Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

hearts of the pious fathers and the ungodly children are estranged from one another. The bond of union is wanting, viz., common love to God. The fathers are ashamed of their children, the children of their fathers. The great chasm between the two is filled up once more by Elias the prophet. He leads the children back to God, and in God the fathers and children are reconciled again. is not infrequently construed with y, even where a literal return is intended. Compare, for example, Job xxxiv. 15, “man returneth to the dust" (y); Prov. xxvi. 11, "as a dog, that returneth to its vomit; and Eccl. xii. 7. In the case before us, however, it is still more appropriate, since inclination is very commonly regarded as resting upon its object, which renders more graphic than . An ȧTokaтáσTaσis, a restitutio is also predicted here (see the notes on chap. iii. 4). If there had not been pious fathers already, if the Lord had not proved himself to be a covenant-God in former times, by giving them a heart to fear him, the hope of a reformation of the children, to be effected by him, would be a mere fancy. The hopes of the future, so far as the kingdom of God is concernéd, are always founded upon the past. This is not only a guarantee of the possibility, but also a proof of the necessity for a repetition. Every word addressed by the prophet to the corrupt priestly order would be entirely lost, if its former purity (chap. ii. 5, 6) had not afforded a pledge that the idea could and must be realised again. The meat-offering of Judah and Jerusalem is not to become pleasant to the Lord for the first time, after the lapse of many centuries, but it is once more to become, what it was in the days of old, and in former years (chap. iii. 4)1 Isaiah complains (in chap. i. 21) that the city, which was once faithful, has become a harlot, and that whereas righteousness dwelt in her, there are now murderers. Compare ver. 26, "and I will give thee thy judges again as at the first, and thy councillors as at the beginning." We have only to observe further, that the outward work of Elias is not to be separated from the work of the Spirit of God, by which it is necessarily accompanied (compare 1 Kings xviii. 37, where the

1 Hofmann's question, "What is there to show that the fathers were more pious than the sons?" is fully answered in chap. iii. 4 and chap. ii. 5, 6.

first Elijah says to God, "thou turnest their heart back again”), and also, that does not denote the effect, so much as the divine intention, though this of course can never be really without effect. That the prophet was well aware that the great mass of the people would despise the mercy of God, which was offered to all (Luke vii. 30), and therefore would be exposed to the judgment threatened, is evident from the earlier passages, in which this judgment is unconditionally announced.

[ocr errors]

In the second half may either be rendered "with the ban" (Ewald § 204, a.), or "as a ban," that is, so that it shall become " a ban." All the dreadful things that can possibly be thought of are included in this one word. The meaning of the Cherem has already been discussed in another of the author's works (see the Dissertation on the Pentateuch, vol. ii. transl., Art., "The right of the Israelites to Palestine.") We will first of all quote the passage referred to. "The conduct which the Israelites were commanded to observe, and actually did observe towards the Canaanites, is designated throughout as banning (Verbannung, proscribing or laying under the ban). This designation shows that the highest object of the war of extermination against the Canaanites was the vindication of the Divine glory, which had been dishonoured by them. The idea of banning is always that of the forcible dedication to God of such persons, as have obstinately refused to dedicate themselves voluntarily to him, the manifestation of the Divine glory in the destruction of those who, during their lifetime, would never serve as a mirror for it, and therefore refused to realise the great purpose of man's existence, and of the creation of the world. God will sanctify himself on those, in whom he is not sanctified. The temporal destruction of anything which does not serve him makes known his praise. His glory shines forth in the wailings, of the lost, which are typified by this temporal destruction. This idea of the ban, which J. D. Michaelis describes in a truly characteristic manner as "a master-stroke of legislative sagacity," is very conspicuous in Deut. xiii. 16-18, where the command

1 "There can be no doubt that God intended to say, that he would give up to certain destruction, both the obstinate transgressors of the law and also their city, and that they should suffer the extreme penalty of his justice, as heads devoted to God, without any hope of favour or forgiveness." (Vitringa).

is issued to ban every Israelitish city which should introduce idolatry (compare ver. 16, "and thou bannest the city and its spoil entirely to the Lord thy God, and it becomes an eternal heap, it shall no more be built again." So again in the account contained in Num. xxi. 1-3. The Canaanitish king of Arad opposed the Israelites, "and Israel vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, if thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, I will ban their cities. And the Lord heard the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites, and Israel banned them and their cities." The banning is evidently represented here, not as something resulting from human caprice, or subservient to human purposes, but as an act of worship enjoined by God, which was regarded by Israel as a sacrifice offered up for the sake of God. And so again in 1 Kings xx., where the king of Israel, himself an ungodly man, is doomed to destruction for neglecting to execute the ban pronounced by God upon Benhadad, the king of Assyria, and haughty despiser of God. The ban, pronounced upon the Canaanites generally related to their persons alone; and, strictly speaking, it was solely to these that it actually applied. Their cities and possessions were conferred upon the Israelites. But, in order that it might be seen, that the former possessors had not been destroyed by a mere act of caprice on the part of man, but by the vengeance of God, and also that their country and possessions had not been acquired by the Israelites as booty, but as a confiscated fief which was now conferred by God upon another vassal, to see whether he would faithfully render the services appertaining to its possession, in the case of the first city that was taken, viz. Jericho, the ban was laid upon the city itself and all the property found within the walls." To this we have now to add the following remarks. (1). That the word does not mean a holy thing generally, but rather a thing which is holy in the sense of being devoted to God by being destroyed, and therefore is distinct from wɔ, is evident from its connexion with, resecuit, succidit, exscidit, abscidit, from which the Hebrew word (a man with a short or mutilated nose) is derived, and probably also, a net, so called on account of its causing destruction to the fish. Hence Vitringa's remark (on Is. xi. 5) is incorrect. He says,

"the word signifies to set apart a thing or person from common use, which is done either by consecration, or by devoting it to destruction with imprecations, as an accursed thing; hence to cut off, to destroy, to exterminate with a curse."

The only

part of this which is correct is contained in the words “devoting it to destruction," &c. In the sense of consecrate it is never used. (2). J. D. Michaelis says (§ 146), "Moses speaks of the Cherem in one passage in a manner which presupposes that a man sometimes consecrated his own field, and that such a field of Cherem as this could be redeemed in the ordinary way, Lev. xxvii. 28." If this explanation of the passage were correct, we should have to alter the notion of altogether. But this very passage furnishes a proof that it cannot be correct. The things which are devoted to the Cherem, are always represented simply as an appurtenance of the persons. There is not a single instance to be met with of the persons being spared, and the property alone put under the ban. Compare, for example, Deut. ii. 34; 1 Sam. xv. 3, and Ezra x. 8, "and that whosoever would not come within three days, all his substance should be banned, and he himself separated from the congregation of those that had been carried away." A voluntary devotion of the person or property to the Cherem cannot therefore be thought of, since the fundamental idea of the that of a forced dedication, in opposition to a voluntary one. God takes what belongs to himself, when men have refused to give it to him. Hence the Cherem and a disposition to give, mutually exclude each other. How are we to interpret the passage in Leviticus then? The explanation may be obtained from ver. 29, "everything banned, which is banned of men, shall be put to death." In the previous verse the possessions are alluded to; here the men. If by the men we are to understand those upon whom God had pronounced the ban, then by the cattle and the field we can only understand that which had formerly been in the possession of persons who were banned, which had afterwards been seized by the conquerors, and thus, regarded merely in a material point of view, had become their property. If this was once placed under the ban, it could on no account be redeemed again. In many instances a special command of God was issued, to decide whether the possessions were

[ocr errors]

is

to be banned along with the men (cf. 1 Sam. xv. 3; Josh. vi. 18); and he who under these circumstances took any part of the things that were banned, became Cherem himself in consequence (Josh. vii. 12). In other cases it was left to the covenant nation itself, to determine what it would lay under the ban, and what it would retain for its own use. In a certain sense the latter was also a Cherem (see Micah iv. 13).-The want of a clear perception of the nature of the Cherem is also apparent in the remark made by Michaelis, to the effect that Jephtha's vow was an abuse of the Cherem. How could a Cherem be sacrificed as a burnt-offering? A sacrifice and a Cherem stood in the same relation to one another as ἀνάθεμα and ἀνάθημα. (3). The prophet undoubtedly alludes to those passages of the Pentateuch, in which the banning of the Canaanites is spoken of. Even in the Pentateuch this is described as a visible prophecy of the future fate of Israel. Israel obtained possession of Canaan as the holy nation of the holy God; and had simply to choose between holiness and Cherem. If Israel became Canaan in heart, it would also become Canaan in its fate (Lev. xxvi.; Deut. xii. 29 sqq., and xxviii.)

THE

NEW TESTAMENT AND THE PROPHECIES OF MALACHI.

We intend in the present section to adduce facts to prove that the connexion between the Old and New Testaments is much closer than is commonly supposed; and that it is impossible to arrive at either an inward or outward acquaintance with the latter, without the closest and most careful study of the former. To the prophecy of Malachi we add that of Isaiah, which is inseparable from it.

MATTHEW III. 1-12.

Matthew simply quotes the words of Isaiah. But it can be proved that both the Evangelists and the Baptist himself re

« ForrigeFortsæt »