signification of "rain," and [Hebrew:
lcdqh] as qualifying its nature more accurately. Even in ancient times,
this explanation was not at all uncommon. Among the Rabbinical
interpreters, it was held by _Kimchi_, _Abenezra_, _S. B. Melech_, who
explain it of a _timely_ rain. _Calvin_, who rendered the [Hebrew:
lcdqh] by _justa mensura_, defends it with great decision, and declares
the other explanations to be forced, and unsuitable to the connection.
It is translated by "rain" in the English[1] and Genevan versions, and
by many Calvinistic interpreters, who differ, however, in the
translation of [Hebrew: lcdqh], and render it either: "In right time,"
or "in right measure," or "in the right place," or "for His
righteousness," or "according to your righteousness." _Marckius_ is of
opinion that "rain" is necessarily required by the context; but that,
on account of [Hebrew: lcdqh], this rain must be understood spiritually
of the Messiah with His saving doctrine, and His Spirit. Among the
interpreters of the Lutheran Church, _Seb. Schmid_ thinks of "a rain in
due season." [Pg 326] Among modern interpreters, the explanation by
"rain" has become altogether so prevalent, that it is considered
scarcely of any importance even to mention the other. [Hebrew: lcdqh]
is explained by _Eckermann_: "In proof of His good pleasure;" by
_Ewald_, _Meier_, and _Umbreit_: "For justification;" by _Justi_: "For
fruitfulness;" and by the others (_Rosenmueller_, _Holzhausen_,
_Credner_, _Rueckert_, _Maurer_, and _Hitzig_) by: "In right measure."
We consider this explanation to be decidedly erroneous, and the other
to be the sound one; and this for the following reasons:--1. The great
difference, on the part of the defenders of the current opinion, as
regards the explanation of [Hebrew: lcdqh] certainly indicates, with
sufficient clearness, that, by this addition, a considerable
obstruction is put in its way. The most current explanation, by "_justa
mensura_," "in right measure," "sufficiently," is certainly quite
untenable. Even the fact, that it is not [Hebrew: cdq] but [Hebrew:
cdqh] which is used here, must excite suspicion. (On the difference
betwixt these two words, compare _Ewald_ in the first edition of his
Grammar, S. 312-13.) But what is quite decisive is the fact that these
two words, which occur with such extraordinary frequency, are never
found in a physical, but always in a moral sense only. The only passage
in which, according to _Wi