an ellipsis, in
consequence of the emotion, must be supposed, _q.d._ it is the aim of
all our desires, the object of all our longings. The mere mention of
the object with which the whole heart is filled, is sufficient for the
lively emotion. _Venema's_ exposition; _Arca f[oe]deris Jehovae_ sc.
_est_, and that of _De Wette_: "They shall no more speak of the Ark of
the Covenant of Jehovah," are both feeble and un philological. How were
it possible that [Hebrew: amr] with the Accusative should mean "to
speak of something?"--[Hebrew: elh el-lb] is, in a similar context,
just as it is here, connected with [Hebrew: zkr] in Is. lxv. 17: "For
behold I create a new heaven and a new earth, and the former shall not
be remembered nor come into the heart," comp. also Jer. li. 50, vii.
31; 1 Cor. ii. 9. [Hebrew: zkr] with [Hebrew: b] does not simply stand
instead of the usual connection with the Accusative; it signifies a
remembering connected with affection, a recollection joined with ardent
longings. [Hebrew: pqd] is, by many interpreters, understood in the
sense of "to visit," but the signification "to miss" (Is. xxxiv. 16; 1
Sam. xx. 6-18, xxv. 15; 1 Kings [Pg 385] xx. 39) is recommended by the
connection with the following clause: "Nor shall it be made again."
This supposes that there shall come a time when the Ark of the Covenant
shall no more exist, the time of the destruction of the temple, which
was so frequently and emphatically announced by the prophets.[3] God,
however, will grant so rich a compensation for that which is lost, that
men will neither long for it, nor, urged on by this longing, make any
attempt at again procuring it for themselves by their own efforts. The
main question now arises:--In what respect does the Ark of the Covenant
here come into consideration? The answer is suggested by ver. 17. The
Ark of the Covenant is no more remembered, because Jerusalem has now,
in a perfect sense, become the throne of God. The Ark of the Covenant
comes into consideration, therefore, as the throne of God, in an
imperfect sense. It can easily be proved that it was so, although there
have been disputes as to the manner in which it was so. The current
view was this, that God, as the Covenant God, had _constantly_
manifested himself above the Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant, in a
visible symbol, in a cloud. The first important opposition to this view
proceeded from _Vitringa_ who, in the _Obs. sac._ t. i. p. 169,
advances,