Chapter XXIII: 1-8 (4)

This prophecy embraces two features: _first_, the restoration of the Kingdom of God, represented under the figure of a restoration of Jerusalem, which, under the Old Covenant, was its seat and centre (it is this aspect only which Zechariah, in resuming this prophecy, has brought forward in chap. xiv. 10); and, _secondly_, the glorification of the Kingdom of God, which now is so strengthened and increased, that it can undertake to attack and assail the dark kingdom of evil, and subject it to itself, while formerly it was attacked and assailed by it, and often could not prevent the enemy from penetrating into the innermost heart of its territory. This thought the Prophet graphically clothes in a perceptible form, and in such a manner that he describes how the unholy places, by which Jerusalem, the holy city, was surrounded on all sides, are included in its circumference, and become holiness unto the Lord. In former times, the victory of the world over the Kingdom of God had been embodied in the fact, that the abominations of sin and idolatry had penetrated into the very temple; compare chap. vii. 11: "Is then this house, which is called by the name of the Lord, a den of robbers, saith the Lord?" Other passages will be mentioned when we come to comment upon Dan. ix. 27. This inward victory must, according to divine necessity, [Pg 449] be followed by the outward one. The covenant-people which, inwardly, had submitted to the world, which, by its own guilt, had profaned itself, was, outwardly also, given up to the world, and was profaned in punishment. And this profanation, inflicted upon it as a punishment, again manifested itself just at that place, where the profanation by the guilt had chiefly manifested itself, viz., in the holy city, and in the holy temple. It is with a view to the former manifestation of the victory of the world over the Kingdom of God, that here the victory of the Kingdom of God over the world is described; and the imagery is just simple imagery. To the outward holiness of the city and of the temple, the outward unholiness of the places around Jerusalem is opposed. While the victory of the world over the Kingdom of God had been manifested by the profanation of these places, the victory of the Kingdom of God now appears under the image of the sanctification of these formerly unholy places. By what means that great change had been brought about; by what means the Kingdom of God, which now lay so powerlessly prostrate, should again obtain powers which it had never before possessed; by what means the servant was to be changed into a lord, it was unnecessary for the Prophet here to point out; it had been already mentioned in vers. 32-34. The difference consists in this, that the New Covenant is not like the Old, but that it first furnishes the right weapons by which sin and the world can be overcome, viz., an infinitely richer measure of the forgiveness of sins, of the graces of the Spirit.--We must still premise a general remark concerning the determination of the boundaries of the New Jerusalem here given, because this must guide us in determining the single doubtful places which are here mentioned. The correct view has been already given by _Vitringa_ in his Commentary on Isaiah xxx. 33: "The Prophet promises to the returning ones the restoration of the city of Jerusalem in its whole circumference; and he describes it in this way, that he begins from the Eastern wall, passes on thence, through the North side, to the West side, and thence, by the South side, returns to the East." For the Prophet begins with the tower of Hananeel which was situated at the East side of the town, near the sheep-gate; compare remarks on Zech. xiv. 10. Thence he proceeds to [Pg 450] the corner-gate, which was situated in that corner where the North and East met (compare l. c.), and hence comprehends the whole North side. He closes with the horse-gate, of which he expressly states that it was situated towards the East, and hence points out that he had again arrived at the place from which he set out. We have thus gained a firm foundation for determining those among the places mentioned, the situation of which is, in itself, doubtful.--Let us now proceed to the consideration of particulars. After [Hebrew: imiM], the _Keri_ inserts [Hebrew: baiM]. It is true that this fuller expression is commonly used by the Prophet; but, for that very reason, the more concise one is to be preferred, which alone has the authority of the MSS. in its favour, while the _Keri_ is nothing but a conjecture, perhaps not even that. The full expression having already occurred so frequently in the passage under consideration, the Prophet here, at the close, and for a change, contents himself with the mere intimation. The Prophet says intentionally: "The city is built to the Lord," so that "to the Lord" must be connected with "is built;" not "the city of the Lord." The latter expression had become so much a _nomen proprium_ of Jerusalem, that the full depth of its meaning was no more thought of. This new city is no more to be called simply the city of the Lord; it is truly to be built to the Lord, so that it belongs to Him.--In the first two points of the boundary, the tower of Hananeel and the Corner-gate, the second main idea of the passage does not yet come out so prominently. This is to be accounted for simply by the circumstance, that on the whole North side of the town there was not any unholy places. The Suffix in [Hebrew: ngdv] refers to the Corner-gate; the measuring line, [Hebrew: qvh] according to the _Kethibh_, [Hebrew: qv hmdh], which is the common form, according to the _Keri_, goes yet farther over against it, &c. By the words "over against," it is intimated that it now goes beyond the former dimensions of the town. [Hebrew: el] "over" (_Hitzig_ erroneously translates it "towards," or "by the side of it"), shows that the hill Gareb is included within the circumference of the new city. From the remarks formerly made, it appears that the hill Gareb, and Goah, places which are nowhere else mentioned, must have been situated on the West side; and, moreover, Gareb on the North-west [Pg 451] side[5] and Goah on the South-west side, [Hebrew: grb] has no other signification than "the leper;" and "the hill of the leper" can be the hill only, where the lepers had their abode. For, as early as in the second year after the Exodus from Egypt, these lepers were obliged to remain without the camp (comp. Numb. v. 3: "Without the camp shall ye send them, and not shall they defile their camp in the midst whereof I dwell"); and this law was so strictly enforced, that even Moses' sister was removed out of the camp. When they had come to Canaan, the provisions of the law in reference to the camp were transferred to the towns; comp. farther Lev. xiii. 46: "All the days that he has the leprosy, he shall be defiled; he shall dwell alone, without the camp shall his habitation be;" Luke xvii. 12. Even Uzziah could not be released from it; he lived without the city in Beth Chofshith, 2 Kings xv. 5, which is commonly translated "house of the sick," instead of "house of emancipation," viz., place where they lived, whom the Lord had manumitted, who no more belonged to His servants; compare remarks on Psa. lxxxviii. 6. Even in the kingdom of Israel they were so strict in the execution of this Mosaic ordinance (one from among the numberless proofs which are opposed to the current views of the religious condition of this kingdom, and of its relation to the Law of Moses), that, even during the siege of Samaria, the lepers were not allowed to leave the place before the gate assigned to them, 2 Kings vii. 3.--In order more fully to understand the meaning of our passage, it is indispensable that we should inquire into the causes of that regulation. _J. D. Michaelis_ (Mos. Recht. iv. § 210) has his answer at once in readiness, and is so fully convinced of its being right and to the point, that he does not think it worth while to mention any other view. Because _to him_ the temporal objects and aims are the highest, he at once supposes them everywhere in the Law of the Holy God also. The ordinance is to him nothing but a sanitary measure intended to prevent contagion. But that would surely be a degree of severity against the sick which could the less be excused by a regard to the healthy, that leprosy, [Pg 452] if contagious at all, is so, at all events, very slightly only, and is never propagated by a single touch. (_Michaelis_ himself remarks: "Except in the case of cohabitation, one may be quite safe.") But this severity against the sick must appear in a still more glaring light, and the concern for the healthy becomes even ridiculous, when we take into consideration the other regulations concerning the lepers. They were obliged to go about in torn clothes, bare-headed, and with covered chin, and to cry out to every that came near them, that they were unclean. Even _Michaelis_ grants that those regulations could not be designed to guard against infection. He remarks: "But the leper should not cause disgust to any one by his really shocking appearance, or terror by an accidental, unexpected touch." But such a sentimental, unmerciful regard to the tender nerves is surely elsewhere not to be perceived in the Law, which regulates all the relations of man to his neighbour, by the principle: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. _Farther_--From mere sanitary or police considerations, the law in reference to the leprosy of the clothes and houses, which is closely connected with the law about the leprosy of men, cannot be accounted for. The reason which _Michaelis_ advances for the law in reference to the clothes, is of such a nature, that not even the most refined politicians have ever yet thought of a similar one. The leprosy of the houses is, according to him, the dry-rot, which, although not contagious, was so hateful to Moses, that, out of concern for the health of the possessor, and for the goods kept in them, he ordered them to be altogether pulled down. If Moses had entertained the views on the power of the magistrates which lie at the foundation of this, he could not have been an ambassador of God,--even apart altogether from the absurdity of the measure. But the shallowness and untenableness of _Michaelis'_ view will appear still more strongly, when we state the positive argument for our view. It is this: Leprosy is the outward image of sin; that, therefore, which is done upon the leper, is, in reality, done upon the sinner. Every leper, therefore, was a living sermon, a loud admonition to keep unspotted from the world. The exclusion of the lepers from the camp, from the holy city, conveyed figuratively quite the same lesson, as is done in Words by John, in Revel. xxi. 27: [Greek: Kai ou mê eiselthê eis autên] [Pg 453] [Greek: pan koinon kai poioun bdelugma kai pseudos], and by Paul, in Ephes. v. 5: [Greek: touto gar iste ginôskontes, hoti pas pornos, ê akathartos, ê pleonektês ... ouk echei klêronomian en tê basileia tou Christou kai Theou]; comp. Gal. v. 19, 21. Now it is clearly seen what is the Prophet's meaning in including the hill of the lepers in the holy city. That which hitherto was unclean becomes clean; the Kingdom of God now does violence to the sinners, while, hitherto, the sinners had done violence to the Kingdom of God. It is only when we take this view of leprosy, that we account for the fact, that just this disease so frequently occurs as the theocratic punishment of sin. The image of sin is best suited for reflecting it; he who is a sinner before God, is represented as a sinner in the eyes of man also, by the circumstance that he must exhibit before men the image of sin. God took care that ordinarily the image and the thing itself were perfectly coincident; although, no doubt, there were exceptions,--cases where God, according to His wise and holy purposes, allowed that one relatively innocent (in the case of a perfectly innocent man, if such an one existed, that would not be possible, except in the case of Christ who bore _our_ disease), had to bear the image of sin, _e.g._, in the case of such as were in danger of self-righteousness. As a theocratic punishment, leprosy is found especially with such as had secretly sinned, or had surrounded their sin with a good appearance, which, in the eyes of men, prevents them from appearing as sinners, _e.g._, in the case of Miriam, Uzziah, Gehazi, 2 Kings v. 27. In the Law, there are many warnings against it, _e.g._, Deut. xxiv. 8; and David wishes, 2 Sam. iii. 29, that the threatening of the Law might be fulfilled upon the house of wicked Joab. The leprosy of houses, too, comes into consideration only as an image of spiritual leprosy, as is seen from the command in Lev. xiv. 49: "And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop; ver. 53: and make an atonement for the house, and it shall be clean." The procedure here is quite the same as that which was applied in the case of sin and sinners; and since the house cannot sin, it follows that a symbolical action only can here be spoken of.--Goah, in this context, in the midst of unclean places, can hardly be anything else than some unclean place; and it is a very obvious supposition that this nature is expressed in the very [Pg 454] name. This signification interpreters usually endeavour to obtain by deriving the word from [Hebrew: geh] "to roar," of which it is properly the Partic. Fem., hence "the roaring one;" but it is more easily obtained by adopting the derivation from [Hebrew: gve], just as [Hebrew: wve] is derived from [Hebrew: wve], a derivation which was first proposed by _Hiller_, S. 127. [Hebrew: gve] is used of a violent death, no less than of a natural death; thus Numb. xvii. 27, 28, of a death like that of the company of Korah, Datham, and Abiram; comp. Zech. xiii. 8. This derivation being assumed, Goah would denote "expiring," "hill[6] of expiring," which would be a very suitable name of the place for the execution of criminals. _Vitringa_, in commenting upon Is. xxx. 33, already expressed the conjecture that Goah, [Hebrew: gl gveth] might perhaps be identical with Golgotha, but retracted it, because the Evangelists explain Golgotha by [Greek: kraniou topos]. But this is no sufficient and conclusive reason. When the Aramean became the prevailing language, the name of the place may have received a new etymology, just as the Fathers of the Church derive [Greek: pascha], from [Greek: paschein], and many similar instances. It has already been observed that the appellation, "place of skulls," is rather strange, inasmuch as the skulls did not remain in the place of execution.[7] The use of "skull" for "the place of skulls," as well as the omission of the _L_, have been found strange. But all that is easily accounted for, if the new signification, which substantially agreed with the former, was merely transferred to the word. The identity of Goah and Golgotha cannot be disputed,--at least, not from the situation. From Heb. xiii. 12, it is certain that Golgotha, as an unclean place, was situated outside the city; that it was situated on the West side is, it is [Pg 455] true, testified by tradition only; comp. _Krafft_, S. 168 ff.; _Ritter_, _Erdk._ xvi. 1, S. 422 ff.--We now come to the valley of carcasses and of ashes. Even from the position, it becomes probable that this is the valley of Hinnom. The North and West sides are already done, and hence the South and East sides only remain. But the valley of Hinnom was situated towards the South, or South-east of Jerusalem, comp. _Krafft_, S 2; v. _Raumer_, S. 269. The valley of the carcasses is here brought into immediate connection with _all_ the fields (_q.d._, all the other fields), unto the brook Kidron, and is hence designated as a portion of the valley of Kidron. But the valley of Hinnom was the Southern, or South-eastern continuation of the valley of Kidron, which extended on the East side. To this it may be added that, in this context, we must necessarily expect the mention of the valley of Hinnom, but that otherwise it would be wanting. Among all the unclean places around Jerusalem, this was the most unclean. There could be no greater victory of the Kingdom of God over the world, than if this strictest antithesis to the holy city, this image of hell, was included within the Holy City. It is only with respect to the cause of the appellation, that some doubt may exist, [Hebrew: pgr], [Hebrew: pgriM] is a common designation of dead bodies, of carcasses. There is not one among the twenty-two passages in which it occurs, where it refers to deceased righteous ones. It is used of the dead bodies of animals, of idols, Lev. xxvi. 30; of the dead bodies of those whom the Lord has smitten in His anger and wrath, Jer. xxxiii. 5; 1 Sam. xvii. 46; Amos viii. 3; Neh. iii. 3; Is. lxvi. 24; of such as are, after death, treated like beasts, Jer. i. 49. Hence, opinions such as that of _Venema_ fall to the ground, who supposes that the valley had that name, because it was the public burying-ground. But there is, nevertheless, scope for difference of opinion. One may understand by [Hebrew: pgriM] the carcasses of animals;--the valley of Hinnom would, in that case, be the public flaying-ground. It is in itself probable, and it is generally held[8] that, after the defilement by Josiah (2 Kings xxiii. 10), it received this designation. But there are not wanting evident traces that, [Pg 456] even in former times, the valley served this purpose. In Is. xxx. 33, it is said in reference to the Assyrians: "For Tophet (_Gesenius_ arbitrarily changes the _nomen proprium_ into an _appellativum_, and translates: the place for burning) is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared, made deep and large; the pile thereof has fire and wood in abundance." This passage supposes that, even at that time, the valley of Hinnom, or Tophet (which properly is only a part of it, but is sometimes, however, used for the whole), had that destination; that piles were constantly burning in it, on which the carcasses of animals were burned. Such a place of execution and burial is already prepared for the carcasses of the Assyrians rebelling against God. Even the existence of the name Tophet, _i.e._, _horror_, _abomination_, bears witness to the impure destination. The second passage is Is. lxvi. 24. Outside the Holy City, the place where formerly the carcasses of the beasts were lying, there now lie the dead bodies of the transgressors. As the former were, in times past, food both for the worms and fire, so they are now. It is true, that _Vitringa's_ objection, that it can scarcely be imagined that the idolators should have chosen a place so unclean, is very plausible. But how plausible soever such an argument may appear, it cannot invalidate distinct historical testimonies; and it might very well be set aside, although it would lead us too far away from our purpose, to do so here. But it may also be supposed that the Prophet looks back to his own declarations, chap. vii. 31, and xix. 4 ff.; and that by [Hebrew: pgriM] here the corpses of transgressors are to be understood, who are destined to destruction, and therefore are to be buried in the flaying-ground. But this reference is, after all, too far-fetched; and it is more natural to say, that the nature of Tophet, as the flaying-ground, forms the foundation, which is common to those passages and that before us.--But, besides the arguments already advanced, there is still a grammatical reason, which shows that it is really the valley of Hinnom which is meant. The article in [Hebrew: hemq] forbids us to view it as being in the _Stat. construct._ and connected with the following words. We must translate: "And the whole valley, (viz. the valley of) the carcasses and ashes." The place is, hence, first designated as "the valley," without any further qualification, and receives this qualification only afterwards. But it is just the valley of Hinnom which, in Jer. ii. 23, is [Pg 457] designated as the valley [Greek: kat' exochên], and the gate leading to it, as the gate of the valley, in Neh. ii. 13, 15; comp. remarks on Zech. xi. 13.--In reference to [Hebrew: dwN], _Gousset_ Lex. p. 368, remarks: "The words [Hebrew: dwN], and [Hebrew: dwN] are used only of the ashes of the sacrificial animals, and their removal." This observation is confirmed by every careful examination of the passages in question. Never are [Hebrew: dwN] and [Hebrew: dwN] used otherwise than of the ashes of sacrificial animals; comp. Lev. i. 16; vi. 3, 4; 1 Kings xiii. 5; Numb. iv. 13; Exod. xxvii. 3. The derivation of the signification "ashes," from the fundamental signification "fat," as advanced by _Winer_ and others (_cinis_ = _pinguefactio agrorum_), is therefore wrong. On the contrary, even the burnt fat was still considered as fat; the ashes of the fat are the [Hebrew: warit], the residuum of the fat. By this determination of the word, the explanation is very much facilitated. In Lev. vi. 3, 11, it is said: "And he (the priest, after having offered up the burnt-offering) shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without the camp into a clean place." According to this regulation, the ashes of the sacrificial animals were considered as relatively unclean. The priest had to put off his holy garments, and to put on common garments, and to carry the ashes without the camp,--afterwards without the Holy City. Hence, in contrast to the sacrifices themselves, the ashes were considered as the impure residuum which is found in everything which men do in relation to God, as the image of sinful contamination attaching to all, even the best works, and to the holiest elevation of the heart. If, then, the place where the ashes are deposited is to be included within the boundaries of the Holy City; is, in holiness, to be equal to the place where the sacrifices themselves are offered,--what else can be signified thereby, than that the unholy is to be overpowered by the holy, the earthly by the divine, by means of a more glorious communication of the Holy Spirit? It is quite analogous, when Zechariah represents the horses as being in future adorned by the Lord with the symbol of holiness, which formerly the High-priest only wore; compare remarks on Zech. xiv. 20. This one argument might be brought forward against the explanation which we have given, viz., that we cannot well imagine that this was the destination of [Pg 458] the valley of Hinnom, because, according to the Law, the ashes of the sacrifices were to be carried to a _clean_ place; because that which once stood in connection with that which is most holy and pure, although, in itself, it may be unclean, must not be mingled with that which is absolutely and constantly unclean. But in opposition to this we remark, that it was not this whole valley that was unclean, but only the place Tophet in it; and that if sometimes the whole is designated as unclean, it is only because it included this most unclean among all unclean places; comp. chap. vii. 31, xxxii. 35; 2 Kings xxiii. 10.--There cannot be any doubt that "the [Hebrew: wrmvt] unto the brook Kidron" are identical with the fields of Kidron, [Hebrew: wdmvt qdrvN], mentioned in 2 Kings xxiii.; but much to be doubted is the correctness of the common supposition (after the example of _Kuypers_, _ad varia V. T. loca_, in the _Syll. Dissert. sub praes. Schultens, et Schroederi_, t. 1. p. 537), that [Hebrew: wrmvt] is identical with [Hebrew: wdmvt]. If that were the case, we could not see why Jeremiah should have exchanged the common word for an uncommon one, which elsewhere does not occur. Jeremiah is fond of exchanging words of similar sounds, and especially words differing from one another merely by one letter, and especially by [Hebrew: d] and [Hebrew: r]; but these exchanges are always significant. (Compare _Küper_. Jerem. p. xiv. and 43, and _History of Balaam_, p. 447 f.) Although we cannot, with certainty, fix the meaning of [Hebrew: wrmvt], yet so much seems to be sure, that this word was one which more accurately designated the nature of those places than the current _nomen proprium_, inasmuch as it would be absurd to substitute for it another name, if there had not been deeper reasons. One need only compare the [Hebrew: hr hmwHit] itself which, in the simple historical prose, is used of the Mount of Olives, 2 Kings xxiii. 13. The most simple and natural supposition is the following. All the significations of the verbs [Arabic: **], [Arabic: **], [Arabic: **] in Arabic run together in that of _cutting off_. [Hebrew: wdmvt] the Plural of the Feminine of the Adjective [Hebrew: wrm] are, accordingly, _loca abscissa_, places which are cut off and excluded [from the Holy City] outwardly (_Aq._: [Greek: proasteia]), and, at the same time, inwardly. Thus we obtain a striking contrast between their present nature and future destination. What is now distinctly separated from the holy, [Pg 459] then become holiness, [Hebrew: qdw]. From 2 Kings xxiii. it appears, moreover, that the fields of Kidron were unclean. It was thither as to an unclean place, that Josiah caused all the abominations of idolatry to be carried, and to be burnt; comp. ver. 4 (Josiah commanded all the vessels which had been made to Baal and Ashera to be brought forth out of the temple): "And he burned them _without Jerusalem_ in the fields of Kidron." Ver. 6: "And he brought out the Ashera out of the house of the Lord, _without Jerusalem_, unto the brook Kidron, and he burned them in the valley of Kidron.... And cast the powder thereof upon the graves of the children of the people." These last words (the children of the people = the mob, high and low, who had polluted themselves by idolatry, comp. 2 Chron. xxxiv. 4: "And he strewed the dust upon the graves of them that had sacrificed unto them") enable us perhaps to conjecture the cause of the uncleanness of these fields. They served as a burying ground to the adherents of the worship of Moloch, who were anxious to rest in the neighbourhood of their idol, which dwelt in the neighbouring Tophet; and this is the more easily accounted for, that it is very probable that the sacrifices offered up to the idol were, in a great measure, sacrifices offered for the dead.--[Hebrew: qdw lihvh] refers to every thing mentioned in the verse before us. As regards the last words, comp. Remarks on Zech. xiv. 11.

[Footnote 1: The person of the Messiah meets us as the living centre of the salvation in ver. 9: "And they serve the Lord their God, and David their King, whom I will raise up unto them;" on which words _Jonathan_ remarks: "And the Messiah the Son of David;" and _Abarbanel_: "This is King Messiah, who is of the house of David, and is therefore called by his name." From the parallel passages, Hos. iii. 5; Is. lv. 3, our passage differs in this, that David here does not, as in those passages, designate the family of David which centres in Christ, but the person of the Messiah. The commentary is furnished by chap. xxiii. 5: "I raise unto David a righteous Sprout." The circumstance, that it is not the Sprout of David, but David, that is spoken of here, is explained from a reference to the words which the ten tribes spoke at their rebellion, 1 Kings xii. 16: "We have no portion in David, neither have we inheritance in the Son of Jesse. To your tents, O Israel." To the person of the Messiah the Prophet reverts once more towards the close also: "And their glorious one shall be out of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from the midst of them (compare Mic. v. 1, 2, [2, 3]), and I cause him to draw near, and he approacheth unto me; for who is surety for his heart to approach unto me, saith the Lord?" God himself receives the King of the Future into the closest communion with Him,--"I and the Father are one"--a communion which no one can usurp by his own power, and which, in the case of the former kings, even in that of David, was frequently disturbed by their sinful weakness.]

[Footnote 2: _Hofmann_ (_Weiss. u. Erf._ 1 S. 138) assigns to the phrase the meaning: "to make an arrangement." But decisive against this is not only the derivation, (comp. _Gesenius Thesaurus_), but the circumstance also, that it is almost exclusively and quite manifestly used of a relation resting on reciprocity, of the making of a covenant in the ordinary sense; and that the few instances where there is apparently a reference to one party, form an exception only to the rule.]

[Footnote 3: Even the most recent interpreters, who take [Hebrew: bel] _ sensu malo_, still greatly differ,--a proof that this interpretation has a very insufficient foundation on which to rest. _Gesenius_, _De Wette_, _Bleek_ (on Heb. viii. 9), retain the explanation by _fastidire_, _rejicere_; _Maurer_ translates: _dominarer_, _domini partes sustinerem_, contrasting tyrannical dominion with a relation of love; _Ewald_: "Seeing that I am her master and protector;" _Hitzig_: "And I got possession of her." All these interpretations are opposed by the _usus loquendi_, according to which [Hebrew: bel] has only the two significations: "to possess," and "to take for a wife," the latter being the ordinary and prevailing one.]

[Footnote 4: Not less than these, _Hitzig_ too has allowed himself to be carried away by the appearance. He says: "Then, indeed, the office of religious instructors must cease."]

[Footnote 5: According to _Krafft_ (_sur Topographie Jerus._ S. 158), it is only the hill Bezetha which, by the third wall of Agrippa, was added to the town, that can correspond to the situation of Gareb.]

[Footnote 6: _Thenius_, in the appendix to the Commentary on the Books of Kings, S. 24, remarks: "[Hebrew: gl] does not, in any of the dialects, denote the natural hill of rocks, but merely stones heaped up." Hence, the hill would be an artificial hill for the execution of criminals. (Compare the German word _Rabenstein_, lit. "raven-stone," for: place of execution.)]

[Footnote 7: This objection would be removed if, following _Thenius_ and _Krafft_, S. 158, we were to explain the name from the form of the hill, which is that of a skull. But _none_ of the Evangelists at least have advanced this explanation. The fact that three of them add the Greek explanation to the name (Matt. xxvii. 33; Mark xv. 22; John xix. 17), and one translated it into Greek (Luke xxiii. 33) shows that it stood in connection with the event in question. But this circumstance is quite decisive, that three Evangelists explain it by [Greek: kraniou topos], "place of a skull."]

[Footnote 8: Compare the Book _Kosri_, p. 72. _Buxtorff_ says: "Gehenna was a well-known place near Jerusalem, viz., a valley in which the fire was never extinguished, and where unclean bones, carcasses, and other unclean things, were burned."]