in the passages already cited, and also in Ps. cxxxii. 9, “let thy priests be clothed with righteousness" (may they receive from thee, O God, the garment of righteousness), "and let thy saints shout for joy" (compare ver. 16). And again, just as in the passage before us, so in Ps. lxix. 27 the communication of divine righteousness is associated with the forgiveness of sins. 2. Particular prominence is given to the eternal character of the Messianic kingdom, and the blessings associated with it, in all the parallel passages of Daniel, in which that kingdom is described (compare ii. 44 and vii. 18, 27).

"To seal up vision and prophet."

Commentators are for the most part agreed in the opinion that sealing up is equivalent to fulfilling, or confirming, and that allusion is made to the custom of affixing a seal for the purpose of adding validity to the contents of a document. It is evident from 1 Kings xxi. 8 and Jer. xxxii. 10, 11, 44, that such a custom existed. They also adduce as parallel passages Acts iii. 18, ("those things which God before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, he hath so fulfilled, eπλýpwσev"), and Matt. v. 17. The expression "to seal" is certainly used in this sense in Syriac (see, for example, Ephraem Syrus hymn. 80, adv. scrutat. opp. iii. p. 149), as well as in the New Testament, e.g., John vi. 27 and other passages (see our comm. on Rev. vii. 3). But it is never so employed in the Old Testament. We have already seen that the sole metaphorical use of the word is one which was founded upon the custom of sealing up any thing that was laid aside, or deposited in a place of concealment. Of course, this would not be decisive in itself, unless there were something else to confirm it. But there is all the more reason for retaining the established meaning in the present instance, from the fact that, as a general rule, it would lead to great difficulties to take the verb in two different senses in the same verse; and this would be even more than usually the case in the verse before us, where it is evident from the arrangement, that the sealing of vision and prophet is closely connected with the sealing of the prophecy (see p. 110). The sealing

66

of the sins is accompanied by the sealing of the prophecies; and the latter is described in the prophecies themselves, as an act to be performed in the future. When once the fulfilment has taken place, although in other respects the prophecy still retains its great importance, yet in this respect it has answered its purpose, that the eyes of believers, in need of strength and consolation, are no longer directed to its announcements of a coming salvation, but to a salvation that has already appeared; that they now hold fast, not so much to the word of the Lord, as to the works of the Lord, and exclaim with Philip in John i. 46, we have found him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth the son of Joseph." According to this interpretation, there is a perfect parallel to our passage in the words of Christ, in Luke xxii. 37, "the things concerning me have an end" (the prophecies relating to my sufferings are now coming to an end); and in Matt. xi. 13, " for all the prophets and the law prophecied until John," on which Bengel says, "Now was everything completed, that had ever been predicted up to the time of John;" and also in 2 Pet. i. 19, "we have also a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts." In the last passage we have the sense of two different interpretations combined, the current one and our own. The "word of prophecy" has derived greater certainty on the one hand from its fulfilments, but on the other hand it has lost its force, in consequence, as a ground of hope and consolation; just as the light of a candle, which serves but feebly and imperfectly to dispel the surrounding darkness, is only employed till the full daylight has dawned.1

The use of the singular (compare it, Is. i. 1; 2 Chr. xxxii. 32; Nahum i. 1; and Kleinert, über die Aechtheit des Jes. p. 11), and the absence of the article serve to show, that the words are used in their widest sense. This generality of expression

1 In the objections, which have been brought against our explanations by Steudel (disquis. in locum Dan. ix. 24-27, Tübingen p. 29), Lengerke, and others, the fact is overlooked, that what prophecy foses in importance, from the one point of view, it recovers again from the other. The so-called heterogeneous idea, that the prophets are to be "abrogated," is undeniably expressed in Luke xxii. 37. The law and prophecy find alike in Christ, their end (Rom. x. 4) and their fullest interpretation.

may answer a double purpose. It may either indicate, that what is predicated of any object, applies to that object without exceptions, as in Ps. xxxvi. 7, "thou preservest man and beast" (see also Ps. lxv. 2 and lxxiii. 5); or it may simply be intended to represent indefinitely that which has really a limited application. An example of the latter we find in chap. xi. 14, "the sons of

to להעמיד חזון,the wicked of thy people will exalt themselves

the fulfilment of prophecy," where the prophet speaks quite generally, being employed in this passage also as a collective noun), although he had really something definite before his mind, namely, his own prophecy. The point of importance in this case was not, that the event would contribute to the fulfilment of one particular prophecy, but that it would be subservient to the accomplishment of prophecy generally. The last-mentioned argument, in favour of the general character of the expression, is confirmed by the rest of the section, in which the article is omitted several times, in cases where it must necessarily have been inserted, if the expression had been as definite as the object referred to (compare for example, vers. 25, 26).— Bertholdt, Wieseler, Hitzig, and others explain the clause as meaning, "till the predictions of the prophet Jeremiah are fulfilled." But this explanation is untenable. 1. It rests upon the assumption that sealing is equivalent to confirming. For if this term be correctly understood, the only circumstances, under which such an explanation would be defensible, would be if (the vision) stood alone. The addition of renders it altogether inadmissible; for how could a prophet be described as of no further use, simply because one single prediction of his had been fulfilled? But even if it stood by itself, the indefinite character of the expression would extend far beyond the limits assigned elsewhere, if the prophet had merely one particular prophecy of Jeremiah before his eyes. That we have here a violation of the rule, "the article is most indispensable, where reference is made to a person or thing, that has been mentioned just before," is a conclusion to which we should be justified in coming, only if the prophecy of Jeremiah had been mentioned so immediately before, that it would occur at once to the mind of any reader, and the indefinite character of the expres

חָזוֹן

נביא and the חזון

sion be thus removed ;—unless there were other circumstances connected with the passage, such as some striking resemblance between the prophecy of Jeremiah and the promises here given, which might serve as an indirect clue to the prediction referred to.-2. The κатaрyev of the could not take place in any other way, than through the fulfilment of that which is here described, as about to be accomplished at the end of the seventy weeks, more especially the sealing up of sins, with which the sealing up of the vision and prophet was closely connected. This same prediction ought, therefore, to be contained in the prophecy or two prophecies of Jeremiah, to which the prophet is said to refer. But there is no trace of this in either of them. The twenty-fifth chapter contains nothing but a promise of the termination of the Babylonian captivity, and the twenty-ninth is restricted to an assurance of the return of the Jews and the gracious protection of God.

There can be no doubt, therefore, that we have here an allusion to the forgiveness of sins to be imparted in the days of the Messiah, the announcement of which runs through all the writings of the prophets (compare Is. liii.; Zech. xiii. 1). And when this, the essential element in the work of Christ, had been accomplished, the prophecies, in this respect at least, could justly be regarded as abolished.

"And to anoint a most holy (or holy of holies)."

Those who explain the entire verse, as referring to the times immediately succeeding the return from captivity (for example, Michaelis, Jahn, and Steudel), regard these words as alluding to the dedication of the temple which was built by Zerubbabel and Joshua; and several of those, who connect it with the period immediately following the oppressions of Antiochus Epiphanes, refer this particular prophecy to the fresh consecration of the temple, after it had been desecrated by the Syrians. In both cases is taken to mean nothing more than dedication. For neither in the account of the building of the first temple, nor in the history of the second, either when it was first built or after its desecration,-do we find the least intimation that the sanc

tuary was anointed, as the tabernacle is said to have been (Ex. Xxx. 22 sqq.). On the contrary, according to the unanimous tradition of the Jews (see Lund i. 29), the holy oil was entirely wanting in the second temple. In the case of the first temple, the anointing may have been omitted, because the sacred vessels, which had already been anointed, were transferred from the tabernacle to the temple. But there is one objection, which applies equally to both of these explanations. In both of them it is taken for granted, that generally denotes the Most Holy place in the earthly temple; whereas this is invariably called

The former expression, on the other hand, is

always applied, not to the Holy of Holies, but to other objects, which were most holy in a sense of their own, as compared with the forecourt, &c., e.g., the altar of burnt-offering and other vessels in the sanctuary. A glance at the Concordance will suffice to show that this distinction has been constantly observed. It is most marked, however, in Ez. xli. 4, as compared with chap. xliii. 12 and xlv. 3. The first passage treats of that portion of the new temple, which will correspond to the Holy of Holies in the first temple; and here is used. In the other two the prophet speaks of the entire hill upon which the new temple is to stand, and describes it as a most holy place; and in this case is employed. The only passage in which at first sight the latter expression, without the article, appears to refer to the Holy of Holies in the temple, is 1 Chr. xxiii. 13,

"לְהַקְדִישׁוֹ קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים Aaron and his sons were set apart *

Vulg. ut ministraret in sancto sanctorum.

But a more correct

"1

explanation would be, "and Aaron was set apart to sanctify him as a most holy one, he and his sons for ever, to offer incense before the Lord, to serve him and to bless in his name for ever." Another reason why the passage should not be explained as referring to the Holy of Holies, is that it is difficult to understand, why the prophet should speak of this in particular, and not rather of the whole temple.

1 The explanation given by Clericus, "that they might consecrate the most holy things, the sacrifices and sacred vessels," is open to this objection, that the function, referred to, was of too subordinate à character to be mentioned here, especially to be mentioned first.