contradiction offered by the matter itself This may be seen from the example of Grotius, who here explains: "I will cause that all of them keep my Law in memory,--in the first instance, by the multitude of synagogues which, at that time, were built, and in which the Law was taught thrice a-week." Thrice a-week! Surely that will produce first-rate men, viz., such as are described in Isa. lviii. 2. It is not without meaning, that the words: "And I will be their God," &c., follow upon: "And I give my Law in their inward parts," &c. The Law is the expression of God's nature; it is only by the Law being written in the heart that man can become a partaker of God's nature; that His name can be sanctified in him. And it is this participation in the nature of God, this sanctification of God's name, which forms the foundation of: "I will be their God, and they shall be my people." Without this, the relation cannot exist at all, as truly as God is not an idol, but the True and Holy One. These words express, as Buddeus, S. 94, rightly remarks: "That He will impart himself altogether to them." But how were it possible that God, with His blessings and gifts, should impart himself entirely and unconditionally to them who are not of His nature? Of all unnatural things, this would be the most unnatural. Here, however, likewise the relative character of the promise most clearly appears. As early as to Abraham, God had promised that He would be a God to him, and to his seed after him; and this promise he had afterwards repeated to the whole people, Lev. xxvi. 12, comp. Exod. xxix. 45: "And I dwell in the midst of the children of Israel and will be their God." In the consciousness that this promise was fulfilled in the time then present, David exclaims in Ps. xxxiii. 12: "Blessed is the nation whose God is Jehovah, the generation whom He hath chosen for His inheritance." Hence, here too, there is nothing absolutely new. If such were the subject of discourse, then the whole Kingdom of God under the Old Testament dispensation would be changed into a mere semblance and illusion. But the small measure of the condition--with which even God himself cannot dispense, but of which He may vouchsafe a larger measure, viz., the writing of the Law in the heart, whereby man becomes a copy of God, the personal Law--was necessarily accompanied by the small measure of the consequence, The perfect fulfilment of God's promise to Abraham and Israel, to which the prophet here alludes, could, therefore, be expected from the future only.

Ver. 34. "And they shall teach no more a man his neighbour, and a man his brother, saying: Know the Lord; for they all shall know me, small and great, saith the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Even from ancient times, the first hemistich of the verse has created great embarrassment to interpreters, from which very few of them, not excepting even Calvin, manage to extricate themselves skilfully. The declaration that, because all will be taught by God, human instruction in things divine is to cease, has, at first sight, something fanatical in it, and, indeed, was made use of by Anabaptists and other enthusiasts in vindication of their delusion.[4] Many interpreters attempt an evasion, by referring the words to the future life; thus Theodoret, Augustine, (de Spirit. et lit. c. 24) and Este, who, in a manner almost naïve, remarks: "This difficulty, it seems, is very simply avoided by those who refer this promise to the future world, where, no doubt, all care about teaching will cease." But the matter is, indeed, not at all difficult. All that is necessary is to keep in mind that human instruction is here excluded, in so far only as it is opposed to divine instruction concerning God himself; that hence, that which is here spoken of, is mere human instruction, by which men are trained and drilled in religion, just as in every other branch of common knowledge,--a result of which is, that they may learn for ever without ever coming to the knowledge of the truth. Such an instruction may be productive of historical faith, of belief in human authority; but it is just by this, that the nature of religion will be altogether destroyed. Even the true God becomes an idol when He is not known through himself, when He himself does not prepare the heart as a place to dwell in. He is, and remains a mere idea that can impart no strength in the struggle against sin which is a real power, and no comfort in affliction. Now, such a condition was very frequent under the Old Testament dispensation. The mass of the people possessed only a knowledge of God, which was chiefly, although not exclusively, obtained through human instrumentality. By the New Covenant, richer gifts of the Spirit were to be bestowed, and along with them, the number of those was to be increased who were to partake in them, just as Isaiah, in chap. vii. 16, represents believers under the Old Testament as being taught by the Lord, while in chap. liv. 13, in reference to the Messianic time, he announces: "And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord." Under the New Covenant, the antithesis of teaching by God, and teaching by man, is to cease. The teachers do not teach in their own strength, but as servants and instruments of the Lord. It is not they who speak, Init the Holy Spirit in them. Those who are taught by them hear the word that comes to them through men, not as man's word, but as God's word; and they receive it, not because it satisfies their limited human reason, but because the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is truth. How this antithesis is done away with, and reconciled in a higher unity, is, among other passages, shown by 2 Cor. iii. 3: "You are an epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God." They are θεοδίδακτοι, but through the ministry of the Apostle who, in so far as he performs this service, is not different from God, but only a conductor of His power, a channel through which the oil of the Holy Spirit flows to the Church of God; compare remarks on Zech. iv. The same is taught in 1 John ii. 20: Καὶ ὑμεῖς χρῖσμα ἔχετε ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου, καὶ οἴδατε πάντα. Οὐκ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, ὅτι οὐκ οἴδατε τὴν ἀληθείαν, ἀλλ’ ὅτι οἴδατε αὐτήν. Ver. 27: Καὶ ὑμεῖς τὸ χρῖσμα, ὃ ἐλάβατε ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ, ἐν ὑμῖν, μένει καὶ οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε, ἵνα τις διδάσκῃ ὑμᾶς, ἀλλ’ ὡς τὸ αὐτὸ χρῖσμα διδάσκει ὑμᾶς περὶ πάντων κ. τ. λ. The διδάσκειν here signifies the human teaching in contrast to that which is divine, such an one as undertakes by its own power to work knowledge in him who is taught. Such a teaching cannot take place under the new covenant. A fundamental knowledge is already imparted to all its members; the παρὰκλητος, the Holy Ghost, alone teaches them, John xiv. 26; He leads them into all truth, John xvi. 13. But, just because this is the case, the teaching by means of those whom God has given, in His Church, as apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers (Eph. iv. 11), to whom He has communicated His χαρίσματα, is quite in its place. The apostle writes just because they know the truth. If it were otherwise, his efforts would be altogether in vain. Of what use is it to give instruction about colours to him who is blind? In things divine, the truth becomes truth to the single individual, only because his knowledge of God is founded on his being in God; and that can be accomplished only by his being connected to God through God. Being, life, and hence, also, real living knowledge, can proceed only from the fountain of all being and life. But in the case of those who are in God, who possess the fundamental knowledge, this knowledge must be developed, carried on, and brought to full consciousness through the instrumentality of those to whom God has granted the gifts for it. A glance into the deep meaning of our passage was obtained by the author of the book Jelammedenu, which is quoted by Abarbanel (in Frischmuth, S. 863); he says: "Under the present dispensation, Israel learns the Law from mortal men, and therefore forgets it; for as flesh and blood pass away (comp. Matt. xvi. 17, where the antithesis existing between a knowledge of divine things which rests on human ground, and that which rests on divine ground, is brought before us in its strictest form), so also its instruction passes away. But a time shall come when a man shall not learn from the mouth of a man, but from the mouth of the blessed God, for it is written: 'All thy children shall be taught by God.' In these words, it is implied that hitherto the knowledge of the Law was an artificial one obtained by mortal men. But for that reason, it cannot stand long, for the effect stands in proportion to its cause. At the time of the deliverance, however, the knowledge of the Law will be obtained in a miraculous manner." It is, however, quite obvious that this promise, too, must be understood relatively only. All the pious men of the Old Covenant were θεοδίδακτοι; and under the New Covenant, the number of those is infinitely great who, through their own guilt, stand to truth in a relation which is entirely or preeminently mediate.--Instead of the "small," by way of individualization, servants and handmaids are mentioned in Joel iii. 2 (ii. 29); compare remarks on Rev. xi. 18.--We have already seen that in the last words of the verse, the fundamental blessing is promised. But whether כי be referred only to that which immediately precedes, or to every thing which goes before (Venema: vocala כי non ad proxime praecedentia referenda, sed ad totam pericopam, qua bona foederis recensita sunt, extenda), amounts to nearly the same thing; for that which immediately precedes includes all the rest. We have before us nothing but designations of the same thing from various aspects; everything depends upon the richer bestowal of the gifts of the Spirit. This has the forgiveness of sins for its necessary foundation; for, before God can give, He must first take. The sins which separate the people and their God from one another, must first be taken away; it is then only that the inward means can be bestowed, so that the people may become truly God's people, and God's name may be sanctified in them. It is obvious that, here too, a relative difference only between the Old and New Covenant can be spoken of A covenant-people without forgiveness of sins is no covenant-people; a God with whom there is not forgiveness, in order that He may be feared, who does not heal the bones which He has broken, who in this respect gives promises for the Future only, is no God, and no blessing. For if He does not grant this, He cannot grant any thing else, inasmuch as every thing else implies this, and is of no value without it. Forgiveness of sins is the essence of the Passover as the feast of the covenant. On the Ark of the Covenant, it was represented by the Capporeth (see Genuineness of the Pentateuch, Vol. ii., p. 525 f.). Without it the sin-offerings appointed by God are a lie; without it, all that is untrue which God says of himself as the covenant-God, that He is gracious and merciful, Exod. xxxiv. 6. The holy Psalmists often acknowledge with praise and thanks that God has forgiven sins; comp. e.g. Ps. lxxxv. 3: "Thou hast taken away the iniquities of thy people, thou hast covered all their sins." In the same manner they are loud in praising the high blessing bestowed upon the individual by the forgiveness of sins; comp. Ps. xxxii. 51. The consciousness that their sins are forgiven, forms the foundation of the disposition of heart which we perceive in the Psalmists; see Commentary on the Psalms, Vol. iii. p. lxv. f. "What a πληροφορία"--so Buddeus remarks, p. 109--"what a confidence, what a joy of a tranquil and quiet conscience shines forth in the psalms and prayers of David!" We have thus before us merely a difference in degree. To the believers of that time, the sin of the covenant-people appeared to be too great to admit of its being forgiven. Driven away from the face of the Lord, so they imagined, it would close its miserable existence in the land of Nod; never would the καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως return. But, in opposition to such fears, the Prophet declares, in the name of the Lord, that they would not only return, but come, for the first time, in the true and full sense; that where they imagined to behold the end to the forgiveness of sins, there would be its real beginning; that where sin abounded, the grace of God should there so much the more abound. Only, they should not despair, and thus place a barrier in the way of God's mercy. Your God is not a mere hard task-master; He himself will sow and then reap, as surely as He is God, the gracious and merciful One.

Ver. 35. "Thus saith the Lord, giving the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, agitating the sea, and the waves thereof roar, the Lord of hosts is His name."

Ver. 36. "If these ordinances will cease before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever."

Interpreters commonly assume that, already in ver. 35, the discourse is of the firm and immutable divine laws which every thing must obey. But opposed to this view are the words: "Agitating the sea, and the waves thereof roar," in which no definite perceptible rule, no uninterrupted return takes place. To this argument may be added the comparison of the fundamental passage, Isa. li. 15, in which the omnipotence only of God is to be brought out: "And I am the Lord thy God, who agitates the sea, and its waves roar, the Lord of hosts is His name;" comp. also Amos. ix. 5, 6. It thus appears that, in ver. 35, God's omnipotence only is spoken of, which establishes that He is God and not man; and this forms the foundation for the declaration set forth in ver. 36, which is so full of comfort for the despairing covenant-people,--the proposition, namely, that, while all men are liars, He does not lie; that He can never repent of His covenant and promises. The "ordinances" (moon and stars are, in their regular return, themselves, as it were, embodied ordinances), are mentioned already in ver. 35, because just the circumstance that, according to eternal and inviolable laws, sun and moon must appear every day at a fixed time, and have done so for thousands and thousands of years, testifies more strongly for His omnipotence and absolute power, never liable to any foreign influence or interference, than if they at one time appeared, and, at another, failed to appear. God's omnipotence, as it is testified by a look to nature (Calvin: "The Prophet contents himself with pointing out what even boys knew, viz., that the sun makes his daily circuit round the whole earth, that the moon does the same, and that the stars in their turn succeed, so that, as it were, the moon with the stars exercises dominion by night, and, afterwards, the sun reigns by day"), results from the fact that He is the pure, absolute, being (Jehovah His name, comp. remarks on Mal. iii. 6); and it is just because He is this, that His counsels, which He declared without any condition attached to them, must be unchangeable. To believe that He has for ever rejected Israel, is to degrade Him, to make Him an idol, a creature.--In ver. 36, the immutability of God's counsel of grace is put on a level with the immutability of God's order of nature; but this is done with a view to the weakness of the people, who receive, for a pledge of their election, that which is most firm among visible things; so that every rising of the sun and moon is to them a guarantee of it; compare Ps. lxxxix. 37, 38. But considered in itself, the counsels of God's grace are much firmer than the order of nature. The heavens wax old as a garment, and as a vesture He changes them and they are changed (Ps. cii. 27-29); heaven and earth shall pass away, but the word of God shall not pass away.--From chap. xxxiii. 24: "They despise my people (עמי) that they should be still a nation (גוי) before them" it appears why it is that גוי is here used, and not עם. The covenant-people in their despair imagined that their national existence, which, in the Present, was destroyed, was gone for ever. If only their national existence was sure, then also was their existence as a covenant-people. For, just as their national existence had ceased, because they had ceased to be the covenant-people, so they could again obtain a national existence as the covenant-people only.

Ver. 37. "Thus saith the Lord: If the heavens above be measured, and the foundations of the earth beneath be searched out, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel, for all that they have done, saith the Lord."

It is not without meaning that the Prophet so frequently repeats: Thus saith the Lord. This formed the Α and Ω; His word was the sole ground of hope for Israel. Apart from it, despair was as reasonable, as now it was unreasonable. The measuring of heaven, and the searching out of the innermost parts of the earth, come here into consideration as things impossible. The words: "All the seed of Israel," take from the hypocrites that consolation which they might be disposed to draw from these promises. It is as much in opposition to the nature of God that He should permit all the seed of Israel, the faithful with the unbelievers, to perish, as that He should save all the seed of Israel, unbelievers as well as believers. The promise, as well as the threatening, always leaves a remnant. All that the covenant grants is, that the whole cannot perish (the discourse is here, of course, of definite rejection); but it gives no security to the individual sinner. The words: "For all that they have done," are added intentionally, because the greatness of the sins of the people was the punctum saliens in the believers' despair of the mercy of God. Calvin says: "The Prophet here intentionally brings forward the sins of the people, in order that we may know that the grace of God is greater still, and that the multitude of so many wicked men would not be an obstacle to God's granting pardon."

Ver. 38. "Behold, days, saith the Lord, and the city is built to the Lord from the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner. Ver. 39. And the measuring line goeth yet farther over against it, over the hill Gareb (the leper), and turneth towards Goah (place of execution). Ver. 40. And the whole valley of the carcasses and of the ashes, and all the fields unto the brook of Kidron, and from thence unto the horsegate, towards the East, (all this is) holiness unto the Lord. No more shall it be destroyed, nor shall it be laid waste for ever."

This prophecy embraces two features: first, the restoration of the Kingdom of God, represented under the figure of a restoration of Jerusalem, which, under the Old Covenant, was its seat and centre (it is this aspect only which Zechariah, in resuming this prophecy, has brought forward in chap. xiv. 10); and, secondly, the glorification of the Kingdom of God, which now is so strengthened and increased, that it can undertake to attack and assail the dark kingdom of evil, and subject it to itself, while formerly it was attacked and assailed by it, and often could not prevent the enemy from penetrating into the innermost heart of its territory. This thought the Prophet graphically clothes in a perceptible form, and in such a manner that he describes how the unholy places, by which Jerusalem, the holy city, was surrounded on all sides, are included in its circumference, and become holiness unto the Lord. In former times, the victory of the world over the Kingdom of God had been embodied in the fact, that the abominations of sin and idolatry had penetrated into the very temple; compare chap. vii. 11: "Is then this house, which is called by the name of the Lord, a den of robbers, saith the Lord?" Other passages will be mentioned when we come to comment upon Dan. ix. 27. This inward victory must, according to divine necessity, be followed by the outward one. The covenant-people which, inwardly, had submitted to the world, which, by its own guilt, had profaned itself, was, outwardly also, given up to the world, and was profaned in punishment. And this profanation, inflicted upon it as a punishment, again manifested itself just at that place, where the profanation by the guilt had chiefly manifested itself, viz., in the holy city, and in the holy temple. It is with a view to the former manifestation of the victory of the world over the Kingdom of God, that here the victory of the Kingdom of God over the world is described; and the imagery is just simple imagery. To the outward holiness of the city and of the temple, the outward unholiness of the places around Jerusalem is opposed. While the victory of the world over the Kingdom of God had been manifested by the profanation of these places, the victory of the Kingdom of God now appears under the image of the sanctification of these formerly unholy places. By what means that great change had been brought about; by what means the Kingdom of God, which now lay so powerlessly prostrate, should again obtain powers which it had never before possessed; by what means the servant was to be changed into a lord, it was unnecessary for the Prophet here to point out; it had been already mentioned in vers. 32–34. The difference consists in this, that the New Covenant is not like the Old, but that it first furnishes the right weapons by which sin and the world can be overcome, viz., an infinitely richer measure of the forgiveness of sins, of the graces of the Spirit.--We must still premise a general remark concerning the determination of the boundaries of the New Jerusalem here given, because this must guide us in determining the single doubtful places which are here mentioned. The correct view has been already given by Vitringa in his Commentary on Isaiah xxx. 33: "The Prophet promises to the returning ones the restoration of the city of Jerusalem in its whole circumference; and he describes it in this way, that he begins from the Eastern wall, passes on thence, through the North side, to the West side, and thence, by the South side, returns to the East." For the Prophet begins with the tower of Hananeel which was situated at the East side of the town, near the sheep-gate; compare remarks on Zech. xiv. 10. Thence he proceeds to the corner-gate, which was situated in that corner where the North and East met (compare l. c.), and hence comprehends the whole North side. He closes with the horse-gate, of which he expressly states that it was situated towards the East, and hence points out that he had again arrived at the place from which he set out. We have thus gained a firm foundation for determining those among the places mentioned, the situation of which is, in itself, doubtful.--Let us now proceed to the consideration of particulars. After ימים, the Keri inserts באים. It is true that this fuller expression is commonly used by the Prophet; but, for that very reason, the more concise one is to be preferred, which alone has the authority of the MSS. in its favour, while the Keri is nothing but a conjecture, perhaps not even that. The full expression having already occurred so frequently in the passage under consideration, the Prophet here, at the close, and for a change, contents himself with the mere intimation. The Prophet says intentionally: "The city is built to the Lord," so that "to the Lord" must be connected with "is built;" not "the city of the Lord." The latter expression had become so much a nomen proprium of Jerusalem, that the full depth of its meaning was no more thought of. This new city is no more to be called simply the city of the Lord; it is truly to be built to the Lord, so that it belongs to Him.--In the first two points of the boundary, the tower of Hananeel and the Corner-gate, the second main idea of the passage does not yet come out so prominently. This is to be accounted for simply by the circumstance, that on the whole North side of the town there was not any unholy places. The Suffix in נגדו refers to the Corner-gate; the measuring line, קֶוֶה according to the Kethibh, קו הַּמִּדָּה, which is the common form, according to the Keri, goes yet farther over against it, &c. By the words "over against," it is intimated that it now goes beyond the former dimensions of the town. על "over" (Hitzig erroneously translates it "towards," or "by the side of it"), shows that the hill Gareb is included within the circumference of the new city. From the remarks formerly made, it appears that the hill Gareb, and Goah, places which are nowhere else mentioned, must have been situated on the West side; and, moreover, Gareb on the North-west side[5] and Goah on the South-west side, גרב has no other signification than "the leper;" and "the hill of the leper" can be the hill only, where the lepers had their abode. For, as early as in the second year after the Exodus from Egypt, these lepers were obliged to remain without the camp (comp. Numb. v. 3: "Without the camp shall ye send them, and not shall they defile their camp in the midst whereof I dwell"); and this law was so strictly enforced, that even Moses' sister was removed out of the camp. When they had come to Canaan, the provisions of the law in reference to the camp were transferred to the towns; comp. farther Lev. xiii. 46: "All the days that he has the leprosy, he shall be defiled; he shall dwell alone, without the camp shall his habitation be;" Luke xvii. 12. Even Uzziah could not be released from it; he lived without the city in Beth Chofshith, 2 Kings xv. 5, which is commonly translated "house of the sick," instead of "house of emancipation," viz., place where they lived, whom the Lord had manumitted, who no more belonged to His servants; compare remarks on Psa. lxxxviii. 6. Even in the kingdom of Israel they were so strict in the execution of this Mosaic ordinance (one from among the numberless proofs which are opposed to the current views of the religious condition of this kingdom, and of its relation to the Law of Moses), that, even during the siege of Samaria, the lepers were not allowed to leave the place before the gate assigned to them, 2 Kings vii. 3.--In order more fully to understand the meaning of our passage, it is indispensable that we should inquire into the causes of that regulation. J. D. Michaelis (Mos. Recht. iv. § 210) has his answer at once in readiness, and is so fully convinced of its being right and to the point, that he does not think it worth while to mention any other view. Because to him the temporal objects and aims are the highest, he at once supposes them everywhere in the Law of the Holy God also. The ordinance is to him nothing but a sanitary measure intended to prevent contagion. But that would surely be a degree of severity against the sick which could the less be excused by a regard to the healthy, that leprosy, if contagious at all, is so, at all events, very slightly only, and is never propagated by a single touch. (Michaelis himself remarks: "Except in the case of cohabitation, one may be quite safe.") But this severity against the sick must appear in a still more glaring light, and the concern for the healthy becomes even ridiculous, when we take into consideration the other regulations concerning the lepers. They were obliged to go about in torn clothes, bare-headed, and with covered chin, and to cry out to every that came near them, that they were unclean. Even Michaelis grants that those regulations could not be designed to guard against infection. He remarks: "But the leper should not cause disgust to any one by his really shocking appearance, or terror by an accidental, unexpected touch." But such a sentimental, unmerciful regard to the tender nerves is surely elsewhere not to be perceived in the Law, which regulates all the relations of man to his neighbour, by the principle: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Farther--From mere sanitary or police considerations, the law in reference to the leprosy of the clothes and houses, which is closely connected with the law about the leprosy of men, cannot be accounted for. The reason which Michaelis advances for the law in reference to the clothes, is of such a nature, that not even the most refined politicians have ever yet thought of a similar one. The leprosy of the houses is, according to him, the dry-rot, which, although not contagious, was so hateful to Moses, that, out of concern for the health of the possessor, and for the goods kept in them, he ordered them to be altogether pulled down. If Moses had entertained the views on the power of the magistrates which lie at the foundation of this, he could not have been an ambassador of God,--even apart altogether from the absurdity of the measure. But the shallowness and untenableness of Michaelis' view will appear still more strongly, when we state the positive argument for our view. It is this: Leprosy is the outward image of sin; that, therefore, which is done upon the leper, is, in reality, done upon the sinner. Every leper, therefore, was a living sermon, a loud admonition to keep unspotted from the world. The exclusion of the lepers from the camp, from the holy city, conveyed figuratively quite the same lesson, as is done in Words by John, in Revel. xxi. 27: Καὶ οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθῃ εἰς αὐτὴν πᾶν κοινὸν καὶ ποιοῦν βδέλυγμα καὶ ψεῦδος, and by Paul, in Ephes. v. 5: τοῦτο γὰρ ἴστε γινώσκοντες, ὅτι πᾶς πόρνος, ἢ ἀκάθαρτος, ἢ πλεονέκτης ... οὐκ ἔχει κληρονομίαν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ; comp. Gal. v. 19, 21. Now it is clearly seen what is the Prophet's meaning in including the hill of the lepers in the holy city. That which hitherto was unclean becomes clean; the Kingdom of God now does violence to the sinners, while, hitherto, the sinners had done violence to the Kingdom of God. It is only when we take this view of leprosy, that we account for the fact, that just this disease so frequently occurs as the theocratic punishment of sin. The image of sin is best suited for reflecting it; he who is a sinner before God, is represented as a sinner in the eyes of man also, by the circumstance that he must exhibit before men the image of sin. God took care that ordinarily the image and the thing itself were perfectly coincident; although, no doubt, there were exceptions,--cases where God, according to His wise and holy purposes, allowed that one relatively innocent (in the case of a perfectly innocent man, if such an one existed, that would not be possible, except in the case of Christ who bore our disease), had to bear the image of sin, e.g., in the case of such as were in danger of self-righteousness. As a theocratic punishment, leprosy is found especially with such as had secretly sinned, or had surrounded their sin with a good appearance, which, in the eyes of men, prevents them from appearing as sinners, e.g., in the case of Miriam, Uzziah, Gehazi, 2 Kings v. 27. In the Law, there are many warnings against it, e.g., Deut. xxiv. 8; and David wishes, 2 Sam. iii. 29, that the threatening of the Law might be fulfilled upon the house of wicked Joab. The leprosy of houses, too, comes into consideration only as an image of spiritual leprosy, as is seen from the command in Lev. xiv. 49: "And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop; ver. 53: and make an atonement for the house, and it shall be clean." The procedure here is quite the same as that which was applied in the case of sin and sinners; and since the house cannot sin, it follows that a symbolical action only can here be spoken of.--Goah, in this context, in the midst of unclean places, can hardly be anything else than some unclean place; and it is a very obvious supposition that this nature is expressed in the very name. This signification interpreters usually endeavour to obtain by deriving the word from געה "to roar," of which it is properly the Partic. Fem., hence "the roaring one;" but it is more easily obtained by adopting the derivation from גָוַע, just as שׁוֹעַ is derived from שָׁוַע, a derivation which was first proposed by Hiller, S. 127. גוע is used of a violent death, no less than of a natural death; thus Numb. xvii. 27, 28, of a death like that of the company of Korah, Datham, and Abiram; comp. Zech. xiii. 8. This derivation being assumed, Goah would denote "expiring," "hill[6] of expiring," which would be a very suitable name of the place for the execution of criminals. Vitringa, in commenting upon Is. xxx. 33, already expressed the conjecture that Goah, גל גועתה might perhaps be identical with Golgotha, but retracted it, because the Evangelists explain Golgotha by κρανίου τόπος. But this is no sufficient and conclusive reason. When the Aramean became the prevailing language, the name of the place may have received a new etymology, just as the Fathers of the Church derive πάσχα, from πάσχειν, and many similar instances. It has already been observed that the appellation, "place of skulls," is rather strange, inasmuch as the skulls did not remain in the place of execution.[7] The use of "skull" for "the place of skulls," as well as the omission of the L, have been found strange. But all that is easily accounted for, if the new signification, which substantially agreed with the former, was merely transferred to the word. The identity of Goah and Golgotha cannot be disputed,--at least, not from the situation. From Heb. xiii. 12, it is certain that Golgotha, as an unclean place, was situated outside the city; that it was situated on the West side is, it is true, testified by tradition only; comp. Krafft, S. 168 ff.; Ritter, Erdk. xvi. 1, S. 422 ff.--We now come to the valley of carcasses and of ashes. Even from the position, it becomes probable that this is the valley of Hinnom. The North and West sides are already done, and hence the South and East sides only remain. But the valley of Hinnom was situated towards the South, or South-east of Jerusalem, comp. Krafft, S 2; v. Raumer, S. 269. The valley of the carcasses is here brought into immediate connection with all the fields (q.d., all the other fields), unto the brook Kidron, and is hence designated as a portion of the valley of Kidron. But the valley of Hinnom was the Southern, or South-eastern continuation of the valley of Kidron, which extended on the East side. To this it may be added that, in this context, we must necessarily expect the mention of the valley of Hinnom, but that otherwise it would be wanting. Among all the unclean places around Jerusalem, this was the most unclean. There could be no greater victory of the Kingdom of God over the world, than if this strictest antithesis to the holy city, this image of hell, was included within the Holy City. It is only with respect to the cause of the appellation, that some doubt may exist, פגרים ,פגר is a common designation of dead bodies, of carcasses. There is not one among the twenty-two passages in which it occurs, where it refers to deceased righteous ones. It is used of the dead bodies of animals, of idols, Lev. xxvi. 30; of the dead bodies of those whom the Lord has smitten in His anger and wrath, Jer. xxxiii. 5; 1 Sam. xvii. 46; Amos viii. 3; Neh. iii. 3; Is. lxvi. 24; of such as are, after death, treated like beasts, Jer. i. 49. Hence, opinions such as that of Venema fall to the ground, who supposes that the valley had that name, because it was the public burying-ground. But there is, nevertheless, scope for difference of opinion. One may understand by פגרים the carcasses of animals;--the valley of Hinnom would, in that case, be the public flaying-ground. It is in itself probable, and it is generally held[8] that, after the defilement by Josiah (2 Kings xxiii. 10), it received this designation. But there are not wanting evident traces that, even in former times, the valley served this purpose. In Is. xxx. 33, it is said in reference to the Assyrians: "For Tophet (Gesenius arbitrarily changes the nomen proprium into an appellativum, and translates: the place for burning) is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared, made deep and large; the pile thereof has fire and wood in abundance." This passage supposes that, even at that time, the valley of Hinnom, or Tophet (which properly is only a part of it, but is sometimes, however, used for the whole), had that destination; that piles were constantly burning in it, on which the carcasses of animals were burned. Such a place of execution and burial is already prepared for the carcasses of the Assyrians rebelling against God. Even the existence of the name Tophet, i.e., horror, abomination, bears witness to the impure destination. The second passage is Is. lxvi. 24. Outside the Holy City, the place where formerly the carcasses of the beasts were lying, there now lie the dead bodies of the transgressors. As the former were, in times past, food both for the worms and fire, so they are now. It is true, that Vitringa's objection, that it can scarcely be imagined that the idolators should have chosen a place so unclean, is very plausible. But how plausible soever such an argument may appear, it cannot invalidate distinct historical testimonies; and it might very well be set aside, although it would lead us too far away from our purpose, to do so here. But it may also be supposed that the Prophet looks back to his own declarations, chap. vii. 31, and xix. 4 ff.; and that by פגרים here the corpses of transgressors are to be understood, who are destined to destruction, and therefore are to be buried in the flaying-ground. But this reference is, after all, too far-fetched; and it is more natural to say, that the nature of Tophet, as the flaying-ground, forms the foundation, which is common to those passages and that before us.--But, besides the arguments already advanced, there is still a grammatical reason, which shows that it is really the valley of Hinnom which is meant. The article in העמק forbids us to view it as being in the Stat. construct. and connected with the following words. We must translate: "And the whole valley, (viz. the valley of) the carcasses and ashes." The place is, hence, first designated as "the valley," without any further qualification, and receives this qualification only afterwards. But it is just the valley of Hinnom which, in Jer. ii. 23, is designated as the valley κατʼ ἐξοχήν, and the gate leading to it, as the gate of the valley, in Neh. ii. 13, 15; comp. remarks on Zech. xi. 13.--In reference to דּשׁן, Gousset Lex. p. 368, remarks: "The words דֶּשֶׁן, and דִּשֵׁן are used only of the ashes of the sacrificial animals, and their removal." This observation is confirmed by every careful examination of the passages in question. Never are דֶּשֶׁן and דִּשֵׁן used otherwise than of the ashes of sacrificial animals; comp. Lev. i. 16; vi. 3, 4; 1 Kings xiii. 5; Numb. iv. 13; Exod. xxvii. 3. The derivation of the signification "ashes," from the fundamental signification "fat," as advanced by Winer and others (cinis = pinguefactio agrorum), is therefore wrong. On the contrary, even the burnt fat was still considered as fat; the ashes of the fat are the שארית, the residuum of the fat. By this determination of the word, the explanation is very much facilitated. In Lev. vi. 3, 11, it is said: "And he (the priest, after having offered up the burnt-offering) shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without the camp into a clean place." According to this regulation, the ashes of the sacrificial animals were considered as relatively unclean. The priest had to put off his holy garments, and to put on common garments, and to carry the ashes without the camp,--afterwards without the Holy City. Hence, in contrast to the sacrifices themselves, the ashes were considered as the impure residuum which is found in everything which men do in relation to God, as the image of sinful contamination attaching to all, even the best works, and to the holiest elevation of the heart. If, then, the place where the ashes are deposited is to be included within the boundaries of the Holy City; is, in holiness, to be equal to the place where the sacrifices themselves are offered,--what else can be signified thereby, than that the unholy is to be overpowered by the holy, the earthly by the divine, by means of a more glorious communication of the Holy Spirit? It is quite analogous, when Zechariah represents the horses as being in future adorned by the Lord with the symbol of holiness, which formerly the High-priest only wore; compare remarks on Zech. xiv. 20. This one argument might be brought forward against the explanation which we have given, viz., that we cannot well imagine that this was the destination of the valley of Hinnom, because, according to the Law, the ashes of the sacrifices were to be carried to a clean place; because that which once stood in connection with that which is most holy and pure, although, in itself, it may be unclean, must not be mingled with that which is absolutely and constantly unclean. But in opposition to this we remark, that it was not this whole valley that was unclean, but only the place Tophet in it; and that if sometimes the whole is designated as unclean, it is only because it included this most unclean among all unclean places; comp. chap. vii. 31, xxxii. 35; 2 Kings xxiii. 10.--There cannot be any doubt that "the שְׁרמוֹת unto the brook Kidron" are identical with the fields of Kidron, שַׁדְמוֹת קִדִרוֹן, mentioned in 2 Kings xxiii.; but much to be doubted is the correctness of the common supposition (after the example of Kuypers, ad varia V. T. loca, in the Syll. Dissert. sub praes. Schultens, et Schroederi, t. 1. p. 537), that שְׁרמוֹת is identical with שְׁדֵמוֹת. If that were the case, we could not see why Jeremiah should have exchanged the common word for an uncommon one, which elsewhere does not occur. Jeremiah is fond of exchanging words of similar sounds, and especially words differing from one another merely by one letter, and especially by ד and ר; but these exchanges are always significant. (Compare Küper. Jerem. p. xiv. and 43, and History of Balaam, p. 447 f.) Although we cannot, with certainty, fix the meaning of שרמות, yet so much seems to be sure, that this word was one which more accurately designated the nature of those places than the current nomen proprium, inasmuch as it would be absurd to substitute for it another name, if there had not been deeper reasons. One need only compare the הר המשחית itself which, in the simple historical prose, is used of the Mount of Olives, 2 Kings xxiii. 13. The most simple and natural supposition is the following. All the significations of the verbs