Christology of the Old Testament: And a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions Volume I Part 23

Footnote 3: In Micah i. 15 the entire people are called Jacob. The same occurs also in Hos. x. 11, xii. 3 (2).

Footnote 4: _Hitzig_ says: With a disposition of mind different from that in iii. 2, the prophet says here, "You enjoy no privileges with me, you are to me like all others." A strange disposition of mind indeed for a prophet! An interpretation which results in such thoughts, which cannot be entertained for a moment, is self-condemned.

Footnote 5: Whether, however, it was James or Luke who quoted these words according to the version of the LXX., this pa.s.sage is one of the many hundreds which prove that the violent urging and pressing for an improvement in our (German) authorized version of the Scriptures, as it proceeded from _von Meier_ and _Stier_, is exaggerated. The Saviour and His Apostles adopted, without hesitation, the version current at their time, when its deviations concerned not the thought but the words. If we proceed upon this principle, how will the mountain of complaints melt away which has been raised against _Luther's_ translation of the Scriptures. But it is true that, even then, weighty objections remain.

The revision of it is a want of the Church; but it is not so urgent that we may not, and must not, wait for the time when it may be satisfied without danger. If it were undertaken at present, the disadvantages would far outweigh the advantages. To everything there is a season; and it is the duty of the wise steward to find it out, and to know it.

THE PROPHECY OF OBADIAH.

We need not enter into details regarding the question as to the time when the prophet wrote. By a thorough argumentation, _Caspari_ has proved, that he occupies his right position in the Canon, and hence belongs to the earliest age of written prophecy, _i.e._, to the time of Jeroboam II. and Uzziah. As bearing conclusively against those who would a.s.sign to him a far later date, viz., the time of the exile, there is not only the indirect testimony borne by the place which this prophecy occupies in the collection of the prophets which is chronologically arranged, but there are also the following facts;--that those who are to inflict the predicted calamity upon Judah are not at all more definitely characterized than in the first part of Hosea, in Joel, and Amos;--that, in like manner, the heathen power from which the overthrow of Edom is to proceed, is neither mentioned, nor more definitely pointed out in any other way;--that Jeremiah already made use of Obadiah's prophecy; and if such be denied, the older foundation would then be withdrawn from the prophecy of Jeremiah--which would be contrary [Pg 400] to the a.n.a.logy of Jeremiah's prophecies against foreign nations;--and, finally, that, in vers. 12-14, the prophet exhorts the Edomites neither to rejoice nor to co-operate in the destruction of Jerusalem, because, otherwise, they would certainly receive the well-merited reward of such wickedness committed against the Covenant-people, to whom they were so nearly related. Such an exhortation would have been out of place, after the wickedness had been committed.--The view of _Hofmann_ (which was revived by _Delitzsch_ in his treatise, "When did Obadiah prophesy?" [_Guerike's Zeitschrift_ 51, _Hft._ 1])--according to which the capture of Jerusalem by the Philistines and Arabians under Jehoram (2 Chron. xxi. 16 ff.) was the occasion of the prophecy before us, and according to which Obadiah is thus made the oldest among all the prophets in the Canon, and separated by nearly a century from the three prophets who preceded him--overlooks the fact that only cogent reasons could induce us to a.s.sume so isolated a position, since it is certainly not a matter of accident that the written prophecy began its course under the reign of Jeroboam and Uzziah. The guilt and punishment of Edom are, in like manner, spoken of in the Preterite; and it is inadmissible to understand the Preterites as historical, in so far as they refer to the guilt, and as prophetical, in so far as they refer to the punishment. The words, "Day of their destruction," in ver. 12, are decisive against every other catastrophe upon Judah, but that of the Chaldean. Ver. 20, when rightly interpreted, supposes the carrying away of Israel and Judah, and hence allows us to think only of the a.s.syro-Chaldean catastrophe. In ver. 21, Mount Zion is forsaken, and "the saviours" return to it from the land of captivity.

In strict accordance with the position of the book in the Canon, is the fact, that Obadiah connects himself most closely with Joel, and, excepting him, among all the prophets, with Amos only; compare _Caspari_, S. 20 ff., 35; _Havernick_, _Einleitung_ II. S. 318. Of greater importance than the coincidences in particulars, is the fact that the prophecy of Obadiah, upon the whole, connects itself most closely and immediately with the fourth (third) chapter of Joel--that in the prophecy of Obadiah, we have indeed a _variation_ on that chapter. The judgment upon Judah, which Joel announces in the first part, [Pg 401] is here supposed to have already taken place; and this might be done so much the rather, because, even in Joel, the prophetic _Plerophory_, with which rationalistic interpreters are so much puzzled, has changed the Future into the Present and Past--as, even there, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the overflowing of the whole country by the heathen, are represented as already existing. It is only the judgment upon the heathen, and the restoration of Israel, which Obadiah represents in his prophetic picture.

Like Hosea (in the first three chapters), Joel, and Amos, so Obadiah also, received the mission to point out the catastrophe threatened by the world's power, even before the latter existed on the scene of history. It was to the Covenant-people a source of rich consolation that it was so clearly and distinctly foretold to them, even before it had an existence, and the points of view from which it must be regarded were opened up to them. He, however, distinctly points to one idea only, just because there were already predecessors to whose prophecies he could refer. He did not receive the mission to call to repentance, or to represent the judgment as a well-deserved punishment--although, _indirectly_, in him as well as in Joel, these thoughts also occur, as certainly as the supposed destruction of Judah and Israel could only be the punishment of their sin; he has to point out only the salvation subsequent to the overflowing by the heathen world, the conquering power of the kingdom of G.o.d which, in the end, will manifest itself, and deeply to impress upon the Covenant-people the words: ?a?se?te, ???

?e?????a t?? ??s??. The glaring contrast betwixt the _idea_--according to which the kingdom of G.o.d was to be all prevailing--and the _reality_, in which it is pressed into a corner, shall in future increase still more. Even from this corner, the people of G.o.d shall be driven. But death is the transition to life; the uttermost degree of sufferings, the forerunner of deliverance and salvation. Not a restoration only is in store for the people of G.o.d--they even obtain the dominion of the world; but to the heathen world, which is at enmity with G.o.d, their exaltation is a forerunner of destruction.

All which Obadiah had to say in reference to the heathen, G.o.d-hating world, and to the form which, in future, Israel's [Pg 402] relation to it would a.s.sume, has been exemplified by him in the case of Edom. For the fact, that it is only the heathen power individualized which we have before us, is shown by the transition to the heathen in general in ver. 15, according to which, Edom comes into consideration only as a part of the whole: "For near is the day of the Lord upon _all the heathen_." So also is it in ver. 16: "For as ye[1] have drunk upon My holy mountain, so shall _all the heathen_ drink continually;[2] and they drink, and sup up, and they are as though they were not." When speaking of the guilt, he mentions Edom only; when speaking of punishment, he introduces all the heathen at once. According to ver.

17, Israel shall occupy the possessions of _all the heathen_. And even the last words of the whole prophecy, "And the kingdom shall be the Lord's," show that it bears a universal character,--that in the case of Edom, we have only a principle exemplified which applies to all the enemies of the kingdom of G.o.d. The leading thought is: The kingdom of G.o.d shall obtain universal dominion, which follows the deepest abas.e.m.e.nt of the people of G.o.d, and of which the fullest and most perfect realization must be sought in Christ.

The animating thought could be so much the better individualized in the case of Edom, as its natural relation to Israel was one of special nearness, and its hatred specially deep; and as, moreover, it at all times considered itself the rival of Israel, of whose advantages it was envious. That which Amos, the cotemporary of Obadiah, says of Edom in chap. i. 11--"He pursues his brother with the sword, and corrupts his compa.s.sions, and his anger tears perpetually, and he keeps his wrath for ever"--shows how exceedingly well he was fitted to be a representative of the enemies of the kingdom of G.o.d. It was so much the more obvious thus to represent Edom as a particular and individualizing exemplification of this principle, as the prophets of that period had not as yet received any more definite disclosures as to the threatening kingdoms of the future, while Edom, in his [Pg 403] hatred against the people of G.o.d, stood before their eyes. The germ of this is to be found in Joel iv. (iii.) 19, where Edom already appears as a representative and type of the G.o.d-hating heathen world, which is to be judged by the Lord, after the judgment upon Judah.

In Obadiah, we find a fulness of remarkable glances into the future compressed within a narrow s.p.a.ce. The chief events are the following:--1. The capture of Jerusalem, the total carrying away of the entire people, both of Judah and Israel, to a far distance, vers. 20, 21. 2. The return of Israel, the cessation of the separation of the two kingdoms, ver. 18 (compare Hos. ii. 2 [i. 11]; Amos ix. 11, 12), and his elevation to the dominion of the world by the "Saviours," ver. 21.

3. The judgment upon Edom by heathen nations, vers. 1-9. Jeremiah, in xxvii. 2 ff., compared with xxv., more distinctly points out the Chaldeans as the heathen instruments of the judgment upon Edom and all the people round about; and Matt. i. 3, 4, shows the weight of the sufferings which were inflicted by them upon Edom. 4. The occupation of the land of Edom by Judah. One realization of this prophecy took place in the time of the Maccabees; but we must not confine ourselves to this. As, in the main, Edom is only a type of the G.o.d-hating heathen world, the true and real fulfilment can be sought in Christ alone.

Compare the remarks, p. 98, with reference to Moab in Balaam's prophecy.

The prophecy of Obadiah is divided into three parts:--the destruction of Edom by heathen nations summoned by Jehovah, vers. 1-9; the cause of it, his wickedness against Judah, vers. 10-16; Judah, on the contrary, rises with Joseph from this humiliation, and becomes a conqueror of the world, vers. 17-21. This last part claims our closer consideration.

Ver. 17. "_And upon Mount Zion shall be they that have escaped, and it is holy_ (compare Joel iii. 5, iv. 17 [ii. 32, iii. 17]), _and the house of Jacob occupies their possessions._"

The suffix in ??????? refers to all the heathen in ver. 16. The kingdom shall be the Lord's, according to ver. 16, and the dominion of His people extends as far as His own. We have here the general prophecy; and in what immediately follows, the application to Edom. The first two clauses serve as a foundation for the third. The holiness has, so to speak, not only a [Pg 404] defensive, but also an offensive character.

Its consequence is the dominion of the world.

Ver. 18. "_And the house of Jacob becomes a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau stubble, and they kindle them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining to the house of Esau; for the Lord has spoken._"

Besides the whole of the people, that part of them (the house of Joseph, the people of the ten tribes) is specially mentioned which one might have expected to be excluded. That there is none remaining to the house of Esau (and to all who are like him) agrees with the declaration uttered by Joel in iii. 5 (ii. 32): "Amongst those who are spared, is whomsoever the Lord calleth." They, however, whom the Lord calls, are, according to the same verse, they who call on the name of the Lord.

But the characteristic of Edom is his hatred against the kingdom of G.o.d,--and that excludes both the calling on the Lord, and the being called by the Lord. The single individual, however, may come out of the community of his people, and enter into the territory of saving grace, as is shown by the example of Rahab. In the further description of the conquering power, which the people of G.o.d shall, in future, exercise, we are, in ver. 19, first met by Judah and Benjamin.

Ver. 19. "_And they of the south possess the Mount of Esau, and they from the low region, the Philistines; and they_ (_i.e._, they of Judah, the whole, of whom they of the South and of the low region are parts only) _possess the fields of Ephraim, and the fields of Samaria, and Benjamin--Gilead._"

It is obvious that we have here before us only an individualized representation of the thought already expressed in Gen. xxviii. 14: "And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt break forth to the East and to the West, to the North and to the South; and in thee, and in thy seed, all the families of the earth are blessed;"

compare also Is. liv. 3: "Thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left, and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles."--??? is the south part of Judea, at the borders of Edom; ???? the low region on the West, at the borders of the Philistines. As, according to the vision of the prophet, the exaltation of Judah is preceded by his total overthrow and captivity (compare vers. 11-14, 20, 21), the tribe of Judah, which, before the catastrophe, was settled in [Pg 405] the South and low region, is here meant. That ?? can be taken only as the sign of the Accus., and "Mount of Esau," accordingly, as the object only, appears from ver. 20, according to which the South is vacant. Judah thus extends in the South, over Edom, in the West, over Philistia, in the North, over the former territory of the ten tribes, and hence also over the territory of Benjamin, which formerly lay betwixt Judah and Joseph.

Benjamin is indemnified by Gilead. The whole of Canaan comes thus to Judah and Benjamin. Joseph, to whose damage, according to ver. 18, this enlargement of Judah's territory must lead, must be transferred altogether to heathenish territory. We expect to find, in ver. 20, how he is indemnified.

Ver. 20. "_And the exiles of this host of the children of Israel (shall possess) what are Canaanites unto Zarephath, and the exiles of Jerusalem that are in Sepharad shall possess the cities of the South._"

The circ.u.mstance that the Athnach stands below ???? indicates that ????

implies the common property of the exiles of this host, and of the exiles of Jerusalem. The "Sons of Israel," in this context, can only be the ten tribes; for they are here indemnified for their former territory, which, according to ver. 19, has become the possession of Judah. "The exiles of this host" is equivalent to: "This whole host of exiles,"--the whole ma.s.s of the ten tribes, carried away according to prophetic foresight (compare Amos v. 27: "And I carry you away beyond Damascus, saith the Lord, the G.o.d of hosts"), as opposed to a piecemeal carrying away, such as had once already taken place before the time of the prophet in respect to Judah, but not in respect to the children of Israel; compare Joel iv. (iii.) 6. That the "Canaanites unto Zarephath"--_i.e._, the Phnicians, whose territory formed part of the promised land, but had never, in former times, come into the real possession of Israel--are the objects of conquest, and that, hence, we cannot explain as _Caspari_ does, "Who are among the Canaanites, even unto Zarephath," is evident from the circ.u.mstance, that all the neighbouring nations appear as objects of the conquering activity;--that the great ma.s.s of the Israelitish exiles were not among the Canaanites;--that the ? could, in that case, not have been omitted;--and that the South country is too small [Pg 406] a s.p.a.ce for the children of Israel, and of Jerusalem together. Sepharad, the very name of which is scarcely known, is mentioned as a particularizing designation of the utmost distance. The description becomes complete by its returning to the South country, from which it had proceeded. The South country penetrates to Edom; the inhabitants of Jerusalem extend beyond the South country.

Ver. 21. "_And saviours go up on Mount Zion to judge the Mount of Esau, and the kingdom shall be the Lord's._"

??? is to be accounted for from the consideration, that the deliverance and salvation imply the entire overthrow--the total carrying away of the people. The Saviour ?at? ?????? is hidden beneath the "saviours;"

compare Judges iii. 9, 15; Neh. ix. 27. But even here, everything is connected with human individuals; and the more glorious the salvation which the prophet beholds in the future, viz., the absolute dominion of the Lord, and His people, over the world, the less can it be conceived that the prophet should have expected the realization of it by a collective body of mortal men without a leader. But the plural intimates that the ant.i.type is not without types,--that the head cannot be conceived of without members. In Jer. xxiii. 4, we read: "And I raise up shepherds over them which shall feed them;" and immediately afterwards the one good shepherd--Christ--forms the subject of discourse.--"And the kingdom shall be the Lord's."--His dominion, till _then_ concealed, shall now be publicly manifested, and the people of the earth shall acknowledge it, either spontaneously, or by constraint.

The coming of this kingdom has begun with Christ, and, in Him, waits for its consummation. The opinion of _Caspari_, that the contents of vers. 19 and 20, as well as the close of this prophecy, belong altogether to the future, rests on a false, literal explanation, the inadmissibility of which is sufficiently evident from the circ.u.mstance that the Edomites, Philistines, and Canaanites have long since disappeared from the scene of history; so that there exists no longer the possibility of a literal fulfilment.

Footnote 1: The fact that, _everywhere_, the discourse is addressed to the Edomites, proves that here also Edom is addressed. The ?? and the ???? sin this verse, compared with those in the preceding verse, likewise suggest this. Compare, moreover, Joel iv. (iii.) 3, to which pa.s.sage there is already an allusion in ver. 11.

Footnote 2: Namely, the cup of punishment, of divine wrath.

[Pg 407]

THE PROPHET JONAH.

It has been a.s.serted without any sufficient reason, that Jonah is older than Hosea, Joel, Amos, and Obadiah,--that he is the oldest among the prophets whose written monuments have been preserved to us. The pa.s.sage in 2 Kings xiv. 25, where it is said, that Jonah, the son of Amittai the prophet, prophesied to Jeroboam the happy success of his arms, and the restoration of the ancient boundaries of Israel, and that this prophecy was confirmed by the event, cannot decide in favour of this a.s.sertion, because it cannot be proved that the victories of Jeroboam belonged to the _beginning_ of his reign. On the other hand, it is opposed, _first_, by the position of the book in the collection of the Minor Prophets, which, throughout, is chronologically arranged, and which is tantamount to an express testimony that Jonah wrote _after_ Hosea, Joel, Amos, and Obadiah. _Then_,--the circ.u.mstance that Nineveh is mentioned here, and that too in a way which implies that, even at that time, the hostile relations of the a.s.syrians to the Covenant-people had already begun, while in the first part of Hosea, in Joel, Amos, and Obadiah, no reference to the a.s.syrians is as yet found.

Even ancient interpreters, as _Chr. B. Michaelis_, _Crusius_ (in the _Theol. Proph._ iii. S. 38), inferred from this mention of Nineveh, that the book had been composed in consequence of the first invasion of the a.s.syrians under Menahem, who ascended the throne 13 years after the death of Jeroboam II. _Finally_,--the book begins with _and_. Wherever else, in the canonical books of the Old Testament, such a beginning occurs, it indicates a resumption of, and a junction with, former links in the chain of sacred literature; compare Judges i. 1; 1 Sam. i. 1; Ezek. i. 1. That the expression, "And it came to pa.s.s," with which the book opens, is intended to establish the connection with the prophecy of Obadiah, which occupies the immediately preceding place in the Canon, is intimated by the internal relation of the two books to each other. The prophecy of Obadiah bears, throughout, a hostile aspect to the heathen world; it appears to him as the object only of G.o.d's judging activity. Jonah, on the other hand, received the mission, distinctly to point out the other aspect of the matter, and [Pg 408]

thereby, not indeed to correct, but certainly to supplement his predecessor.

The time was approaching when the heathen world was to pour out its floods upon the people of G.o.d. It was obvious that the position of Israel towards it became one altogether repulsive, that the susceptibility of the heathen for salvation was denied, and G.o.d's mercy was limited to Israel. Narrow-minded exclusiveness received a powerful support from the oppression and haughtiness of the heathen. Whilst other prophets opposed such exclusiveness by their words, by announcing the extension of salvation to the Gentiles, Jonah received the mission to ill.u.s.trate, by a symbolical action, the capacity of the heathen for salvation, and their future partic.i.p.ation in it. The effect of this must necessarily have been so much the greater, as the whole of the little book is exclusively devoted to this subject, as it appeared at the first beginning of the conflict, and as Nineveh is mentioned here, for the first time, in so peaceable and conciliatory a relation, and in close harmony and connection with the announcement of the willing submission of the heathen world to the dominion of s.h.i.+loh, spoken of in Gen. xlix. 10. It is remarkably impressive to see how spirit here triumphs over nature--a triumph which appears so much the brighter because the prophet himself pays his tribute to nature; for it was because he listened to the voice of nature, that, at first, he intended to flee to Tars.h.i.+sh. The reason why the commission of the Lord was so disagreeable to him, we learn from chap. iv. 2. He was afraid lest the preaching of repentance, which was committed to him, might turn away the judgments of the Lord from Nineveh, the metropolis of that country which threatened destruction to Israel. He knew the deep corruption of his own people, and foreboded the issue which the extension of the means of grace to the Gentiles might very easily bring about in the end. But yet, he felt almost irresistibly impelled to carry out the commission of G.o.d, and in order to cut himself off from the possibility of following the voice which called him to the east, he resolved to go to the far distant west. The voice, however, followed him even there; but the farther he advanced on his journey, the more difficult it became for him to follow it. At a later period, when the Lord granted mercy to Nineveh, he was angry and wished to die, not by any means because he [Pg 409] felt himself injured in his honour as a prophet (as was erroneously supposed, even by _Calvin_), but because he grudged to the Gentiles the mercy which he considered as a prerogative of Israel only, and because he was anxious for the destruction of Nineveh as the metropolis of that kingdom which was destined to be the rod of chastis.e.m.e.nt for his own people. He was thus actuated by the same ardent love for his people which called forth the wish of St Paul, that he might become an anathema for his brethren,--by the same disposition of mind which prevailed in the elder brother at the return of the prodigal son (Luke xv. 25 ff.), and which at first would manifest itself even in Peter, Acts x. 14 ff. The Jewish sentence (_Carpzov.

Introd._ 3, p. 149), "Jonah was anxious for the glory of the Son, but he did not seek the glory of the Father," is very significant. Jonah exhibits, in a very striking way, the thoughts of his old man, in order that Israel might recognise themselves in his image. But we are not at liberty to say that the prophet represented the people only. It is true that, as one of the people, he also entertained those thoughts; but, besides these, he entertained other thoughts also. The voices of the Lord which he heard were spiritual; and such voices can be heard only when there is something akin in the heart. Not even with one step did Jonah touch the territory of the false prophets, who prophesied out of their own hearts. He retained all his human weakness to himself, and the Word of G.o.d stood by the side of it in unclouded brightness, and obtained absolute victory.

There can be no doubt that we have before us in the Book of Jonah the description of a symbolical action,--that his mission to Nineveh has an object distinct from the mission itself,--that it is not the result attained by it in the first instance which is the essential point, but that it is its aim to bring to light certain truths, and in the form of fact, to prophesy future things. The truths are these:--_First_, that the Gentiles are by no means so unsusceptible of the higher truth as vulgar prejudice imagined them to be. This was manifested by the conduct of the sailors, who, at last, offer sacrifices and even vows to Jehovah; but, in a more striking manner, by the deep impression which the discourse of Jonah produced upon the Ninevites. In this we have the actual proof of Ezek. iii. 5, 6, where the prophet represents his mission as one of peculiar difficulty--more [Pg 410] difficult, even, than it would have been if addressed to the Gentiles: "Had I sent thee to them, surely they would have hearkened to thee." _Further_,--that it is not in His relation to Israel only, but in His relation to the Gentiles also, that the Lord is "gracious and merciful, slow to anger and of great kindness," chap. iv. 2. The view which these words, at once, open up into the future, is, that at some future period the Lord will grant to the Gentiles the preaching of His word, and admission into His kingdom. The glory of His mercy and grace would have been darkened, if the revelation of them had been for ever limited to a particular, small portion of the human race. Nineveh, the representative of the heathen mult.i.tude, is very significantly called the "great city" at the very outset, in i. 2, and "a great city for G.o.d," in iii. 3, for which, as _Michaelis_ remarks, G.o.d specially cared, on account of the great number of souls; compare iv. 11.

If the symbolical and prophetical character of the book be denied, the fact of its having its place among the prophetical, and not among the historical, books, admits of no explanation at all. For so much is evident, that this fact cannot be satisfactorily accounted for by the circ.u.mstance that the book reports the events which happened to a prophet. The sound explanation has been already given by _Marckius_: "The book is, in a great measure, historical, but in such a manner, that in the history itself there is hidden the mystery of the greatest prophecy, and that Jonah proves himself to be a true prophet, by the events which happened to him, not less than by his utterances." A similar explanation is given by _Carpzovius_: "By his own example, as well as by the event itself, he bore witness that it was the will of G.o.d that all men should be saved, and should come to the knowledge of the truth," 1 Tim. ii. 4.

We are led to the same conclusion by the representation itself. This differs very widely from that given in the historical books. The objection raised by _Hitzig_ against the historical truth,--viz., that the narrative is fragmentary,--that it wants completeness,--that a number of events are communicated only in so far as is required by the object of gaining a foundation for the graphic representation of the doctrinal contents,--cannot be set aside so easily as is done by _Havernich_ when he says: [Pg 411] "By arguments of a nature so flimsy, suspicions may be raised against the truth of every historical report."

We cannot but confess that, to the writer, history is indeed a means only of representing a thought to which he is anxious to give currency in the Church of G.o.d. It is just for this reason that he abstains from graphically enlarging, because that would have been an obstacle to his purpose. The narrative of a symbolical action which took place outwardly, comes, in this respect, under the same law as the narrative of a symbolical action belonging to the internal territory, and to that of the parable. The narrative would lose the character of perspicuity which is so necessary for the whole matter, if it were complete in the subordinate circ.u.mstances.

It also tells in favour of the symbolical character of the history of Jonah, that the missionary activity on behalf of the Gentiles does not properly belong to the vocation of the prophets, their mission being to the two houses of Israel only. In the entire history, not even a single example is to be found of a prophet who, for the good of the heathen world itself, went out among them. The history of Elisha, in 2 Kings viii. 7 ff., has, without sufficient reason, been adduced by _Havernick_. According to the visions of the prophets themselves, the conversion of the heathen is not to be accomplished _at present_, but in the Messianic time, and by the Messiah Himself. If, then, the book itself is not to stand altogether isolated, the symbolical character of Jonah's mission must be acknowledged. But then it is only in the form that it differs from the announcements of the extension of salvation to the heathen also,--announcements which occur in the other prophets also. That which these exhibited in words merely, is here made conspicuous by deeds. The influence thereby produced upon the heathen appears then only as the means, while the real purpose is to make an important truth familiar to the Congregation of G.o.d, and, by a striking fact, to remove the prejudices which prevailed in it.

_Finally_,--If the symbolical character of the facts be denied, the mission of Jonah appears to be almost divested of every aim; for the good emotions of the crew, and the repentance of the Ninevites, evidently did not lead to any lasting result. If anything else were aimed at than the prefiguring of future events, the prophet might better have stayed at home; an una.s.suming [Pg 412] ministry in some corner among the Covenant-people would have carried along with it a greater reward.

If, on the other hand, the symbolical character of the history of Jonah be admitted, remarkable parallels in the history of Jesus present themselves. The Saviour, in the days of His flesh, was satisfied with the prophetic intimation of the future farther extension of His salvation. That which He Himself did for this extension, in those particular cases where the faith of non-Israelites obtruded itself upon Him, must, in its isolation, be viewed as an embodiment of that intimation,--as a prophecy by deeds. He says in Matt. xv. 24: "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel;" but if, nevertheless. He purposely makes His abode in the territory of Tyre and Sidon; if there He hears the prayer of the Canaanitish woman to heal her daughter, after having first tried her faith, then His purpose evidently is: That His prophecy in words concerning the extension of salvation to the Gentiles, might find a support in His prophecy in deeds. Jesus, prefiguring the future doings of His servants, pa.s.sed over the boundaries of the Gentiles. Whilst the Jews had rejected the salvation offered to them, and forced Jesus to retire into concealment, the heathen woman comes full of faith, and seeks Him in His concealment. The Canaanitish woman is a representative of the heathen world, the future faith of which she was called to prefigure by sustaining the trial. From her example, the Apostles were to learn what might be expected from the Gentiles when the time should arrive for proclaiming the Gospel to them also. In Matt. x. 5, 6, the Lord speaks to the Apostles: "Go not in the way of the Gentiles, and into any of the cities of the _Samaritans_ enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." His own conduct, however, as it is reported in John iv., stands in contradiction to this command to His Apostles, so long as its prophetical significance is not acknowledged.

That which was, on a large scale, to be done by Christ in the state of glorification, was prefigured by Him, on a smaller scale, in the state of humiliation. The ministry of Christ in Samaria bears the same relation to the later mission among this people, that the single instances of Christ's raising the dead do to the general resurrection.

The Lord afterwards did not foster the germs which had come forth among the Samaritans; He, in the meantime, left them altogether [Pg 413] to their fate. That prelude was quite sufficient for the object which He then had in view, and nothing further could be done without violating the rights of the Covenant-people, to which, in the conversation as recorded by John, the Lord as expressly pays attention, as He does in Matt. x.

THE PROPHET MICAH.

PRELIMINARY REMARKS.

Micah signifies: "Who is like Jehovah;" and by this name, the prophet is consecrated to the incomparable G.o.d, just as Hosea was to the helping G.o.d, and Nahum to the comforting G.o.d. He prophesied, according to the inscription, under Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. We are not, however, ent.i.tled, on this account, to dissever his prophecies, and to a.s.sign particular discourses to the reign of each of these kings. On the contrary, the entire collection forms only one whole. At the termination of his prophetic ministry, under Hezekiah, the prophet committed to writing everything which was of importance for all coming time that had been revealed to him during the whole duration of that ministry. He collected into one comprehensive picture all the detached visions which had been granted to him in manifold repet.i.tion; giving us the sum and substance (of which nothing has been lost in the case of any of the men inspired by G.o.d) of what was spoken at different times, and omitting all which was accidental, and purely local and temporary.

This view, which alone is the correct one, and which contributes so largely to the right understanding of the prophet, has been already advanced by several of the older scholars. Thus _Lightfoot_ (_Ordo temporum_, opp. i. p. 99) remarks: "It is easier to conceive that the matter of this whole book represents the substance of the prophecy which he uttered under these various kings, than to determine which of the chapters of this book were uttered under the particular reign of each of these kings." _Majus_ also (_Economia temporum_, p. 898) says: "He repeated, at a subsequent period, what he had spoken at different [Pg 414] times, and under different kings." In modern times, however, this view had been generally abandoned; and although, at present, many critics are disposed to return to it, _Hitzig_ and _Maurer_ still a.s.sert, that the book was composed at different periods.

We shall now endeavour to prove the unity of the book, _first_, from the prophecies themselves. If we were ent.i.tled to separate them at all, according to time and circ.u.mstances, we could form a division into three discourses only; viz., chap. i. and ii.; chap. iii.-v.; and chap.

vi. and vii. For, 1. Each of these discourses forms a whole, complete in itself, and in which the various elements of the prophetic discourse--reproof, threatening, promise--are repeated. If these discourses be torn asunder, we get only the _lacera membra_ of a prophetic discourse. 2. Each of these three discourses, forming an harmonious whole, begins with ????, _hear_. That this is not merely accidental, appears from the beginning of the first discourse, ????