Notes To Chapter XII.
Verse 2. :וגם על יהודה יהיה במצור על ירושלם
When they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.
Such is the translation in our version, a sense which can in no way be extorted from the words of the text, as every Hebraist must be well aware. The Jew, by inserting the relative who, as understood after the word Judah, renders the passage thus,
And also upon Judah, who shall be in the siege against Jerusalem.
This is certainly no violation of the text, as the relative pronoun is often understood in Hebrew. But still I hold it to be a rule not to insert a relative unless the sense requires it, and I see no such necessity here, as either of the preceding nominatives, namely, the burden of the prophecy, or the cup of trembling, may govern the verb shall be, and thus we have, as I have rendered it, and also upon Judah it shall be, in the [pg 148] siege against Jerusalem; by which I understand the burden shall be upon Judah also.
Verse 3. :אשים אח ירושלם אבן מעמסה לכל העמים
I will make Jerusalem a burden stone for all people.
Here the Jew may probably ask, How can Jerusalem, in the spiritual sense, as signifying true religion, become a burden stone, or a cup of confusion to the heathen? I answer, in every way. In the first place, by frustrating, as it did, all their efforts to suppress and extinguish it;—in the next place, by its opposing and outraging all their worldly feelings, condemning their pride, and teaching humility, requiring them to receive their religion from one whom they despised as the most degraded of human beings, a crucified malefactor;—and, lastly, by stultifying all their previous notions, enjoining the restraint and control of the passions, instead of which their religion sanctified their indulgence as an act of devotion. Thus was Christianity, in every way, a cup of confusion, and a stumbling-stone to the heathen nations.
But against the spiritual exposition of the Old and New Jerusalem, as symbolizing the Old and New Covenant, the Jew may, perhaps, further object, that he was never taught to look for a New Covenant, and that he finds no intimation of it in the Prophets. This being a question of fact, rather than of reasoning, we must look to the Scriptures for the answer.
Without enumerating the many intimations of the sacrifices and ceremonies of the Old Covenant, not being intrinsically acceptable to God, but of less estimation than the [pg 149] attributes of moral excellence, we find the following direct declarations of a New Covenant to be established at the Messiah's coming, who is symbolically styled, My servant David. Thus in Isa. lv. 3, we find, Incline thine ear and come unto me; hear and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. Ezekiel also says, chap. xxxiv. 24, And I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them; I the Lord have spoken it; and I will make with them a covenant of peace, &c. And again in chap. xxxvii. 26, he says, Moreover, I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will place them and multiply them, and I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. But Jeremiah still more expressly declares the superseding of the Old, and the substitution of the New Covenant; while he describes the latter in terms equivalent to those used by Christ himself, “The kingdom of God is within you.” Thus Jer. xxxi. 31, Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a New Covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. Not according to the Covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which my Covenant they brake, although I was an husband to them, saith the Lord. But this shall be the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Here we have clear intimation of a new law superseding [pg 150] the old, the spiritual nature of the new being contrasted with the ceremonial of the old, by its being written in the heart; while the stress laid by all upon its everlasting duration, implies that the one preceding it was only meant to be temporary.
Verse 5. :ואמרו אלפי יהודה בלבם אמצה לי ישבי ירושלם ביהוה צבאות אלהיהם
And the Governors of Judah shall say in their hearts, the inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength in the Lord of hosts their God.
“This text,” says Dr. Blayney, “has been supposed corrupt, and many attempts made to amend it. But without any alteration, it well expresses the sentiments of the men of Judah, concerning the interest they had in the safety of Jerusalem and its inhabitants, on which their own safety and security depended in a great degree,” &c. I fully agree with Dr. Blayney in the literal meaning of the words, which involves no difficulty; but in looking beyond the literal, to the symbolical and spiritual sense, considerable difficulty appears. A different solution from that I have offered at first occurred to me, which is this, that as Judah means the earliest converts to Christianity, these being evidently contrasted with the inhabitants of Jerusalem, who were subsequently saved, the latter might mean the yet unconverted Jews. Upon this view, the anxiety of Christians for the conversion of the Jews, would appear to be the subject intimated in the verse before us; and as this idea may occur to others as it did to myself, I think it [pg 151] right to state my reasons for relinquishing it. One objection to this view is, that in verse 10, the unconverted Jews, if they be the inhabitants of Jerusalem, would here mourn the crucified Saviour, which would be a complete solecism. Another objection is, that the abolition of idolatry in the next chapter, instead of being represented as opening the way for the admission of the Pagans to Christianity, which it certainly did, would then be represented as opening the way to the conversion of the Jews, which it certainly did not, but rather had a contrary effect, as history declares. And, lastly, upon this view, the corruption of Christianity, leading to the loss of the spiritual Jerusalem, mentioned at the beginning of chap. xiv., instead of being ascribed to the Gentile church, would thus appear to be the work of the Jews, either of those more recently converted to Christianity, or of those still unconverted, both of which would be alike unreasonable. Such are the reasons which led me to reject that view, and adopt the one proposed in the text. With respect to the house of David, as signifying the Jewish converts who embraced Christianity subsequent to the Apostolic age, those objections do not apply.
Verse 10. :והביטו אלי את אשר דקרו
And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced.
Blayney considers the אלי (or ילא), as simply a preposition, not a compound of אל with the affix pronoun י, the antecedent to אשר (or רשא), being understood, and renders the passage thus, They shall look towards him whom they pierced.
The Jew argues from the change of person, that our version [pg 152] cannot be right, and he renders it, They shall look to me concerning him whom they pierced.
In whatever way the passage be rendered, no doubt can remain in the mind of the Christian that Christ, who was pierced, is the person here alluded to; and this is the only point material to the present exposition. That the Jew should admit this, is not to be expected.