The triumphs of Judas Maccabeus, generally supposed to be here foretold, cannot be the victories alluded to; for Ephraim, or the ten tribes, here declared as bearing a part in them, had already gone into captivity, and bore no share whatever in these subsequent wars of Judah. The true meaning appears to be that Judah was destined to have the honour of first establishing the Messiah’s kingdom, as promised from the beginning. How then could Ephraim, or the ten tribes, it may be asked, bear a part in the triumphs of the Gospel, having previously gone into captivity? The prophecy does not distinctly say so; if we keep to the letter, it is only said that Ephraim as well as Judah was prepared and marshalled for the spiritual conflict: the triumph is declared to _Zion_ over _Greece_; that is, to true religion over Pagan idolatry; and in this warfare, though not in the wars of Judas Maccabeus, Ephraim did bear a part; for it is not to the apostolic age alone that we must look for the accomplishment of the great scheme of Providence for man’s redemption. This was only one act in the great drama; which began under the Old Covenant, and is not yet finally completed under the New. In the former, or the Old Covenant, all the tribes of Israel bore their share, Ephraim as well as Judah; and the warfare not being finally concluded, who shall say but Ephraim may again appear, and bear a further part in it? Having declared the union of the Gentiles with the Jews, and their joint participation in the blessings of the Messiah’s kingdom, the prophecy goes on to promise the support and protection of Heaven, in terms alike applicable to both. _And the Lord shall be seen over them, and his arrow shall go forth as the lightning; and the Lord God shall blow the trumpet, and shall go forth with whirlwinds of the south. And the Lord of hosts shall defend them, and they shall devour and subdue with sling-stones; and they shall drink as wine, and they shall be filled like bowls, like __ the corners of the altar._ (which were purposely so constructed as to receive the blood of the sacrifices). That the whole of these expressions require to be taken figuratively and spiritually, no one conversant with scriptural and prophetic language can surely deny; or for a moment suppose that literal drunkenness and bloodshed are here intended. Should any doubt remain that the Gentiles are included in these promises as well as the Jews, the next verse appears to decide the question. _And the Lord their God shall save them in that day, as the flock of his people._ If the Jews be called his people, who but the Gentiles can be meant by the other? But this is followed by the direct declaration that all distinction between them is on the eve of its abolition. _For the wall of separation is tottering over his land._