Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

very striking, show that up with must be understood as denoting an effort to attain to something. We have here the conclusion of the first part, in which the victory of Israel over the heathen world is predicted. The second part commences in ver. 10, with an announcement of the restoration of the children of the kingdom. Michaelis observes that "this prediction was evidently not fulfilled in the early part of the New Testament history, for not only had God at that time not destroyed the heathen, who came to destroy Jerusalem, but, on the contrary, by their instrumentality he destroyed Jerusalem itself, along with the Jewish state and Levitical worship." But this remark is founded upon the erroneous idea, that by Jerusalem in this passage we are to understand the literal city of Jerusalem; whereas, according to the previous chapter, this was already destroyed. The first fulfilment of this prophecy on a large scale was the destruction of Rome, as the heathen mistress of the world (see Rev. xvii. 18). The limitation "unless they repent,” is of course implied, and this is expressly stated in chap. xiv., where the Messiah's rule of justice and of peace is represented as embracing all the Gentiles to the ends of the earth; (compare chap. ix. 10).

Ver. 10. "And I pour out my spirit upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitant of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and of supplication, and they look upon me, whom they have pierced; and they mourn for him, as the mourning for an only one, and they lament for him, as the lamentation for a first-born.”

This verse is connected with Joel ii. 28. "And it shall come to pass afterwards, that I will pour out my spirit," and the connexion is sufficient in itself to show that we have a prophecy before us, which relates to the Messianic era in its fullest extent, from the time of the atoning death of the Messiah onwards. The fulfilment of the primary prophecy took place on the day of Pentecost; and the events of that day had also a prophetical character, and constituted, as it were, a practical renewal of the predictions of Joel. By the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem we are to understand the members of the ancient covenant-nation, those whom Peter addresses in Acts iii. 25 as "sons of the prophets and of the covenant." At first sight it appears strange, that in this pas

sage as well as in chap. xiii. 1 Judah should not be mentioned at all, but merely the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. But this may be explained from the custom, which was prevalent among the earlier writers, of designating the whole nation by the name of its central-point or capital, Jerusalem or Zion. In the first part we frequently find Jerusalem only mentioned by name, although the prophet evidently had the whole nation in his mind. Compare, for example, chap. iii. 2," the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee," and

חן

חן־

chap. viii. 8. In other passages, e.g. chap. i. 12, Jerusalem and the cities of Judah are employed to denote the whole. never means "to entreat," as Hofmann would render it. He appeals to Job xix. 17; but the proper rendering of this verse is "I mourn for the sons of my body," in other words, “I mourn for the loss of my children." Ewald's rendering, "a spirit of love and of the wish for love," is also merely an attempt to get rid of a difficulty. is never used for love to God, or even love to brethren, but love towards an inferior, that is grace. With reference to the genitive Hitzig observes, "a spirit of grace and of supplication, of the latter inasmuch as it produces it, of the former inasmuch as the impartation of it is an act of Divine grace;" but he also adds, "at the same time there appears to be something harsh and unparalleled in such a combination of two genitives with entirely opposite meanings. If the spirit of supplication is the spirit which produces supplication, the spirit of grace must also be the spirit, which is the efficient cause of grace, or brings grace in its train. Compare the precisely similar combination in Is. xi. 1, "the spirit of wisdom, of power," &c. From its connection with the supplication, again, the grace referred to here cannot be the grace of God objectively considered,' but grace regarded as an active principle working within. Wrath and mercy, which have their roots in God, produce a distinctive kind of life in the hearts of men. In Rom. iv. 15, "because the law worketh wrath," wrath is not exactly the consciousness of wrath, though it is evidently regarded as manifested in the heart of the sinner. With reference to the grace, there is a perfect parallel in Heb. x. 29, "and hath done

1 Maurer, "animus qui gratiam divinam conciliet."

[ocr errors]

אֶל

despite unto the spirit of grace," in which there is an allusion to the passage before us. The "spirit of grace" is the spirit, which produces a state of grace (compare also 2 Tim. ii. 1, “be strong in the grace, which is in Christ Jesus;" Acts iv. 33; Rom. xii. 6). The spirit of grace, then, is the spirit, which brings grace near to the heart, and sets his seal upon it. In chap. xi. 10 the staff "loveliness" is broken, as a sign that the Jews have no longer a gracious God, on account of their contempt of the good shepherd. Here, on the other hand, grace is once more communicated by the spirit, and put within their hearts. There is something very striking in the combination of " grace" and the " supplication" (Gnade and Gnadeflehen). Even in the selection of two expressions derived from the same root, the writer shows that this supplication springs from a state of grace. "For thus will the Jews be entirely cured of their notion of their own merit, and the custom of making prayers (precularum;" Burckhardt). with is not infrequently used, where either mental or physical perception is referred to, coupled with the idea of confidence in the object beheld; like fewpeiv, for example, in John vi. 40. We find this in Num. xxi. 9, in connexion with the brazen serpent, by looking upon which Israel was healed.1 Here it is tacitly contrasted with the contempt and abhorrence, with which Israel had previously turned its eyes away from the Messiah (compare Is. lii. 14). The expression "upon me" is very remarkable. According to ver. 1 the speaker is the Lord, the Creator of heaven and the earth. But it is evident from what follows, that we are not to confine our thoughts exclusively to an invisible God, who is beyond the reach of suffering, for the same Jehovah presently represents himself as pierced by the Israelites, and afterwards lamented by them with bitter remorse. enigma is solved by the Old Testament doctrine of the angel and revealer of the Most High God, to whom the prophet attributes even the most exalted names of God, on account of his participation in the divine nature, who is described in chap. xi. as undertaking the office of shepherd over his people, and who had been recompensed by them with base ingratitude. The suffix

The

1 There is apparently an allusion to this passage here, in anticipation of John iii. 14, 15.

[ocr errors]

in is regarded by many commentators, who adhere to the Messianic interpretation, as used, not in a personal, but in a neuter sense. Thus Gousset, Schultens (animadvv. phil. in loc.), and Dathe render it, "they mourn on account of it," namely, on account of the crime committed in piercing him. But the reasons assigned are not sufficient. They adduce first of all the change in the persons, and . But the change from the first person to the third is of such frequent occurrence, especially in the prophets, that there is no necessity to bring forward specific examples (see Gesenius Lehrg. p. 742). There was also a peculiar inducement to make the change in the present instance, inasmuch as the previous words, "him, whom they have pierced," formed a natural transition to the third person. And this transition, again, was the more appropriate, since it was important to give some intimation of the fact, that the same Being, whom the supreme God had identified with himself on account of his unity of nature, was yet personally distinct. (Compare chap. xiii. 7, "the man, that is my fellow"). This reason for the change has latterly been adopted by E. Meier (Studien und Kritiken 42 p. 1039).-The authors mentioned enquire further, "why should the believing Jews mourn for him, the slain Messiah, when, as has been stated, they regard him with confidence and hope, as still alive? We reply: they mourn for the murdered one, not as though he were still in the power of death, but with the heartfelt consciousness that he was slain through their sins. But the proofs, which are decisive against this rendering, are the following. When follows the verb TED, though it may denote the cause generally, it is universally connected with the person for whom lamentation is made. (Compare, for example, Jer. xxxiv. 5; 2 Sam. xi. 26; and 1 Kings xiii. 30). Again, in the verses which follow, persons alone are referred to as the object of lamentation: e.g., "for the only one," "for the first-born," "for king Josiah." Lastly, vers. 12-14 evidently depict the deep sorrow of the whole nation and of every individual for one who is dead.-, lit. making bitter, points back to the preceding verb "they mourn,” as the use of the Infinitive sufficiently shows. Hence we must not supply "they shall weep," as most commentators have done on

the strength of Is. xxii. 4. There is all the less reason for doing this, since the appropriateness of the allusion to is confirmed

is used מרר and the Hiphil of מִסְפַד תַּמְרוּרִים .26 .by Jer. vi

exclusively in the sense of making bitter, never of grieving. Mourning for an only son is also used in other passages as a sign of the deepest sorrow; compare Amos viii. 10, "And I will make it as the mourning for an only son," and Jer. vi. 26.-Of lamentation for the first-born, the type is to be found in Egypt; see Exodus xi. 6, "And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more."-The fulfilment of the prophecy in the verse before us commenced immediately after the crucifixion of Christ; see Luke xxiii. 48, "And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things that were done, smote their breasts." (This is the primary signification of, which was originally used to denote a peculiar manner of giving expression to grief; see Is. xxxii. 12, super ubera plangunt, Winer, s. v.) The crowds, who but a short time before had cried out "crucify him," now smite their breasts, overpowered by the proofs of the superhuman dignity of Jesus, and mourn for the deceased, and for their own sin. This was the commencement of a powerful movement, which brought large bodies of penitent Jews to the Christian Church. The first Christian Pentecost formed its central point. The point of Peter's address is contained in the words, "therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ;" and the result is thus described in ver. 37," when they heard they were pricked in their heart." The theme of Peter's discourse is described as being this, "ye have killed the Prince of life" (chap. iii. 15); and the following is the result, "many of them which heard the word believed, and the number of the men was about five thousand." The extent of the movement is also apparent from chap. v. 14, "and believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women." There is the less reason to exclude these commencements of the fulfilment, since not only Luke xxiii. 48 but also Heb. x. 29 points distinctly to this passage, and pre-supposes that the promise contained in

« ForrigeFortsæt »