viii. 9); but these can scarcely prove anything. For the author of that epistle, whose sole object it is to show that the new covenant stands higher than the old--the insufficiency of the latter was, as the Prophet's expressions show, sufficiently felt even by those who lived under it--has, in these words, which do not stand in any relation to the object which he has in view, followed the LXX. But it is a rather doubtful and suspicious circumstance that, in determining the sense, these interpreters greatly vary. Some, referring to the Arabic, explain [Hebrew: bel] by "_fastidire_;" others, as they allege, from the Hebrew _usus loquendi_, by "to tyrannize." Thus, _e.g._ _Buddeus_ (_de praerogat. fidelium N. T._ in the Miscell. p. 106): "We may readily understand thereby every severe chastisement by the neighbouring nations, such as frequently happened: they did not remain in my covenant, therefore I made them to bear the yoke of others, [Greek: êmelêsa autôn], _neglexi eos_." But we have already seen (comp. remarks on chap. iii. 14), that for neither of these significations is there any foundation; and this has been felt by those also who, in order to bring out a bad signification, such as, according to their view, the text requires, undertook to change the reading, as _e.g._ _Cappellus_, who would read [Hebrew: gelti], and _Grotius_, who would read [Hebrew: bhlti].[3] The signification "to betroth onesself," "to [Pg 435] take in marriage," which in that passage we vindicated for [Hebrew: bel] with [Hebrew: b], is, here too, quite applicable; comp. Jer. ii. 1. This signification the Chaldee Paraphrast too seems to have had in view; for he translates [Hebrew: atreiti] "_cupio vos_," "_delector vobis_." And is there anything to indicate, that here the reason is to be stated, why the old covenant is abolished? That reason can be brought in only by very forced explanations (comp. _e.g._ _Maurer_ and _Hitzig_); and it is, moreover, sufficiently expressed, as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has shown. Even in the announcement of a _new_ covenant, the declaration is implied that the old covenant was insufficient: [Greek: ei gar hê prôtê ekeinê ên amemptos, ouk an deuteras ezêteito topos] (Heb. viii. 7), as well as the reason why it was so, viz., on account of human sinfulness and hardness of heart, which are not helped and remedied by pre-eminently outward blessings and benefits, be they never so great. This their former greatness is indicated by the words: "When I took them by the hand,"--words which imply the most tender love. To this subjective cause of the insufficiency of the old covenant there is a reference in the words: [Greek: memphomenos gar autois legei], in Heb. viii. 8, which by _De Wette_ and _Bleek_ are erroneously translated: "For reprovingly He says to them." The Dative [Greek: autois] belongs to [Greek: memphomenos] (comp. _Mathiae_, S. 705); if it were otherwise it would be redundant, and would the less be in its place, that the discourse is not addressed to the children of Israel. The reason why a better covenant was required, such a one [Greek: hêtis epi kreittosin epangeliais nenomothetêtai], Heb. viii. 6, appears sufficiently from that which, in vers. 33, 34, is said of this new covenant in contrast to the old. Here, however, it is rather the infinite love of God, the greatness of His covenant-faithfulness which are pointed out; and this thought is, from among all others, best suited to the context. [Hebrew: hmh] and [Hebrew: anki] form an emphatic contrast. _They_, in wicked ingratitude, have broken the former covenant, have shaken off the obligations [Pg 436] which God's former mercies imposed upon them. God too--so it might be expected--ought now to annul the old covenant, and for ever withdraw from them the old mercies. But, instead of doing so, He grants the new covenant, the greater mercy. He anew takes in marriage apostate Israel, and in such a manner that now the bond of love becomes firm and indestructible. _Bleek_ objects to our interpretation: "The object is not the city of Jerusalem, or even the Congregation of Israel, but the single Israelites, who may indeed be designated as the children of Jehovah, but not as His spouse." But, in such personifications, it is quite a common thing that the real plurality should take the place of the ideal unity. In Exod. xxxiv. 15, for instance, it is said: "And they go a whoring after their gods,"--instead of the congregation, to which the _whoring_ properly belongs, (comp. Is. lvii. 7), the individual members are mentioned; comp. Hos. ii. 1, 2 (i. 10, ii. 19).

Ver. 33. "_For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after these days, saith the Lord: I give my law in their inward parts, and will write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people._"

[Hebrew: ki] is, by some interpreters, here supposed to mean "but;" so much, only, however, is correct that "but" might _also_ have been put; _for_ is here quite in its place. The words: "Not as the covenant," &c., in the preceding verse, are here vindicated, and expanded by a positive definition of the nature and substance of the New Covenant. It is just because it is of such a nature, that it is not like the former covenant. [Hebrew: hhM] does not, by any means, as is erroneously supposed by _Venema_ and _Hitzig_, refer to the days mentioned in ver. 31, in which the New Covenant was to be made. "These days," on the contrary, are a designation of the Present; "after these days," equivalent to [Hebrew: bahrit himiM] "at the end of days." The Prophet so repeatedly and emphatically points to the Future, because unbelief and weak faith imagined that, with the Present, the history of the covenant-people was finished, and that no Future was in store for them. _Calvin_ pertinently remarks: "It is just as if the Prophet had said, that the grace of which he was prophesying could not be apprehended, unless they, believers, kept their minds composed, and patiently waited until the [Pg 437] time of the promised salvation had come." As regards the following enumeration of the blessings, in and by the bestowal of which the new covenant-relation is to be established, _Venema_ very correctly remarks: "The blessings are distinguished into radical or causal ones, and subsequent or derived ones." The second [Hebrew: ki], in ver. 34: "_For_ I will forgive their sin," proves the correctness of this division, which is also pointed out by the _Athnach_.--[Hebrew: tvrh] is, by many interpreters, here understood to signify "doctrine." Thus _Buddeus_: "By the word [Hebrew: tvrh], the whole New Testament doctrine is to be understood." This interpretation, however, is objectionable, and destructive of the sense, [Hebrew: tvrh] never means "doctrine," but always "law;" and the fact that it is only _the_ law of God, the eternal expression of His nature, and common, therefore, to both the Old and New Covenants, which can be here spoken of, and not a new constitution for the latter, is seen from the reference in which the giving in the inward parts and the writing on the heart (the tables of the heart, 2 Cor. iii. 3), stands to the outward communication and the writing on the tables of stone on Sinai. The law is the same; the relation only is different in which God places it to man, ("_lex cum homine conciliatur quasi_," _Michaelis_.) One might easily infer from the passage before us a confirmation of the error, that the law under the Old Covenant was _only_ an outward dead letter. Against this error _Buddeus_ already contended, who, S. 117, acknowledges that it is a relative difference and contrast only, which are here spoken of He says: "This, of course, was the case with the Old Testament believers also; here, however, God promises a richer fulness and higher degree of this blessing." _Calvin_ declares the opinion that, under the Old Testament dispensation, there did not exist any regeneration, to be absurd, and says: "we know that, under the Law, the grace of God was rare and dark; but that, under the Gospel, the gifts of the Spirit were _poured_ out, and that God dealt much more liberally with His Church." The idea of a purely outward giving of the Law is indeed one which is quite inconceivable. God would, in that case, have done nothing else towards Israel than He did to the traitor Judas, in whose conscience He proclaimed His holy Law, without communicating to him strength for repentance. But such a proceeding can be conceived of, only where there is a subjective impossibility [Pg 438] of [Greek: anakainizein eis metanoian]. Every outward manifestation of God _must_, according to the constitution of human nature, be accompanied by the inward manifestation, since it is inconceivable that He who knows our nature, should mock us by the semblance of a blessing. As soon as we know the outward fact of the deliverance from Egypt, we know, at the same time, that God has then powerfully touched the heart of Israel. As soon as it is established that the Law on Sinai was written on tables of stone by the finger of God, it is also established that He, at the same time, wrote it on the tables of Israel's heart. But that which is thus implied in the matter itself, is confirmed by the testimony of history. In the Law itself, circumcision is designated as the pledge and seal of the bestowal, not merely of outward blessings, but of the circumcision of the heart, of the removal of sin attaching to every one by birth; so that man can love God with all his heart, all his sold, and all his powers, Deut. xxx. 6. This circumcision of the heart which, in the outward circumcision, was at the same time _required_ and promised by God (comp. Deut. l. c. with x. 16), is not substantially different from the writing of the Law on the heart. _Farther_--If the Law of the Lord had, for Israel, been a mere outward letter, how could the animated praise of it in the Holy Scriptures, _e.g._, in Ps. xix., be accounted for? Surely, a bridge must already have been formed between the Law and him who can speak of it as rejoicing the heart, as enlightening the eyes, as converting the soul, as sweeter than honey and the honeycomb. That is no more the Law in its isolation which worketh wrath, but it is the Law in its connection with the Spirit, whose commandments are not grievous; comp. my commentary on Ps. xix. 8 ff. A _new_ heart was created under the Old Testament also, Ps. li. 12; and not to know the nature of this creation was, for a teacher in Israel, the highest disgrace, John iii. 10. Yea, that which is here promised for the Future, a pious member of the Old Covenant expresses, in Ps. xl. 9, _in the same form_, as being already granted to him as his present spiritual condition: "I delight to do thy will, O my God, and thy Law is in the midst of my bowels,"--words which imply the same contrast to the Law as outward letter, as being written on tables of stone, comp. Prov. iii. 1-3: "My son, [Pg 439] forget not my law, and let thine heart keep my commandments ... bind them about thy neck, write them upon the table of thine heart;" compare my commentary on Psalms, Vol. iii. p. lxvii.--But how is it to be explained that the contrariety which, in itself, is relative, appears here under the form of the absolute contrariety,--the difference in degree, as a difference in kind? Evidently in the same manner as the same phenomenon must be explained elsewhere also, _e.g._ John i. 17, where it is said that the Law was given by Moses, but mercy and truth by Christ. By overlooking this fact, so many errors have been called forth. The blessings of the Old Covenant which, when considered in themselves, are so important and rich, appear, when compared with the much fuller and more important blessings of the New Covenant, to be so trifling that they vanish entirely out of sight. It is quite similar when, in chap. iii. 16, the Prophet represents the highest sanctuary of the Old Covenant, the Ark of the Covenant, as sinking into entire oblivion in future; when, in chap. xxiii. 7, 8, he describes the deliverance from Egypt as no longer worthy of being mentioned. Parallel to the passage under consideration is the promise of Joel of the pouring out of the Spirit, chap. iii. 1, 2 (ii. 28, 29); so that that which we remarked on that passage, is applicable here also. But, in that passage, the relative nature of the promise appears more clearly than it does here, just because, in general, under the New Covenant, in its relation to the Old, there is nowhere an absolutely new beginning, but always a completion only (just in the same manner as, on the other hand, under the New Covenant itself, it is in the relation of the _regnum gloriae_ to the _regnum gratiae_). Joel, in reference to the communication of the Spirit, puts the abundance in the place of the scarcity; the many in the place of the few. Compare, moreover, chap. xxiv. 7: "And I give them a heart to know me, that I am the Lord; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God;" xxxii. 39: "And I give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them and of their children after them;" but especially Ezek. xi. 19, 20, xxxvi. 26, 27.--The remarks of Jewish interpreters on the passage under consideration, in which they cannot avoid seeing that, in it, a purely moral revelation is prophesied, [Pg 440] in contrast to a mere external one, clearly show how strongly the Old Testament is opposed to that carnal Jewish delusion of the condition of the Messianic Kingdom (as it is most glaringly expressed in the Talmudic passage _Massechet Sanhedrim_, fol. 119: "There is no other difference between the days of the Messiah and the present state of things, excepting only that the kingdoms shall be our slaves),"--a delusion which is quite analogous to the expectations which are entertained by revolutionists concerning the Future, and which flow from the same source. Thus Rabbi _Bechai_ (see _Frischmuth_) remarks: "This means that every evil concupiscence shall be taken away, and every desire to covet any thing;" _Moses Nachmanides_ (_ibid._ S. 861): "And this is nothing else than that every evil concupiscence shall be taken away, so that the heart, by an internal impulse, does what is right.--In the days of Messiah there will not exist any evil desire, but, from the impulse of his nature, man will do what is right. And there will, therefore, not be innocence and guilt, inasmuch as these depend upon concupiscence." But if once bent upon it, pre-conceived opinions will overcome every, even the strongest, contradiction offered by the matter itself This may be seen from the example of _Grotius_, who here explains: "I will cause that all of them keep my Law in memory,--in the first instance, by the multitude of synagogues which, at that time, were built, and in which the Law was taught thrice a-week." Thrice a-week! Surely that will produce first-rate men, viz., such as are described in Isa. lviii. 2. It is not without meaning, that the words: "And I will be their God," &c., follow upon: "And I give my Law in their inward parts," &c. The Law is the expression of God's nature; it is only by the Law being written in the heart that man can become a partaker of God's nature; that His name can be sanctified in him. And it is this participation in the nature of God, this sanctification of God's name, which forms the foundation of: "I will be their God, and they shall be my people." Without this, the relation cannot exist at all, as truly as God is not an idol, but the True and Holy One. These words express, as _Buddeus_, S. 94, rightly remarks: "That He will impart himself altogether to them." But how were it possible that God, with His blessings and gifts, should [Pg 441] impart himself entirely and unconditionally to them who are not of His nature? Of all unnatural things, this would be the most unnatural. Here, however, likewise the relative character of the promise most clearly appears. As early as to Abraham, God had promised that He would be a God to _him_, and to his seed after him; and this promise he had afterwards repeated to the whole people, Lev. xxvi. 12, comp. Exod.