than the withdrawal of rain. by way of example, had also participation, at some future period, in the blessings and privileges of the people of God (see vol. ii. p. 143). But this is also directly associated with accountability for the abuse of these blessings.

Egypt, which is mentioned here been assured by Isaiah of a full

Ver. 19. "This will be the sin of Egypt, and the sin of all the nations, which shall not go up to keep the feast of tabernacles."

This; namely, that no rain falls upon them. The sin cannot directly signify the punishment of sin; but is looked at here in the light of its consequences, which, according to the scriptural view, are to be regarded as an appendage of the sin; compare Lam. iv. 6; Gen. iv. 13; and 1 Sam. xxviii. 10. The inseparable character of the connexion between sin and punishment is apparent from Num. xxxii. 23, "your sin, which findeth you.”

Ver. 20. "In this day there will stand upon the bells of the horses 'holy to the Lord,' and the pots in the house of the Lord will be as the sacrificial bowls before the altar."

Commentators are all agreed as to the rendering to be given to the first clause, except that many of them give a different rendering to byp some rendering it bridles, as the Septuagint and Vulgate have done, and others, like Luther, trappings or armour. It is also generally acknowledged that the prophet alludes to the sacred plate on the diadem of the High Priest, upon which was engraved, like the engraving of a signet, "holy to the Lord" (Ex. xxviii. 36). There are many things, which are represented in the Old Testament as holy to the Lord, but this was the only case in which such an inscription was borne, and the only one therefore in which the analogy was perfect; since it is not merely stated here, that the bells of the horses will be holy to the Lord, but that on the bells of the horses, that is engraven upon them, there will be "holy to the Lord." But, notwithstanding this agreement, there are no small

1 The passages, which prove that it was a custom in ancient times, particularly in the East, to suspend bells upon the horses and mules, sometimes for use, viz., for the same purposes to which they are still applied among ourselves, and sometimes for ornament, have been most diligently collected by Dougtacus (in the analecta sacra p. 297 ed. 2). Thus, for example, Dio

differences in the explanations which have been given. The Jewish commentators have gone farthest away from the truth (e.g., the Jew whom Jerome questioned, Jarchi, Kimchi, and Abenezra). They were kept from the correct interpretation by the fact that it would involve the abrogation of the entire ceremonial law, and understood the words as denoting the consecration of the bells to purposes of religious worship, and their employment in the manufacture of sacred vessels. The untenable character of this interpretation is sufficiently evident from the fact, that Grotius, whose superficial tendencies lead him to adopt it in the main, insensibly substitutes for the bells the whole trappings of the horse, from a feeling, no doubt, that the bells of the horses were too contemptible a gift for the Lord. But it will be still more obvious, if we compare the second clause with ver. 21, where there is no reference, such as we should expect according to this explanation, to gifts consecrated to the Lord, but to the cessation of the distinction between sacred and profane. And lastly, by this exposition, the reference to the plate on the forehead of the High Priest, which is evidently a deeply significant one, is changed into quite a common allusion. -There is greater plausibility in the explanation given by Marck, particularly with the embellishments added by Pels.1 Having adduced several examples of the custom prevalent among idolatrous nations of marking persons and things with the image or name of an idol (3 Macc. ii. 21; Acts xxviii. 11), he proves from passages quoted from ancient authors, that among the Persians the horses were sacred to the sun; and conjectures, chiefly on the strength of the assertion made by Curtius iii. 3 to the effect that there were figures of gods on the chariot of Jupiter (Ormuzd), that it was a customary thing with the Persians to write the name of their deity on the bells of their horses, and in this way to indicate that they were sacred to the god. He then proceeds to show that, in the time of the prophet,

dorus says, in his description of Alexander's funeral procession (Bk. 18. ed. Wessel. p. 279): “ ὥστε τοὺς ἅπαντας ἡμιόνους εἶναι ἑξήκοντα καὶ τέσσαρας· ἕκαστος δὲ τούτων ἐστεφάνωτο, κεχρυσωμένῳ στεφάνῳ καὶ παρ ἑκατέραν τῶν σιαγόνων εἶχεν ἐξηρτημένον κώδωνα χρυσοῦν. And Nicetas Choniates says of the Persians," they rode upon beautiful horses, which, in addition to other ornaments, καὶ περιηρτημένους ἔχουσι ἠχετικοὺς κώδωνας.”

1 Dissertatio ad Zach. xiv. 20, 21, praes. J. H. Hottinger, Marb. 1711.

the cavalry was the strength and pride of the Persians. In his opinion the meaning is, that the glorious day would hereafter arrive, when the idolatrous nations and everything belonging to them, which had hitherto been dedicated to their idols, would be consecrated to the Lord. But the second clause and ver. 21 show, that the reference is not to something to be done for the Lord, but to something to be effected by Him. And this is confirmed by the allusion to the golden plate on the forehead of the High Priest, which was not a merely human invention, a sign that the priest had consecrated himself to God; but, on the contrary, was the symbol of the holiness imparted by God to the High Priest as the representative of his people. This may be clearly seen from Ex. xxviii. 38, (" And it shall be upon Aaron's forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow, and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord"), where it is represented as containing in itself the objective holiness, imparted by God, by which every imperfection in the subjective holiness was removed, and in consequence of which the people were all regarded and treated by the Lord as holy, so' long as this relation lasted, notwithstanding the imperfections by which their holy services were all defiled. The meaning therefore is this: in that day the Lord will adorn the horses with the symbol of holiness, which has hitherto been borne by the High Priest alone. We have thus an important truth in a priestly garb (see also chap. ix. 15, where the priestly character of the prophet peeps out again). The distinction between sacred and profane originated with the fall. To abolish this distinction, and re-establish the sole supremacy of holiness, was one of the ultimate designs of the divine economy of salvation; whilst on the other hand, the prince of this world endeavoured to exterminate altogether the other of the two, namely, everything holy. In order to secure his purpose more perfectly at last, the Lord allowed the two to exist for a long period side by side, that the points of contrast might be more and more conspicuous. set apart for Himself a holy nation, in comparison with which all other nations were profane; and to this nation he gave a law, in which the distinction between sacred and profane was universally maintained in things small as well as great. He

He

was satisfied for a time, that only a certain outwardly defined territory should be kept sacred as his own; since, otherwise, if the two opposing principles were mixed up together, the evil would completely swallow up the good. With the first coming of Christ, the ultimate purpose of God drew nearer to its realisation. The outward distinction between sacred and profane fell into the background; because a much stronger support and aid were communicated to the former by the spirit of Christ. Nevertheless, the two antagonistic elements still continue, and even in the believer the good does not attain to complete and sole supremacy in this present life. The day will come, however, when the Lord will be all in all, and when every distinction between the holy and the unholy, every corrupt admixture of the two, and all differences of degree in the holy itself, will come to an end (see vol. ii. p. 447 sqq.). Just as the first clause announces the change of everything profane into a holy thing; so does the second clause announce the abolition of the different degrees of holiness. Under the Old Testament the bowls before the altar,-that is, the basons into which the blood of the animals slain in sacrifice was received, and from which it was sprinkled upon the altar and poured out at the foot of the altar,-were reckoned among the holiest of the vessels; for of all the vessels in use, these were the most directly appropriated to the holiest service of God. On the other hand the pots, namely, those in which the meat of the sacrifices was boiled, were reckoned among the lowest in point of holiness, We can have no doubt that it is to them that the prophet alludes (see ver. 21), and they were subservient to human purposes. Even in this instance the Jewish commentators were compelled by their notion of the perpetual duration of the ceremonial law, (for a refutation of which either this passage or Mal. i. 11 is amply sufficient), to resort to a forced interpretation, in order to get rid of the correct, but unpalatable meaning. The same thought, the cessation of all difference in the degrees of holiness, is expressed by Ezekiel in chap. xliii. 12, though he employs a different figure. The whole mountain, he says, upon which the new temple stands, is to be most holy.

Ver. 21. " And every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to Jehovah of Saboath; and all they that sacrifice come and

take of them and boil therein; and in that day there will be no Canaanite more in the house of the Lord of Sabaoth.”

1

Just as the pots in the temple will be quite as holy as the sacrificial bowls, so will all the pots in Jerusalem and Judah, which have hitherto been simply clean, not holy, be just as holy as the pots in the temple. In the closing words, which express the same idea as the preceding verse, that in the new economy the profane will become holy, many understand to mean dealer. But by far the majority follow the Septuagint and render it Canaanite; and in the main this rendering is greatly to be preferred. When the prophet says, that at that time there will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the Lord, it necessarily follows, that in his day there were Canaanites in the house of the Lord. But this shows that we are not to understand the word as literally denoting a Canaanite by birth, for even the Gibeonites, to whom many commentators, including Hofmann, suppose that the words refer, were not to be found in the temple itself, from which all foreigners were most scrupulously excluded. Moreover, it can hardly be imagined that the Gibeonites, who had been received for centuries without any exception into the nation of God, should be simply represented as Canaanites; and it is still more inconceivable that they should be regarded as unclean. On the contrary, we have an example here of an idiom, which is by no means infrequently met with, in which the ungodly members of the congregation itself are either described as heathen or uncircumcised, or else directly called Canaanites or by the name of some other heathen nation, for the purpose of ridiculing their arrogant pretensions in consequence of their outward connexion with the congregation. Circumcision had the force of a covenant-seal, only when accompanied by the spiritual condition, of which it was a visible sign; where this was not the case circumcision was reckoned uncircumcision. Just as the Pentateuch speaks of a circumcision of the heart, which was rendered obligatory by the outward circumcision of the Israelites (Deut.

ולא יהי עביד תגבא עוד בבית,Jonathan, for example, says 1 מקדשא

"and there will no longer be any one carrying on a trade in the house of the sanctuary; and Aquila (who is said by Jerome to adopt the rendering mercator, eμñорos), Abenezra, Kimchi, Abarbanel, and Grotius, express a similar view.