The

Kimchi, Jarchi, and Menasse Ben Israel (Hulsius theol. Jud. p. 513), interpreted "the pierced one," as meaning every one who had been slain in the war with Gog and Magog: "they will all lament for the death of one, as if the whole the whole army had been slain." Some of them adopt the false reading, and others give to the inadmissible rendering "because." Kimchi, for example, explains it as equivalent to last reason adduced, for rejecting the previous interpretation, tells with considerable force against this one also. The supporters of it are unable to defend their assumption, that there is a change of subject in of which there is not the slightest indication in the text, and which is therefore unnatural, or to account for the absence of the suffix. This interpretation is to be especially accounted for, from the fear of conceding too much to the Christians, by referring the passage to the Messiah Ben Joseph; a fear, for which there was all the more foundation, since it could not but be clearly perceived, that it was useless to attempt to prove the reality of the fictitious Messiah Ben Joseph, and that, if the attempt was made and failed, so long as the passage was admitted to be generally Messianic, it would be impossible to evade the conclusion that it must refer to the Messiah Ben David. The extent, to which this fear prevailed, is evident from the fact that, in a Polish edition of Jarchi, the passage in which he speaks of the explanation, which refers the passage to the Messiah Ben Joseph, as handed down by tradition and confirmed by the Talmud, has been omitted; compare Steph. le Moyne on Jeremiah xxiii. 6.

2. AMONG THE CHRISTIANS.

In the Christian Church, as we should naturally expect, the reference to Christ has been generally maintained from time immemorial. It is superfluous therefore to mention the names of those who have supported it. Even J. D. Michaelis declares himself in its favour, although he adopts the ungrammatical rendering, "they will look upon me, and upon him, whom they have pierced." We shall notice only the exceptions, namely,

those who reject the Messianic interpretation. But we shall be very brief, as the refutation will be found in what has already been written.

(1). Calvin (in his commentary on the passage and on John xix. 37), followed to a certain extent in the footsteps of the translators of the Septuagint and Chaldee versions, though without in any way depending upon them. "Piercing," he says, "is used here for continued irritation, and is as much as to say, that the Jews with their obstinacy were equipped, as it were, for war, that they might fight against God and pierce him with their malice, or with the weapons of their rebellion. The

meaning is this: when the Jews have provoked God in many ways with perfect impunity, they will at length become penitent, for they will begin to be alarmed by the judgment of God, although before this not one of them had thought of giving an account of his life." At the same time we must not overlook the essential difference between Calvin and both the Jewish and rationalistic expositors, who have adopted the same explanation. According to Calvin the prophecy is to be understood in the first place figuratively, and referred to God; but under the superintending providence of God it came to pass, that it was literally fulfilled in Christ, who is associated with God by unity of nature, that is to say, the history of Christ formed a visibile symbolum of the substance of the prophecy. That he regarded the prophecy as connected with the fulfilment in Christ in a much more intimate manner, than in the so-called "mystical sense" of Grotius, which, as Reuss has shown (opusc. 1. p. 74 sqq.), is something purely imaginary, is obvious from all the rest of the exposition, in which he seems to lose sight of the figurative meaning altogether. By the earliest expositors this view of Calvin's was universally opposed. Lampe complains very bitterly, that Calvin's private opinions should be charged upon the Reformed Church, and that a reproach should thus be cast upon it. With the exception of an unknown writer mentioned in Martini (de tribus Elohim c. 112), and Smalcius the Socinian, it did not receive support from any one but Grotius. From him it has been copied by several of the modern commentators, including Rosenmüller, Eichhorn, Theiner, and Maurer. (2). The reference to a Messiah Ben Joseph has so far found

supporters among modern expositors, that many of them regard the prophecy as relating to the death of a distinguished Jewish general or martyr. Jahn (Einl. ii. 2, p. 671) supposes that Judas Maccabaeus is intended, and renders the clause thus, "they will look upon him (Jehovah), on account of him, whom they have pierced." Bauer (schol. p. 310) conjectures that allusion is made to some Jewish commander, who lost his life in the Maccabean war, though it is impossible to determine which. Bleek speaks of "one particular human martyr, who had been put to death a short time before, in the service of the true God. In order to get rid of the reference to Jehovah, and therefore to the Messiah, to which he objects on the ground that the prophet could not have expected any of his immediate readers and hearers to understand him in this sense,-overlooking the fact that the prophecy had been preceded by chap. xi. as well as Is. liii.),—he takes upon himself to read, the poetic form of, and renders the clause "they look to him whom they have pierced. But this is a desperate remedy. only occurs four times in the whole of the Old Testament, viz., in the book of Job, in the highest style of poetry, and that immediately before

אי

את

Moreover, is the construct state of a noun, and therefore cannot possibly be connected with the accusative N The result arrived at by Bleek-" it is uncertain to whom the prophet refers"-is surely purchased too dearly at such a price as this. Again, on Bleek's hypothesis, it is impossible to explain the announcement in vers. 10-14 respecting the national mourning, or the statement made in chap. xiii. 1, as to the fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness, in consequence of their looking upon him who had been pierced, or again the reference in vers. 2-6 to the sanctification resulting from the same look, not to mention the evident allusion to the healing effected by looking at the brazen serpent.-Ewald's explanation is open to precisely the same objections. For one martyr, he substitutes a plurality of such as had fallen in the war with the heathen. His rendering is," they look to him, whom men have pierced," which he explains thus," the intention is to show that no martyr falls in vain, but that he will one day be mourned for with universal love." To render this explanation possible, "a spirit of love and

the wish for love" is substituted for "the spirit of grace and supplication;" but we have a sufficient proof that this is incorrect, in the passage in Joel upon which this is based, and from which we learn, that reference is made to something entirely different, namely to religious regeneration. Again, Ewald is obliged to sacrifice the accredited reading and adopt in its stead. The third sacrifice that has to be made, is the assumption of a change of subject in 77, which is not only objectionable in itself, but is also disproved by the fact, that it severs the connection with chap. xi., that it renders what follows incomprehensible, since the opening of a fountain for sin and uncleanness (chap. xiii. 1), and also the repentance (vers. 2—6), show that those who look are the same as those who had formerly pierced (otherwise the repentance would be altogether visionary), and lastly by the fact, that there is no reference whatever to persons who had fallen in conflict with the heathen. But if we read, it would be presupposed that the pierced one had already been more particularly described. We could not in this case adopt the rendering, "they will look to one whom they have pierced," but "to him" (definitely), especially as the relative is preceded by N. Ewald introduces the plurality on his own authority entirely; for both here and in the parallel passages (chap. xi. and xiii. 7) there is never more than one individual referred to, as the object of persecution. Hofmann (Schriftbeweis ii. 2, p. 562) has at length gone back again to one individual. He now renders the passage "my heroes look at him whom they (the heathen) have pierced." They mourn for a loss which they have suffered, not for a crime which they have committed." The only peculiarity to be noticed here is the rendering of "my heroes," to which two objections may be offered, first, that never means hero (compare the remarks on Is. ix. 5), and secondly, that is usually construed with But this false interpretation of was compulsory; for if Jehovah was pierced, the author of the deed must have been Judah, whom we have already seen in chap. xi. in fierce conflict with the angel of the Lord. In the same manner was Hofmann also obliged to resort to a false rendering of. If the spirit of grace must be poured out upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, before the looking takes place, they must also have been the

אל

sole authors of the piercing. With the spirit of supplication, again, Hofmann really does not know what to do. It is difficult to see for what they pray, if not for forgiveness of the sin indicated by the word. In answer to the supplications, they receive (in chap. xiii. 1) "a fountain opened for sin and uncleanness."

(3). The merit of having discovered a new exposition belongs to Vogel and Hitzig alone, of all the expositors, who are at the same time neither Jewish nor Messianic. The former maintains, that the prophet is not speaking of the Messiah, but of himself (on Capelli crit. sacr. i. p. 140). According to Hitzig the passage can be "simply" explained, on the ground that Jehovah is identified with the prophets, the sender with the sent. "The murder of a prophet is regarded as an attack upon the person of Jehovah himself." But Hitzig does not fail to perceive the difficulties connected with his explanation. "This is the only passage," he says, "in the Old Testament in which a murderous attack upon Jehovah is simply deduced from a true idea; but it may appear strange, that such a deduction could be made." Jehovah slain and a lamentation for the dead on his account! Such a representation is something more than strange, if it merely means that the prophets have been killed. One who wishes to introduce such startling ideas as these, ought certainly to explain more clearly what he means. Besides in chap. xi., to which, as even Hitzig admits, there must necessarily be an allusion intended here, there is nothing about the conflicts and sufferings of the prophet, but the Angel of the Lord, who is associated with God by unity of essence, appears as the good shepherd, enters upon a conflict for life or death with the evil shepherds (ver. 8), and receives from them a disgraceful recompense (ver. 12). Lamentation is made here for the guilt contracted by the inhabitants of Jerusalem, through the events described in chap. xi.-Lastly, the comparison with Josiah in chap. xiii. 7, of whom Hitzig, it is true, manages to dispose, contains a still more decisive proof that it is a king who has been slain.

How has everything been done here to get rid of the truth, and how ineffectual have all these efforts proved! The truth forces its way through all such errors, and is never without a witness.