Ver. 1. "I saw the Lord standing over the altar; and He said, Smite the chapiter, and make the thresholds tremble, and break them upon the heads of all; and I will kill their remnant by the sword: he that fleeth away of them shall not flee away, and he that escapeth of them shall not be delivered."

The principal question which here arises is:—Who is here addressed,—to whom is the commission of destruction given by the Lord? As, in accordance with the dramatic character of the prophetical discourse, the person is not more definitely marked out, we can think of Him only who, throughout, executes God's judgments upon the enemies of His kingdom. But He is the same to whom the preservation and protection of the true members of His kingdom are committed, viz., the Angel of the Lord. It was He, who, as המשחית, the destroying Angel, smote the first-born of Egypt, Exod. xii. 2, 3, compared with 12, 13. It was from Him that the destruction of the Assyrians proceeded, 2 Kings xix. 34, 35; Is. xxxvii. 35, 36. After the numbering of Israel, when the anger of the Lord was kindled against them, it was He who inflicted the punishment, 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, 15, 16. As He encampeth round about them who fear the Lord, so He is, in regard to the ungodly, like the wind which carries away the chaff, Ps. xxxiv. 8, xxxv. 5, 6.—In opposition to the objection raised by Baur,—That, with the exception of the passage in Is. vi., nowhere, in the books composed before the Chaldee period, do angels appear to act as mediators in the execution of the divine commands,"—it is sufficient to refer to Joel iv. (iii.) 9-11, and, as regards the Angel of the Lord, to Hosea xii. 5 (4). But we have, in addition, a special reason for thinking here of the Angel of the Lord. This is afforded to us by the ninth chapter of Ezekiel, which must be considered, throughout, as a further expansion of the verse under consideration, and as the oldest and most trustworthy commentary upon it. In that chapter, there appear (at the command of the Lord who is about to avenge the apostasy of His people) the servants of His justice—six in number—and in the midst of them, "a man clothed with linen;"—the former, with instruments of destruction; the latter, with writing materials. They step (the scene is in the temple) by the side of the brazen altar. Thither there comes to them out of the holy of holies, to the threshold of the temple, the glory of the Lord, and gives to Him who is clothed with linen the commission to preserve the faithful, while the others receive a commission to destroy the ungodly, without mercy. But now, Who is the man clothed in linen? None other than the Angel of the Lord. This appears from Daniel x. 5, xii. 6, 7, where Michael = the Angel of the Lord (compare Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel, p. 135 ff.) is designated in the same way,—a remarkable coincidence in these two contemporary prophets, to which we omitted to direct attention in our work on Daniel. It is further evident from the subject itself. The dress is that of the earthly high priest (Theodoret remarks: "The dress of the seventh is that of the high priest, for he was not one of the destroyers, but the redeemer of those who were worthy of salvation"); compare Lev. xvi. 4, 23. It is especially from the former of these passages that the plural בדים is to be accounted for. According to it, the various parts of the high priest's dress are of linen. But the heavenly Mediator, High Priest, and Intercessor, is the Angel of the Lord; compare, e.g., Zech. i. 12, where He makes intercession for the Covenant-people, and the Lord answers Him with good and comfortable words. Concerning the earthly high priest as a type of Christ, and hence a type of the Angel of the Lord, compare the remarks on Zech. iii. But we must not imagine that He who is clothed with linen is commissioned solely for the work of delivering the godly, and hence stands contrasted with the six ministers of justice. On the contrary, these are rather to be considered as being subordinate to Him, as carrying out the work of destruction only by His command and authority. From Him, punishment no less than salvation proceeds. This is sufficiently evident for general reasons. The punishment and deliverance have both the same root, the same aim, viz., the advancement of the kingdom of God. We cannot by any means think of evil angels in the case of the six; such could be assumed only in opposition to the whole doctrine of Scripture on the point, which is always consistent in ascribing the punishment of the wicked to the good angels, and the temptation of the godly, with the permission of God, to the evil angels. In proof of this, we have only to think of Job's trial, of Christ's temptation, and of the angel of Satan by whom Paul was buffeted. This subject has already been very well treated by Ode, who, in his work De Angelis, p. 741 ff., says: "God sends good angels to punish wicked men, and He employs evil angels to chasten the godly."[1] But if this be established, it is then established at the same time, that the judgment here belongs to the Angel of the Lord. For to Him, as the Prince of the heavenly host, all inferior angels are subordinate, so that everything which they do belongs to Him.—To these general reasons, we may, however, add special reasons which are altogether decisive. That He who is clothed with linen is closely connected with the six, is indicated by the number seven. He also appears at the side of the altar, and comes in the midst of the others, who follow after Him, ver. 2. But of conclusive significance are the words in chap. x. 2 and 7: "And the Lord spake unto the man clothed with linen, and said, Go in between the wheels under the cherubim, and fill Thine hand with coals of fire from between the cherubim, and scatter them over the city. And He went in, in my sight. And a cherub stretched forth his hand from between the cherubim, unto the fire that was between the cherubim, and took, and put it into the hands of Him who was clothed with linen. And He took it and went out." The fire here is not the symbolical designation of wrath, but natural fire; for it is the setting on fire and burning of the city which is here to be prefigured. The wheels denote the natural powers,—in the first instance, the wind, chap. x. 13, but the fire also; while the cherubim denote the living creation. The Angel of the Lord is here expressly designated as He who executeth the judgments of divine justice.

The importance of the preceding investigation extends beyond the mere clearing up of the passage under consideration. We have here obtained the Old Testament foundation for the New Testament doctrine, that all judgment has been committed to the Son, while the harmony of the two Testaments is exhibited in a remarkable instance. Compare with the already cited Old Testament declarations, such passages as Matt. xiii. 41: Ἀποστελεῖ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὑτοῦ, καὶ συλλέξουσιν ἐκ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ πάντα τὰ σκάνδαλα, καὶ τοὺς ποιοῦντας τὴν ἀνομίαν· and xxv. 31: Ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐν τῇ δόξῃ αὑτοῦ, καὶ πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοί μετ' αὐτοῦ, τότε καθίσει ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης αὑτοῦ. In order to be convinced of the identity of the Angel of the Lord and Christ (compare above, p. 107 sqq. and Commentary on Rev. i. p. 466), we may further direct attention to the fact that the Angel of the Lord, who meets us throughout the whole of the Old Testament, suddenly disappears in the New Testament, and that to Christ all is ascribed which was in the Old Testament attributed to the Angel of the Lord.

A second important question is:—What is to be understood by the altar, המזבח? Several interpreters adopt the opinion of Cyril, and think of the altar at Bethel, or some other idolatrous altar in the kingdom of Israel. Others (e.g., Marckius) are of opinion that the article stands here without meaning, and that it is the intention of the prophet only to represent God as appearing on some altar, leaving it undetermined on which, in order thereby to indicate that He required the blood of many men. But against such expositions the article is conclusive. The altar can be that altar only, of which every one would think, if an altar κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, and without a more definite designation, were spoken of. Such was the brazen altar, or altar of burnt-offering in the outer court of the temple at Jerusalem. That it was this altar, and not the altar of incense before the holy of holies, which received, in the common language of the people, the name of the altar, is easily explained from the circumstance that it stood in a much closer relation to the people than did the other which was withdrawn from their view. On this altar all the sacrifices were offered, and it must, throughout, be understood, when the altar of the Lord is spoken of; compare remarks on Rev. vi. 9. But that which removes all doubt is the comparison with the parallel passage in Ezekiel. There, the scene is the temple at Jerusalem. The ministers of justice step beside the brazen altar. At the threshold of the temple-building proper, the glory of the Lord moves toward them. This parallel passage, moreover, does not leave any doubt as to the reason why the Lord appears here beside the altar. Jerome remarks on this: "They are introduced standing beside the altar, ready for the order of their commander; so that they know every one whose sins are not forgiven, and who is liable, therefore, to the sentence of the Lord, and to destruction." The Lord's appearing beside the altar is a visible representation of the truth, that wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. The altar is the place of transgression; it is there that there lies accumulated the unexpiated guilt of the whole nation, instead of the rich treasure of love and faith, which alone should be there, embodied in the sacrifice. The Lord appears at the place of transgression, in order that He may be glorified in the destruction of those who would not glorify Him in their lives.—Now several interpreters (e.g., Michaelis), who have correctly defined the meaning of the altar, would infer from the mention of the temple at Jerusalem, that the whole prophecy refers to the kingdom of Judah. But such an assumption is altogether inadmissible. Even the general reason, that a prophecy which refers exclusively to Judah cannot be at all expected from a prophet who had received his special mission to Israel, militates against it. Further,—The close of this prophecy, the proclamation of salvation, belongs, as we have already proved, to the whole collection. If this be referred to Judah alone, there is then an essential element awanting in that portion which is addressed to Israel; we should then have judgment without mercy, threatening without consolation,—a thing which could not well be conceived of, and would be without analogy in any of the prophets. To this we must further add the express references, or co-references to Israel throughout the whole chapter,—such as the mention of Carmel in ver. 3; of the children of Israel, in ver. 7; of the house of Jacob, in ver. 8; of the house of Israel, in ver. 9; of פרציהן, in ver. 11; of My people Israel, in ver. 14. The whole assumption of an exclusive reference to Judah owes its origin to the circumstance, that features which are only symbolical have been erroneously interpreted as actual. But if they be viewed and explained as symbols, every reason for denying the reference to Israel is then at once removed. The temple symbolizes the kingdom of God; its falling down upon the people is symbolical of the punishment which is inflicted upon them, in consequence of this kingdom. The destruction of the temple in the literal sense is not, primarily, spoken of; although the latter, it is true, be inseparable from the former. If the Covenant-people in general were outwardly desecrated, because they had desecrated themselves inwardly, then also the outward sanctuary which they had, by their wickedness, converted into a den of thieves, was taken from them; compare the remarks on Dan. ix. 27. If Israel then, at that time, still belonged to the kingdom of God (and this can certainly not be doubted, and is sufficiently proved by the very mission of our prophet to Israel), there exists no reason at all for excluding it. For Israel also, the temple at Jerusalem formed the seat and centre from which it was governed,—the place from which blessings and punishments proceeded. The prophet indeed, at the very opening of his prophecies, describes the Lord as roaring from Zion, and uttering His voice from Jerusalem. On the altar at Jerusalem the crimes of Israel were deposited, no less than those of Judah; for there was the place where the people of both kingdoms were to deposit the embodied expression of their godly disposition. It was there, then, that, in reality, the fruits of the opposite were lying, although, as regards the place, they were offered elsewhere.—So much indeed is certain, that the co-reference to Judah is necessarily required by the symbolical representation. The rejection of Israel alone could not be symbolized by the destruction of the temple. And no less does this appear from the announcement of salvation. For this does not by any means promise the re-establishment of the Davidic dominion among the people of Israel, but the restoration of the entire fallen Davidic government. The tabernacle of David that is fallen refers to the destroyed temple. Both signify, substantially, the same thing. With the destruction of the temple, the Davidic tabernacle also fell; and its fall included the overthrow of the kingdom of Israel; for, in this also, the Davidic race had still the dominion de jure, although it was suspended de facto.

The passage under consideration is remarkable also, inasmuch as it furnishes a proof for the custom of designating the kingdom of God from its existing seat and centre, and thus furnishes us, for other passages also, with the right of freeing the thought from the figurative clothing.

A further reason against referring the altar to the altar at Bethel, is, that the latter enjoyed no such pre-eminence in the kingdom of Israel. The temple at Bethel was, to the ten tribes, by no means what the temple at Jerusalem was to Judah. The law regarding the unity of the place of worship was, among the ten tribes, regarded as non-existing. Even in the verse immediately preceding, in viii. 14, Dan and Beersheba had been mentioned as the chief seats of the Israelitish worship; and in chap. iv. 4, Gilgal appears beside Bethel as possessing the same importance. In chap. v. 5, Bethel, Gilgal, and Beersheba are mentioned together. Hosea, in chap. viii. 11, reproves Israel for having made many altars to sin. Hence, there did not exist in Israel an altar κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν. Such an altar existed only in Judah. Nor had the sanctuary at Bethel such importance, as that it could be considered as the spiritual abode of the whole people.—Hofmann (Weissagung u. Erfüllung, S. 203) raises the following objection against the reference to the altar at Jerusalem:—The prophet, it is true, reproves the sins in Judah as well as those in Israel; but it is only to the kingdom of Jeroboam that he announces destruction, while to the house of David he promises that Jehovah would raise it up from its fallen condition." But in opposition to this objection, we need only refer to ii. 5: "And I send fire in Judah, and it devours the palaces of Jerusalem." Passages such as i. 14, 15, ii. 3, absolutely forbid us to make an exception of the palace of the king; and, by chap. vii. 9, where destruction is announced to all the sanctuaries of Isaac, we have as little warrant for excepting the temple. To assume any such exceptions, would be contrary to the analogy of all other threatenings. Hofmann further objects (l. c. S. 204), "As the threatening announcement of the prophet had last remained suspended over Israel, we are at liberty to think of the altar at Bethel only." But already, in the third chapter, all Israel is addressed, according to ver. 1; and we may further refer to v. 25, where likewise Israel can mean only the whole people,[2] while in vi. 1, Judah is expressly mentioned beside Israel. The prophet employs, throughout, the name of Israel with a certain ambiguity; so that it would be vain to attempt to determine whether it be used in the wider, or in the more limited sense. Wherever he wishes to be distinctly understood as speaking of the ten tribes, he speaks of Joseph and Samaria. Still less would the prophet have employed the names of Jacob (iii. 13, vi. 8, vii. 2, 6) and of Isaac (vii. 9, 16), which were quite uncommon as a designation of the ten tribes,[3] if it had been of importance, and intentional on his part strictly to separate the boundaries of Judah from those of Israel, and, if there were not everywhere here, only a special application to the ten tribes of that which concerned the whole who were connected by a common fate. But it is especially suitable, that just the close of the whole should, in a remarkably distinct manner, bring into view the two kingdoms, the destinies of which were so intimately connected.—Hitzig, further, with a view to favour the reference to the temple in Bethel, adduces the consideration that this vision is connected with the close of viii. 14, and forms a kind of explanation of it. But we have here an entirely new beginning, just as in chap. viii. in its relation to chap. vii. The three visions are altogether independent of, and co-ordinate with each other.—נצב with על is commonly used of a prominent position at the side of: Gen. xviii. 2; 1 Sam. iv. 20; compare עמד with על 1 Kings xiii. 1. In Ezek. ix. 1 also, the angels stand at the side of the brazen altar, נצב can, of course, never signify "to be suspended."—הכפתור is a species of ornament at the top of the pillars; and הספים, "the thresholds," are contrasted with each other, in order to give expression to the thought that the building was to be shaken, and destroyed from the highest part of it to the lowest,—from the top to the bottom. The shaking of the thresholds occurs also in Is. vi. to denote that the shaking extended to the deepest foundations. The greater number of interpreters translate: "Strike the knop so that ... tremble," etc.; but the וירעשו must be viewed rather as co-ordinate with הך: "And they may tremble," equivalent to "Make to tremble."—The suffix in בצעם refers to the knops and threshold, or to the entire building, which is marked out by the contrast of the highest and lowest portions. According to Ewald and Umbreit, it is intended to refer to the dashed pieces of the altar; but nothing has been said about the destruction of the altar. In Ezek. ix. 2 likewise, the altar is mentioned, not because it was to be destroyed, but only because there the guilt is heaped up. The casting down does not, in itself, imply the breaking, dashing into pieces; it does so only by its being connected with the following בראש. The passage in Jer. xlix. 20 is analogous: "He shall make their habitation desolate over them;" instead of: "He shall thus make it desolate that they are buried beneath its ruins;" compare Jer. l. 45. בראש, properly understood, does not mean "upon the head;" the head is rather represented as the receptacle of the tumbling ruins; they fall into their heads and crush them; compare Ps. vii. 17. In what precedes, there is no definite noun to which כלם refers. This is to be explained by the dramatic character of the whole representation which arises necessarily from the opening phrase: "I saw." The same reason accounts for the peculiarity of הך being employed without any designation of person. In his inward vision, the prophet sees the whole people assembled before the Lord at the threshold of the temple. The Lord appears before him as the judge, at the place of the transgressions, at the side of the altar. At His command, the whole assembled multitude are buried under the ruins of the temple. From this also it is evident that a destruction of the temple in a literal sense cannot be entertained; for how could a whole people be buried under its ruins? The same appears also from ראיתי at the commencement. This, then, shows that we have here before us a symbolical representation, corresponding altogether to that which we have in vii. 1, 4, 7, viii. 1. Hitherto, the Lord speaking to some one, had given him the commission of destruction. He now continues with: "I will kill." This also shows that the one who is addressed is the Angel of the Lord. The same occurrence takes place in the greater number of the passages in which the Angel of the Lord is spoken of. In the action there is constant alternation; it is ascribed, at one time to Him, at another, to Jehovah.—Several interpreters (Marckius, De Wette, Rückert, and others) explain אחרית by "posterity;" others, after the example of the Chaldee (שארהון), by "remnant;" and others, by "lowest of the people." We must here enter into a closer examination of the significations of this word. It is commonly supposed (compare Gesenius and Winer) that, primarily and properly, it signifies "the last and extreme part," and then "the end." But that which is supposed to be the derived signification is rather the original and proper one. The form of the word cannot furnish any reason why this should not be the case, as is evident from what has been remarked by Ewald: "As the feminine termination, in general, forms abstract nouns, so also, not unfrequently, abstract nouns are derived from other nouns, by means of the termination ־־ית; very frequently there is no masculine in ־ִי at all at the foundation, but ־ִית serves, in general, only as the sign of derivation." The following reasons prove that the signification "end" is the primary and proper one. 1. If the contrary were the case, the masculine ־ִי would also occur, and the feminine would be met with as an adjective also. 2. ראשית forms the constant antithesis to אחרית; but it is universally admitted that the former is, originally and properly, an abstract noun, and signifies "beginning." The signification "end" must then be retained here also. The word never has another signification (compare my work on Balaam, p. 465 ff.); it means only "end" in Its various relations. But the posterity cannot here be thought of as the end; for the whole action is concentrated in one point of time. Nor is the word ever used in the sense of "posterity." With as little propriety can "end" mean "the lowest of the people;" for one cannot see why just these should be given up to the sword. "End," here, rather denotes "remnant,"—all those who, at the overthrow of the temple, might escape. These, the Lord will pursue with the sword. They who were buried under the temple are the beginning, ראשית; the latter are the אחרית, end. Corresponding to the shaking of the temple from the knops to the thresholds, the thought is expressed in this manner, that from the first to the last, כלם מקצה they should be subjected to the divine punishment. An implied antithesis of quite the same kind, of אחרית to ראשית occurs also In iv. 2 (where De Wette and Rückert have likewise mistaken the sense), and in viii. 10.—On the last words of the verse, which are to be considered as a further explanation of, "Their end, or remnant, I will kill by the sword," Cocceius remarks: "This slaughter becomes the more thorough, inasmuch as even they who flee, or seemed to have fled, are not excluded from it." The second member seems to contradict the first; for if none be allowed to flee away, how can any have escaped? Several Interpreters have been thereby induced to give to the verb נוס the first time, the signification "to escape,"—the second time, "to flee." But the contradiction is quite similar to that which occurs in the preceding context also, when all are dashed to pieces by the ruins, and yet a remnant is spoken of. It soon disappears when we consider that it Is the intention of the prophet to cut off every possible way of escape, by which carnal security endeavoured to save and preserve itself against the impression of his discourse—that it is equivalent to: "All shall be buried under the ruins, and although some should succeed in escaping from this kind of destruction, yet the sword of divine vengeance would be behind them, and slay them; flight shall not be possible to any man; and even although it might be to some, it would be of no avail to them, for God would be their persecutor." But another apparent contradiction must not be overlooked. Even here, the destruction is most emphatically described as being quite general; as such, it is minutely represented ins vers. 2-4. One cannot fail to see how anxious the prophet is to cut off, from every individual, the idea of the possibility of an escape. On the other hand, it is announced in ver. 8, that the house of Jacob shall not be utterly destroyed; according to ver. 9, all the godly shall be preserved; according to ver. 10, the judgment is to be limited to the sinners from among the people,—a limitation which is also presupposed by the description in the 11th and subsequent verses. In iii. 12, the preservation of a small remnant amidst the general destruction had been promised. The greater number of interpreters, in order to reconcile this apparent contradiction, assume an hyperbole in vers. 1-4. But this assumption is certainly erroneous. The ground of this great copiousness,—the reason why the prophet represents the same thought in aspects so various,—is evidently to prevent every idea of an hyperbole,—to show that the words are to be taken in all their strictness of meaning. But the limitation may be arrived at, and effected in a different, and legitimate way. There is, in the nature of ungodliness, a levity which flatters every individual with the hope of escape, even although a threatened general calamity should take place. All the possibilities of deliverance are sought after in such a disposition of mind, and are, by imagination, easily changed into probabilities and realities, because just that is wanting which proves them to be improbable and unreal, viz., the consciousness of a living, omnipotent God. Thus men free themselves from fear, and with it, from the troublesome obligation of escaping from it in another and a legitimate way, viz., by true conversion. Now, it is this levity which the prophet opposes. He shows that whatever possibility of deliverance such levity may dream of, it never would become a reality, and this for the simple reason, that they had not to deal with human antagonists; from them an escape by human means would be possible, how powerful and wise soever they might be. But they have to deal with an omnipotent God, who, being also omnipresent, can arm all His creatures against His despisers, so that they cannot retreat to any place where He, who reigneth absolutely in heaven and on earth, has not ministers of His vengeance. Every thought, then, of an escape by human means is here cut off. But with this, every thought of deliverance in any way is taken from the ungodly, who are told by their own consciences that God will not deliver them. But, on the other hand, the same consideration could not but administer consolation to the godly. If no one, should he even hide himself in heaven, can escape from God the Avenger, then no one, were he even in the midst of his enemies, and were the sword even already lifted up against him, can be lost from God the Deliverer.—Another question has been asked, which relates to the historical reference of the threatened punishment. It goes just as far as the thought which lies at its foundation: "You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I shall visit upon you all your transgressions." Those interpreters who think exclusively of either the Assyrian, or the Chaldean, or the Roman destruction, are, in the same way, partly right and partly wrong, at the same time. All these events, and others besides, belong essentially to one whole. The difference as to time and circumstances is that which is unessential. That a prophet had exclusively in view any single one from among those divine manifestations of punishment, can be asserted, only where he himself has given express declarations to such an effect; and even then, the prophecy is limited to that single event, as to its form only: its idea is not lost by the single fulfilment.

Ver. 2. "If they break through into hell, from thence My hand shall take them; if they ascend up into heaven, from thence I will take them down."

The Future must not, either here, or in what follows, be understood as potentialis: "Though they should conceal themselves;" but as the real Future: "If they are to conceal themselves." That אם with the Future is used only de re dubia, as Winer asserts, is as erroneous as to assert that, with the Preterite, it supposes the condition as existing. The correct view has been already given by Gesenius in the Thesaurus. By supposing the possibility of a condition, impossible in reality, the denial of the consequence becomes so much the more emphatic and expressive. That such a supposition is made here, is evident from ver. 4, where the prophet passes over to the territory of actual possibility, and where, therefore, we cannot translate: "Though they should go." Such a supposition is, in general, very frequent. It occurs, e.g., Matt. v. 29, where Tholuch (Comment. on the Sermon on the Mount) has been led very far astray from the right understanding of εἰ δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου ὁ δεξιὸς σκανδαλίζει σε, κ.τ.λ., by overlooking this usus loquendi. We are not indeed at liberty to translate, "Though thy right eye should offend thee;" but it must be decided by other arguments, whether the condition here supposed be one really possible; and these arguments show that it is only for the sake of greater emphasis that there has here been supposed as possible, what is impossible.—Heaven and Sheol form a constant contrast between the highest height and the lowest depth. From a merely imagined possibility, the prophet descends to the real one. If, then, even the former be not able to afford protection, because God's hand reaches even where one has escaped far from any human power, how much less the latter!—חתר with the Accus. signifies "to break through," Job xxiv. 16; with ב, "to make a hole in anything;" thus Ezek. viii. 8, xii. 7, 12 (חתר בקיר, "to make a hole in the wall"). These parallel passages show that the Sheol must be conceived of as being surrounded with strong walls,—by which is expressed its inaccessibility to all that is living. The fundamental passage is in Ps. cxxxix. 7, 8: "Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit, and whither shall I flee from Thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven. Thou art there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, Thou art there." David does not here speak in his own person, but in that of his whole race. The Psalm is an indirect exhortation to his successors on the throne, and at the same time to the people. "If you are wicked," so he here addresses them, "you can never hope to escape from the punishing hand of the Almighty." And since they have become wicked, the words of David have acquired new emphasis.

Ver. 3. "And if they hide themselves on the top of Carmel, from thence I will search and take them out; and if they hide themselves from My sight in the bottom, of the sea, from thence I will command the serpent, and he bites them."