ning over the loss of the prerogatives
of their tribe. If such were the case, it would be necessary to hold
fast by the letter, inasmuch as it is only when the letter is adhered
to, that the promise can afford consolation for such grief. The
Prophet's consolations, on the contrary, are destined for all the
believers, who were mourning over the destruction of the relation to
God, which hitherto had existed through the mediation of the tribe of
Levi. If only the relation remained, it was of little importance
whether it was realised by the tribe of Levi, as heretofore, or in some
other way. Just as the grief has respect to the substance only, so has
the consolation also. Israel, in future too, shall retain free access
to his reconciled God,--that is the fundamental thought; and every
thing by which this thought was manifested and realised in history, in
what form soever it might be, must be viewed as comprehended in it. We
thus obtain a threefold fulfilment: 1. In the time after the return
from the captivity, the consolation was realised in the form in which
it is here expressed. The fact, that God admitted and promoted the
rebuilding of the temple, was an actual declaration that the Levitical
priesthood was reinstated in its mediatorial office. 2. In the highest
degree the idea of the Levitical priesthood was realised through
Christ, who, as a High-Priest and Mediator, bore the sins of His
people, and made intercession for the transgressors, and [Pg 465] in
whom the Levitical priesthood ceased, just as the seed-corn disappears
in the stalk. 3. Through Christ, the believers themselves became
priests, and obtained free access to the Father.--The following reasons
show that we have a right to maintain this independence of the thought
upon the form: 1. The Prophet is so penetrated with the thought of the
glory of the New Dispensation far outshining that of the Old, that,
_even a priori_, we could not suppose that, as regards the priesthood,
he expected an eternal duration of its form, hitherto so poor. It is
the substance only which, in his view, is permanent. One need only
compare the section, chap. xxxi. 31 ff. How intentionally does he here
bring forward the idea that the New Covenant would not be like the Old;
how does he point from the shadow to the substance! But it is
especially chap. iii. 16 which, in this respect, is to be regarded. In
that passage, the ceasing of the former dignity of the Ark of the
Covenant is annou