" for:
because the name of the Lord belongs to Jerusalem--is there at home The
name of the Lord is the Lord himself, in so far as He reveals His
invisible nature, manifests himself In the name, His deeds are
comprehended; and hence it forms a bridge betwixt existing and knowing.
A God without a name is a [Greek: theos agnostos], Acts xviii. 23.
There is an allusion to Deut. xii. 5: "But unto the place which the
Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes _to put His name
there_, to dwell in it, unto it ye shall seek, and thither ye shall
come." Formerly, when God put His name in an imperfect manner only,
Israel only assembled themselves; but now, all the Gentiles.--The last
words: "Neither shall they walk any more," &c., are not by any means to
refer to the Gentiles, but to the members of the kingdom of Israel, or
also to the whole of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to all the members
of the Kingdom of God, including the subjects of the kingdom of Israel.
This appears from a comparison of the fundamental passage of the
Pentateuch, as well as of the parallel passages in Jeremiah. Wherever
[Hebrew: wrirvt] occurs, the covenant-people are spoken of; everywhere
the walking after [Hebrew: wrirvt] of the heart is opposed to the
walking after the revealed law of Jehovah, which Israel alone
possessed. [Hebrew: wrirvt], which properly means "firmness," is then
used of hardness in sin, of wickedness.[5]

[Footnote 1: _Vitringa_ very correctly remarks on this passage:
"[Hebrew: bel], properly [Greek: ho echon], he who has any thing in his
possession is, by an ellipsis, applied to the husband who, in Exod.
xxi. 3, is rightly called [Hebrew: bel awh] _one who has a wife_."]

[Footnote 2: Against the explanation of _Maurer_: "For I am your Lord;"
and that of _Ewald_: "I take you under my protection," it is decisive
that [Hebrew: bel] never means "to be Lord," far less "to take under
protection." [Hebrew: bel], which properly means "to possess," is very
commonly used of marriage;--as early as in the Decalogue, the wife
appears as the noblest _possession_ of the husband--so that _a priori_
this signification is suggested and demanded.]

[Footnote 3: It is from the circumstance that modern Exegesis is unable
to comprehend the prophetic anticipation of the Future, that the
assertion has proceeded (_Movers_, _Hitzig_) that, even before the
Chaldean destruction, the Ark "must have disappeared in a mysterious
manner." In the view