Chapter 72

Still before the destruction, but in the view of it, the Prophet, while in the outer court of the prison, was favoured with the revelation contained in chap. xxxii., and with that revelation of which our section forms a portion. It may appear strange that, in the introduction, the revelation of great things hitherto unknown to him is promised to the Prophet, and which he is told to seek by calling unto the Lord; while, after all, the subsequent prophecy contains scarcely any prominent, peculiar feature. But this is easily explained, when we take into consideration that, throughout Scripture, dead [Pg 460] knowledge is not regarded as knowledge; that the hope of restoration had, in the natural man, in the Prophet as well as in all believers, an enemy that strove to darken and extinguish it; that, therefore, the promise of restoration was ever new, and the word of God always great and exalted. In the first part of the revelation, after the destruction had been represented as unavoidable, and all human hope had been cut oft, the restoration is described more in general terms. In the second part, the Lord meets a two-fold special grief of the believers. The time was approaching when the house of David was to be most deeply humbled, when every trace of its former glory was to be done away with. With it, the hopes of the people seem to be buried. God himself had declared this house to be the medium, through which all the mercies were to come, which He, as the King, had promised to bestow upon His people. But what was to become of the mercies, if the channel was destroyed, through which they were to be bestowed upon the people? The temple which, through the guilt of the people, had been changed into a den of robbers, was to be destroyed. But, with the existence of the temple, the existence of the Levitical priesthood was bound up, and if the latter was done away with, how was to be obtained forgiveness of sins, which, in the Law, had been connected with the mediation of the Levitical priesthood? These fears and cares the Lord now meets by declaring that, in both respects, the perishing would be an arising, that life should arise from death.

The genuineness of this section has been assailed by _Jahn_ (_Vaticinia Mess._ iii. p. 112, ff.[1]), after the example of _J. D. Michaelis_, who, in the German translation of the Bible, inclosed it within brackets. For the present, we mention only the internal reason--deferring the refutation till we come to the exposition of particulars--because we require it in order to set aside the external reason. Jahn, p. 121, sums it up in these words: "The matter stands in opposition to all the prophecies of Jeremiah and all the other Prophets. For all of them limit themselves to the one David who was to come [Pg 461] after the captivity, and do not mention any successor to him, far less such a multitude of descendants of David and of Levites, which is promised to the people under the name of a blessing, but which would, in reality, have been a very heavy burden to the people, at whose expense they were to be splendidly maintained." The external reason is the omission of the section in the Alexandrian version. Proceeding upon the altogether gratuitous assumption of a double recension of the prophecies of Jeremiah, people imagine that, by the omission in the Alexandrian version, they are entitled to suppose that, in that recension which the LXX. followed, this section was not contained. But the arguments are most unsatisfactory, by which the attempt is made to establish that many portions, not translated by the LXX., were not found by them in their manuscripts. Where there notoriously prevail negligence, ignorance, arbitrariness, entire want of a clear conception of the task of a translator, those inferences are out of place which suppose just the opposite of all these (comp. _e.g._, the inferences in _Jahn_, S. 116 ff.) Although we cannot sometimes discover and state the reason which induced the LXX. to make any omission, in case that that which was omitted was really in the text, what is it that is thereby proved? Could we, _a priori_, expect anything else, since we are on the territory of accident and whim? It is quite sufficient that in a multitude of passages we can point out the most insufficient reasons which induced them to make omissions, alterations, transpositions; for it is just these which show that we are in the territory of accident and whim, where it is unreasonable every where to expect reasons. Now, to these passages, that before us likewise belongs; so that, even supposing that the ground of the deviation sometimes lies in a different recension, our passage cannot be regarded as belonging to this class; and, hence, from its omission, nothing can be inferred against its genuineness. A twofold reason here presents itself, which may have induced them to the omission: 1. Important elements of the prophecy under consideration have already occurred, vers. 15, 16, almost _verbatim_, in chap. xxiii. 3, 6; vers. 20-25, as regards the thought, altogether, and as regards the words, partly agree with chap. xxxi. 35-37; and it is certain that the LXX. often omitted [Pg 462] that which had occurred previously, because they were unable to perceive the deeper meaning of the repetition, and transferred their own ignorance to the Prophet. 2. In that which was peculiar to the passage before us, it was just the principal thought--the same which _J. D. Michaelis_ and _Jahn_ advance against the genuineness--which must have been most objectionable to the LXX., who were incapable of perceiving the deeper meaning. An increase of the Levites and of the family of David as the stare of the heavens and the sand of the sea, is a thought of which the Prophet must be freed, whether he entertained it or not. The omission in the Alexandrian version, therefore, does not prove any thing, except that even 2000 years before _J. D. Michaelis_, _Jahn_, _Hitzig_, and _Movers_, there were men who were as little able to understand the text as these expositors.

Ver. 14. "_Behold days come, saith the Lord, and I perform the good word which I leave spoken unto the house of Israel, and concerning the house of Judah._"

The "good word" may, in a more general way, be understood of all the gracious promises of God to Israel, in contrast to the evil word, the threatenings which hitherto had been fulfilled upon Israel; comp. 1 Kings viii. 56, where Solomon, in the prayer at the consecration of the temple, says: "Blessed be the Lord, that has given rest unto His people Israel, according to all which He spoke; there has not failed (the opposite of [Hebrew: qvM]) one word of all His good word which He spoke through Moses His servant." In Deut. xxviii. the _good_ word and the _evil_ word are placed beside one another; and the former is blessed, from vers. 1-14; afterwards, the curse is declared. The centre and substance of this good word was the promise to David, through whose righteous Sprout all the promises to Israel should find their final fulfilment. But we may also suppose that, by the "good word," the Prophet specially denotes this promise to David, which he had repeated in chap. xxiii. 5, 6. This latter supposition is preferable, since, in vers. 15, 16, that repetition of it is quoted, and ver. 17 contains an allusion to the fundamental promise. The change of [Hebrew: al] and [Hebrew: el] is significant; Judah is considered as the object of the proclamation of salvation, because salvation cometh from the Jews. The correctness of this view is proved by [Pg 463] vers. 15, 16, where that only is spoken of, which, in the first instance, belongs to Judah; so that Israel is only received into the communion of the salvation, in the first instance, destined for Judah.

Ver. 15, 16. "_In those days and at that time will I cause a righteous Sprout to grow up unto David, and he worketh justice and righteousness in the land. In those days Judah is endowed with salvation, and Jerusalem dwelleth safely; and this is the name by which she shall be called: The Lord our righteousness._"

It is intentionally that the promise is here repeated in the former shape, in order to show that it still existed; that the glaring contrast presented by the present state of things was not able to annul it; that even in the view of the destruction, of the deepest abasement of the house of David, it still retained its right and power. Instead of [Hebrew: hqimvti], the more suitable [Hebrew: acmiH] is here used, because the reference to Jehoiakim does not take place in this passage, as it did in the previous one. Instead of Israel, which is found there, we have here Jerusalem, because it was just the restoration of Jerusalem, which it was so difficult for the faithful to believe, after its destruction had been described in ver. 4 ff. For the same reason, the Prophet here assigns the same name to Jerusalem which he did there to the Sprout of David. The same city, which as yet is groaning under the wrath of God, shall, in future, be endowed with righteousness by the Lord.

Ver. 17. "_For thus saith the Lord: There shall not be cut of from David a man sitting upon the throne of the house of Israel._"

The connection with what precedes is pertinently brought out by _Calvin_: "The Prophet had spoken of the restoration of the Church; that doctrine he now confirms by promising, that both the kingly and priestly office should be perpetual; and it was just these two things which constituted the salvation of the people. For, without a king, they were just like a cut-off tree, or a mutilated body; without a priest they were in a state of dispersion. For the priest was the mediator between God and the people, but the king represented the person of God." The expression [Hebrew: la ikrt], "there shall not be cut off," &c., is a simple repetition of the promise to David, in [Pg 464] that form in which it had been quoted by David himself, shortly before his death, in his address to Solomon, 1 Kings ii. 4, and afterwards twice by Solomon, 1 Kings viii. 25, ix. 5. It does not designate an uninterrupted succession, but forms the contrast only to a breaking off for ever. This appears even from the circumstance that, in the fundamental promise, God reserves to himself the punishment of the apostate members of the Davidic house, and that in Jeremiah the announcement of its utter abasement is so frequently repeated.

Ver. 18, "_And to the Levitical priests there shall not be cut off before me a man, offering burnt-offerings, and kindling meat-offerings, and doing sacrifice all days._"

In order rightly to understand these words, it is necessary to go back to their cause; for it is from the grief only that the comfort receives its explanation. The Prophet has here not by any means to do with members of the tribe of Levi mourning over the loss of the prerogatives of their tribe. If such were the case, it would be necessary to hold fast by the letter, inasmuch as it is only when the letter is adhered to, that the promise can afford consolation for such grief. The Prophet's consolations, on the contrary, are destined for all the believers, who were mourning over the destruction of the relation to God, which hitherto had existed through the mediation of the tribe of Levi. If only the relation remained, it was of little importance whether it was realised by the tribe of Levi, as heretofore, or in some other way. Just as the grief has respect to the substance only, so has the consolation also. Israel, in future too, shall retain free access to his reconciled God,--that is the fundamental thought; and every thing by which this thought was manifested and realised in history, in what form soever it might be, must be viewed as comprehended in it. We thus obtain a threefold fulfilment: 1. In the time after the return from the captivity, the consolation was realised in the form in which it is here expressed. The fact, that God admitted and promoted the rebuilding of the temple, was an actual declaration that the Levitical priesthood was reinstated in its mediatorial office. 2. In the highest degree the idea of the Levitical priesthood was realised through Christ, who, as a High-Priest and Mediator, bore the sins of His people, and made intercession for the transgressors, and [Pg 465] in whom the Levitical priesthood ceased, just as the seed-corn disappears in the stalk. 3. Through Christ, the believers themselves became priests, and obtained free access to the Father.--The following reasons show that we have a right to maintain this independence of the thought upon the form: 1. The Prophet is so penetrated with the thought of the glory of the New Dispensation far outshining that of the Old, that, _even a priori_, we could not suppose that, as regards the priesthood, he expected an eternal duration of its form, hitherto so poor. It is the substance only which, in his view, is permanent. One need only compare the section, chap. xxxi. 31 ff. How intentionally does he here bring forward the idea that the New Covenant would not be like the Old; how does he point from the shadow to the substance! But it is especially chap. iii. 16 which, in this respect, is to be regarded. In that passage, the ceasing of the former dignity of the Ark of the Covenant is announced repeatedly, and in the strongest terms; and we have already seen that, along with the Ark of the Covenant, the temple, the Levitical priesthood, the whole sacrificial service stands in the closest and most indissoluble connection; so that all this must fall along with it. 2. A very important proof is furnished by ver. 22, which must be regarded as a declaration, by the Prophet himself, as to the manner in which he wishes to be understood. Now, in that verse, it is promised that all the descendants of Abraham shall be changed into Levites; and this is declared to form a part of the eternal acceptance of the tribe of Levi, promised in the verse under consideration. This shows then, that, in the verse under review, the Levites cannot come into consideration as descendants of Levi after the flesh, but only as regards their destination and vocation. 3. As the most ancient and authentic interpreter of Jeremiah, Zechariah must be considered. He was most anxious to obviate the same fears which Jeremiah here meets; and, in him, the first two of the three features which Jeremiah comprehends in the unity of the idea, appear separated, but in such a manner that the connecting unity of the idea is not lost sight of In Zech. iii., God assures the people that, notwithstanding the greatness of their sins, He would not only allow the office of High-priest to continue as heretofore, and accept his mediation, but that, at some future period, [Pg 466] He would also send the true High-priest, who should make a complete and everlasting atonement. In ver. 8, the High-priest and his colleagues in the priestly office are designated as types of Christ who, putting most completely to shame the people's despair in God's mercy, should fully accomplish the expiation and atonement which the former had effected only imperfectly. In chap. iv. the priestly is, along with the royal order, designated as one of the two sons of the oil, the two anointed ones of the Lord, whose anointing remaineth for ever; and from chap. vi. 13, where the Messiah appears as the true High-priest and King at the same time, it appears that, here too, the shadow only belongs to the Levitical priesthood, but the substance to Christ. 4. Elsewhere, too, plain examples are not wanting, in which the idea of the priesthood only is regarded, while the peculiar form of its manifestation under the Old Testament is lost sight of. Among those is Is. lxi. 6, where, in reference to all Israel, it is said: "And ye shall be named priests of Jehovah, ministers of our God shall they call you." Here the change of all Israel into the tribe of Levi is announced; and the objection which, perhaps, might be brought forward, that here only priests in general are spoken of, while Jeremiah speaks of Levitical priests, is met by the second passage, chap. lxvi. 21: "And from them also will I take for _Levitical_ priests saith the Lord." It makes no difference for our purpose whether "from them" be referred to the Gentiles (which is the correct view, compare p. 360), as is done by _Vitringa_ and _Gesenius_, or to the Israelites living in exile. For, although the latter interpretation be received, yet so much is certain, that such shall be taken for Levitical priests as were not descendants of Levi: for, otherwise, no _taking_, no special divine mercy would have taken place. Even the Law already knows an _ideal_ priesthood by the side of the ordinary one; and such an one meets us also in Ps. xcix. 6; compare my Commentary on that passage.--After having thus fixed the sense of the promise referring to the Levitical priesthood, it will not be difficult to discover the right view in reference to the family of David. Here, too, a threefold fulfilment takes place. 1. It was realized in the times immediately after the captivity, when Zerubbabel, a scion of the Davidic house, became the mediator of the mercies which God [Pg 467] as King, vouchsafed to His people. To a certain degree, that mercy too comes in here which, at a later period, God, in His capacity as King, bestowed upon the people by means of civil rulers, who were not from the house of David. For, since the dominion had been for ever transferred to the house of David, these rulers can be considered only as being engrafted into it, as representatives and vice-regents,--much in the same way as the blessing, which was bestowed upon the people by the priestly office of the non-priest Samuel, must be considered as being included in the promise in reference to the Aaronic priesthood. For all that God vouchsafed through those rulers, was for the sake of the Davidic house only, which for ever had been destined to be the channel of His regal blessings. If the kingdom of David had really been at an end, He would not have given to the people even those rulers, and the deliverance and prosperity granted to them,--as is clearly seen from a comparison of the times, after the great Hero of David's race ascended the throne, when every trace of the regal grace of God in raising other rulers ceased; for now, that the race of David itself rules again, and for ever, no representation of it can any more take place. But, in the passage under consideration, it would the less be suitable to separate everything which does not, in the strictest sense, belong to it, that here the promise to David is not viewed with reference to him and his house, but solely with reference to the people. Hence, the manifestation of the regal grace of God forms the centre; and the house of David comes into consideration, only in so far as it was destined to be the mediator of this grace. 2. It was fulfilled in Christ; and from vers. 15, 16, it appears that the Prophet had this fulfilment chiefly in view. These two fulfilments are connected with one another by Zechariah also, in chap. iv.--3. It was realized by the raising of the whole true posterity of Abraham to the royal dignity, through Christ. This most striking antithesis to the despair--the despair saying: there is no king in Israel; the consolation: all Israel are kings--is expressly brought forward in ver. 22.--We still remark that we must not, by any means, as is commonly done, translate: "To the priests and Levites," but, as also in Is. lxvi. 21: To the Levitical priests; compare the arguments in proof in _Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, p. 329 ff. The epithet, [Pg 468] "Levitical," is added in order to prevent the thought that, perhaps, priests in another than the literal sense are spoken of, compare p. 360. It serves therefore the same purpose as the expression: "He ruleth as a king," in chap. xxxiii. 5.--As regards the sacrifices, we must not by any means suppose, as is done by the ancient interpreters, that spiritual sacrifices are here simply spoken of. The correct view rather is, that the Prophet represents the substance under its present form, in and with which it would now soon be lost for a season; and as he has to do with the substance only, he does not say anything as to whether this substance would, in future, rise again in the same form, and whether it was to continue for ever in that form. History has answered the first in the affirmative, and the second in the negative; and from chap. iii. 16, it appears that the Prophet, too, would, upon _inquiry_, have answered in the negative as regards the last point. Moreover, how well they knew, even under the Old Testament dispensation, to distinguish, in reference to the sacrifices, between the substance and the form, considering the latter as a thing merely accidental, is seen from passages such as Hosea xiv. 3 (2): "Take with you words, and turn to the Lord and say unto Him: _Take_ all iniquity, and _give_ good, and we will recompense to thee bulls, our lips." Here the thanks are represented as the substance of the thank-offering, and, indeed, so perfectly, that the thank-offering, the bullocks, is _entirely_ where only thanks, the lips, are. The outward sacrifice is the vessel only in which the gift is presented to God. _Farther_--Ps. iv. 14, where, in contrast to the merely external sacrifices, it is said: "Offer unto God thanksgivings;" Mal. i. 11, and many other passages.

Vers. 19, 20. "_And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying: Thus saith the Lord, If ye will make void my covenant, the day, and my covenant, the night, so that there shall be no more day and night in their season_; Ver. 21. _Then also shall be void my covenant with David, my servant, that he shall not have one who reigns on his throne, and with the Levitical priests, my servants._"

The word [Hebrew: tprv] is very significant. _Calvin_ says: "The Prophet indirectly reproves the wickedness of the people, because, as much as lay with them, they destroyed the covenant [Pg 469] of God by their obstreperous cries.... This incredulity, therefore, the Prophet blames, and it is as if he were saying: To what are these complaints to lead? It is just as if you were trying to draw down sun and moon from heaven, and to do away with the difference between day and night, and overturn all the laws of nature, because it is I, the same God, whose will it was that the night should follow the day, who have also promised, &c."--[Hebrew: hivM] and [Hebrew: hlilh] are appositions to: My covenant. The day and night in their regular succession are the covenant which is here spoken of The phrase [Hebrew: ivmM vlilh], which signifies "by day and night," "daily and nightly," stands here for: _tempus diurnum et nocturnum_. "The covenant," [Hebrew: brit], does not by any means stand here in the signification _stabilis ordinatio_; nor is it be considered as being entered into with the day and night; these, on the contrary, are the covenant-blessings. God, who vouchsafed _them_, and all that is connected with them, that the sun shines by day, and the moon by night, enters thereby, according to the explanation given on chap. xxxi. 32, into a covenant with man. By the inviolable maintenance of the course of nature, He binds himself to the inviolable maintenance of the moral order. This clearly appears when we consider that, after the great flood, the covenant with nature is anew entered into, and its inviolability anew established; comp. Gen. ix. 9: "Behold, I establish my covenant _with you_, and with your seed after you;" viii. 22: "All the days of the earth, seed time and harvest, and heat and cold, and summer and autumn, and day and night shall not cease any more." With these covenant-promises, covenant-laws and obligations are connected, which the covenant imposes. With this covenant of nature, which is common to all men, and which, at Noah's time, was not made for the first time, but only renewed, the covenant of grace, which is peculiar to Israel only, stands on a level. To assert that the latter has become void, is nothing else than to attempt to pull sun and moon down from heaven. For it is one and the same God who has made both covenants.

Ver. 22. "_As the host of heaven is not numbered, and as the sand of the sea is not measured, so will I increase the seed of David, my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me._"

Even considered in itself, the literal fulfilment of this verse [Pg 470] involves an absurdity. Such an increase of the bodily descendants of David lies beyond the bounds of possibility; and even if this were not the case, yet this increase, just as the similar increase of the Levites, would not have the nature of a promise, but that of a threatening. At all events, the consolation would have no relation to, or connection with, the grief For the latter did not refer to the number of the descendants of David, and that of the Levites, but to their acceptance with God, and, in them, to the acceptance of the people; but that acceptance has nothing to do with number. To this, another reason is still to be added. It cannot be denied that there is a verbal reference to the promise to Abraham in Gen. xv. 5, xxii. 17. Since, then, these words, which originally referred to all Israel, are here transferred to the family of David, and to the Levites, it is thereby sufficiently intimated that all Israel shall be changed into the family of David, and into the tribe of Levi. This idea need not at all surprise us. It has its foundation in the Law itself All that is announced here is, that the vocation and destination of the covenant-people, which is already expressed in the Law, but which hitherto was realised only very imperfectly, is, at some future period, to be perfectly realised. In Exod. xix. 6, God says of Israel: "Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, [Hebrew: mmlkt khniM]."[2] Hence, first a kingdom. The nature of a kingdom is, not to have any power over it other than the Divine power, and to have everything else under its authority. By this declaration, the dominion of the world was secured to the people of God. This high prerogative always remained with the covenant-people so long as they had not, by their guilt, spontaneously got under a moral servitude to the world. The outward servitude was always a reflection of the inward only. It never was inflicted upon the covenant-people as such, but always upon that covenant-people which had become like the world. And even when this _unnatural_ condition took place, this high dignity was not forfeited by the single individuals who, knowing that they were purchased at a high price, had kept themselves inwardly free from the bondage of the world. Although in fetters and bonds, they yet remained inwardly free. World, [Pg 471] sin, death, and hell, could do them no harm. Yea, notwithstanding all outward appearance of victory, those enemies were, in reality, ruled by them; and even their outward servitude was, when more deeply considered, a sign of their dominion. For the Law of the Lord of Hosts was in their inward parts; it was the living principle of their existence. It was according to this Law that the whole world was governed; and it was according to it that the servitude of their people also took place. They were thus co-regents with God, and, as such, ruled over their rulers.--All the single members of this kingdom, which consists entirely of kings, were, at the same time, to be priests. In these words it was already implied and declared, that the Levitical priesthood, which was instituted at a later period, could not have that importance which the priesthood had with other nations of antiquity, where priests and people stood in an absolute antithesis, which admitted of no mediation, and where it was the priests only who stood in an immediate relation to God. It was thereby implied and declared, that the priests, in one aspect, (in other respects, they were types and foreshadowings of Christ) possessed rights that were only transferred to them; that they were representatives of Christ, and that, hence, their mediation would, at some future period, disappear altogether. And in order that the people might always remain fully conscious of this; in order that they might know that they themselves were the real bearers of the priestly dignity, they retained, even after the institution of the Levitical priesthood, that priestly function which formed the root and foundation of all others, viz., the slaying of the covenant-sacrifice, of the paschal lamb, which formed the centre of all other sacrifices, inasmuch as the latter served only as a supplement to it. That, even under the Old Testament dispensation, this importance of the paschal rite was duly recognized, is seen from _Philo_, _de vita Mos._ (p. 686, Francf.): "In offering up the paschal lamb, the office of the laymen is by no means simply to bring the sacrificial animals to the altar, that they may be slain and offered up by the priests; but, according to the regulations of the Law, the whole people exercise priestly functions, inasmuch as every one in his own behalf offers up the prescribed sacrifice."--We have thus here before [Pg 472] us the highest completion of the comfort for the mourning covenant-people. They are not merely to receive back their king, their priests; nay, they are altogether to be changed into a kingly and priestly generation. It must not be overlooked that, in substance, this was already contained in the promise to Abraham. We have already proved in Vol. i. p. 211, ff., that this promise to Abraham does not refer to a great number of bodily descendants, _tales quales_, but that, on the contrary, it refers only to such sons of Abraham as are, at the same time, sons of God; hence, to a royal and priestly generation.--If now we look to the fulfilment, the passage which, above all, presents itself, is 1 Pet. ii. 9: [Greek: humeis de genos eklekton, basileion hierateuma k.t.l.] Here that passage of Exodus is represented as a prophecy which, in the present only, was fulfilled. Israel has now become that which, according to its destiny, it ought always to have been, a host of royal priests,--priests who at the same time have a royal nature and character. That which now already exists perfectly in the germ, shall, at some future period, come forth in full development, according to Rev. v. 10: [Greek: kai epoiêsas autous tô theô hêmôn basileis kai hiereis, kai basileusousin epi tês gês.] Believers, when sin has been extirpated in them, shall have the freest access to God. When His will shall have become theirs, and when, at the same time, His dominion over the whole world appears more visibly, they shall unconditionally rule with Him. How this dignity of theirs has its foundation in Christ, is seen from Rev. i. 5, 6, where the words: [Greek: kai epoiêsen hêmas basileian, hiereis tô theô kai patri hautou], stand in close connection to [Greek: ho archôn tôn basileôn tês gês], and to [Greek: kai lusanti hêmas apo tôn hamartiôn hêmôn en tô haimati hautou.]

Ver. 23. "_And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying:_ Ver. 24. _Dost thou not see what this people are speaking, and say: The two families which the Lord hath chosen, He hath now rejected them, and my people they despise, that they should still be a people before them._"

It is scarcely conceivable how modern interpreters can assert that by "this people," not the Israelites, but Gentiles, the Egyptians or Chaldeans, or the "neighbours of the Jews on the Chaboras," (_Hitzig_), or the Samaritans (_Movers_), are to be understood. In advancing such assertions, it is overlooked [Pg 473] that the Prophet has here quite the same persons in view as in the whole remaining section, and as in these chapter's throughout, viz., those among Israel--and to them more or less all belonged, even those most faithful--who, because they saw Israel prostrate, for ever despaired of its deliverance and salvation; and, indeed, for the most part, in such a manner as to give to this despair a good aspect, viz., that of humility. They imagined, and said that the people had sinned in such a manner against God, that He was free from all his obligations, and could not at all receive them again. To those the Prophet shows that such a thought is, notwithstanding the fair appearance, blasphemy. All despair abases God into an idol, into a creature. Faith holds fast by the word, by the promise. It says: Although sin abounds with us, the grace of God does much more abound. As truly as God always remains God, so surely His people will always remain His people. He indeed chastises them, but He does not give them over to death. One need only consider the [Hebrew: tprv] in ver. 20.--The expression "this people," is contemptuous, comp. Is. viii. 11. The Prophet thereby intimates that those who use such language, cease thereby to be members of the people of God. The "two families" are Judah and Israel. These had, in the preceding verses, likewise been, in substance, the subject of discourse; for the election and rejection of the tribe of Levi, and of the house of David, had been treated of in so far only, as they stood in relation to the election or rejection of the people; so that here only the same thing is repeated in a different form, in consideration of the fact, that weak faith and despair are so slow to hear. The words: "He hath now rejected them," were, in a certain sense, true; but not in the sense of the speakers. They, on the contrary, maintained, in opposition to the election, a rejection for ever, which was tantamount to: Jehovah, the eternal and unchangeable One, is no more Jehovah; He is a man that He lieth, and a son of man that He repenteth. As surely as God is Jehovah, so surely also [Greek: ametamelêta ta charismata kai hê klêsis tou theou], Rom. xi. 29. The expression "_my_ people," directs attention to how God is now despised in Israel. On the contrast between "_my_ people" and "a people," compare remarks on chap. xxxi. 36.

Ver. 25. "_Thus saith the Lord: If not my covenant daily_ [Pg 474] _and nightly, if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth_;"--

Compare ver. 20. The covenant daily and nightly, _i.e._, the covenant which refers to the constant and regular alternation of day and night. The ordinances of heaven and earth denote the whole course of nature,--especially the relations of sun, moon, and stars, to the earth, comp. chap. xxxi. 35--in so far as it is regulated by God's ordinance, and is, therefore, a lasting one.

Ver. 26. "_So will I also cast away the seed of Jacob, and of David, my servant, that I do not take farther from his seed rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will turn to their captivity, and have mercy upon them._"

The casting away of the seed of Jacob, and that of the seed of David, are inseparably connected. For since, by the promise to David, the kingdom had been for ever bound together with his race, Israel was no more the people of God, and no more a people at all, if David was no more the servant of God. The Plural [Hebrew: mwliM] is easily accounted for, from the circumstance that it was not the number, but only the _fact_ that was here concerned (comp. remarks on chap. xxiii. 4, and, at the same time, those on ver. 18); but it is beyond any doubt, that the Prophet has here in view the revival of the dominion of David in the Messiah,--has it, at least, chiefly in view. The enumeration of the three Patriarchs recalls to mind the whole series of the promises granted to them. The words: "I will turn to their captivity" (not: "I will turn their captivity," compare remarks on Ps. xiv. 7; captivity is an image of misery), rest on Deut. xxx. 3.

[Footnote 1: They have been joined by _Movers_ (_de utriusque recens. Jerem. indole_), who declares ver. 18 and 21-24 to be a later interpolation (comp. against this view _Küper_, S. 173, and _Wichelhaus_, de Jerem. Vers. Alex., p. 170), and _Hitzig_, according to whom the whole portion, vers. 14-26, consists of "a series of single additions from a later period."]

[Footnote 2: Compare the discussions on this passage in my Commentary on Rev. i. 6.]

END OF VOLUME SECOND.