Volume I Part 22 (1/2)
9), maintain that it had simply become a name of G.o.d.--The manifestations of G.o.d's omnipotence are, after the general intimations of it are given, just such as might now be expected; compare viii. 8.
The _Fut. with Vav Conv._ ????? does not here denote the Past, ”And it melted,” but only the consequence of the preceding action, as continuous as that: ”Who toucheth the earth, and it melteth.” A dissolution of the earth is to be thought of,--similar to that condition in which it was before the days of creation, and similar to its condition during the great flood. Such a condition of dissolution takes place also when the earth is visited by mighty kings desirous of making conquests. ”Who toucheth the earth, and it melteth,”--the truth of these words Israel had _first_ to learn by sad experience when the wild hosts of a.s.shur were poured out over the West of Asia. The pa.s.sage in Ps. xlvi. 7 is parallel, where it is said: ”The heathen rage, kingdoms are shaken; He uttereth His voice (which corresponds with, 'Who toucheth the earth,' in the verse before us), and the earth _melteth_.” The ???, ”to melt,” ”to dissolve,” signifies, in that pa.s.sage, the dissolving effect of the divine judgments, the instruments of which are the conquerors. _Further_,--Ps. lxx. 4: ”The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are melted,”--by the success of the conqueror of the world, the earth is, as it were, dissolved, and sunk back into the chaotic state of primitive time.--The words, ”And it riseth up,”
are to be explained from the fact that the earth, changed into a great stream, cannot be distinguished from the water which covers it. The earth rises up, it is overflowed,--the earth sinks down, the water subsides. The last clause of the verse must not be translated--as is done by _Rosenmuller_, _Gesenius_, _Maurer_--”It is overflowed as by the stream of Egypt.” This explanation is unphilological, and contrary, at the same time, to the parallelism, which requires that ???? be, both the times, understood in the same way. The verb ??? means only ”to sink,” ”to sink down,” and is used of the subsiding water, Ezek. x.x.xii.
14; of the subsiding flame, [Pg 382] Num. xi. 2; and of a sinking town, Jer. li. 64. The last words thus rather contain the opposite of the clause immediately preceding. But the sinking does not, by any means, signify a freedom from the waters, nor is it to be conceived of as remaining. All which is expressed is the change only,--the ebb takes the place of the flood, and _vice versa_. This, however, is, on the dry land, a very sad condition. The inundation is here an emblem of hostile overflowing. Water is frequently an emblem of enemies; compare Ps.
xviii. 17, cxliv. 7. Overflowing streams are emblematical of the crowds of nations, who, with a view to conquest, overflow the whole earth. Is.
viii. 7, 8, xvii. 12; Jer. xlvii. 2, xlvi. 7, 8, where Egypt rises as the Nile, just as, in the case before us, the earth; with this difference, however, that there the rising is an active, while here it is a pa.s.sive one: ”Who is this who riseth like the Nile, whose waters are moved as the rivers? Egypt riseth up like the Nile, and his waters are moved like rivers, and he saith, I will go up and cover the earth, I will destroy the city and the inhabitants thereof;” Ezek. x.x.xii. 14: ”Then will I make sink their waters, and cause their rivers to run like oil,” equivalent to: The conquering power of Egypt shall cease. Amos viii. 8 is a parallel pa.s.sage, in which, after the description of the prevailing sin, it is said: ”Shall not the earth tremble for this, and every one mourn that dwelleth therein? And it riseth up wholly like the Nile, and is agitated, and sinketh down like the Nile of Egypt.” The earthquake is the symbol of great revolutions, by which that which is highest is turned upside down; compare Haggai ii. 21, 22: ”I shake the heavens and the earth, and overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and destroy the strength of the kingdom of the heathen;” while the overflowing is emblematical of hostile inundation, of visitation by war, in which the ebb succeeds the flood, and _vice versa_.--In his negligent mode of writing--which frequently occurs in this book--the prophet wrote ???? instead of ?????, corresponding to the ???? in the verse under consideration, just as in the same verse he wrote ???
instead of ????. The Mazorets, who everywhere disregarded the peculiarities of the individual writers, have introduced the common form.
Ver. 6. ”_Who buildeth His upper chambers in the heaven, and His vault--over the earth He foundeth it: who calleth the waters_ [Pg 383]
_of the sea, and poureth them out over the earth--Jehovah His name._”
That ????? is here equivalent to ????, ”upper chambers” (compare 1 Chron. xvii. 17, where ???? occurs with the signification ”high place”), is put almost beyond any doubt by the parallel pa.s.sage, Ps.
civ. 3: ”Who frameth with the waters His upper chambers.” The fundamental pa.s.sage is Gen. i. 7: ”G.o.d made the vault, and divided between the waters which are under the vault, and the waters which are above the vault.” ”The waters, viz., the upper ones”--thus we have remarked in our commentary on that pa.s.sage from the Psalms--”are the material out of which the structure is reared. To construct, out of the moveable waters, a firm palace, the cloudy sky, firm as a molten looking-gla.s.s (Job x.x.xvii. 18), is a magnificent work of divine omnipotence. The palace of clouds, as the upper part of the fabric of the universe, gets the name _upper chambers_ of G.o.d; the lower part is the earth.” As all the other manifestations of divine omnipotence in vers. 5, 6, are such as are to be called into existence now, the upper chambers and the vault will here come into consideration, in so far as from thence the torrents of rain are poured forth; compare Ps. civ. 13, according to which the rain cometh from the upper chambers of G.o.d; and Gen. vii. 11: ”The same day broke forth all the fountains of the great flood (the last member of our verse), and _the windows of heaven were opened_.” From the upper chambers of G.o.d, whence once, at the time of the deluge, the natural rain came down, the rain of affliction will now descend.--?????--??? already occurred, _verbatim_, in v. 8. ?????
stands in the same relation to ??????, as in ver. 5 ???? does to ?????
and is equivalent to: ”Upon whose mere word the waters of the sea cover the surface of the earth;” compare Gen. vi. 17: ”And, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth.” The sea is the common emblem of the heathen world; compare remarks on Ps. xciii., civ. 6-9. In chap.
vii. 4, the ”great flood” is contrasted with the ”lot” in Deut. x.x.xiii.
9,--the heathen world, with the people of G.o.d. The fire of war, which the Lord kindles, devours both in the same way. Here, in contrast with the deluge, the conquering inundation of the earth proceeds from the midst of the heathen world, stirred up by the Lord, and destroys first of all unfaithful Israel, who, had they been [Pg 384] faithful to the Covenant, would have been able to say, as in Ps. xlvi. 2-4, ”G.o.d is our refuge and strength, a help in trouble He is found very much. Therefore will we not fear when the earth is overturned, and the mountains shake in the midst of the sea; its waters roar and foam, mountains tremble by its swelling.”
Ver. 7. ”_Are you not as the sons of the Cus.h.i.+tes unto Me, O children of Israel? saith the Lord. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor, and Aram from Kir?_”
The prophet here deprives the people of another prop of false security.
They boasted of their election, by which G.o.d Himself, as they imagined, had bound His hands. They considered the pledge of it--the deliverance from Egypt--as a charter of security against every calamity, as an obligation to further help in every distress, which G.o.d could not retract even if He would. A great truth lay at the foundation of this error,--a truth which has been disregarded by the greater number of interpreter's, who have, in consequence, forced upon the prophet a sense which is altogether false.[4] The election of the people, and their deliverance from Egypt, were actually what they considered them to be. G.o.d Himself had in reality thereby bound His hands; He _was obliged_ to deliver the people. He _could_ not cast them off. The election was an act of free grace; the manifestation of it in deeds was an act of His righteousness. The people had a right to remind Him of His duty, when He seemed not to perform it. Their election was then a firm anchorage of hope, a rich source of consolation, the foundation of all their prayers. But the error consisted in this, that the election was usurped by those to whom it did not belong,--an error which is continually repeating itself, and which shows itself in a fearful form, especially in the case of those who believe in the doctrine of Predestination. We need, for example, refer only to _Cromwell_, who, in the hour of death, silenced, by this false consolation, all the accusations of his [Pg 385] conscience. ?e??t?? ?? ??? ?fe?e?, says the Apostle, in Rom. ii. 25, ??? ???? p??ss??? ??? d? pa?a?t?? ????
??, ? pe??t?? s?? ?????st?a ?????e?. The deliverance from Egypt stands on the same footing as circ.u.mcision. The former also was profitable; to those who showed themselves to be children of Israel, it afforded the certainty that G.o.d would prove Himself to be their G.o.d.
For those, however, who had become degenerate, it entered altogether into the circle of ordinary events. For them, it became something that had altogether pa.s.sed away--that did not carry within itself any pledge of renovation. This error is here laid open by the prophet, as he had already done in v. 14: ”Seek good and not evil, that ye may live, and _thus_ the Lord, the G.o.d of hosts, be with you.” He directs their attention to the fact, that, in the Covenant-relation, which rests on reciprocity, the party who broke the Covenant had nothing to ask, nothing to hope for. ”_Be not_,” etc.; the _tertium comparationis_ is evidently the alienation from G.o.d. The ”children of Israel” (the appellation expressive of their dignity is intentionally chosen in order to make more striking the contradiction between the appearance and the reality) have become so degenerate, that they are no more any nearer to G.o.d than the sons of the Cus.h.i.+tes. Those interpreters who regard sin alone as the _tertium comparationis_ (_Cocceius_ says: ”Ye are so alienated from Him, and so unfaithful, that every one of you may be called a Cus.h.i.+te”), give too limited a sense to the expression. ”You are to Me,” is rather equivalent to, ”I have not any more concern in you, you stand not to Me in any other relation.” But why are the Cus.h.i.+tes alone mentioned as an example of a people alienated from G.o.d?
Their colour, perhaps, is more to be considered in this, than their descent from Ham; the physical blackness is viewed as an emblem of the spiritual. Thus they appear in Jer. xiii. 23: ”Will indeed the Cus.h.i.+te change his skin, and the leopard his spots? will you indeed be able to do good, who have been taught to do evil?” But the fundamental pa.s.sage is the inscription of Ps. vii., where Saul, on account of his black wickedness, appears under the symbolical name of Cush.--The right explanation of these first words furnishes, at the same time, the key to the sound interpretation of the words which [Pg 386] follow: It is only for the Covenant-people that the deliverance from Egypt is a pledge of grace. But you are no longer the Covenant-people; your being brought up out of Egypt, therefore, stands on the same line with the bringing up of the Philistines from their former dwelling-places in Caphtor to their present abodes, and with the bringing up of the Syrians from Kir, in which no one will see a pledge of divine grace, a preservative against every danger, and, especially, an a.s.surance of the impossibility of a new captivity. The geographical inquiries regarding Caphtor and Kir would lead us too far away from the subject which we are here discussing. The view which is now prevalent, and according to which Crete is to be understood by the former, is in contradiction to the old translations, which have Cappadocia, and with Gen. x. 14,--as long as, in that pa.s.sage, the Colchians are to be understood by the Casluhim. But that point would require a minute investigation, which may be more suitably carried on at some other place.
Ver. 8. ”_Behold, the eyes of the Lord Jehovah are upon the sinful kingdom, and I destroy them from off the face of the earth, saving that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord._”
_The_ sinful kingdom, whether its name be Israel or Judah, or whether it be called Egypt or Edom. The holy G.o.d has not by any means, as you in your blindness imagine, given you a privilege to sin. A difference exists between Israel and the others in this respect only, that utter ruin does not take place in the case of the former, as it does in that of the latter. For the distinction between the people of G.o.d and other nations consists in this, that in the former, there always remains a holy seed, an ??????, which the Lord must protect, and make the nursery of His kingdom, according to the same necessity of His nature as that by which He extirpates the sinners of His people. The ”sinful kingdom”
forms the contrast with the righteous kingdom; the article being here used in a generic sense. Similar are Is. x. 6: ”_I send him against impious people, and against the people of My wrath_ (wheresoever there are such) _I give him command_;” and Ps. x.x.xiii. 12: ”Blessed is the nation whose G.o.d is the Lord, the people whom He hath chosen for His inheritance;” on which latter pa.s.sage _Michaelis_ remarks, ”Blessed is the nation, whichsoever it may be.” The eyes of [Pg 387] the Lord are open upon _the_ sinful kingdom, and hence also upon the house of Jacob; it must be destroyed as all others are, but it cannot be _destroyed like them_,--an idea which is prominently brought out by the prefixed Infinit. ?????. That is an erroneous interpretation which understands by the sinful nation, Ephraim, and, after the example of _Grotius_ (”I will destroy the kingdom, not the people”), a.s.sumes that, by the house, in contrast with the kingdom, the people are intended. Such a contrast betwixt the house and the kingdom would have required a more distinct intimation. The house of Jacob, when referred to the ten tribes, is identical with the kingdom. They were a house only in so far as they were a kingdom. But it is both against the words (in Obad. ver. 17, ”house of Jacob” is likewise used of the whole of the nation), and against the connection, to refer it to the ten tribes. When, however, it is referred to the whole, a contrast betwixt people and kingdom can the less have place, as, according to ver. 11, the kingdom also shall be restored.--The first part of the verse is almost literally identical with Deut. vi. 15: ”For a jealous G.o.d is Jehovah, thy G.o.d, in thy midst; lest the anger of Jehovah thy G.o.d be kindled against thee, and He destroy thee from off the face of the earth,” ??????? ??? ??? ?????.
The prophet says nothing new; he only resumes the threatening of the revered lawgiver.--The construction of ???? ???? with ? is explained by the circ.u.mstance that, according to the context, the eyes of the Lord can mean only His angry eyes--equivalent to the anger of the Lord in the pa.s.sage quoted from Deuteronomy; and the verbs and nouns expressive of anger are connected by ? with the object on which the anger rests; compare Ps. x.x.xiv. 17.
Ver. 9. ”_For behold I command and shake the house of Israel among all the nations, as one shaketh in a sieve, and not shall anything firm fall to the ground._”
The figure in this verse is, upon the whole, plain; but some of the particulars require to be explained, and to be more accurately determined. The signification ”sieve,” commonly a.s.signed to ????, must be conceded to it. We must, however, here understand it of such a sieve as serves similar purposes as a winnowing shovel, in which the corn is violently shaken, and thus purified; and not of a sieve in which, by mere sifting, the corn is freed from the dust which has remained after the first [Pg 388] and proper cleansing. The latter is a.s.sumed by _Paulsen_ (_vom Ackerbau der Morgenlander_, S. 144), and, along with him, by the greater number of interpreters. Such a sieve--a kind of fan--is mentioned in Is. x.x.x. 24, in addition to the winnowing shovel.
It occurs likewise in Luke xxii. 31, where s?????e?? is _vanno agitare_. The LXX. also have here adopted the explanation, not of an ordinary sieve, but of an instrument which serves the same purposes as the winnowing shovel: d??t? ?d?? ??? ??t????a? ?a? ????? (?. ????s?) ?? p?s? t??? ???es? t?? ????? t?? ?s?a??, ?? t??p?? ????ta? ?? t?
????. _Hesych._ ????, pt??. To this we are likewise led by the verb ???????, which is indicative of a violent procedure, and by the occurrence of the same figure in so many pa.s.sages of Scripture; compare, _e.g._, Jer. li. 2; ”I will send against Babylon fanners that shall fan her, and shall empty her land;” Jer. xv. 7, and Matt. iii.
12; while the use of the ordinary sieve for such a purpose is never mentioned, nor is it ever employed for a figure.--????????? is not to be translated, ”_by_ all nations,” but, as the corresponding ?????
shows, ”in,” or ”among all nations.” The many people are the spiritual sieve,--the means of purging. The Lord, whose instruments they are, employs them for the destruction of the unG.o.dly. They are taken away by His secret judgments, for the execution of which He employs the heathen; compare ver. 10. Even the G.o.dly are violently shaken; but the hand of the Lord secretly upholds them that they may not sink, but that the temptation may serve for their spiritual growth; compare Luke xxii. 31, 32, where the Lord distinctly alludes to the pa.s.sage under consideration. The corn is shaken; dust and impurity fall to the ground, the chaff flies into the air. Many interpreters ascribe to ???? the signification, ”corn;” others, ”little stone.” But these significations have been both a.s.sumed merely for the sake of the context. ????, from ???, _colligavit_, _constrinxit_, means, primarily, ”that which is tightly bound together;” then, ”bundle,” ”bag;” but here, as in 2 Sam. xvii. 13, ”that which is compact, firm, and solid,”
as opposed to that which is loose, dissolved, and thin. That which is here meant is the solid, firm corn, as opposed to the loose chaff, and the dust which falls to the ground through the sieve.
Ver. 10. ”_By the sword, shall die all the sinners of My people who say, The evil will not come near, nor advance to us._”
[Pg 389]
In order that the preceding mitigation of the threatening of punishment might not be appropriated by those to whom it did not belong, the prophet, before pa.s.sing on to the further detail of the promise, once more presents the threatening in all its severity. ”The sinners who speak,” etc., are they who usurped the promises of the Covenant without having truly fulfilled its conditions,--who boasted of, and trusted in, their belonging outwardly to the people of G.o.d (compare iii. 2), and their zeal in the external performance of the duties of wors.h.i.+p (compare v. 21-23); and who therefore imagined that the judgments of the Lord could not reach them, while, by their sins, they did all in their power to draw them down upon them, v. 18, vi. 3.
Ver. 11. ”_In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and wall up its breaches, and raise up its ruins, and build it as the days of eternity._”
The words, ”In that day,” are to be understood quite generally, viz., as referring to a time after the divine judgments have broken in and have completed their work upon Israel. et? ta?ta, by which James renders it in Acts xv. 16, completely expresses the sense. The a.s.sertion of _Baur_, ”That the prophet must have conceived of the restoration of the tabernacle of David as being near at hand, because he recognised the instruments of judgment in the invading a.s.syrians,”
falls to the ground along with the supposition on which it rests. The prophet has nothing at all special to do with the invasion of the a.s.syrians.--The Partic. ????, according to the usual signification of the Partic., expresses a permanent condition. The very expression, ”tabernacle,” suggests the idea of a sunken condition of the house of David. The prophet sees the proud palace of David changed into a humble tabernacle, everywhere in ruins, and perforated. The same idea is expressed by a different image in Is. xi. 1. There the house of David is called the cut off trunk of Jesse, which puts forth a new shoot.