merely serves to give greater fulness and euphony to the word. Ewald, Maurer, and Hitzig suppose, that the pointers were at fault and mistook the feminine for a masculine. But there are too many analogous cases in existence to admit of such a supposition, and the question is set at rest by the masculine which immediately follows. A change of genders we should never look for in such a connection as this.

Ver. 27. "Invert, invert, invert,' the land will I, this also abides not, until he comes, to whom is the right, to him I give

it."

is a noun derived from the Piel, like

נאֵץ

TT

עָוֹן

in

ridicule (chap. xxii. 4), from ; and contempt (chap. xxxv. 12), from The prophet has selected this word of his own forming, as these analogous derivations show, for the express purpose of pointing out the connexion between inversion as a punishment, and inversion as a crime. The reference to ver. 24, 25, is very conspicuous. They were the first to turn. things upside down; now it is God's turn. The triple reiteration adds force to the declaration. The suffix in may be referred either to this, the existing condition of things, or to the land. The latter is favoured by the parallel passage in Is. xxiv. 1, "he inverteth the face thereof" (namely of the land), of which Vitringa has given an excellent exposition, and one thoroughly applicable to the passage before us. He says: "These metaphorical expressions indicate a complete inversion of the condition of the state, and a change of such a kind, that the lowest becomes highest, and the highest lowest, and perfect equality is produced in the circumstances of all, whether nobles or paupers, strong or weak, rich or poor, the republic itself being overturned and the inhabitants being stripped of all they possessed."

גם זאת לֹא הָיָה In the phrase

the word also should be particularly observed. It shows that ANT (this) refers to the condition consequent upon the inversion mentioned immediately before. This also is not to be perma

1 The word verkehren would undoubtedly be more correctly and forcibly rendered "turn upside down," but so complex an expression hardly admits of being repeated three times as the text requires; "overturn," on the other hand, does not convey the correct idea.—TR.

nent; the declaration "this is not this" applies just as much to the new condition as to the one which preceded it, and thus overthrow succeeds to overthrow; nowhere is there rest, nowhere security, everything is fleeting, until the appearance of the great restorer and prince of peace. very frequently denotes the right to a thing. If we adopt this meaning here, we can only explain it as referring to the right to the head-band and crown, which their former possessors had forfeited through their ungodliness. We have already proved, however, (vol. i., p. 85 seq.), from the reference to Gen. xlix. 10 and Ps. lxxii., that the word is used here to denote justice in an absolute sense, in contradistinction to the wickedness and unrighteousness of those who had previously possessed the throne.-There is no ground whatever for rendering the suffix in as a dative. The person was so clearly pointed out already, that there was no necessity to describe him further. The fundamental passage (Ps. lxxii. 1) requires that the suffix should be referred to the right.

THE SECTION.-CHAP. XXXIV. 23―31.

The prophecy against the wicked shepherds, in chap. xxxiv., belongs to the series of revelations, which the prophet continued to receive from the evening of the day before the arrival of the fugitive, who brought the news of the capture of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, till his arrival on the following morning (chap. xxxiii. 22). By the spirit of prophecy Ezekiel foresaw his coming, and by means of the word of the Lord, which interpreted the act of the Lord, he sought to ensure its producing the desired effect upon the exiles generally, whose elders had gathered round the prophet, with a large company besides, as they usually did when the hand of the Lord was upon him (cf. chap. xxxiii. 11). The word of the Lord by the prophet was for the most part consolatory, indicating his mercy and grace towards Israel, and his covenant fidelity; for his justice was so loudly proclaimed by the

event, that a hint was all that was required. In this respect we see here a perfect resemblance between Ezekiel and Jeremiah. Before the destruction falls, threats predominate in the addresses of both these prophets; but no sooner has it actually occurred, than promises take their place. Evil and good were equally hidden from the natural man before they actually came. From the same want of living faith sprang pride and haughtiness before the destruction, and after it despair,—both equally pernicious, and both in their turn alike the object of prophecy, the design of which was everywhere to bring out the idea in contradistinction to the existing reality.-We have already shown in our notes on Jer. xxiii., that we have there the groundwork of the prophecy in chap. xxxiv. It is the prophecy of the shepherds of Israel. The wicked shepherds are to be destroyed, and the sheep of Israel to be saved by the Lord, who will himself undertake the office of shepherd, and lead them by means of his servant David. The tidings of the fulfilment of the first part, the punishment of the wicked shepherds, which were brought in immediately afterwards, could not but serve as a pledge of the fulfilment of the second part, which rested upon the same foundation, the covenant faithfulness of the Lord.

Ver. 23. "And I raise up one shepherd over them, and he feeds them, even my servant David, he will feed them and he will be their shepherd."

והקימתי

The word is a sufficient disproof of the assertion of Hitzig, that Ezekiel expected the bodily resurrection of David, inasmuch as he is speaking of the appointment of a new prophet (cf. ver. 29, Deut. xviii. 15), not of the bringing back of an old one, which would have been something so thoroughly abnormal, that it would surely have been more definitely explained. Still more decisive is the evident allusion in ver. 12, to the original promise in 2 Sam. vii., "When thy days are full and thou liest with thy fathers, I will raise up (p) thy seed after thee, which cometh forth from thy body, and will establish thy kingdom." Those, who ascribe such singular opinions to particular prophets, have no conception of the manner in which all prophecy is linked together, as its divine mission necessarily requires. The last

link in the prophetic chain, with which Ezekiel throughout is closely connected, contains no hint of a bodily resurrection of David, it only speaks of a "Son reigning upon his throne." Again the fact that Ezekiel's reference to the Messiah consists of mere allusions, shows that he has no thought of bringing forward anything new with regard to his person, and is equivalent to an express rehearsal of former and fuller prophecies. The peculiar feature in this prophecy is the more distinct announcement of the Messiah as the good shepherd (cf. Jer. iii. 15, xxiii. 4). The words of the Lord in John x. 11, "I am the good shepherd," allude particularly to the passage before us. With regard to the article, Lampe says, "he pointed to those prophecies, with which the Pharisees were well acquainted, and in which he had been promised under this designation." Compare also 1 Pet. ii. 25, and Heb. xiii. 25, where allusion is made not only to Ezekiel, but to Jer. xxiii. and Zech. xi., between which prophecies this prediction of Ezekiel forms the connecting link. It is very evident from chap. xxxvii. 24, and from the parallel passage, Jer. xxiii. 5, 6, where Judah and Israel are classed together, that (one) refers to the former separation of Israel and Judah; and it is altogether in vain that Jahn makes every exertion to defend the rendering "unicus, singularis,” meaning which the word never has. In substance, no doubt, he is right. There was to rise up a most distinguished descendant of David (Venema: "one in whom David, God's own king and representative, would, so to speak, live again”), in the strictest sense one after God's own heart," who would receive back in its fullest extent the kingdom of his father. For the loss of dominion was threatened as a punishment to the family of David, because it was no longer after God's own heart, and even the most faithful of David's successors had not been so truly "after God's heart," that the promise of a future reunion (cf. 1 Kings xi. 39), could be fulfilled in them. Hence the announcement of one shepherd involved a declaration of the highest excellence, and also of the fact that the grace of God in its richest measure would be bestowed upon the nation through him. There is a direct reference to this passage in John x. 16, " one fold," "one shepherd," where our prophecy is still further extended, and Christ is declared to be a shepherd not for Judah

-a

and Israel alone, but for the Gentiles also, and the one shepherd is just on this account "the good shepherd," (ver. 11.) Hitzig's assertion, that is used "in contradistinction to several in succession," founders on both the parallel passage and the original promise, the latter of which takes away all force from his argument, that previous to this there is no allusion to the twofold division of Israel. In the relation in which Ezekiel stood to Jeremiah, the 23d chapter of the prophecies of the latter must be regarded as the context to this passage.-The title given to David, "servant of God," relates not merely to his willing obedience (Hävernick), but also and still more to his election; see our remarks on Is. xlii. 1.-The rule of David, the type, is described as a feeding, with particular reference to his former vocation, 2 Sam. vii. 8; Ps. lxxviii. 70, 71 (see the note on this passage). indicates the design, its fulfilment. The contrast between the two, which was so conspicuous in the conduct of previous shepherds, and plunged the nation into such indescribable misery, is now to cease (compare, in addition to the parallel passages already quoted, Jer. xxx. 9; xxxiii. 15, 16). Our remarks on Jer. xxxiii. 18, with reference to the preliminary fulfilment of the prophecy under Zerubbabel and the other leaders of the people, are equally applicable here. We may very properly interpret the name David as denoting the race of David which merely culminated in Christ, so that the fulfilment in Christ was not the only one, but was the highest and truest fulfilment (see the remarks on Is. lv. 3 and Hos. iii. 5).

רָעָה,indicates

Ver. 24. "And I, the Lord, will be God to them, and my servant David prince in the midst of them, I, the Lord, have spoken it."

The promise to David is to flourish again, his descendant is to be the servant of God in so complete a sense, that the former painful difference between the direct and indirect government of God will altogether cease.

Ver. 25. "And I conclude with them a covenant of peace, and exterminate the wild beasts out of the land, and they dwell safely in the desert and sleep in the woods."

The meaning of this covenant has already been discussed in Jer. xxxi. 32. Peace with God, which was to be secured by the servant of God, the Prince of Peace (Is. ix. 5), the true Solo