5:1 REMEMBER, O LORD, what is come upon us: Behold, and see our reproach. 2 Our inheritance is turned unto strangers, Our houses unto aliens. 3 We are orphans and fatherless, 4 We have drunken our water for money; Our wood is sold unto us. Our mothers are as widows. 5 Our pursuers are upon our necks: We are weary, and have no rest. 6 We have given the hand to the Egyptians, And to the Assyrians, to be satisfied with bread. 7 Our fathers have sinned, and are not; And we have borne their iniquities. 8 Servants rule over us: There is none to deliver us out of their hand. 9 We get our bread with the peril of our lives Because of the sword of the wilderness. 10 Our skin is black like an oven Because of the burning heat of famine. 11 They ravished the women in Zion, The maidens in the cities of Judah.

12. Princes were hanged up by their hand: The faces of elders were not honoured. 13 The young men bare the mill, And the children stumbled under the wood. 14 The elders have ceased from the gate, The young men from their music. 15 The joy of our heart is ceased; Our dance is turned into mourning. 16 The crown is fallen from our head: Woe unto us! for we have sinned. 17 For this our heart is faint; For these things our eyes are dim; 18 For the mountain of Zion, which is desolate; The foxes walk upon it. 19 Thou, O LORD, abidest for ever; Thy throne is from generation to generation. 20 Wherefore dost thou forget us for ever, And forsake us so long time? 21 Turn thou us unto thee, O LORD, and we shall be turned; Renew our days as of old. 22 But thou hast utterly rejected us, Thou art very wroth against us.

Summary of the Book. In the first two chapters of this book the prophet describes principally the calamities of the siege of Jerusalem. In the third he deplores the persecutions which he himself had suffered; though he may in this be personifying the city and state, many of his own sufferings being illustrative of the calamities that fell generally upon the city and people at large. The fourth chapter is employed chiefly on the ruin and desolation of the city and Temple, and upon the misfortunes of Zedekiah. At the end he speaks of the cruelty of the Edomites, who had insulted Jerusalem in her miseries and contributed to its demolition. These he threatens with the wrath of God. The fifth chapter is a kind of form of prayer for the Jews in their dispersions and captivity. In the conclusion of it he speaks of their fallen royalty, attributes all their calamities to their rebellion and wickedness, and acknowledges that there can be no end to their misery but in their restoration to the Divine favor. A. C.

Chap. 5. This chapter also is elegiac. The sad state of the Jewish people and of their beloved city is made the ground of their plea before God for His compassion and restoring mercy.

The whole of this last elegy is in the form of a prayer. Other laments are interspersed with cries to Heaven. This poem is one continuous address to God. We see here true wisdom; for mere complaining is useless. To wail to the winds is foolish and vain. To make our troubles known to our fellow-men often avails little, for we may only weary them instead of eliciting their pity; or, if we do succeed in gaining commiseration, that may be of little real use to us. But God is the great Comforter. His ear is ever open to the cry of His distressed children. His heart is always tender to feel compassion for their woes. His hand is strong and willing to work substantial deeds of helpfulness. Adeney.

1-3. It is pleasant to see the language and the tone of prayer blended with this strain of bitter lamentation. It may well be our enduring joy that under any affliction, however severe, we may always look prayerfully and hopefully to the hand which visits upon us the affliction. “Come, and let us return to the Lord; for He hath torn, and He will heal us; He hath smitten, and He will bind us up” (Hos. 6:1). So here the writer brings up before God the desolations and the woes of His people as reasons why He should consider their case and return in His mercy to restore and to save. H. C.

7. Our fathers have sinned, and are not. Nations cannot be punished in the other world; therefore national judgments are to be looked for only in this life. The punishment which the Jewish nation had been meriting for a series of years came now upon them, because they copied and increased the sins of their fathers and the cup of their iniquity was full. Thus the children might be said to bear the sins of their fathers—that is, in temporal punishment; for in no other way does God visit these upon the children. (See Ezek. 18:1.) A. C.

The sin of the fathers and the suffering of the children. This chapter is the complaint of those who suffer. “We,” “us,” “our”—these are the prominent words. The complainers are those who have lost inheritance and houses, become fatherless, and entered into a galling servitude. And now what do they give as the reason of all this terrible experience? This—that “our fathers have sinned.” That was an historical fact. The utterances of former prophets, recorded, perhaps, in far greater abundance than we have any idea of, attested the iniquities of past generations. No generation of which there was any record had been without its disobedience. And had it not also been said that the sins of the fathers should be visited on the children? Hence there is plain logic in these words, “Our fathers have sinned . . . and we have borne their iniquities.” Great is the suffering in bodily pain, in privation, and in emotion, of every generation; and each generation has a right to say that some, at all events, of this suffering would have been escaped if only preceding generations had lived according to the full law of righteousness. Hence the appeal to us, when self-indulgence presses with all its energies, to consider others. Indulging self, we have to make ready for after-pains; but those pains cannot be kept within the limit of our own lives. But we need to travel round to the other aspects also. There is a difference between retribution and suffering. Some kinds of pain and injury may be inherited to the third and fourth generation, but a guilty conscience belongs to the individual. The worst pains, the worst consequences, and those on which the Saviour looks with the most pity, are surely those coming out of our own wrong-doing; and searching into the connection between the sins of past generations and the suffering of the present one will do harm rather than good if such a searching tends to obscure our own lawlessness, our own want of attention to the requirements of God. There is, indeed, a great difference in kind between the suffering coming on us from the wickedness of others and that which comes from our own. Y.

“We,” says the prophet, speaking of himself and of his rebellious and ungodly contemporaries—“we have borne the iniquities of our fathers.” The apostasy and rebellion of the former generations were visited upon those who endured the horrors of the siege and the degradation of the Captivity. There is mystery in the providential appointment that not only shall every man bear his own burden, but that some shall bear the burden of those also who have gone before them. But the fact remains, and it gives solemnity to the life of families and of nations. T.

In private life, poverty, disease and disgrace are inherited by children from their parents. Now, it is a sign of the robust truthfulness of the Bible that this dark fact is distinctly recognized. There is no attempt to shun it because it is mysterious. We have in the Bible an honest, brave confronting of the evils of life, and not a system which is only beautiful to contemplate in idea and which cannot be squared with facts.

This fact should not shake our faith in God. Men in all ages have faced it clearly and yet have retained their trust in Providence—e.g., the writers of the Bible. The very idea of faith implies that we must confide and wait in the darkness where we cannot understand. The necessary greatness of the scheme of the government of a world should lead us to expect mysteries in it. Adeney.

15-18. All joy and honor have ceased. Alas that we have so grievously sinned!—another wholesome admission that their national sins have brought upon them this desolation. It was peculiarly afflictive to every pious heart that their ever-honored Mount Zion had become so desolate, so abandoned of its former worshippers, that now, instead of men bowing reverently there in worship, the foxes go up and down upon it. H. C.

16. God is righteous, for we have sinned. All our woes are owing to our own sin and folly. If the crown of our head be fallen (for so the words run), if we lose our excellency and become mean, we may thank ourselves—we have by our own iniquity profaned our crown and laid our honor in the dust. H.

16, 17. The degradation of sin. The promise of sin is something very different from this; no flattery is untried, no prospect withheld which may induce men to rebel against God. But, as with our first parents, as with the dwellers in Jerusalem, so is it in the experience of all men; the promises which sin makes are unfulfilled; the wages of sin is death. T.

17. The faint heart and the dim eyes. Jerusalem had been satisfied with outward things. Wherever it turned there had been enough to satisfy its pride and its pleasure. And now Jehovah, by efficient agents, had taken these outward things away. The difference that had been made in Jerusalem was perceptible to any eye. But another difference could only be known when it was confessed—viz., the difference made in the hearts of the people when their outward circumstances were so completely changed. Proud, resolute men, full of joy in their selfish purposes, found the interest of life completely gone. It would have availed nothing if all these chastisements had ended in leaving the people real Stoics, able to say that it was all the same whether they kept their temporal possessions or lost them. God did not desolate Jerusalem for any delight that he took in this; it was to find a way to humble hearts that were unsubdued after every prophetic appeal. When men are delightedly occupied with the things of sense, then it is a great end gained if, through losses and changes, their hearts become faint and their eyes dim. For then they may accept the ministry of Christ to put into their hearts an energy which will tend for righteousness and direct their eyes to look on the world in the right way. Y.

19-22. Under a sense of human frailty, the passing away of generations and the falling of earthly thrones, it is a relief to the pious heart to turn to God and say: “Thou, Lord, remainest forever; Thy throne from generation to generation.” The contrast is refreshing, and inspires hope in the saddest heart, especially when we truly accept this everlasting God as the enduring portion of our souls. H. C.

It will be felt that this prayer is a fitting conclusion to the book. What could be more proper than that these people, having looked all around with an ever-deepening sense of loss and humiliation, should now look above?

Upon earth, in strength or skill of man, there is nothing to be looked for; if anything is to be got it is by looking to heaven. This chapter has had in it the tones of penitence and contrition. It is admitted that the cause of all this desolation is the people’s turning away from God. And now there is the petition which results from a full self-discovery. Inward weakness is discovered. The last cry of the book indicates that the turning of men to God is the great thing to be desired. Not a restoration to external possessions and comforts, but a turning to God consequent on His turning to us. The results that come from our being turned to God by His power will one day be seen to justify all the loss and pain needed to bring them about. Y.

19. Consolation in the supremacy of God. The Divine supremacy is often regarded as a topic of dread rather than as one of comfort. The awful throne towers above poor humanity, sublime and majestic, and men turn from it to seek refuge at the humbler footstool of mercy. But the writer of this elegy finds deep satisfaction in contemplating the supreme and eternal government of God. Adeney.

The eternal throne. The believer in God has this great advantage: he has a firm conviction that all things are under the control and rule of a wise, righteous and benevolent King, who reigns both in heaven and on earth. Afflictions, personal and relative, may distress his mind, calamities may overwhelm his imagination and baffle his reason, but he has this consolation—he knows that the Lord remains forever on His throne. T.

21. Renewal. When they do not lead to improvement lamentations are profitless, though they may be unavoidable. It is vain to mourn the past if our grief does not help us to make the future better. Sorrow for sin is good only when it leads to an active repentance. It is therefore necessary that a true consideration of the miserable condition into which evil living has brought us should rouse an earnest desire for a new and better life. The writer does not simply resolve to do better, nor hope that a happier state of affairs will come about of its own accord. He prays, and the object of his prayer is to plead with God to produce the great change which is so much needed. Adeney.

Nehemiah Adams, D.D., d. 1878. William Adams, D.D., d. 1880. Rev. W. F. Adeney. (Pub. Com.) J. W. A. James W. Alexander, D.D., d. 1859. A. J. Addison Alexander, D.D., d. 1860. Com. on Isaiah. Wm. L. Alexander, D.D., d. 1884. Rev. J. H. Allen. Dean Allix. E. B. Andrews. Bp. Lancelot Andrews, d. 1626. Joseph Angus, D.D. Anon. An Unknown Writer. F. S. Arnold. Thomas Arnold, D.D., d. 1842. William Arnot, D.D., d. 1875. John Arrowsmith, d. 1659. C. A. Auberlen, D.D. Augustine, d. 430. Clement E. Babb, D.D. Wm. G. Ballantine, D.D. Robert Balgarnie, D.D. J. T. Bannister, D.D. A. B. Albert Barnes, d. 1870. E. P. Barrows, D.D. William Bates, D.D., d. 1699. Richard Baxter, d. 1691. E. Bayley, D.D. W. J. B. Willis J. Beecher, D.D. A. J. F. Behrends, D.D. Bernard de Clairvaux, d. 1153. G. W. Bethune, D.D. Bp. Wm. Beveridge, d. 1708. Thomas Binney, D.D., d. 1874. T. R. Birks, D.D. Com. on Isaiah. E. C. B. Edward C. Bissell, D.D., d. 1893. Benjamin Blayney, D.D. Robert Bolton, 1637. Horatius Bonar, D.D., d. 1890. Rev. George Bowen. Bp. Bradford. Rev. Charles Bradley, d. 1871. W. Bright, D.D. Rev. Charles Bridges, d. 1869.

Bp. Phillips Brooks. Thomas Brooks, d. 1682. W. R. Brooks, D.D. Arthur J. Brown, D.D. John Bunyan, d. 1688. S. Burnham, D.D. E. F. Burr, D.D. H. B. Horace Bushnell, D.D., d. 1876. Bp. Joseph Butler, d. 1752. B. J. Glentworth Butler, D.D. W. A. B. Wm. Archer Butler, D.D., d. 1848. Wm. Cadman, D.D. John Caird, D.D., d. 1892 John Cairns, D.D. Arg. from Prophecy. Rev. Gordon Calthrop. Augustine Calmet, d. 1757. Thomas Carlyle, d. 1881. A. Carman, D.D. Joseph Caryl, d. 1673. A. Caspars, D.D. Thomas Chalmers, D.D., d. 1847. Talbot W. Chambers, D.D. T. Champness. Samuel Chandler, D.D., d. 1756. W. E. Channing, D.D. C. Chapman, D.D. J. A. M. Chapman, D.D. Stephen Charnock, d. 1680. Thomas Chase. Chrysostom, d. 407. G. B. C. George B. Cheever, D.D., d. 1888. Christian Treasury. Richard W. Church, D.D., d. 1890. A. C. Adam Clarke, D.D., d. 1832. Samuel Clarke, D.D., d. 1682. C. C. Rev. C. Clemance. Rev. Wm. H. Cobb. Samuel Taylor Coleridge, d. 1834. P. C. Pulpit Commentary. C. C. Colton, d. 1832. (American Committee of Revision.) C. Rev. S. Conway. Prof. Josiah Cooke. H. C. Henry Cowles, D.D., d. 1881. Com. on Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations.

Samuel Cox, D.D.

C. Cron.

Howard Crosby, D.D.

John Cumming, D.D., d. 1881.

Daniel Curry, D.D.

T. L. Cuyler, D.D.

O. E. Doggett, D.D.

R. W. Dale, D.D.

D. Franz Delitzsch, D.D.

T. De Quincy.

David Dickson, d. 1662.

Dic. B. Dictionary of Bible (Wm. Smith).

Marcus Dods, D.D.

S. R. Driver, D.D.

Rev. James Drummond, 1864.

Prof. Archd. Duff.

Howard Duffield, D.D.

Jeremiah Dyke, d. 1620.

J. Oswald Dykes, D.D.

S. J. M. Eaton, D.D.

A. E. Alfred Edersheim, D.D., d. 1889.

B. B. E. Bela B. Edwards, D.D., d. 1844.

Jonathan Edwards, D.D., d. 1758.

C. J. E. C. J. Elliott, D.D.

F. F. Ellinwood, D.D.

E. Erskine, D.D., d. 1754.

Christmas Evans.

S. J. Evans, D.D.

G. H. A. Ewald, D.D., d. 1876.

P. F. Patrick Fairbairn, D.D., d. 1845.

W. W. Farris, D.D.

Fred’k W. Farrar, D.D.

Fenelon, d. 1715.

Samuel W. Fisher, D.D., d. 1879.

John Forbes, D.D.

J. F. John Foster, d. 1843.

D. F. Donald Fraser, D.D., d. 1892.

William Fraser, D.D., d. 1879.

M. E. Gates.

J. Monro Gibson, D.D.

John Gill, d. 1771.

George Gilfillan, d. 1878.

E. H. Gillett, D.D., d. 1875.

P. J. Gloag, D.D.

Francis Godet, D.D.

Rev. Francis Goode, 1848.

Bp. Harvey Goodwin, d. 1892.

E. M. G. Edward M. Goulburn, D.D.

David Gregg, D.D.

Andrew Gray, D.D., d. 1616.

W. H. G. Wm. Henry Green, D.D.

Geo. S. Grey, d. 1885.

E. D. Griffin, D.D.

Francois Guizot, d. 1874.

William Gurnall, d. 1679.

Bp. H.

Thomas Guthrie, D.D., d. 1873.

Robert Haldane, d. 1842.

Bp. Joseph Hall, d. 1656.

Robert Hall, D.D., d. 1831.

James Hamilton, D.D., d. 1867.

Wm. Hanna, D.D.

J. H.

John Harris, D.D., d. 1856.

N. Hawthorne.

H.

Matthew Henry, D.D., d. 1714.

Bp. A. C. Hervey.

John Hill, d. 1746.

Roswell D. Hitchcock, D.D., d. 1887.

A. A. Hodge, D.D.

Rev. Wm. B. Homer, d. 1841.

H. H.

Herman Hooker, D.D., d. 1857.

Bp. Hopkins, 1690.

M. H.

Mark Hopkins, D.D., d. 1887.

Bp. George Horne, d. 1792.

Bp. Samuel Horsley, d. 1806.

John Howe, D.D., d. 1705.

Wayland Hoyt, D.D.

Rev. G. H. Hubbard.

Bp. Huntingford.

Bp. Frederick D. Huntington.

Hermann Hupfield, D.D., d. 1866.

Bp. Hurd.

Prof. Thos. H. Huxley.

Interior (Chicago).

Edward Irving, d. 1834.

Bp. John Jackson, d. 1885.

Bp. John Jebb, d. 1833.

William Jenkyn, d. 1685.

Bp. F. Jeune.

Wm. Jones (of Nayland), d. 1800.

W. S. Karr, D.D.

William Kay, D.D., d. 1886.

John Ker, D.D., d. 1886.

John Kennedy, D.D.

John Kitto, D.D., d. 1854.

J. H. Kurtz, D.D.

Lamartine.

Dean Law.

A. H. Layard.

Stanley Leathes, D.D.

S. V. Leech, D.D.

L.

Abp. Robert Leighton, d. 1684.

Leo the Great.

T. L.

Tayler Lewis, LL.D., d. 1877.

Henry P. Liddon, D.D., d. 1890.

Rev. N. Loraine, 1885.

Bp. Robert Lowth, d. 1787.

Wm. Lowth, D.D.

Martin Luther, d. 1546.

| | T. B. Macaulay.Alexander McCaul, D.D. d. 1863.James McCosh, D.D.Donald Macdonald, D.D. | | — | — | | A. M. | Alexander Maclaren, D.D.Sermons and Studies in many vols. and serials.Norman McLeod, D.D., d. 1872.Bp. Maclagan.Hugh Macmillan, D.D.S. J. McPherson, D.D.R. J. McGhee, D.D.Abp. Magee.Card. Henry E. Manning, d. 1892. | | T. M. | Thomas Manton, d. 1667. | | E. M. | Erskine Mason, D.D. d. 1850.John Mason, d. 1763.J. M. Mason, D.D.William Mason, d. 1791.Henry Melvill, D.D., d. 1871. | | J. R. M. | J. R. Miller, D.D. | | G. M. | Bp. George Moberly, d. 1885.W. E. Moore, D.D.E. D. Morris, D.D. | | M. | Rev. A. F. Muir.Rev. D. A. Murray. | | | H. A. Nelson, D.D.T. A. Nelson, D.D.Card. John H. Newman, d. 1890.Bp. Thos. Newton, d. 1782. | | O. | G. F. Ochler, D.D.Rev. J. Ogle.John Owen, D.D., d. 1683. | | J. P. | Joseph Parker, D.D. | | C. H. P. | Chas. H. Parkhurst, D.D.Blaise Pascal, d. 1662.W. W. Patton, D.D., d. 1890.W. M. Paxton, D.D.Andrew P. Peabody, D.D.Bp. Pearson.Austin Phelps, D.D., d. 1890.A. T. Pierson, D.D.R. S. Pool.J. L. Porter, D.D., d. 1889.Noah Porter, D.D.Bp. Porteus.John Prideaux, d. 1650.Wm. M. Punshon, D.D., d. 1880.E. B. Pusey, D.D., d. 1882. | | | Pasquier Quesnel, d. 1719. | | G. R. | Alexander Raleigh, D.D., d. 1880.George Rawlinson, D.D.John Reid, D.D.James H. Rigg, D.D. |

| F. W. R. | Rev. Edward Robie.F.W. Robertson, D.D., d. 1853.C. S. Robinson, D.D.E. P. Rogers, D.D.Henry Rogers.J. G. Rosenmuller.John Ruskin. | | — | — | | | — | | | Bp. Robert Sanderson, d. 1663.Adolph Saphir, D.D.Prof. A. H. Sayce.Geo. H. Schodde, D.D.James Scott, D.D.Abp. Secker.Wm. Secker, d. 1660.J. H. Seelye, D.D.Rev. Ambrose Serle, d. 1815.Bp. Thomas Sherlock, d. 1761.J. M. Sherwood, D.D., d. 1890.Richard Sibbes, d. 1635.James Sime.Bp. Matthew Simpson, d. 1884.T. H. Skinner, D.D.Henry B. Smith, D.D., d. 1877.James Smith. | | R. P. S. | R. Payne Smith, D.D.Philip Smith.Spectator (London).Charles H. Spurgeon, d. 1892.Robert South, D.D., d. 1716.H. D. M. Spence, D.D.James Stacy, D.D.James Stalker, D.D.Dean Stanhope.A. P. Stanley, D.D., d. 1881.Geo. B. Stevens, D.D.T. P. Stevenson, D.D.Rudolph Stier, D.D., d. 1859.John S. Stone, D.D., d. 1882. | | R. S. S. | Richard Salter Storrs, D.D.John Stoughton, D.D.A. Strumpell, M.D.George Swinnock, d. 1673.William Symington, D.D., d. 1862. | | | — | | I. T. | Isaac Taylor, d. 1865.Bp. Jeremy Taylor, d. 1667.F. Aug. G. Tholuck, D.D., d. 1877Jesse B. Thomas, D.D.Chas. L. Thompson, D.D. | | J. P. T. | Joseph P. Thompson, D.D.R. E. Thompson, D.D.Abp. Thomson. | | T. | Prof. J. R. Thomson.Wm. M. Thomson, D.D.J. H. Thornwell, D.D., d. 1862.Bp. Anthony W. Thorold.E. Thurston, D.D.Abp. Tillotson, d. 1694. |

S. S. T. Sunday School Times (Phila.)

R. T. Reuben Tinker.

L. T. Townsend, D.D.

Abp. R. C. Trench, d. 1886.

H. B. Tristram, D.D.

H. C. T. H. Clay Trumbull, D.D.

Francis W. Upham, LL.D.

Karl Ullmann.

Van O. J. J. Van Oosterzee, D.D., d. 1882.

J. G. Van Slyke, D.D.

C. J. Vaughan, D.D.

Marvin R. Vincent, D.D.

Alexander Vinet, D.D., d. 1847.

C. Vitringa.

W. Rev. J. Waite.

R. W. Robert Walker, D.D., d. 1783.

Ralph Wardlaw, D.D., d. 1853.

Thomas Watson, d. 1869.

Daniel Webster.

Edward Wells, D.D., d. 1727.

Rev. N. Woolsey Wells.

Bp. Brooke Foss Westcott.

Edward White, D.D.

Bp. Sam’l Wilberforce, d. 1873.

William R. Williams, D.D., d. 1885.

Bp. Thos. Wilson, d. 1755.

A. Winchell.

R. Winterbotham.

J. L. Withrow, D.D.

Wm. Wogan, d. 1754.

Theodore D. Woolsey, D.D., d. 1889.

Y.

Rev. D. Young.

John Young.

Date Due

| N 8 ‘39 | | | | | — | — | — | — | | O 31 ‘40 | | | | | Je ‘40 ‘41 | | | | | Apr ‘48 | | | | | Mr 16 ‘46 | | | | | JE 14 ‘50 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | Introduction, | PAGE | | — | — | — | | Chapter | I., | 9 | | “ | II., | 17 | | “ | III., | 26 | | “ | IV., | 33 | | “ | V., | | | “ | VI., | 38 | | “ | VII., | | | “ | VIII., | 44 | | “ | IX., | | | “ | X., | | | “ | XI., | | | “ | XII., | 57 | | “ | XIII., | 60 | | “ | XIV., | | | “ | XV., | 68 | | “ | XVI., | | | “ | XVII., | 75 | | “ | XVIII., | 78 | | “ | XIX., | 90 | | “ | XX., 1-44, | 91 | | “ | XX., 45-49, | 99 | | “ | XXI., | | | “ | XXII., | 105 | | “ | XXIII., | 107 |

| Chapter | XXIV., | PAGE | | — | — | — | | “ | XXV., | 110 | | “ | XXVI., | 115 | | “ | XXVII., | 119 | | “ | XXVIII., | | | “ | XXIX., | 131 | | “ | XXX., | | | “ | XXXI., | | | “ | XXXII., | | | “ | XXXIII., | 140 | | “ | XXXIV., | 147 | | “ | XXXV., | 151 | | “ | XXXVI., | | | “ | XXXVII., | 160 | | “ | XXXVIII., | 168 | | “ | XXXIX., | | | “ | XL., | 172 | | “ | XLI., | | | “ | XLII., | | | “ | XLIII., | 181 | | “ | XLIV., | | | “ | XLV., | 186 | | “ | XLVI., | | | “ | XLVII., | 191 | | “ | XLVIII., | |

V

| Chapter | I., | PAGE | 503 | | — | — | — | — | | “ | II., | | 507 | | “ | III., | | 515 |

| Chapter | I., | 522 | | — | — | — | | “ | II., | | | “ | III., | 527 |

| Chapter | I., | 535 | | — | — | — | | “ | II., | |

| | Introduction, | 547 | | — | — | — | | Chapter | I., 1–6, | 550 | | “ | I., 7–21, | 553 | | “ | II., | 555 | | “ | III., | 559 |

| Chapter | IV., | PAGE | 563 | | — | — | — | — | | “ | V., | | 571 | | “ | VI., | | 573 | | “ | VII., | | 579 | | “ | VIII., | | | | “ | IX., | | 587 | | “ | X., | | | | “ | XI., | | 595 | | “ | XII., | | 599 | | “ | XIII., | | | | “ | XIV., | | 612 |

| | Introduction, | | 621 | | — | — | — | — | | Chapter | I., | | | | “ | II., | | 630 | | “ | III., | | 635 | | “ | IV., | | |

IN these frank, closing words I may be allowed, for the first and only time, to speak directly in the first person.

In the Preface to the work (O. T., vol. 1, p. 6) I have briefly outlined the motive and the aim which constrained me at the outset of this undertaking. Now, at the close, I can affirm that this motive and aim have actuated me in all these eighteen years of almost unintermitted toil. And I can now also thankfully affirm that not only the origin and general inception of the plan, but its many diverse details have been so consciously impressed upon my thought as successive inspirations that throughout I have simply felt and toiled as one whose task had been assigned and gratefully accepted. That the toil has brought its own reward, the appreciative reader will understand; while there has been a perpetual encouragement in the added conviction of helpful service to all who desire a larger and more complete knowledge of the Living Word. In the interest of the great body of English-reading Christians I have sought to furnish an intelligent reply to every reasonable inquiry pertaining to the entire text of the Bible. This, indeed, has been the one ever-present thought in the labor of all these years. For this great end the material of these seven thousand pages has been gathered from the matured thought of more than twelve hundred devout scholars, of the past and present, and has been chosen simply with reference to its intrinsic worth as explanatory and interpretative of the meaning of the Inspired Text. The late Dr. Roswell D. Hitchcock accurately estimated the purpose and method of my entire work: “First of all, the exact sense of Scripture is carefully sought for, and then the innermost practical meaning of every passage is elucidated and enforced.” And the late Donald Fraser, D.D., of London, justly said: “Although it makes no show of technical criticism, the expositions it furnishes proceed, as all interpretations worthy of attention must proceed, on careful, critical study of the text.”

No attempt has been made fully to discuss the mooted points of interpretation or of literary criticism. With but few exceptions the only form of antagonism to what may be regarded as error is a counter-statement of what is believed to be truth. One notable exception respects the theories of the self-styled “Higher Criticism.” The main questions introduced by its leading advocates in Great Britain and America have been, in place, compactly but fairly presented and as fairly refuted throughout the Old Testament. The presentment and the refutation are mainly designed for the average student and teacher, and the intelligent reader, with the single motive of guarding their faith against the difficulties and doubts that naturally spring from the many complicated and confusing theories of the modern divisive school. I earnestly commend to every interested reader the thoughtful perusal of the many pages and paragraphs in which these theories are impartially treated.

vii

And, in this place, I cannot refrain from a passing reference to certain impressions which have resulted from the large study and comparison that I have been constrained to make between the two opposed schools of criticism. 1. Among equally advanced English and American scholars there seems to be an immense preponderance in numbers of conservative criticism over that which may be reasonably characterized as destructive. 2. The same preponderance appears in the superior quality of the personal judgment of leading critics, a fact which has a vital bearing upon the final issue of the conflict. The superiority of conservative criticism in this quality of judgment is strongly emphasized by the definite and harmonious conclusions of one class and by an utter diversity of views and by constantly shifting and altogether unsettled conclusions of the other. 3. A further comparison and a like contrast is suggested by the spirit and method in which the discussion is conducted. On one side, there is modest and reverent carefulness, as dealing with divinely given words; on the other, a self-assertive boldness which seems to ignore the Divine source and element in the words. 4. But a far graver charge lies against the modern school of criticism. It is that from first to last, in its essential and discriminating points, it exalts the form and framework far above the spirit and substance of the Sacred Writings. It is that in all its theories and discussions it utterly eliminates and virtually rejects the great spiritual truths whose embodiment in History, Psalm and Prophecy constitutes the single aim, the sublime scope and the supreme end of the entire Old Testament Revelation.*

• Upon this vital point I cite paragraphs from Prof. James Robertson’s “Early Religion of Israel,” a book that will well repay its careful reader:

“The books of the Old Testament themselves, though subjected to the most harassing criticism, and characterized as ‘spurious narratives of late date,’ smile at all such criticism, and give forth with confidence their testimony to a faith which is independent of time, and indifferent to modes of literary composition. . . . The self-styled ‘higher’ criticism is indeed not high enough, or, we should perhaps more appropriately say, not deep enough for the problem before it. The strongest objection, in fact, to the theory ‘as a whole’ is, that it hardly at all touches the religion round which the whole history properly turns. . . . Take, for example, the treatment of the Book of Psalms now in vogue in the higher circles of criticism. One would have thought that if anywhere the inquirer into the history of religions thought and life would find valuable ‘sources,’ it would be in this collection of the sacred and national songs of Israel. But Wellhausen, for example, who boasts that he could understand the history of Israel without the Book of the Law, can also dispense with the Book of the Psalms. In the ‘index of passages discussed’ appended to his ‘History of Israel,’ there is only one reference to one psalm (Ps. 73), which, too, of course, is placed very late in date. I think it a positive objection to the theory, not so much that it brings down the bulk of the psalms to post-exilian times, but that it is able to dispense with them as materials for a history of the older religion of Israel, and to relegate them to a time at which, according to its own showing, the religion had taken a more mechanical and formal phase. . . . Thus, by one stroke, the tongue of ancient Israel is struck dumb, as the pen is dashed from its hand; these artless lyrics are deprived of their spontaneousness, and a great gulf is fixed between the few which a niggardly criticism admits to be of early date, and the full volume of devotional song which in many tones was called forth by the shifting situations of olden times. Of course the hypothesis of a low religious stage in pre-exilic times demands this. . . . In the glowing periods of the earliest writing prophets, we have unmistakable evidence of the deep religiousness that suffused the minds of those who from the first guided the religious life of the nation. But all that side of the early religious history—and how much is that all!—might almost as well never have existed, for all that the modern historians make of it. The deep spirituality of Hosea, who stands like the Saviour of mankind weeping over Jerusalem, full of the very love of God; the strong ethical tone of Amos, and his enthusiasm for God; the lofty aspirations of Isaiah for righteousness, and his rapt visions of future glory—these surely are not isolated phenomena in the centuries that rolled over Israel when all that was best in the history was being achieved, but indicate a strong undercurrent of perennial religious life. Yet for all these, even taken in their isolation, how little sympathy do our modern critical historians exhibit! Whereas Ewald, in a past generation, came to the Old Testament books with a sympathetic spirit, and Delitzsch, in our own generation, with a piety pardonable in the circumstances heard in these prophetic voices the echo, thrown backward over the centuries, of the Gospel of Christ, we get nowadays some dry analysis of the ‘idea’ and the ‘conception’ of each prophet, and a grudging doling out of the attributes of might and holiness in the character of God, and reluctant admissions of nascent monotheism here and there; but we catch no fire from the prophetic words as they are weighed and measured out in the scales of the critics. These men, whose words are the fittest found even yet to express all that we can think loftiest of God, are represented as groping after the idea of one God, contending for the honor of a deity that is little better than a Chemosh or a Moloch; and when they cease to write and become men of action, they are set before us as moved by paltry motives of expediency, upholding the dignity of their order against the priesthood, or viii

As a final word, strongly emphasizing the inestimable value of the Old Testament Scriptures, I would plead for their continuous thoughtful reading in alternation and yet always in close connection with the writings of the New Testament. They are one in their Divine source, one in their great and vital themes, in their disclosures of God, in His nature, His working, His ways and His dealings with all His creatures; one also in their showing of man’s heart and his doings; and one in their revelation of a Race Redemption procured and proffered through the self-offering of a Divine-human Redeemer. But an essential feature in the method of the inspired Revelation is its historical as well as progressive character. And this fact it is that gives the Old Testament a special value and helpfulness that cannot be overestimated, and that demands for it, equally with the New Testament, careful and thorough study; for, in very truth, its pages present one continuous series of living object-lessons, actually existent illustrations, on the one part, of God’s character and purposes and the principles of His dealings with men, and, on the other, of man’s nature and treatment of God and of his fellow-men. On the one side, the recorded history of every individual and of every people, especially and largely the story of Israel, supplies abundant evidence in every particular of the sweet yet awful truthfulness of Jehovah’s self-disclosure to Moses (Ex. 34 : 6, 7). On the other side, equally numerous and deeply affecting are its testimonies to the faithfulness of the Divine portraiture of man, as these are found in definite statements scattered throughout its pages.

And now, with a renewed expression of deep and fervent gratefulness that “to me this grace” of helpful service has been “given,” I close my long-protracted task in the hopeful assurance and with the prayer that through the crowning favor of God these volumes may long continue to bring light and help with every reading of their pages.

conspiring with them to bring about a masterly movement for the concentration of religious worship directly under their own supervision. Feasts, sacrifices, incomes of the clergy—in such things, and in the centralization of the worship at Jerusalem, the history of religion is made to consist; but the heart of the religion is hardly looked at, or rudely torn out of it.

“Let their literary analysis be ever so thorough, one who will read the Old Testament books as he would read any other ancient documents must remain convinced that justice is not done to them by a criticism which ignores their most characteristic element. The biblical theory says there was a course of history quite unprecedented, or certainly most extraordinary; the modern theory says that the history was nothing remarkable, but there was quite an unprecedented mode of imagining and writing it. . . . We ought gladly to welcome any help that comes to the aid of faith in such a God as the patriarchs and prophets are represented as making known—a God whose revelation of Himself has been advancing with brighter radiance, till it culminated in the manifestation of His Son Jesus Christ, who was the ’light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of His people Israel.’ Such a faith as Old Testament prophets possessed has been the blessing and the guide of the best of mankind in their achievement of the best up till this hour; such a faith is more than ever needed just at the present moment, to save the human race from losing respect for itself, and to rekindle hope and aspiration for the future."—Jas. Robertson.

I add two brief paragraphs: “Criticism cannot touch the vital heart of the Bible. So far as criticism is revolutionary and destructive, it is not scientific; and so far as it is scientific, it is perfectly harmless, and in the main purely conjectural. . . . There is the Bible—potent in the past, and potent now. There, in its records, lies the broad line of revelation, in law and psalm and prophecy, growing more and more luminous until the day dawns in Jesus Christ. It is all clear and consistent, and history has crystallized around it. The heart of the world beats in it. The energies that have shaped the advancing centuries are here brought to view. It can never be outgrown; and it can never be discredited. There is an actual history behind it. There is a deathless life within it. And these are driving it with irresistible momentum into the present and the coming years."—A. J. F. Behrends.

“To theological students I would give the advice, as the best safeguard against the danger of scepticism, to master first and last the contents of the Bible, and never to lose sight of its spiritual truths, which are immeasurably more important than all the questions of lower and higher criticism."—Philip Schaff.

EZEKIEL, as the book which bears his name stands in our own and the Hebrew canon, is the first prophet who proclaims his message from the land of his captivity. The Book of Daniel opens with the third year of Jehoiachin, but Ezekiel begins with the fifth year of Jehoiachin’s captivity. Daniel, therefore, had probably preceded Ezekiel into exile, and undoubtedly outlived him, but they were in exile together, though far distant from each other. Ezekiel was of priestly family, the son of Buzi. As, however, the name of his father is not otherwise mentioned in Scripture, we know no more about him. Ezekiel was partly contemporary with Jeremiah and Daniel, but Jeremiah had begun to prophesy thirty-four years before Ezekiel, and continued to do so for some six or seven years after his first vision; and as Daniel lived till the third year of Cyrus (Dan. 10:1), he in all probability long survived Ezekiel. Leathes.

Ezekiel, the son of Buzi, the great prophet during the Babylonian captivity, was, like his predecessor Jeremiah, a priest. He was taken captive in the captivity of Jehoiachin, eleven years before the destruction of Jerusalem. He was a member of a community of Jewish exiles who settled on the banks of the Chebar, a “river” or stream of Babylonia. It was by this river “in the land of the Chaldæans” that God’s message first reached him (1:3). His call took place “in the fifth year of King Jehoiachin’s captivity,” B.C. 595 (1:2), “in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month.” P. S.

In the fifth year of the reign of Zedekiah, and therefore the fifth after the second deportation from Jerusalem, prophetic visions began to be sent to Ezekiel, on the banks of the Chebar. These visions spread over a considerable period. Among the earliest were those of the complete destruction of Jerusalem, and the desolation of Judæa. The treacherous conduct of the Egyptians, deserting the Jews in the extremities of their distress, furnished occasion for a blast against Pharaoh-hophra, whose destruction, with the desolation of Egypt, is also foreseen and foretold. Tyre also, which had latterly been a bitter enemy of the Jews, was doomed to speedy destruction. But Ezekiel’s later visions were full of mercy and peace. They not only foretold the restoration of the captive people, but also the far higher and richer mercies of the Gospel; and his sun, like that of Isaiah, went down pouring both on Jews and Gentiles the golden lustre of Messiah’s reign. Mercy was thus graciously mingled with judgment; and while the people were faithfully reproved for their sins, the penitent and believing were encouraged to hope in the not very distant advent of better times. W. G. B.

Of the four greater prophets, two were priests and were contemporary. These were Jeremiah and Ezekiel. But while the former took an active part in the stirring circumstances of the times, and was subjected to much personal injury and wrong, the latter, already in the land of exile, regarded from afar and in personal quiet the strange events transacting in the land from which he had been taken, and took part in them only in mind and spirit. Hence less of the man appears in the prophecy of Ezekiel—less of personal history, of individual character, of human emotion. We know, in fact, very little about him.

Ezekiel was, in his exile, stationed in the northern part of Mesopotamia, at Tel Abib, on the banks of the river Chebar. His family also were with him. It should not escape notice, that at this place the exiles from Judah, of whom Ezekiel was one, would meet the earlier exiles of the Ten Tribes, some of whom had been stationed there. This fact gives increased emphasis to the frequency of the prophet’s warnings, from the example of desolated Israel. It was not, however, until Ezekiel had been five years at Tel Abib, that he was called to the exercise of the prophetic office. The embassy that King Zedekiah sent at that date to Babylon, and the letter which Jeremiah sent by that embassy (chap. 29), falls in with his call, and may be regarded as connected with it. Then, in a remarkable vision, he receives his commission to come forth among his people as a prophet, with a disclosure of the principal matters to be announced to them. Commencing from this time, the functions of the prophet appear before us in his book as forming a beautifully complete, a stately and harmonious whole. They fall into two grand divisions, of which the destruction of Jerusalem forms the turning-point (chaps. 1-24 and 25-48). During the period before this catastrophe, the prophet chiefly uses the language of rebuke and condemnation; afterward, of consolation and promise.

The influence which Ezekiel exercised upon his contemporaries is of the highest importance. As in the days of Elijah and Elisha, the prophets supplied, in the kingdom of Israel, the absence of a true sanctuary, and sought, as far as possible, to occupy the place of the lacking priests of Jehovah; so the priest Ezekiel, by virtue of his prophetic calling, afforded to the deserted exiles a living witness that the Lord had not abandoned them, and that even for them a sanctuary existed, in which they might perceive the gracious presence of God. The more imposing the public appearance of Ezekiel was, and the more desolate and troublous the time of his appearance, the more powerful must have been the influence he exercised. We see proof of this in those accounts which show that the people and their elders, even from the earliest period of his ministry, gathered around the prophet, and listened to his words. In the words of God to the prophet, it is implied that the people were accustomed, at appointed times, to come to Ezekiel, to sit before him, and to receive his instruction with reverence. He was considered as a public teacher, who appointed meetings in his house as at a public school, and there, before a crowded assembly, interpreted the Divine will. Nor was this influence transitory or confined to his own generation, but was one that continued, and was much more comprehensive. If the Book of Daniel be considered as having had much influence in the formation of the views of later Judaism, it belonged to Ezekiel to exercise an analogous influence during the period of the Exile. Kitto.

In reading Ezekiel it is always to be borne in mind that he was distant in space from the scenes he describes—e.g., in chap. 24 he is bidden to name a particular day, which was found afterward to be the very day when the siege of Jerusalem began, he being then in the land of his captivity by the river Chebar. In like manner, in chap. 8 he describes in detail the idolatrous abominations perpetrated in the Temple at Jerusalem, which he is shown in vision, though far away. The latest date given in the book is the twenty-seventh year of Jehoiachin’s captivity, 527 B.C. (chap. 29 : 17). This is seventeen years later than the date of the first verse of the same chapter. The vision of the restored Temple (chap. 40) is dated in the twenty-fifth year.

We learn incidentally from chap. 24 : 18 that Ezekiel was married, and that his wife died in the ninth year of his exile, 590 B.C.; also from 3 : 24 ; 8 : 1, that though in exile, he nevertheless had a house of his own. Probably, therefore, the condition of the captives, at all events in certain cases, was not an oppressive one; but its bitterness consisted in expatriation from the land of their fathers, which was itself intolerable to the Jew, with his highly developed and sensitive patriotic feelings. Of Ezekiel’s later history nothing is known. There is every reason to believe that he died in exile, where it is evident that he was recognized as a prophet and held in honor by his fellow-countrymen, as we see by the fact of the elders of the nation often assembling themselves to receive his prophetic counsels and admonitions. Leathes.

Ezekiel is, among the prophets, what Michael Angelo is among painters and sculptors. Vast and colossal in his imagery, majestic in his diction, copious in fancy, he nevertheless often transcends in his ideas the powers of language, and becomes obscure and difficult to understand. This is well exemplified in the vision by which he was called to his office. R. P. S.

Ezekiel holds a place among sacred writers like that of Bach among musicians or of Chaucer among poets—less understood and appreciated by the general public, but the storehouse and inspiration of later authors—the musicians’ musician, the poets’ poet. Ballantine.

According to the prophet’s own record of his life, his heart was not in the land of his exile, but “in the land of his nativity.” His own home, where he dwelt with his wife, and guided the counsels of the small community of the Chebar, faded from his eyes. Across the rich garden of that fertile region, across the vast Euphrates, across the intervening desert, his spirit still yearned toward Jerusalem, still lived in the Temple courts, where once he had ministered. Though an exile, he was still one with his countrymen; and in the sense of that union, and in the strength of a mightier power than his own, the bounds of space and time were overleaped, and during the seven years that elapsed before the city was overthrown, he lived absorbed in the prophetic sight of the things that were to be, and in the prophetic hearing of the words that were to be spoken, in this last crisis of his country’s fate. Stanley.

The Lord began to fulfil His good word, given to the exiles through Jeremiah, by causing Ezekiel to appear in the midst of them, who raised his voice like a trumpet and showed to Israel his misdeeds; whose word, like a threshing machine, passed over all those sweet hopes and purposes and ground them to the dust; whose whole manifestations furnished the strongest proof that the Lord was still among His people; an energetic, gigantic nature, who was thereby suited effectually to counteract the Babylonish spirit of the time, which loved to manifest itself in violent, gigantic, and grotesque forms; one who stood alone, but was yet equal to a hundred of the scholars of the prophets. The extent of his influence appears from the fact that the oldest of the people were accustomed to assemble in his house in order to hear the words of the Lord through him—a sign of the public and formal acknowledgment of his spiritual dignity in the colony. Hengstenberg.

As inflexible as Jeremiah, and tenacious of his duty, Ezekiel was more stern and unflinching. To Jeremiah it was often pain and misery to obey God’s commands, and his nature led him to brood over his own feelings and look into himself, while Ezekiel threw his whole heart into the struggle with an iron steadfastness that felt pleasure in the struggle itself. R. P. S.

The prophet is distinguished by uncommon strength and energy. We see in him an individuality naturally endowed with great intellectual strength, penetrated and sanctified by a higher power to which it is made subservient. The appearance of Ezekiel as an inspired messenger of God must have been among the most impressive of any of those who under the Old Testament dispensation spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The glow of Divine wrath, the holy majesty of Jehovah, the mighty rushing of the Spirit of the Lord, as the seer himself had seen and heard them, were reflected in his discourse. He opposed with abruptness and firmness the corrupt spirit of the age in which he lived. When he had to contend with a people of brazen brow and stiff neck, he also on his part is of unbending nature, opposing presumption with unwavering boldness, and denouncing abominable deeds with words of consuming fire. This glow of discourse is united with a clear and constant prudence. The prophet never passes hastily from one subject to another, he occupies himself entirely with the one before him, embraces it with all his power, views it in all its aspects, and does not rest till he has completely exhausted it. Hence he often returns to the great leading thoughts that animate him. In these he lives and moves. Unceasingly he presents to the hardened ears and hearts of the people what the necessity of the case requires. And to this union of perseverance and strength the great efficacy of his eloquence is to be ascribed. Bibliotheca Sacra.

His strong sense of responsibility produced in him a spirit of obedience; a firm, unflinching, and faithful obedience to every word of the Lord comes out as the constant habit of the prophet’s life. With the simplicity of a child and the earnestness of a man, he did what he was bidden. That which, in relation to any human master, would have been degrading, became, in submission to a Divine Master, a principle of mental and moral elevation. He is an abject slave whose will is entirely subject to that of another man’s; he only is free whose will is entirely subject to that of God. The grand lesson of this portion of Ezekiel’s history is obedience to the Infinitely Wise and Good—obedience, even where it may seem fruitless; obedience in the minutest particulars, and the strangest service; obedience, though involving self-denial in our dearest affections, even to the very crucifixion of the heart. J. Stoughton.

The writings of Ezekiel are distinguished from those of the other prophets in this, that his prophecies are full of images, of comparisons, of allegories, of parables, of personifications, and of descriptions, in which the prophet depicts his objects with such abundance of details and richness of colors, as leave little or nothing for the imagination of the reader to supply. When he launches the thunders entrusted to his hand against the crimes and prevarications of an apostate people, it is always with a vehemence and a warmth of feeling which no other prophet equals. In the ardor with which he burns, the crimes which arrest his attention are represented in all their blackness and deformity, and his diction seems then to take the hideous hues of the vices which he censures. We owe to him the clearest account of the forms of idolatry among different nations, to be found in any one portion of the

Bible; the fullest and most interesting account of early commerce, and the productions of different countries, that exists in all ancient literature, and which to this day forms the basis of all historical speculation on the subject; and he has furnished us with a remarkable description of the usages of sepulture in nations far apart. All this admits of interesting corroborations from modern researches; and they cannot fail to suggest that Ezekiel was a man of cultivated mind and enlarged observation, who had noted, with a degree of interest unusual for a Jew in that age, the circumstances tending to illustrate the condition and sentiments of different nations, which he could ascertain by inquiry, which had been given to him by report, or which enforced and voluntary travel had brought under his personal notice. Kitto.

The prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel both speak of the fearful judgments on Ammon, Tyre, Edom, and Egypt, to which list Jeremiah adds Babylon and many others. The main objects of these prophecies seem to have been to assure the Jews that their own God shaped the destinies of all these heathen kingdoms, and that He had His own plans in mind beforehand, and, therefore, could predict them through His servants; but especially to impress them with a more deep and vivid sense of God’s sure retribution on guilty nations for their national sins. This sense of certain retribution would be of the utmost moment in its bearings on their own case. H. C.

Though the voice of the prophet may have sounded back to the country which he had left, Ezekiel’s special mission was to those among whom he dwelt. He had, in the first place, to convince them of God’s utter abhorrence of idolatry, and of the sure and irrevocable doom of those who practised it, and thus to persuade his hearers entirely to cast out idols from their homes and from their hearts. He had to show that the Chaldeans were the instruments of God, and that therefore resistance to them was both hopeless and unlawful, and so teach his people to endure with patience the lot which their own sins had made inevitable. He had next to destroy their presumptuous confidence in external privileges, and so to open their eyes to a truer sense of the nature of the Divine promises, and, lastly, to raise their drooping hearts by unfolding to them the true character of the Divine government, and the end for which it was administered.

The Book of Ezekiel may be said in this respect to be the moral of the Captivity. For the Captivity was not simply a Divine judgment, but a preparation for a better state, an awakening of higher hopes. The state of exile brought with it longings for and expectations of restoration. These longings and expectations it was Ezekiel’s part to direct and satisfy. It was his to teach the progress of the kingdom of God from the first call of Abraham to the establishment of the kingdom of David, and to show that this most triumphant period of his people’s history was but a shadow of still greater glory. B. C.

Ezekiel is emphatically the prophet of the moral significance of the Law and of personal responsibility. He is full of the subject in its definite shape. The crimes and transgressions of his people are moral crimes. The tremendous disasters of Israel are the direct result of gross rebellion against the moral law. The burden of his teaching is that the history of nations, whether in Tyre, or Egypt, or Jerusalem, is no chance accident; that their ruin is the natural and inevitable consequence of their disloyalty to righteousness and truth. Church.

One of the immediate effects of the Captivity was the reunion of the severed tribes of Israel. For although the place of Ezekiel’s abode may not have been identical with that of the exiles of the Ten Tribes, still the exile of the Jews brought them into contact with their brethren of the earlier exile. The political reasons which had sundered them were at an end; a common lot begat sympathy in the sufferers; and those of the Ten Tribes who even in their separation had been conscious of a natural unity, and could not but recognize in the representative of David the true centre of union, would be naturally inclined to seek this unity in amalgamation with the exiles of Judah. Accordingly we find in Ezekiel the terms Judah and Israel applied indiscriminately to those among whom the prophet dwelt; and the sins of Israel, no less than those of Judah, are summed up in the reproof of his countrymen. All descendants of Abraham were again being drawn together as one people, and this was to be effected by the separated members gathering again around the legitimate centre of government and of worship, under the supremacy of Judah. This will account for the name of Israel being lost in that of Judah, for the decree of Cyrus being addressed to the fathers of Judah and Benjamin (Ezra 1: 5), and for the people’s returning under the name of Jews, while we find in much later days mention of members of other tribes (Luke 2: 36). Paul also speaks of the twelve tribes of Israel (Acts 26: 7). The time of captivity was the time of reunion. Ezekiel’s mission was to the house of Israel, not only to those who came out with him from Jerusalem or Judah, but to those also of the stock whom he found residing in a foreign land, where they had been settled for more than one hundred years (37 : 16 and 48 : 1).

The period during which Ezekiel prophesied in Chaldea was signalized by the miserable reign of Zedekiah, ending in his imprisonment and death; by the destruction of the Temple, the sack of Jerusalem, and the final deportation of its inhabitants; by Gedaliah’s short regency over the poor remnant left behind in the country, his treacherous murder, and the flight of the conspirators, conveying Jeremiah with them, into Egypt; by Nebuchadnezzar’s conquests in the neighboring countries, and especially his prolonged siege of Tyre.

The year in which Ezekiel delivered his prophecies against Egypt corresponds with the first year of the reign of Pharaoh-hophra, the Apries of Herodotus. The accession of this king to the Egyptian throne affected very materially the future of the kingdom of Judah. Since the first capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar the Jews had found the service of the Chaldeans a hard one, and were ready at any moment to rise and shake off the yoke. Zedekiah, though the creature of the Babylonian monarch, shared the burden, and could not but share the feelings of his subjects. Nor was the character of either people or king such that they were likely to be restrained by the repeated oaths of fidelity which they had made to Nebuchadnezzar. It was, however, clear that there was no hope of success from any combinations with small neighboring States enslaved like themselves. Egypt was the only power from which they could hope for effectual support. And Egypt had long been inactive. The power of Necho was broken at Carchemish (Jer. 46 : 2 ; 2 K. 24 : 7). Psammetichus II. (the Psammis of Herodotus), his son and successor, seems to have been a feeble prince; he was, moreover, occupied in an Ethiopian war during part of his reign (which lasted only seven years), but Hophra was of a very different stamp. Herodotus tells us (ii. 161) that no former king of Egypt except his great-grandfather, Psammetichus, was so prosperous in his undertakings as Apries; that he reigned twenty-five years, in the course of which he marched against Sidon and conducted an expedition by sea against the king of Tyre. It is clear that he was minded to recover the ground which his grandfather and father had lost in Palestine and in Syria. Rumors of these designs had no doubt reached the Jews, both in Jerusalem and in captivity, and they were watching their opportunity to break with Babylon and ally themselves with Egypt. Against such alliance Ezekiel came forward to protest. He told his countrymen that their hopes of safety lay not in shaking off a yoke, which they could not do without the grossest perjury, but in repenting of their sins, and turning to the God of their fathers.

The fallacy of the hopes entertained by the Jews of deliverance through Egypt was soon made manifest. In the course of the final siege of Jerusalem Hophra attempted a diversion which proved unsuccessful. Nebuchadnezzar left the siege of Jerusalem to attack the Egyptians, who, if not defeated in battle (as Josephus says they were, Antiq. Jud., x. 10), were at least forced to retreat over the borders, and offered no further resistance to the captor of Jerusalem (Jer. 37 : 5-8). It was at this time that Ezekiel commenced the series of prophecies against Egypt (29-32), which were continued until the blow fell upon that country which ended in the ruin and deposition of Pharaoh-hophra. B. C.

The leading characteristics of Ezekiel’s prophecies are, first, his use of visions; secondly, his constant reference to the earlier writings of the Old Testament. The second of these characteristics is especially seen by his application of the Pentateuch. He represents and enforces its lessons, recognizing therein the word of God, that will make itself heard and obeyed. It is not merely the voice of a priest, imbued with the law which it was his profession to study. It is the voice of the Holy Spirit Himself, teaching us that the Law, which came from God, is ever just, wise, and holy, and preparing the way for the enlarged interpretation of the ancient testimonies, which our blessed Lord Himself afterward promulgated; and instructing us to read, in the spirit of its commandments and of its ordinances, those moral truths and those mysterious doctrines upon which is founded and established the salvation of man. These ordinances were but the shell, containing within the kernels of eternal truth; these were the shadows, not the substance; and when the Spirit of God would reveal by the mouth of Ezekiel spiritual realities, He permitted the prophet to clothe them in those symbols with which he and his country were familiar. How far they were permitted to interpret the symbols is uncertain; but there is quite enough in the prophecies of the Old Testament, and in the declarations of the New, to convince us that such knowledge was not entirely withheld; and the vision of the Temple, with which the book closes, difficult indeed in many points still, would be utterly strange and incomprehensible, were we to see in it no more than a material fabric, and in its service nothing beyond the reorganization of a Levitical priesthood and worship.

The opening visions of Ezekiel and of John can scarcely be otherwise than substantially identical. In each, the prominent object is a throne, and He that sitteth on it; the throne is surrounded by ineffable brightness, lightnings flash forth from it, and a rainbow encircles it, while in constant attendance upon it are four, called by Ezekiel living creatures, by John living ones. In Ezekiel He who sits upon the throne is described as the likeness or the appearance of a man; in John He is to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone, and is addressed in adoration as the Lord (Rev. 4: 11), being no doubt the same person described more fully in Rev. 1 as like unto the Son of man, and as He that liveth and was dead, and is alive for evermore. As there can be no doubt who is designated by John, we are led by an irresistible conclusion to recognize in the vision of Ezekiel the manifestation of the glory of God in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, made man, in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. But while the central object is the same, there are in the two visions marked differences. In John we have no clouds from the north, and no firmament. The wheels, which are so striking a feature in Ezekiel, are altogether wanting, the eyes being transferred to the bodies of the four beasts. The four differ considerably. While in Ezekiel the fourfold variety is common to all, so that each of the four is precisely similar to the others, in John the varieties are distributed, to one being given that of a man, to another that of a lion, and so forth. The peculiar motion of the four, all together moving to all quarters of the earth with no change in their relative positions, occurs not in John; and, in short, while unity is a characteristic of Ezekiel’s four, actuated by one spirit, so as to be called, not only living creatures, but the living creature (1: 20), in John the four seem more like four persons offering, like the twenty-four elders, common adoration. These differences bear directly upon the subject of the two visions. The cloud from the north localizes the vision to a spot upon the earth’s surface. The wheels connect the chariot with the earth, the movements are to do service on the earth, the firmament is the medium between earth and heaven. The various particulars are parts of one whole, which represents the manifestations of the glory of God upon earth, and in all the creatures of the earth. But in John the scene is heaven. Visible creation is indeed represented, but it is translated to heaven. No services are required on earth, but the employment of all creation is to render perpetual worship to Him who is enthroned in glory, having taken His manhood into God.

The book forms a complete and harmonious whole. It is evident that the parts have been studiously arranged, and there can be no doubt that this was done by the prophet himself, who, at the same time, prefixed the dates to the several prophecies. The precision of these dates affords a clear proof that the prophecies were in the first instance orally delivered. Ezekiel very generally speaks of himself in the first person, and uses the historic past to describe the occurrence of each particular vision or communication from God. The prophecies were, no doubt, written down at the time of their delivery, and afterward, under the directions of the Holy Spirit, put together into one volume, to form a part of those Scriptures which God has bequeathed as a perpetual inheritance to His Church. B. C.

The burden of the Old Testament is to exhibit, first, the only living and true God as the Creator and Governor of the world, in His holiness, justice, and spontaneous love, unweariedly occupied with some effort of grace; and, secondly, men in general, and the Jews in particular, as inexcusably wicked, swinishly treading under foot the pearls of privilege which Heaven again and again offers. The Old Testament closes with this vivid impression of a God infinitely glorious and gracious, but who has up to that point failed to try any remedy powerful enough for the inveterate backsliding of men. The servants sent to the vineyard all fail. Some are beaten, some are stoned. It remains only for God to send His Son. The strongest proofs of the inspiration of the Old Testament are the perfection of the Divine character portrayed and the profound view of human wickedness, both leading up to the expectation of One whom the love of God shall send to save His people from their sins. Was there ever a book so grand, so sad, so hopeful as the

Hebrew Scriptures? Ezekiel has all this to express.

The prophet’s first task is to give to Israel and the world a fresh conception of the Divine majesty. This he does in the sublime vision of the cherubim chariot. Isaiah had done something of the same kind in his sixth chapter. But here at the outset the characteristics of the two authors are strikingly contrasted. Isaiah’s description occupies but four or five verses, and it has the Miltonic indefiniteness. No detail of the seraphim is given, except that they have each six wings. Not a single fact about the throne is mentioned but its height. While the seraphim cry, Holy, holy, holy, the thresholds are moved and the house is filled with smoke. The marvel is that so much can be suggested while so little is told.

Ezekiel’s method is wholly different. Two whole chapters and parts of others are crowded with minutiae. All that is great or strong or brilliant or beautiful or sublime in nature is combined. The four great representatives of the animal kingdom, the eagle, the ox, the lion, and man are there. There are startling combinations of faces, eyes, hands, feet and wings, reminding us of the winged bulls and other mythological figures of Assyria. There are the metals and jewels and crystals; burnished brass and glowing amber and terrific ice masses and beryl and sapphire. There is fire in all its forms of flame and coals and torches and lightning flashes. There is the splendor of the rainbow and the rush of the storm-wind, and wheels like whirlwinds, and the roar of the cataract or the breakers of the ocean. Out of all these elements a chariot is built for the Almighty. It is a sapphire throne encircled by a rainbow, borne aloft upon a pavement of crystal supported by four four-faced, four-winged cherubim, themselves moving on beryl wheels of awful height and full of eyes. Each wheel is composed of two, set at right angles, and is thus fitted to move straight forward toward any quarter of the heavens without turning the chariot. The whole glows with fiery brightness, dazzling coruscations flash from part to part, and lightnings dart abroad. As the chariot moves the rush of wings and the whir of wheels are like the tumult of a host or the thunder of the surf. Isaiah presents and finishes his whole vision in one brief chapter of thirteen verses. Ezekiel keeps his before his readers by dramatic references through eleven long chapters, and in the overpowering light of it makes them look upon the sins of Israel.

We take it that the vision of the cherubim chariot, in spite of its exactitude of details, is not to be regarded as anything more than a symbolical representation of God as enthroned over all the elements and powers and forces of creation, whether animate or inanimate. If such an attempt was to be made, no imagery could have been found more appropriate than that which Ezekiel has employed.

In contrast with the majesty of God, Ezekiel had to describe the apostasy of Israel. This, as we have seen, is one of the three chief burdens of the Old Testament. It is part of the proof of the absolute need that the world had of Christ. The completion of this demonstration was necessary to that “fulness of time” in which God should send His Son. The Old Testament, in so far as it touches man, is a record of utter failure.

The sins of Israel in Ezekiel’s day were violence, bloodshed, unchastity, disobedience to parents, oppression, Sabbath-breaking, bribery, extortion, and in general an extraordinary hardihood in wickedness. False prophets, profane priests and wolf-like princes, all deceived and preyed upon a populace which shared their vices. Idolatry of all kinds, copied from the abominations of all the nations from Egypt to Assyria, a perfect syncretism of revolting rites, culminating in that last triumph of superstitious infatuation, child sacrifice, had displaced the worship of Israel’s covenant God, Jehovah.

Ezekiel’s view of the religious history of Israel is that which pervades the Scriptures from Deuteronomy down. It is just the opposite of that view which sees in the Hebrew religion an evolution of the religious genius of the people themselves. Ballantine.

Analysis and Contents. There are four main divisions of the book. 1. Chaps. 1-24, chiefly directed against the Israelites and specially the inhabitants of Jerusalem; the only exception is the discourse against the Ammonites in chap. 21: 28-32, or in the Heb. 21: 33-37. There is often a date given of the year, month and day, reckoning, as has been said, from Jehoiachin’s captivity. In this section the people are reproached for their sins, idolatry, sun-worship, etc., which was carried on by the elders, especially Jaazaniah, the son of Shaphan (8: 11). Zedekiah is reproached with his Egyptian alliance (17: 15, etc.), which is so far evidence of Ezekiel’s acceptance of Jeremiah’s prophetic authority, who had consistently discouraged this alliance with Egypt. The prophet threatens him with captivity (verse 20), as he had previously done with dying in the land without seeing it (12: 13). In 21: 25 he is also severely threatened and virtually deposed in language which is at once a distinct reference to the prophecy of Jacob (Gen. 49 : 10), and the basis of the angelic announcement (Luke 1 : 12-33). Chap. 20 is that which so mysteriously foretells the dispersion among “the wilderness of the peoples,” not “people,” as A. V.; a dispersion which had already begun in the prophet’s own day, but which was to be continued for long ages, till our own and our children’s days possibly, to be followed (verse 41) by some signal manifestation of Divine action which should declare God’s ways as plainly as the first return from captivity, which was distinctly promised (6 : 8, 9 ; 22 : 16). Chap. 21 represents the king of Babylon as hesitating whether to go up against Jerusalem or Rabbath first. He decides for the former (verse 22), but the prophet assures the Ammonites that they shall not escape (verse 28). This accounts for the apparent interruption of a series of prophecies otherwise directed wholly against Israel. Chap. 22 declares the judgment of the “bloody city.” Chap. 23 relates the idolatrous apostasy of Aholah, “her tent,” and Aholibah, “my tent is in her,” or of Israel (Samaria) and Judah (Jerusalem), under the image of two women thus named. Chap. 24 contains the death of the prophet’s wife.

This ends the first division of the book ; the second includes chaps. 25-32, which are chiefly prophecies against foreign nations ; that in chap. 25 against the Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, and Philistines is without date. Chaps. 26, 27 and 28 are against Tyre and Zidon, and are dated in the eleventh year. Chaps. 29-32 are against Egypt and Pathros, and dated in the tenth, eleventh and twelfth year, with the exception of 29 : 17, which is dated the twenty-seventh year, and is the latest in the whole book. It is probably inserted here for the sake of uniformity, and to bring together prophecies relating to the same subject. The prediction in verses 13-15 cannot be understood literally, but must be taken as showing that Egypt shall be dealt with somewhat after the analogy of Israel with a definite period of political extinction.

The third section extends from chap. 33 to chap. 39. Chap. 33 : 1-20 declares the office of a watchman ; chap. 34 reproves the shepherds of Israel and promises to raise up one shepherd, even David. As it is utterly impossible that this could have been understood, or meant to be understood, literally, it is the more remarkable as a witness to the hope that still centred in the house of David, and the more sigsignificant in relation to Christ. Chap. 35 relates to the ancient enmity of Edom, which broke out against Israel when the troubles of the Exile fell upon the nation, as is so often alluded to in Scripture, and threatens the desolation of the country. (Cf. 25 : 12-27 ; Ps. 137 : 7 ; Obadiah 10 ; Mal. 1 : 2, etc.) Chap. 36 continues the promise of God’s care for Israel with that of the new heart and the outpoured spirit. Chap. 37 has the vision of the resurrection of the dry bones, and under the figure of the union of two sticks (verse 16) is prophesied the restored union of Israel under one head, “my servant David.” Chaps. 38 and 39 are occupied with the promised overthrow of Gog and Magog. The latter name is found in Gen. 10 : 2 ; but Gog is only known elsewhere as the name of a Reubenite (1 Chron. 5 : 4). Both names are adopted by John (Rev. 20 : 8).

We now come to the last division of Ezekiel’s prophecies, the most obscure and enigmatical of all—his vision and description of the restored Temple (chaps. 40-48), about which certain facts must be borne in mind. First, it is perfectly certain that the details of this vision were not accepted as the basis of the restored Temple. It is quite certain that the Jews who returned must have been acquainted with Ezekiel’s prophecies and with this portion of his book. It is no less certain that when the Temple was rebuilt by Zerubbabel, he was guided by wholly different plans and directions—in fact, that he followed the main features of Solomon’s Temple, that original edifice which many of the returning captives still remembered. This of itself is no slight evidence of the existence at that time of prescriptions and regulations which were then regarded as of higher authority even than Ezekiel’s. It is hard to believe that the plans and directions which were followed in the building of the second Temple were themselves of no more ancient origin, if those of Ezekiel’s vision were set aside in favor of them. But, secondly, it is no less clear that the arrangements of Ezekiel’s vision were physically impossible to be complied with. For instance, the boundaries of the city and Temple in the vision are quite different from what they were actually, and the Temple was outside the city. The Temple was several miles north of the city, and the city several miles north of the site of Jerusalem ; the natural boundaries of the western sea and the Jordan were too narrow by several miles to allow of the assignment made for the Temple and the priests and Levites.

The portions of the tribes were arranged in

total disregard of the allotments made by Joshua. Each tribe was to have a portion of equal width. The seven tribes of Dan, Asher, Naphtali, Manasseh, Ephraim, Reuben, and Judah were to be on the right of the Temple and its precincts—“the oblation;” and the five others, Benjamin, Simeon, Issachar, Zebulun, and Gad, on the south. The restoration of animal sacrifices is provided for in the ordinances of the Temple in the prophet’s vision. The Ark of the Covenant is not mentioned, and there is no high-priest; only the Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles are named, not Pentecost nor the Great Day of Atonement; but a new feast is instituted on the first and ninth days of the first month, when a solemn purification for the sanctuary was to take place for those who had sinned through error (45:20).