time to the destruction of Jerusalem and the last judgment. The history of the world is a history of God's judgments, and the final judgment is the last and most complete realization of this idea."*. In the same connection he alludes to that locus vexatissimus, 1 Pet. 3: 19, and thus expounds it: "Those who were once disobedient, when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, were not yet given up to final damnation, but kept in prison (the middle condition of b) until Christ came and preached to them." His defence of the genuineness of the latter part of Isaiah, which, it is well known, has shared among the Germans the traditionary fate of its author among his countrymen—that of having been sawn asunder-will ever be considered a masterpiece of close argument. He combats the Rationalists with weapons as tried as their own. Nay, he pits them against each other; Ewald against Gesenius! The latter had asserted, from doctrinal prejudice, that Isa. 53: 8 could not refer to an individual, but must refer to the people, because the suffix was plural. Ewald comes forward, moved only by opposition to Gesenius-without caring for any of these things-and produces four or five passages where it is indubitably singular. Such are the spoils which sanctified learning has won from the Egyptians! His style in the introduction rises to a degree of eloquence not usual with him. Indeed, throughout these volumes we find occasionally applications of peculiar closeness and pungency, and incidental remarks which evince great depth of religious feeling. This is true, particularly of the preliminary. observations on the suffering and atoning Messiah.§ "Man is made for Christ, the atoning Saviour. This doctrine alone, all history shows, has power to restore the peace and tranquillity he has lost. The spirit of man is originally adapted to the vicarious satisfaction of the divine Redeemer." He pursues the subject of substitution in a very profound manner. In commenting on Joel he remarks: "Where corruption manifests itself *With this we may compare the well known apothegm, "Die welt geschichte ist das welt gericht." "Peter + Tholuck's opinion seems to be nearly the same: says the Saviour communicated the knowledge of redemption to those who died before his appearance." See Dr. Wiseman's Lectures, p. 333. § Vol. I. 193. T Vol. III. 103. in the church of the Lord, there punishment comes. Because God has sanctified himself in the church, so must he sanctify himself upon her, when she has become like the profane world. He cannot endure that, when the spirit has departed, the dead mass should continue to appear as his kingdom." "He strips off the mask of hypocrisy from his apostate church." He does not consider the locusts in Joel as literal, with Credner and others; but as symbolical of the outward enemies of the church. Nor does he understand literally the dreams and visions mentioned by the same prophet. There were neither on the day of Pentecost, The Jews did not expect them. The meaning is, They will enjoy the Spirit of God, with all its gifts and graces."* He considers the turning of the moon into blood, etc., as manifestations of God's penal justice, and the precursors of great judgments. The imagery, he thinks, is borrowed from the plagues of Egypt; and he compares with them the phenomena mentioned by Josephus, which happened before the destruction of Jerusalem; which he does not seem to regard as colored by the Jewish historian. At the same time, he speaks with approbation of the explanation of Calvin, who treats them as "metaphoricæ locutiones." He does not find their full realization in any historical event. We must not pass over his view of Isa. 7. He thinks the prophet saw the birth of the Messiah as present to his mind's eye, and borrowed from him his measure of time. He means to say that the land in two or three years will be freed from the invading kings. This he expresses by the time between the birth of the Messiah, and his attaining years of discretion; "until he shall know to choose the good, and refuse the evil." "Butter and honey shall he eat," he regards as an image of want, and not of plenty. The child, we are to remember, is the representative of the inhabitants * Vol. III. 130. † Vol. III. 133. The explanation of such passages by Gesenius is, that great political revolutions are hyperbolically described as great convulsions of nature-the fall of great kingdoms as a shaking and sinking of the universe-their rise by the creation of a new heaven and a new earth. Is. 13: 13, 24, 19; 34: 4; Jer. 4: 23, 26; Joel 3: 15, 16; Is. 65: 17; 66: 22; Comm. Vol. I. 460. of the land. He refutes the view adopted by the more ancient Jews, and, strange to say, by Dr. J. P. Smith,* "that the virgin was the queen of Ahaz, and the child king Hezekiah," by quoting Jerome; who proves that Hezekiah must have been at that time nine years old. In answer to the objection, "How could the birth of Jesus, which happened 742 years after, be a sign to Ahaz, that, within three years, his kingdom should be freed from his enemies?" he "The says, sign was not intended for Ahaz alone, but especially for the pious portion of the people." This objection would prove too much. It would do away the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The promise of the Messiah involved the preservation of the state. He thinks the relation in chap. 8 wholly different, and that it refers to a son actually born to the prophet. We think this method more satisfactory than the typical one, or than finding here a twofold application.† He rejects the view of Chandler, Benson, Usher, Kennicott, that there is a change of subject in ver. 16, and that the prophet by the child means Shear-jashub. His remarks on the symbolical actions of the prophets, and especially Hosea, will be read with great interest. Is it consistent with the character of God, that they should have literally performed some actions ascribed to them? or were they perforined in prophetic vision? or are they parabolic? The prophets are often said to do, what they only announce, or what will certainly happen. This may serve as a key to some of the difficulties. Hengstenberg is against the view, that what is recorded in the first chapters of Hosea, outwardly happened; and he speaks with very little respect of Stück, who maintains this opinion.‡ In his remarks on the terminus ad quem of Daniel's seventy weeks, he advances the opinion that the time of Christ's pub *Scrip. Test. Vol. I. 359, 3d edition. † See Stuart on the Hebrews, p. 571, 572, 573, and Stowe's Introduction, p. 32.. See Ez. 4, 5, and 24 chap.; Is. 20: 2; Jer. 27: 1, 2; 1 Sam. 15: 27, 28; Jer. 25: 15-28, for the most important passages. Would that some one, in the spirit and power of Lowth, would rise up to give this subject a thorough investigation, lic appearance can be accurately designated.* Ideler has proved that it was from the beginning of the actual reign of Tiberius, and not from his adoption by Augustus. If we can ascertain the time of John's entrance upon his ministry, which we can do, that of Jesus would necessarily follow. Tiberius began to reign 767 U. C. In answer to the objection, that there can be no definite designations of time in Daniel, for the Redeemer himself says, that he was ignorant of the day of judgment, and it cannot be supposed that Daniel had a knowledge of them, he replies, that the ground of our Saviour's refusal was the condition of the disciples. They were carnal. Such knowledge was too high for them, and would have been injurious. As to Christ's ignorance, his view is, that in his humiliation he possessed neither power to work miracles, nor foreknowledge. These were always granted in answer to prayer; for the Father heard him always, and showed him all things in consequence of his unity of will with the Father. His ignorance in this case was voluntary. He did not choose to pray for a knowledge which would have been unsuitable. He thinks that Bengel has admirably refuted those who argue against definite designations of time in the Apocalypse. In conclusion, we cannot but commend the devotional spirit which pervades the work. In his preface to the first volume, the author prays, "that the Lord of the church may bless a work-begun in dependence on him—and make it the means of confirming the faith of some." Like Milton, he deemed that such a business was not to be entered upon, “without devout prayer to that eternal Spirit, that can enrich with all utterance and knowledge, and sends out his seraphim with the hallowed fire of his altar, to touch and purify the lips of whom he pleases." From a feeling like this-at once fervid, pure and rational-we might expect such a work. From his preface to the last volume, we may infer that he received divine assistance. "With heartfelt thanks to God, who giveth power to the faint, and to them that have no might increaseth strength, the author sees himself at the end of a long, and often difficult, course of seven years. From the beginning he has earnestly sought for strength, and has received increasing light the longer he has studied." Would * Vol. II. 393. that such a spirit were more prevalent among the German commentators! This "opus septem annorum," like the immortal work of Milton, "posterity will not willingly let die." May it shed a never-setting light on the book of God! We recommend it most cordially to the study of those who would enjoy the blessedness of that man who reads and understands the sure word of prophecy, who searches the Scriptures daily, to see whether they testify of Christ; for the "testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." One word as to the translation, and we have done. We have compared it, to some extent, with the original, and can testify that the translator has attained his object of "putting us in possession of the thoughts of the author; so that the translation is to the English reader, what the original is to the German." It is in good, hearty mother-English, with a strong infusion of the Saxon, in whose roots lie the sinews of our language. It is plain and idiomatic; and this is more than we can say of many of our translations from the German. We find in it no such compounds as ethico-religious, anti-psychological, etc. Our language is unfitted for these combinations; and we are sometimes alarmed at the threatened deluge of Germanicisms. Our translators would do well to study our older writers. They approximate far more closely to the German in their modes of expression, with their old, unpolluted English, than we moderns do. |