at Hero of David's race ascended the throne,
when every trace of the regal grace of God in raising other rulers
ceased; for now, that the race of David itself rules again, and for
ever, no representation of it can any more take place. But, in the
passage under consideration, it would the less be suitable to separate
everything which does not, in the strictest sense, belong to it, that
here the promise to David is not viewed with reference to him and his
house, but solely with reference to the people. Hence, the
manifestation of the regal grace of God forms the centre; and the house
of David comes into consideration, only in so far as it was destined to
be the mediator of this grace. 2. It was fulfilled in Christ; and from
vers. 15, 16, it appears that the Prophet had this fulfilment chiefly
in view. These two fulfilments are connected with one another by
Zechariah also, in chap. iv.--3. It was realized by the raising of the
whole true posterity of Abraham to the royal dignity, through Christ.
This most striking antithesis to the despair--the despair saying: there
is no king in Israel; the consolation: all Israel are kings--is
expressly brought forward in ver. 22.--We still remark that we must
not, by any means, as is commonly done, translate: "To the priests and
Levites," but, as also in Is. lxvi. 21: To the Levitical priests;
compare the arguments in proof in _Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, p.
329 ff. The epithet, [Pg 468] "Levitical," is added in order to prevent
the thought that, perhaps, priests in another than the literal sense
are spoken of, compare p. 360. It serves therefore the same purpose as
the expression: "He ruleth as a king," in chap. xxxiii. 5.--As regards
the sacrifices, we must not by any means suppose, as is done by the
ancient interpreters, that spiritual sacrifices are here simply spoken
of. The correct view rather is, that the Prophet represents the
substance under its present form, in and with which it would now soon
be lost for a season; and as he has to do with the substance only, he
does not say anything as to whether this substance would, in future,
rise again in the same form, and whether it was to continue for ever in
that form. History has answered the first in the affirmative, and the
second in the negative; and from chap. iii. 16, it appears that the
Prophet, too, would, upon _inquiry_, have answered in the negative as
regards the last point. Moreover, how well they knew, even under the
O
|