--_Schmieder_ has objected, that
the name would be without meaning for the promised King, unless the
name Jehovah belonged to him. But the King, by being called _Jehovah
Zidkenu_, is designated as the channel, through which the divine
blessings flow upon the Church, as the Mediator of Salvation, as the
Saviour. We must not, however, omit to remark that this ancient
explanation was wrong only in endeavouring to draw out from the word
that which, no doubt, is contained in the matter itself No one born of
a woman is _righteous_, in the full sense of the word; and if there be
anything wanting in the personal righteousness of the King, the
working of justice and righteousness, too, will at once be deficient;
and salvation and righteousness are not granted in their full extent
from above. To no one among all the former kings did the attribute
[Hebrew: cdiq] belong in a higher degree than to David; and yet in how
imperfect a degree did even he possess it! The calamity which, by this
imperfection, was inflicted upon the people, is, _e.g._, seen in the
numbering of the people. And it was not only the _will_ to work justice
and righteousness which was imperfect, but the power also was
imperfect, and the knowledge limited. He only who truly rules as a
king, and is truly wise (compare the words [Hebrew: vmlK mlK vhwkil])
can come up to, and realize the idea, after which David was striving in
vain. All the three offices of Christ, the royal no less than the
prophetic and priestly, imply His divinity; and the conviction that, in
the way hitherto pursued, nothing was to be effected; that it was only
by the divine entering into the earthly, that such splendid promises
could be fulfilled,--this conviction surely must have been plain to a
Jeremiah, whose fundamental sentiment is, "all flesh is grass," and who
lived at a time which, more than any other, was fitted to cure that
Pelagianism which always seeks to gather grapes from thorns. If then,
farther, we keep in mind that Jeremiah had before him the clear
announcements of the former prophets, as regards the divinity of the
Messiah (compare [Pg 423] remarks on Mic. v. 1; Is. ix. 5), we can
account for the fact, that he does not expressly speak of it, only
because it was not suitable in this context, in which only the fact
itself comes into consideration, but not the particular way.

Ver. 7. "_Wherefore, behold days come, saith the Lord, that they shall
no more say: As the Lord liveth wh