Ver. 16. "_And it cometh to pass, when ye be multiplied and fruitful in the land, in those days, saith the Lord, they shall say no more: The Ark of the Covenant of the Lord! And it will not come into the heart, neither shall they remember it, nor miss it, nor shall it be made again._"
First, we shall explain some particulars. The words: "When ye be," &c. refer to Gen. i. 28, As it is God's general providence which brings about the fruitfulness of all creatures, so it is His special providence which brings about the increase of His Church whose ranks have been thinned by His judgments; and it is thus that His promise to the patriarchs is carried on towards its fulfilment; compare remarks on Hos, ii. 1. God's future activity in this respect, has an analogy in His former activity in Egypt, Exod. i. 12. The words: "The Ark of the Covenant" must be viewed as an exclamation, in which an ellipsis, in consequence of the emotion, must be supposed, _q.d._ it is the aim of all our desires, the object of all our longings. The mere mention of the object with which the whole heart is filled, is sufficient for the lively emotion. _Venema's_ exposition; _Arca fœderis Jehovae_ sc. _est_, and that of _De Wette_: "They shall no more speak of the Ark of the Covenant of Jehovah," are both feeble and un philological. How were it possible that אמר with the Accusative should mean "to speak of something?"--עלה על־לב is, in a similar context, just as it is here, connected with זכר in Is. lxv. 17: "For behold I create a new heaven and a new earth, and the former shall not be remembered nor come into the heart," comp. also Jer. li. 50, vii. 31; 1 Cor. ii. 9. זכר with ב does not simply stand instead of the usual connection with the Accusative; it signifies a remembering connected with affection, a recollection joined with ardent longings. פקד is, by many interpreters, understood in the sense of "to visit," but the signification "to miss" (Is. xxxiv. 16; 1 Sam. xx. 6-18, xxv. 15; 1 Kings [Pg 385] xx. 39) is recommended by the connection with the following clause: "Nor shall it be made again." This supposes that there shall come a time when the Ark of the Covenant shall no more exist, the time of the destruction of the temple, which was so frequently and emphatically announced by the prophets.[3] God, however, will grant so rich a compensation for that which is lost, that men will neither long for it, nor, urged on by this longing, make any attempt at again procuring it for themselves by their own efforts. The main question now arises:--In what respect does the Ark of the Covenant here come into consideration? The answer is suggested by ver. 17. The Ark of the Covenant is no more remembered, because Jerusalem has now, in a perfect sense, become the throne of God. The Ark of the Covenant comes into consideration, therefore, as the throne of God, in an imperfect sense. It can easily be proved that it was so, although there have been disputes as to the manner in which it was so. The current view was this, that God, as the Covenant God, had _constantly_ manifested himself above the Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant, in a visible symbol, in a cloud. The first important opposition to this view proceeded from _Vitringa_ who, in the _Obs. sac._ t. i. p. 169, advances, among other arguments, the following: "It is not by any means necessary to maintain that, in the holy of holies, in the tabernacle or the temple of Solomon, there was constantly a cloud over the Ark; but it may be sufficient to say, that the Ark was the symbol of the divine habitation, and it was for this reason said that God was present in the place between the Cherubim, because from thence proceeded the revelation of His will, and He thus proved to the Jews that He was present." But this view of _Vitringa_, that it was [Pg 386] merely in an invisible manner that God was present over the Ark of the Covenant, met with strong opposition; and a note to the second edition shows, that he himself afterwards entertained doubts regarding it. By _Thalemann_, a pupil of _Ernesti_, it was afterwards advanced far more decidedly, and evidently with the intention of carrying it through, whether it was true or not, in the _Dissertatio de nube super arcam foederis_ (Leipzig, 1756). He, too, declared, however, that he did not deny the matter, but only disputed the sign. He found a learned opponent in _John Eberhard Rau_, Professor at Herborn (_Ravius_, _de nube super arcam foederis_, Utrecht, 1760; it is a whole book, in which _Thalemann's_ Treatise is reprinted). The matter is, indeed, very simple; both parties are right and wrong, and the truth lies between the two. From the principal passage, in Lev. xvi.