BR 45 .B35 1878 Bampton lectures ECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES, CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO MODERN CRITICISM : WITH A Critkal m^ (Srammatkal C0mmenlariT AND NEW TRANSLATION. EIGHT LECTURES DELIVERED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD IN THE YEAR 1878, .N THE FOUNDATION OF THE LATE REV. JOHN BAMPTON, M.A., LeCTLvHTC^^ CANON OF SALISBURY. / CHARLES HENRY HAMILTON ' WRIGHT, B.D. Of Trinity College, Dublin; M.A. of Exeter College, Oxford ; Phil.D. of the University of Leipzig ; and Incumbent of St. Mary's, Belfast. ITonbuit : HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW. MDCCCLXXIX. Buih>"&' Tnn::er, TJie Sel-djood Printing Worlds, Frame, and London. EXTRACT FROM THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF THE LATE REV. JOHN BAMPTON, M.A., CANON OF SALISBURY. " I give and bequeath my Lands and Estates to the " Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars, of the University of Oxford " for ever, to have and to hold all and singular the said Lands " or Estates upon trust, and to the intents and purposes here- " inafter mentioned ; that is to say, I will and appoint that "the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford for the " time being shall take and receive all the rents, issues, and " profits thereof, and (after all taxes, reparations, and necessary " deductions made) that he pay all the remainder to the en- " dowment of eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, to be estab- " lished for ever in the said University, and to be performed " in th,e manner following : — "I direct and appoint, that upon the First Tuesday in " Easter Term, a Lecturer may be yearly chosen by the Heads "of Colleges only, and by no others, in the room adjoining to " the Printing-house, between the hours of ten in the morning " and two in the afternoon, to preach eight Divinity Lecture " Sermons, the year following, at St. Mary's in Oxford, between " the commencement of the last month in Lent Term, and the " end of the third week in Act Term. ^ IV EXTRACT FROM WILL OF LATE REV. JOHN BAMPTON. " Also I direct and appoint, that the eight Divinity Lecture " Sermons shall be preached upon either of the following " subjects — To confirm and establish the Christian faith, and "to. confute all heretics and schismatics — Upon the Divine " authority of the Holy Scriptures — Upon the authority of " the writings of the primitive Fathers, as to the faith and "practice of the primitive Church — Upon the Divinity of our " Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ — Upon the Divinity of the " Holy Ghost — Upon the Articles of the Christian Faith, as " comprehended in the Apostles' and Nicene creeds. "Also I direct, that thirty copies of the eight Divinity " Lecture Sermons shall be always printed,'within two months " after they are preached ; and one copy shall be given to the " Chancellor of the University, and one copy to the Head of " every College, and one copy to the Mayor of the City of " Oxford, and one copy to be put into the Bodleian Library ; " and the expense of printing them shall be paid out of the " revenue of the Land or Estates given for establishing the " Divinity Lecture Sermons, and the Preacher shall not be " paid, nor be entitled to the revenue, before they are " printed. " Also I direct and appoint, that no person shall be quali- " fied to preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons, unless he hath " taken the degree of Master of Arts at least, in one of the two " Universities of Oxford or Cambridge ; and that the same "person shall never preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons " twice." The Very Rev. ROBERT PAYNE SMITH, D.D., Dean of Canterbury, formerly Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford and Canon of Christ's Church; Bampton Lecturer, 1859; Editor of the " Thesaurus Syriacus," and of other Syriac and Theological works ; A sound theologian, an eminent Orientalist, and a constant friend : TO WILLIAM WRIGHT, Esq., M.A., LL.D., D.D., Ph.D., Fellow of Queens' College, Professor of Arabic in the University of Cambridge, formerly Professor of Arabic in the University of Dublin ; Author of " A Gram- mar of the Arabic Language," and Editor of many works in Arabic, Syriac, etc. ; A Shemitic scholar of the highest class, whose personal friendship the Author has enjoyed for many years, having had the honour and advantage of studying Oriental Languages under him at Trinity College, Dublin : The Rev. FRANZ DELITZSCH, D.D., Ph.D., Professor of Theology in the University of Leipzig, formerly Professor in the Universities of Rostock and Erlangen ; one of the foremost Hebraists of the day, a distinguished theologian, and an eminent commentator ; In acknowledgment of many personal kindnesses, and of Christian regard and esteem for the Lutheran Churches of Germany, especially that of Saxony, and of deep obligations to the scholars of the great "Fatherland " : This attempt to follow in their footsteps, " hand paribus gressibus," and to promote the study of the Old Testament on a philological and grammatical basis, IS DEDICATED BY THE AUTPIOR. PREFACE. In sending forth this volume it may be well to state that, in the treatment of my subject, I considered it best to avoid altogether the form of sermons. So far as delivered, how- ever, the Lectures now published appear in the form in which they were actually preached from the University pulpit, although it was absolutely necessary (as is usual on such occasions) to read only a portion of each Lecture. In order to make the work complete as a commentary on the entire book of Zechariah, chapters have been added on those portions which had to be wholly passed over in the course of the Lectures. In the note below I have mentioned what portions of the work is embraced by these additions.^ A work written amid the necessary duties and cares connected with the sole pastoral charge of a large and 1 Chapter I. formed the first Lecture, delivered on St. Patrick's Day, March 17th, 1878, Chapter II. was preached on March 24th, Chapters III. and IV. as one Lecture on April 28th, and Chapters V. and VI. together on May 5th. Chapter VII. was not delivered before the University. Chapter VIII. was the Lecture delivered on May 12th. Chapter IX. was not preached. Chapter X. was delivered on May 19th, Chapter XL on May 26th, and Chapter XII., being the eighth and concluding Lecture, on Juno 2ndT Chapter XIII. was added to complete the work. viii PREFACE. populous town parish, may be expected to exhibit some traces of its having been so composed. At no time, ex- cept during the short period of my residence at Oxford, have I had that leisure which is generally desirable in such cases. I trust, notwithstanding, that the work, such as it is, may help some to a better understanding of one of the books of the Minor Prophets which has always been con- sidered among the most obscure and difficult portions of Holy Scripture. In accordance with the object of the pious founder of the Bampton Lecture, this work has naturally an apologetic character, and has been written with the view of taking a calm survey of the results of modern criticism as affecting the most important book of the Minor Prophets. I was, how- ever, fully prepared to have altogether abandoned the tradi- tional view as to the authorship of the second part of the book of Zechariah, had the arguments against its integrity appeared to me to demand such a course. I have honestly endeavoured to weigh, as carefully as possible, the evidence presented by eminent modern critics on this point, although I have felt constrained to differ from their conclusions. In the treatment of other questions of even greater import- ance, namely, the Messianic prophecies, I have endeavoured fairly to state the opinions on both sides. If, in the judg- ment of any one, I appear to have failed in doing so, I trust my failure will not be ascribed to an improper cause. I have held aloof from the condemnable practice of abus- ing those critics from whose views I conscientiously dissent, PREFACE. IX and I have, therefore, abstained from characterizing such scholars as " Rationalists " or " unbelievers," some of them being very unfairly regarded as such. I hope I have profited by the study of writers of all the various schools of thought. Even the works of the few modern Roman Catholic divines who have written on Zechariah, such as Reinke, Theiner, and Schegg, have afforded me much assis- tance, and I rejoice to be able to acknowledge the un- sectarian spirit and scholarlike manner in which they have treated the subject. Of the works of scholars of the other schools of criticism I need not here speak particularly, as a list of the books which have been consulted is given in the Introduction, § 8. The critical and grammatical commentary appended to the Lectures, though fuller on such points than anything which has yet appeared in England, is not as complete as I would have wished to have made it, had time and space permitted. A large number of the notes given under the text of the Lectures properly belong to that part of the work. The new translation will, I hope, help to a better under- standing of the meaning of the original. As regards such translations, I fully agree with the remarks of Dr. Perowne, in the Preface to the Second Edition of his valuable work on the Psalms ; and as I expect to be accused, as he has been, of "needlessly departing" from our Authorised English Version, I cannot do better than refer to what he has said on that subject. As the translation, here given is not in- tended to supersede our A.V., or to be viewed as a revision X PREFACE. thereof, I have felt myself free to act without constant reference to that version. In any revision of a National Version for general use, I should advocate as few altera- tions as possible, but the object of the translation accom- panying this work is very different. Words necessary to complete the sense, or to express it more fully, have been added within brackets, as well as occasional explanations, and in some cases alternative ways of translating a passage. The paragraphs adopted are those of the Hebrew text, except in chapters iii. and v. Under the text will be found a number of various readings, but the critical com- mentary must be generally consulted for such, as many other readings are there given. I have endeavoured, espe- cially in the poetical portions, by a freer use of commas than usual to express some of the peculiarities of the Hebrew accentuation. Throughout this work the form Jahaveh (to be pronounced Yahaveh) has been adopted for the sacred name, instead of Jehovah, though the latter is almost consecrated by use in this country. The latter form has been indeed recently de- fended by Hoelemann, but is certainly erroneous. The name is properly speaking an imperfect kal of the verb mn or HTJ as explained in Exod. iii. 14. From the form H JH all the other forms of the sacred name, used in composition, or otherwise (such as iT, ^rT\ or iiT|, T), can be explained, as well as the 'la^e of Theodoret and Epiphanius. • The form "Jahaveh" is better suited to the rhythm than "Jahve," adopted by Ewald and most Germao scholars. Had this PREFACE. XI work been designed for the masses, I would scarcely have ventured on this change, which will be regarded as an in- novation in England. But as the work is intended for an intelligent class of Biblical students, I do so with less reluctance. I may note that there is nothing in the Lectures themselves which cannot be understood by an intelligent English reader, even though unacquainted with Hebrew. The want of uniformity in expressing Hebrew proper names in English will, I hope, be excused as it has in great measure arisen from a desire to use forms familiar to the English reader. It may be well to observe that in some of my remarks I have had in view a class of prophetical interpreters, who have, indeed, produced no work of learning which could be referred to, but whose views, put forth in pamphlets and popular discourses have obtained currency in certain quarters. In order to enable the work to be published with as little delay as possible, it was sent to the press in sections before the whole manuscript was completed. Its publication would necessarily have been delayed for more than a twelvemonth, had any other course been adopted. This plan, how- ever, has been attended with peculiar difficulties. Some cor- rections will be found in the translation, and especially in the critical and grammatical commentary, e.g. on ch. iii. 3, iv. 7, X. II, xi. 8, II. In the crit. comm. on ch. iv. 7, I have corrected a mistake wrongly imputed by me to Wiinsche in his treatise on Die Leiden des Messias. Con- xii PREFACE. siderable additions on various points have been made in that part of the work. i desire to return my warmest thanks to Prof. William Wright of Cambridge, and Prof. Dr. Franz Delitzsch of Leipzig, for their great kindness in revising the proof-sheets of this book while passing through the press, and for the valuable suggestions made by them which have been in- corporated in the work. Dr. Delitzsch has also very kindly verified for me the references to the old Jewish literature. These scholars are, however, by no means to be held respon- sible for any of the views adopted, or for any critical errors which the work may contain. My old friend, the Rev. Wm. Macllwaine, D.D., Incumbent of St. George's, Belfast, and Canon of St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin, has also kindly revised the proof-sheets. Belfast, Jan. 25 //^, 1879. 8^^ Ml CONTENTS. PAGE Introduction : — § I. Notices of the Prophet Zechariah . . xv. § 2. The Name of the Prophet . . . . xx. § 3. The Date of his earlier Predictions . . xxi. § 4. External Evidence as to the Unity of the Book xxii. § 5. Sketch of the Rise and Progress of Critical^ Opinion on the Question of its Integrity xxv. § 6. The Differences between the First and Second Portions of the Book xxviii. § 7. Considerations in favour of its Integrity and Genuineness xxxv. § 8. Apparatus Criticus xlii. New Translation of the Book of Zechariah . . xlix. CHAPTER I. The First Three Visions (Zecli. i. ii.) .... 3 CHAPTER II. The Fourth Vision (Zech. iii.) — Joshua before the Angel. 45 CHAPTER III. The Fifth Vision — The Golden Candlestick (Zech. iv.) 8r CHAPTER IV. The Sixth Vision — The Flying Roll, and the Woman in the Ephah (Zech. v.) . . . . . .105 xiv CONTENTS. PAGE CHAPTER V. The Seventh Vision — The Four Chariots (Zech, vi. i-8) 122 CHAPTER VI. The Crowning of the High Priest (Zech, vi. 9-15). . 145 CHAPTER VII. The Deputation from Bethel. — Addresses of Zech- ARiAH to the People (Zech. vii. viii.) . . . .161 CHAPTER VIII. The Preparation of the Land. — The Coming of the King (Zech. ix.) 199 CHAPTER IX. The War of the Sons of Zion. — The "Lost Tribes" (Zech. X.) 265 CHAPTER X. The Good Shepherd and his Rejection — The Evil Shep- herd and his Doom (Zech. xi.) 299 CHAPTER XL The Trials and Victory of Israel. — The Great Mourn- ing (Zech. xii.) 355 CHAPTER XII. The Reaction against False Prophets. — The Great Transgression (Zech. xiii.) 409 CHAPTER XIIL The Eschatology of Zechariah, or " The Last Things " AS seen in the light of the Old Dispensation (Zech. xiv.) 449 Critical and Grammatical Commentary . . '. -525 Index of Texts Illustrated 599 General Index 603 INTRODUCTION. § I. Notices of the Prophet ZecJiariah. According to the statement in chap. i. i, Zechariah was the son of Berechiah and the grandson of Iddo (see crit. comm.). He was called the son of Iddo as well as the son of Berechiah, probably because the latter died at a comparatively early age, or was a man of little note. We assume in this statement that the Iddo alluded to in the book of Zechariah, and whose son the prophet Zechariah is called in Ezra v. i and vi. 14, is to be identified with the Iddo mentioned in Neh. xii. 4, who was one of the priests that went up from Babylon with Zerubbabel and Joshua, and whose son Zechariah is also spoken of in Neh. xii. 16. It is unnecessary, with Jerome and Cyrill, to have recourse to conjecture in order to explain the simple fact that the same person is styled both " son of Berechiah " and " son of Iddo." For the Hebrew word for " son " is frequently used in the sense of "grandson," for which latter idea there is no special term in Hebrew. There is, there- fore, no cause to regard the words "son of Berechiah " as an interpolation. The conjecture of Knobel and von Ortenberg, approved of by Bleek and Wellhausen, namely, that the book of Zechariah is made up of the writings of three distinct prophets, one of them Zechariah the son of Iddo, who lived after the captivity, and another Zechariah the son of Berechiah or Jeberechiah, a contemporary of Isaiah, se- lected by that prophet to act with Uriah the high priest as Xvi INTRODUCTION. § I. a witness (Isaiah viii. 2), is ingenious, but is entirely based on a denial of the unity of the book, Zechariah appears to have been still young when called to fulfil the office of a prophet. It is, indeed, a mistake to suppose him to be specially referred to in chap. ii. 8 (E. V. chap, ii, 4) as "this young man," though that view has been taken by many commentators Although, however, that passage ought to be explained otherwise, the youth of Zechariah may be fairly inferred from the fact that his grandfather, Iddo, is mentioned as a person of some im- portance in the days of Joshua the high priest, having been one of the priests who returned with Zerubbabel and Joshua from Babylon, and that Zechariah, is spoken of as having prophesied during the high priesthood of Joshua, most probably in the lifetime of his grandfather Iddo ; while in the days of Joiakim, the successor of Joshua in the high priest's office (Neh. xii. 10), Zechariah is mentioned as being then the head of the family. His father Berechiah must, therefore, have been already dead. But if Zechariah en- tered on his prophetic work during the lifetime of his grand- father, he must have been young at the time ; and his grandfather being at that period the head of the family, Zechariah was naturally termed " the son of Iddo." Nothing is really known regarding the length of time during which he acted as prophet. The common tradition that he lived to a good old age had probably some historical basis of which we now know nothing. According to Jewish tradition, mentioned by Rashi and Abarbanel, Haggai and Zechariah were members of the Great Synagogue, to whose labours the Jews ascribe the reorganization of the Jewish Church and the arrangement of the Canon of Scripture. The line of succession from the time of Moses is said in the Aboth of R, Nathan, to have been Joshua, the Elders, Judges and Prophets, Haggai and Zechariah, and, lastly, the men INTRODUCTION. § I. Xvii of the Great Synagogue, which the Mishnah regards as having consisted of those teachers who received the tradition from the prophets, and preserved it down to the time of Simon the Just.^ The accounts given of the prophet in the early Christian writers of the 4th and 5th centuries cannot be regarded as probable, being too plainly legendary in their character, and contradicting, as they do, clear deductions from the notices in the canonical books. The Pseudo-Epiphanius {De Proph. 21) says that Zechariah was a very old man when he came from Babylon, in which place he confirmed the prophecies which he delivered by many signs. He is said to have prophesied to Jozadak the birth of his son Joshua, and to have predicted that that son would discharge the office of priest in Jerusa- lem. He is also said to have foretold to Salathiel the birth of Zerubbabel, and to have informed him of his son's future career. He predicted to Cyrus the victory which he after- wards obtained over Croesus, as well as what Cyrus accom- plished at Jerusalem. He died in Judaea in extreme old age, and was buried in a tomb near that of Haggai. Such is the account given by Epiphanius. That given by Dorotheus is almost identical. The latter adds that the place of the pro- phet's sepulture was near Eleutheropolis, and ,states that he was the Zechariah the son of Berechiah mentioned by Isaiah in chap. viii. This seems to have been the view of the Jews, though it involved a gross anachronism as they understood it. For according to some traditions the same Zechariah pro- phesied in the second temple (see Fiirst's Kanon des A. T. nach den Ueberlieferungen in Talmud u. Midrasch, pp. 44, 45). The same tradition is found in Hesychius, whose words are in several clauses identical with those of Epiphanius. Hesy- chius states in addition that the prophet was of the tribe of ' On the men of the Great Synagogue, see Buxtorfs Tiberias, cap. x. ; Jost's Geschichte des Isr. Volkes ; and Taylor's Sayings of the Jmvish Fathers (Cambridge University Press, 1877). b xviii INTRODUCTION. § I. Levi, and was born in Gilead. The name Zechariah is ex- plained by him as signifying fMvrjfiv 'T^^lo-rov, which is pos- sible, or NcKTiTT]^ Xeovro^, which is impossible. Isidore of Spain (7th century) says of Haggai, "Aggaeus natus in Babylonia, juveniculus Hierusalem venit, aedificationem tem- pli ex parte conspexit. Hie juxta sacerdotum monumenta gloriose sepultus quiescit." Of Zechariah he adds briefly, "Zacharias, filius Barachiae, cum eodem Aggaeo et eodem tempore prophetavit." Kohler observes that a further addition to the story is found in the Codex Augustanus of Epiphanius, the prophet being therein identified with Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest (called Zacharias the son of Barachias in Matt, •xxiii. 35), who was slain at the command of Joash between the temple and the altar (2 Chron. xxiv. 20-22), who was buried by his fellow-priests in the tomb of his father Jehoi- ada ; " and from that time," states the codex, " there were many wonderful appearances in the sanctuary (repara ev Tw vaw iroWa (pavTao-LcoBrj), and the priests were not able to behold the sight of the angels of God [the cherubim over the mercy-seat?], nor to give responses from the oracle (oure Sovvai xpv^-f^ov^ eK rov Sa/Srjp, Heb. 1^1^), nor answers to the people as formerly by means of the visible things," Bia rSiv hrfktov, the Urim and Thummim. Though Chrysostom and Jerome have identified Zechariah the prophet with the martyr Zechariah mentioned by our Lord, it is certain that the identification cannot be correct. Had such a murder taken place after the Restoration from the captivity, some allusion would no doubt have been made to it in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, or in the prophecies of Malachi, or the writings of Josephus. It is unlikely that two prophets of the same name should have perished in the same manner and place, one before the exile and the other after it. It is, indeed, a curious fact that Josephus {Bell. Jud. iv. 5, ^^ 4), INTRODUCTION. § I, xix relates the murder of a Zechariah the son of Baruch which took place in the temple, shortly before the destruction of the city by the Romans. But it is, however, far easier to explain the insertion of the words "son of Barachias" in St. Matthew's Gospel as an interpolation, or even as an inaccuracy (on the part of the evangelist or his copyist, not on the part of our Lord). Berechiah may also have been a second name of Jehoiada. It must not be forgotten that Jerome in his Comm. on Matt, xxiii. 35, mentions that in the Gospel of the Naza- renes " son of Jehoiada " was found instead of "son of Bara- chiah." There is little doubt, however, that our Lord in his solemn words alludes first to the cry of Abel's blood from the ground, mentioned in Genesis iv. 10, and secondly to the dying prayer for vengeance of the martyr Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, recorded in 2 Chron. xxiv. 22. In the Targum on Lamentations (chap. ii. 20), Zechariah the son of Jehoiada is called "Zechariah the son of Iddo, the high priest and faithful prophet," and his death is said to have taken place on the great Day of Atonement. The Targum regards the slaughter of the priests and prophets in the sanctuary by the Chal- daeans as a punishment for that great sin. To the same effect are the stories related in the Talm-ud Yerushalmi (Taanith, 69, col. i, 2) and in the Talmud Babli (Sanhedrin, 96, 2), quoted by Lightfoot in his Horce Heb. on Matt. 1. c. Haggai and Zechariah are mentioned in the LXX. version along with David in the superscription of Ps. cxxxviii. (LXX. cxxxvii.), T/raA,/zo9 rwAavlh, 'A'^yalov koI Zaxapiov, and Psalms cxlv. to cxlviii. are distinctly assigned to Haggai and Zecha- hria (AWrjXoma. jiyjaiov koI Zaxapiov). The Arabic ver- sion generally agrees in this with the LXX. In some MSS. of the Itala the superscription of Psalm Ixv. (Itala and LXX. Ixiv.) is : " In finem, psalmus David, canticum Jeremiae et Aggaei deverbo peregrinationif, quando iacipiebant proficisci." Similarly according to the Vulgate and Itala, Ps. cxii. (Vulg. XX INTRODUCTION. § 2. Ps. cxi.) is entitled, " Alleluia, Reversionis Aggaei et Zecha- rise," and Ps. cxlvi. (Vulg. cxlv.) is ascribed to them, " Alleluia, Aggffii et Zechariae." In the Syriac version (the Peschitto) Psalms cxxvi. and cxxvii. (Syr. cxxv., cxxvi) are not said, indeed, to have been written by those prophets (Ps. cxxvii., Syr. cxxvi., being distinctly ascribed to David), but they are said to speak of these prophets of the Restoration. So Psalms cxxiii. and cxxviii. (Syr. cxxii., cxxvii.) are said to refer to Zerubbabel ; Ps. cxxx. (Syr. cxxix.) to Nehemiah ; and Ps. cxxxi. (Syr. cxxx.) to Joshua the high priest. But Psalms cxlvi., cxlvii., and cxlviii. (Syr. Ps. cxlv., cxlvi., cxlvii., cxlviii., — Ps. cxlvii. in the Hebrew forming two Psalms, cxlvi. cxlvii., in the Syriac version) are distinctly ascribed to the joint authorship of Haggai and Zechariah. There is a refer- ence made to the sqinscriptions in the notice of the Pseudo- Epiphanius, which, however, is not only obscure in itself, but the text of which is also confused and uncertain (see Kohler, Comm. on Haggai, p. 33). It is as follows : koX avroiis own ideas on the subjects of which he treats under the form of a vision, without having actually seen such ; just as Bunyan set forth his ideas on Christian experience under the similitude of a dream. It is quite clear that Zechariah speaks of the visions as having been actually seen by him, and records several inquiries which he made of the angel concerning certain points, the meaning of which he was unable to comprehend. Are we to suppose such inquiries are introduced simply for the purpose of effect.? If we ap- proach the examination of any book of Scripture with a resolute determination to discard all that savours of the superhuman, our judgment even on a question of style will INTRODUCTION. § 6. xxix be very different from what it will be if we commence our investigations in a different spirit, even though we may be fully prepared to discover in each book distinct proofs of the sacred writer's individuality, and of the times and cir- cumstances under which he wrote. It is only fair that these considerations should be borne in mind. We are far from ascribing what Dr. Samuel Davidson has termed " bad motives " to those scholars who maintain that the book of Zechariah contains the writings of at least three distinct authors, and may honestly affirm that, if we be- lieved the internal structure of this book demanded such a conclusion, we would unhesitatingly have adopted it ; but believing, as we do, that the prophet depicts in the greater part of the first six chapters a vision actually beheld by him, which consisted of several parts, we cannot consider it strange that the description of that vision of the night season la.cks the " elevated and imaginative style " of the later pro- phecies, where the writer, though predicting facts and ideas communicated by Divine inspiration, was yet free to give i scope to his own individuality. Assuming the unity of the book, as testified to by all external evidence, until the traditional opinion be duly over- thrown by critical investigation, we may compare the prose description of the visions in the first part with the simple prose in which the allegory set forth in chap. xi. is recorded, and with the prosaic description of chap. xiii. i-6, and we might almost add of chap. xiv. If the writer of chaps, ix., x., xi. 1-3 (if not verses 1-6) exhibits considerable poetic powers, chap. ii. 10-17 may be instanced as also breathing a poetic spirit ; and it should be remembered that that is almost the only portion in the first part of the book in which such a spirit could possibly have been displayed. It need not sur- prise us that the exhortations of the prophet recorded in chap. vii. and chap, viii., delivered in answer to the inquiry XXX INTRODUCTION. § 6. of the deputation from Bethel, should, for the most part, be composed in ordinary prose. Many of the objections urged against the post-exilian authorship of the later chapters have been already considered in connexion with the interpretation of those portions. We must refer, generally, to those chapters for our reply to the objections adduced; and we may be permitted to express our opinion that it is impossible to give a fair and intelligible explanation of the several sections of the second part on the hypothesis of those portions having been composed before the exile. The attempts made by various scholars to explain those sections as pre-exilian appear to us to be failures. Dr. S. Davidson lays much stress upon the assumed fact that "the historical standpoint of chap. ix. i-6 and x. lo is very different " from that of the earlier portion. This ob- jection, as urged by him and other scholars, has been so fully met in the body of the work, that it is unnecessary to do more than refer to what is there written. So also as regards the mention of Ephraim and Judah in the second part of the book. Israel is a name often given to Judah alone, and is so used in the post-exilian prophets. If the inscription of Mai. i. I be called in question, as it is by some, it must be borne in mind that Malachi speaks in chap. ii. ii of " Israel and Jerusalem" as identical with Judah. Davidson asserts that " the mention of a king or kingdom in chaps, xi. 6, and xiii. 7, does not suit the age of Zechariah." He admits, however, that it is true, as Havernick affirms, that no mention is made of the family of David as being still in actual possession of the throne. He maintains, however, that " to say that the places are Messianic is irrelevant." No argument as to the authorship can be derived from chap. xi. 6, as it is tolerably clear that passage does not refer to Jewish but to Gentile kings. The invalidity of the argument sought to be derived from chap. xiii. 7 will be best seen by an exami- INTRODUCTION. § 6. XXXI nation of our interpretation of that passage in connexion with its context. It has often been argued that the mention made of the " house of David " in chap. xii. 7-xiii. i is utterly inconsistent with the supposition of the authorship of Zechariah. This objection is strongly urged by v. Ortenberg, who also con- siders that " the shepherds " spoken of in chaps, x. and xi. refer to native rulers. This interpretation will not suit the several passages. As to the mention of " the house of David," it must not be forgotten that even Ezekiel, writing at a time when the kingdom of Judah was totally overthrown, speaks of " my servant David" as destined in the distant future to be the great shepherd who was to rule over both the people of Israel and Judah (Ezekiel xxxiv., xxxvii.). The allusions made by Zechariah to that house are, as pointed out on pp. 368, 371-374, peculiarly suited to the circumstances of the time in which that prophet lived. The thought expressed by the prophet in chap. xii. 7, that the glory of the house of David and that of the inhabitants of Jerusalem would not be able to magnify itself over Judah is one which could never have entered into the conceptions of a prophet writing before the exile. (See p. 367.) The allusions to idolatry and false prophets are m.uch dwelt on by those who deny the authenticity of the second portion. These allusions, as we have pointed out at sufficient length in our remarks on chap. x. 2 and chap, xiii., are no proof whatever of a pre-exilian date. In addition to the remarks there made it may be observed that even Malachi speaks of " sorcerers " plying their trade in his days (chap. iii. 5), and Josephus speaks of such arts being practised at a later period {Antiq. viii. 2, § 5, comp. Acts xiii. 6). The arguments derived from the mention made of "Satan" and of " the Seven Eyes " of God in the first part, while no mention is made of either in the latter portion, are plainly XXxii INTRODUCTION. § 6. inconclusive ; though some have maintained that the first portion of the book must be regarded as composed after the exile, when such notions were introduced from Baby- lon, and that the second portion, being free from all such allusions, is to be assigned to a date before the exile. No reference to either point is made in the prophecies of Haggai or in those of Malachi, nor, we might add, in the exhorta- tions of Zechariah himself in chaps, vii. or viii. The number "seven" occurs too often in a symbolical sense in the Old Test, for its use in Zechariah to strike us as novel ; and there is no necessity whatever to suppose that in the mention of the Seven Eyes any allusion is made to the seven highest spirits (Tobit xii. 15), or that they are spoken of after the analogy of the seven high councillors of the Persian monarch (Ezra vii. 14), who were called " the ears and eyes of the king" (Xenoph. Cyropcsd. viii. 2, 10, comp. viii. 6, 16). It has been further urged by Hitzig, and the objection is repeated by Davidson, that the author of the second part cannot be the same as that of the former, inasmuch as " in the first part everything is shrouded in visions which are not easily understood. The second part is not symbolic. The eleventh chapter contains an allegory, not a symbolical transaction. In the second part there is no enigma that needs explanation; no angel to act as interpreter." These objections do not seem well-considered, for though we speak of the first part as containing " visions," it must not be for- gotten that it really describes but one vision consisting of seven parts more or less closely connected v/ith one another. Moreover, the first part of the book also comprises chap. vii. and chap, viii., in which there are no visions and no allusion to angels. Yet the latter facts have never been considered to be any objections to the view that the author of <:haps. i-vi. and of chaps, vii. viii. is one and the same. It is no doubt quite true that certain phrases and pecu- INTRODUCTION. § 6. XXxiii liarities of expression occur in the first eight chapters which are not found in the concluding six chapters of the book ; such as the introductory formulas " the word of Jahaveh came unto Zechariah," or " unto me," (chaps, i. i, 7, iv. 8, vi. 9, vii. i, 4, 8, viii. I, 18), and "thus saith Jahaveh of hosts" (chaps. 1.4, 17, ii. 12, viii. 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 14, 18, 20, 23). Moreover, in the first part Zechariah often specifies the exact time at which he received the word of Jahaveh (chaps, i. i, 7, vii. i), mentioning his own name (chap. vii. i) and the names of some of his contempo- raries, such as Joshua and Zerubbabel (iii. i, iv. 6-10, vi. 11) or others (chap. vi. 10, vii. 2); whereas such statements do not occur in the second part, nor are any contemporaries of the prophet there mentioned. But it is sufficient to reply that prefatory formulas with a precise mention of time and date were necessary in introduc- ing a special vision like that of Zechariah, and also in the case of exhortations addressed to the people in reply to a direct inquiry made as to certain points. Similar headings with the dates assigned to them are found prefixed to the vision of Isaiah (vi. i) and to those of Ezekiel (i. 1-3, viii. i, 2, xl. i, 2) ; and dates are very frequently found in the prophets where answers are recorded as given by Divine command to certai-n inquiries addressed to them. Introductory formulas are made use of by Hosea in the first five chapters of his book, such as " the word of Jaha- veh," " saith Jahaveh," " then said Jahaveh," " Hear ye the word of Jahaveh," " Hear ye this, O priests," etc., which are completely wanting in the last nine chapters ; and yet no doubt is entertained of the integrity of that book. The style moreover of that prophet is very different in chaps, i.-iii. from what it is in chaps, iv.-xiv. ; and the style of Ezekiel iv., v. is totally different from that of chaps, vi., vii., or of xxvii., xxviii. It is not then surprising, as Keil, Stahelin and others have observed, to find that the style of Zechariah varies in chaps. c xxxiv INTRODUCTION. § 6. i.-viii. from that in chaps, ix.-xiv., as the subject matter treated of in the two portions is so radically different. In the former portion the prophet had to narrate a series of visions seen by him in one night, and to record divers exhortations of a practical kind suggested by the inquiry of the deputation from Bethel ; in the second portion he speaks of the distant future. In the former he might be expected to write in simple prose, in the latter he might at times rise to lofty heights of poetry. Moreover, and this must not be forgotten, it is exceedingly probable that the second portion was composed many years after the first ; long after the temple had been completed, and matters had assumed a kind of normal condition as regards the Jewish colony : and also at a time when the realization of the bright hope of attaining their national independence seemed to be as far off as ever. See our remarks on pp. 199, ff., and also our exposition of chaps, ix.-xi., in which we have pointed out the many indications of post-exilian authorship, and have replied in detail to the objections adduced by modern scholars. For similar reasons we can see no great difficulty in the fact that certain other expressions are found in the first part which do not occur in the second, such as " the Lord of the whole earth " (chaps, iv. 14, vi. 5) in the first part, or the phrase " in that day " found in the later chapters. The phrase " the people round about " (chap. xii. 2, 6) could not be expected to occur in the first part ; and the facts that "the house of David " is not spoken of there, that the princes of Israel, or, as we maintain, the Gentile rulers, are not there called "shepherds," nor the people spoken of as a " flock," are no real objections to the unity of authorship. We might equally well deny that the author of chaps, -vi. was the writer of chaps, vii., viii., or assert that the author of chap, vii. was distinct from that of chap, viii., as differences of phraseology can be detected even between those chapters. INTRODUCTION. § 7. XXXV § 7. Considerations in favour of the Integrity of the Book and the Authorship of Zechariah. One of the most important arguments in favour of the unity of authorship is that in both parts there are numerous quota- tions from, or allusions to, earlier prophets, and that the second portion contains several distinct references to the later prophets. In chap. i. 4-6, reference is made generally to " the former pro- phets," and so also in chap. vii. 7-17. The exhortation to " flee from the land of the north " in chap. ii. 1 1 (E. V. ii. 6), is based on that in Isa. xlviii. 20, "flee from the land of the Chaldeans," or on the similar commands in Isa. Hi. 1 1, Jer. Ii. 6, 9. The men- tion in chap. ii. 1 2 (E. V. ii. 8), of " the apple of the eye " has affi- nities with Ps. xvii. 8, though the phrases used are not identical. In verses 13 and 15 of the same chapter (and in chap. iv. 9) the expression "ye shall know that Jahaveh of hosts sent me" seems borrowed from Ezek. vi. 7, 10, etc. The allusion to the vine and fig tree in chap. iii. 10 is taken from Micah iv. 4. In the use of the name " Branch," as an appellation of the Messiah (chap. iii. 8 ; vi. 12), allusion is made to the pro- phecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah (see our remarks on those passages). Ps. ex. is evidently referred to in chap. vi. 13. Chap. vii. 9 is, as noted on p. 174, based on Ezek. xviii. 8, and Jer. vii. 5-7, xxii. 3. The imagery in verse 12 appears to be derived from Ezek. xi. 19. Verse 13 of the same chapter is almost a quotation from Jer. xi. 1 1, and verse 14 from Jer. ii. 19 ; while chap. viii. 3 reminds us of Jer. xxxi. 23, verse 4 of Isaiah Ixv. 20, verse 6 of Jer. xxxii. 17, 27, and verse 7 of Isaiah xliii. 6. Verse 8 of the same chapter recalls to mind Hosea ii. 21 (E.V. verse 19) and Isaiah xlviii. i. Chap. viii. 20-22 may, as far as its substance is concerned, be compared with Micah iv. I, 2 ; Isa. ii. 3. The prophecy of the four chariots is evi- dently based on that of Daniel's four empires (Dan. ii., vii.), l^ though it must not be forgotten that this is not admitted by XXXVi INTRODUCTION. § /. our opponents. In the allusion to the boasted wisdom of Tyre there seems to be a reference to Ezekiel's ironical description of the prince of Tyre, as "wiser than Daniel" (chap, xxviii. 3). The language of chap. ix. 3 refers to i Kings x. 27. The prophecy concerning the cities of Philistia (chap. ix. 5, 6) is akin to Zeph. ii. 4, 5. The promise "by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit, wherein is no water" (ix. 11), seems modelled after Isa. li. 14, " the captive exile hasteneth that he may be loosed, and that he should not die in the pit." In chap. ix. 12, "return to the steep rocks, prisoners of hope," there is, perhaps, a refer- ence to Isa. xlix. 9, " that thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Show yourselves." The last clause of the same verse, "double I will restore to thee," is almost a quotation of Isa. Ixi. 7, " for your shame you shall have double ... in their land they shall possess the double," or taken from Jer. xvi. 18, "first I will recom- pense their iniquity and their sin double." The prediction of the cutting off of the horses and chariots in the Messianic days (chap. ix. 10) is clearly borrowed from Micah v. 10 (see p. 241) ; and the statement as to the extent of Messiah's rule is evidently founded on Ps. Ixxii. 8. The language of Zechariah concerning "the shepherds" and "the goats" (chap. x. 3) is taken from Ezek. xxxiv. 2, 17. The whole allegory of chap, xi. seems to be borrowed from Ezek. xxxiv. (compare chap, xi. 4 with Ezek. xxxiv. 3, 4, and chap. xi. 16 with the same). The expression " the pride of Jordan " (chap. xi. 3) is plainly taken from Jeremiah, who is fond of using that phrase (Jer. xii. 5, xlix. 19, 1. 44, in all of which passages our A.V. has incorrectly " the swelling of Jordan "). The phrase in chap. xi. 5, " are not punished " or " do not feel themselves guilty," seems also taken from Jer. 1. 7 (see our crit. comm.). Zech. xii. i, where Jahaveh is spoken of as spreading forth the heavens and founding the earth, is, plainly connected with INTRODUCTION. § /. XXXVll Isa. li, 13, Zech. xii. 6, where the princes of Juclah are likened to a pan of fire among faggots and a torch in a sheaf of corn, is a reminiscence of Obadiah 18, " the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them." Zech. xiii. 2, where Jahaveh promises to cut off "the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall be no more remembered," is a quotation from Hosea ii. 19 (E. V. 17), "for I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name." In Zech. xiii. 8, 9, two parts of the people are spoken of as doomed to be cut off while a third part is left in the land. This is based on Ezek. v. 2, 12, where Ezekiel is bidden to divide his hair into three parts, each part to be dealt with differently, which act is explained as signifying that the people of Jerusalem were to be punished in different ways. The closing sentence of Zech. xiii. 9, "and they shall say, Jahaveh is my God," is almost literally quoted from Hosea ii. 25 (E.V. ver. 23). The mention made of the "living waters" in Zech. xiv. 8 is evi- dently taken from the vision of the living waters in Ezek. xlvii. 1-12 (see p. 487). Zech. xiv. 10 is closely connected with Jer, xxxi, 38, 40, where not only the "to>ver of Hananeel" and "the gate of the corner" are spoken of, but where the same idea also pervades the passage. In speaking of the nations going up to worship the Lord in Jerusalem (chap. xiv. 16-19), Isa. Ixvi. 23, and Isa. Ix. 12 were plainly in the pro- phet's mind. In predicting that even on the bells of the horses there should be inscribed " holiness to Jahaveh," the same thought is expressed, though in other words, as in Ezek. xliii. 12, "this is the law of the house : upon the top of the mountain the whole limit thereof round about shall be most holy." The closing words of the prophet, " the Canaanite will not be any more in the house of Jahaveh in that day," are akin to those in Ezek. xliv. 9, "no stranger, uncircumcised in XXXVni INTRODUCTION. § /. heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanc- tuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel." We have referred to these texts at greater length than usual in order that the casual reader may see for himself how little Davidson's statement is to be relied on, that " most of these reminiscences or borrowings prove doubtful when ex- amined." It will be observed that the latter part of Zechariah has more references to the former prophets than the earlier portion. It is in vain to assert with Bleek and Davidson that Zechariah is the original and that the other prophets quoted from him. The evidence to the contrary was so con- clusive to de Wette's mind that, though in the earlier editions of his Einleitiing he had adopted views opposed to the tra- ditional theory, he felt himself compelled to change his mind and to admit that the evidence for the post-exilian authorship was overwhelming. As to the assertion that Zechariah may have been the original, Perowne has well remarked, " It must be confessed that it is more probable that one writer should have allusions to many others than that many others should borrow from one, and this probability approaches certainty in proportion as we multiply the number of quotations or allusions." In the case under consideration the probability almost amounts to certainty. Among the traces of unity of authorship which may be discovered by a comparison of the two portions may be men- tioned the utter absence of allusion to any king over Israel or Judah. The references to "the house of David " cannot be fairly considered as such (see p. xxxi.). The only king men- tioned in the two parts is the Messiah, who under the name of the "Branch" is spoken of as king alike in chap. vi. 12, 13 and in chap. ix. 9. On Kuenen's view see our crit. comm. on chap. iii. 8. The statement in chap. vi. 12, 13, miist be con- sidered in connexion with that in chap. ii. 14, 15 (E.V. verse 10, 11), and the latter has a very close similarity to chap. ix. 9, INTRODUCTION. § /. XXXIX 10. The attempts made to discover essential dififerences in the picture given of the Messianic age in the first and second portions must be viewed as failures. In both parts the house of Israel and Judah are spoken of as essentially one; e.g.^ in chap. ii. 2 (E.V. i, 19) and viii. 13, and in the second portion in chap. ix. 9, 10, 13, x. 3, 6, 7. So also the bonds of " brotherhood " are represented in chap. xi. as existing even after the good shepherd had been rejected by the people. Zechariah promises a future to both portions of the covenant people united, as Jeremiah (xxiii. 6, 1. 20) and Ezekiel (xxxvii. 16-19) did before him. The legend of the " lost tribes " of Israel, as we have several times pointed out, is a myth unworthy of serious attention; and as Dr. Pusey has well observed, " the captivity, in God's Providence, ended at once the kingdom of Israel and the religious schism, the object of which was to maintain the kingdom." In the latter days of the northern kingdom many of the people of that kingdom embraced Hezekiah's invitation to come up to the passover at Jerusalem (2 Chron. xxx. 10, 11, 18) ; and after the captivity of the larger portion of the northern tribes, which took place during Hezekiah's reign over Judah, we read of "all Judah and Israel " as keeping the great passover in the days of Josiah and as styled collectively " the children of Israel " (2 Chron. xxxv. 17, 18). The edict of Cyrus, too, permitting the exiles to return to their own land, was published "through- out all his kingdom" (Ezra i. i), and, therefore, in all those parts where the Israelites, properly so called, had been carried away captive. We have also shown that a considerable num- ber of them did actually return to Palestine. See pp. 279, ff., and pp. 243-5. A certain correspondence may be traced between the last six chapters and the first six, though we are not inclined to go as far as Lange has done in that direction. That com- mentator seems too subtle in discovering correspondences xl INTRODUCTION. § /. between the two portions. But there is a general hkeness traceable between them, and Stahelin is right in seeing in both the same announcement of the Messianic times, and of the trials of the people which were to result at last in the glory of the theocracy. The differences which Davidson and others have endeavoured to point out between the descriptions of each portion are no more than might be reasonably expected in prophecies delivered under different circumstances. / Certain peculiar forms of expression are found in both parts f the book. The rare phrase 2Wi2^ "^r^V^. occurs in vii. 14 and n ix. 8. See note 3, p. 176 and p. 221. T'll^n in the sense of to remove, occurs in chaps, iii. 4, xiii. 2. miT' D^^^, which is used in fourteen places in the first part, occurs also in the second in chap. x. 12, xii. i, 4, xiii. 2, 7, 8. The whole people are similarly styled "the house of Israel and the house of Judah" (chap. viii. 13), or "the house of Judah and the house of Joseph" (chap. x. 6), or "Judah, Israel and Jerusalem," ii. 2 (E.V. i. 19), or "Judah and Ephraim" (chap. ix. 13), or "Judah and Israel" (chap. xi. 14). "There is in both parts," notes Dr. Pusey, "the appeal to future knowledge of God's doings to be obtained by experience, chap. ii. 13, 15 (E.V. verses 9, 11) ; in both, internal discord is directly attributed to God, whose Pro- vidence permits it (chaps, viii. 10, xi. 6) ; in both the prophet promises God's gifts of the produce of the earth (chaps, viii. 12, X. i) ; in both he bids Jerusalem burst out for joy; in the first, ' for lo ! I will come and dwell in the midst of thee ' (chap. ii. 14, E. V. verse 10) ; in the second, ' behold thy king cometh unto thee.' " I The language of both parts is on the whole pure Hebrew. 'No stress can be laid upon the few Chaldaisms which occur, ,some of which are open to dispute. The prophet, though living in the days of the Restoration, formed his written language after the purest type of that spoken by the ancient prophets. Great stress must be laid upon the internal evidence afforded INTRODUCTION. § /. xH by a consistent interpretation of the book. A considerable part of the second portion is utterly inexplicable on the supposition of its having been written before the exile. The references to the Greeks cannot on any fair principles of in- terpretation be made to square with the hypothesis of the pre^exilian origin of that portion. See our remarks on chap, ix. 13, ff., and chap. x. In our opinion the decision as to the integrity of the book is not so uncertain as Perowne seems to regard it. Our view of the question would be considerably modified if we had come to the conclusion that the writings of the pro- phets of Israel ought to be regarded as ordinary writings with no real claims to Divine inspiration as such a principle could not but seriously affect our exposition of various passages. It is time, however, for modern critics to give up the assump- tion which is too often made, that a writer who uses prose on one occasion may not also at another time be the author of poetry. It is, moreover, highly improbable that the com- pilers of the Canon could have been ignorant with regard to the writings of a prophet who lived so near to their own times, or that they could have so easily confounded with his genuine productions the prophecies of two other propjhets who lived previous to the Babylonish captivity. Davidson and other critics consider chap, xii.-xiv. (with the exception of chap. xiii. 7-9) to have been written by one author, and composed in the time of Jehoiakim, about B.C. 600. So von Ortenberg, who, however, considers chap. xiv. as of a somewhat later date than chap, xii.-xiii. 6, and to have been written at a time when the confidence of victory expressed in the earlier chapters was considerably lessened on account of the more threatening position of political affairs, and the writer was led to fear that some judgment would fall upon Jerusalem. If, however, any prophet could have de- livered such predictions at the period referred to, he must Xlii INTRODUCTION. § 8. have been a " false prophet," like Hananiah (Jer. xxviii.), and one of those of whom Jeremiah speaks as proclaiming "peace, peace, when there was no peace" (Jer. vi. 13, 14, viii. 10, 11, xiv. 13, xxiii. 16, 17). The true character of such prophecies must have been well understood at the period of the exile, if not earlier ; and it would have been impossible, as Kohler observes, that any such writings could have obtained a place in the collection of the Jewish sacred writings made shortly after the restoration from captivity by persons fully aware of their real signification. § 8. Apparatus Criticiis. The following are the works which have been principally made use of, though reference has been necessarily made to many others, as may be seen from the Index. Arnheim, H. Translation in the German Version of the Old Test, by Zunz, Arnheim, Fiirst and Sachs. 8th edit. Berlin, 1863. Bauer, G. L. Die kleinen Propheten mit Comm. (2 vols.). Leipzig, 1786, 1790. Baumgarten, Prof M. Die Nachtgesichte Sacharias (2 vols.). Braunschweig, 1854, 1855. Blayney, Benj. Zechariah, a new Trans, with notes critical, phil. and exeget. 4to. Oxford, 1797. Bleek, Fried. Einleitung in das Alt. Test. 2te Aufl. Berlin, 1865, and 4te Aufl. by Wellhausen, Berlin, 1878. There is translation into English of this work by Rev. E. Venables, Resident Canon of Lincoln. „ Das Zeitalter von Sacharja, Kap. 9-14, in the Thcol. Studien ii. Kritiken for 1852. Bunsen, C. C. J. Vollstandiges Bibelwerk fiir die Gemeinde, 2te Theil. Die Propheten. Leipzig, i860. His Cott in der Ceschichtc I know only at second hand. INTRODUCTION. § 8. xHii BOTTCHER, Fried. Neue exeg.-kritische Aehrenlese zum A. T. (2 vols.). Leipzig, 1863, 1864. „ Proben alt-test. Schrifterklarung. Leipzig, 1833. „ De Inferis rebusque post mortem futuris ex Heb. et Grsec. opin. Dresden, 1846. Calvini, Io., Praelectiones in Duodecim Proph. Minores. Geneva, 1610. CAPPELLl,Lud. Comm.etNotJECrit. inVet.Test. Amst., 1689. Critici Sacri. 7 vols, folio. Francofurt, 1695. The quotations to Grotius, Drusius, and others are made from this work. Chambers, Dr. T. W., of New York. The Book of Zechariah expounded, in the English edition of Lange's Com- mentary on the Old. Test. 1874. Dathe, J. A. Prophetse Minores Latine versi notisque phil. et crit. illust. Halae, 1790. Davidson, Dr. Samuel. Introduction to the Old Testament (3 vols.). Williams & Norgate, 1862, 1863. Delitzsch, Prof. Dr. Franz. See Index. Drake, Rev. Wm. Comm. on Zechariah in the Speaker's Commentary, vol. vi, London, 1876, EWALD, Prof H. Die Propheten des alten Bundes. 2te Ausg. in drei Banden. Gottingen, 1867, 1868. „ History of Israel, English trans, by Martineau and Carpenter, 1 867-1 874. FuRST, Prof Julius. Der Kanon des alt. Test, nach den Ueberlieferungen in Talmud u. Midrasch. Leipzig, 1868. Geschichte der bibl. Literatur (2 vols.). Leipzig, 1 867-1 870. Geiger, Dr. Abraham, Urschrift u. Uebersetzungen der Bibel. Breslau, 1857. Ha vernick, H. A. C. Einleitung in das alte Test. 2te Aufl. von C. F. Kcil. Frankfort, 1854. xliv INTRODUCTION. § 8. Henderson, E., D.D. The Minor Prophets, trans, with comm., crit., phil. and exeg. London, 1845. Hengstenberg, E. W. Christology of the Old Test. Eng- Hsh trans. (4 vols.). T. & T. Clark, 1 863-1 865. „ Dissert, on the Genuineness of Daniel and the Integrity of Zech. English trans. T. & T. Clark, 1848. HiTZiG, Dr. Ferd. Die zwolf kleinen Propheten. 3te Aufl. Leipzig, 1863. „ Die Prophetischen Bucher des A. T. iibersetzt. Leip- zig, 1854. VON Hofmann, Dr. J. C. K. Weissagung u. Erfiillung in alt. u. neuen Test. (2 vols.). Nordlingen, 1841. Der Schriftbeweis (3 vols.). Nordlingen, 1852-1855. JCeil, Prof. Dr. C. F. Comm. iiber die zwolf kl. Propheten. 2te Aufl. Leipzig, 1873. Ki.MCHi, David. Comment, on Zechariah, trans, from the He- brew, with notes by the Rev. A. McCaul. Lond., 1837. Kliefoth, Dr. Th. Der Prophet Sacharjah iibersetzt und ausgelegt. Schwerin, 1862. Knobel, Aug. Der Prophetismus der Hebraer (2 vols.). Breslau, 1837. KoHLER, Prof Dr. August, Die nachexilischen Propheten (4 parts). Erlangen, 1860-1865. Lange, Prof Dr. J. P. Die Propheten Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi, Theol.-hom. bearbeitet, in his Bibehverk. Bielefeld and Leipzig, 1876. Marckii, Io., in Proph. Min. Comment. Amst, 1696-1701. Maurer, F. J. V. D. Comm. Gram.-crit. in Vet. Test. (4 vols.). Leipzig, 1 835-1 847. Mede, Joseph, B.D., Works of London, 1677. Newcome, Archbp. The Minor Prophets trans., etc. New edition. London, 1836. Neumann, Wilhelm. Die Weissagungen des Sakharjah. Stuttgart, i860. INTRODUCTION. § 8. xlv VON Ortenberg, E. F. J. Die Bestandtheile des Buches Sacharja. Gotha, 1859. Perowne, Prof., now Dean, J. J. S. Article on Zechariah in Smith's Biblical Dictionary. London, 1863. Pressel, W. Comm. zu Haggai, Sacharja u. Maleachi. Gotha, 1870. POLI, Matthaei, Synopsis Criticorum. Folio (4 vols.). London, I 669- I 674. PUSEY, Dr. E. B. The Minor Prophets, with a Commentary explan. and practical. Oxford and London, 1877. Rashi, or R. Sal. Jarchi (Salomo ben Yizhak) Comm. Heb. in Proph. Maj. et Min. etc. Latin, vers. J. F. Breithauptii, 1713- ROSENMUELLERI Scholia. Prophetae Minores, editio secunda. Leipzig, 1827, 1828. Reinke, Laur. Die Messianischen Weissagungen bei den gross, u. kl. Proph. des A.T. (5 vols.). Giessen, 1859-1862. Sandrock, H. L. Prior, et post. Zach. part. Vaticinia ab uno eodemque auct. profecta. Dissertatio. Vratisb., 1856. Stahelin, J. J. Specielle Einleitung in die kanon. Biicher des A.T. Elberfeld, 1862. „ Die Messianisch. Weissagung. des A.T. Berlin, 1847. SCHEGG, Prof. Peter. Die kleinen Propheten iibersetzt u. erklart (2 vols.). Regensberg, 1854, 1862. SCHLIER, J. Die zwolf kl. Propheten. 2te Ausg. Nordlingen, 1876. Theiner, Dr. J. A. Fifth Part of his Comment, iiber die heilige Schrift des A.T. Leipzig, 1828. Tremellius & Junius. Biblia Sacra. 1607. Umbreit, F. C. W. Pract. Commentar iiber die kl. Propheten (2 parts). Hamburg, 1844, 1846. Venema, Herm. Serm. Acad, vice Comm. ad libr. proph. Zach. Leovard., 1787. xlvl INTRODUCTION. § 8. Wordsworth, Bishop. The Minor Prophets in the Auth. Version, with notes and introductions. London, Rivingtons, 1875. Roster's Melet. crit. and exeg., Burger's Comment, on Zech., and a few others, have been quoted by me at second hand. The Church Fathers cited will be seen by reference to the Index. I have generally quoted them from the BibliotJieca Patnim, but sometimes at second-hand. I have used von Otto's edition of the works of Justin Martyr (Jena, 1876). My object has not been, however, to give a sketch of the Patristic interpretations, however interesting that might be. Besides the above works I have used Gesenius' Thesaurus •completed by Rodiger; the latest edition of his Wortcrbuch edited by Muhlau and Volck (Leipzig, 1878) ; and Fiirst's Heb. tind CJiald. Handworterbuch (Leipzig, 1863), an English translation of which has been edited by Dr. S. Davidson, and a revised edition in 1876, by Dr. Victor Ryssel. On questions connected with prophecy in general, I have con- sulted. Davison's Discourses on PropJiccy (Lond., 1839) '■> Duhm's Theologie der Prophetcn (Bonn, 1875) ; Drummond's (Jas., B.A., Prof in. Manchester New College, London) Jewish Messiah (Longmans, 1877) ; Tholuck, Die Propheten u. ihre Weissagimgen (Gotha, i860); Riehm (Prof. Dr. Ed.), Mes- sianic Prophecy, trans, from the German (Edinb., T. & T. Clark, 1876) ; Kuenen (Dr. A., of Leyden) The Prophets and Prophecy iii Israel (authorized English translation, London, 1877) ; and Dr. R. Payne Smith's Prophecy a Preparation for Christ, the Bampton Lectures for 1859. I have also made use of Wiinsche's (Dr. Aug.) interesting treatise on Die Leiden des Messias (Leipzig, 1870); Dean Stanley's Z^rZ/^r^j- on the Jewish Church (London, 1 875-1 877); Prof Count v. Baudissin's Studien zur Semitischen Religionsgeschichte, Heft I, Leipzig, 1876; Heft 2, Leqjzig, 1878 ; Schrader, Die INTRODUCTION. § 8. xlvH Keilinschriften n. das alte Testmnent (Giessen^ 1872), and his Keilinschriften tind Geschichtsforschimg (Giessen, 1878); Turpie (David McC, M.A.), TJie Old Testament in the Nezu (London, 1868), and The New Testament View of the Old (London, 1872). On questions affecting the Hebrew text I have consulted De Rossi's Varies Lectiones, which have been used to verify Davidson's Revision of the Heb. text ; Strack's valuable Pro- legomena Critica in Vet. Test. Heb. (Lipsise, 1873); Dr. Gins- burg's edition of Levitds JSIassoreth ha-MassoretJi; and Baer's recently published critical edition of the Hebrew text of The Minor Prophets, with preface by Delitzsch (Leipzig, 1878), whence I have taken the readings of the Babylonian Codex, as time did not permit me to collate minutely the text of that codex in Strack's magnificent edition, nor was such a colla- tion necessary for my immediate purpose. On grammatical points I have consulted the last edition of Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar edited by Kautzsch (Leipzig, 1878), as well as the 20th edition edited by Rodigcr (the 2ist edition, 1872, I have not seen). English students will find, for ordinary purposes, no difficulty in using any of the later editions. I have also used Gesenius' Lehrgebdiuie der Heb. Sprache (18 1 7), and given frequent references to Kalisch's Hebrezv Grammar, the sections numbered with Arabic numerals referring to his first part, and those marked with Roman numerals to his second. References are also given to Ewald's Ansf. Lehrbnch, 8th edition (Gottingen, 1870); and on some points to Olshausen's Lehrbnch der Heb. Sprache (Braunschweig, 1861), to Bottcher's great work, his Ausfiihrl. Lehrbnch (Leipzig, 1866, 1868), and to Driver's (S. R.) very excellent Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1874). I had intended to have gone more minutely into the points discussed by Mr. Driver, but the limits assigned to my work prevented xlviii INTRODUCTION. § 8. me from doing so. Similar reasons have hindered me from entering upon the various questions connected with the metheg as set forth in Baer's treatise in Merxs Ar'chiv, and from giving notes on the Hebrew accentuation ; for to have done so would have required considerably more space than it was possible to afford, as well as necessitated the postpone- ment of the publication of this work for a considerable time. It only remains to note that the text of the LXX. used is that of Tischendorf, but that much valuable help has been derived from Field's masterly edition of Origeiis Hexapla (Oxon., 1875), from which the readings of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, as also of the Syriac Hexaplar text (when referred to) have been taken. For the Syriac Peschitto I have used the text of Lee, compared with that in the London Polyglott, from which latter work the Arabic version has been taken. The Itala has been quoted from the great work of Sabatier. For the Targum, the text of the London Polyglott has been compared with that of de Lagarde, in his Prophet(2 Chaldaice e fide codicis reiicJiliniaui (Leipzig, Teubner, 1872). PEIITCETOIT THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET ZECHARIAE NE IV TRANSLA TION. CHAPTER I. I In the eighth month, in the year two of Darius, was the word of Jahaveh to Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo the prophet, saying — 2, 3 Jahaveh was indeed angry with your fathers : And say unto them. Thus saith Jahaveh of hosts, Return unto me, ('tis) the utterance of Jahaveh of hosts, that I may return 4 unto you, saith Jahaveh of hosts. Be not as your fathers, unto v/hom the former prophets cried, saying. Thus saith Jahaveh of hosts, Return now (or, return, 'pray) from your evil ways, and from your evil deeds, but they did not hear, and attended not to me, ('tis) the utterance of Jahaveh. 5 Your fathers, where are they ? and the prophets ? will they 6 live for ever } Only my words and my decrees, which I commanded my servants the prophets, have they not 5 Or, " and the prophets— do they live for ever ?" The Syr. has " and my prophets." 6 The LXX. supply >X\X>. after " decrees," translating 7r\},i/ tox,^ \670u5 p.o\) koX rb. pofufid fiov dixeffde. So the Arab. , but not the Syr. After " I commanded my servants the prophets," the LXX. add iv iruei/xaTl fiov, which may be regarded as an interpretation. The LXX. render the clause " have they not overtaken your fathers " by ot KareMiSoaav tous iraripas Ofj.(jy, rendered by Schleusner " who lived at the time of your fathers. " I THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, i. 6- 1 6. overtaken your fathers ? And they turned and said, As Jahaveh of hosts designed to do to us according to our ways and according to our deeds, so hath he done with us. 7 In the twenty and fourth day of the eleventh month, that is the month Shebat, in the year two of Darius, was the word of Jahaveh to Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo, the prophet, saying — 8 I saw in the night, and lo ! a man riding upon a red horse, and he (was) standing, between the myrtles which were in the valley, and behind him horses, red, bay (or chest - 9 7iiit) and white. And I said. What are these, my lord } And the angel that talked with me said, I will shew thee what 10 these are. And the man who was standing between . the myrtles answered and said, These are they which I I Jahaveh sent to walk up and down on the earth. And they answered the Angel of Jahaveh, who was standing between the myrtles, and said,Wehave walked up and down on the earth, and behold, the whole earth is sitting and resting [i.e., 1 2 resting tranquilly). And the Angel of Jahaveh answered and said, Jaha'^eh of hosts, how long hast thou not pity for Jerusalem and for the cities of Judah, against which thou 1 3 hast been angry these seventy years ? And Jahaveh answered the angel who talked to me (with) good words, 14 words (which were) consolations. And the angel that talked to me said to me, Proclaim, saying. Thus saith Jahaveh of hosts, I am zealous for Jerusalem and for Zion 15 (with) great zeal. And with great wrath am I wroth against the nations which are at ease (or, in security, or proud, on account of such security), because I was angry for a little while, but they helped for evil. 16 Therefore thus saith Jahaveh, I have returned to Jeru- 6 13nX- Theod. viuv, and so vixQiv for Tiixdv in the preceding clause. 16 Cod. I and Syr. have at the commencement of the verse ' ' Jahaveh of hosts." The LXX. add in. (Tir) at the end of the verse*.. THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, 1. l6-ii. 6. li salem with mercies, my house shall be built in it, ('tis) the utterance of Jahaveh of hosts, and a line shall be stretched 17 over Jerusalem. Moreover, proclaim, saying, thus saith Jahaveh of hosts. Again shall my cities overflow with good (or, prosperity), and Jahaveh shall comfort again Zion, and choose again Jerusalem, CHAPTER II. (In our Authorized English Version the first four verses are assigned to chap. i. after the LXX. and Vulgate.) 1 And I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and behold four 2 horns. And I said to the angel that talked with me. What are these ? and he said to me, These are the horns which scattered Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem. 3, 4 And Jahaveh showed me four smiths. And I said. What are these coming to do .^ and he said, saying, These are the horns which scattered Judah, so that none lifted up his head, and these are come to terrify them, to cast away the horns of the nations that are lifting up the horn against the land of Judah to scatter it {i.e., the people there). 5 And I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and behold a man, 6 and in his hand a measuring line. And I said. Whither art thou going } And he said to me. To measure Jerusalem, to see how great (should be) its breadth, and how great its 17 The LXX. add at the beginning of the verse koX elire irpbt /li 6 AyyeXos 6 \a\uv if ifiol. They are followed by the Arab., but not the Syr. 2 After " what are these ?" the LXX. add K^pie. 3 The LXX. TiKTOve's, Vulg. fabri ; see p. 32. 4 After "and he said," some MSS. add ^7N, which is expressed by the LXX. (cod. Alex.) and Syr. The LXX. and Syr. omit the following "saying." 1X3"'1. LXX. Kal i^iqXdoaav o^tol toO d^vvai. See crit. comn''. The LXX. add after " scattered Judah," Kal rbv 'I(xpar]\ Karia^av, •' and have broken Israel," followed by the Arabic, but not by the Syriac. For "the land of Judah" the LXX. read^iri ttiv yfjv Kvpiov, Hi THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, ii. 6-I4. 7 length. And behold the angel that talked with me goeth 8 forth, and another angel goeth forth to meet him. And he said to him, Run, speak to this young man, saying, Jeru- salem will remain as villages, on account of the multitude 9 of men and cattle in her midst. And I will be to her, ('tis) the utterance of Jahaveh, a wall of fire round about, and will be as glory in her midst. 10 Ho ! ho ! and flee from the land of the north, ('tis) the utterance of Jahaveh, For as the four winds of the heavens I have spread you abroad, ('tis) the utterance of Jahaveh. 1 1 Ho ! Zion ! deliver thyself, O dweller with the daughter of Babel. 12 For thus saith Jahaveh of hosts, After glory, he hath sent me, to the nations who are spoil- ing you. For he who toucheth you, toucheth the apple of his eye. 1 3 For behold I swing my hand over them. And they shall be as spoil to their servants. And ye shall know, that Jahaveh of hosts sent me. 14 Rejoice and be glad, daughter of Zion, 7 The LXX. render XV by etor^Ket, stood up, namely, to measure Jerusalem. 8 The LXX. insert before " run," \iyuy. 9 The Syr. adds "in her midst," after " to her," as at the end of the verse. 10 Instead of W1X3 several MS S. have y3"1X3. This can, however, scarcely have been the reading of the Vulg. in qiiatiior venios, or of the Syr., vi^hich would require Vl'wh. 12 ClM3n"7X. R. Nathan 'rpj/ in his Concordance. The Oriental reading is D^ian bv, and so Codd. The LXX., Syr. and Targ. are quoted as supporting this reading, but this is more than doubtful. 1731 Codd. W:d. The LXX. would appear to have had this reading, as they translate ws 6 oTrrd/iecos. 71322. Some Codd. read 022, but incorrectly. See Elias Levita's Massorcth-ha-Massoreth, edited by Ginsburg, p. 219. 13 DD^'n?!'?- So correctly Baer, after all the old editions and verymany MSS., and so our A.V. The third edition of the Rabb. Bible (Ven. 1568) has the read- ing Dnn^'yp, which came from thence into Athias' edition, and thence into those of V. d. Hooght and Hahn. It is found also in many MSS., and is sup- THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, ii. I4-iii. 5. liii For behold I am coming, and I will dwell in thy midst, ('tis) the utterance of Jahaveh. 15 And many nations shall join themselves to Jahaveh in that day, and shall be to me for a people. And I will dwell in thy midst. And thou shalt know, that Jahaveh of hosts hath sent me to thee. 16 And Jahaveh shall inherit Judah as his portion, on {i.e., in) the holy land, And choose again Jerusalem. 17 Hush! all flesh before Jahaveh, For he hath raised up himself, from his holy dwelling. CHAPTER III. 1 And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of Jahaveh, and the Adversary standing 2 on his right to act as adversary to him. And Jahaveh said to the Adversary, Jahaveh rebuke thee, O Adversary, yea Jahaveh. rebuke thee, who delighteth in Jerusalem. Is 3 not this a brand plucked from the fire } /K-wd Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and standing before the 4 Angel. And he answered, and said unto those standing before him, saying. Take off the filthy garments from upon him ; and he said to him, See, I have removed thy iniquity from thee, and have clothed thee with 5 changes of raiment. And I said, Let them put a clean mitre upon his head. And they put the clean mitre upon ported by the LXX. toZi ^ovKevovaiv airroh. The Syr. render ^ou'^OJix " iAeii works." 4 Codd. 5 read "["•iiy. The LXX. also express the plural. 5 And I said. The LXX. omit these words, and translate the words follow- ing in the second pers. pi. koX iiriOeTe KiSapiy KaOapav. Two MSS., Vulg., Syr., " and be said," See p. 6^. liv THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, ill. 5-iv. 4. his head, and they clothed him with garments. And the Angel of Jahaveh was standing by. 6 And the Angel of Jahaveh protested unto Joshua, 7 saying, Thus saith Jahaveh of hosts, If in my ways thou wilt walk, and if thou wilt keep my testimony (or, command- ment), then thou shalt also judge my house, and also keep my courts, and I will give to thee walks {i.e., open ways, 8 free ingress) among these (angels) standing (here). Hear now, Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy companions who sit (or, those sitting) before thee, for men of portent are they, for behold I am bringing forth my servant Branch 9 (or. Shoot). For behold the stone which I have placed be- fore Joshua, upon one stone (are) seven eyes; behold, I am graving its graving, ('tis) the utterance of Jahaveh of hosts, ■ and I will remove the iniquity of this land in one day. In 10 that day, ('tis) the utterance of Jahaveh of hosts, ye shall call (or, invite) each man his companion under the vine, and under the fig tree. CHAPTER IV. 1 And the angel which talked to me returned, and waked 2 me, as a man who is awaked from sleep. And he said to me. What art thou beholding .? And I said, I see (or, / have seen), and behold a candlestick entirely of gold, and its bowl upon the top of it, and its seven lamps upon it, seven and seven pipes to the lamps which are upon its top. 3 And two olive-trees above it, one at the right of the bowl, 4 and one upon its left. And I answered, and said to the angel who talked with me, saying. What are these, my 5 The LXX. transl. HttU in the last clause as if it were the perfect, (ettrr^Kft) but it is pointed in the Hebrew as the participle to indicate that the Angel \Yas standing by during the whole transaction. 2 "And I said." See crit. comm. V THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, IV. 5-14. IV 5 lord ? And the angel that talked with me answered, and said to me, Dost thou not know what these are? and I said, 6 No, my lord. And he answered and said to me, saying, This is the word of Jahaveh to Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, and not by power, but by my spirit, saith 7 Jahaveh of hosts. Who art thou, O great mountain ! Be- fore Zerubbabel, for a plain ! and he shall bring forth the top-stone, (amid) shoutings, Grace, grace to it ! 8, 9 And the word of Jahaveh was to me, saying, The hands of Zerubbabel have founded {i.e., laid the foundation of) this house, and his hands shall finish it, that thou mayest 10 know that Jahaveh of hosts hath sent me to you. For who despiseth a day of small things } For {i.e., seeing that) there have rejoiced, and seen the plummet (lit., the stone, the tin) in the hand of Zerubbabel, these Seven, the Eyes of Jahaveh, they are running to and fro in all the 1 1 earth. And I answered and said to him, What are these two olive trees, upon the right of the candlestick and upon 12 its left? And I answered a second time, and said to him, What are the two branches of the olive trees which by means of the two channels of gold, are pouring forth the gold {i.e., the golden oil) from out of themselves ? And 13 he said to me, saying, Dost thou not know what these 14 are } And I said. No, my lord. And he said. These are the two sons of oil, which are standing before the Lord of all the earth. 7 '•O. Cod. I has "-D. 9 nnM. Codd. have DDUT'l. The plural is also expressed by the Syr., Targ. and Vulg. DS'-'pS*. Cod. i has "T'"?S*, and so the LXX. 10 Or, "there rejoice and see," taking the perfects as presents. Codd. 5 omit non. The Orientals read 7211? ""JQ? instead of 7nn"IT 1^2 in the kethibh, and have the latter as the k'ri reading. So the Babylonian Codex. 13 Codd. insert nOil before h'pN. 14 Codd. 3 read 'h^ nD5i's Hebrew Text Revised. 23 D^"I?X. Codd. 2, CnPS ""a. The Versions express the *3, but it is n t necessary to conclude that they had that reading. Cod. i has nin^ *D. I Two MSS. of Baer have "qi.nn. Codd. X, 101130, see note. THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAII, ix. I-9. Ixiii And of all the tribes of Israel. 2 And even Hamath shall border on it, Tyre and Sidon, Though they be very wise. 3 And Tyre built for herself a fortress, And heaped up silver as the dust, And gold as mire of streets. 4 Behold the Lord will dispossess her, And smite her might in the sea. And she shall be burned with fire. 5 Let Ashkelon see it, and she will fear, And Gaza, and she will tremble (or, writhe) exceedingly, And Ekron, for her expectation shall be put to shame ; And a king shall perish from Gaza, And Ashkelon shall not remain. 6 And a mongrel (people) shall dwell in Ashdod ; For I will cut off the pride of the Philistines. 7 And I will take away his blood from his mouth. And his abominations from between his teeth, And even he will remain for our God, And be as a prince in Judah, And (or, eveii) Ekron as a Jebusite. . 8 And I will encamp for my house against an army, So that no one shall go to and fro (over it). And no taskmaster shall pass through (over) them again, For now have I seen with my eyes. 9 Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion, Shout, daughter of Jerusalem, Behold thy king shall come to thee (or, for thy good), Righteous and Saved is he, Afflicted, and riding upon an ass, 2 LXX. 5i6Ti icppbv-qaav (j(p6Spa. 8 Or, against the passer by and him who returneth. Ixiv THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, ix. IO-I5. And upon a colt_, a foal of she-asses. 10 And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim. And the horse from Jerusalem, And the battle-bow shall be cut off; And he will speak peace to the nations, And his rule shall be from sea to sea, And from the River {i.e., Euphrates) to the ends of Earth. 1 1 Even thou ! through the blood of thy covenant, I send-forth (or, / have sent-forth) thy prisoners out of the pit In which there is no water. 12 Return to the steep- rocks (lit., the steepness), Ye prisoners of hope ; Even to-day, I announce it, double I will restore to thee. 13 For I will bend (or, draw) for me Judah as a bow, I will fill it with Ephraim, And I will lift up (as my spear) thy sons, Zion, against thy sons, Javan ! {i.e., Greece) And I will make thee as the sword of a mighty one. 14 And Jahaveh shall be seen over them. And his arrow go forth as the lightning. And the Lord Jahaveh will blow with the trumpet. And walk forth in the storms of the south. 15 Jahaveh of hosts will shield them. And they will eat, and they will tread down sling-stones. And they drink, and rage as with wine. 9 Or, as Chambers, " the she-asses' foal." 1 1 See p. 249 and note 2 there, as also crit. coram. 13 Or, according to the Hebrew accentuation, "I will bend (as a bow) for me Judah, I will fill the bow with Ephraim." But see crit. comm. Cod. i, LXX., Arab, read "I?, instead of '•?, 15 \0r\'\. So Baer has edited after MSS. and a manuscript of the Masora parva. He notes also that the printed Masora mentions three cases in which this word occurs with the copula (llOm), namely, Jer. v. 22, li. 55, and this passage. Many MSS. have this reading, and so Kimchi and Abarbanel. THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, ix. 15-X. 3. Ixv And be filled (with blood) as the sacrificial-bowl, As the corners of an altar. 16 And Jahaveh their God will save them in that day, his people as a flock, For (they will be as) stones of a diadem Shining forth upon (or, over) his land. 17 For how great (lit., what) is his (Israel's) beauty, and how great is his goodness ! Corn shall make the young men increase. And wine the maidens. CHAPTER X. 1 Seek ye from Jahaveh rain in the time of latter rain ; Jahaveh maketh the showers : And copious rain will he give to them, For each one grass in the field. 2 For the teraphim speak falsehood. And the diviners see lies, And dreams speak vanity, , They comfort in vain. Therefore they departed (or, migrated) as sheep, They are afflicted (or, oppressed), because there is no shep- herd. 3 Against the shepherds my anger is kindled. And the he-goats I will visit (in judgment), 16 Not " crowned trophies," as Newcome after Houbigant and Cappellus, or *' consecrated stones," as Blayney. See p. 260 and the note there. 1 Codd. have DD? " to you " instead of " io them;" so Syr. 2 See on this verse p. 268 and note. Codd. "Ijn " and they are afflicted," and so all the versions. 3 On '■'visit in judgment'''' see note on page 271. Some MSS. and editions insert badly 1 {and) before " the house of Judah." Ixvi THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, X. 3- 10. For Jahaveh of hosts visiteth (in mercy) his flock, the house of Judah, . And maketh them As his state-horse in the battle. 4 From him corner, from him nail, From him battle-bow, From him proceedeth every oppressor together. 5 And they shall be like heroes trampling (their enemies) In the mire of streets, in the battle, And they shall fight. For Jahaveh is with them, And riders upon horses shall be ashamed. 6 And I will strengthen the house of Judah, • And the house of Joseph, will I save ; And I will bring them back, for I have compassion upon them. And they shall be as if I had not loathed them. For I am Jahaveh their God, and I will answer them. 7 And Ephraim shall be like a hero. And their heart shall rejoice as with wine ; And their sons shall see (it) and be glad; Let their heart rejoice in Jahaveh ! I will hiss for them, and will gather them, for I have redeemed them. And they multiply as they multiply {i.e., as fast as they desire). 9 And I will sow them (as seed) among the nations. And in the distant lands they will remember me, And live with their sons, and return. 10 And I will bring them back from the land of Egypt, And from Assyria will I gather them, And to the land of Gilead and Lebanon will I bring them. 6 "I will bring them back," or " I will place them." Both readings have the authority of MSS. See the note, p. 276. -^ THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, X. lO-xi. 5. Ixvii And (place) will not be found for them. And he (Jahaveh) passeth through the sea (where is) afiBiction, And smiteth the waves in the sea, And all the depths of the River {i.e., the Nile) dry up, And the pride of Assyria is brought down. And the sceptre of Egypt passeth away. And (or, ivr) I will strengthen them in Jahaveh, And in his name shall they walk. (Tis) the utterance of Jahaveh ! CHAPTER XI. Open, Lebanon, thy doors. And let the fire devour thy cedars ! Howl, cypress, for the cedar is fallen ! Because the glorious ones are laid waste. Howl, oaks of Bashan, For the inaccessible wood descends (goes down) A voice of lamentation of the shepherds ! For laid waste is their splendour. A voice of the roaring of lions ! For wasted is the pride of Jordan. Thus saith Jahaveh my God : Feed the flock of slaughter, Whose buyers slay them, and are not punished, (or, do not feel tliemselves guilty). And they who sell them, say each, " Blessed be Jahaveh, that I am rich ! " And as for their shepherds, (Each) spares them not. II See on this verse pp. 294, ff. Ixviii THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, xi. 6-1 5. 6 For I will not spare further the inhabitants of the earth, ('tis) the utterance of Jahaveh. . And behold I am delivering over mankind, Each into the hand of his neighbour and into the hand of his king, And they shall lay waste the earth, And I will not deliver from their hand. 7 So I fed the flock of slaughter, therefore the most miser- able flock. And I took to me two staves, the one I named Beauty, and the other I named Bands (or. Binders), and I 8 fed the flock. And I cut ofi" the three shepherds in one month, and my soul was wearied with them (the sheep), 9 and even their soul loathed me. And I said, I will not • feed you ; that which is dying, let it die, and that which is perishing, let it perish, and as for the rest, let them eat 10 each one the flesh of its companion. And I took my staff". Beauty, and cut it asunder, in order to break the covenant, 1 1 which I had made with all the nations. And it was broken in that day, and the wretched flock knew accordingly, they who observed me, that it was the word of Jahaveh. 12 And I said to them, If be it good in your eyes, give me my wages, and if not, forbear. Then they weighed out 13 for my wages thirty pieces of silver. And Jahaveh said to me. Fling it to the potter, the glorious price, at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver, and I flung it, in the house of Jahaveh, to the potter. 14 Then I cut in sunder my second staff". Bands, in order to break the brotherhood, between Judah and between Israel. 1 5 And Jahaveh said to me. Take unto thee yet the in- strument of a foolish shepherd. 13 Codd. read DD^Pl^D "by you," instead of " by them." 15 Cod. I reads the plural ''.7?. The plural is generally expressed by the THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, Xl. l6-xii. 3. Ixix 16 For behold I am raising up a shepherd in the land, The perishing he will not visit, the scattered he will not seek, The broken he will not heal, The strong (lit., the standing) he will not care for, But the flesh of the fat he will eat, And he will break in pieces their hoofs. 17 Woe, worthless shepherd, forsaking the flock ! (May) a sword (descend) upon his arm. And upon his right eye ! His arm verily will wither, And his right eye be verily blinded ! CHAPTER XII. 1 Oracle of the word of Jahaveh concerning Israel. ('Tis) the utterance of Jahaveh, who spreadeth forth the heavens, and foundeth the earth, and formeth the spirit of man in his midst (i.e., within him). 2 Behold I am making Jerusalem a bowl of i-eeling to all the peoples round about. And also over Judah shall be (the reeling) in the siege against Jerusalem. 3 And it shall be in that day, I will make Jerusalem a stone of burden to all the peoples, Every one lifting it up shall verily be lacerated, And against her shall be gathered together All the nations of the earth. 16 Codd. read "lyjHI, " and the scattered!''' On the transl. see note on p. 350. So also Codd. naVJill, '' and the strong.'" 17 See notes on p. 347 and p. 348. 2 See notes on p. 361 and p. 362. Ixx THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, xii. 4-IO. 4 In that day, 'tis the utterance of Jahaveh, I will smite every horse with terror, And his rider with madness, But upon the house of Judah will I open mine eyes, And every horse of the peoples I will smite with blindness. 5 And the princes of Judah shall say in their heart, A strength to me are the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Through Jahaveh of hosts, their God. 6 In that day I will make the princes of Judah as a pan of fire among faggots, And as a torch of fire in a sheaf, And they shall devour upon right and left all the peoples round about ; And Jerusalem shall still dwell upon her base in Jeru- salem. 7 And Jahaveh will save the tents of Judah first, In order that the glory of the house of David may not magnify itself. And the glory of the inhabitant of Jerusalem, over Judah. 8 In that day, Jahaveh will defend the inhabitant of Jeru- salem, And he that is tottering among them in that day shall be as David, And the house of David as God, As the Angel of Jahaveh before them. 9 And it shall be in that day, I will seek to destroy all the nations Which come against Jerusalem. 10 And I will pour out upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitant of Jerusalem, 8 Cod. I IK^DI '' and the Angel,'' Q^c. 10 See note on p. 383. v THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, xii. lO-xiii. 2, Ixxi The spirit of grace and of supplication ; And they shall look unto me, (him) whom they pierced, And they shall mourn over him, As the mourning over the only son, And they shall make a bitter mourning over him. As one is bitter (in grief) over the first-born. 1 1 In that day the mourning shall be great in Jerusalem, Like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. 12 And the land shall mourn, Families by families apart ; The family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart, The family of the house of Nathan apart, And their wives apart — 1 3 The family of the house of Levi apart. And their wives apart — The family of the Shimeite apart. And their wives apart — 14 All the families which are left, Families by families apart, And their wives apart. ' CHAPTER XIIL 1 In that day, there shall be a fountain opened, for the house of David, and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness. 2 And it shall be in that day, 'tis the utterance of Jahaveh II The word Hadadrimmon is variously written in MSS, as jIDITin. JICITn, ptD-inn, pO-nnn, |1D-| -)'\r{, Cod. i llOn-nn, Vulg. Adadremmon. After Ha- dadrimmon Codd. 5 insert jIDn^D p, but incorrectly, as this reading has crept in from the Targum. See note i, p. 392. Codd. HJO. I On the LXX. see note on p. 409. Ixxii THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, xlii. 2-8. of hosts, I will cut off the names of the idols from the land, and they shall not be remembered again; and even the prophets, and the unclean spirit will I cause to pass 3 away from the land. And it shall be, when a man shall still prophesy, then they shall say to him, his father and his mother, they that bare him, " Thou shalt not live, be- cause thou hast spoken lies in the name of Jahaveh; " and they shall pierce him through, his father and his mother, they that bare him, on account of his prophesying. 4 And it shall be in that day, that the prophets shall be ashamed each of his vision, on account of his prophesying, and they shall not put on a hairy garment in order to 5 deceive. And he will say, " No prophet am I, a man a . tiller of the ground am I, for a man purchased me (as a 6 slave) from my youth." And he will say to him, " What are these wounds between thine hands.?" And he will say, "Those with which I have been wounded in the house of my friends." 7 Sword, awake, against my Shepherd, And against a man, my fellow, (Tis) the utterance of Jahaveh of hosts ; Smite the shepherd that the sheep may be scattered, And I will turn back my hand upon the humble ones. 8 And it shall be in all the land, ('tis) the utterance of Jaha- veh, That (two parts in it) Shall be cut off, shall expire, And the third part shall be left in it. 4 Codd. insert 1)V after "lK'n^\ The Targiim and Kimchi seem to have had this reading. 5 See note on p. 426. 6 See p. 427, and the note there. 7 On "wj/Z-Z/^no," see p. 435. Baer edits ^ri3ti>ni, perf. consecutive with the tone on the ultimate, on the authority of MSS. and editions. Theile's text is Tin^i'm, with the accent on the penult. The word is then the ordinary perf., and may be regarded as a perf. proph. On '' the hiuftile ones T see p. 440 and crit. comm. THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, xiil. Q-xiv. 5. Ixxiii And I will bring the third part through fire, And I will try them as silver is tried, And I will prove them as gold is proved. They shall call on my name, and I will answer them, I will say, they are my people. And they shall say, Jahaveh (is) my God. CHAPTER XIV. 1 Behold, a day is coming for Jahaveh ; and thy spoil is 2 divided in thy midst ! And I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem, to the battle ; and the city shall be taken, and the houses shall be plundered, and the women defiled; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from the city. 3 And Jahaveh shall go forth, and fight against those nations, 4 as in a day of his fighting, in a day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mountain of the olives which is before Jerusalem eastward, and the mountain of the olives shall be split from its middle, eastwards and westwards (lit., seawards), a very great valley ; and half of 5 the valley shall move northwards, and half of it south- wards. And ye shall flee to the valley of my mountains, for a valley of mountains shall extend very near ; and ye shall flee, as ye fled from before the earthquake, in the days of Uzziah, king of Judah ; and Jahaveh my God shall 9 In the last three lines the singular is used in the original. I See note on p. 455. 3 On the LXX. see note on p. 464. 5 " A valley of mountains," see note on p. 471. On "ye shall flee," see p. 475 and crit. comm. Or " shall extend to Azal " see note on p. 476. Many MSS. ?31, "ajidall.'^ The copula is expressed in all the versions. Cod. I, Syr., Targ., 1''E^'^p, '' kis saints " Many MSS. 113^, " wUk him;'' and so all the versions. See note on p. 479. Ixxiv THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, xiv. 6-I4. 6 come, all the saints with thee ! And it shall be in that day, there shall be no light; the precious (things, i.e., the 7 lights) shall be contracted. And it shall be one day, it is known to Jahaveh, not day, and not night ; and it shall be that at eventide there shall be light. 8 And it shall be in that day, living waters shall go forth from Jerusalem, half of them towards the eastern sea, and half of them towards the hinder (western) sea ; in summer 9 and in winter shall it be (so). And Jahaveh shall be as king over all the earth ; in that day Jahaveh shall be one, and 10 his name one. All the land shall be changed (so as to become) as the Arabah, from Geba to Rimmon, south of Jerusalem; and she shall be lifted up, and shall dwell on her base, from the gate of Benjamin to the place of the first gate, even to the gate of the corners, and from the tower 1 1 of Hananeel even to the king's wine-presses. And they shall dwell in her, and a curse shall be no more, and Jeru- 12 salem shall dwell safely. And this shall be the plague, with which Jahaveh shall smite all the peoples which go forth against Jerusalem : (namely) to consume (or, waste) their flesh, while they are standing upon their feet ; and their eyes shall waste away in their sockets, and their tongues shall waste away in their mouths. 13 And it shall be in that day, there shall be a great con- fusion from Jahaveh among them; so that they shall seize each one the hand of his companion, and his hand 14 shall be lifted up against the hand of his companion. And 6 See note on p. 481, and p. 482. 10 Many MSS. read nniWa instead of nmUD. Baer has on the'authority of four MSS. pointed n3"iy3 instead of 'nj?3, that is, without the article, and so he has edited in Isa. xxxiii. 9, after the best authorities. If this reading be adopted, we must render " as a plain." But see pp. 491, ff. 12 In the original the singular is chiefly used in this verse ("his flesh," "his feet," "his eyes," "his tongue," but "their mouth"), but the words are evidently employed collectively. THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, XIV. I4-2I. Ixxv even Judah shall fight at Jerusalem ; and the wealth of all the nations round about shall be gathered (by 15 them), gold, and silver, and garments in great abundance. And thus will be the plague of the horse, the mule, the camel, and the ass, and of all the cattle, which shall be in 16 those camps, as this plague. And it shall be, every one who is left of all the nations which come against Jeru- salem, that they shall go up year by year, to worship as 17 king Jahaveh of hosts, and to keep the feast of taber- nacles. And it shall be, they who go not up of the families of the earth to Jerusalem to worship as king Jahaveh of hosts, — that there shall be no rain upon them. 18 And if the family of Egypt go not up and do not come, there (shall) not (be) upon them (any rain) ; the plague will be (upon them), with which Jahaveh shall smite the nations, who go not up to keep the feast of 19 tabernacles. This shall be the sin (or, punisJinient) of Egypt, and the sin (or, punishment) of all the nations, who 20 go not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. In that day there will be upon the bells of the horses " Holiness to Jahaveh ; " and the pots in the house of Jahaveh, (shall be) 21 like the sacrificial-bowls before the altar. And every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah, shall be holiness to Jahaveh of hosts ; and all those who sacrifice shall come, and take of them, and cook in them ; and no Canaanite shall be any more in the house of Jahaveh of hosts, in that day. 18 Codd. 4 omit S?1 before DnvU, and so LXX. and Syr. Codd. 2 omit the copula, reading N?. Very many MS S. insert ?D before W^'\'iti\," all the nations" but the Targ. and Syr. have not this reading, though it is found in the LXX., Vulg. and Arab. The Oriental Jews read D''Dyn-^3TlX, ''all the peoples" Some Codd. D''OJ?n"73, The verse is vi^anting in some copies. See on this verse the note on p. 508. 20 See note on p. 511. For ni7VQ many MSS. read defectively D^VO. " Codd. mult, in the sing. So the versions. Codd. m?DD. Codd. 5 nP^DD." Davidson. ERRATA. P. 131 — Line i of note i, read "Daniel ii." for Daniel iii."' P. 186— Note I, read the Syriac |\o\«>o \cau ^ji ^io P. 295 — Line 5 from the top, erase the name " Dehtzsch." P. 303 — Line 3 from bottom, " Tablai" ought to be read for "Tavlai," though the latter form is used by McCaul. P. 328 — Note I, line 3, erase the " ? " in " But this is doubtful ?"' P. 347— Line 5 from bottom of page, read w for co. In the same note two broken' 7 s appear. P. 353— Line 8, read " renderings " instead of " readings." P. 362 — Second line from bottom, a broken ^ occurs in bW). P. 395 — The "von" is omitted in some places in the name of " von Baudissin." P. 460— Line 18, read " Theodoret " instead of " Thedoret." P. 508 — Line 9 from bottom, a broken d occurs in ascend. P. 527 — Line 12 from top, 7'''?1?D with broken 7. CHAPTER I THE FIRST THREE VISIONS. CHAPTER I. Ilaggai's sermon to the Jews and its effect, 3— Commencement of the building of the temple, 4 — Significance of the twenty-fourth day, 4 — Visions of Zechariah, 4 — Dreams, 5— Not mere poetic fancies, 6 — The prophetic horizon, 6 — Method of discussion, 7 — The First Vision. — Its scene, 8 — View of Hitzig and Ewald, 8— Objections to their view, 8 — Myrtle trees in temple, 9 — Valley of Vision, 10 — The angelic riders, 11 — Rider on the red horse, 11 — " Angel that talked with me," 12 — Angel of Jahaveh, 11, 21 — Fancied correspondence of first ■ and seventh visions, 12 — The riders in the Revelation, 13 — The colours of the steeds, 12 — Colours used simply to mark off the three divisions of riders, 12, 20 — Keil's explanation of colours as symbolical, 14 — View of Kohler, 15 — Views of Ewald and others, 16— Objections, 16 — Kliefoth's interpretation, 17 — As- serted correspondence with Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the metallic image, 17 — Kliefoth's reply to objections, 18 — Report of the celestial riders, 20 — Interces- sion of the angel, 2i, 23— The seventy years, 22 — Answer of Jahaveh, 23 — Pur- port of proclamation, 24— God angry for a little while, 25 — Sin of Gentiles, 25 — Promises, 25 — The Second Vision. — The four horns, 26— Different views, 27 — Signify hostile kingdoms, not the four kingdoms of Daniel, 27 — View of Ewald and Hitzig, 27— Pressel's interpretation, 28— "Judah, Israel and Jerusalem," 28 — Different views, 29-31 — Strange interpretation of Kliefoth, 30 — The four smiths, 31 — Different views, 31,32 — Why smiths specially were seen in the vision, 32 — Explanation of the vision, 33 — The Third Vision. — Man with measuring line, 33 — Why forbidden to measure the city, 34, 35 — Young man not the prophet, 35 — The growth of Jerusalem, 35, 36 — Exiles ordered to flee out of Babylon, 37 — ^Judgments on Babylon, 38, 39 — Rock of Behistun, 38 — Conversion of the Gentiles, 39, 40 — Advent of Jahaveh, 39— The spiritual Jerusalem, 40 — ^Judah and Israel, 40 — The " Holy Land," 41. ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. CHAPTER I. THE FIRST THREE VISIONS. The day of the New Moon, that is the first day of the month of Elul, or September, in the second year of Darius Hystaspis (B.C. 520), was a day of peculiar importance to the Jewish exiles who had, in accordance with the decree of Cyrus, returned to the land of their forefathers. As the day of the New Moon was a day in which the Jews were wont to gather themselves before God, and to offer up sacrifices on the altar which had been erected among the ruins of the temple of Solomon, the time was a peculiarly fitting one in which to remind them of the continued desolation of the house of God, and of their duty in respect thereto. Filled with the Spirit of God, Haggai, called to be a prophet in Israel, preached on the occasion a remarkable discourse, in which he stirred up the people to repentance, and especially exhorted their leaders to " consider their ways." His sermon seems to have produced an instantaneous effect The heads of the Jewish colony, who had previously been wont to excuse their own tardiness by pointing to the serious hindrances placed in the way of the rebuilding of the temple by the adversaries of Judah and Jerusalem, were aroused to consider their own negligence, and forthwith took counsel together with respect to the restoration of the sacred bulldinsr. Ere the month 4 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. i. 1-7. came to a close, on the twenty-fourth day, or within three weeks of the appeal of Haggai, the people, headed by Zerubbabel, the pasha of Judah, and Joshua, the High Priest, " came and did work in the house of Jahaveh of Hosts," the God of Israel.i The twenty-fourth day of the month was a day of very peculiar significance to the restored colony. On that day the people recommenced the work on the ruins of the temple (Hag. i. 14, 15), probably by removing the accumulated rubbish, and by making preparations for the extensive build- ing operations. The Lord, who had given a manifold proof of his presence with his people (Hag. i. 13) by raising up one prophet among them, raised up a second likewise. In. the eighth month Zechariah was filled with the spirit of prophecy, and preached, as Haggai had done, a sermon calling the people to repentance. In the succeeding month (December, or Kislev), on the twenty-fourth day, the same day three months after the work had been recommenced, Haggai received both his third and fourth revelation, being the last revelations vouchsafed to him (Hag. ii. 10, 20). It was no doubt owing to the work done in connection with the re- storation of the temple that the twenty-fourth day of the month attained its special importance, and was honoured by being made a day of Divine revelation. Two months later, therefore, on the twenty-fourth day of the month (the month Shebat), Zechariah saw the wonderful visions, which form the chief portion of the first six chapters of his book. It was likewise on the twenty-fourth day of the first month, after having previously fasted and mourned for three full weeks, that Daniel had received the vision of the " things noted in the scripture of truth " (Dan. x. 21). 1 The time intervening was no doubt a season of earnest prayer on the part of the prophet Haggai, though it is fanciful to seek to compare this instance with the three weeks' fast of the prophet Daniel, or even to compare with the latter the three weeks inferentially alluded to in Hag. ii.vj, as Baumgarten has done. Ch. i. 1-7.] INTRODUCTORY. 5 The visions of Zechariah are introduced by the phrase, " The word of Jahaveh came to Zechariah, the son of Bere- chiah, the son of Iddo, the prophet, saying," inasmuch as it was through the visions which the prophet saw that the will of Jahaveh was communicated to him. As Isaiah and Amos are spoken of as having seen the word which they were com- missioned to deliver concerning Judah and Jerusalem (Isa. i. I ; ii. I ; Amos. i. i), so the prophet Zechariah styles the visions which he saw, " the word of the Lord which came to him." ^ The visions were seen by Zechariah on the night with which, according to the Jewish mode of reckoning, the twenty-fourth day commenced. The phrase, " I saw in the night," probably indicates this (Keil), though it can scarcely be translated by, " in this night," as some have proposed.^ Ewald and others consider that Zechariah received his visions in a real dream of the night season, while Hengsten- berg thinks that the prophet saw them in a waking condition during the night, when his mind was more susceptible of heavenly impressions. The expression, " in a dream, in a vision of the night" (Job xxxiii. 15), or in "a dream of a night vision " (Isa. xxix. 7), is not used, and, therefore, it ' The expression "saying" is sometimes used to introduce what is written, as well as what is spoken ; 2 Kings x. 6 ; 2 Chron. xxi. 12, where "IJDS? is used ; and comp. i Mace. viii. 31, Luke i. 63, where its equivalent, Xi-^uiv, occurs, as also Joseph. Antiq. xi. 4, § 7. 2 So Rosenmijller, Pressel, etc. It can scarcely indicate the whole night through (as Lange seems to consider), nor does the translation of our Authorised Version seem to us to express the sense of the original, "by night," i.e., in the night season, as if stress were laid upon the season, as that in which the spirit of man is more withdrawn from the outward world and, therefore, is more susceptible for receiving visions from above. The translation, "by night," is that of the Vulg., Jer. and Luth., and is adopted among modern critics by Ewald and Kohler. The translation proposed by Baumgarten and Neumann, "I saw out into the night," making the night the object of the verb preceding (after the analogy of Gen. i. 4), is decidedly fanciful. The night in such a translation must be regarded as used emblematically, either in reference to the darkness of the visions afterwards recorded (Jerome, Calov.J, or of the times then present (Neumann), or of the times to come. 6 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROrHECIES. [Ch. i. 1-7. is more natural to suppose that the visions were seen in a prophetic ecstasy, or trance. The use of such words as " I saw," " I Hfted up mine eyes," is not by any means con- clusive against Ewald's view, though Pressel seems to regard it as being so. In dreams we imagine that we make use of our bodily organs. Nor is even the statement " he waked me as a man is waked out of his sleep " (chap. iv. i, 2) opposed to this idea ; for it must not be forgotten that even in ordi- nary dreams it occasionally happens that one dreams that he dreams, and may dream too of being awakened out of that dreamy slumber. That the prophet was in a somnambulous state is an idea which must be altogether rejected. Persons in such a state do not remember what they have seen or done, while the very opposite was the case of the prophet ; and, moreover, the sickly state, of such a condition is utterly unsuited for any true revelation from above (Pressel). The visions of Zechariah were not mere creations of the mind, like those of Dante, The prophet was himself ignorant of the meaning of much which he saw in the visions, and had to seek to have it explained. He recounted what he had seen or heard. Yet, at the same time, the visions all bear the impress of the prophet's own personality, and of the times in which he lived and worked (Pressel). Because the rationalist has sought .to deny or explain away all traces of the super- natural in Holy Writ, we ought not to seek to obliterate all traces of the natural. We cannot, however, agree with Riehm that every prophet was so far limited as to his foresight, that his historical horizon circumscribed his prophetic vision. The horizon of a prophet, according to Riehm, only ex- tended so far as the prophet's present, considered in the light of the Divine counsels, bore in its bosom the events of the future. But while we do not coincide with this view, we maintain that the prophetical visions of the Old Testament naturally arise from the ground of tiie prophets' own present, Ch. i. 1-7.] INTRODUCTORY. 7 and that even when distant future is depicted, it is depicted in the light and with the colours of their own day. The horizon of the Old Testament prophets was the first advent of the Messiah, and though occasionally they may appear to pass beyond that grand event, to which they looked as the great object of expectation, the exception proves the rule, for "the last things" were presented to their view as imme- diately connected with the manifestation of the Messiah. This principle is remarkably illustrated in the prophecies of Zechariah, and those writers widely err who fancy that minute details of events destined to occur in the end of the world are predicted in the Old Testament, although passed over in silence by our Lord and His Apostles. It must be borne in mind that many a point connected with what is termed " the higher criticism," must needs be here omitted, which will come under examination elsewhere. Our intention is to survey the book of Zechariah as a whole, in connection with the various conflicting interpretations of its several passages; several questions connected with the authorship and composition of the book will be reserved for treatment in our Introduction. If on any point we appear unfairly to assume what ought first to be proved, it is because our proofs will be adduced elsewhere, and not because we wish to shrink from the due examination of the points in dispute. We shall endeavour fairly to state the views of those from whom we may differ, without ungenerous insinuations as to the ground on which that difference of opinion is based. The best apology for what we regard to be the true interpre- tation is not to present it alone by itself, but to compare it with the various other explanations which have been sug- gested. If we err in any particular, our error will thus be more easily detected ; and if our interpretation be correct, its truth will more clearly be seen. The more calmly such points are discussed the better, although we do not mean to 8 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Cli. i. 8. conceal our opinion that some of these points are of the very highest importance. The scene of the visions is supposed by Ewald and Hitzig to have been the tabernacle of God, the heavenly palace, in the courts of which, after the analogy of the earthly temple, there were seen myrtle trees, those trees being peculiarly suitable to be described as growing in its courts, on account of their dark and glittering green colour, and of the sweet odour with which their flowers perfume the air. That such trees were actually planted in the courts of the temple at Jerusalem, has been asserted on the authority of two passages in the Psalms, and from a passage in 2 Mace. But it is by no means certain that any such conclusion can be really drawn from those passages.^ Ewald thinks that the prophet saw the angels who had patrolled the earth during the day- time, riding towards the heavenly tabernacle, on horses of various colours, from the four quarters of heaven, in order to ' The passages are Ps. lii. 10 (ver. 8 in E.V.) ; xcii. 13, 14 ; 2 Mace. xiv. 4. Grotius in his note on 2 Mace, renders that passage by, "moreover, of the boughs solemnly consecrated in the temple," and notes that there were many offerings belonging to the temple, among M'hich there were not a few imitations of trees in gold, etc. In his notes on Luke xxi. 5, Grotius adduces further proofs from Philo and Josephus, and makes special mention of the golden vine given by Herod the Great, and of that previously belonging to the temple, presented by Aristobulus to Pompey (Joseph. Antiq. xiv. 3, § i ; Tac. Hist. v. 5). But see crit. comm. In that case the constraction of the words in 2 Mace, tt^os 5^ tovtoi^ twv voixL^ofxivuv OaWQv rod hpov, must be regarded as equal to rims tQv daXXuv twv rod iepov vofii^o/aivuv (Vulg. (/7ii templi esse videbanhir). Grimm objects to this explanation, that it is scarcely likely that the temple, at such a period, so shortly after the desolations of Antiochus Epiphanes, could have had many such votive offerings ; that Alcimus had no admission to the temple and therefore could not have taken away such votive offerings ; and, moreover, that to express such a meaning, daWQv should have been placed before twv pofii^ofx^vajf, and not after it. Hence he prefers to translate the passage, with De Wette, "of the customary olive-twigs of the temple," i.e., those which used to be brought from the temple to a king when homage was done to him on his entrance upon hjs government. According to Grimm's explanation the olive trees must have been grown in the temple courts. But where is the custom referred to elsewhere spoken of ? The passage is too doubtful to found much upon it ; daXXol, though used of olive branches, might also indicate palm branches. Ch. i. 8.] THE FIRST VISION — THE ANGEL-RIDERS. 9 give in their report of what they had seen on earth, and to receive directions from the Lord of all. This is not the picture of the scene which would be na- turally drawn from the words of the original, as they appear in the ordinary Hebrew text, or as translated in any of the ancient versions. The view of Hitzig and Ewald is com- pletely novel. In order to obtain any basis on which to build such an opinion, a punctuation of the Hebrew text must be adopted which is supported by no ancient authority. To adduce the expression, " His pavilion round about him," in Ps. xviii. 12 (ver. ii in E.V.), or "the noise (thunder) of his tabernacle " (Job xxxvi. 29), in support of the reading " taber- nacle " here, is vain, as a different word is used in both these passages.^ However ingenious the interpretation, it is toler- ably plain that the view adopted has suggested the alteration of the Hebrew punctuation, and then the latter is used in its turn to support the theory. Few persons acquainted with the common use of symbolical and figurative language in the sacred writings will be disposed to agree with Hitzig, when he seeks to account for the residence of God in heaven being represented as a tent, by asserting that the tabernacle, after it had long vanished from history, was considered to have been caught up to heaven, with the ark of testimony and the pot of manna, which statement he vainly attempts to prove from two passages in the Revelation (Rev. xi. 19, and ii, 17). Much more simple and in accordance with the original is it to suppose that the scene of the first vision is described as a shady and deep valley. The article may be satisfactorily * It is strange for Hitzig to argue that the use of the article with the word translated in our A.V., " l/ie bottom " (but by Hitzig and Ewald, " the tent"), is a proof that the prophet speaks of something well known, not of anything here mentioned for the first time. For the existence of the article is only indicated by the Masoretic vocalization, and if that pointing needs correction, as Hitzig main- tains, in one part of the word, how can any argument be derived from that vocali- zation in another syllable of the same ? (See our crit. comm. on this verse.) 10 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. i. 8. accounted for as denoting the special valley seen by the prophet in the vision (so Kliefoth, Kohler, Keil). It might indicate some particular valley presented to the prophet's view ; a valley where myrtle trees grew in considerable numbers, and which was well known to the inhabitants of Jerusalem in that day. If such a shady valley existed not far from Jerusalem, it would have been peculiarly suitable to have been represented as the scene of this first vision ; as in this vision Jahaveh's gracious return to His people and city is described.^ In this deep valley the prophet saw a man riding on a red horse, who was halting among the myrtle trees. Behind him were a number of horsemen, mounted on steeds of different ■ colours. The riders, indeed, on these horses are not expressly mentioned, but verse lo clearly implies that riders were seen sitting on the horses. The riders themselves are not specially mentioned, because (as Hitzig conjectures) the horses on which they sat would naturally first come into view ; and the colour of the horses, whereby the band was seen to be composed of three distinct divisions, was the point of chief importance. ' No other explanation is needed of this feature in the vision. Ewald's idea, suggested by the translation of the LXX., that the myrtles spoken of here are to be thought of as growing between the two mountains of brass mentioned in chap, vi., which correspond to the two chief mountains of Jerusalem, must be considered elsewhere. It is entirely based on the idea of the assumed correspondence of the two visions, which view cannot be considered as proven. Many other expla- nations have been given, such as that of the Targum, followed by Kimchi, that the valley represented Babylon, to which the Jews had been deported on account of their sin, and that the myrtle trees represent the Israelites in Babylon, who possessed the sweet odour of the commandments of God. Venema, after Jerome, adopts this view as to the signification of the myrtle trees, and adduces various reasons why saints are described as myrtles ; — because the myrtle is ever green ; because it abounds with sap, symbolising the operations of the Spirit, and because that sap is bittet-, opposed to corruption, indicating the principle of immortality. We consider such expositions as sacred trifling. Or that the \-alley represents the kingdom of God in its outwardly depressed condition, but still under the gracious protection of the Angel of the Lord (^Hmgstoiberg). Or that that vale depicts the abyss-like power of the kingdom of the world (Baumgarkn). Nor can we agree with Keil that the myrtle thicket'Ss " undoubtedly " (which is rather Ch. i. 8, 9.] THE FIFxST VISION— THE ANGEL-RIDERS. I I The rider on the red horse, who is specially noted, was in advance of the others, who are represented as having .been " behind him." He must not be identified, as many commen- tators imagine, with the Angel of Jahaveh, who stood also between the myrtle trees, and to whom both he and his fellow riders reported the condition of the Gentile world. If the Angel of Jahaveh was really identical with the rider on the red horse, that rider would have been represented as standing opposite to the other horsemen, and they would not have been spoken of as " behind him." Moreover, though the rider on the red horse was the leader and chief of the band of angelic riders, he was also a member of one of the sub- divisions of which that band was composed, inasmuch as he was mounted upon a steed of a red colour, and not of a colour distinct from the rest. We must not, if we desire to avoid endless confusion, permit ourselves to be led by the authority of eminent commentators to identify either the Angel of Jahaveh or the rider on the red horse with the interpreting angel so often spoken of in the first six chapters. The in- terpreting angel generally stands as it were outside of the visions, and seldom takes any other part in them, than strong language) an image of the theocracy, or of the land of )udah, as a land dear and pleasant of the Lord (comp. Dan. viii. 9 ; xi. 16), because the myrtle is a favourite plant for decorations ; and that the depth in which the myrtle wood lay can only be a figure of the deep humiliation of that land. It might indeed be used as a suitable figure of the oppressed condition of Israel, as a symbol of misfortune, as Lange, Rosenmiiller, and others think. Lange appeals to Ps. xxiii. 4 (^ei"- 5 '" E.V.), and Ps. Ixxxiv. 7 (ver. 8 in E.V.) It might possibly refer to the ravme of the fountain of Siloah (v. Hofmann, Weis. n. Erf., i. 333), if only "^>"^'l^^ ^"^"f^ grew there at that day. The picture of a valley may have been given because of the myrtle trees, which generally grow best in valleys and by streams, as Vug. Georg. ii. 112, litora myrtetis latissima, and iv. 124, amantes litora myrii. Hitzig s suggestion needs only mention, namely, that the trees are here alluded to as those to which the angelic riders could bind their steeds. As equally fanciful, though in another direction, we must regard the suggestion of Neumann, that the valley represents the fields of everlasting salvation, perfumed by heavenly love, inasmuch as the myrtle is used among the Jews as a symbol of heavenly love, and the pious Jews sometimes adorn themselves with three sprigs of myrtle on the Sabbath days. Myrtles were indigenous to Palestine, see Smith's Bibl. Diet. 12 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. i. 8, 9. to interrogate other angels, and to point out to the prophet the special features of a vision or the signification thereof The interpreting angel is frequently characterised through- out the book by " the angel that talked with me," as our Authorised Version has correctly translated it. Dr. Pusey and others have called attention to the phrase in the original, which might be rendered " spake in me." Dr. Pusey observes that this " very rare expression seems meant to convey the thought of an inward speaking, whereby the words should be borne directly into the soul, without the intervention of the ordinary outward organs." It must, however, be noted that the phrase in question is used in the sense of to speak of a person (i Sam. xix. 3 ; Deut. vi. 7), to speak against one •(Num. xxi. 7), and to speak through one as an interpreter (Num. xii. 2, etc.). It is also used of communing %vith a person (Num. xii. 6, 8 ; i Sam. xxv. 39), and even of speaking to a person (Hos. i. 2 ; Hab. ii. i). Ewald considers that the preposition used conveys the idea of the address of a superior to an inferior (see crit. comm.). The Targumist has correctly given the sense found in our Authorised Version, though the LXX. and Jerome seem to have regarded the expression as peculiar. Pusey's idea is scarcely correct ; for what the prophet heard from the angel is narrated as communicated to him by word of mouth. Nor is there any propriety in one angel being denoted as " the angel that spake in me," nor that "talked by me" (Drake), for, inasmuch as the visions narrated are purely subjective, all the speeches might have been similarly so described. The variety of colours in the horses is no doubt signifi- cant ; but there is a considerable diversity of opinion as to what one of the colours mentioned actually is, and as to the signification of the colours in general. An attempt has been made to identify the horses in this vision with those mentioned in the seventh and last ; but the Ch. i. 8-II.] THE FIRST VISION THE ANGEL-RIDERS. 1 3 seventh vision is in its character and scope very different from the first. White and red horses were seen in both the visions ; but with that feature all similarity ends. The place at which the riders on horses are seen to arrive in the first vision, and that from which the persons driven in chariots go forth in the latter, are entirely different. It needs no little ingenuity and critical torturing of both texts to make out any such correspondence between the two visions as would justify the interpretation of the terms used in one as ex- planatory of those used in the other, or to justify the attempt to supply the gaps, assumed to exist in the first vision, by the incidents recorded in the latter. In the latter black horses are spoken of, which do not appear in the first vision ; even if (without any authority whatever) we should seek to identify the colour which is named third in the first chapter with that mentioned in the fourth place in chap. vi. Three colours only are mentioned in the first vision ; four at least are spoken of in the seventh. It is more natural that attempts should have been made to compare those passages in the book of the Revelation, in which similar symbols occur, with this vision of Zechariah. The riders mentioned in the first four seals of tlie Revelation are represented as going forth on their different errands on horses of four different colours (Rev. vi. i-8). And at the close of the book (chap. xix. 1 1, 14), the armies of heaven are spoken of as following their leader on the white horse, who was named Faithful and True, and riding forth like him on white horses. But much caution must be exercised lest what is only similar be regarded as identical. For it does not necessarily follow that the symbols in a later prophet are to be regarded as explanatory of those which may occur in passages of an earlier writer ; unless, indeed, it can be proved that the ob- ject of the writers is necessarily identical.^ ' In the consideration of the vision before us, we pass over the bold and original 14 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. i. 8-11. As to the colours red and white, there is little difference of opinion save as to their shades. The third colour has been rendered by our Authorised Version " speckled," apparently on the authority of the ancient versions. But the meaning assigned in our margin, namely " bay " or " chestnut," is no doubt the true one, and is substantially that approved of by Gesenius, Hitzig, Ewald, and Fiirst. Possibly a somewhat clearer red than is signified by the first adjective may be indi- cated. The fact that a reddish colour of some kind is implied by the word renders it impossible to refer to the " pale " horse of Rev. vi. in explanation of the vision. The Hebrew word does not mean " ashen-gray " (Pusey), and though we freely grant that "a mingled colour like chestimt is not sug- ' gestive of any symbol " (Pusey), it is not our business to construct symbols, but to interpret the vision as it is. The machinery of the vision of Zechariah is totally different from that employed in the first four seals of the book of Revelation. The colours of the horses in the latter have evidently a symbolical signification, in Zechariah they are simply employed to mark the division of the angelic riders into three distinct bands. Keil, and other eminent commentators, consider that the celestial riders are represented as going forth to take an ac- tive part in the shaking of the nations, which God had already promised by the mouth of Haggai, and to conduct any agitations and tumults which might occur among the nations to the definite end appointed by Providence. According to this theory the riders were to act severally in the manner symbolically indicated by the colours of their respective idea of Pressel, viz., that the horses in the vision were not really diverse in colour, but that all the terms, which have hitherto been regarded as denoting such diver- sity of colour, are to be regarded as referring to all the steeds alike, and indicate that they all had the fiery, sleek, and shining character which might be supposed to distinguish such steeds. If this were the meaning of the passage, why should the horses be described instead of their rideix? (See crit. comm.) Ch. i. S-ii.] THE FIRST VISION — THE ANGEL-RIDERS. I 5 steeds. The riders on the red horses were to cause war and blood, those on the speckled, or pale grey steeds, to cause hunger, famine^ and pestilence, while the riders on the white horses were to do their work by conquest and subjugation of the world. All such explanations, however ingenious, are inad- missible, for the simple reason that the translation "speckled" or " pale grey " cannot be philologically sustained. Kohler gets rid entirely of this special difficulty by adopt- ing ''fire-coloured" or ''fiery red,'' as the translation of the adjective in question (D''p"lti^), a translation which is defensible (see crit. comm.). According to his scheme, the mission of the riders on the horses of this colour was to devastate with fire, whilst those on the red horses were to bring war and bloodshed in their train. He adopts Hengstenberg's explan- ation of the white colour of the steeds as indicating the victories which their riders should obtain over the nations of the earth. But a difficulty common to both schemes of inter- pretation is, that all the riders must be considered as victorious, and as each in their own way succeeding in the work allotted to them. There is no real difference in either scheme between the mission of the riders on the red, and those on the white horses ; for war must imply victory on one side or the other, and victory implies bloodshed. Nor does either view affiDrd any explanation of the fact that the captain of the entire band is represented as himself riding on a red-coloured horse. If such powers were delegated to the riders, why should they have reported that all the world was at rest } Were they to wait until war, pestilence, famine, or fire broke forth among the nations, and then to seek to mingle in the fray, and in- crease the confusion, but otherwise to return without effecting their mission .<* This interpretation is unsatisfactory, although it has been supported by critics of eminence. Ewald's opinion, namely, that the various colours of the horses indicate the several lands to be traversed by the 1 6 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. i. 8. several bands of celestial riders, is not so easily refuted as Keil seems to imagine. Keil thinks that the report of the rider on the red horse, made to the Angel of Jahaveh, and the general statement made by the united band, prove that the riders traversed the earth in a body. But is not this fact equally opposed to Keil's own interpretation ; for if the judgments of the sword, famine, and conquest be referred to, they must be regarded as successive, and not as syn- chronous. Maurer was the first to put forward in a general way the view afterwards adopted and expanded by Ewald. He explained the colours of the steeds to indicate the various lands traversed by the riders. Maurer, however, considered it unnecessary to inquire what lands respectively were signi- fied by the several colours. Hitzig preserves on this point a judicious silence. Ewald has exposed the whole interpretation to serious objection by seeking to identify the riders in this vision with the four chariots mentioned in the seventh and last vision. He would erase the description given in the text of the leader of the band, i.e., " riding on a red horse," which statement he considers to confuse the whole of the passage, and would insert an additional fourth colour into verse 8, to bring that passage into harmony with the vision in chap. vi. The four colours thus obtained he explains to signify the four parts of the heavens, viz., (i) the red to denote the light east, (2) the brown or chestnut, or, as the colour is in chap, vi., the black, points to the dark north, (3) the grey (the white) the west, (4) the dark-red striped (the new colour, translated " the bay " in chap. vi. 7) the south. This assignment of the colours to the various regions of the heavens is quite arbitrary. There is nothing similar in the whole range of Biblical literature. The connexion of the first and seventh visions is more than doubtful, and an interpre- tation which depends upon such^^an identification must be Ch. i. 8.] THE FIRST VISION — THE ANGEL-RIDERS. 1/ regarded as unsafe. No fourth colour occurs in this vision. It is introduced on pure critical conjecture. If such liberties may be taken with the text, what might not we extract from the visions ! The same reasons which have led us to reject the inter- pretations of Keil and Kohler, must lead to the rejection of those of Vitringa and Rosenmiiller. According to their view, the three kinds of horses indicate respectively the times of war, times of varying distress and prosperity, and times of complete prosperity, which were sent on the Jewish people. The term " earth," however, in this place cannot well denote the Holy Land ; and the celestial riders are repre- sented in the vision as sent forth at one time, and as bringing back together a report of their mission Nor does the answer of the horsemen coincide with such an explanation. The riders in the vision did not receive any commission to interfere with terrestrial matters. Their business was simply to go through the earth and report upon its condition. They were represented as being many in number, in order that they might traverse the earth in all directions ; and the diverse colour of their steeds was designed to mark them off into three distinct bands. Kliefoth considers that those 'colours had a relation to the various lands and peoples visited by the riders in the discharge of their mission. This is the weak point in his special interpretation. But he seems to us to be cor- rect in considering that Zechariah had before his mind the four world-empires of Daniel.^ In Daniel's vision of the metallic image (Dan. ii. 31-45), the various portions of that image denoting the four empires * It is necessary, according to this view, to assume the genuineness of the book of Daniel, and its existence at the time of Zechariah. On this point we must refer to Dr. Pusey's Daniel the Prophet, some of whose criticisms may have been replied to, but whose work as a whole has not, we conceive, been answered. We would especially refer to his arguments against the opinion that the fourth of Daniel's empires represents the rule of the successors of Alexander. C 1 8 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. ICh. i. 8. were marked by a difference in colour, as it was composed of four distinct metals. But the colours ascribed to the various parts of an image composed of different metals could not with any propriety be assigned to horses. Regard is paid even in symbols to natural propriety. But, inasmuch as all attempts have failed to assign any natural symboli- cal interpretation to the colours mentioned in Zechariah's vision (which colours are the colours common to horses), it is far more natural to consider that the difference of colour in the case of the steeds merely served the same purpose for which the difference of metals was employed in Nebu- chadnezzar's dream of the Metallic Image, related by Daniel, namely, to mark off distinctly one division from another. No colours, however, are spoken of in the case of the Metallic Image. The objection which at first seems to lie in the way of supposing the horses in Zechariah to refer to the empires shadowed forth in the book of Daniel, is, that there are only three different divisions spoken of in Zechariah, and not four, as in the book of Daniel. To this objection Kliefoth gives a very fitting answer. The first vision of Zechariah does not depict the future, but the past. It represents the condition of the Gentile world at that particular era. The Babylonian empire had been supplanted by the Medo-Persian, but it had not passed out of existence. Its political power was broken', but the various portions of that empire still existed as power- ful parts of the Medo-Persian empire. The city of Babylon was yet standing, though greatly diminished in importance ; the name Babylonian had still a hold upon the popular imagi- nation. The Greeks had not yet shown any disposition to assume the role of a world-empire, though they were begin- ning to attract notice, and had already come into collision with the Medo-Persian empire. Daniel had, indeed, predicted the rise and progress of the Greek power. There is no Ch. i. S.] THE FIRST VISION— THE ANGEL-RIDERS. 19 necessity to suppose that Zechariah was at this time conscious of its rise, though some years later he might have been well aware of its importance (see ix. 13). But he had seen the downfall in his own day of one world-power, and the rise of another in its stead. He probably knew, from the writings of Daniel, that that power was destined in its turn to be over- thrown by a third. What could be more natural than that he should have often meditated on the probability that the power destined ultimately to overwhelm the Medo-Persian empire was already growing up within or without the limits of that empire .-' Hence the triple instead of the quadruple division of the lands of the earth traversed by the angelic riders sent forth to report as to the state of the Gentile world. This consciousness of the prophet seems to have been the substratum on which was reared the vision that was pre- sented to his wondering imagination in the night season. Any attempt, however, to assign any grounds for the employment of the special colours is in our opinion futile. The red colour might, if it stood alone, be explained as de- noting bloodshed. But it is quite fanciful to attempt to account (as Kliefoth) for the fact that the leader of the com- bined troop was represented as sitting on a red horse, on the grounds, (i) that Babylon was not only the first historical manifestation of a world-power (a point which may fairly be disputed), but, also, a fitting type of all such empires ; and (2) that the leader of the combined troop was also the leader of the red division sent forth to traverse the lands of the Chal- daeans, because Chaldaea was the first of those great world- empires. In his explanation of the second colour, Kliefoth, in order to obtain a symbolical signification, falls back on the erroneous interpretation of that colour as " grey" or "speckled." The reason, too, which he assigns for " white " being as- signed to the Grecian division is extremely fanciful, namely, that that power was then as clean white paper, inasmuch as 20 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. i. 8. it had not yet appeared, and it was not clear what colour it would ultimately assume. The difficulties presented more or less by any attempt to explain the colours figuratively, rather tend to show that no symbolical meaning whatever was in- tended.^ The celestial riders having traversed the various lands of the earth, which had already passed under the rule of the first three empires predicted by Daniel, or were ultimately destined to be subjugated to their sway, brought back their report to the Angel of Jahaveh. That report was to the effect that all the peoples of the earth were at peace. No signs whatever appeared in any direction of that " shaking of the nations " which had been promised to the Jews by the mouth of Haggai, The promise had been twice made to Haggai, and by divine direction twice communicated to Zerubbabel, the prince of Judah, that there would be such a " shaking of the nations," and that it would result in the overthrow of all the kingdoms and powers hostile to the welfare of Israel. As a result of such events, Haggai had predicted that treasures would be brought by the Gentile nations into the holy city,^ and blessings would accrue to the people of Israel, When, therefore, the celestial riders reported that no ' But this is somewhat doubtful. See Delitzsch's Preface to Cuitiss' Lenitical Priests, and his articles on Farben-shidien in Daheim for 1878. 2 Bishop Wordsworth, in his Commentary on the Minor Prophets, has laboured hard to defend the translation of Hag. ii. 7, given in our Authorised Version, " The desire of all nations shall come," and the consequent treatment of the passage as a distinct prophecy of Christ. This was the view of the Church Fathers, and of the earlier expositors. But, independently of other objections, it may safely be asserted that the construction of the plural verb cannot be explained on such an exposition. The verb which precedes the singular nominative cannot be ex- plained, as Bishop Wordsworth has suggested, to indicate the different natures in Christ, or the various offices which he was to discharge for his people, nor can the Messiah " be justly regarded as a collective Being." Such suggestions are but desperate efforts to defend the old exegesis. Pusey has, in his flote, passed over the real difficulty. In the sentence DMiin"?!! JTipn -INS-I the nom. to the plural verb is to be regarded as a collective referring to the gifts to be presented by the na- tions. The prophecy was abundantly fulfilled*^ Splendid gifts were presented by the Ch. i. 12.] THE FIRST VISION — THE ANGEL-RIDERS. 21 signs as yet appeared of the promised catastrophe, the Angel of Jahaveh poured forth his earnest intercession on behalf of the people entrusted to his special care, " O Jahaveh (God) of hosts, how long hast thou no pity for Jerusalem and for the cities of Judah, against which thou hast been angry these seventy years ? " ^ Gentiles to the second temple. Comp. Is. Ix. The shaking of the nations referred to occurred partially in the prophet's own day. It had no doubt a further reference to the light spread abroad through the Gentile world by the Jewish people, to the coming of Christ, and the drawing of the nations unto him who was the living temple in which the glory of Jahaveh was manifested in very truth. Such prophecies of better things were usually conveyed in terms and in figures suit- able to those to whom they were primarily addressed, and it must not be forgotten that the temple was the place where God's glory was manifested in ancient days. 1 We cannot in this place enter into any lengthened discussion on the interesting question whether the Angel of Jahaveh is to be regarded as a created angel, empowered in an extraordinary way to speak as God's representative, or whether he should be more correctly viewed as an Old Testament manifestation of the Divine Logos, the Second Person in the Trinity. There are no doubt many passages, as that above, where the Angel of Jahaveh expressly distinguishes him- self from Jahaveh ; and there are passages where language is used of him which it is difficult to understand if used of the Divine Logos. It might indeed be a matter of dispute whether Jude 9 can be regarded among the latter, where Michael the archangel is related as not venturing {ovk iroX/j-Tjae) to bring a railing accusation against Satan. For the identification of Michael with the Angel of the Lord is a matter of dispute. When Pusey says (Dante/ the Prophet, 3rd edit., p. 520), that the term "Angel of the Lord," is given "not as an epithet, but as a description of his being," and argues that "therefore it seems most probable that he was a created angel" because the word "angel describes his actual nature, not the higher nature which spake, or was adored in him," he makes assertions for which no evidence can be adduced. The Angel of the Lord is often directly identified with Jahaveh himself, as in chap. iii. 2; Gen. xvi. yff., xxxii. 30; Exod. iii. 2, 4, 5, 6, vi. 14; Joshua v. 14, 15, with vi. 2 ; Judg. xvi. 14, Compare also Gen. xviii. i, 22, 33, with xix. 24. Moreover Exod. xxxii. 34, xxxiv. 9-1 1, with xxxiii. 2, 3, 14, are most important. It was, however, most natural for the ancient synagogue to regard this angel as a created angel, acting by special authority as God's representative, and treated therefore as God ; and though we incline to the view that the opinion held by the ancient Church Fathers was correct, i. e. that the Angel of the Lord was the Divine Logos, it is impossible to decide the question. If he was not exactly the Logos itself, then the opinion of Delitzsch must be viewed as correct, namely, that the Angel of Jahaveh was a real angel, but one which Jahaveh by means of his indwelling made his organ, that is, Jahaveh in real angelic form appeared sometimes in human shape, and prefigured thereby his future incarnation. The Angel of Jahaveh was termed by the Jews {fippp, or Jlltpt^^P, to be explained from the Latin metator, not=tJi.eTd9poi'os (Renan), or as the Greek /leraTvpavvos (Levy), 22 ZECHARIAH' AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. i. 12. The " seventy years " of Jeremiah here spoken of (see crit. comm.) must be counted from the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, if we recognise the authority of the books of Daniel, 2 Chronicles, and Ezra. Daniel himself regarded that period as near its close, in B.C. 538 (Dan. ix. 2), and the other books distinctly say that those seventy years expired in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia, that is, in B.C. 536. The question, of course, hinges on the correctness of the state- ment (Dan. i. i, 2) that Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, and carried away a number of Jewish captives on that occasion to Babylon. As the third year of Jehoiakim was B.C. 607 or 606, and as Pharaoh Necho was not finally routed by the Chald?eans till the battle of •Carchemish, at the fords of the Euphrates, in B.C. 605 or 604, the capture of Jerusalem referred to must have taken place before the power of Egypt was decisively broken. There is, however, little difficulty in maintaining with Kohler, that Jerusalem was captured also in B.C. 606. Pharaoh Necho, notwithstanding his victory over Josiah at Megiddo, and his subsequent reduction of Jerusalem, seems himself to have been obliged to retreat before Nebuchadnezzar, who acted at that time as commander-in-chief of his father's army. Advancing southwards, Nebuchadnezzar made him- self master of Jerusalem, and forced its king to become a vassal of Babylon. Pharaoh Necho, however, at a later date, compelled the army of the Chaldseans, probably in the absence of Nebuchadnezzar, to retire to Carchemish, where the Chaldaeans, under the command of Nebuchad- which at least was not a common word. It has been noted that the numerical value of the first form is equal to '•'^K^ (Shaddai) the Almighty. The ablest de- fence of the view that the Angel of Jahaveh is the Logos, js to be found in McCaul's valuable dissertation at the end of his translation of chapter i. of Kimchts Comment, on Zecliariah ; and amongst the numerous articles by Ger- man scholars, the most satisfactory perhaps is that by Delitzsch, in his Commeittar iiber die Genesis, 4te Ausg., pp. 284-290. Ch. i. 12, 13.] THE FIRST VISION — THE ANGEL-RIDERS. 23 nezzar (who ascended the throne on his father's death in B.C. 605) finally gained a decisive victory. As Jehoiakim reigned eleven years in Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar may, as an act of grace for some reasons unknown to us, have permitted him to remain on the throne of Judah as a tributary vassal. Thus commenced the seventy years' captivity. If this be correct, Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem no less than three times, and carried off a number of captives to Babylon on the first two occasions as well as on the last. The first capture is spoken of in Dan. i. i, 2 ; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 5-7 ; 2 Kings xxiv. i ; the second in 2 Kings xxiv. 10-15 j the third and final capture in 2 Kings xxv., Jer. xxxix., etc. It is, however, also worthy of note, that a period of about seventy years intervened from the date of the final capture and destruction of Jerusalem, in B.C. 588, to the second year of Darius Hystaspis, when Zechariah saw his visions. This has been regarded by some as a secondary fulfilment of the prophecy. It must, however, be remembered, that the edict of Cyrus gave permission to the Jews to rebuild their city as well as their temple ; and if the " seventy years " are not to be considered at an end because the restoration of the city was not yet complete, the work of restoration cannot be considered as really accomplished until after the date of Nehemiah's visit to Jerusalem in B.C. 445, and not even then. The intercession of the angel was not merely a prayer that Jerusalem and the cities of Judah might enjoy the same quiet which the cities of the nations enjoyed at the same period — it implied that no change could be expected to occur in the position of the Jewish people until the quiet of the nations was broken. The answer vouchsafed by Jahaveh to the prayer of the angel is narrated as if it had been addressed to the interpreting angel. It may be supposed that the reply of Jahaveh was communicated at once to the interpreting angel, as the intercessory prayer of the Angel of Jahaveh had been 24 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. i. 12-17. offered up in order that the prophet might hear the answer of peace and comfort given by the Lord. Or the reply might have been communicated in the first place to the Angel of Jahaveh, and then through his instrumentality to the inter- preting angel. Such subordinate details are not always minutely narrated. To identify, however, on the authority of this passage, the Angel of Jahaveh with the interpreting angel, would introduce very considerable confusion into this and the other visions. The reason why the answer of Jahaveh to the intercession of the angel was thus, directly or indirectly, communicated to the prophet, and why he was not left as on other occasions to learn the answer by his own observation (as he had already heard the report of the angelic riders on the state of the Gentile world), seems to have been that in consequence of that reply the prophet himself was to be entrusted with a special mission. The gracious answer of Jahaveh was not to be locked in the deep recesses of the prophet's heart, to be pondered over there by himself, but was forthwith to be pub- lished to the people. Zechariah was not merely to be a hearer of good tidings, but a preacher of the same. The purport of the proclamation which was to be made in the cities of Judah was, that God's love to his people was not to be measured by the outward circumstances in which they found themselves placed. The Divine anger would soon be manifested towards the nations which were apparently at ease.^ ^ Dr. Talbot Chambers, in the English edition of Lang^s Commmta>-y, has a note on chap. i. 1 1 , which inadvertently accuses Bishop Wordsworth of an error into which he has not fallen. The Bishop notes that the riders report to the angel " that the heathen nations are at ease, i.e., secure, proud, and licentious, as if there was no God in heaven," and he refers in the same place to " the use of the word shaan&n, rendered at ease in Isa. xxxii. 9, il, 'Tremble ye women that are at ease,' and in Amos vi. i, ' Woe to them that are at ease,' while his own people are in distress." Chambers notes on this observation of Bishop Wordsworth, "This is a strange mistake, for it is another word, T\\$\>^, which rarely, if ever, has any moral significance, and means merely quiet." But Chambers has forgotten that the word on which the Bishop comments is used in verse 14, in evident Ch. i. 12-17.] THE FIRST VISION— THE ANGEL-RIDERS. 25 Towards his own people, though harassed by the hostility of their foes and distressed by the ruinous condition of their cities, God's thoughts were still thoughts of love. God had been indeed " for a little while " angry with them because of their sin.^ He had made use of the nations in the day of his anger as a rod with which to chasten Israel. But the nations, who were only instruments in the Lord's hands, had fancied that the success vouchsafed them was occasioned by their own wisdom and might ; and they had continued to oppress the people of Jahaveh beyond the " seventy years " during which the Lord had sold Israel into the hands of their adversaries. The sin of the Gentiles consisted in their de- siring to oppress the people of the covenant beyond " this period (see crit. comm.). Hence Jahaveh was sore displeased at those nations. Their efforts to hinder the restoration of the Lord's people would be ultimately in vain. Jahaveh had indeed returned to Jerusalem with mercies. The city should be built even in troublous days. The line, which had been stretched over it for the purpose of destruction, would yet be stretched over it for the purpose of its being built again. The cities of Israel would yet overflow (see crit. comm.) with prosperity. Jahaveh would yet comfort Zion, and again choose Jerusalem. The promises here given were fulfilled by the completion of the temple, the restoration of the city of Jerusalem, the allusion to this very report of the angelic riders, and that it is that passage which the Bishop has in view, on which passage Chambers, indeed, makes a remark very similar to that of Bishop Wordsworth. • t31^P when used adverbially, as here (i. 15), is generally an adverb of time, " I was for a little time wrath," and the reference in this place is evidently to the seventy years during which the Jewish people were given into the hands of the Gentiles. Compare for the sense, Isa. liv. 8. When used adverbially in the signification of a little, the word is generally construed with jO, as in Ps. viii. 6 ; 2 Sam. xvi. i ; Ezek. xvi. 20, etc. Hence we cannot accept Pusey's expla- nation, that the passage means " little in comparison with our deserts, little in comparison with the anger of the human instruments of his displeasure, little in comparison with theirs who in their anger sought their own ends." 26 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. i. i8, 19 (ii. i, 2). large increase of its population, and the blessings of Divine protection vouchsafed amidst those troublous days. The idea of von Hofmann that the prophecy properly refers to days yet future, is opposed to the whole drift of the vision. The prophecy contains, however, assurances of blessings which have been vouchsafed in all ages to the Israel of God, and which may yet be poured out in greater measure. But its real reference is to the days which immediately follow the time of Zechariah. The first vision revealed to the prophet that it was the Divine purpose to break up the quiet of the Gentile world, and to restore mercies to the Jewish land and people. The second vision illustrates this truth by showing how God had, in past days, wrought for Israel's deliverance, and how in the future he would scatter their foes. A new scene presented itself to the prophet's view as he lifted up his eyes, which may have been cast down as he meditated on what he had already seen and heard, or which may have been turned away from the scene he had been beholding towards the interpreting angel, as the latter expounded unto him the answer of Jahaveh. The prophet now beheld four horns, probably be- longing to some animals indistinctly perceived, the significant horns being all that was clearly seen, or at least that is de- scribed. The "four horns" must not be considered, with J. D. Michaelis, to belong to two oxen, still less are they to be regarded as the horns of " unicorns," an animal nowhere mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures.^ The four horns of Zechariah must be regarded as belonging to four separate wild animals, for they cannot well be regarded as horns of iron, as Naegelsbach imagines {Comm. 011 Klagelieder, iii. 53 ; Lange's Bibchvcrk). 1 This is a fact too often forgotten by popular expositors and pamphleteers, owing to the mistranslation in our A. v., which has come from the LXX. See almost any good Biblical Dictionary, especially the [article in Smitli's Dictionary of the Bible. Ch.i.iS, 19 (ii. 1.2).] THE SECOND VISION — THE FOUR HORNS. 2/ To the question of the prophet, " What are these ? " the interpreting angel rephed that "these are the horns which scattered Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem." ^ The horn is no doubt used as a symbol of power (Amos vi. 13), and the horns must, therefore, signify some powers, kingdoms or nations hostile to the people of Israel. Taking into consideration the connection of this vision with the pre- ceding, and that the object of the visions was to encourage the exiles who had returned from captivity, the vision appears mainly to refer to the past and not to the future ; and as Israel is specially mentioned, the power which had brought about the dispersion of the kingdom of the northern tribes would naturally be expected to rank as one of the horns. Hence the ancient opinion held by Jerome (as well as by Kimchi and Abarbanel among the Jewish expositors, and among later critics by Hengstenberg, Kliefoth, and Keil) can scarcely be correct, namely, that the four world-empires of Daniel are meant. Moreover, the " smiths," who are afterwards spoken of as putting an end to the destructive power of the several horns, appear to indicate human instrumentality ; while the fourth kingdom of Daniel is represented as coming to its end in a totally different manner. The number four may indeed be derived from the four kingdoms of Daniel ; but the four horns seem to refer to four other powers not absolutely iden- tical with those of Daniel. The number /our is evidently significant. It might refer to the four quarters of the heavens, as Ewald, Hitzig, and others consider. In that case the four horns would represent the enemies of Israel on every side (comp. Ezek, xii. 14, xvii. 21 ; Isa. xi. 12) : " Edom and Egypt in the south, the Philistines in the west, the Ammonites and Moabites in the 1 The perfect tenses used in the original (here and in verse 4), however, cannot be regarded in themselves as decisive of the question as to whether the vision is to be regarded as referring to the past or the future. 28 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. i, i8, 19 (ii. i, 2). east, and from the north the Syrians, Assyrians, and espe- cially the Chaldaeans" (Hitzig). The allusion to the four winds of heaven, in verse 10, may be urged, as Keil has noted, in support of this opinion. The word scattered or dispersed, properly means to winnow, to separate and scatter by means of the wind,^ and it is often used when special mention is made of the winds themselves. But the great objection to this view is that by far the greater number of the enemies named by Hitzig had no real hand in the dispersion of Israel and Judah. We are, therefore, inclined to coincide with Pressel's inter- pretation of this vision, namely, that the four horns represent the four distinct powers which dispersed and scattered the Israelites, both of the northern and southern kingdoms, even as straw is dispersed by the wind. The vision had a distinct reference to the times of the prophet, and to the powers which produced that dispersion from which the Jews were beginning to recover. The first kingdom which lifted up its horn to scatter both Israel and Judah, and which effected the dispersion of the former, was Assyria ; Egypt soon joined in the fray, then Babylon, and, last of all, the Medo-Persian empire, which, though friendly at the outset, had no little share in the work of dispersion, and in keeping Israel and Judah in a scattered condition. The combination at the end of verse 2, " Judah, Israel and Jerusalem," is peculiar. It is most easily explained by considering, with Ewald,^ that Judah is named before Israel as occupying the higher place of honour, just as Benjamin is named before Judah in Ps. Ixviii. 27, for a similar reason ; because the capital city of the twelve tribes lay within its ter- ritorial limits, — and also, as Delitzsch notes in his commentary ^ See \T\\ in Jer. xv. 7 ; Isa. xli. 16 ; Ezek. v. 2, 10, etc. 2 See his Prophcten des A. B., vol. iii. p. 194, and his Dichter des Altm Bundes, p. 424. Ch. i. i8, I9(ii. I, 2).] THE SECOND VISION — THE FOUR HORNS. 29 on that Psalm, because the first king of Israel had sprung from Benjamin. As to the fact that the particle DK so com- monly affixed to a definite noun when in the accusative (especially when that definite noun happens to be the proper name of a person), is here used before Judah and Israel, while it is omitted before Jerusalem, the latter word being united to Israel by the copula, — we note that the construction shows that " Judah and Jerusalem " cannot be regarded as opposed to or contrasted with one another, but as forming co-ordinate parts of one great whole. "Jerusalem" is specially mentioned and mentioned last, as the great city in which both divisions of the covenant people had alike a share, and in whose welfare they were both deeply concerned. The schism which took place in the days of Rehoboam was justified as long as it was only political ; it became sinful when it affected Jerusalem as the religious centre of the covenant people. The reason why the particle is omitted here before " Jerusalem " may be that " Judah and Israel " are used in our text as the proper names of large bodies of people, while " Jerusalem " has not that particle, because it indicates in this place not the inhabitants, but the city itself, whose stones had indeed been scattered, but whose very stones and dust were to be regarded as things in which all the members of the covenant alike should take interest (Ps. cii. 15, E. V. ver. \a^} The Masoretic accentuation is not opposed to this interpretation. For these reasons, we adhere to the view advocated by Maurer, Umbreit and Kohler, namely, that " Israel " in this passage denotes the northern tribes, while "Judah " is used as the name of the tribes which used to occupy the south of the land. Hitzig considers the term "Judah " to be used for the people as a whole, the component parts of which were " Israel," meaning thereby the people of the country, and " Jerusalem," ' On the use of the DK, and the finer shades of meaning connected therewith, see Ewald's Ausf. Lehrb., § 277 d. 2. 30 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. i. i8, I9(ii. i, 2). the inhabitants of the capital. Hengstenberg and Keil, on the contrary, maintain that the co-ordination of " Judah and Israel " in this place without any copula between them, while " Israel and Jerusalem " are so connected, is a proof that " Israel and Jerusalem " in the second sentence are identical with " Judah " in the first. This opinion is supported by a reference to verse 4, where the scattering of Judah is alone mentioned, as if the scattering of Judah in that verse was an expression equivalent to the scattering of " Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem " in verse 2. The argument, however, is not con- clusive, as the scattering of Judah, in verse 4, seems to have been specially mentioned as that in which the body of exiles who first returned to their land were most particularly con- cerned.' It is perfectly true, however, that the term " Israel " is not always to be understood as signifying the people of the so-called ten tribes, as distinct from "Judah ; " nor is that name only used when the posterity of Jacob is alluded to, without special reference being made to the tribes of which they were composed. The name Israel is not unfrequently used as a special designation of the tribe of Judah and those connected with it. See 2 Chron. xii. i, xv. 17, xix. 8, xxi. 2, 4 [xxiii. 2 (?)], xxiv., etc. Kliefoth, who interprets the four horns as identical with Daniel's world-empires, considers that the expression, "Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem," is used with a special reference to the days then future, when those four powers should have per- formed their work of scattering the people of Israel. He regards "Judah " on the one hand, and " Israel and Jerusalem " 1 The view of Pressel does not differ much from that of Hengstenberg and Keil. Judah and Israel are, he thinks, rightly divided off from one another by the Maso- retic accentuation, partly because Judah was considered by the prophet to re- present the whole people, — inasmuch as he regarded it as the theocratic state, and its people as the people of God ; and partly because Judah alone had returned from captivity, and its temple-colony was to be the foundation of the Messianic kingdom. The people of Judah were therefore entitled to be called " Israel," while the chief city of the nation was Jerusaleniv Ch.i.i8-2i(ii.i-4).] THE SECOND VISION — THE FOUR SMITHS. 3 1 on the other, as indicating the divided parts of that which united should have formed the whole people of God. Taking this passage in connection with the passages in chap. xi. 14, xii. I, etc., Kliefoth thinks that reference is made to a schism which was to take place between these two portions, destined to prove far more grievous than the great schism which had occurred in the time of Rehoboam. The passage, in his view, as interpreted in the light of the later chapters, con- tains a prophecy that at the coming of the Messiah a small portion only of " Israel after the flesh " would submit them- selves to his rule; which believing portion, with a mass drawn out of the Gentile world, would then constitute the "Israel of God," and is designated here by the honourable name of "Judah." The other portion, comprising the bulk of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, would continue in their un- belief and hardness of heart until the time of the end. All this is a large superstructure raised upon very slender foundation. If it were true, it would be difficult to account for the phenomenon that in the New Testament believers are nowhere called by the name of "Judah," though they are sometimes styled by the name of " Israel." It would be vain to attempt here to give a 'fair conspectus of the various opinions propounded regarding the "four car- penters," or " smiths," represented as frightening " the horns," and casting them down or away.i They^ cannot denote angelic agency (an opinion alluded to with favour by Pusey), ^ Such as that they were Zerubbabel, Joshua, Ezra, and Nehemiah {Lightfoot), who overturned the four adversaries mentioned (Ezra iv. 8, and v. 3) ; or Nebu- chadnezzar, Cyrus, Themistocles, and Cimon, who conquered Shalmanezar, Nebuchadnezzar, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes ( Cocceius) ; or that they indicate gene- rally the angels. Hitzig and Ewald do not give any definite explanation. Others think that reference is made to instrumentalities raised up on all sides. Such interpretations as that of Bosanquet scarcely need mention. "There is a covert mention here," says that writer, " in this revelation to the Jews, of the four evan- gelists, who are to cast out heathenism, and to establish Christ's Church ; perhaps even to the four cherubim, who are God's chariot, bearing him up and onward in his march with his army of preachers to this conquest " ! ! 32 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. i. 18-21 (ii. 1-4). but must refer to some human agency, and must mean some- thing more than the means in ^[eneral whereby God!s_ pro- vidence overthrows the enemies of his people (Kohler). If the number y^//r is deserving of note in the case of the four horns, it ought to be considered significant with respect to the car- penters. The allusions which Pusey makes to the apostle Paul being styled a wise builder (i Cor. iii. 10), to the Lord's taking away from Jerusalem the cunning artificer (Isa. iii, 3, which is the same word rendered carpenter in the A. V. of Zech. i. 20), and to our Lord as " the son of a carpenter " (Matt. xiii. 55), are simply out of place. There is no ground on which (with J. D. Michaelis) to propose a change of the vocalization, so as to make the word •signify ploiighinen or plowers, as in our A. V. of Ps. cxxix. 3 (see crit. comm.). Nor is the translation " carpenters," which has been borrowed from the LXX. the most correct. It is better to follow the rendering given by Ewald, Hitzig, and most of the modern critics, and understand " sviiths." Pressel has noted that a farmer suggested to him the true reason why smiths are specially alluded to. " When cattle, said the farmer, are driven out to the pasture, the points of the oxen's horns are often cut off, in order that they may be no longer dangerous, and as one is obliged for this purpose to use a particularly sharp instrument, he has generally recourse to a smith." It must be noted that in the vision the " smiths " are said to terrify, and to cast away the horns, i.e., to terrify the animals to whom the horns severally belonged, and to destroy and cast away, or throw down to the ground, their horns, as that in which their chief power lay. If we are right in identifying, with Pressel, " the four horns " with the empires of Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, and Medo-Persia, which empires in or before the prophet's time had scattered the holy people, we cannot be far astray in identifying " the four smiths," who in this vision terrified the wild animals to whom those horns be- Ch. ii. i,2(ii. 5,6).] THIRD VISION — THE MAN WITH THE LINE. 33 longed, by making the animals fast, and then cutting ofif the points of their horns, with Nebuchadnezzar who shattered the power of Assyria, Cyrus^ who broke down the pride of Babylon, Cambyses who finally subdued Egypt, which had been but humbled by Nebuchadnezzar, and Alexander the Great who in his turn levelled the might of Persia in the dust_ The prophet Haggai had predicted that the nations who had oppressed Israel should fall by the hands of one another (Hag. ii. 22) ; but Zechariah represents here the horns of the oppressing nations as broken off, not so much by those nations which succeeded in their turn to empire, as by the individual prowess of those mighty conquerors, who in these conquests, whether wittingly or not, acted as " servants " of the Most High. Two of these conquerors at least, Cyrus and Alexander, were peculiarly disposed to favour the Jewish nation. The first vision had proved that, amid the apparent quiet of the nations, Jahaveh was still cherishing love towards Israel, and designing wrath against their oppressors. The second vision pointed out how the might and power of the Gentile nations had been broken, though in Daniel's phrase- ology the lives of those beasts had been preserved for a season (Dan. vii. 12). The third vision exhibits a further stage in the development of the blessings intended for the people of God. /U^<^^ ■ l'^.-. . The prophet beheld in this new vision a man with a measuring line in his hand. The prophet forthwith interro- gated the man, and asked whither he was going ? The man re- plied that he was going forth " to measure Jerusalem, in order to see how great should be its breadth, and how great should be its length." This is Hitzig's translation. The words how- ever are ambiguous in themselves, and need not necessarily be so translated. They might refer to the actual condition of Jerusalem, either viewed as it then was, or regarded as fully restored and repeopled. This latter is the view of Kliefoth, D 34 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ii. 3, 4 (ii. 7, 8). who considers that the object of the man was not to rebuild Jerusalem, nor even to devise plans for its being rebuilt, but simply to ascertain its size, as seen in Messianic times. The words of the angel in ver. 4 seem to us opposed to this idea. For the man with the measuring line could do harm by taking the measurements, unless those measurements tended in some way or other to restrict and confine the city within too narrow bounds. As the man was busying himself about his self-imposed task, the interpreting angel seemed to leave the prophet's side,^ while another angel went forth to meet him, as if to receive his commands, as those of one in authority, for a certain subordination seems to exist amid the ranks of the angels. The interpreting angel, who, in order to instruct the prophet, had received a deeper insight into the Divine counsels as re- garded the future, directs his fellow angel forthwith to " Run, speak to this young man, saying, Jerusalem will remain as villages (or cities of the flat and open country), on account of the multitude of men and cattle in her midst." - The man with the measuring line is not to be regarded as an angel. He was sent forth on no mission from above. He appears as a mere figure in the vision, and one represented as acting unwisely. He may have been, as Neumann imagines, termed " this young man " by the angel, in allusion to his simplicity ; we are not, however, disposed to press that 1 Lit. "goes forth " (S>:^). Comp. Micah i. 3, lOlpOO NX* nin> HJn "<:>■ 2 Venema's view is that the interpreting angel went forth, following at some interval the measuring angel, in order to observe the result of his work, but that ere he came up with him, the other was already returning, having accomplished his task. The angel who had measured the city then directed the interpreting angel to return to the prophet, whom he designates as " a young man," and to com- municate to him God's purposes. Somewhat different is the opinion of Ewald, inasmuch as Ewald holds that it was an angel of far higher dignity, who, when the interpreting angel was desirous to learn the result of the measuring angel's work (Ewald believes that it is an angel who is designated as " this young man "), bids the interpreting angel to communicate to the latter the M'ill of God as to the extent of the future city. The view given above appears the simplest. Ch. ii. 4.] THIRD VISION— THE MAN WITH THE LINE. 35 point.' His action appeared unwise when considered from a higher standpoint. The hand from heaven (as Neumann expresses it) turned back from his folly the too hasty man, and drew him away from the work he had undertaken. The "young man " spoken of in ver. 4 must not be identified, as many commentators deem, with the prophet, but rather (as Maurer and Hitzig) with the man with the measuring line. What was said to him was spoken for the information of the prophet. Jerusalem, which the prophet then saw in her sad desolation, and but thinly inhabited, was destined by God's decree to be yet a city so large that like " all the greatest cities of the earth, it should without strong walls and gates spread itself out indefinitely like villages " (Ewald).^ Kliefoth maintains that if this were all that was signified, the city could still have been measured. But the text in no way implies that the city could not be measured, but simply narrates that the man was forbidden to measure it. The usage of the phrase " like villages," or " like cities of the open country," will not admit of the strain which Kliefoth puts upon it. For he maintains that the prophecy intimates that Jerusalem would be so increased in the future, that it would cease to present its old appearance, and instead of being a city girt about with walls, which could be measured, and its limits defined, it would consist of a number of open and scattered villages over the whole surface of the world. This state of ' Compare, however, with Neumann, Prov. i. 4, vii. 71 ; Kings iii. 7, xii 8 ff. 2 Compare the contrast between the 1V?P '^''V the fortified city, and the "•n$n "lp'3, the city of the plain (lit., the hamlet of the villager, or of him who dwelt in the open country), in I Sam. vi. 18, as also the expression in Ezekiel ntnsn |*"T[X ?y, against the land of villages, or towns in the open or flat country (xxxviii. II). In Esther ix. 19, we read of the Jews who were such villagers, (D''IpSn according to the Keri, or D^UlSn, according to the written text, which is dentical in meaning), i.e., inhabitants of the plain country, who were dwelling in the cities of the open country (ntTTSH ''^l??), or in the towns which lay in the fiat or open land. The throwing down of the strongholds (^nV3P"?3) is threat- ened as a judgment in Mic. v. 10 (ver. 11 in E. V.). The meaning of the root TIS seems to be " to stretch out," " to make level." 2,6 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ii. 4 (ii. 8). things, according to Kliefoth, the prophet predicts would be brought about by the glorious dwelling of Jahaveh in the midst of his people. To the translation "open places " in itself little objection can be made, but this explanation of its meaning is certainly an attempt to extract from this prophecy far more than its terms naturally imply. Nor is there any need to suppose that the prophecy refers to a still future period, as von Hofmann imagines. The pro- phecy was fulfilled by the restoration of the city of Jerusalem under the protection of God, even in troublous days. Though surrounded indeed by walls^ Jerusalem grew so fast that a considerable number dwelt in villages outside the walls (comp. Neh. xiii. 20, 21). Its population continually increased, The city was noted for its splendid appearance in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Aristeas' description of the cityat that era is still extant (see crit. comm.). If we could be certain that Herodotus refers to Jerusalem under the name of Cadytis, which he speaks of as "a city almost as large as Sardis" (Herod, iii. 5) we should have further evidence in support of this fact. But this identification has been disputed on reason- able grounds, and that city has been identified with Gaza.^ Yet if Gaza was so great, Jerusalem must have been far greater. Notwithstanding the many additions made to the city, Josephus speaks of it in the days of Herod Agrippa, by reason of the multitude of its inhabitants, as even then ex- tending beyond the walls, so that a new hill was occupied with its buildings, which portion was duly fortified by that king {Joseph. Bell. Jtid., v. 4, § 2). In the troublous times which intervened between the days of Zechariah and those of our Lord, notwithstanding the disasters that occasionally fell ^ Cadytis is equivalent to the Hebrew Kadesh, the Holy, the name retained in the Arabic name of Jerusalem, El Kiids. This might be explained to be Jeru- salem in Herod, ii. 159, the passage in iii. 5, however, shows that Gaza was the city really meant. See Rawlinson's Herodotti?, vol. ii. Ch.ii. 5-13 (ii- 9-17)-] THIRD VISION-ADDRESS OF THE ANGEL. 37 upon the holy city, abundant proof was given that the Lord was not forgetful of his promise specially to shield and protect it. The troubles that occurred ought to be viewed in the same light as the various afflictions that fell upon Israel after their entrance into the Promised Land, up to the days of David, notwithstanding the promises of Divine protection ; which promises would have been fully accomplished if the people had kept the covenant committed to them, and which promises were accomplished in great measure notwith- standing their many sins. The address to the prophet (ch. ii. 6-13), and through him to the Israelites who had not returned to their land, which address immediately follows, throws much light on the meaning of the vision. It is a matter of little importance whether the speaker be supposed to have been the angel of Jahaveh or the interpreting angel. The former is the more probable. The passage from ver. 6 to the end (ver. 13) must be considered to form but one address, although the angel sometimes identifies himself with Jahaveh (ver. 10), and some- times speaks as his delegate (ver. 8, 9). The angel speaks in the first person, when he gives the very words of God, and in the third when he conveys merely their general meaning (Pressel). The address begins with a call to the exiles still in Babylon to flee forth from that place. This command is partly a reminiscence of Isa. xlviii. 20, and of the similar injunctions to be found in Jer. li. 6, 9, 45. It was the Divine intention speedily to chastise the nations, and special judgments were to descend upon the inhabitants of Babylonia. The reason for the command immediately follows: "for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of heaven." Hitzig and Kliefoth (as also Ewald, with our A. V.) are correct in thus translating the word, which is to be regarded as the prophetic perfect, referring to blessings which were to come, and not to a disper- T,S ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ii. 6, 7 (ii. lo, ii). sion which was past. It cannot refer to a new dispersion of the covenant people which loomed darkly in the future. Nor does the sentence mean, " I have scattered you to the four winds of the heaven," which erroneous view of the passage has given rise to a various reading tending that way which occurs in some MSS., and is found in the Vulgate and the Syriac (see crit. comm.). For why, as Hitzig inquires, should the exiles be specially exhorted to return from the north, if they had been scattered to all the four winds of heaven ? The words contain the promise of a blessing, the greatness of which on the one hand, combined with the certainty of the judgments impending specially over Babylon on the other, was designed to stir up those exiles to return, who, for pur- poses of gain, or from fear of the journey and the troubles by the way, were yet lingering behind in the land whither their fathers had been carried away captive. While troubles were soon to break forth at Babylon, the land which was given by God to their forefathers was the land on which a blessing from God was to descend. By reason of that blessing the prophet Avas informed his people should yet be spread abroad (see crit. comm.) as the four winds of heaven, and fill the face of the world with fruit (Isa. xxvii. 6). As in later days the apostles were bidden to tarry in Jerusalem until they were endued with power from on high (Luke xxiv. 49), so the exiles were here commanded to return to Jerusalem, and to the land of their forefathers, as the place in which they would receive the promised blessing, as well as avoid the impending dangers. What these dangers were may be seen from the great inscription of Darius cut into the rock at -Behistun, and supposed by Sir H. Rawlinson to have been executed in the fifth year of the reign of Darius. That inscription records two great rebellions in Babylonia, and two captures of the Ch. ii. h io(ii. 12-16}.] THIRD VISION-ADDRESS OF THE ANGEL. 39 city of Babylon, one effected by Darius in person, the other by one of his generals.^ The Jews in Babylon who did not listen to the prophetic warning, suffered no doubt severely in the confusions of that period ; while those who returned to Palestine, and obeyed the command to flee out of Babylon, delivered their souls, that is their lives, and were not cut off in her iniquity. The promise w^as further made that God would send his angel — the Angel of Jahaveh. This great angel announces that Jahaveh had sent him " after glory ; " that is, not merely to acquire honour by the success of his mission (Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald), nor, as Bottcher has attempted to prove {De In/ens, ^§408-410), on an honourable mission (see crit. comm.), but in order to get honour over the heathen by the display, first of judgment and then of mercy. The first proof of his coming was to be seen in the lighting down of the anger of Jahaveh upon the nations which had plundered and oppressed those who were indeed as precious as the apple of his eye. " The daughter of Zion " was specially bidden to rejoice and be glad, because Jahaveh himself would come and dwell in her midst ; which can scarcely signify that the Lord would exhibit once more his glory in the sanctuary, as in the days of old. As interpreted by the later prophecies, the promise seems rather to refer to the comins: of Christ in the flesh. ^ The first was that of Nadinta-bekis, or Nidintabel, as it is in the Median text. He pretended to be Nebuchadnezzar, raised a powerful army, and fought a pitched battle in which he was utterly routed, and slain after the capture of Babylon. The second rebellion was that of Aracus (Arakha), who also became king of Babylon on the same pretence, but who was afterwards defeated by Inta- phernes and crucified. A different account of what was probably the first rebellion is given in Herod, (iii. 150-159). The readiness of the Babylonians to join in these rebellions proves how sorely they must have felt the altered state of circumstances under which they were no longer rulers but subjects. Sir H. Rawlinson's transla- tion of the Behistun inscription appears in Records of the Past, vol. i., and the translation of the Median text by Dr. J. Oppert in the Records, vol. vii. The text and translation of the former is also given by Prof. George Rawlinson at the end of his edition of Herodotus. 40 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ii. ii (ii. 15). In consequence of this advent it is further said, " Many nations shall join themselves to Jahaveh in that day, and shall be to me for a people ; so will I dwell in thy midst, and thou shalt know that Jahaveh of hosts hath sent me unto thee." ■ Thus the nations or Gentiles are distinctly predicted as destined to enter into the very same relations with God as the Hebrews themselves ; while it is not asserted that in doing so those nations would be compelled to model their national life after that of the Hebrews. Stahelin justly recognises here the higher strain of prophecy, and the idea of the spread of the true religion among the Gentile world, which character- ises the latter chapters of Isaiah (xl.-lxv.), which chapters in other places also are imitated by Zechariah.^ The points touched upon in this exhortation are that Jahaveh would visit the heathen in judgment; that he would dwell in the midst of Israel ; and that, as a consequence thereof, many of the heathen would be joined to the people of Judah, and form with them one people. The first two of these are distinctly set forth in the second and third visions. The last particular, namely, the admission of the Gentiles into covenant with God, in such a way as to form one people with the Jews, is mentioned here, where the enlargement of the city of Jerusalem might have been expected to be spoken of. This leads us to conclude, not indeed with Kliefoth, that the foundation and enlargement of the spiritual Jerusalem was primarily the subject of the third vision, but that the enlarge- ment of the earthly city was in reality but a type and picture of the building of that spiritual city in whose light the nations of them that are saved should walk (Rev. xxi. 23, comp. Heb. xii. 22). Another point, however, yet remains to be noticed in this remarkable address, namely, the expression " Jahaveh shall ' Stahelin, Die Messt'anisc/ieu WcissagH7tgen dcs alten T^jA pp. 11 8-9. Ch. ii. 12 (ii. i6).] THIRD VISION— ADDRESS OF THE ANGEL 4I inherit (the tense is the prophetic perfect) Judah as his portion upon {i.e. in) the holy land." The first words are almost a quotation from Deut. xxxii. 9, " For the portion of Jahaveh is his people, Jacob is the lot of his inheritance ;" and their use tends to prove that by the name Judah in this place all Israel is signified. But the verse immediately preceding that state- ment in Zechariah says that the people of God and the people of the covenant were not to be confined to " Israel after the flesh." Judah seems to be used here as a name for Israel in general, because by far the larger portion of the returned exiles belonged to that tribe, and its name ultimately became that of the nation. But the blessings promised to Israel, and especially the promise of becoming the Lord's portion and inheritance, are blessings not confined to " Israel after the flesh," but are part and parcel of the glorious privi- lege of " the Israel of God " (Gal. vi. 16). The term " holy land " is found only in this single passage. Synonymous expressions, such as the land of Jahaveh (Isa. xiv. 2 ; Hos. ix. 3), the land of Immanuel (Isa. viii. 8), occur elsewhere, and the term " holy cities " is used for the cities of the land of Israel (Isa. Ixiv. 10 ; comp. Ps. Ixxviii. 54). Jeru- salem is also termed the " holy city " (Isa. Hi.' i ; Neh. xi. i), and frequent mention is made of the "holy mountain," etc. The land of Palestine is no doubt primarily meant in Zech. ii. 12, but as the land is holy where Jahaveh dwells (Exod. iii. 5), and as the people of the Lord are expressly mentioned by the prophet as destined ultimately to consist of all " the nations of the earth," the passage will bear a more extended reference. The prophecy was fulfilled in the blessings granted to the Jews in their own land, and in the honour placed upon that land by the advent and ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ. Kohler fancifully maintains that part of the prophecy was fulfilled in the days of Zerubbabel, and part in the days of our Lord ; that the promised glory was withheld in its fulness 42 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ii. 12. at our Lord's first advent on account of the unbelief of the Jewish nation ; that, therefore, its full accomplishment is reserved for a still future day, when Jerusalem shall be no longer trodden down of the Gentiles, the times of the Gentiles having been fulfilled (Luke xxi. 24). CHAPTER II THE FOURTH VISION— JOSHUA BEFORE THE ANGEL. CHAPTER II, Introductory — The High Priest before the Angel, 46 — Hengstenberg's view, 46 — Objections of Pressel, Kohler, and Pusey, 47 — View of Kohler and Pressel, 47 — The High Priest engaged in some sacerdotal duty, 47 — Ewald's view of the passage, 48— Objections of Hitzig, 49 — Dean Stanley's comments, 49 — Objec- tions, 50 — The filthy garments, 50 — The Adversary rebuked, 51, 52 — The brand plucked from the fire, 52 — Jewish legend, 51, note — Neumann's view of Satan, 52, note. Rebuke mentioned in Epist. of Jude, 53 — Differences between Judeand Zechariah, 53 — Legend mentioned by CEcumenius, 54 — The "Assump- tion of Moses," 54, 55 — Contests between Sammael and Michael, Sammael and Moses, 55 — Legend of death of Moses, 55 — View of von Hoffman, 56 — Difficulties in supposing Jude to have referred to the " Assumptio," 56, 57, 59 — The body of Moses and the body of Christ, 57 — Heidenheim's view, 57, note — Baumgarten's view of the connection with Jude and Zechariah, 58 — The burial of Moses, 58, 59— Joshua the representative of Israel, 60 — The filthy garments removed, 60, 61 — The change of raiment, 61 — The clean mitre, 61, 62 — The cry of Zechariah, 6;^— Close of the scene, 64^Adjuration of the Angel, 64. CHAPTER II. THE FOURTH VISION — JOSHUA BEFORE THE ANGEL. The third vision had brought vividly before the prophet's mind the fact of the coming of the Lord to Israel, and the momentous consequences with which that coming was fraught. Israel was once more to be the people of the Lord, and the holy city was to be enlarged. But the people of the covenant were no longer to be confined to persons of the stock of Abraham, but to consist of " many nations." The fourth vision, recorded in the third chapter, is connected with the prophecy of the coming of Jahaveh recorded in the second chapter, in a way similar to that in which the puri- fication of the sons of Levi, spoken of by Malachi, stands related to the prophecy of the coming of the Angel of the Covenant predicted by that prophet (Mai. iii. 1-4). It is unnecessary to examine at any length by whose instrumentality the fourth vision was pointed out to the prophet The matter cannot be decided with any degree of certainty. The subject to the verb "showed," in the first verse, is most naturally considered to be the interpreting angel. It cannot be proved that the ofiice of that angel " was to explain, not to show the visions " (Pusey, Kohler, and Keil). The interpreting angel in the very next vision, is represented as showing the vision as well as interpret- ing the same.^ It is more in accordance with the analogy ^ Nor does the passage in cliap. i. 20 prove that the vision of "the four smiths " was exhibited by the Lord to the prophet without the intervention of the interpreting angel. It is better to explain even the statement of that verse, in the context in Mfhich it occurs, as signifying that the interpreting angel was the medium of the revelation. 46 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iii. 1-3. of the visions of Ezekiel, and with those of St. John in the New Testament, as well as with the general scope of this vision, to view the interpreting angel as the person who ex- hibited the various scenes to the prophet. In the vision before us Joshua the high priest was seen to stand before the Angel of Jahaveh. At the right hand of the high priest appeared the Adversary (for the use of the article proves that the word is not to be regarded as a regular proper name, as in i Chron. xxi. i ; Ps. cix. 6 ; see crit comm.), opposing in some way the action of the high priest, or accusing him to the angel. Joshua was meanwhile clothed in filthy garments, and stood before the angel. It is not clearly intimated for what purpose the high priest was •thus standing before the angel. For the phrase, " to stand before one," is used in a judicial sense, both of the plaintiff (Num. xxvii. 2 ; i Kings iii. 16) and the defendant (Num. XXXV. 12 ; Deut. xix. 17 ; Josh. xx. 6)} But it is also used more frequently in a ministerial signification, of an inferior standing before his superior for service, and in order to minister to him (Gen. xli. 46 ; Deut. i. 38 ; i Kings i. 2 ; I Kings X. 8, etc.). Hengstenberg is of opinion that the high priest was seen in the sanctuary engaged in the work of his priestly ofifice (comp. Jud. XX. 28 ; 2 Chron. xxix. 1 1), and that the Angel of the Lord, to testify his approval, condescended to appear in the temple attended by a company of angels (see ver. 7). Satan, beholding with envy this restoration of gracious relations between the people of God and their Lord, sought to damage the high priest by his accusations. But the accusations of Satan, though true (as proved by the filthiness ' These passages are quite sufficient to refute the very incautious statement of Hengstenberg, that this expression is never used of the appearance of a de- fendant before a judge, but always of a servant before his lord. Hengstenberg, however, no doubt regarded these passages in different light. Ch. iii. 1-3.] FOURTH VISION— JOSHUA BEFORE THE ANGEL. 47 of the garments in which the high priest ministered), were repelled by a gracious manifestation of God's pardoning grace, declared through the Angel of the Lord, Pressel goes too far when he asserts that this exposition (adopted among the moderns not only by Hengstenberg, but by Schegg and Baumgarten, and held by Theodoret among the early expositors) scarcely requires refutation. Dr. Pusey considers it a decisive objection against the view taken by Hengstenberg, that though " the angel speaks with au- thority, yet God's Presence in him is not spoken of so distinctly, that the high priest could be exhibited as stand- ing before him, as in his office before God." In the course of the vision, it is true, no mention is made of any act of wor- ship performed on the part of the high priest, nor of any intercession made by him. Throughout the scene he appears rather in the character of one accused. But the force of all these objections can be broken by a very slight modification of this view. Kohler's objection, that the high priest would not have been represented as venturing to appear before God to perform the duties of his sacerdotal function in filthy garments (Exod. xix. 10), is rather out of place, when it is remembered that the whole is a vision. It has been maintained that the only alternative is to regard Joshua as standing before the judgment-seat of the angel (Kohler, Pressel). Satan is supposed to have occupied the ordinary position of an accuser of the high priest, by standing at his right side, in accordance with the practice on such occasions, depicted in Ps. cix. 6. But no regular judicial process is described in the vision, and no mention is made of the angel's sitting on a throne of judgment. The reference made by Hitzig to such passages as Ps. ix. 5, Isa. xxviii. 6, does not prove this point. The high priest was probably seen in the vision, busied about some part of his priestly duties. While thus engaged, 48 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iii. 1-3. he discovered that he was actually standing as a criminal before the angel, and while the great Adversary accused him, the truth of that accusation was but too clearly seen by the filthy garments with which he then perceived that he was attired. The scene is not described with sufficient fulness to allow us to decide with certainty as to the locality in which it took place. The high priest, as Lange notes, in an ideal sense stood always in the presence of God. But the express mention of his being clad in filthy garments, clearly indicates that he ought to have been clad in clean and white robes, such as those which the high priest was commanded to wear on special occasions. Wherever he may have been standing, he appeared in the character of God's high priest. His appearance in filthy official robes (which would have been a gross transgression of the Law of Moses had it occurred in fact) symbolized the transgressions with which the high priest was defiled, and rendered him an easy prey to the malicious accusations of the Adversary of Israel. Ewald's interpretation of this passage must be rejected as purely fanciful. According to his view, the high priest was actually accused at the time, or was then dreading an accusa- tion, at the Persian court. This accusation is supposed to form the superstructure on which the vision is built. Zech- ariah, with pecuHar sympathy, depicts the high priest as suffering under grievous accusations, and promises him a glorious acquittal. The garments of the high priest are repre- sented as dirty, because robes of that character were usually worn by accused persons as indicative of mourning. The ardent hopes of the prophet were, according to Ewald, soon justified by the event. On receipt of the governor's report, which presented an impartial statement of facts, an inquiry was instituted by authority into the case, the accusation was repelled, and the decree of Cyrus which had given permission Ch. iii. 1-3.] FOURTH VISION.— JOSHUA BEFORE THE ANGEL. 49 for the rebuilding of the temple was duly confirmed and ordered to be carried into execution. The passages in Ezra relied upon by Ewald in support of this interpretation (Ezra v, 5, vi. 13), do not really support it. Nothing is said in them of any personal accusations preferred against Joshua as the representative of the people. Hitzig has rightly considered it fatal to Ewald's interpre- tation that Zerubbabel, not Joshua, was the real represen- tative of the Jewish people. For the former was the civil governor of the colony, and the real leader in the work of restoration (Ezra iv. 2 ; see also Zech. iv. 7, 9). Moreover, as Hitzig further argues, there is no mention in Zechariah of any accusation made at the Persian court ; the accusation alluded to in this chapter is an accusation preferred before Jahaveh, or his Angel, and it can in no way refer to a charge made before the tribunal of an earthly monarch. Further, as has often been observed (Kohler, etc.), the custom of accused persons presenting themselves before a tribunal in sordid attire was in accordance with Roman usage, but opposed to Jewish habits. Josephus informs us that in such cases persons were wont to appear habited in black garments {Antiq., xiv. 9, § 4). But the garments of Joshua were not black robes, but robes defiled with abominable filth, as the expression in the original most distinctly indicates. Still more fanciful is the short comment on the passage by Dean Stanley, based on Ewald's interpretation. " The splen- did attire of the high priest, studded with jewels, had been detained at Babylon, or, at least, could not be worn without the special permission of the king ; and until the accusations had been cleared away this became still more impossible (i Esdras iv. 54; Ewald, v. 85). But the day was coming, as was seen in Zechariah's dream, when the adversary would be baffled, the cause won, and the soiled and worn clothing of the suffering exile be replaced by the old magnificence of E 50 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iii. 1-3. Aaron or Zadok." ^ It is a pity that such unproved assump- tions should be put forward as sober history. Apart from all .other considerations, the " filthy garments " described in the vision cannot have been " soiled and worn clothing," nor can the counter expressions signify " the splendid attire of the high priest." The filthy garments worn by the high priest denote the sins by which he was encompassed. Thus we read in Isaiah " We are all as the unclean, and all our righteousness as a defiled garment " (Isa. Ixiv. 5) ; " When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion " (Isa. iv. 4) ; and mention is made in the Proverbs of " a generation clean in its own eyes, and it is not washed from its filthiness " (Prov. XXX. 9). In all these passages the noun is used with which the adjective found in our text is connected." It has been argued (Kohler, Pressel) that the sin referred to was none other than the neglect of the rebuilding of the temple, in which no doubt the high priest, from his position, had a heavy share. But though this may have been one of those sins of which Joshua was guilty, and of which he was accused by the Adversary, there is little doubt that, while Joshua's own personal sins added their quota to the filthiness of his garments, he is represented in the vision not merely as laden with his own sins, but with those of the people whose representative as high priest he was before God. For the high priest was the representative of the priesthood, and the priests representatives of the people of Israel, who were " a kingdom of priests and a holy nation " (Exod. xix. 6). Joshua's sin is therefore spoken of in verse 9 as "the sin of the land," whereby the whole people were defiled (Hitzig). " Since, ' Lectures on the Jiivish Church, \o\. iii. p. 103. Second Edition. - No less emphatic are other passages, such as " and they were defiled in their own works (-IXJPPM) " Ps. cvi. 39. Comp. the kindred expressions in Rev. iii. 4, vii. 14 (see crit . comm. ). Ch. iii. 1-3.] FOURTH VISION. — JOSHUA BEFORE THE ANGEL. 5 I also, the whole series of visions relates to the restoration from the Captivity, the guilt for which Satan impleads him with Jerusalem, and Jerusalem in him, includes the whole guilt, which had rested upon them, so that for a time God had seemed to have cast away his people " (Pusey). ^ That this is the true view of the case appears by the words of the angel with which he rebuked the Adversary. "Ja- haveh rebuke thee, O thou Adversary, even Jahaveh rebuke thee, he who delights in Jerusalem ; is not this a brand plucked out of the fire .-' " In other words, because the Lord delights in Jerusalem, notwithstanding the offences of the people, the priesthood of Levi which ministered for the people in holy things would be rendered once more acceptable in his sight. Hence God had already delivered both priests and people from captivity as brands plucked out of the fire.^ ^ The Targumist, and the Jewish commentators R. Salomo-ben-Yizhak (Rashi), Kimchi and others, are guilty of an anachronism in supposing the guilt alluded to to be that Joshua's sons had married strange wives (Ezra x. 18). Those marriages took place at least sixty years later than the vision of Zechariah. Jerome does not exactly state his agreement in this opinion, but he writes as if he were not aware of the anachronism involved. " Quod autem sequitur, Jesus erat imbutus vestibus sordidis, tripliciter interpretantur vel ob conjugium illicitum, vel ob peccata populi, vel propter squalorem captivitatis." ' ^ Jewish tradition has concocted a stoiy, based on the statements here made regarding Joshua, and those respecting Ahab and Zedekiah, the false prophets, in Jer. xxix. 20, 23. The story is in itself a strange tissue of anachronisms. Accord- ing to it Sennacherib's daughter accused Ahab and Zedekiah of tempting her to violate her chastity. They pleaded in excuse a Divine direction. .Sennacherib thereupon determined to try them by fire, stating that if their words were true they would no doubt be delivered as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. On their pleading that they were but two persons, and so might not thus be saved, the king gave them liberty to select a companion to be cast into the fire with them. They selected accordingly Joshua the high priest, hoping to be delivered through his merits, but perished in the flames, while Joshua was saved, though his garments were consumed. On the king asking the cause of this fact, since the garments of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, were not affected by the fire, Joshua replied that it was because of the united merits of the three men. The king rejoined that Abraham, though likewise cast into the fire of the Chaldeans, had escaped though a single individual. Whereupon Joshua answered that his garments were de- stroyed because they were defiled by his companionship with the evil men in whos3 company he had been cast into the flames. The moral of the strange story is 52 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iii. 1-3. The reference in the last clause must, after the analogy of Amos iv. II, be interpreted as referring to the heavy judg- ments of God, by which the people had been consumed as in a furnace. The bondage in Egypt is spoken of elsewhere as an iron furnace (Deut. iv. 20 ; i Kings viii. 5 1 ; Jer. xi. 4), and the captivity in Babylon likewise is termed (Isa. xlviii. 10) " the furnace of affliction." Kohler considers the fire to refer to the guilt under w^hich the nation lay on account of their neglect of the rebuilding of the temple. This neglect had rendered the people " un- clean " in the eyes of the Lord (Hag, ii. 11-15) and brought down on them God's heavy displeasure. Out of this state of indifference they had been graciously revived, and both priests and people had been stirred up to " consider their ways " by the preaching of Haggai and Zechariah, God, who had had mercy on them in their lowest estate, would not now cast them off on account of that sin and guilt from which he had saved them by his grace. But, as Keil remarks, if Satan's accusation had been based chiefly on the neglect of restoring the temple, the accusation would have been rather late, for the active resumption of the work of rebuilding the holy edifice had taken place five months previously to the vision (comp. Hag. i. 15 with Zech. i. 7). Moreover, though guilt may lead to ruin, it cannot be suitably described as a fire, nor can the removal of that guilt be pictured as a deliverance out of the fire. " Fire is a symbol of punishment not of sin " (Keil). The deliverance commenced with the rebuke of the Ad- versary. No railing accusation was adduced against him, but he was rebuked with solemn dignity. His accusations were indeed true ; but they proceeded from malice on his part.^ that the pious few on earth often suffer in this world by reason of the sins of those about them, but shall be saved in the world to come. See Buxtorf s Lex. Chald, and Talm., under the word D'']'^, ^ The idea of Neumann, that Satan is to be regarded not as a distinct evil Ch. iii. 1-3.] FOURTH VISION. — JOSHUA BEFORE THE ANGEL. 53 His malice insured his own overthrow. " The rebuke of God," as Pusey has well observed, " must be with power." It carries destruction in its train. '* Thou hast rebuked the nations, thou hast destroyed the ungodly" (Ps. ix. 5). "The nations shall rush (roar) like the rushing (roaring) of many waters : but he shall rebuke them, and they shall flee far off, and shall be chased as the chaff of the mountains before the wind, and like a rolling thing (rather, like chaff) before the whirlwind" (Isa. xvii. 13). The rebuke here administered by the angel to Satan is identical with that mentioned in the Epistle of Jude (ver. 9), where Michael the archangel is spoken of as contending about the body of Moses. The " Angel of Jahaveh " in Zechariah is probably identical with the angel called by the name of Michael in the book of Daniel (comp. Josh. v. 14 and Dan. xii. i), for that angel is represented as having authority over other angels, and as bearing the name of Jahaveh, and standing up for the people of the Lord.' The only difference between the passages in Zechariah and Jude is, that the subject matter of dispute in the New Testament is said to have been about " the body of Moses," while in the Old Testament it was concerning Joshua the high priest. Origen, Didymus of Alexandria, and Apollinaris ^ expressly state that the quotation in Jude is from an apocryphal book, the title of which, as given by Origen and Didymus is, " the Ascension," or "Assumption, of Moses." ^ spirit, but as a personification of the wrath of God, which is here represented as overcome by God's mercy, does not merit serious examination. Neumann cites in its defence several curious opinions of Jewish authorities, as, for instance, that the old serpent, Sammael, at the end of the world shall be changed into Messiah, the destroyer of Leviathan, an idea based on the fact that the numerical value of the letters in the word for serpent KTIJ corresponds with that of the word Messiah. ' But see Note on the Angel of Jahaveh, on p. 21. 2 See the passages given in full in Fritzsche's Libri ApocTyphi Vet. Test. Gr(vce (Lips. 1871), in Prsefatio, pp. 34, 35. The book in question is called by Origen 'Avd/Soo-is toO Mwcr^wj, or, as it is 54 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iii. 1-3. It has been also supposed that CEcumenius (in Judae ep. Bibl. Patr. iv. p. 336) quoted from this apocryphal book ; but this is by no means certain, for Qicumenius does not men- tion the book, and the dispute between Satan and Michael which he relates (from whatever source he derived it) was a dispute regarding the burial of Moses, which Michael was sent to perform, but which Satan opposed on the ground of the murder of the Egyptian, of which Moses had been guilty in his early career. Some fragments of an apocryphal book of this name were published by Fabricius in 1722, but were too small to enable any judgment to be formed as to the nature of that book. In 1 86 1, however, Dr. Ceriani, the chief librarian of the Ambro- sian Library at Milan, published a large consecutive portion from an ancient palimpsest, considered by competent scholars to be of the date of the sixth century, if not earlier. Since the publication of Ceriani's work, the book has attracted the attention of many eminent scholars,^ who are agreed that it was com.posed in the first century after Christ, if not earlier. - translated in Rufinus' translation of Origen's work, known as " Origen De Prin- cipiis," iii. 2, as the Greek original is lost, the " Adscensio Mosis," and quoted as the 'Avd\ri^is Mwo-^ws (Mwwe'ws) by Gelasius (Comm. Act. Council. Nicceni, ii. 20), called by Didymus of Alexandria in the Latin translation, "Moyseos Assumptio." The book is quoted also by Clement of Alexandria, Evodius and Gelasius, without, however, any reference being made to the dispute in question. See the quota- tions in Fritzsche's work. It is likewise mentioned as one of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament in one of the doubtful works of Athanasius, namely, the " Synopsis Sacrte Scripture," and by Nicephonis of Constantinople in his " Stichometria" appended to the Chronicon of Eusebius. Nicephorus mentions that it contained 1400 verses, i.e. that it was as large as the Revelation of St. John, to which the same number of verses was attributed (see Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test, extra Canonem rcccpt. Lips. 1866 : Mosis Assumpt. p. 98), in which case we have perhaps nearly one-third of the work still extant, see also note next page. ^ Fritzsche, to whose introductory preface we must refer, gives a considerable list of books and articles from eminent scholars, among whom we may mention the names of Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Schmidt and Merx, Langen, Haupt, Ronsch, Wieseler, Colani and Heidenlieim, to which must be added the articles by Ewald, {Gotting.gelehr. Anzeigen, 1862), v. Gutschmid, and Weiss, referred to by Hilgen- feld and Merx. 2 Wieseler considers that it dates from two years before the Christian era ; Ch. iii. 1-3.] FOURTH VISION— JOSHUx\ BEFORE THE ANGEL. 55 From the portion discovered it is very doubtful whether the book in question ever contained any account of a dispute between Michael and Satan touching " the body of Moses." ^ The account of the contest between Sammael, the Angel of Death, and Michael, given in the Debarim Rabbah, was one respecting the soul of Moses, not about his body after death. The Angel of Death, says that legend, wished to take away the life of Moses, while Michael bitterly grieved at the thought. The conversation between the two could not have been that referred to by Jude, as it was not properly speaking a dispute, nor is Michael said in the legend to have used the words of rebuke quoted by the apostle. Mention, however, is made in the same legend of an actual contest which took place afterwards between Moses and the Angel of Death, whom Moses put to flight by striking him with his rod, on which was inscribed the sacred name of Jahaveh. The legend closes with the statement that God at last descended with Michael and two attendant angels, stripped off the garments of Moses, and with a kiss drew forth his soul from his body. Ewald assigns it to the date a.d. 6 ; Hilgenfeld ascribes it to A. d. 46 ; while Schmidt and Merx think it must have been written between a.d. 54 and 64. It is agreed that its composition must have been of a date prior to the dest^-uction of Jerusalem by Titus. ' Hilgenfeld's remarks on p. 115 of his edition prove that he has his doubts on this point, though he gives Jude 9 among the fragments of the Mosis Asstimptio. Drummond in his Jcioish Messuih asserts the fact as if it were not doubtful. But Schmidt and Merx {Archiv fiir wissenschaftl. Erforsclmng des A.T., Band i. p. 126) express decided doubts on the subject. They refer to a note in the margin of the MS. written by one who had the whole book before him, in which it is stated that the work contains the prophecies of Moses in Deuteronomy, i.e. is a prophetico-historical expansion of Deut. xxxii., and that Moses is throughout the chief speaker, which would lead us to the conclusion that the book does not refer to circumstances after his death. The matter cannot be decided with certainty. Fritzsche seems also to have the same doubts, and to consider that Jude refers only to a tradition current- among the Jews (Prasf. p. xxxv.). Schmidt and Merx note that the book, as far as one can judge from its re- mains, has less affinity to the fantastical Haggada as it is given in the Debarim Rabbah (quoted above from Cappellus' notes on Jude in the Critici Sacri, and from Norck's Rabb. Parall. in Jude 9, pp. 365, 366) than with a Midrashic account of which we find traces in the Targum on the Canticles. 56 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iii. 1-3. The soul of Moses was placed by the Almighty beneath his throne with the cherubim and seraphim, while the body of the lawgiver was interred by the angels. The Targum Jerushalmi on Deut. xxxiv. 6, speaks of the grave of Moses as prepared and adorned by Michael and Gabriel and others, but no allusion is made there to any contest with Satan. As Huther has noted (in Meyer's Krit. wid exeg. Comm. on Jitde), there is no trace of any story like that in Jude to be found in the Rabbinical writings or in the book of Enoch, Nor are there any grounds but critical con- jecture for the opinion expressed by Schmid, v. Hofmann {Schriftb. i. p. 295), and Luthardt, that the cause of the con- • tention between Satan and the Archangel was that Michael would not suffer the devil to exercise his power over the corpse of Moses, but rather sought to preserve that holy body from corruption. The extreme uncertainty (i) whether, notwithstanding the statement -of the Fathers, who may have spoken from hearsay, " the Assumption of Moses," ever contained any account of a conflict between Michael and Satan respecting "the body of Moses " ; (2) the possibility that, if such a contest was narrated in that book, it was substantially identical with that already quoted from Jewish sources relating to the soul of Moses ; for the legend about Moses' body mentioned by QEcumenius cannot be traced to an earlier period or to a Jewish source ; (3) the probability that the Church Fathers referred to the well-known Jewish legend, although that legend casts no light whatever on the passage in Jude ; (4) the utter absence of all proof, even on the supposition that a similar dispute was actually related in " the Assump- tion of Moses" that the special words quoted by Jude as spoken by the archangel were found in that apocryphal book; (5) the facts on the other hand that a dispute be- tween Satan and the Archangel is mentioned by the prophet Ch. iii. 1-3.] FOURTH VISION. — JOSHUA BEFORE THE ANGEL. 5/ Zechariah, in which (6) the very words quoted by St. Jude do occur: all these reasons combined incline us to believe that there is more than is generally admitted in the opinion, rejected indeed by De Wette, Huther and Alford, but held among the ancient expositors by Severus and Bede, and among the more modern by Junius and Hammond, namely, that the expression " body of Moses " in Jude is to be under- stood in an allegorical sense, in which case it may well signify, as Junius supposed, the Church and people of Israel. It is true that no instance can be cited in which " the body of Moses," or any similar expression, is used for the people of Israel,^ but it is possible that the phrase might have been employed by St. Jude in that signification in imitation of the expression " the body of Christ," which is used in re- ference to the Church of Christ in the epistles of St. Paul, and in view of the fact that the Jewish Church in the writer's day had become bitterly opposed to the Church of Christ, while it looked back to Moses as its teacher, a claim which might well be admitted as true in the most real sense of the Jewish Church in the days of Zechariah. ^ 'Junius, as quoted, in Poll Synopsis, refers to 2 Mace. xv. 12 as an instance in point, where lie says tliat use is made of the expression " tlie body of the Jews " (corpus Judceorum) for the Jewisli people. But the phrase in 2 Mace. xv. 12 is Tu)v'lovBal" in ver. 5 ought rather to be rendered "clean;" that the contrast between " filthy" and " clean " is most distinctly seen in white garments ; and that the " filthy " character of the high priest's robes was the point which attracted the attention of the prophet, himself a priest ; we cannot resist the conviction that the high priest was re- presented to Zechariah on this occasion as habited in the linen garments which were commanded to be used on the Day of Atonement, and that he was conceived to be engaged in the work of making atonement for the people, possibly in some rude tent erected amid the ruins of the holy temple. In visions or dreams no note is taken of the times and seasons in which the dream or vision may occur, and hence it is no objection to this view that the month in which the priest- prophet saw his vision was not the month in which the Day of Atonement actually occurred. The gross impropriety, both morally and ceremonially, of the high priest being attired in " filthy garments," would under such circumstances be most striking. The white linen garments directed to be worn on such occasions were holy garments (Lev. xvi. 4), and by their purity and whiteness were designed to represent " the right- eousness of saints" (Rev. xix. 8). The dress which the high priest wore on that day indicated no superiority on his part above his fellow priests save as regards the white turban which he wore on his head. For on that linen mitre, as well as on the more gorgeous mitro which he wore on other occasions, the plate of gold with the inscription " Holiness to 'See Job xxix. 14 where the word {^"'V^) seems to mean a diadem, as in Isa. Ixii. 3, where the Keri has fl''jy but the text fj-UV not f]ijy It is however used of a head-dress of women in Isa. iii. 23, if the word there be not, as Furst thinks, the plural of the fern. nS'^JV. ^ Ch. iii. 5.] FOURTH VISION. — JOSHUA BEFORE THE ANGEL. 63 the Lord " was directed to be placed (Exod. xxviii. ^6, 38, and xxix. 6). Hence the anxiety, expressed by the priest-prophet as he gazed upon the vision, to behold the transformation fully completed by the white diadem being placed on the brow of the high priest of Israel. As Isaiah was unable to behold the wonders of his vision without being deeply affected by the sight, and without expressing that feeling by an exceeding bitter cry (Isa. vi. 5), so Zechariah was forced to give vent to the feelings pent up within his heart (feelings so natural to one of the priestly order) — "And I said, Let them place a clean mitre on his head." In translating the word in this clause by " mitre," we, of course, give not only a translation but an interpretation. There are no real grounds to consider the reading of the Hebrew text as incorrect, or to compel us, with Ewald and others, to adopt the reading of two MSS. and of the Vulg. and Syr., namely, " and he said," in which case the words would have to be regarded as a command of the angel.^ The 3rd pers. imperfect, used in the original ("let them place"), is pre- . ferably regarded, as Hitzig observes, as expressing the wish of the prophet, rather than as the command of the angel to his subordinates. Thus was the high priest formally reinstated in God's favour, and, in his person, the guilt of Israel was removed, and an assurance given that the offspring of Judah and Jerusalem would be pleasant unto the Lord as in the days of old and as in former years (Mai. iii. 4). It is rather fanciful to regard (with Hitzig, v. Hofmann and Pressel) the words rendered in our version, " and the ^ Von Hofmann strangely imagines that the angel intended that Joshua's liead should remain for a while without a covering, as a crown was later to be put upon it (chap. vi. 9-15), but that the prophet, not understanding this, begged that a turban or mitre should be put on it, which the angel agreed to out of con- descension to his weakness. The vision does not speak of the exaltation of the high priesthood to the royal dignity as foreshadowing the kingdom and priest- hood of our Lord Jesus Christ. The introduction of such a thought licre would be inappropriate. 64 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iii. 5-7. angel stood by," to signify that, after the high priest had been clothed with the " change of raiment," and "the clean mitre " had been placed on his head, the Angel of Jahaveh rose up from the judgment seat, on which he had previously been sit- ting, and stood, in intimation that the trial was now at an end. The words of the original more naturally convey the meaning suggested in our Authorised Version, namely, that, while the change was being effected in Joshua's appearance, the angel stood by, looking on in token of satisfaction and approval. The vision was brought to a close by a solemn adjuration addressed to Joshua by the Angel of Jahaveh, which con- tains a prophecy of future events, The high priest was solemnly adjured to walk in the way of the Lord and to keep 'his testimonies. He was assured that if he did so the Lord would grant to him the right to judge his house, and to guard his courts ; while a further blessing was also promised, into the meaning of which we shall presently inquire. The accent which usually divides the two principal parts of a verse in the Hebrew text is placed on ''my courts!' Kimchi, Dathe and von Hofmann, accordingly make the apodosis to begin with " I will give thee, etc." But the Hebrew accentu- ation would be the same even if with Ewald and the great majority of modern critics, we consider our Authorised Ver- sion to be correct, which makes the apodosis of the verse to commence with the words "then thou shalt also judge my house." This latter construction is most agreeable to the laws of Hebrew syntax, and to the context of the passage (see crit. comm.). Satan's accusation was brought forward in order that Joshua and his fellows, as being polluted, might be put away from the priesthood. The angel having commu- nicated to the high priest the Divine absolution, and having in token thereof clothed him with a complete change of raiment, confirmed him and his fellows in their sacerdotal offices on the simple condition of obedience -for the future. Ch. iii. 7.] FOURTH VISION— JOSHUA BEFORE THE ANGEL. 65 The words " my house," in ver. 7, seem to have been chosen to correspond with " my courts " in the parallel clause. Though the two ideas are closely related, they are not identical in meaning. The expression " my house," is prob- ably to be understood in a metaphorical sense for ^^ my people " (comp. Num. xii. 7 ; Jer. xii. 7 ; Hos. viii. i, ix. 15), because the verb judge i^l) takes an accusative after it of the person and not of the thing, with the exception of an accusative of cognate meaning, as "to judge judgment" (Jer. v. 28, xxx. 13, and xxi. 12. The word "house" may possibly have been chosen in preference to that of " people," to avoid giving offence, as the people were then under the Persian rule (Schegg). If the word house be understood metaphorically, the sense is that the high priest was to direct the people in all things respecting the law of God, and especially to judge those who ministered in the sanctuary (Hitzig, Pressel, etc.). Others think that the temple then in course of construc- tion is referred to (Hengstenberg, Keil, Kliefoth, Pusey). In the latter case the meaning is not very different, namely, that the high priest was to rule and direct the services of the sanctuary and holy of holies, and to keep aw^y every kind of idolatry and ungodliness from its outer courts (Hengsten- berg). There is no little variety of opinion as to the translation and meaning of the last promise contained in verse 7. This is not the place to enter into any critical discussion as to the translation of the disputed word (see crit. comm.). But it must be noted that the passage has been rendered by Gesenius, Hengstenberg, etc., " I will give thee leaders among those that stand by." The promise would in this case mean that the Lord would grant angel-guards to Joshua and the other priests, to defend and protect them from the dangers to which they were exposed. Something, however, more definite than such a promise of general protection would naturally be F 66 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iii. 7. expected here. Independently of other difficulties, the ob- jection of Hitzig, to wit, that the word betiveen can scarcely mean " out of the number of," seems fatal to this interpreta- tion.^ The word can only fairly be rendered " walks," " ways." It has been explained by the Targumist (followed by Drusius and others) to mean that Joshua after the resurrection should, as the reward of faithfulness in his office on earth, walk among the seraphim above in heaven. Dr. Pusey seems to adopt this view." But the promise of the angel seems rather to be one the accomplishment of which was to be looked for in this world ; and a reward after death does not well suit the context. The meaning is rather, as Hitzig explains it, "I will give thee walks (i Sam, xviii. 16; i Kings iii. 7, xv. 17) among the angels," so that thou shalt enter freely unto God as his high priest (Deut. x. 8 ; Jud. xx. 18 ; 2 Chron. xxix. 11), even between them that stand in God's immediate presence (i Kings xxii. 19). This does not mean, as Hitzig imagines, that, in the restored commonwealth of Israel, the priests should have the rank of angels, an idea not supported by his references (Mai. ii. 7 ; and Hag. i. 13). The expres- sion rather signifies that " open ways," "free ingress and egress " to Jahaveh himself, would be affiDrded, even through the midst of the angels which stood directly before God's throne — so that the high priest Joshua, like his predecessors in happier days, would be able to bring his petitions and requests on behalf of Israel directly before God. Such is the interpretation of the words which would have suggested itself to the Jews, to whom the prophet first nar- ^ Von Hofmann's translation "walkcis," by which he thinks the angels constantly plying between Jahaveh and his priests are signified, is open to as grave objections, and even were the translation itself correct, the meaning v. Hofmann puts on it would not necessarily follow. " He remarks, however, that " even in this life, since ' our conversation is in heaven' (Phil. iii. 20), and the life of priests should be an angel-life, it may mean, that he should have free access to God, his s^ul in heaven, while his body was on this earth." Ch. iii. 8.] FOURTH VISION— JOSHUA BEFORE THE ANGEL. 6/ rated the vision. The words, however, bear a still deeper signification. The thought must have occurred to those Israelites who pondered over the meaning of the vision, that if sin had indeed separated them from their God, if it was so defiling in its nature as to expose the high priest in the discharge of his most solemn functions to the just accu- sations of Satan (from the consequences of which the high priest had been delivered only by a marvellous exhibition of Divine grace), there was no security at all that the door of access to God would remain always open. They might well reason that, if free access to a throne of grace was to be granted only on the due performance of the conditions laid down by the Angel of Jahaveh, there was but little real con- solation in the vision, and much to arouse the gravest appre- hensions for the future. They would naturally explain the passage, in the light of the closing words of verse 9, as referring to some future atonement, whereby the iniquity of Israel would in reality be removed, and a secure access be for ever opened to the Divine throne. To rightly understand the clauses that follow in verse 8, the point must be insisted on that the words were addressed to Joshua the high priest alone, and not to other priests sup- posed to be present. The verb " hear " is in the singular, a fact not indeed in itself conclusive, but which is of importance, when coupled with the use of the third person plural in the next clause (which is also not absolutely conclusive), and when compared with the statements of verse 7, in which only the high priest is mentioned. If the other priests had been seen in the vision, they, as well as the high priest, should have been in some way represented as " defiled with iniquity." For they, like their chief, were symbolical person- ages, and the filthy garments which he wore did not, as we have seen, indicate merely his personal transgressions. No valid argument can be built on the use of the expres- 68 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iii. 8. sion, " those that sit before thee," in proof of the notion that the friends and colleagues of the high priest were represented in the vision as actually present, and that they were also addressed by the angel. The words do not indeed exclude such an interpretation (comp. Gen. xliii. 33 ; 2 Sam. vii. i8 ; I Chron. xvii. i6 ; Jud. xx. 26), but they can be otherwise explained. The phrase does not seem to point to any committee formed for the sake of temple restoration, of which the high priest was president. It indicates those priests, who in the discharge of their office often sat before the high priest to receive his directions, and sat with him in the frequent councils of the priests held in matters affecting their office and religion (see Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on Matt, xxvi. 3). The expression is used of the sons of the prophets who put themselves under the directions of Elisha (2 Kings iv. 38, vi. i), and of the elders of Israel who often came to converse with and receive instruction from the prophet Ezekiel.^ The settlement of this point will lead us to a right con- clusion as regards the special import of the address of the angel. In it we must note the force of the expression " men of portent" or "men of a sign." The rendering of our Author- ised Version, "men to be wondered at," is ambiguous, and might be explained to denote that the deliverance of Joshua and his fellows from Babylon might well create wonder and astonish- ment. The translation might also convey the idea of Luther, that the men were so termed, inasmuch as all who really embrace religion are an astonishment and wonder to the world. But such interpretations can scarcely be judged satis- factory. Just as unsatisfactory, however, is the view of Ewald and Hitzig, who maintain that the expression used indicates that the presence of those priests as witnesses of • Ezek. viii. I, xiv. i, xx. I, xxxiii. 31. Probably this, as Rosenmiiller thinks, may be the meaning of the phrase in Isa. xxiii. 18. Ch. iii. S.] FOURTH VISION — JOSHUA BEFORE THE ANGEL. 69 Ihe promise of the angel was a sign of its certain fulfilment. Ewald thinks it meant that, as surely as the priests had stood there and heard the angel's words, the Messiah should come. The priests should by their very existence point forward to this great future hope. But why (we may ask with Pressel) should the fact of the priests standing there (if the priests were actually represented as present, for that is assumed throughout) have such a peculiar significance ? If the angel simply meant to call attention to the fact of the priests being witnesses to the promise, why should he have used such a peculiar expression ? And is not an allusion to witnesses in a vision peculiarly incongruous ^ The word rendered " wonder," " miracle," ought to be here translated a sig-n, a portent, a type of future events. Thus Isaiah and his children (Isa. viii. 18) were spoken of "as signs and portents in Israel," and the high priest and his fellows were such, as being persons who in some way shadowed forth future events (Gesenius). This they did by virtue of their priestly office, especially the high priest, as the special duty of the priests was to make atonement for transgression (Hengstenberg, Kohler, etc.). The atonement by means of " the blood of bulls and goats " could not be more than symbolical ; it was a typical, not a real reconciliation. The sacerdotal office kept up in Israel the remembrance of sin on the one hand, and the expectation of pardon on the other. It pointed to a pressing need, and created a longing for the supply of that necessity. Nor is this all. We are justified in considering (with Kliefoth and Keil) that there is also a reference made here to the previous incidents of the vision. It was in reference to them that Joshua and his fellow priests were styled " men of portent," or " men of a sign." The vision had pictured to the eye of the priest-prophet the manner in which the priesthood of Israel, represented by Joshua, though defiled with iniquity, JO ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iii. 8. had been cleansed by Divine grace and rendered acceptable to God. By that grace priests and people had been snatched like half-burnt brands from the fire of a well-deserved punish- ment. That deliverance was, however, typical of a greater salvation, which the angel was now about to reveal. Hence Joshua and his fellows were typical men. What had been done to them in the vision pointed to " things to come." For the reasons already noticed, which can be supported by critical arguments, the passage is best rendered, " Hear now, Joshua the high priest, thou and thy companions (^U^^) which sit before thee, verily they are men of portent — for lo! I am bringing forth my servant Branch. For lo ! the stone which I have placed before Joshua, upon one stone are seven eyes ; lo ! I am graving its graving, and I will remove (proph. perf ) the iniquity of this land in one day." It is satisfactory that the critics of the modern school co- incide with the majority of the ancient interpreters in referring the term " Branch " to the expected Messiah. The name " Branch " (HDif) is used by Zechariah as a proper name. It first occurs in reference to the Messiah in Isaiah (iv. 2), " In that day shall the Branch of (niiT' riQli) Jahaveh be beautiful and glorious for them that are escaped of Israel." The same idea (though the words are different) recurs in Isa. xi. i, where the Messiah is described as the rod (l^il) which was to come from the trunk of the tree of Jesse, and the shoot (l^il) which was to spring up from its roots. From the former passage of Isaiah Jeremiah no doubt derived the term, when he prophesied that the days should come when "Jahaveh shall raise up unto David a righteous Branch (IIDIJ 'P^'T^), and a king shall reign and prosper, and shall execute justice and judgment in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is the name whereby he shall be called, Jahaveh our Righteousness" (Jer. xxiii. 5). The same title of the Messiah is repeated by Ch. iii. 8, 9.] FOURTH VISION — JOSHUA BEFORE THE ANGEL. 7 1 Jeremiah in a later chapter (xxxiii. 15) : " In these days and in that time I will cause to branch unto David a branch of righteousness (Hi^li: HQIT 111"? TO^N^), and he shall do judg- ment and righteousness in the earth." The title " my servant " is also borrowed from the earlier prophets, and specially refers to the great prophecy of " the servant of Jahaveh " in the latter part of Isaiah ; and the words "my servant Branch" (n?2it ''1^^) may be a remi- niscence of the expression in Ezekiel, " my servant David " (in ^^n^, Ezek. xxxvii. 24.) The last words in the address of the angel, namely, " I will remove the iniquity of the land in one day," clearly refer to the work of the Messiah. As the section begins (verse 8) with a distinct promise of the Messiah's coming, and closes (verse 10) with a statement of the result of that coming to Israel, it is only natural to view the middle portion as having reference to the same event. The passage in verse 9, which speaks of the stone laid before Joshua, has, therefore, been correctly explained by many of the Church Fathers, and by the Reformers, to refer to the Messiah as the foundation stone of the eternal temple, upon whom the hopes of an everlasting peace depended. So also Kliefoth and Pressel. It is probable that at this stage of the vision a stone was actually seen by the prophet lying at the feet of the high priest, most likely the foundation stone of the second temple, which had been laid years before (Ezra iii. 8-13). Though we cannot credit all that is said about this stone by the Rabbis, it is clear that it must have been a stone of consider- able size and importance. According to the Talmud (Tract. Yoma, V. 2), this stone took the place of the ark of the covenant in the first temple, and Maimonides asserts that it was that on which the ark rested in that temple, and before which the pot of manna and Aaron's rod were de- 72 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iii. 9. posited. It is further stated that upon this stone, which stood in the holy of hohes in the second temple, as the ark •of the covenant was wanting, the blood of atonement was duly sprinkled, and upon it the high priest placed the burning censer with which he entered into that most holy place. Whatever absurdities there may be in the other legends re- garding it, there is nothing improbable in this. Amid the ruins of the ancient temple, the Jewish builders, engaged in rearing the second temple, would naturally look out for some impor- tant stone of the first to use as the foundation stone of the second. And what more likely than that they should have chosen a mighty block from the ruins of the holy of holies for that purpose ? According to Jewish tradition, that stone was visible in the holy of holies, where it rose about three fingers' breadth above the level of the pavement. These traditions (which are given in greater extent by March) are not only interesting in themselves, but prob- ably are historically correct ; though of course they cannot be made the basis of any positive argument. That the stone laid in vision before Joshua represented the jewels belonging to the high priest's breastplate (the Urim and Thummim), or even some single precious stone which supplied the place of the jewels that were lost (Baumgarten), appears altogether fanciful. The stone can scarcely typify the people of Israel who were to be the foundation of the new order of things (as Schegg, Kohler, Keil think). Nor does the view of Hengstenberg commend itself to our judgment, according to which the stone represents the kingdom or people of God, outwardly insignificant when compared with the great mountain (chap. iv. 7), which symbolizes the power of the world. That the stone here represents the entire collection of materials required for the erection of the temple (as von Hofmann, IVeis. iind Erf., i. p. 341; Stahelin, Mess. Weiss., pp. 1 19-120) can scarcely ht reconciled with the precise Ch. iii. 9.] FOURTH VISION— JOSHUA BEFORE THE ANGEL. 73 expression used in verse 9, " one stone" (DPIK pJ^" 7^). Von Hofmann altered his opinion in his Schriftbeweis (ii., i, p. 363), in which he considers that special reference is made to the stone in the holy of holies, which took the place of the ark of the covenant in the second temple. The stone seen in the vision seems to have been the foundation-stone of the temple, which typified the Messiah, who in the writings of " the former prophets " (chap. i. 4), with which Zechariah was well acquainted, was set forth under such symbols. Thus the Psalmist says that "the stone which the builders refused is become the head of the corner" (Ps. cxviii. 22). And Isaiah (chap, xxviii. 16) says, " Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a corner stone, a sure foundation." Such passages make it easy, without doing any violence to the language of the prophet, to understand the Messiah to be here referred to ; an idea supported by those passages of the New Testament in which the Messiah is set forth as a stone, a foundation, and believers as living stones built up on him (Matt. xvi. 18, xxi. 42 ; I Cor. iii. 11 ; Eph. ii. 20-22 ; i Pet. ii. 4, 5). Ewald considers that this stone (on which, he thinks, seven eyes were actually engraved) was the stone destined to crown the edifice of the finished temple, and that the seven eyes represented the seven highest spirits (Rev. i. 4). The stone was " a wonder-stone, towards which the whole Divine care and love, as well as all the seven spirits or eyes of Jahaveh were directed, and, therefore, the seven eyes were engraven thereon as a token of the fact." The expression, " upon one stone shall be seven eyes," may mean (with Ewald) that seven eyes were actually en- graved upon the stone, or that the seven eyes of God rested upon it, i.e., were directed towards it to watch and protect it. Comp. I Kings viii. 29. If the stone be supposed to symbo- lize the Messiah, the sense of the passage would be, that 74 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iii. 9- God's watchful providential care would so guard his Servant that he would be manifested in due time. The Divine power would protect that stone and the quarry in which it lay hidden until the time came to cut it out, without human instrumentality, and shape it so that it would become the foundation-stone of his Church and people. According to the translation which supposes the seven eyes themselves to have been seen upon the stone, the significa- tion might almost be the same. For the seven eyes on the stone might indicate that the stone on which they were drawn or engraved was under the care of those seven eyes, which in the next vision are represented as running to and fro throughout the whole earth. This appears to be the meaning which Ewald puts on the passage, and it is not unlikely to have been the view which the Jews of the prophet's day would have taken. So far as it goes, this interpretation would be correct. On the other hand, with New Testament guid- ance, we cannot avoid thinking of a deeper meaning, and regarding the stone with the seven eyes as a stone anointed with the sevenfold spirit of Jahaveh, whose seven powers are mentioned in Isa. xi. 2} Kliefoth explains the eyes on the stone to mean, that through him whom the stone signified all the operations of the Spirit of God would be carried on from the day on which that stone should be laid as the foundation of his Church. If, however, we are to interpret the passage according to New Testament ideas, we prefer to compare the statement in the Evangelist St. John, " God giveth not his Spirit by measure unto him;" which truth seems indicated by the appearance of the Lamb in the book of the Revelation, with the seven horns and the seven eyes, which are the spirits of God sent forth into all the earth (Rev. .v. 6). Keil thinks that the opinion that " the seven eyes " were ' See Delitzsch's remarks on that passage in his Comm. on Isaiah, and particu- larly in his System of Biblical Psychology. Ch. iii. 9.] FOURTH VISION— JOSHUA BEFORE THE ANGEL. 75 actually beheld in the vision on the stone itself, is opposed to the statement which follows : " I will engrave (or I am graving), the graving thereof." For the phrase in the original does not indicate a fact that had taken place, but rather one that was to take place in the future. The objection, however, is not valid. For though the stone is represented in the vision as already laid, yet the Messiah represented by it was yet to come. And though for the purposes of symbolical representation it might have been seen with the seven eyes actually engraved on it, the fact intended by that symbol was still future, and the language in question may well refer to that future fact. We pass over in silence many strange interpretations given to the sentence just referred to (but see crit. comm.), especially as the translation already given is that approved by the great majority of modern critics. In the picture presented to the prophet, the " seven eyes " were probably seen by him drawn upon the rough surface of the stone, but not as yet cut or engraved. Hence the phrase, " I will grave the graving thereof," may retain in all respects its natural meaning. The words can scarcely mean that the rough stone would be cut into a beautiful and precious stone (Keil). They rather indicate some distinct inscription or carving cut into the stone itself. No inscription can, however, be here signified, and the carving can only be that of " the seven eyes " cut into the stone. The mention made of the graving of the stone is devoid of mean- ing, if the translation, " upon one stone are seven eyes directed," be accepted, and this seems conclusive in favour of the idea that " the seven eyes " were represented in the vision as drawn upon the stone itself placed before Joshua, the cutting or carving out of which was to be executed at a future period by the Divine power. Pressel has noted, that in the case of a foundation-stone, ornamentation (even if that idea could be conveyed by the ^6 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iii. 9. phrase) is a matter of secondary importance. But upon such stones certain marks are often wont to be made, indicating either the name of the builder or the object of the structure about to be built thereon. The foundation-stone of the second temple, which, as the Talmud informs us, was some inches higher than the level of the holy of holies, had also according to that authority inscribed on it the sacred Tetra- grammaton or the four letters of the name Jahaveh (ilin^). Christ, who was the true foundation-stone of the spiritual temple, received by Divine command the name " Jesus," which name indicated the great work he came to perform, and for which he was anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power (Acts x. 38). The full meaning of that name no one knew but himself (Rev. xix. 12). But he felt its full significance when he said, " I came down from heaven, not to do my will, but the will of him that sent me, and this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life ; and I will raise him up at the last day " (John vi. '}^'^, 40). The laying of this stone, and the manifestation of the Messiah prefigured thereby, were to result in the removal of the iniquity of the land for ever. " And I will take away the iniquity of this land in one day." ^ The " one day," on which such emphasis is here laid, is most easily explained as identical with the " once " (ecf)d7ra^) so often emphasized in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. * Kohler regards the stone as signifying Israel, which nation was intrusted to the care of the high priest Joshua, that by the due discharge of his high-priestly office, the purity and freedom from iniquity required by God should be attained by the people. He consequently regaixls the engraving of the stone to mean that God would himself shape and form Israel into that form and character, which by nature did not belong to that nation, inasmuch as it was rather like an unshapen stone. By the grace of God alone could the nation become pleasing in his sight, but this would be brought about by the coming of the Messiah. The expression respecting the removal of iniquity in one day Kohler, with v. Hof- mann, regards as meaning that this removal of transgression, and this condition pleasing to God, would be granted in one and the self-same day or time. Ch. iii. 9, lo.] FOURTH VISION — JOSHUA BEFORE THE ANGEL. ']J vii. 27, ix. 12, X. 10). It signifies that the atonement for sin, to be made by the Messiah, was to be an atonement, not Hke that made by the priests under the Mosaic law, which needed to be repeated year by year, but an atonement which was to be performed once for all. The day on which that great result was achieved was " the day of Golgotha," when the iniquity of the land was removed by that " full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice," offered by Christ on the cross. (So substantially, Hengstenberg, Kliefoth, Reincke, etc.) That " this land," spoken of by the prophet, primarily in- dicates the land of Israel or Judah, ought not to be doubted in presence of the demonstrative pronoun (^i^7L^" V")^*'^)- ^"t mention had been made of many nations in Messianic days who should be joined to the God of Israel (chap. ii. 15). Their land would, therefore, become Jahaveh's land, as dwelt in by his people. Hence the passage (whatever may be its primary signification) may be understood to have a reference to the whole earth (the Hebrew word which here we variously translate land and earth being identical). It is one of those far-reaching expressions which have a meaning far beyond what they were originally conceived to bear. As referring in a primary sense to the land of Israel, the passage may be regarded as in some respects similar to that in Heb, ii. 16, in which the recovery of the Abrahamic race is spoken of as presenting a striking contrast to the fact that the angels who fell did not recover from their apostasy ; although it was very far from being the intention of the writer of that Epistle (as may be seen from many other passages) to confine the results of Christ's work to the limits of the race of Israel. We are told in the Talmud (Yoma, vii. 4) that when, on the great Day of Atonement, the high priest had performed the various duties of that solemn day, he was escorted home in a festive manner, and was accustomed to give a festal 75 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iii. lo. entertainment to his friends. The maidens and youths of the people went forth to their gardens and vineyards with songs and dances ; social entertainments took place on all sides, and universal gladness closed the festival of that solemn day. And thus in the last verse of this chapter a picture is given of a day of similar gladness and joy of heart, when, on account of sin being pardoned, free access to God's throne granted, and the Deliverer having come anointed with the plenitude of the Spirit and sealed by God the Father, each true Israelite would invite his friends as joyful guests to partake of festal cheer under his own vine and fig tree. The days of peace once more are seen. The glorious era of the earthly Solomon has indeed returned in greater splendour under the reign of the Prince of Peace. " Paradise lost " has become " Paradise regained." " Being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," and "rejoice in hope of the glory of God " (Rom. v. i, 2). CHAPTER III. THE FIFTH VISION— THE GOLDEN CANDLESTICK. CHAPTER III. The vision of the golden candlestick, 8i — Formed on the basis of the candlestick of the Tabernacle, 8i— The candlestick in the Temple, 82— That on arch of Titus, 82 — Differences between the candlesticks of Moses and that seen in the vision, 83— Importance of vision for the restored Jews, 85— Significance of the candlestick in the Tabernacle and Temple, 85, 87— The bowl or reservoir, 83 — The pipes, 83— The olive trees, 84, 91 — The two channels or pipes of ver. 12, 84, 85— The three parts of the worship in the Holy Place, 86— Their signifi- cance, 86— The lighting of the lamps, 87 — Views of Kliefoth and Keil, 87— Remarkable features of the candlestick of the vision, 83, 88— Significance of the candlestick, 87, 88— Meaning of the olive trees, 88 ff.— Reference to the days of the prophet, 88 — Zerubbabel and Joshua, 90 — Note on Mr. S. R. Bosanquet's interpretation, 90 — The two fruitful boughs of the two olive trees, 91 — Israel and the Gentiles, 91, 92 — Full significance of the vision, 92 — Believing Jews and Gentiles the two olive branches, 93 — Messianic days, 93— Zechariah and Malachi, 94— Address of interpreting angel, 94 — Zerubbabel encouraged, 95 — The levelling of the mountain, 95 — Views of Pressel, Ewald and Hitzig, 95, 96 — Mountains overturned. Matt. xxi. 21, 96 — The completion of the second temple, 97 — Different translations of verse 10, 97 — Objections to Ewald's rendering, 98 — Hitzig's translation, 98 — The day of small things, 99 — Objections met, 99 — The glory of the second temple, lOO — Conclusion, 100. CHAPTER III. THE FIFTH VISION— THE GOLDEN CANDLESTICK. The fifth of the remarkable visions which the prophet saw on the twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month was that of the golden candlestick.! The candlestick beheld by him in vision was the holy candlestick belonging to the tabernacle of Moses, which was formed of pure gold. This is the most natural deduction from the use of the term "the candlestick with its seven lamps," ^ as the pronoun seems to refer to something well known. The seven-branched candlestick of the Mosaic tabernacle was clearly the basis of that seen in the vision, though the candlestick described by Zechariah had certain features over and above those which distinguished the candlestick of the sanctuary. These peculiar features are set forth in the vision related in the fourth chapter. The features 'common to both are for the most part passed over in the description, as such were well known to the persons for whom the vision was primarily designed. Hence no mention is made of the ' The expression used in the opening of the fourth chapter, ' ' And the angel that talked with me came again," or " returned," has been explained to signify that the interpreting angel, represented in the third vision as having gone forth, now for the first time returned to the prophet (Pressel). According to this idea the Angel of Jahaveh is supposed to have exhibited the fourth vision to the prophet. The supposition is, however, unnecessary, as the phrase used in the Hebrew often betokens to do again, and might in union with the next verb signify, " He again aroused me, just as one is aroused from sleep " (Rosenmiiller), for the prophet after the last vision seems to have fallen into a deep slumber. ^ Kcihler's translation, "And seven were the number of its lamps which were upon it," is scarcely defensible. For Hitzig's suggested emendation sec crit. comm. 82 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iv. 2. seven arms upon the top of which the seven lamps of the Mosaic candlestick used to be placed, though these arms must not be supposed as wanting in the vision. For there is no ne- cessity to suppose (with Kohler) that the pipes which supplied the oil, and which led from a reservoir above the lamps, took the place of those branches or arms. Still less can we sup- pose that the vision represented a hanging chandelier. The place of the seven-branched candlestick of the Mosaic tabernacle was supplied in the temple of Solomon by ten candlesticks similar in form. It has been suggested that the ten made by Solomon may have been additional to that one originally made by Bezaleel and Aholiab for the use of the Mosaic tabernacle. Some, if not all, of these candlesticks were carried away to Babylon (Jer. lii. 19). No mention of them is made among the holy vessels stated to have been brought back. In the second temple there seems to have been only one such (i Mace. i. 21, iv. 49, 50; Jos. Antiq. xiv. 4, § 4), which, though similar in its general form and outlines to the candlestick of the Mosaic tabernacle, was not (if the sculpture on the Arch of Titus can be relied on) by any means identical with it, nor with those made under Solomon's directions. For the griffins, which are represented on the base of that pictured on the Arch of Titus, are plainly sug- gestive of a foreign origin.^ If the holy candlestick did not form the basis of the vision of Zechariah, it would be impossible to form any idea as to the main features of the appearance exhibited to the prophet's view. Assuming as a fact that, on the whole, the main features of both candlesticks were alike (and this is the most natural way to explain the expression referred to), the ' There is no proof that the candlestick of the tabernacle had a reservoir for oil under the lights, as Pressel seems to think. The lamps of that candlestick seem to have been separate lamps, placed on the tops of the seven branches, and supplied with oil by the priests from some oil vessels, which formed no portion whatever of the apparatus connected with the Nndlestick itself. Ch. iv. 2.] FIFTH VISION — THE GOLDEN CANDLESTICK. 83 new features peculiar to that seen in the vision require special notice. The reservoir belonging to the candlestick in Zechariah's vision was not, as in that of the tabernacle, entirely distinct from the candlestick, but was united with it so as to form a part of the candlestick itself. This reservoir was above, not below, the lamps, and from it pipes were conveyed to the several lamps. The number of these pipes is a matter concerning which there is considerable difference of opinion, owing to an ambiguity in the original. Our A.uthorised Version makes the total number only seven, in which case each lamp would have had only a single pipe. The LXX. and Vulg. give some support to this idea, though they translate the word by pitcJiers instead of pipes. The trans- lation of our A. v., " and seven pipes to the seven lamps," agrees with the emended text as proposed by Hitzig and Ewald. The Hebrew as it stands cannot be so translated. Our marginal rendering is more correct, i.e., "seven several pipes to the lamps." The text has also been rendered by eminent scholars, " seven and seven pipes for the lamps upon the top of it," in which case each lamp had tzvo pipes attached to it (see crit. comm.). In either' case the number of the pipes simply indicates the large supply of oil afforded. Whatever the number of pipes may have been, the}- connected the reservoir of oil with the lamps, which were attached to the upper portion of the seven branches, so that the reservoir or bowl, the lamps, the pipes, and the branches or arms, all formed essential parts of the golden candlestick. The reservoir, or bowl above the candlestick, was supplied with oil without any need of the ministration of the priests. In the Mosaic tabernacle the priests had daily to trim the lamps, and to supply them with oil. They had also to take care that the oil was duly provided for by the offerings of the congregation. But on the right and the left of the golden 84 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iv. 1-3. candlestick in Zechariah's vision^ stood two wonderful olive trees, on which were two fruit-bearing branches, from the ^ In the woodcut given above, the reservoir or bowl {7i> n?5) is repre- sented (marked i) as above the candlestick { rlL^'N"!"?^ ) verse 2. The two chan- nels (niiri^V), verse 12, are marked 2, 2. By these the two fruitful branches discharged their oil (termed "the gold" in verse 12, see crit. comm.) into the bowl, and thence to the several lamps. These channels cannot possibly be identified with the seven, fourteen, or forty-nine pipes (ntpy-ID, verse 2), marked respectively by the number 4, which pipes conveyed the oil directly to the seven lamps (verse 2) nxarked severally in our woodcut by the figure 5, which lamps were placed upon the candlestick. It may be a matter of doubt whether the lamps should be considered as forming an inseparable part of the candlestick itself, or as simply placed upon it (verse 2). Only two fruit-bearing branches are mentioned in verse 12 as belonging to the two olive trees. These are marked severally by the Ch. iv. 1-3.] FIFTH VISION — THE GOLDEN CANDLESTICK. 85 ends of which the olives discharged their oil into two channels (so we provisionally render the word), whose form and appearance cannot be ascertained, but from which the golden oil was conveyed to the bowl or reservoir, and thence passed through the pipes to the several lamps. Such is the description of the candlestick presented in the vision. It is obvious that there is a close connection between this vision and the work of the rebuilding of the temple spoken of in this chapter. For the vision speaks of the ultimate accomplishment of that work, " not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts." It does not, however, necessarily follow that the rebuilding of the temple was all that was prefigured thereby, though its restoration was essential for the due observance of the com- mandments of the Mosaic law. For the temple itself was in some respects a candlestick on which the lamp of the Jewish Church was lifted up to give light unto the world. The candlestick in the tabernacle, with its lamps lighted every evening, and kept burning all night through in the sanctuary, represented the spiritual light exhibited by the congregation or people of the Lord. The^ people of God in the old dispensation, as well as under the new, were the light of the world (Matt. v. 14), and were bound to let their light shine before men (Matt. v. 16 ; comp. Mark iv. 21, 22). The lamps of the people of God should have been ever kept trimmed and burning (Luke xii. 35), inasmuch as they were indeed to shine as lights in the world (Phil. ii. 15). In the book of the Revelation the seven golden candlesticks thus numerals 3, 3. As the candlestick seen in the vision was the candlestick of the Mosaic tabernacle (sec above), it has been depicted in our woodcut according to the description given in Exod. xxv. 31 ff., and not after the model on the Arch of Titus. The exact form of the base of the candlestick of the Mosaic tabernacle is a matter of uncertainty. The olive trees on the right and the left of the candle- stick, which have been drawn true to nature, have been placed a little in the background, inasmuch as the candlestick itself formed the chief object that was S6 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iv. 1-3. represented the seven Churches (Rev. i. 20), and an un- faithful Church is warned that its candlestick might be removed out of its place (Rev. ii. 5). The candlestick seen by the prophet in his vision must have had the same general significance as the candlestick of the tabernacle. But the peculiarities of Zechariah's candle- stick need to be carefully observed, for these peculiarities give the key to the right understanding of the vision. In order to understand what these peculiarities signify, we must consider precisely the meaning of the candlestick in the Mosaic tabernacle. The service performed in the holy place was designed, as Kliefoth has observed, to represent the worship rendered to God by a people whose sins were pardoned, and who were rendered holy in his sight. In the outer courts of the tabernacle sacrifices for sin were off"ered up, and atonement was made by shedding the blood of the various victims enjoined by the law. In connection with these sacrifices of blood, unbloody sacrifices were offered, which consisted of off"erings of flour, oil, and frankincense, in various preparations. The flour denoted the food neces- sary for man's life and sustenance ; the oil and frankincense were emblems, the former of holiness, the latter of devotion as expressed by prayer. These were the three portions of which the ordinary minchah, or unbloody offering, was com- posed. The bread, oil, and incense, all reappear in the things offered unto God by the priests in the holy place. In that sanctuary the shewbread was placed upon the holy table, the incense was burned upon the golden altar, and the oil used to feed the lamps of the seven-branched candlestick. All these things were provided from the offerings of the congregation, and in making use of these offerings in the service of the holy place, the priests acted as the chosen representatives of the priestly people. Kliefoth maintains that there was an essential difference I Ch. iv. 1-3.J FIFTH VISION— THE GOLDEN CANDLESTICK. 87 between the oil which was used for the lamps, and that which was used for anointing. He maintains that the oil used in the lamps represented the offering made by man to God, which was unacceptable until it was kindled with holy sacrificial fire, while the oil used for anointing was a symbol of the Spirit of God itself Keil has shown clearly that no such distinction really existed (see crit. comm. chap. iv. 14). Kliefoth is not, therefore, justified in laying stress upon the point that the lamps were lighted with fire from off the altar of burnt-offering, as if the use of that fire had some spe- cial symbolical significance. It is nowhere distinctly stated that the lamps of the golden candlestick were lighted with that fire. But on the other hand Keil may go too far in maintaining that the source from which the light was to be obtained was left absolutely undetermined. It is more in accordance with analogy to suppose that all the fire used for sacred purposes was obtained from the holy fire which was kept constantly burning on the altar of burnt offering. That, however, which can only be conjectured from general inference, and cannot be distinctly proved from Holy Writ, ought not to be regarded as having a symJDolical meaning. In such matters imagination is not a safe guide. The candlestick in the tabernacle of Moses and those used in the temple of Solomon represented the light of Divine truth as shed abroad by the congregation of the Lord's people. The Church, purified by Divine grace by means of the sacrifices which were offered up on the brazen altar, symbolically rendered unto God in the sanctuary, as a thank-offering to the Giver of all, the sacrifice of good works, by which alone his glory could be spread abroad by his people through the world. Under the arrangements of the Mosaic law an outward sanctuary was needed for this special purpose, where the sacrifices of blood could first be offered, and where the other S8 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iv. 1-3, 14. offerings, which were more or less "sacrifices of thanksgiving," might also be presented to God. The intervention of offi- ciating priests was necessary for both purposes. Only through their ministry, and mediation with God, could the Church of the old law render due worship unto Jahaveh. It was one of the remarkable features connected with the candlestick of Zechariah's vision, that it was not seen stand- ing in a "worldly sanctuary" (Heb. ix. i). No priests were seen trimming its lamps, or pouring in the oil, as required by the Mosaic law. The oil which supplied the lamps seen in the vision, flowed directly from two fruit-bearing branches of two olive trees which stood on the right and left of the candlestick. In explaining the general signifi- cance of the vision, the angel spoke only of difficulties over- come, and of the completion of the temple-building, " Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts." What then was the natural interpretation which the priest- prophet would have placed upon such a vision .-' The signifi- cance of the candlestick of the Mosaic sanctuary must needs have recurred to his mind. If that candlestick had been simply regarded by him to represent God's providence, what could the olive trees have meant ? And why the explanatory words, " These are the two sons of oil which stand before the Lord of the whole earth ? " Those words evidently point to some persons or communities who in reality ministered as servants to Jahaveh, and supplied the oil which fed the seven lamps of the golden candlestick. With the preceding visions in his recollection, and espe- cially the fourth, which represented the purification of the priesthood and people, Zechariah could scarcely fail to observe that the vision meant something in advance of that presented by the last. In the candlestick the priest-prophet could scarcely fail to see a picture, in some way or other, of Ch. iv. 1-3.] FIFTH VISION— THE GOLDEN CANDLESTICK. 89 the light of holy actions reflected by the people of God, once more exhibited amid the darkness which covered the earth and the gross darkness which enveloped the peoples (Isa. Ix. 2). He could hardly fail to note the absence of ministering priests. He could scarcely forget that, in connection with a former vision, mention had been made of the coming of " the servant of Jahaveh," the " Branch," or Messiah. His contem- porary Haggai had spoken of the day when all nations should bring gifts to the sanctuary. Among those gifts, one imbued with Mosaic ideas would needs think of the bread, the incense, the oil, which would there be presented, if "many nations " were indeed to become the people of Jahaveh, as had been pointed out in the third vision. Was it not natural that the prophet would interpret the vision of the golden candle- stick as representing in some way the future glory of the Church, in which glory Israel according to the old covenant, and the nations according to a new covenant, should both share ? Many expressions found in the sacred writings might help to explain to him the meaning of the olive trees seen in the vision. Such as, for instance, the saying of the Psalmist, " I am like a green olive tree " (Ps. Hi. 10), or the contrast spoken of in the book of Job (xv. 33), where it is said that the ungodly man " shall shake off his unripe grape as the vine, and shall cast off his flower as the olive." In the writings of " the former prophets," Israel is compared to a " green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit" (Jer. xi. 16; Isa. xvii. 6, xxiv. 13 ; Hosea xiv. 7, verse 6 in English version). With such passages in his recollection, Zechariah could scarcely have failed to comprehend that the supply of oil for the lights of the candlestick, provided by the olive trees in the vision, corresponded to the supply of oil furnished for the candlestick of the tabernacle by the congregation. The two olive trees would naturally be explained by him as signifying 90 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iv. 1-3. the two leaders who had taken such a deep interest in the re-establishment of the Jewish civil and ecclesiastical polity, to wit, Zerubbabel, the civil head of the State and govern- ment, and Joshua, the high priest, and chief ruler of the Church. 1 This has been the interpretation put upon this passage by many able commentators, and that which would most readily have been assigned to it in the days of Zechariah. This * Tlie following is a specimen of the exegesis and criticism, popular in some quarters, which has too often brought discredit upon evangelical interpretation in this country. It is from Mr. S. R. Bosanquet's book on "The Prophecies of Zechariah Interpreted and Applied " (London : Hatchards, 1877). He seems to believe he has the teaching of the Holy Spirit for his interpretations. Thus he states in his Introduction, p. 6, "I believe in myself that I have still higher warrant." The remarks within brackets in the following extract are of course our own. "Zerubba- bel here represents the Holy Spirit, as Joshua represented Jesus Christ in the last chapter [chap. iii.]. The word of the Lord to Zerubbabel is 'by my Spirit.' The plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel, to make the Church upright and perfect, is ' those seven ' graces of the Holy Ghost. The name Zerubbabel seems to signify 'the fiery one of God' [!]. Zain (T) and Tsadde (V) are cognate letters, and often [very rarely] interchanged ; and Tzerub [which occurs nowhere] Gesenius says [where ?] is cognate with ' Seraph ' — a fiery one. And the Holy Ghost de- scended upon the heads of the apostles in tongues of fire. ' El ' ends the name, as so many other Hebrew names. Often the spelling of names does not exactly preserve the spelling of their etymology. A change is made in the parts to form them into a euphonious word. Though 'tz,' as an initial, is preserved in 'Tzadok,' yet * Zerubbabel ' may have been used for euphony and convenience in place of ' Tzerubbabel.' It is not at all likely that the name of a Jew of the royal family should be compounded of ' Babel ' because he was born at Babylon." He then seeks to account for the omission of the S of the word 7X, God, on the ground that the N is " omitted and contracted on account of the length and form of the name," and closes his remarks thus : "The whole name then signifies, ' the fire of God the Father' — Zerub-bab-el. 'Bab,' in Pehlevi, — a Persian dialect [a Persian word in the middle of a Hebrew name !] with which the learned Jews may have become familiar in Babylonia, — signifies 'father' (Gesenius in '•53)- But in effect it is a reduplication of the ' b,' as the X is omitted in the last syllable, for euphony. The pronunciation is shortened, not lengthened by it." Criticisms and interpretations like this quite justify our taking no further notice of this writer. While he seems to imagine himself under some special Divine guidance as far as regards his own writings, he does not hesitate to condemn " the selected revisers of our English version of the Holy Scriptures, and the commissioned commentators of the Speaker's Bible," "several of them at least " as " of very questionable belief," and "little, if any, less than semi-infidels" (Introd. p. 3), and he considers it "wonderful that a Christian divine, as McCaul, should have thought David Kimchi's commentary worthy of translation " (Introd. p. 4). Ch. iv. 1-3.] FIFTH VISION— THE GOLDEN CANDLESTICK. 9I explanation does not, however, exhaust the meaning, but rather contains the germ of a still wider interpretation. Zerubbabel and Joshua were of importance, not so much as individuals, but as representative men, the former the representative of the body of the people in general, the latter of the priests and Levites. Zerubbabel had to discharge the duties of the State, Joshua to perform the services of the Church. Both Church and State were alike to contribute their quota to the oil required for the holy lamps. And the Jewish Church and State were themselves symbolical of something higher. It will not have escaped notice that the olive trees were not represented as richly furnished with fruit-bearing boughs, but as having each one fruitful bough, whence the oil was derived. This feature does not seem capable of any satisfac- • tory explanation, when the passage is confined to the indi- viduals Zerubbabel and Joshua. It must, no doubt, be remembered that fruit-bearing trees have branches which bear fruit, and others which do not bear fruit. But this common fact is not sufficient to explain that in the vision one branch only of each tree was fruitful. If the vision, how- ever, be considered to refer to the members of the State and the priesthood in general, the two fruit-bearing branches of the two olive trees might be explained as indicating those members of each estate, who by their good works contributed in any way to manifest light to the glory and praise of God. The people of Israel stood to the nations of the world in a somewhat similar relation to that in which the tribe of Levi stood to the whole family of Israel. To the tribe of Levi were intrusted the ordinances relating to the worship of God. The priests and Levites acted in holy things, not only as representatives of the people, but also in some respects as mediators for them with God. In the same way, " Israel after the flesh " was the priestly nation, as compared with the other 92 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iv. 1-3. nations of the world. In the words of St. Paul, to them be- longed "the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law and the promises, whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came " (Rom. ix. 4, 5) ; and we may add, to whom belonged also the prophets, the apostles, and the writers of the Old and New Testaments. When the prophets depict the Gentiles as brought into covenant with the God of Israel, they generally represent them as holding a position different from that occupied by Israel. The Gentiles are represented either as ministering to the needs of the ancient people of the covenant, or as acting in the posi- tion in which the ideal State stands to the ideal Church. Thus, in the latter part of Isaiah, the Gentiles are spoken of in this manner : " They shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders ; and kings shall be thy nursing fathers and queens thy nursing mothers " (Isa. xlix. 22, 23). "And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee. . . . For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish, yea those nations shall be utterly wasted" (Isa. Ix. 10, 12). It was, too, in thus ministering to Israel, and assisting to spread abroad in all lands the doctrines of the prophets and apostles, and of that Messiah, whom the prophets predicted, and to whom the apostles bore witness, that the members of the Gentile Church first experienced the fulfilment of the pre- diction concerning themselves, " I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord " (Isa. Ixvi. 21).^ In the light of these statements of the prophets, concerning the future entrance of the Gentiles into the Church of God^ and of the allusions made to the same fact in the former visions of Zechariah, the vision before us cannot be taken * See Delitzsch's remarks in his Comment, on Isaiah, on this latter passage, which has sometimes been erroneously explaine ren- dered it by the plain. It means in these places the circumjacent tract of country. 112 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. v. 7. expression " a circle of bread " is used to denote a round loaf (Exod. xxix. 23 ; i Sam. ii. 36). The word is not found in the signification of a cover, though that is a possible signification. It is constantly used in the sense of a fixed weight by which gold, silver, and other things, were weighed and measured, and is naturally spoken of in such a meaning here in connexion with the ephah, as the latter was the usual measure of capacity. The talent was the standard measure of quantity, and the weight was made of lead as the most common heavy metal, and was used in all commercial transactions for weighing out money. Even • assuming that the ephah was of the largest dimen- sions which have been assigned to it, it would have been utterly impossible for a woman to have been pressed down inside such a measure, and covered up with a lid. That is what is generally supposed to have been seen by the prophet in the vision. But the vision, instead of speak- ing of the woman as crushed up within the narrow bounds of an ephah, speaks of her as seen (in verse 7) sitting in the middle of an ephah. This is not the way in which the writer would have expressed himself had he intended to represent the woman as raising herself up after having been crushed down beneath a heavy cover. Moreover, it would have been utterly incongruous to have represented a woman crushed down inside an ephah, which was not by any means large enough to contain a woman. Even if the ephah had been large enough to contain a woman forced on her side, the phrase "sitting in the midst of the ephah " could scarcely be used of a woman lifting up herself from such a position. That phrase seems rather to indicate a posture of repose. A woman could be represented as sitting inside the ephah in a somewhat crouching posture, the larger portion of her body being visible above it. Pressel is correct in regarding Ch. V. 6-8.] SIXTH VISION — WOMAN IN THE EPHAH. II3 the woman in this vision as thus represented. As she sat in the ephah, the largest dry measure, she carried in her lap a talent of lead, the largest measure used in the computation of money. Both measures were needful in the most ordi- nary commercial transactions. The prophet was directed to notice the ephah. He soon observed the woman sitting in it, and the talent which she carried. "This woman," said the interpreting angel, "is wickedness." The ephah and the talent were the instruments used by her in the pursuit of trade. The vision recalls to mind the expression used by another and earlier prophet with regard to unrighteous traders, " making the ephah small and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit " (Amos viii. 5), and the many solemn warnings against false weights and balances, and the deceitful devices of ungodly traders, so abundantly reprobated in the book of the Pro- verbs. Jerome imagines that the sin of the people is represented in this figure as gathered together into one heap into the ephah, in order to be cast away from the land. But in that case there would be no special fitness at all in the mention of an ephah, nor in the comparison of the sinners, that is the thieves and perjurers mentioned before, to such an ephah and its contents. Nor would there be any special reason why the talent should be called a talent of lead, even supposing the lid of the ephah Avas alluded to.' The remarkable expression which occurs in verse 6, " This is their eye " Vulg. haec est oculus eorum, must be here considered. This is the literal translation of the words. The LXX. either had actually a different reading, or, not com- ' Von Hofmann views the passage as giving a picture of the fate of those that rebel against God's commandments. But this interpretation is not explicit enough, and, makes the second part of the vision respecting " the ephah " to be little more than a repetition of that taught by " the flying roll." I 1 14 * ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. v. 6-8 prehending the Hebrew, altered the text, and read, " this is their iniquity in all the earth," i.e., this ephah represents their iniquity. Similarly the Syr., " this is the measure in which is contained the sin of all the earth." This reading has been approved of by Hitzig and other critics, under the idea that the ephah represents the sin of Israel compressed into one mass. But as that does not appear to be the meaning of the vision, there is no need to alter the Masoretic text.^ Ewald renders " this is their spectacle, that is the spectacle of the people in the whole land, which all could see as a warn- ing example," in allusion to the woman shut up, as he thinks she was represented, in the dark inside of the ephah, and kept down by the heavy leaden cover. The woman was, however, later to be exhibited and exposed to the contempt of all, as a wild animal taken away in a cage. Ewald explains " this is their eye, their look, that which they would willingly see " (comparing Okarpov, i Cor. iv. 9). But the demonstrative pronoun would in this case refer more or less distinctly to the woman in the ephah, and not to the ephah itself, which latter is primarily what was meant. Moreover, as Hitzig observes, if this was the meaning, the woman would have been more naturally represented as confined in an open cage. The reference of the vision is clearly to the ephah and its contents. The meaning of the phrase is, therefore, " this is their eye," i.e. this is that to which they have an eye.^ ^ The translation of our Authorised Version, " this is their resemblance," is that adopted by Luther, and by several moderns, as Rosenmiiller, Maurer, and Bunsen. The meaning in that case is, "that which you see contains a picture of those things which the Hebrews did, and what they suffered. It is not something future which is exhibited, but a thing past, in order that the Jews might avoid for the future bringing upon themselves similar punishments" (Rosenmiiller). In such a case the reference is not only to what the prophet had seen, but to that which he would see in the course of the vision, ' So Hengstenberg, Kohler, Pressel. It does not, however, signify that "the efforts of the whole nation are directed to the filling up of the measure of its sin" (Hengstenberg). V Ch. V. 6-8.] SIXTH VISION — THE WOMAN IN THE EPIIAII. II5 This ephah is that towards which all those who dwell in the land (the thieves and perjurers already mentioned) look with longing- eyes. Wherever thieves and perjured persons are to be found throughout the land, and in all the earth, their eyes are ever to weights and measures, their whole thoughts are turned towards the acquisition of earthly gain. They are en- amoured of "wickedness " sitting in the ephah, by which that which they sell is measured out, and bearing in her lap the leaden weight by which they reckon their gains. The Targum was, therefore, not far wrong in its paraphrase of this passage, "These are the people who receive and give false measures " (see crit. comm.). In the translation of the whole passage we coincide in the main with Pressel. *' And behold a talent of lead was being lifted up, i.e. (carried)," and I saw, " and this (was) one woman," so Rashi (see crit. comm.), " sitting (that is, as she sat) in the middle of the ephah." There is no need to sup- pose that the weight was seen as lifted up.^ The woman does not seem to have been noticed before by the prophet. She, however, soon riveted his chief attention. " This " woman, said the interpreting angel to the prophet, naming her by her true name, " is wickedness. ' Well might she be thus named, having in her hand the leaden weight with which she was wont to traffic, and sitting crouched down in an empty bushel or ephah, as if that were her true seat and throne. The false measure, says Neumann truly, is her seat, the place of her devising and working. It was a special form of " wickedness " that was here pourtrayed, namely, un- righteousness as it manifests itself in matters of weight and measure, or, to designate it in our Lord's own words, " unfaith- fulness as regards the unrighteous mammon " (Luke xvi. ii). • The Hebrew accentuation forbids us to translate "and this one woman was sitting in the midst of the ephah." Nor would such a translation afford a good sense, as the woman was not previously mentioned. Il6 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. v. 8,9. This is represented as a woman, because of the power it displays as a temptress, whereby it exercises such an enticing and dangerous influence over the souls of men. Grotius was not far wrong when he said that wickedness is here described as a woman, because she is "the mother of thefts and perjuries and of all crimes." But "with the same measure that ye mete withal, shall it be measured to you again " (Luke vi. 38 ; Matt. vii. 2). The very instrument v/hich the woman used for her unholy work was to be the means of her confusion. The ephah in which she sat was made the chariot in which she was removed from the land ; and the angel, with righteous indignation, seized the woman herself, dashed her down into the ephah as she was about to rise from her sitting posture, and, taking hold of the leaden weight, flung the heavy " stone of lead " upon her mouth. Thus did the angel indicate that "wickedness" would be a subject of Divine wrath. He smote her in the mouth wherewith she had so often uttered words of lying and fraud ; and did so with the very instrument with which she was wont to measure her ungodly gain. Thus was her mouth stopped (Ps. cvii. 42 ; Job v. 16), and the instrument of sin was made the instrument of her punishment. This is the natural explanation of the words of verse 8, and is that given by the Greek translators, the Jewish commentator Rashi, Rosenmiiller, etc. Others (as Maurer and Ewald) follow Kimchi in understanding the vi02itJL to signify not the mouth of the woman, but that of the ephah upon which the heavy leaden cover was cast.^ Comp. Gen. xxix. 2 ; Ps. cxli. y, etc. The woman in the vision was, however, delivered from the complete destruction which seemed to be impending over her by the sudden aid of two winged women. . These women were apparently her aiders and abettors. They came rapidly ' Pressel in order to soften down the apparent harshness of the expression, arbitrarily translates " into htr bosoi?u' Ch. V. 9-II.] SIXTH VISION — THE WOMAN IN THE EPIIAH. II/ towards her, with such rapidity that the wind seemed to be in their wings, so quickly were they borne through the air. The wings of these women were Hke those of a stork, which is named as being a well-known bird of passage with wide-spreading wings, and noted moreover for its skill in constructing its nest. The stork is a bird which would be at home in the well- watered land of Babylon. The wings of the women may possibly have been likened to those of storks, because that bird was unclean (Lev. xi. 19), though in this case that fact seems scarcely to be a sufficient reason. The stork-winged women lifted up the ephah and its contents, and bore it off between heaven and earth. When the prophet asked the angel whither they were bearing the ephah in which the woman was, he received the answer, " To build for her a house in the land of Shinar, and it shall be established, and she shall be placed there upon her own base." These two women can scarcely be regarded as instru- ments of God, used to remove sinners from the congregation of his people. Nor is it likely that women were introduced into the vision because a woman had to be carried off, and two women at least were needed to cart;y so heavy a burden (Keil). They rather typify instruments of evil, who for a time delivered the evil woman from the vengeance which was about to destroy her. By reason of the curse described as overtaking all who followed in her wicked ways, no place was left for her any longer in the land of righteousness, among a people forgiven for past transgression, and sancti- fied so as to bring forth fruit unto holiness. The winged women therefore bore off the evil one to the land of Shinar, there to build for her a house and a home. The curse had been levelled specially against two classes of sinners ; those who were sinning against the first table of the law, violating their duty to God by the profanation of his holy name, and also against such as were sinning against Il8 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. v. 9-11. the second table, by appropriating as their own that which was not theirs. It, therefore, does not seem unhkely that the two stork- winged women were intended to be personifications of those sins which were represented in combination by the woman sitting in the ephah with the weight of lead. Pressel's suggestion may therefore be accepted, namely, that these two women, who helped the evil one to escape for a time from her angel-adversary, symbolize godlessness on the one hand, and lawlessness on the other, the one the sin that tramples under foot the commandment relating to duty to the Most High, claiming that " our lips are our own, who is Lord over us ? " (Ps. xii. 4), the other the transgression that disregards •the rights of a fellow-man, by robbing him of that which is his. In the mention which is made of the house to be built for the evil one in the land of Shinar, the vision does not appear to refer to the bygone days of the captivity in Babylon, nor to any new captivity wherewith Israel was threatened. The picture is simply an ideal one. The land of Shinar is an ideal land, contrasted with the land of Israel. The former was the land of unholiness, the latter was the holy land (chap ii. 12). The picture represents sin and transgression as removed from the land of Israel, the land of the people of God, driven to find its resting-place in the land where Babylon had once been built, driven into the land of the world-power which was anta- gonistic to God ; just as Cain in earlier days, when forced by his sin to leave those who dwelt in the land near Eden, had to betake himself to the land of Nod, or wandering (Gen. iv. 16). The division and separation of the evil from the good, which is here depicted (as Keil observes), was most strikingly seen when the Messiah appeared among men. Then occurred the great refining predicted by Malachi (iii. 1-5). But that process of the great Refiner goes on through all times of the exten- sion and development of the Church of the Messiah, whether Ch. V. 9-II.] SIXTH VISION — THE WOMAN IN THE EPHAH. II9 that Church be set up among Israel or among the nations. Christ separated by his words of power between the evil and the good as they existed in the land of Israel. By holding forth the truth, he drove with the scourge of denunciation the hypocritical Pharisees and Sadducees from his spiritual temple, as he had already driven the buyers and sellers out of the temple at Jerusalem with the scourge of small cords (John ii. 15). He caused the traitor Judas to cut himself off from the congregation of the holy ; and, when the traitor had left the upper room where the Master partook of the passover feast with his disciples, Jesus uttered those remarkable words : "Now is the Son of Man, glorified, and God is glorified in him" (John xiii. 31). Christ, who from his throne in the sanctuary above (Mark xvi. 20) still carries on his work, compels by the power of his Spirit many who have tarried too long in the professing Church, at last to separate themselves, as "sensual, not having the Spirit" (Jude 19). They go out from us, because they are not of us, for if they were of us they would no doubt continue with us, but they go out that they may be made manifest that they are not all of us (i John ii. 19). The picture in the vision of Zechariah has received many remarkable fulfilments in the history of the Church of Christ ; but we cannot agree with those who think that it has a special reference to events supposed to occur in millennial days. Such is the general import of the vision of the flying roll and the woman in the ephah. The latter figure does not seem to us to represent the filling up of the measure of iniquity, as has been supposed by some commentators. For, as Kliefoth has noted, no indication whatever is given of such a signification, nor is the ephah represented as so full that it could contain nothing more. The filling-up of iniquity is not the result of the curse of God, but God's curse is the result of the filling-up of the measure of iniquity I20 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. v. 9-1 1. (Kliefoth). The picture of the woman with the ephah and the talent, borne away by the two stork-winged women, is a representation of one of the consequences of the going forth of the curse. The curse of God is described as meeting and destroying those individuals who venture to continue in open transgression, and ultimately as leading to the expulsion of sin itself with its instruments (false measures and false weights) from the midst of the people of God. The picture does not (as Kliefoth supposes) delineate the gathering together in a bushel of all the individual seeds of evil scattered through the world, so as in the end to constitute one individual mass opposed to the Church of God. The vision does not depict the erection of the kingdom of Antichrist. In such a case there would be no special signi- ficance in the introduction into it of an ephah, independently of other considerations. In the interpretation already sketched out (an interpretation which in its main features coincides with that of Pressel), the ephah, the woman and the talent, and the other peculiar features of the vision, are seen to be peculiarly appropriate to the object in view. The sixth vision then exhibits an ideal picture, in advance of that depicted in the fifth. It shows how the curse of God compels sin to pass judgment on itself, and forces sinners to cut themselves oft" from the land and congregation of the Lord. The vision was one peculiarly applicable to the condition of the returned exiles. It is a parable whose teachings are suitable to the Church in all the various stages of its history. It is but the outline of a picture the details of which will be filled in when " the Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend and them that do iniquity" (Matt. xiii. 41). CHAPTER V. THE SEVENTH VISION- THE FOUR CHARIOTS. CHAPTER V. The two mountains of brass or copper, 123 — Importance of the article, 123 — Strange view of Hitzig, 123 — The false prophet Elxai, 124 — Mountains ex- plained by some as Zion and Moriah, 124— Svedberg's view of the mountains of Dalame, 124 — Different Views, 125 — The mountains probably Zion and Mount (jf Olives viewed ideally, 126 — Valley of Jehoshaphat, 126 — The four chariots, 126 — Compared to the winds, 127 — Not the winds themselves, 127, 137 — The horses of the chariots, 127 — Difficulties in the vision itself, 127 — Views of Hitzig, Maurer, Ewald, etc., 127-9— Hengstenberg on the strong horses, 129 — Views of Kliefoth and Keil, 129 — Objections, 129 — The strong and speckled steeds, 129 — Explanations of the chariots as Daniel's four empires, 130 — Various explan- ations of the colours of the horses, 130 — Objections to Kliefoth's view, 131 — Objections to view of von Hofmann and Volck, 132, note — The kingdom of "Antichrist" not the strongest, 132 — Keil's explanation of the colours by reference to Rev. vi., 133 — His attempt to meet the difficulties of the vision, I33~4 — Objections to his view, 134 — Colours of horses in Zechariah not those in Rev. vi., 134 — Colours of no symbolical significance, 135 — Used to mark off one chariot from another, 135 — The four empires and the four chariots, 135 — Baumgarten on the number four, 136, note — Speckled and strong steeds, 136 — Difficulties met, 136 — Signification of vision, 137 — The four chariots not the four winds, 137 — Ewald's view, 137 — Schegg on the scene in general, 138 — — The valley between the mountains, 138— The view presented to Zechariah, 138— Verse 8 explained, 139— The resting of the spirit, 139— Judgments, 139 Ewald's different view, 140 — Objections, 140 — Objection to Pressel's interpre- tation, 140 — Kohler's view of the last vision in its relation to the first, 141. CHAPTER V. THE SEVENTH VISION — THE FOUR CHARIOTS. In the seventh and last vision which the prophet saw on that eventful night, he beheld four chariots rushing forth at full speed from between the two mountains which constituted the side-scenes of the picture presented to his view, and which mountains the prophet noted were "mountains of brass " or rather " of copper." From a defile between these moun- tains the chariots seem to have appeared rushing forth into a plain (Hitzig). The article in the phrase, " between the two mountains," has been overlooked in our Authorised Version. It is of im- portance as indicating that the mountains were well known. The phrase is too definite to admit of such general interpreta- tions as that of Hengstenberg, who supposes tjie mountains to represent the power of God which shields and protects his people (comp. Ps. cxxv. 2), or that of Baumgarten, that they repre- sent the east and west as the two central points of the world- power, which in Zechariah are rather the north and the south. Inasmuch as these chariots went forth from standing before the Lord of the whole earth, Hitzig maintains that the moun- tains must be regarded as near to the dwelling-place of the Most High. In order to illustrate the idea which he imagines to be contained in this passage of Zechariah, of mountains being regarded as near God's abode, Hitzig adduces a state- ment from the extant fragments of the pseudo-prophet Elxai, who lived in the time of Trajan. In the passage referred to, Elxai asserts that he saw the Holy Ghost in female form 124 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. vi. i-8. " above a cloud," and " standing in the midst of two moun- tains." But this reference to Elxai is peculiarly inappropriate, inasmuch as in another passage of the same false-prophet, pre- served by Epiphanius, it is plain that Elxai spoke of the two mountains in his pretended vision merely because they afforded him some criterion from which he was able to calculate the size of the Divine appearance.^ Hitzig further adduces in favour of this idea a statement of Epiphanius in another place (Vit. Hierem.), that Jeremiah hid the tabernacle and ark of the covenant " between the two mountains between which Moses and Aaron were buried " (comp. 2 Mace. ii. 4, 5). This apo- cryphal statement Hitzig seeks further to elucidate by com- paring Rev. xi. 19, where mention is made in symbolical language of the temple of God being opened in heaven and the ark of the covenant being seen, which language Hitzig evidently supposes the writer to have regarded as the language of fact and not of symbol, in which he is joined by some of our latter-day expositors, who delight in the marvellous. Passing by this learned trifling on the part of Hitzig, we note that " the two mountains " have been explained to be (v. Hofmann, Pressel, etc.) the mountains of Zion and Moriah. Others have regarded them as representing the place and seat of the theocracy (Umbreit), or as the mountains whence God should send forth his last great judgments upon the world (v. Hofmann). Others have conjectured that Mount Zion was seen by the prophet as the seat of David's throne, and Moriah as the temple mountain ; for from these two moun- tains in Messianic days the kingdom of God should be spread abroad (Pressel). The opinion of Jasper Svedberg, the father of the renowned Emmanuel Swedenborg, may be mentioned as a curiosity of exposition, which has a lesson for those who harp upon literal interpretations. That scholar considered ^ See Hilgenfeld, "Elxai Libri fragmenta," p?.- Secondly, as to Hengstenberg's argument that the article in □''•ypXH in verse 7 is to be regarded as emphatic, it must not be forgotten that all the adjectives used in reference to the horses when first mentioned naturally occur without the article, but k Ch.vi.6, 7-] SEVENTH VISION — THE FOUR CHARIOTS. 1 29 On the other hand, Hofmann, KHefoth and Keil main- tain that the chariot with the red horses was, indeed, for special reasons, passed over without mention by the interpret- ing angel. They regard the fourth chariot represented in the vision as drawn by two teams of horses, the one characterised as " speckled," the other as " strong." This latter idea is at- tended with peculiar difficulties. According to this view, the same chariot must have been seen by the prophet as going forth first with " the speckled horses " towards the south country, and then going forth a second time with another set of horses on a more extensive tour. For one can scarcely suppose that the last-named steeds went forth without being yoked to a chariot. If such were the only interpretation which could be given to the text as it stands, we should be driven, with Ewald and Maurer, to view the text as corrupt. We agree with Keil and v. Hofmann in considering that for certain reasons (to be afterwards considered) the chariot drawn by the red horses is not specially referred to in the exposition given by the interpreting angel. With Hengstenberg, too, we think that the last adjective in verse 3 must be rendered in its well-known signification as " strong." Ip verse 3, the steeds of the fourth chariot are described as not only "speckled " in colour, but peculiarly "strong " in appearance. The speckled steeds were represented going forth as directed into the land of the south, and then as asking a further per- mission afterwards to traverse the whole world. The perfect tenses used in verses 6 and 7 are to be regarded as condi- tioned by the participle in verse 6, with which the recital com- mences. They are, therefore, not to be viewed as pasts, but as prophetic presents. The south was too small a portion of the when spoken of by the interpreting angel are all used, most naturally, with the article. The use of the article with the adjective in verse 7 can no more be re- garded as emphatic than its use with the black, the white, and the speckled. D*VDX is similarly used at first without the article, but when mentioned the second time- it takes the article, just as the other adjectives. K 130 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. vi. 6, 7. earth for the " speckled " steeds attached to the fourth chariot to be confined to. Hence they are represented as desiring a further field for their operations. Hence, too, when spoken of as anxious that a wider sphere should be afforded to them, they are described by the second adjective used in reference to them in verse 3, that is, as " the strong." And, inasmuch as they possessed this special characteristic in such a marked manner, they obtained their desire, and were sent forth to trample down the world under their hoofs. From a date as early as the days of Jerome, the four chariots have been interpreted as the four world-empires of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Kimchi adopted this view, and the opinion has recently found defenders. It has often fallen into disrepute on account of the fanciful reasons assigned for the colours of the steeds by which the four chariots were driven. These colours have been often explained as signifying the several characteristics of the four empires ; " red " as denoting the Babylonian, because it was cruel and sanguinary ; " black " as designating the Medo- Persians, with special reference to the edict of Ahasuerus (Jerome), and " the heavy lot inflicted by them " (Pusey), inasmuch as the Medo-Persian empire had been represented in Daniel's vision by a beast to which it was said " Arise, devour much flesh" (Dan. vii. 5). The "white " colour has been sup- posed to indicate the Grecian monarchy, under whose rule the times of the Maccabees occurred (Jerome), or because of the wisdom of Alexander the Great (Saadiah), or on account of his benevolence to the Jewish nation (Pusey). The " speckled " steeds have been explained to denote the Romans, some of whom were clement to the Jews, and some were persecutors (Jerome), or because of their mingled character, so prominent in the fourth empire of Daniel (Pusey). j Nor can Kliefoth's ex- ^ Kliefoth's interpretation does not appear more successful. He thinks the Babylonian empire was indicated by the colour " red " on account of its sail- Ch. vi. 6, 7-] SEVENTH VISION — THE FOUR CHARIOTS. 13I position of the adjectives " speckled and strong," in reference to the horses of the fourth chariot, be regarded otherwise than as fanciful. He explains the " speckled " or " piebald " colour to refer to the mixed character of the fourth kingdom, which had been represented by the iron and clay intermingled in the toes of the metallic image of Daniel, and even, as he imagines, in the " two legs " of the same.^ The horses were termed " strong " in his estimation " not only because they go over the whole earth, but also because the kingdom of Anti- christ was to arise from the fourth, M^ho, according to Daniel, should be mightier than any one before him." It is strange that this scholar has not borne in mind that the part of the metallic image which was formed of iron and clay represented an age of decline in the fourth world-monarchy, and not an age of strength. In that symbol, the Roman empire is represented as strong in its first stage, but as com- paratively weak and divided in its second. The strength of that empire, as set forth in Daniel, did not consist, as Keil observes, in its division into a number of kingdoms, but in the compact unity which it originally possessed. The divisions spoken of in Daniel were decide^ marks of its decline. If the " speckled and strong " horses of Zechariah's guinary character. Black, he says, was used for the Medo-Persian instead of ' ' speckled " as in the first vision, because in a prophecy which refers not to the immediate future, but to far distant days, the divided character of that empire was not necessary to be dwelt upon. White he regards as being used for the Mace- donian empire for the reason already given on page 19. His explanation of the " speckled," or " piebald," or " spotted " horses in the fourth vision is noticed above. ^ With respect to the two legs of the metallic colossus of Daniel iii., the fact is too often forgotten that if an image be divided into four parts, the legs of such an image would naturally constitute the fourth part of the whole. If, therefore, such an image be used as a symbol, it does not follow that the duality of the legs must necessarily have any meaning, unless such be actually assigned to it. The inter- preter of Daniel is bound to account for the ten toes, for they are mentioned as significant, but he is not bound to assign any significance to the ten fingers or the duality of the feet, any more than to explain the eyes, ears, nose, etc., for none of those parts are alluded to as significant in the book of Daniel. 1.32 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. vi. 6, 7. vision had any such significance, the "strong" steeds should have appeared in the first rank, and the " speckled " in the second rank of those steeds which were harnessed to the Roman war-chariot.^ It has been too often assumed that the kingdom of Anti- christ, supposed to be predicted by Daniel, is described by that prophet as stronger and mightier than all the kingdoms which preceded it. Whatever its strength may have been represented, considered in relation to the Church of God, the second stage of the fourth kingdom in the vision of the metallic image is described as the very weakest stage of the last world- monarchy. Nor does the vision of Daniel vii. set forth any other view; for the description of the fourth beast as " dreadful and exceeding strong" (in verses 7 and 19) is the descrip- tion of the last monarchy in its earliest stage, and is not a picture of that monarchy in its last phase. On the contrary, even in that chapter (verse 24), the latter times of that power are represented as weak, so far as material strength is concerned, however violent its rage against " the saints of the Most High." Keil seems to have felt the fanciful character of the various ' The efforts made to explain the double adjective used concerning the horses of the fourth chariot, on the supposition that that chariot meant the Roman empire, ex- hibit a great deal of ingenuity. Von Hofmann and Volck consider that the double team represents the Seleucidian dynasty, on the ground that, while in Dan. ii. and vii. four kingdoms are mentioned, in Dan. viii., between the third and fourth, a new kingdom is spoken of, having a strange resemblance to the fourth. This kingdom was the Seleucidian power, especially as represented by Antiochus Epiphanes. Hence those commentators think that the kingdom of the Seleucidce is indicated by the " speckled " steeds because of its similarity in several respects to the Roman, with which it came into contact in Egypt. Kliefoth has rightly objected to this interpretation, that it would be strange if a kingdom which is correctly described in Dan. viii. as an offshoot of the Grecian monarchy, should be represented in Zechariah's vision by steeds yoked to the Roman chariot. If the variety of ele- ments of which the kingdom of the Seleucidae was composed forms any just ground for its being depicted by "speckled" steeds, we might fairly, as Keil remarks, expect the steeds harnessed to the Grecian chariot to be represented as steeds of the same type. The whole interpretation ofV Hofmann can scarcely be regarded otherwise than as an exhibition of critical ingenuity. Ch.vi. 6, 7.] SEVENTH VISION — THE FOUR CHARIOTS. 1 33 attempts to assign a symbolical significance to the colours of these horses in the vision of Zechariah, based on the suppo- sition that the four empires of Daniel are referred to. He has, therefore, with apparent reluctance abandoned that ex- position, and has sought to explain those colours by a refer- ence to the four riders in the first four seals of the book of the Revelation. According to this view, he considers red as the colour of blood, shadowing out war and slaughter ; black to represent mourning, in consequence of sore judgments like those detailed in the Revelation ; ivhite to symbolise victory ; and the spotted or speckled steeds to correspond to the pale horse ridden by Death, in the latter book. The vision in general, according to Keil, represents the chariots of the Divine judgments driven to their allotted destina- tions by various spiritual powers which create commotions of various kinds on the earth, the spirit which each chariot is represented as conveying being in each case that termed in Isaiah iv. 4 "a spirit of judgment," which not only annihilates what is ungodly, but strengthens what is godlike in the world. In explanation of the difficulty caused by the " red " horses being passed over in the angelic interpretation, and of the " speckled and strong " steeds being divided from one an- other (in verses 6, 7), as if attached to two distinct chariots (while both are mentioned as belonging to the fourth chariot in verse 3), Keil submits the following considerations : (i) In all the visions no complete explanation is given of all the single points, but merely indications whereby the general object of the vision may be discerned. Thus he notes that in this vision the horses which go forth to the north country are alone mentioned as bringing thither the spirit of Jahaveh, though the other chariots carry also with them the self-same spirit to their several allotted destinations. We shall presently see that this idea of Keil, that the chariots are represented as laden with the spirit, is entirely incorrect. 134 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. vi. 6, 7. (2) The second point to which Keil calls attention is of real importance, namely, that the north and the south, specified as the localities whither the chariots go forth, were the chief seats of the world-power hostile to Israel, and represent that power in general (compare Dan. xi., where the kings of the north and south represent the powers north and south of the Holy Land). Inasmuch, however, as the enemies of God's people were not confined to those localities, a chariot is described in Zechariah as going forth into all the earth. (3) In the third place Keil tries to account for the want of correspondence between the vision and its interpretation (namely, that in the latter the " red " horses are omitted, and in place of them the " strong " horses are spoken of, which are named the " speckled and strong " in verse 3), by ob- serving that it seemed of more consequence to express the thought that the judgments of God in all their full strength were sent forth upon the earth, than by any special mention of the red horses to emphasize the bloody nature of those judgments. This interpretation is based on the assumed correspondence of the colours of the steeds in Zechariah with those men- tioned in the book of the Revelation. But this is the veiy point where it breaks down. It requires no small amount of ingenuity to make out any correspondence whatever be- tween the Hebrew word rendered "speckled," "spotted," or " piebald " (a term applied to goats, as well as to horses), and the Greek 'xXoopo'^, rendered "pale" in our English Version of the book of the Revelation. This is a point of criticism which cannot be here discussed (see crit. comm.). The reason assigned for the red horses having been passed over in the interpretation of the angel is a strange one, for according to it the chariot with the red horses must have been the most remarkable of the four. Moreover, we deny entirely that the vision contains any such incongruity, as that the Ch.vi. 6,7.] SEVENTH VISION — THE FOUR CHARIOTS. 135 fourth chariot drawn by the spotted and strong horses is divided into two by the interpreting angel. The truth seems to be that the colours of the horses har- nessed to the four chariots, like the colours of those ridden by the angels in the first vision, are of no symbolical significance. The variety of colour, as shown in our discussion of the first vision, is simply of importance as serving to distinguish one chariot from another. In the first vision three divisions of celestial riders were thus distinguished from one another. In this vision four chariots had to be similarly distinguished. As horses are made use of in the symbolism of both visions, the colours assigned are those commonly belonging to horses. But in order to prevent any confusion of the first and seventh visions, though the common colours red and white are spoken of in both, some special colours peculiar to each of the two visions are made use of in order to give to each a certain dis- tinctive character, and thus to prevent the one vision from being confounded with the other. Commentators of all shades of opinion have displayed an uncommon amount of ingenuity in their efforts to assign symbolical meanings to each variety of colour; but the very unnatural explanations to which they have been forced to have recourse tend to prove the unsound- ness of this method of interpretation. With the single exception that we assign no symbolical meaning whatever to the colours of the steeds, we coincide with the traditional interpretation of the vision, namely, that it has a reference to the four empires of Daniel. There is nothing strange in the fact that the same four empires, spoken of twice or three times in the book of Daniel, should be depicted in the visions of Zechariah ; in which the state of the Gentile world and its relation to the people of Israel is so vividly pourtrayed. Though Babylon had been humbled, and its world-empire taken away, it was still a state of con- siderable importance, which gave no small trouble to the 136 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. " [Ch. vi. 6, 7. Medo-Persian empire in the days of Zechariah. It was, therefore, represented as one of the war-chariots, which (though it had indeed been driven in triumph over the land and people of Judah) had at the same time prostrated in the dust many of the hereditary foes of Israel. The Babylonian war-chariot was, therefore, for completeness' sake, introduced into the vision. But inasmuch as the day of its real power had passed away, and it had been supplanted by another empire, it was, as Jerome expresses it, " most suitably " passed over in the interpretation which is in the main taken up with what was then future.^ The steeds harnessed to the fourth chariot are described as "speckled" in colour, and as " strong " in appearance. The "ingenuity of scholars has been ineffectually expended in try- ing to make out that the latter adjective denotes a colour, as some colour would have been naturally expected in the posi- tion in which the word occurs. The conjunction "and" would also have been expected between the two adjectives " speckled and strong," in place of which the text has only " speckled, strong." This is a difficulty, but it is not a serious one, for such unevennesses of construction are not unfrequently found, and it is clear from the context that the word " strong " is a description only used in reference to the " speckled " steeds. It does not follow that the other steeds appeared to the prophet to be weak. But the vision of the four chariots is based upon that of Daniel's four empires, and it cannot be forgotten that strength was predicated especially of the fourth ^ It is remarkable, as Baumgarten has noticed, that the number four appears twice in connection with the capitals of the two world-kingdoms mentioned in Gen. X. 10, II, which respectively belonged to Assyria and Babylon. The power of Assyria had long passed away, but as this number four reappeared in the book of Daniel, it was natural that the four great military empires, the fate of which was so clearly interwoven with the history of the Church of God, from the days of the Babylonian monarchy even to those of the setting up of the kingdom of Messiah, should be depicted as four waB^hariots driven by the winds, and sweeping forth on their wild career from the pass in the mountains. •i h.vi. 7,S.] SEVENTH VISION — THE FOUR CHARIOTS. 1 37 monarchy, though its three predecessors were in themselves strong and powerful. The Roman war-chariot with the " speckled " horses went out first into the south country, i.e., towards the land of Egypt. There was to be its first scene of action. There it came in collision with the declining Macedonian power, and there it was that it first came into direct contact with the Jewish nation. Egypt was, however, too narrow a field within which to be confined ; and hence this war-chariot is described as seeking for a more extended commission. The world was then assigned to it for its sphere of operation, and in the character of " the strong" ones, the "speckled " horses, having received the desired permission, went forth to walk to and fro through the earth. Such appears to be the only satisfactory explanation of the seventh and eighth verses. It explains the text as it stands, without any recourse being had to conjectural readings, un- supported by the authority of MSS, or versions. The second and third chariots are described as going forth into the north country, or towards Babylon, because the Medo-Persian war-chariot went thither to destroy the might of Babylon. Thither also went forth the Grecian chariot in its turn to overthrow the Persian empire, thus fulfilling Haggai's prophecy that those nations should fall by means of one another. Though the wind is represented as used by God as an instrument in the execution of his work on earth, it is scarcely possible to regard the four chariots of this vision as simply signifying the four winds of heaven. The statement in verse 5 is in opposition to such a view, since persons and spirits, but not winds, are spoken of as standing before God (compare Job i. 6, ii. i). Ewald is, therefore, correct in explaining the statement, " these are the four winds of the heavens," to mean that the four chariots went forth as swiftly as the four winds 138 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. vi. 7, 8. of heaven into all the four parts of the world, driven along with the rapidity of lightning, as if the wind-angels had been the charioteers.^ Schegg has some instructive thoughts upon the imagery of the vision, which cast some light on its signification. The chariots, according to him, were represented as standing in the valley between Moriah and Zion, or, as we would prefer to regard them, as rushing forth from a defile apparently lying between Mount Zion and the Mount of Olives. The valley of vision need not be regarded as in all respects identical with the actual Valley of Jehoshaphat, places being usually strangely modified when seen in dreams or visions, even though connected with some well-known localities. As the mountains in this vision are described as "mountains of brass," though Mount Zion and Moriah may have formed the ground-work of the vision, the mountains can- not be regarded as in all points identical with those two actual mountains, and the valley may not have been exactly like the natural valley. The valley of vision seems to have had two openings, leading respectively towards the north and south, and along those roads the chariots were seen sweeping in their wild career. The actual direction which the first chariot took does not seem to have been obser\^ed by the prophet, so rapid was its progress. The second and third chariots were per- ceived following one another, at some definite interval, along the road leading to the north. The second war-chariot, that of the Medo-Persians, was stated by the angel to have gone 1 The chariots must represent something more definite and distinct than political storms and tempests sent forth into all the quarters of the globe, and specially towards the north and south. We may indeed call to mind the fact that in the book of the Revelation four angels are represented as 'standing at the four corners of the earth, and holding the four winds of the earth in check (Rev. vii. l). But the imagery of Zechariah is by no means identical with that in the Revelation. For it is evident, though the prophet saw the^^our chariots going forth at the same time, that the mission of these four chariots -was not synchronous but successive, Ch.vi.7,8.] SEVENTH VISION — THE FOUR CHARIOTS. 1 39 forth towards the north, that is towards Babylon, where, not- withstanding the subjugation of the Babylonian empire, there remained, in the days of the prophet, much to be done, ere the proud Babylonians were content to occupy the sub- ordinate position allotted to them. The third or Grecian war- chariot is represented not merely as 'going " after them," but, as the words imply, " to that which is behind them," i.e., to the countries lying behind the territory of Babylon, which countries were the original home of the empire of the Medo- Persians, whose power the Macedonian chariot was to overturn and supplant. As the second chariot sped forth on its way, the interpreting angel cried out to the prophet, " These (horses) that are going toward the north country {i.e., the steeds of the second or Medo-Persian war-chariot) have caused my spirit {i.e., my anger) to rest upon the north country." The phrase, " have caused my spirit to rest," has been variously explained. The phrase occurs in several other passages (Ezek. v. 12, xvi. 42, xxiv. 13), with the substitution of the common word for " anger " in place of " spirit." But as the word " spirit " is often used in the sensp of " anger " (Judg. viii. 3 ; Eccles. x. 4 ; Prov. xvi. 32), there is no difficulty in interpreting the passage of the anger of the Lord being poured out upon Babylon. The wrath of God had only been partly executed by Cyrus, but it was more fully executed by Darius Hystaspis when he suppressed the serious at- tempts at insurrection made by the Babylonians. That wTath was poured out on Babylon also a century later, when a third revolt of the Babylonians, that against Xerxes, was crushed. The attention of the prophet was specially called to that event which was of importance to the people of Israel in, or immediately after, his own time. For if God's fierce judgment was about to descend on the province of Babylon, the Jews who still loitered in Babylon should 140 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. vi. 7,8. make haste to obey the Divine command, and to flee from that land upon which the Divine wrath was shortly again to be poured. This expression in verse 8 has, however, been otherwise understood, as intimating not that the anger of the Lord, but that the spirit of the Lord should be poured out upon the people in that land. Thus Ewald translates, " They leave my spirit in the land of the north," i.e., he considers the prophet to predict that the Israelites in Babylon would, under the influence of the spirit of God, receive higher courage and a purer zeal ; for the angels, whom the prophet saw carried along in the chariots, would communicate to them the spirit of Ja- haveh. But if the vision be thus interpreted, it becomes tame and pointless, and it is impossible to assign any meaning to some of its most remarkable features. Why, for instance, should the first chariot have been passed over without men- tion by the angel } That Ewald felt the force of this difficulty is plain, from the fact that to get rid of it he proposed the emendation of the text which has been already discussed (see p. 128). But that is not the only difficulty. Why should the Israelites who dwelt in Babylon be specially referred to as about to receive nobler courage and zeal ? Why should not the same blessing have been poured forth on the Israelites dispersed in other parts of the earth } Pressel has, as far as translation is concerned, adopted Ewald's view ; but he does not confine the passage to the dispersed Jews or Israelites in Babylon. According to his view, God's judgments on the nations had been sufficiently treated of in the second and third visions. The third vision was especially intended to stir up the exiles in Babylon to a sense of their duty. The fourth and fifth -visions describe blessings vouchsafed to the Jewish Church, while in the sixth, " wickedness " is described as borne away in the ephah to the land of Shinar. As the present vision might be supposed to Ch.vi.7, 8.] SEVENTH VISION — THE FOUR CHARIOTS. 141 describe something in advance of the preceding, Pressel imagines that it depicts the four winds as let loose to sweep away wickedness from every quarter under heaven. The winds of God sweep away all that is impure and unholy not only from the limits of the Holy Land, but from the whole earth, and therefore are specially let loose against the land where " wickedness " had dared to set up her house and home. The winds were to purify all the earth, so that the spirit of the living God might rest in all lands, and fill all alike with his Divine being. According to this view the last vision of Zechariah was a vision of mercy and not one of judgment. But the interpre- tation does considerable violence to some of the language of the prophet, and leaves unexplained the most remarkable statements of the vision. According to these, three of the chariots had a special and distinct work assigned to them, while the horses of the fourth are represented as desiring a larger sphere than that originally assigned to them. The significance of the four chariots, each drawn by horses of a different colour, is utterly lost sight of in this interpretation ; for if only the winds were signified, why should each chariot be so clearly marked off", and distinguished from the rest ? Kohler regards the seventh and last vision as returning to the point whence the first started. In the first vision the nations of the earth were represented as not fully ripe for judgment ; hence the earth was quiet and still. In a series of visions God's special judgments on the nations who had trodden down his peculiar people are glanced at, while the gathering of Israel and the enlargement of the holy city (beyond such limits as the returned exiles could have dared to expect) arc pointed out. The purification of the Jewish Church, its sanctification, and the removal of " wickedness " from its midst, are strikingly sketched, even though " wicked- ness " was permitted for a time to have a home in the land where 142 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Cli. vi. 7, 8. the enemies of the Lord's people resided. Lastly, the war chariots of the several world-empires used to execute God's righteous will in the world are described. For " He maketh the wrath of man to praise him," and the king- doms of the ungodly are ever made use of in order to do God's service. Thus the last vision returns to the very point of the first. The quiet of the earth is represented in it as broken up, while the dispersed of Israel are warned that Jerusalem was the place where alone God's blessing could be expected, and reminded, therefore, that they should return to their land. God's wrath would soon be poured out upon the region of the north. Woe then to those exiles who were found tarrying, when the chariots of wrath would sweep onward to that land of their sojourn, and the heavy anger of the Lord would descend again and again upon that Babylon, which was appointed to utter destruction. CHAPTER VI. THE CROWNING OF THE HIGH-PRIEST. CHAPTER VI. The day after the visions, 145 — The deputation from Babylon, 145 — The reception of gifts from exiles there, 146 — Supposed scruples against their reception, 146 — The prophet directed to make a crown of silver and gold, 146 — The act actu- ally performed, 147 — "This day," 147 — A crown or crowns, i47^Differences of opinion among critics, views of Hitzig and Ewald, 147 — One crown only signified, 147 — Why the High Priest and not the Prince was crowned, 148 — The King-priest of Ps. ex., 148 — The prediction respecting Messiah, 149 — The Branch, 149 — Messiah to build a temple, 149 — Not to complete the second temple, 150 — ^Joshua and the Messiah, 150 — The "glory" or "majesty" of Messiah, 151 — Royal dignity, 1 51 — Opinions of critics on the priest upon or before his throne, 151-5 — Ewald's proposed alterations of text, 152 — "The counsel of peace between them both," understood to mean between Messiah as priest and Messiah as king, 153, — Objections, 153 — Preferably understood to signify between Messiah and Jahaveh, 154 — New Testament confirmation of this view, 155, — Conclusion as to meaning of passage, 155 — The crown made by the prophet deposited in the temple, 155 — The names of the Jewish deputies from Babylon, 156, note — The strangers from among the Gentiles, 156 — Closing words of the prophet's address, 157 — Conflicting opinions, 157. CHAPTER VI. THE CROWNING OF THE HIGH PRIEST. When the eventful night during which the prophet had seen his seven visions was over, and the morning of the next day dawned, the word of the Lord came to Zechariah, com- manding him to perform an act in public, by which the Divine seal should be affixed to the visions he had seen, and the people would be encouraged to go forward boldly in their work, under the conviction that the Divine blessing was cer- tain to rest on their labours. Zechariah was commanded to go and take with him certain Jews who had just arrived from Babylon with gifts and offer- ings for the house of the Lord in Jerusalem. He was to go with these men to the house of Josiah the son of Zephaniah, who had hospitably lodged this deputation from Babylon, and having made a crown of the gold and silver which they had brought, the prophet was to go forth with the members of the deputation to Joshua the high priest, and to place that crown upon his head. The expression " take of the captivity " no doubt refers to the Jews who were still sojourners in the land whither they had been carried away captive. Ezra uses the expression " the captivity " to denote the exiles who had returned from the land of their exile to Jerusalem. But such cannot be meant here. The persons who are named are distinctly men- tioned as having come from Babylon, and allusion is made afterwards to that fact as prefiguring those people who from far countries should in later times come and build the temple of the Lord. L 145 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. vi. lo, ii. The construction of the Hebrew is so pecuHar that Hitzig, Schegg, and others, have viewed the word " take " not as a command addressed to the prophet himself, but as a direction given more generally to the Jews of Jerusalem, bidding them to receive without scruple for the temple the gifts sent by their brethren who still tarried in the land of exile. According to this view, it is supposed that the leaders of the colony at Jerusalem, who had refused permission to the Samaritans to co-operate in the building of the sacred edifice, had scruples as to whether it was right to accept gifts from those whose continued sojourn in the land of exile was a transgression of the Divine command. On the other hand it is clear that while the Jews refused altogether the prof- fered aid of the Samaritans for special reasons, they ac- cepted, without any scruple whatever, the gifts presented for the use of the temple by heathen kings, princes, and people (Ezra i. 4, 6, 7, vi. 4), not merely such gifts as might have been possibly viewed in the light of a restitution of what had previously belonged to God's house, but also such as had never in any sense belonged to that holy place (Ezra vi. 8- 10, vii. 15, 16). Consequently they could have had little scruple in receiving from their own people gifts for the same purpose, whatever they might have thought of their con- tinued disobedience to the Lord's command, in not returning to the Holy Land and to the cities of their forefathers. The prophet did as he was directed, and made the crown which was to be placed on the high priest's head. Hengsten- berg, indeed, has doubts whether this act commanded to be done was designed to be really performed (see his CJiristology, vol. iii., note on verse 14, p. 360, English transL). He thinks that verse 1 1 tends rather to show that this vy^as not the case, " for the prophet can hardly have been a goldsmith, and yet he was ordered to make the crown." Hengstenberg, therefore, prefers to regard the action as ndt actually performed, but as Ch. vi. lo, II.] THE CROWNING OF THE HIGH PRIEST. I47 an act which, Hke those recorded in chap, xi., took place only within the sphere of the spiritual perception. It seems, however, to us more natural to view the act com- manded as one actually performed in the sight of the people. The act commanded here was totally different from the acts enjoined in chap, xi., which latter could not have been actually performed. The direction to make the crown signifies nothing more than that the prophet, in some way or other, was to get the crown or crowns duly made. Nor need that command have occasioned any considerable delay. A few hours were all that was needed, as the crown, or crowns, may have been simple twisted wreaths of silver and gold. The expression "this day " can scarcely signify anything else than the day succeeding the night in which the prophet had seen the visions, or possibly the day on which the gifts from Babylon were to be presented in the temple (Hitzig). ^ It has been disputed whether the prophet was to make a crozvn, or crowns. The word in the original is plural. Hitzig maintains that at least two crowns, one of silver, the other of gold, were signified, while some explain the plurality of crowns as indicating the royal and the priestly dignity. But the high priest is never said to have worn a crown, or to have had a throne. The suggestion of Ewald (followed by Bunsen) that the words " and upon the head of Zerubbabel " should be inserted in verse 11, which assumes that the two crowns must have been designed for the two leaders of the people, is arbitrary, and would necessitate other alterations to be made in order to make the passage at all consistent with itself But inasmuch as the passage simply states tliat the crowns were to be placed on the head of the high priest (no mention being made of Zerubbabel in the entire passage), and as the word actually occurs in the plural elsewhere to denote a single crown (Job xxxi. 36), the passage really ' On the changes in the proper names of the persons, see note on page 156. T48 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. vi. 11, 12. presents no difficulty. The crown on this occasion may have consisted of several fillets of gold and silver, intertwined together and arranged so as to be fitted for a single head. In Rev. xix. 9, 12, many crowns are spoken of as placed upon the head of Christ, by which is meant a diadem, composed of, or encircled with, many crowns. The prophet having placed the crown of silver and gold upon the head of the high priest, addressed him in the follow- ing words : " Behold the man, Branch (Shoot) is his name, and he shall branch up (shoot up) from his place, and build the temple of Jahaveh, even he shall bear majesty, and shall sit and rule upon his throne, and he shall be priest upon his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between the two of them," or " them both." The high priest wore no crown ; the crown placed upon his head by the prophet was however a symbol of royal dignity. The high priest must have been fully conscious that the words used by the prophet did not refer to himself For the " Branch " was the title distinctly given by the prophet Jere- miah to the Messiah, who was to come of the house of David, to which royal house the high priest did not belong. Had Zerubbabel been crowned instead of Joshua the high priest, there might have been ground afforded for some such mistake. Hence in all probability the crown was not placed upon the head of Zerubbabel, but upon that of the high priest. Neither Zechariah, the priest-prophet, nor Joshua the high priest, could well have been ignorant of the fact that in Ps. ex. the Messiah was predicted in the character of both king and priest. And inasmuch as the high-priestly office was a typical one, the high priest and the people no doubt saw something remarkable in the prophetic words, addressed indeed to the high priest, but evidently referring to the Messiah, accom- panied, as they were, by the symbolical act of crowning the high priest with the mark of ro3^al dignity. The whole Ch.vi 12, 13.] THE CROWNING OF THE HIGH PRIEST. 149 transaction was a symbolico-prophctical act. In the crowned high priest addressed by the prophet of Jahaveh in those solemn words, a striking picture was exhibited before the people of the long-expected Branch of David. No plainer prophecy could have been uttered as to the coming of the Messiah, or as to the offices that he was to fill. Even those commentators who are the least inclined to admit definite Messianic predictions have been constrained to acknowledge that the Messiah is here spoken of The words "and he shall grow up from his place" admit of no other meaning. Compare Exod. x. 23, which is the only other passage where the expression occurs. ^ The Messiah, as Kohler remarks, is called " the Branch," or " Shoot," not because he causes all things to shoot up, but because he himself, by the Divine power, springs up from the stem of David's tree when at its lowest condition (comp. Isa. xi. i). Thus in this signi- ficant sentence the lowly origin of the Messiah on the one hand, and his royal dignity on the other, are both not obscurely referred to. The statement " he shall build the temple of the Lord " cannot refer to the temple whose foundation had already been laid by Zerubbabel ; for the prophet had predicted that that temple should be completed by Zerubbabel himself, and, therefore, the words must allude to another building than that material edifice. In favour of the idea that the literal temple is meant, Hitzig refers to verse 15, where other builders are .spoken of as building together with Zerubbabel ; ^ The words cannot be rendered impersonally, as Hitzig, Maurer, and others, fol- lowing the LXX., Vulg. and Luther, render them, viz., "It shall grow up under him," i.e., blessings shall spring up in his steps and follow him. The similarity in gender of the two verbs proves the identity of their subject. Drake, in the Speaker' s Commentary, explains the text thus : ' ' And he shall sprout forth from under himself, i.e., send forth shoots as from a parent stem, indicating the effect of Joshua's example upon his countrymen in inciting them to do their duty, but also in the higher sense of the words, implying the growth of all Christian holiness from Christ as from the root-stem." We cannot agree with this exegesis. ISO ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. vi. 13. and he further argues that it is conceivable that the origi- nal edifice might be thought of as enlarged and beautified by the Messiah. Such an idea would, however, scarcely be conveyed by the expressions here used. Moreover, Haggai had predicted that the house then in course of erection should be filled with glory, so that its glory would exceed the glory of the temple erected by Solomon. The prophecy, therefore, of Zechariah must needs refer to that temple of which both the tabernacle and the temple of Solomon were types, namely, the Church or people of the living God (Hos. viii. i ; Eph. ii. 21, 22, etc.). For that the Church is the true temple of God was (as Kohler remarks) a truth by no means too deep to be understood from the Old Testament standpoint, and one which might well have been comprehended by a prophet with the deep spiritual insight of Zechariah. That the Lord was in the midst of his people, and that he dwelt not in temples made with hands was a truth as old as Solomon (i Kings viii. 27 ; 2 Chron. ii. 5 ; Isa. Ixvi. i). The truth set forth by the prophet was that the Messiah should build the spiritual tem- ple, and that the true Israel should be the dwelling-place of the Most High. A comparison is evidently drawn in verse 13 between the Messiah and the high priest Joshua. This is denied by Keil, but on insufficient grounds. Kohler maintains the correct in- terpretation. Joshua was engaged about the building of the temple in conjunction with Zerubbabel. In the prosecution of that work the prophet Haggai had exhorted him as well as Zerubbabel to be strong and of good courage, and to perse- vere in the work (Hag. ii. 4). The building, however, of the true temple was to be effected by a greater than he. In reference to that coming Branch, Zechariah- repeats with emphasis, "And he shall build the temple of Jahaveh" (comp. the ^i^^ in Gen. iii. 15 ; Isa. liii. 4). The emphatic nature of the pronoun is recognised by Ewafd. While the brow of the Ch. vi. 13-] THE CROWNING OF THE HIGH PRIEST. 151 high priest was still encircled with the crown (which by Divine command had been placed upon it), Zechariah was further directed to proclaim with reference to the great Messiah, " And he {i.e., the Messiah) shall bear the majesty," i.e., the royal honour and glory, which was typified by the crown on the head of the high priest, and had been worn by that high priest only as a type of him who was to come. The word translated "glory" (liH), or "majesty," is often used specially to indicate royal honours (Jer. xxii. 18 ; Ps. xxi. 6; Dan. xi. 21). It is employed also in a variety of other significations. The Messiah is said to bear or carry the glory, inasmuch as glory is spoken of as something which can be laid upon a person, and which, therefore, can be bofne (Num. xxvii. 20 ; Dan. xi. 21 ; i Chron. xxix. 25). The word is used often (not to say with Dr. Pusey, " almost always,") of "the special glory of God," and of that of the king as God's repre- sentative. With the light of the New Testament reflected upon the prophecies of the Old, we may profitably compare the many passages in which the glory of Christ was said to have been manifested, as in his first miracle at Cana of Galilee (John ii. 11), and his transfiguration (Luke ix. 32); or in which his glory is spoken of as that into which he finally entered after his suffering (Luke xxiv. 26), when he was glorified with the glory which he had with the Father before the world was (John xvii. 5), which glory Isaiah saw in vision (John xii. 41), and which the Lamb has upon his throne (Rev. V. 12, 13). The royal dignity of the Messiah is specially alluded to in the next clause, " and he will sit and rule upon his throne." The expressions signify that the Messiah would be in posses- sion of the honour and dignity of a king, and would also exercise the authority which belongs to that dignity. But in his case the priestly office should be combined also with the 152 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. vi. 13. royal dignity, for it is further said, "and he shall be a priest upon his throne." . The latter clause has indeed been variously translated. The Greek translators have rendered it, "and there shall be a priest upon his right hand;" Hitzig and Stahelin, "and there will be a priest upon his throne," that is, at the time when the Branch of David should possess the royal dig- nity, there would be a priest who would also sit upon his throne. The pronoun " his " cannot well be supposed to refer to Jahaveh. It must refer to the second subject, " he," i.e., the Branch. The passage certainly does not mean that the Messiah and the high priest should sit both together on one throne. The high priest is nowhere said to have had a •throne. His duty (as Kohler notes) was not to sit as a king on a throne,^ but to stand before Jahaveh, and to do him service (comp. Jud. xx. 28 ; Deut. xvii. 12). There would have been nothing remarkable in this prediction if it only meant that there should be a priest in the time of the Messiah ; for the congregation of God could never be thought of without a priest to make atonement for sins. Ewald has ventured to insert the name " Joshua " in the clause, " and Joshua will be a priest upon his seat," which reading he considers required by the statement following, " and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." These two persons, according to Ewald, can be no other than Zerubbabel and Joshua. But no such violent alterations of the text can be accepted, if our object be to seek to understand the meaning designed by the prophet himself Ewald's explanation of the last clause as referring to Zerubbabel and Joshua must, therefore, be rejected. Nor can even Hitzig's opinion be defended, namely, that the ^ I Sam. iv. 13, 18, certainly does not prove that the high priest had a throne, but that he could sit on a seat like an ordinary man, though Thenius considers that Eli is represented sitting on a throne at the outer door of the sanctuaiy, be- cause in I Sam. i. 9 he is represented as sitting on his seat at the inner door. Ch. vi. 13.] THE CROWNING OF THE HIGH PRIEST. 153 Messiah and an ideal priest are referred to in the clause, "the counsel of peace 'shall be between them both." Rosen- miiller, Kliefoth, and others consider that the ofifices of priest and king are alluded to. But the phraseology constrains us to think of persons and not of abstract offices (Hitzig), and it is impossible to speak of a " counsel of peace " between two abstracts (Kohler). It is more natural to take the words as referring to the Messiah as priest and king, and to regard them as signifying that the counsel of peace is to exist between the ruler and the priest, these two characters being combined in the person of the Messiah (Hengstenberg, v. Hofmann, Umbreit, Keil). But if this be understood to mean that the greatest unity and peace would exist between the two characters (as Umbreit and v. Hofmann seem to suppose), the clause would be superfluous. Kohler, therefore, adopts the view advocated by Hengstenberg, that the reference is to the two offices of priest and king combined in the person of the Messiah, and that the prophecy speaks of a plan devised by the Messiah in his double character, whereby peace and salvation should be secured for the people of God. If the combined efforts of Zerubbabel and Joshua had, as Hengstenberg notes, been already productive of beneficial results to the people of Israel, what might not be expected when the true High Priest and King should come to his people and produce peace by mcan.s of the combination of the two great offices in his own person. The Branch of the Lord is thus described as one who by his individual action as king and priest should procure peace for his people. This fact agrees with the New Testament statements, in which the angelic choirs are represented an- nouncing " peace on earth " as one of the results of Christ's birth ; and with our Lord's own words, " Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you " (John xiv. 27, xvi. 33), the full realization of which blessing is exhibited in the final vision of the book of the Revelation. 154 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. vi. 13. There is, however, some harshness in this explanation of the clause ; for the words could not have been so understood by the contemporaries of the prophet. Moreover, there is no New Testament passage in which a " counsel of peace " is spoken of as devised and carried into execution between Christ in his office as king and Christ regarded as the priest of his people. It is clear no doubt that the pronoun " /fw " in the expression "his throne" is used twice in verse 13 in reference to the Messiah, and cannot well be regarded as relating to Jahaveh. The royal dignity of the Messiah is specially referred to, inasmuch as the Messiah as king would have power to perform the work which he had to do. But the 1 fact that the pronoun in the phrase " his throne " cannot refer to Jahaveh, does not prove that Jahaveh cannot be one of the two persons alluded to at the close of the verse. Two, and only two persons are referred to in the verse, namely, the Lord and the Lord's Christ ; and many eminent scholars, as Cocceius, Vitringa, Reuss, Pusey, following Jerome, have considered that these are the two persons to whom reference is made in the clause, " the counsel of peace shall be between them both." The prophecy, indeed, seems closely connected with Ps. ex., where a " counsel " between the Lord and his Christ is plainly referred to, and where the Messiah is depicted as king and priest. This is the natural meaning, and the way in which the words were no doubt interpreted by the hearers of the prophet Zechariah. The thought of some ideal king and priest, who would coincide in some blessed unity of purpose, would never have occurred to their minds. Peace between the civil and ecclesiastical heads of the nation was not such an uncommon occurrence in Israel as to make such unity in Messianic times a circumstance deserving of special mention. . The priests and kings of Israel and Judah were rarely at variance, though contests between the kings and the prophets were of frequent occurrence. Nor could the Jews have been able to conceive Ch. vi. 13, 14.] THE CROWNING OF THE HIGH PRIEST. 155 that the whole prophecy meant that the Messiah as king was to consult and devise a plan whereby peace and salvation were to be brought about by himself in his priestly character. On the other hand, frequent mention is made in the New Testament of a blessed unity of design existing between Christ and the Father for the accomplishment of the salvation of mankind. Our Lord repeatedly spoke of himself as having come into the world not to do his own will but the will of him that sent him (John vi. 38). That will was the salvation of his people (John x, 15-18). The will of the Father is ex- pressed in the well-known text, " God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved " (John iii. 16, 17). " It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell, and having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself" (Col. i. 19, 20). - Such is the most simple and unconstrained meaning of the passage. There is no doubt some unevenness of diction in the verse as thus interpreted ; but no serious (jiifificulty lies in the way of this interpretation. For both Jahaveh and the Messiah are distinctly alluded to in the verse, though the Messiah is not mentioned by name. It is the explan- ation most agreeable to the prophetic psalm (Ps. ex.) which seems to form the basis of the passage, and it is that most in accordance with the analogy of the New Testament state- ments. That eminent scholars have laboured hard to ascribe other unnatural interpretations to the passage, by which its Messianic sense is obscured, is a fact which only demon- strates that orthodox theologians are not the only persons whose interpretations of sacred Scripture have been warped by prejudice or preconceived opinions. The crown of silver and gold, placed by the prophet upon 156 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. vi. 14, 15. the head of Joshua the high priest, was not long permitted to rest upon his brow. The prophet was bidden to take that crown and deposit it in the temple as a memorial of those Jews who from a far country had brought offerings for the work of the Lord at Jerusalem. They, and their host, who had so warmly received those pilgrims to the holy city, were to be had in gracious remembrance before the Lord.^ There may have been something peculiar in the conduct and lives of those men which rendered them especially worthy of such distinction. " Them that honour me," saith the Lord, " I will honour" (i Sam. ii. 30). The real cause for which the crowns were to be deposited in the temple, and hung up in that sacred edifice (a command which there is no reason to believe was not actually carried into execution), was because the Jewish exiles from Babylon were types of the strangers from among the Gentiles who should hereafter be brought into the community of the Lord, and who should even become builders in the great spiritual . temple whose foundations should be laid in the holy city. For the prophecy closes with the promise of a glorious ac- cession of Gentiles to the Jewish Church, an accession of strength and power which was to be accorded in Messianic times. The conversion of the Gentile nations, and their in- corporation into the Covenant Church, had been plainly revealed to the prophet at the close of the third vision. The ^ The variations which occur in tlie names repeated in verse 14 are of no special significance. Helem (DTTI) was not a second name for Heldai (HPn), but is with far more probabiHty regarded as a mistake of an ancient copyist, which either was not found in the MS. which the Syriac translator used, or, if it occurred in his copy, was corrected by that early translator. The word rendered in our Authorised Version as a proper name, " and to Hen the son of Zephaniah," is better rendered with Hitzig, Ewald and Kohler, "and for the favour," i.e. the kindli- ness and good will, "of the son of Zephaniah." That is, the kind hospitality which he, no doubt from love to God as well as to his people, had exhibited to- wards this deputation of Jewish exiles from Babylon, would (as in the case of Gains in the New Testament) in no wise lose its*«eward, even in earthly honour and esteem (Matt. x. 41, 42). Ch. vi. 15.] THE CROWNING OF TPIE IIIGII PRIEST. 157 glorious promise is here repeated in different words : " And they that are afar off shall come and build in the temple of the Lord of hosts ; and ye shall know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto you." It is scarcely possible that the Jewish " diaspora" only could have been referred to. The pro- phecy must rather be interpreted in the light of the prediction in chap. ii. ii, and of the earlier prediction of Haggai (ii. 7). The great apostle of the Gentiles may have had this prophecy in his view, when he reminded his converts in Ephesus, that " now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off have become nigh through the blood of Christ " (Eph. ii. 13); and when he set forth the work of the great Redeemer in those beautiful words, " He came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh" (Eph. ii. 17). On the other hand, St. Peter probably under- stood the similar expressions to which he gave utterance as referring to the dispersed of Israel : " The promise is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call " (Acts ii. 39). The closing words of the prophecy, " and this shall come to pass if ye will diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God," have sometimes been understood (as by Jerome, Theod. and by Maurer among later critics) to affirm that the fulfil- ment of all these promises was conditional on the obedience of Israel to the voice of their God. But there is no need thus to interpret it, nor to suppose (with Ewald) that the words were added by some later copyist of the prophet. ^ * Neither need we regard the words as an abrupt aposiopesis, as Hengsten- berg, " and it will come to pass if ye hearken to the voice of the Lord your God that •' For, as Kohler notes, the gap thus left would not be naturally sup- plied by the people, as Hengstenberg supposes, by "Ye shall participate in all these blessings, and the Messiah shall make atonement for you as your high priest, and promote your prosperity as your king." We can see no reason why the passage should have been left thus unfinished. The passage may be regarded (as Kohler views it) as a warning that Israel could not reasonably expect the fulfilment of such glorious promises until they should be prepared for their reception by a careful walking in the ways of the Lord. 158 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. vi. 15. The passage is best understood as Dr. Pusey has explained it : The share of the Jews in all these promises should de- pend upon their faithfulness to the covenant of their God. " None of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand" (Dan. xii. 10) There is a wisdom which is from above, whereby alone men can understand and embrace the truth of God. It is this to which the prophet Hosea refers when he says, " Whoso is wise shall understand these things " (Hosea xiv. 10). Thus were the Jews reminded that the blessed results of the coming of the Messiah would belong only to those who should fear God, and seek to be led in his way. " The meek will he guide in judgment, and the meek will he teach his way." We may recall to mind'the words of our Lord added by him to his gracious invitation, " Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest," namely, " Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest to your souls " (Matt. xi. 28, 29). " As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name " (John i. 12). Wisdom, glory, honour, peace, immortality, eternal life, are the gifts bestowed upon believers. But to those who do not obey the truth, " indig- nation and wrath, tribulation and distress, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile " (Rom. ii. 7-9). CHAPTER VII. THE DEPUTATION FROM BETHEL—ADDRESSES OF 2 EC HA RI AH TO THE PEOPLE. CHAPTER VII. The seventh and eighth chapters, i6i — Date of composition, l6l — Peculiarity oi date, 162 — Difference of translation, 162 note — Days of fasting for national calamities, 163 —Fast of the fifth month, 163 — Note on Bar Kokhab, 164 — Position of Jews in the fourth year of Darius, 165 — Deputation from Bethel, 166 — Difference of translation of ch. vii. 2, 166 — Bethel and the Bethelites, 167 — Sharezar and Regem-melek, 167, 168, note — Question of deputation, 169 — Why confined to fast of fifth month, 169 — Answer of Jahaveh, 170 — The seventy years, 171 — Fasts and feasts in God's sight, 171 — Translation of ch. vii. 7, 172 — Duty of people as regards fasting, 172 — Fruitlessness of former exhortations, 173 — The answer not a direct reply, 173 — Translation of ch. vii. 9, 174 — The refractory shoulder, 175 — Result of hardness of heart, 176 — "Passing througli and returning," ver. 14, 176— Wasting of the land, 177 — Second portion of the Lord's reply, 177 — His return to Zion, ch. viii. 3, 178 — -Promised blessings conditional, 179 — ^Jenisalem a city of truth, 179 - Earnestness among the Jews, iSo — Prophecy fulfilled, 180 — Boys and girls in the streets, 181 — The historian of the Maccabees on the close of that period, 181 — Discussion of ch. viii. 6, 1S2 — Recovery of the people, 183 — Israel to dwell in Jerusalem, 184 — The Lord their God, 184 — Results of obedience in the prophet's time, 184 — Improved state of Jews, 1 65-1 86 — The seed of peace.'i 86, note — Israel a blessing and a curse, 187— Judah and Israel, 187 — Why the promises were not more largely fulfilled, 188 — Warnings against lying and deceit, 189, note — Judgment of peace, 189 — Direct answer to enquiry of Bethelites, 190 — Meaning of the answer, 191 — Jewish tradition on the abolition of the fasts, 191 — Accession of Gentile converts, 192— Gentiles keeping the feasts, 193— Taking hold of the skirt of a Jew, 194 — Honour bestowed on the Jewish people, 195. I CHAPTER VII. THE DEPUTATION FROM BETHEL — ADDRESSES OF ZECHARIAH TO THE PEOPLE. The portion of the book of Zechariah comprised in the seventh and eighth chapters consists of exhortations and predictions dehvered two years later than the seven visions. KHefoth is of opinion that these chapters are closely con- nected with those that follow them, even up to the close of the book. The last eight chapters of the book are by him divided into seven sections, corresponding to the seven visions of the earlier chapters. But this view is extremely fanciful. If it had been the prophet's design to comprehend the predictions of the second part of his book under seven sections, "seven words of God," it would seem strange that the first two chapters of that part, which treat of matters closely related to one another, should comprehend four such sections, while by far the larger portion, and 'that treating of matters very diverse from one another, and, relatively, of greater importance, should be comprised in three sections. Moreover, if chapters ix. to xiv., which are supposed by Kliefoth to form these three sections, are to be assigned to our prophet at all, they must be viewed as composed at very different times, and at a period, or periods, considerably later than the seven visions, or even than the exhortations contained in these two intervening chapters. The exhortations and promises set forth in the two chap- ters in question, will be best considered together, inasmuch as they were all delivered on the same occasion. Their date was the fourth year of the reign of Darius M 1 62 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. vii. i. Hystaspls. The mode in which the date is given is some- what pecuHar. Instead of the year, month, and day of the revelation being mentioned together, as is usual, the date is divided into two parts. The mention of the year is preceded by the usual formula, " and it was," i.e., " and it came to pass," "and it was in the fourth year of Darius the king ;" while the phrase which is specially used to indicate a Divine revelation precedes the mention of the day and month in which the communication took place. " The word of Jahaveh was (i.e., came) to Zechariah in the fourth day of the ninth month, in Kislev." ' In order to understand the circumstances which led to the revelation of the Divine will here recorded, and the ex- hortations founded on the same, it must be remembered that in the Mosaic law only one single day of fasting in the year was enjoined on the Israelites, which day was, however, also ^ The words are divided in this manner by the traditional accentuation, and the accentuation certainly seems to be correct, although the collocation of the words is somewhat unusual. Keil, following up a suggestion put forward in a rather hesi- tating manner by Kohler, considers that the date in the latter clause is to be connected with the verse following (verse 2), as otherwise the imperfect with vav conversive with which the verse begins might be supposed to be used in a plu- perfect signification. But the adoption of the collocation proposed by Keil, would create a greater difficulty, namely, the use of such a construction (n^t^'*!) in the middle of a clause without any previous perfect tense with which it could be connected. Keil's rendering is, " On the fourth day of the ninth month, in Kislev, then sent Bethel," etc. But the imperfect with vav conv. which is used in verse 2 is preferably considered as depending on the substantive verb n^H in the clause, "the word of Jahaveh was." It need not be rendered as a pluperfect, but as a simple perfect, as Hitzig and Ewald translate it, " For those of Bethel (or, as Hitzig, " and those," etc.) namely Sharezer, etc., sent," etc. Although no clear instances can be cited in which the imperfect with vav conv. is distinctly used in a plu- perfect signification, there are cases where something like an approximation to that signification may be detected. It is, however, not necessary to consider this to be the case here. The thought in the writer's mind seems to have been first, the fact of the Divine revelation at the time specified, and then the fact connected therewith, namely, that a deputation was sent from Bethel. The latter was regarded by him as a subordinate incident, though one closely related to the former, and most probably preceding it in time. But the writer does not view it in its chronological sequence but in its relative dependence on the other. See Driver's Hebrew Tenses, § 75. ^ Ch.vii. 1-30 THE DEPUTATION FROM BETHEL. 163 a festival, namely the great Day of Atonement (Lev. xxiii. 26-32). The Israelites were, however, in the habit of observ- ing fasts on other days for national calamities {Jud. xx. 26 ; I Sam. vii. 6, xxxi. 13 ; Joel ii. 15, ff. ; Isa. Iviii. 3-12). During the captivity in Babylon they seem to have observed four such extraordinary fasts. These were the fasts of the ninth day of the fourth month, in memory of the capture of Jeru- salem by the Chaldaeans (Jer. lii. 6, 7) ;^ the fast of the fifth month (the month Ab), in remembrance of the burning of the temple and the city (2 Kings xxv. 8 ; Jer. lii. 12) ; the fast of the seventh month, in consequence of the murder of Gedaliah by Ishmael, owing to which murder the greater part of the remnant of the Jews fled into Egypt, contrary indeed to the command of God by the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. xli. 43) ; and the fast of the tenth month, in memory of the siege of Jeru- salem by Nebuchadnezzar, which commenced in that month (2 Kings xxv. I ; Jer. lii. 4). The fast of the fifth month seems to have been observed on the tenth day, in remembrance of the destruction of the tem- ple by Nebuchadnezzar on that day. The book of 2 Kings and that of Jeremiah do not, however, agree as to the day on which the destruction of the temple occurred.' The Talmud (Taanith, 29 a), quoted by Lightfoot, seeks to explain the discrepancy by stating, which is not improbable, that the Chaldaeans broke into the temple on the seventh day, and * On the months in general see crit. comm. on chap. i. 7. The seventeenth day of the fourth month, or Tammuz, was also regarded as an unfortunate day for Israel. On that day, as Kohler observes (foot note on page 243 of his first vol. on Zech. ), five calamities were noted as having occurred. (l) The tables of the law were broken (Exod. xxxii.) ; (2) The daily sacrifice ceased in the first temple on account of the want of lambs (comp. Jer. lii. 6 ; Lam. iv. 9, lo) ; (3) The city of Jerusalem was taken ; (4) Apostemus burned the law ; and {5) the abomination (the idol image) was set up in the temple (Dan. xi. 31, xii. 11). Apostemus or Apostumus (DIQItSDISX) was a Roman governor in Palestine in tlie second century. To him was assigned the carrying out of the persecuting edicts of the Emperor Hadrian, according to which he burned the rolls of tiielaw wherever they could be found, and forbad its study under the penalty of deatii. l64 ZECIIARIAII AND TITS PROniECIES. [Ch. vii. 1-3. l)rofancd the sacred places by revelling and debauchery during that day and the two days succeeding. On the even- ing of the last day, the ninth, according to the Talmud, the Chaldneans set fire to the sacred building, which was entirely consumed on the tenth (Lightfoot, Opera, ed. Leusden, tom. ii. p. 139). The circumstances connected with the destruction of the second temple are said to have been very similar. The ninth day (and not the tenth) of the fifth month, the month Ab (as Lightfoot also informs us on the authority of the Talmud and Maimonides), was kept by the Jews as a day of special fasting on account of five great national calamities which were reckoned as having occurred on that particular day. (1) On that day God resolved not to lead the Israelites, whom he had brought out of Egypt, into the promised land, but announced his determination to let them perish in the wilderness. (2 and 3) The destruction of both the first and second temples occurred on that day. (4) It was on that day that the storming of Bether took place during the revolt under Bar-Kokhba, which led to the suppression of that great Jewish insurrection.' (5) On that day also ' Dr. F. Lcbiecht has recently published an interesthig treatise on this memor- able event, " Bether. Die fragliche Stadt im Iladrianisch. jiidischen Kricge. Ein 1700 jiihrigos Missverstiindniss." (Berlin: A. Cohn, 1877.) In it Dr. L. main- tains that there was no city or fortress of that name, but that Bether is in reality a corruption of I'dcr, a contraction for Castra J'ltcni, the name given to the Roman fortified camp erected in the plain of Jezreel, not far from Scphoris. lie maintains that Bar-Kozebawas the real name of the great Jewish chieftain, and that he was so named from the city Kozeba, in JuiUva ; that Bar-Kokhab (or Bar-Cochab, as it is generally written) was a symbolical apjiellation, and that the story is untrue that he was designated as Bar-Kokhab, the ''Son of a Star," in reference to Num. xxiv. 17, and that this name was afterwards changed to Bar-Kozeba, "///<• Son oj a J.ii-," as iiopularly believed, and stated even by such authorities as Milman and ICwald. Dr. Lobrecht maintains that that story was invented afterwards by the enemies of that chieftain. lUU it is rather bold to assert, that Bar-Kokhba put forth no claims to be the Messiah in face of the positive statements of the Tal- mud to that eflect, even though his claim to that title is not put forward on the coins struck by him. Some of the coins supposed to be his must indeed be ascribed to Simon Gioras, others are imitations by him of the coins of that chieftain. See M.A. Levy, Gesch, dcr ynJisc/iai Miinzcii, and Madden (F. W.), Javish Coinage, pp. 205-210. V Ch.vii. 1-3.] THE DEPUTATION FROM BETHEL. 165 a ploughshare was driven over the foundations of the temple (comp. Mic. iii. 12; Jer. xxvi. 18) by Titus Annius Rufus.^ At the time when the prophecies of the seventh and eighth chapters were delivered by Zechariah, all hindrances in the way of the erection of the temple had been removed. Darius had issued a royal edict in favour of the energetic prosecution of the work (Ezra vi.), and the rebuilding of the temple was, therefore, progressing rapidly. The dedication of the building occurred about two years later, in the sixth year of Darius. Even the city of Jerusalem, notwithstanding the desolation which prevailed in many quarters, and the ruinous state of its walls, was beginning to exhibit signs of an improved state of things. Some fine private houses had been erected (Hagg. i, 4), and the question naturally suggested itself to the minds of many of the people, whether the fasts and days of mourning which had been instituted on account of the desolation of the city and the sanctuary ought still to be observed as in the days of distress. The fast of the fifth month, in which the ruin of the temple used particularly to be bewailed, seemed rather out of place now that the temple was almost restored. Tbc fast of the seventh month, in which the sad event was bewailed whereby " the remnant " that had been left in the land were driven to abandon the home of their fathers, seemed almost an anachronism at a time when several large troops of exiles had already returned to their country, and when smaller bands were from time to time to be seen returning from their places of exile to the ancient homes of their race. The minds of the people must have been much exercised as to the propriety of the continued observance of the fast of ' Tlic name usually given in the Talmuil is Tuinus Rufus. He was not the Terenlius Rufus nicnlioned in Josephus, /v7/. yiu/. vii. 2, § I, who, after the con- quest of Jerusalem by Titus, completed the work of desolation. Jost [Gcsth. dvs Judenlkunis, ii. 77, ff.) gives the name as above, and also Milman, Hist, of the JewSy vol. iii. p. 377, 4th ed. l66 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. vii. 1-3. the fifth month, under the circumstances of the prosperous re-erection of the temple. The colonists at Bethel took the initiative in seeking to bring about a settlement of this question, and those in authority at Bethel, namely, Sharezer, or Sarezer,' Regemmelek, and their men, sent a deputation to Jerusalem with two special objects in view ; first, to intreat the favour- of Jahaveh for their city, and secondly, to inquire of the Lord through the instrumentality of the priests and the prophets concerning the fast of the fifth month. It is prob- able that the members of the deputation were likewise com- missioned to present divers gifts for the service of the temple and sanctuary (Exod. xxiv. 20). This is evidently the meaning of verse 2. The rendering of our Engl, version, "When they had sent unto the house of God, Sharezer and Regem-melech, etc.," is certainly incor- rect, though supported by the Vulgate, Kimchi, and other authorities.'^ Bethel is never used to signify the temple of God, but mu.st be regarded as the proper name of the well- known city. So all the ancient versions have rendered it. It cannot be viewed as the proper name of a man. Rashi and Kimchi, probably led by the analogy of the deputation mentioned in chapter vi., have considered Sarezer, and ' See note on p. 168. ^ The phrase 'D \JS ri?n seems properly to signify to J'/r(7/'c/'/;d'y^7rd'( = mulcere faciem), hence to intreat favour. It is used of intreatingthe favour of the rich with gifts in Job xi. 19 ; Prov. xix. 6 ; Ps. xlv. 13 (ver. 12, E.V.), and is often used with reference to God. Dr. Pusey objects to this explanation, but on insufficient grounds. It is not clear what he takes to be the original meaning of the phrase. 3 Such as Grotius, Dathe, Rosenmiiller, etc. Schegg follows the Vulgate in his I ranslation, though his note would lead us to expect the other rendering. The temple is always called "the house of Jahaveh," nin"" D^D, or DMT'X rT*-, but never ?S JT'^. Grammatically the name might be regarded as an accusative of place, and so those scholars have thought who have translated it by " the house of God. " So the LXX. and Syr. (see crit. comm. ) have taken it, as well as the Targ. , which translates "to Bethel," which is against the whole tenor of the context, though it is incorrect to say that in such a case a preposition must have been used before the name. Maurer considers t^e "house of God " to denote the family of God, the people of the Jews ; but this is contrary to usage. Ch.vii. I-3.J THE DEPUTATION FROM BETHEL. 1 6/ Regem-melek, to be the names of deputies sent by the Jews Hving in Babylon. The passage, however, must be rendered, " And Bethel, that is, Sarezer, Regem-melek, and their men," that is, those who were associated with them (comp. 2 Sam. ii. 3 '), " sent to intreat Jahaveh, saying {i.e., with directions to say) to the priests who belonged to the house of Jahaveh of hosts, and to the prophets, saying," etc.^ Sarezer and Regem-melek were the senders, and not the persons who were sent. These names are to be regarded as standing in apposition to Bethel, as the names of the principal men in that city. Had Zechariah desired to specify those individuals as the members of the deputation, he would scarcely have omitted here to use the particle ("/IK), which in such cases indicates the accusative (compare, as Hitzig has noted, the very similar passage in Jer. xxvi. 22). Keil, indeed, regards this apposition as so harsh, that, not- withstanding the omission of the particle, he prefers to con- sider the persons named as the members of the deputation. But the view of the passage which we have given is that approved by Hitzig, Ewald, Kohler, etc. No valid objection can be made to it. The town of Bethel was given to Benjamin by Joshua (Josh, xviii 11-13, 22). It belonged later to the kingdom of Israel. A considerable number of the descendants of the old inhabitants appear to have returned thither (Ezra ii. 28 ; Neh. vii. 32, xi. 31), and that city, as well as others, seems to have been rebuilt. There must have been among those commonly reputed to be " children of Benjamin " some of the descendants of those who inhabited the city when it was the 1 Wellhausen {D^^/- Text der Biicher Samiiclis untersiicht), however, prefers the reading of the LXX. in that place. 2 It is harsh to regard the verb as the indeterminate third person singular, and to render " one sent." Moreover, the objections noted above seem decisive against this rendering. The masculine form of the verb may be viewed as a constructio ad senstim. l68 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. vii. 1-3. chief sanctuary of the northern kingdom of Israel. The city itself frequently changed hands during the civil wars between Israel and Judah. But in no case does it appear that the old inhabitants were expelled from their possessions, so that it is natural to conclude that, though reckoned later as " chil- dren of Benjamin," all the inhabitants of Bethel did not belong to that tribe. It is, therefore, interesting to observe that the lessons taught by the Babylonish and Assyrian captivities were not lost upon the men of Bethel. Notwithstanding the many sacred memories connected with their city, and the fact that it had been the seat of a remarkable temple erected to Jahaveh in the days of the Israelitish kingdom, to which •the tribes of Israel had resorted in numbers, no attempt was made on their part to dispute the legitimate right to Jerusalem being regarded as the only place where the sacrifices and services enjoined by the precepts of the Mosaic law could be offered. The erection of a sanctuary in Bethel, and the setting up there of one of the golden calves, had been one of the great sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. The chief men of the community at Bethel seem to have retained the names which they had borne in the land of their captivity.^ They sent to inquire of the priests, as persons ' Sarezer, or Sharezer, was the name of one of the sons of Sennacherib, who assisted in the murder of his father (Isa. xxxvii. 38 ; 2 Kings xix. 37). The name is in Assyrian Sar-usur, contracted from Asur (Bil, Nirgal)-sar-usur, i.e., "May Asur," Bel, or Nergal, Assyrian gods, "protect the k'ng." See Schrader, Die Keilinschriften unci das Alte Test., p. 206. The name of Nergal- Sharezer occurs as that of one of the princes of Nebuchadnezzar in Jer. xxxix. 3, 13. Baer in his critical editions of Isaiah (Leipzig, 1872), and of the Minor Prophets (1878), has on the authority of MSS., edited 'b* (Sarezer) in place of 't^' (Sharezer). Regem- melek is explained by Gesenius as signifying "friend of the king.'" It may have been also an Assyrian name, though the first part of the compound has not been found in that language, but has been explained from the Arabic. Fiirst explains the name as Gesenius, but considers that Jahaveh is the king referred to. Compare the name Malkiah, " Jah is king" (i Chron., vi. 25, E.V. verse 40, ix. 12), and the use of Ham-melek as a proper name in Jer. xxxviii. 6, xxxvi. 36. It is worthy Ch. vii. 3-] THE DEPUTATION FROM BETHEL. 1 69 through whom the Divine will was ordinarily made known (Deut. xxxiii. 8-10 ; Hag. ii, 11 ; Mai. ii. 7) ; and the priests are spoken of as belonging to the temple of Jahaveh, because they had to perform the services of the sanctuary, and were originally set apart for that purpose in place of the first- born males of each family in Israel (Num. iii. 41 ; Deut. X. 8, 9). It was quite natural that directions should have been given to the members of the deputation to consult also the prophets Haggai and Zechariah upon this matter. The question which the deputation were instructed to pro- pound to the priests and prophets, in order that they might inquire of the Lord for them, was, " Shall I {the city of Bethel, or the inhabitants thereof) weep in the fifth month, using abstinence as I have done, for how many years !" ^ In other words, they desired to know whether the solemn fast and lamentation observed in the tenth day of the fifth month should yet be continued as it had been during the seventy years of exile (verse 4). Though the deputation arrived in Jerusalem in the ninth month, it is worthy of note that they asked no questions respecting the observance of the fast in the tenth month. Hitzig thinks that the reason for this was that the decision given in the one case would be con- sidered as deciding all the other cases. It is more likely, however, that the inquiry was confined to the fast of the fifth month, because that fast had special reference to the desolation of the temple, while the fast of the tenth month was a fast for the general ruin brought on the land by the of note that the Syriac and the Arabic versions, which latter generally agrees with the LXX., have in this place Rab-mag (Jer. xxxix. 8) in place of Regem-melck. Rab-mag is probably equivalent to the Assyr. riibu-imga, chief priest (Schrader, p. 275). But this latter explanation is still disputed. The rendering of the LXX. in our passage is unintelligible ; see crit. comm. * On the use of the pronoun of the first pers. sing. comp. chap. viii. 21 ; Num. XX. 18, 19 ; Josh. ix. 7 ; i Sam. v. 10, 11 ; 2 Sam. xx. 19. Public and private fasting and mourning was generally accompanied with weeping. Comp. Jud. XX. 26 ; I Sam. i. 7 ; 2 Sam. i. 12 ; Ezra x. I.; Neh. i. 4 ; etc. I70 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. vii. 3. siege of Jerusalem by the Chaldseans. Though the temple might be considered as virtually restored, the desolation of the land, and of the city of Jerusalem in particular, could not yet be considered at an end. Hence while the people might have thought it right that the one fast should be dis- continued, they might not have even contemplated the discon- tinuance of the other. The inquiry of the inhabitants of Bethel was, as Kohler observes, based upon the supposition that such solemn fasts on account of national calamities, which had been occasioned by national sins, were in themselves pleasing to God, but that fasts might no longer be acceptable, since God's favour was again restored to the people, as was proved by the resto- ration of the temple and its worship. The inquiry was in itself a prayer that the Lord would graciously continue to bless the work of restoration, so happily begun, and that he would grant to Israel the glory which had been promised by the prophets. The question then was in some respects similar to that asked by the apostles of the Lord after his resurrection, " Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel ? " (Acts i. 6). The answer which the Lord graciously vouchsafed to Zecha- riah in reply to the inquiry of the men of Bethel, or possibly in anticipation thereof (compare the answer given to the wife of Jeroboam as recorded in i Kings xiv.), was addressed not merely to the inhabitants of Bethel, but " to all the people of the land and to the priests." The answer concerned all alike, and the question asked by the city of Bethel was no doubt a question asked generally throughout the land. The answer of the Lord falls naturally into two parts, first, that contained in chapter vii. from verse 5 to the end, and secondly, the portion which is comprehended in the following chapter. These two portions in turn are subdivided severally into two portions, each marked by the use of the formula Ch.vii.4-6.] ADDRESSES OF ZECHARIAH TO THE PEOPLE. I7I " then came the word of Jahaveh of hosts unto me," or its equivalent (chaps, vii. 4, vii. 8, viii. i, viii. 18). The captivity in Babylon had lasted seventy years, as pre- dicted by the prophet Jeremiah (see p. 22). Seventy years had also, as Schegg observes, elapsed since the murder of Gedaliah had consummated the afflictions of the people. For the murder of Gedaliah occurred in B.C. 587, and the year when the deputation came to Jerusalem was the fourth year of Darius, or B.C. 518. Reference, perhaps, is made to this fact in the answer of Jahaveh. That answer was virtually contained in the question which the Lord put to the people. It struck at the root of a great deal of the false notions held respecting such fasts. " When you fasted and mourned in the fifth and in the seventh month, even now seventy years, have you then fasted me ? " that is, did you constrain me by your fasting .'' " or when you eat, and when you drink, are not ye the persons who eat, and ye they who drink } " In other words, was the Lord constrained to do anything because of your fasting ? Had his people's fasts any effect on him ? Or did their feasting benefit God .'' To bring out into bold relief the truth that fasts and feasts are a matter of total indifference in God's sight, and that both must be judged by their effect upon those persons whom they immediately concern, the prophet boldly combines the intransitive verb with an object, as if it were transitive. The expression must not be toned down, as is done in our A.V. as if it merely signified, " Did ye at all fast unto me, even to me .'' " Gesenius, indeed, thus understood the words, and the rendering is no doubt possible (see Ges. Gr. § 121, 4), but the passage as so translated is far less emphatic than as rendered above, after Ewald (see Ewald's Ausf. Lehrb. § 315 b, and compare Dan. v. 6). The sense of the reply was, fasting is neither enjoined nor forbidden by God. 1/2 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. vii. 7. It may be used when found profitable to the individuals who employ that means of drawing nigh unto God, or as a means of self-discipline. Men are neither better in God's sight by fasting, nor are they the worse for feasting. If the latter be found injurious to their growth in spiritual things, they ought to abstain from it ; if the former be beneficial, it may be had recourse to. But both alike are to be judged from their effects upon the character of individuals. The verse that follows this question (verse 7) can be ex- plained as in our A.V., " should ye not hear the words which the Lord hath cried by the former prophets ? " or " should ye not do the words which the Lord," etc. (Maurer) ; or it may be understood, as Ewald and Kohler prefer, " Do ye not know the words which the Lord hath cried, etc." The trans- lation " are not these the words," etc., which is found in the LXX. Syr. and Vulg., and is defended by Rosenmiiller and others is, however, also defensible.^ The prophet was further instructed to point out to the people that their real duty consisted not so much in the observance of such fast days as those concerning which they ' It has been doubted whether the TIS which precedes D''"13Tn can be regarded as a sign of the nominative, as Rosenmiiller thinks, and which is considered possible in some cases by Gesenius (Gr. § 117, foot-note). The passage in Hag. ii. 17, referred to by Gesenius, where D^nX'^X occurs, is regarded by Ewald as a proof that the suffixes attached to C' and pS were regarded as verbal suffixes, and hence the suffix in the case in question is resolved into the accusative (Ewald, § 262 d). The various passages adduced by Rosenmiiller and others in support of their view are discussed by Ewald in § 277 d. Several of the instances assigned by Gesenius are set aside by Kautzsch in his last edition of Gesenius' Grammar, in the foot note alluded to, although Ivautzsch regards Hag. ii. 17 and Dan. ix. 13 as proofs of the usage. Bottcher, Lelirb. §513, considers that in some cases the particle is used with the nominative of the subject, not only in cases where the subject almost assumes the position of an object, as in Josh. xxii. 17 ; 2 Sam. xi. 25, etc., but also in other cases where special prominence is given to a word, as with a personal passive, in 2 Kings xviii. 30, etc., and even with an active verb, 2 Kings vi. 5. That the particle can express another case than the accusative is now generally admitted. See the last edition of Gesenius' IVorterlntch by Miihlau and Volck, and also the note communicated by Fleisch^ in Bottcher, § 514, see also our note on chap. viii. 1 7. Ch. vii. 7.] ADDRESSES OF ZECHARIAH TO THE PEOPLE. 1 73 inquired, as in the observance of the common and ordinary duties of which their fathers had been so repeatedly reminded by the prophets, in former days. Reference is here made not so much to the passages of the prophets in which fasting is specially referred to, as Isa. Iviii. 3-8, or Joel iii. 12, 13, as to those numerous passages in which the general principle is taught which was enunciated by Samuel in his question, " Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord.?" (i Sam. XV. 22, 23), or as set forth in the words of the great law- giver, " And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God re- quire of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, to keep the com- mandments of the Lord and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good " (Deut. x. 12, 13). The people were reminded that similar exhortations had been delivered by the former prophets in the days of pros- perity when the nation was at peace. They had, however, been urged in vain, " when Jerusalem was dwelt in, and was safe, and her cities round about her, and the south and the lowland was inhabited." ^ The three districts named were those into which the territory of Judah was divided, the south or the country, extending to Beersheba (Joshua xv. 21, ff.) ; the low- land, or the Shephelah (Josh. xv. 33, ff. ; I!e(f)rj\d, i Mace. xii. 38) ; and the " hill country of Judah " (Luke i. 39), which is here included under " Jerusalem and the cities round about." The answer of the Lord was not a direct reply to the ' Owing to the adjective which follows JlSti'^ in this verse (verss 7), and is con- nected by the conjunction "and," we must render the participle here intransitively. If, however, we were to regard the phrase niT'C'l merely as a further definition of the manner of dwelling, we might render the verb actively, and express the ad- jective by an adverb, " when Jerusalem was dwelling safely, and her cities round about her and the south and the lowland dwelling (similarly)." Chambers has, no doubt accitlentally, misrepresented Kohler, who does not propose to supply ntipK'l from chap. i. 11. He merely compares that passage with this in ch. vii. 7. 174 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. vii. 7-9. questions asked by the men of Bethel. Its purport was how- ever plain. Its meaning was evidently as follows. You have no need to abrogate specially the observance of the days in which you call to mind the calamities that the sins of your fathers brought upon the land. Those fasts, however, are not to be regarded as meritorious in themselves. They are to be judged by the effect they produce on yourselves, and by that alone. The duty of obedience to God's law, urged by the prophets of old upon your ancestors, is the great duty which must also be pressed upon you. Their neglect of common obedience was the cause of the desolations lamented over by you, their children. Such was the reply which Zechariah was commissioned to return to the people. He shortly after received directions to add a further explanation of the Divine answer. Accordingly in verse 8 the formula is met with, " the word of Jahaveh came to Zechariah." ^ We translate " so spake," — for, as there is a clear reference to the days of old, the perfect must here be rendered as a past tense, — " Jahaveh of hosts, saying, judge ye judgment of truth" (see Ezek. xviii. 8, where the same phrase occurs), that is, judgment agreeing with the truth in all things, without any respect of persons or partiality.- " Show mercy," or "kindness, and compassion each to his brother." The first term indicates kindness and love in general, the second kind- ness exhibited in the form of compassion and sympathy to- ' The slight change which occurs in this passage from the usual superscription, " the word of Jahaveh came unto me," to " the word of Jahaveh came to Zecha- riah," must not be pressed as if it had any peculiar significance. Still less are we to imagine, as Schmieder and Schlier, as quoted by Kohler, seem to have done, that an earlier prophet Zechariah is here quoted by the post-exilian prophet. Schlier does not adopt this view in his second revised edition ; he may however have done so in his first. 2 Many exhortations to this effect are contained in the law and the prophets, as Exod. xxii. 20, ff. (verse 21, flf. in E.V.), xxiii. 6-9; Lev. x>ix. 15-18 ; Deut. x, 18, 19, xxiv. 14, etc. But the passages which were especially in the mind of the prophet seem to have been Jer. vii. 5-7, and xxii. 3-5. Compare, too, Jer. xxxiv. 8 17 on the injustice done by the Jews to their brethren in that prophet's own day. ^ Ch. vii. 9-12.] ADDRESSES OF ZECHARIAH TO THE PEOPLE. 175 wards the afflicted and distressed. The latter was especially enjoined in the case of the " widow and orphan, stranger and wretched," or " poor." This injunction had often been given in the law as well as by the prophets of old, and many a warning was given against acts of oppression or wrong done to such individuals. The general rule here assigned for human conduct had also often before been given in its es- sence, namely, " do not imagine ye evil against each one's brother in your hearts," i.e., " each one against his brother in your hearts." ^ Such exhortations in bygone days, as the Lord states, had been unsuccessful. The people refused to listen, though prophet after prophet was sent to them. They were a stiff- necked generation. They gave a refractory shoulder, which is the literal meaning of the phrase in verse 1 1 (it occurs again in Neh. ix. 29), that is, they shook off the yoke which was sought to be laid upon them as if they had been a refractory heifer struggling with all its might against the yoke laid upon it (comp. Hos. iv. 16). They hardened their ears, lit. made them heavy, an expression used also of the heart (Exod. ix. 7)." They made their hearts hard as a diamond, so they could not hear the law in whi'ch Jahaveh's ^ In the phrase ITIi^ t^*^S nn (chap. vii. lo) the C^'^N is to be regarded as in the genitive, just as the ITIX following, to which it stands in apposition. Compare Gen. ix. 5 and our note there, also Delitzsch on that passage in the fourth edition of his Comm. on Genesis. On the construction here, see Ewald, § 301 b. CJ'''N stands frequently for the pronoun each, see on this construction in general Ges. S 124, 2, rem. i, Kalisch, § 82, 9. Neumann is certainly incorrect in his rendering and explanation, which I prefer to give in his own words : " was einem Manne un- heilvoll ist, was boser Gesinnung gegen ihn Zeugniss (CJ'''X 01^1), das denke sein Nachster nimmer, das denket ihr alle, deren Jeder ihm der Niichste, nimmer, Keiner des Andern Unheil, Ps. xxv. 4, xli. 8." Pressel defends the translation of the LXX., as if K'^K could be nominative, Kal Kanlav eVao-ros toG d5eX -^ jv^\ m^ joou lixjl ^^w!^ ^^^ sowing shall be in peace. But the omission of tire substantive verb in such a sense is against the syntax. Hence we must adopt the view of Ewald, Hitzig, Kohler, and Keil, namely, that the vine is called " the seed of peace," inasmuch as it can only prosper in days of peace, its cultivation requiring much care and attention. In this case DI^JiTl ^"11 is viewed as in apposition to the following noun. Hitzig considers the vine so termed be- cause the vine is the plant of prosperity (Gewachs des Heiles), because there is in the grape a blessing, n3"12l ( = 0171^^, Isa. xxxvi. 16; comp. Isa. Ixv. 8). The vine is mentioned among the blessings of Judah (Gen. xlix. 11). The objection that the vine is not sown is not to be urged. The vine is one of those trees which have 12 II^IT TL^'N "'"IS (Gen. i. 11.) Umbreit, Rosenmiiller, Rfaurer, etc., adopt the view of the versions, but it is beset with difficulties. The translation of the LXX., dXX' ^ Sei'^w eiprivrjv possibly indicates a different reading in place of Vljy either nX"lN, as Kohler, or better, as Schlei^sner, V"}]^ used metaphorically. Ch.viii. 12, 13.] ADDRESSES OF ZECHARIAH TO THE PEOPLE. 187 In addition to these blessings, the Lord promised, that as Israel had been a curse among the nations — that is, as other nations, when imprecating curses on their foes, were wont to wish them the fate of Israel — so it would come to pass in time to come that Israel's lot should be so remarkable for its happiness that those who prayed for blessings on their friends would wish that they might be as Israel. The formula, "to be a curse among the nations," or "to be taken up as a curse among the nations," is frequently found in this signification. Comp. Jer. xxiv. 9 ; 2 Kings xxii. 19 ; Jer. xxix. 22 ; Isa. Ixv. 15. Similarly, the formula "to be a blessing" is used in the reverse signification (Gen. xlviii. 20 ; Ruth iv. 11, 12). The latter phrase must be explained homogeneously with the former, so that it cannot indicate here that Israel was to be a blessing, that is, a source of blessing, to all the nations of the world, as Neumann and others have explained it.^ It is worthy of note that the house of Judah and the house of Israel, both often comprehended under the latter desig- nation, are viewed by the prophets as partakers together of the blessings promised. The return from captivity was viewed as the return of the whole nation and of its various tribes, and numbers of the members of other tribes than Judah and Benjamin did actually return with their brethren of the house of Judah. Some of these, who for distinction's sake may be termed Israelites (though that name, as we shall see in another place, is by no means peculiar to the ten tribes), kept alive in their respective families the tradition of the special tribe from which they were descended (Luke ii. 36). Intermarriage had, however, long before broken down, in a great measure, all rigid tribal distinctions, and in most cases ' Consequently the LXX. translators have not given the true meaning, /cat 'darai 6v TpoTTOV 7JT€ iv KaTCLpq. tv Toh ^dufcnv 6 oIkos 'Iov8a Kal olKOs'lapa-qk, ovtus SiacTuiffU} vfids /cat ^aeade iv evXoyia. The expression to be a blessing is no doubt used in that sense in Ezek. xxxiv. 26 ; Gen. xii. 2. l88 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. viii. 13, 14. the tribal genealogies were entirely lost, though in some few they were imperfectly preserved. Thus by degrees the larger proportion of the families belonging originally to other tribes became fused into the tribe of Judah, and were popularly regarded as Jews. All the Israelites were known as "Jews" by the Gentile nations. These points will be more fully discussed in our observations on chaps, ix., x., and xi. The full accomplishment of the blessings here promised to Jews and Israelites in common was prevented by the sin of the people ; for all the blessings were strictly con- ditional on their obedience. It was want of faith, not want of power, which prevented the more general return of the people from all lands. Permission to return had been •fully accorded to them. Those who talk of the advent of a day in which all the descendants of Israel, without exception, shall be brought back to their own land, forget that the land of Palestine could not possibly bear such a population. The re-division of the land among the tribes would be impossible. Numbers of Gentiles at different times became Jews, and thus became full partakers of the blessings and rights of the covenant of Abraham (comp. Esther viii. 17). When Ezekiel speaks of the return of Israel, and of a re-division of the land, he recognises fully the right of the strangers to possess an inheritance in the land on equal terms with the children of Israel (Ezek. xlvii. 21, 22, etc.). The language of the prophets is perfectly incapable of any such " literal " fulfilment as some look for. The language of Zechariah, if thus explained, would be absurd, as, for instance, verse 8, where all the people are spoken of as dwelling in Jeru- salem. It is, however, quite possible to believe in the national conversion and general restoration of Israel, without embracing all the visionary imaginations of a certain class of expositors. It was the sin of the Jewish nation, urged the prophet Zechariah, speaking in the nam«. of Jahaveh, which led Ch.viii. 14-17.] ADDRESSES OF ZECHARIAH TO THE PEOPLE. 1 89 the Lord to purpose against them the heavy judgments which came upon them because of the provocations whereby they had provoked him to anger. For the Lord did not repent him of that purpose; the vengeance threatened duly came to pass. But now the prophet was commissioned to tell the people that the whole condition of affairs was altered. God's purposes were again purposes of love. He designed in those days to do good to "Jerusalem and the house of Judah," under which name be it observed the whole body of the covenant people (termed in verse 13 "the house of Judah, and the house of Israel") is desig- nated. The exiles needed not to fear, for God was on their side. They should, however, take good heed to walk after the commandments of God, which were " for their good always " (Deut. vi. 24). They should specially observe such commandments as, " Speak truth each man with his friend, judge in your gates (where judgment was wont to be ad- ministered, Deut. xvi. 18, xxi. 19, xxii. 15, etc.) truth (that is, what is right and true, without respect to fear or favour), and judgment of peace." For all true judgment tends to promote peace among the contending part,ies, while all corrupt judgments increase dissension and strife.^ Especially were they warned not to devise evil against one another in their hearts, and not to love false oaths, the solemn de- claration of the Lord ending with the emphatic words, " For all these things are what I hate." ^ ^ Kimchi remarks on this: "If ye judge righteousness, there will be peace between the parties in the lawsuit, according as our rabbles have said in a proverb of the children of men, ' He that has his coat taken from him by the tribunal, let him sing and go his way.' And they have adduced in proof that verse, ' And all this people shall also go to their place in peace ' (Exod. xviii. 23). 'All the people,' even he that is condemned in judgment. And our rabbles, of blessed memory, have interpreted DlbC' t3^J^'D1 [and the judgment of peace] of reconciliation, for it is said, ' What sort of judgment is that in which there is peace ? ' They an- swered, ' That of arbitration. ' " (McCaul's Trans. ) 2 The nX in '1J1 l^i'X H^i^-'pSTlX in verse 17 need not be regarded as a sign of the nominative as Rosenmiiller and others think. The words are better IQO ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. viii. 14-17- Thus were the Jews particularly warned against the sins to which they were exposed at that particular period. No denunciation was uttered against idolatry, inasmuch as that sin was not so common among the people at that particular crisis of their history. But they were warned against those temptations common to a people taught, by their very necessities in the land of exile, to seek after gain, and there- fore apt to be led astray by the desire to make haste to get rich (Prov. xxviii. 22). The last portion of the Divine answer, probably communi- cated to the prophet at some interval of time after the former, gave a more direct answer to the question respecting the fasts, asked by the deputation from the city of Bethel. In it Jahaveh graciously promised that the fast of the fourth month and the fast of the fifth month and the fast of the seventh month and the fast of the tenth month would be changed for the people of Judah into joy and gladness, and become festivals of thanksgiving. Their feasts had on ac- count of their sins been changed into fasts, and their days of rejoicing into days of mourning (Amos viii. 10), but in the future, if they would only love truth and peace, the fasts would be transformed into feasts, and the prosperity of the land and the nation would be so great, that the former days of trouble would not be remembered (comp. Isa. Ixi. 2, 3, 7, Ixv. 18, 19). The conditional nature of all these promises, however, ought to be carefully observed. regarded as the accusative governed by the active verb at the end. Comp. Hag. ii. 5 ; see Ewald, § 277 d, at end, and note on chap. vii. 7. The construction might also be explained by a kind of attraction, the relative being introduced for emphasis. Kohler prefers to explain it as occasioned by a sudden change in the writer's thoughts. This is the view which Ewald takes (in his Proph. d. A. B.) when he says the author intended to write, " all these things I hate," but after commencing the sentence introduced the more extended and more lively division of the sentence by the relative. The omission of the relative in some MSS. was occasioned no doubt by a desire to avoid the harshness of the construction. The relative is not expressed by the LXX. or Syr., but it does not follow that it was omitted in the MSS. which those translators used. Ch. viii. 19, 20.] ADDRESSES OF ZECHARIAH TO THE PEOPLE. 19I It has been supposed by some {e.g., Grotius, and Hitzig seems inclined to the same view) that the answer of the Lord was substantially to the effect that the days in question were to be retained, but to be observed as days of joy and gladness, and not as fasts. The answer cannot, however, well be viewed as conveying such a meaning, as in that case the jussive form would have been used in the original (verse 19). The effect of the answer was, that the special fasts concerning which inquiry was made, were neither enjoined on the one hand, nor forbidden on the other. The Jews were left quite at liberty to make use of such days or not, as they found it most bene- ficial to themselves. What God looked to was the state of the heart and life, and the people were left free to decide for themselves as to the profit or injury which the observance of such seasons might do to them. It is asserted, however, that, according to Jewish tradition,^ the result of this answer of the Lord was that the four special fast days were forthwith abolished, as that was judged to be the course most in accordance with the spirit of the Divine oracle. The fasts were, however, re-introduced after the destruction of the second temple, an additiopal fast day being then added to the fourth month, on account of the calamities noted as having then occurred (see note on p. 163). Kohler considers that this is very improbable. For though the fast in the fifth month, that of Ab, which recalled to mind the destruction of the temple, might well be re-introduced at a later period, there was no reason why special days should again be set apart for bewailing the events which had taken place in the days of Nebuchadnezzar. Such an objection, however, can scarcely be regarded as decisive. The Divine answer concluded with the promise set forth in verse 20, ff., "Thus saith Jahaveh of hosts, it will yet * Kohler refers to the Rosh-ha-shanah, fol. 18, a.b., and to M. Briick, Pharis. Volksittm and Ritualien, p. 47, ff. 192 ZECHARIAH AND HIS FROPHECIES. [Ch. viii. 20-23. be ^ (happen) that people will come, and inhabitants of many cities (scarcely, as Kohler after Drusius renders it, " of large cities "), and the inhabitants of one (city) will go to another, saying, Let us go" to intreat the face of Jahaveh, and to seek Jahaveh of hosts." To this invitation the inhabitants of each city addressed are represented as willingly responding, " I will go also." The use of the first person in such cases is found elsewhere, as in i Sam. v. 10 ; 2 Sam. xx. 19, and the answer need not be regarded as given by each inhabitant of the city addressed (Neumann). The sentence can scarcely be regarded as itself forming part of the exhortation, as the Targum and Rosenmiiller have viewed it. "And many peoples and strong (or, numerous, as Kimchi, comp. the use of the verb in Ps. xl. 13, verse 12 E.V. ; Jer. XV. 8) nations will go to seek Jahaveh of hosts in Jerusalem, and to intreat the face of Jahaveh. Thus saith Jahaveh of hosts, in those days (it will happen) that ten men shall take 1 Kohler takes "iV in verse 20 to mean "henceforth," "in future," "hence- forward it will happen," etc. But this translation is questionable. It is safer to retain the ordinary signification of the word. Hitzig considers that the "ISJ'S which follows is used to introduce the direct speech, like the Greek Sti, as in I Sam. XV. 20 (Ges., § 155, i e, Ewald, § 338 i). He renders, "yes, still will peoples come," referring for the position of 11? in the beginning of the sentence to Micah vi. 10, which is scarcely a case in point. The "IC'X is, however, better rendered here as the conjunction i/iat. So Ewald, § 336 a, and Fiirst in his Wbrterbuch. The view which Gesenius maintained, that the relative was sometimes used as a sign of the apodosis, on which principle he explained this and other passages, has been abandoned by later scholars, and the sup- posed instances of this usage given in his Lexicon, have been explained either by considering the word actually to be used as a relative referring to a preceding noun, as in Isaiah viii. 20, or by the omission of the substantive verb as in this passage. See the new edition of Gesenius' Wdrterbuch by Miihlau and Volck, Leipz., 1878. The rendering above has the support of Maurer, Ewald, Keil, etc. The Vulg. has " usquequo (reading "1^) veniant populi." 2 The construction here used, namely, the imperfect in the cohortative form followed by the infin. absol. denotes the desire of going continually (Ges. § 131, 3, b ; Kalisch, § 97, 7. The construction has been explained by Rosenmiiller to indicate intensity, " all together and with great eagerness." So also Schroeder, Inst. ad. fund. Ling. Heb. de synt. verb., § 3, R. 91. But in such a case the infinitive generally precedes the verb. \, Ch. viii. 21-23.] ADDRESSES OF ZECHARIAH TO THE PEOPLE. I93 hold, out. of all the languages of the nations, even take hold ^ of the skirt of a man (who is) a Jew, saying, Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you." The prophecy foreshows a state of things which would be the result of the dwelling of Jahaveh in the midst of his people of a truth. That it was fulfilled in great measure shortly after the prediction was uttered is clear from the language of Ps. cxxvi. 1-4, " When Jahaveh brought back the captives of Zion we were like them that dream. Then was our mouth filled with laughter and our tongue with singing ; then said they among the nations, Jahaveh hath done great things for them ; yea, Jahaveh hath done great things for us, therefore we are glad." No doubt when the Psalmist sang that psalm there were still captives to be brought back, but the language of such a psalm ought not to be left out of mind. More- over there were other days of blessing for Israel, which were noted and observed by the nations around, and by the nations among whom they dwelt ; such as the wonderful deliverance vouchsafed in the days of Esther, and the still greater deliverances in the days of the Maccabees. On all of these occasions there were considerable accessions to their numbers from the heathen round about them. > The prophecy speaks of the going up of the nations of the earth to Jerusalem in somewhat similar language to that used in Isa. ii. 2, 3 ; Mic. iv. 2, and other places. Compare such other passages as Isa. xlv. 14, 15. There is little doubt that when the nations are said to go up to seek Jahaveh of hosts in Jerusalem, such language in Old Testa- ' The verb is repeated here in another form, and preceded by the conjunction for greater clearness, as the verb in the first clause is so distant; more distant in the original than can be suitably expressed in an English translation. There does seem also some degree of emphasis intended. Hitzig strangely considers tliat the use of the copula with the latter verb shows that it is not to be considered as a mere iteration of the former, but used with some difference of meaning. But observe the similar repetition in chap. vi. 10, il of S13 and Pip?. O 194 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROrilECIES. [Ch. vili. 21 -23. ment times would naturally be explained of the nations going up to the solemn feasts held in Jerusalem. Hitzig, therefore, appears to us to be correct in saying that the author had those feasts in view. When Isaiah similarly predicts the conversion of the Gentiles, he paints the picture after the ideas of the old dispensation, and speaks of the Gentiles as going up to the feasts at Jerusalem {Isa. Ixvi. 20-23). The literal fulfilment of such passages is a sheer impossibility. Under such figures the conversion of the nations is predicted, and the glorious hope set forth that they will form with Israel one fold under one shepherd (John x. 15, 16). In this way may Israel's foes become Israel's friends, and the days of mourning because of the desolations wrought by the Gentiles become days of rejoicing because of their union with the chosen people of God. When ten men of all languages of the earth are said to take hold of the skirt of every man who is a Jew, it must be remembered that the number ten is used for any large number. Comp. Gen. xxxi. 7 ; Lev. xxvi. 26 ; Num. xiv. 22. The skirt is spoken of as caught hold of in order to de- tain the Jew, and to obtain his permission to accompany him in his journey. Thus we read of Saul seizing hold of Samuel's skirt to detain him (i Sam. xv. 27 ; comp. the allu- sion to the skirts of the priests in Hag. ii. 12). The remark of Pusey, that "little children, if they would follow their fathers, lay hold of the hem of their dress, and aided by the touch and hanging from their dress, walk steadily and safely," is scarcely suitable to the passage. Nor is there any ground whatever to assert that the language used especially betokens the humble confession on the part of the Gentiles, that ac- cording to their former conduct they did not deserve that the Jews should attend to their request (Pressel). Nor can the passage be considered directly to refer to the Messiah as the person termed here " a man, a Jaiy," which strange view of Ch.viu.23.] ADDRESSES OF ZECHARIAH TO THE PEOPLE. 1 95 Jerome is upheld by Dr. Pusey, who remarks on " the start- ling condescension of the passage." This attempt to discover prophecies of the Messiah, even in the most out of the way corners, is in our opinion most damaging to sober evangelical exegesis, and to the real interpretation of the word of God. The prophecy has been already fulfilled in the remarkable fact that the religion introduced by a Jew, the religion which consists in faith in the person of one who was indeed a Jew, namely, our blessed Lord, is that which has been embraced by a large part of the nations, and is destined in God's due time to be the religion of the world. The Gentiles have learnt from the Jews true religion. The apostles and all the most illustrious of the early teachers of Christianity were Jews, and instead of those nations who, in early times, accepted the religion of Christ having been prejudiced against the Jew, they were only too much inclined to accept even the burdens of the Mosaic law in addition to the gospel of Jesus. Had the Jews only accepted Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah their state would have been glorious. But notwithstanding that sad rejection of Christ, a day of blessing is spoken of by St. Paul (Rom. xi.) as in store for Israel in the future. CHAPTER VIII. THE PREPARATION OF THE LAND, THE COMING OF THE KING. CHAPTER VIII. The closing portion of Zechariah — Opinion of modern critics, 199 — Reason of the special predictions, 199 — Stahelin's view of the period, 200 — Cause of judg- ments being denounced against Syria, Phcenicia, and Philistia, 201 — " Burden " and "oracle," 202 — Land of Hadrach, 202 — Different views of scholars, 203 — Hadrach, near Damascus, 204 — Name found in Assyrian inscriptions, 205 — Resting-place of the oracle, 206 — Conflicting translations of chap. ix. i, 206 — Probable meaning of passage, 208 — The eyes of all men to be directed towards Jehovah by his judgments, 208 — Chamberlain's view, 209 — Reference of the prophecy, 209 — Siege of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar, 212 — Destruction by Alexander, 212 — Judgment on Ashkelon, 213 — Overthrow of Gaza, 214 — Gaza ruled by a titular "king," 215 — Evidence of Hegesias, Josephus and Arrian, 215 — View of Bleek, 216— The "bastard," or rabble in Ashdod, 216— Humili- ation and conversion of the Philistines, 217 — Blood taken away from his mouth, 218 — Ekron as the Jebusite, 218 — Nethinim, 219— Absorption of Phi- • listines into Israel, 220 — ^Jehovah encamping round his house, 221 — Passing by and returning, ver. 5, 221 — No taskmaster any more, 222 — The Lord's behold- ing oppression, 223 — ^Josephus' story of Alexander's visit to Jerusalem, 224 — Favour shown by Alexander to the Jews, 226 — Bleek's view of chap. ix. as pre- exilian, 227 — Pressel's view as to date of prophecy, 231 — Reply, 231 — Pro- phecy not fulfilled before the exile, 230, 232 — View of Maurer, etc., 231 — Sale of Israelite captives, 232, 252 — Prediction of the Messiah as a king, 233 — Prophecy now acknowledged as Messianic, 234 — Objection to view of Pressel, 233 — "Righteous and saved," 234 — "Afflicted" or "lowly," 235 — Messiah riding on an ass, 236 — Why a colt was used, 236 — Riding on an ass not the sign of humility, but of absence of pomp, 237, ff. — Difficulties of early Jewish commentators, 238 — The two Messiahs, 238 — Christ's entry into Jerusalem, 239 — Prophecy depicts Christ's advent in general, not his special entry into Jerusalem, 239 — Importance of that act of Christ, 239 — Messiah causes wars to cease, 240 — Destroys his people's weapons, 240— Then speaks peace to Gentiles, 241, 247 — Loss of Jewish independence, 241 — Rejection of Messiah, 242— Men- tion of Ephraim no proof of pre-exilian date, 242, 246 — The twelve tribes one great whole, 243 — The return from captivity, 244 — Genealogical registers, 244 — Mixing of Jews and Gentiles, 245 — Name "Jew" applied to all the tribes, 246— Jews called children of Israel, 244 note. — The victories of Messiah, 247— Limits of his rule, 248 — The blood of the covenant, 249, 250 — The pit without water, 251 — The blessings in store, 252 — ^Jews to possess military power, 252 — War of the "Sons of Zion" against the " Sons of Greece," 253 — Jewish intercourse with Greece, 254 — Pressel's view of verses 13, 14, 254 — Wars of the Maccabees, 255 — Description given in verses 14, 15, not too vivid, 256 — Bishop Wordsworth's strange exposition, 256 note. — Chamberlain's view of the war with theSonsof Greece, 257 note.— His depreciation of the Maccabean exploits, 257 note — Maccabean conflicts a war of Israel, 256 — The great blank in Jewish annals, 257 — Israel devouring as a lion, 258 — Subduing sling-stones, 259 — Stones of a diadem, 260 — Israel's beauty and increase of population, 261. CHAPTER VIII. THE PREPARATION OF THE LAND. — THE COMING OF THE KING. The prophecies contained in the ninth and following chapters of Zechariah were no doubt composed at a different period from that in which the prophecies of the former part of the book were written, and are in several particulars unlike the earlier predictions of Zechariah, Hence these later chapters have been considered by many critics of the modern school to belong to another author, and have even been assigned by some scholars to two or three different authors who are sup- posed to have lived at some period previous to the Baby- lonish captivity. In order fairly to discuss the various arguments adduced in support of the latter opinion, it will be found more convenient to start from the supposition that the traditional view is correct, namely, that Zechariah was the author of the' later as well as the earlier portions of the book. The arguments in favour of the pre-exilian date of certain passages can in many cases be more fairly considered in connection with the context in which those passages occur, while other arguments in favour of this hypothesis will be more suitably treated in our general Intro- duction. The glorious prospects presented to the view of the restored exiles in the earlier visions of Zechariah were not soon realized. Notwithstanding the exhortations of Zechariah and Ilaggai, a very large number of Israelites preferred to remain as volun- tary exiles in the land of their captivity, while many of those who had returned to the Holy Land, forgetful of their peculiar 200 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. i-8. position, intermarried with the Gentile nations who inhabited the land, and thus recognised the equal right of those aliens to possess the land, which had been granted by the Divine decree to the posterity of Jacob. In place of gifts from all nations being poured into the treasuries of the temple, as had been promised by Haggai (ii. 7), and the holy city thereby be- coming rich and powerful, its Jewish inhabitants still felt bitterly that they were but servants of the Persian kings (Neh. ix. ^6, 2)7), to whom they had to pay tribute, while at the same time they were harassed on all sides by the Gentile nations among whom they dwelt (Neh. iv. 7). They also, no doubt, suffered considerably during the cam- paigns carried on by Cambyses against Egypt (B.C. 525), and still later during that of Xerxes (B.C. 484), for in their march to Egypt the Persian hosts harassed the land of Judaea, and caused much inconvenience to the Jewish settlers. The house of David, round which the hopes of the Jewish nation centered, seems to have fallen into political insignificance after the death of Zerubbabel, while on the other hand the political importance of the Phoenicians rose considerably, owing to their maritime power; and while there was no king in Israel, Phoenician kings were permitted to retain their regal dignity (Herod, viii. 67), a privilege which seems to have been granted also to the cities of Philistia (Zech. ix. 5). Damascus, too, the ancient capital of Syria, was at this period the residence of a high Persian official, whose authority was superior to that of the Jewish governor. Such were the circumstances (as Stahelin notes, Lless. Weiss. p. 126) under which it became of importance for the prophet in his later years to seek to raise the drooping spirits of the colony at Jerusalem. It need not surprise us that prophecies uttered under such peculiar circumstances, and in all proba- bility many years after those recorded in the earlier chapters of Zechariah, should, even if supposed to be written by the Ch. ix. 1-8.] THE PREPARATION OF THE LAND. 201 same author, be composed in a somewhat different style from that of his earher productions. The later prophecies, however, contain many distinct references to those in the earlier part of the book, which earlier prophecies had been delivered with the special object of encouraging the people to rebuild the temple of the Lord. The reason why at this special period Zechariah should have been divinely commissioned to announce judgments against the cities of Syria, Phoenicia, and Philistia, was, as Kohler has observed, that all the cities mentioned in the prophecy lay within the territory granted by Divine promise to the children of Israel (Gen. xv. i8 ; Exod. xxiii. 31 ; comp. Numb, xxxiv. 1-12). The territories alluded to had been actually ruled over by David (2 Sam. viii. 6, 9, 10) and Solomon (i Kings v. 21), and properly belonged to the people of the covenant. Hence on their return from exile those lands belonged by right to the Israelitish people, and would ultimately have been pos- sessed by them, had the nation more generally availed itself of the permission freely granted to them by Cyrus to return to the land of promise. The limits of the land marked out by the Divine decree as the portion of the people of Israel did not, however, comprehend the country of several of those peoples over whom David and Solomon had ruled (2 Sam. viii.). For the limits assigned in the La\v excluded the territories of the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites (comp. Deut. ii. 4, 5, 9, 19), and these people are accordingly not re- ferred to in this prophecy, though they were as bitterly hostile as their forefathers to Jewish interests (Neh. iv. 3, 7 ; i Mace. V. 1-3, etc.). The object of the prediction of Zechariah was to encourage the people of Israel by the thought of God's protecting care over them, notwithstanding their harassed con- dition, and by the assurance that God's judgment would soon descend upon the nations who occupied the inheritance which had been originally assigned to Israel. Hence, remarks ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. I. Kohler, all the heathen within those ideal boundaries of Israel were judged by Jahaveh, and judged, too, not merely because of their sins against the people of Jahaveh, but on account of their own godless and God-estranged doings (comp. vv. 2 and 7). The judgment threatened, however, had not as its object the complete extermination and blotting out of the nations mentioned as about to be overtaken by it, but the ulti- mate recovery of those nations from their sinful and barbarous habits, and their conversion unto Jahaveh, the God of Israel, The prophecy of the ninth chapter commences with an ex- pression respecting which there has been no small difference of opinion. The translation " burden," which occurs in our Authorised Version, is upheld by the authority of the majority of the older expositors, and by all the ancient versions, except the LXX. It has also been ably defended by recent eminent commentators. But the majority of modern Biblical critics follow what may be regarded as the opinion of the Greek translators, and render the word by "utterance," "sentence," " oracle." The word is unquestionably used in ordinary Hebrew in the sense of a burden, and the prophecies to which it is affixed are mainly prophecies of woe and disaster. This need not surprise us, however, as the denunciation of wrath against ungodliness and sin was one of the most ordinary duties of the prophets. Zech. xii. i, may be considered in some respects an exception to this, and other reasons incline us to accept the general opinion of the modern critics (see crit. comm.). In Prov. xxx. and xxxi., the word appears to be used as a proper name of a district or country. ^ The oracle now before us chiefly concerns the land of Had- rach, and the cities of Syria and Phoenicia, and those of the Philistines. The expression "the land of Hadrach" occurs ' See Miihlau's confirmation of Hitzig's view, that a king of Massa is there meant, in his treatise De Proverb, quce dicuntur Aguri et I^emueiis origine atque indole. Leipzig, 1S69. ^ Ch. ix. r.] THE PREPARATION OF THE LAND. 203 only in this passage, and was for a long time a crux comvicn- tatorum. Bleek, Gesenius and others explained it as the name of some Syrian monarch supposed to have occupied the throne of Damascus between Benhadad III. and Rezin. This con- jectural explanation was sometimes considered to afford an indication of the time when the prophecy was composed, namely, not later than the reign of Jotham, and consequently before either the Assyrian or the Babylonian captivity. Mo- vers imagined Hadrach to be connected with Adar or Asar, the name of the Assyrian god of fire. The opinion of Hitzig varied at different times, while Kohler thought that the land designated by this name was a district not far from Damas- cus, which was called after some Syrian deity. The Targum translated the expression by " the southern land," and certain scholars, following this translation in principle, regarded the word as an appellation, some explaining it as " the land lying round thee," and understanding thereby the holy land itself (Trem. and Junius). A still larger number of expositors of different ages supposed the word to be a symbolical de- signation. Accordingly some Jewish expositors regarded it as a compound name of the Messiah, signifying " sharp-tender," used to indicate his severity towards the heathen and his mercy towards Israel. Several modern critics, as Hengstenberg, viewed it as a name of the Persian empire, which they sup- posed was termed " strong-weak " because its strength was by the Divine decree so soon to be overthrown. To the latter class of expositions it was always considered a serious objec- tion that the various significations of all such allegorical terms, as Dumah, applied by Isaiah to Edom (Isa. xxi. 11), Oholah and Oholibah, names given by Ezekiel to Samaria and Jerusa- lem (Ezek. xxiii. 4), and Sheshak, as Jeremiah terms Babylon (Jer. XXV. 26, li. 41), are more or less distinctly indicated in the passages where such names occur ; whereas no such indication is given in the present passage, nor has the signification of the 204 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. i. word, so often supposed to be allegorical, been understood up to the present day. Despairing of attaining any satisfactory result from the diverse theories propounded from time to time, some scholars not unnaturally viewed the text as corrupt, and suggested various ways in which it might be corrected. Among the best of these conjectures is that proposed by Olshausen and von Ortenberg, namely, the substitution of the name Hauran in place of HadracJi, Hauran being a district south of Damascus (Olshausen, Gr. § 216 d, p. 411), which is mentioned also in connection with Hamath and Damascus in Ezek. xlvii. 16, 18. But the old opinion, maintained by Theodore of Mopsuestia in the fifth century, by Cyrill and Theodoret, and by Rabbi Jose, quoted by Kimchi and other Jewish commentators, has at last been discovered to be the true one, namely, that Had- rach is the name of a district not far from Damascus, in which there was a city of some importance of the same name. Rabbi Jose ben Durmaskith, who, as his name signified, was the son of a Damascene mother, reproved sharply R. Je- hudah, who had explained the term as a designation of the Messiah, in these words : " O Jehudah, how long wilt thou trouble us with such perverted explanations of Scripture .-' I take heaven and earth to witness, that I am from Damascus, and that there is a place there which is called Hadrach. "^ In confirmation of this view, J. D. Michaelis cites the distinct testimony of Joseph Abassi, a noble Arab from the country beyond the Jordan, who stated to him that there was a dis- trict there known by that name. Hengstenberg, however, has pointed out that the Arab in question confused Hadrach with Adraa, the ancient Edrei, one of the capital cities of Og, the king of Bashan, and has cited other instances in ^ The dispute between R. Jehudah and R. Jose is given by Kohler in full from Yalkut Shimeoni, i, fol. 258, § 575. The original place where it occurs is Si/re on Deut. i. I, on the name 1\\'\ "'11. ^ Ch. ix. I.] THE PREPARATION OF THE LAND. 205 which these names were thus confounded. But although the researches hitherto made in ancient classical and Arabic geography, and the accounts of modern travellers in Syria and its environs, have failed to discover a district known by that name in modern times, such a district and city have been found in the Assyrian inscriptions. In the list of Assyrian eponyms, that is, the list of the various officers after whom the Assyrian years were named in a certain definite order, the kings themselves acting in due course as eponyms, we read in B.C. ']']2 in the eponymy of Assur-bel-uzur, governor of Calah, of an " expedition to Had- rach" (Ha-ta-ri-ka).i This statement immediately follows the name of the governor of Sallat (according to Smith, or Sal- mat, as Rawlinson and Schrader give the name), who was the eponym in the previous year, when an expedition was made to the city of Damascus. In B.C. 765, in the eponymy of Ninip- mukin-nisi, governor of Kirruri, another expedition to Had- rach also took place, and a pestilence occurred in the same year.^ Another expedition to Hadrach is spoken of as having occurred in B.C. 755, in the eponymy of Kisu, governor of Siphinis (Smith, p. 64), or Michinis (Mi'-hi-ni-is), as the name is written by Schrader, p. 326, 15. Moreover, in the inscription of Tiglath Pileser II., which describes the war of that monarch with Azariah king of Judah, about B.C. 739, we read : " The mountain which is in Lebanon obeyed me, the land of Bahali- zephon as far as Ammana (Ammon), the land of Izku and Sana, throughout its whole extent, the district of Karanim, the city of Hatarika"^ (Hadrach). In another fragment of the war in Palestine mention is made of " the city of Hatarika, as 1 Smith's /^^jj'r/V!';^ Canon, p. 63. In Schrader's A't77-/«j-(-//;-//? The meaning of the phrase 1^'!T\ X7 is iinccitain. It may signify "sliall not remain," that is, in her present condition as an inhabited city. Gesenius regards it as used intransitively in Isa. xiii. 20 ; Jer. xvii. 6, 25 ; Ezek. xxvi. 20 ; and also Fiirst. The verb does not occur in Jer. xxxiii. 16, a reference given by mistake in 214 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 4, 5. The overthrow of Tyre, especially after such a siege, must have caused great consternation among most of the cities of the south. They thought, no doubt, that the strength of Tyre would form a bulwark under which they might find protection from the Macedonian invasions, but when they saw her fall they at length lost all hope (Cyrill ap. Hengstenberg). No special mention is made of Ashkelon or Ekron in connection with the march of Alexander, though they must naturally have been occupied by the Macedonian troops. The case of Gaza was very different.^ Strongly fortified and occupying an important position, its very name, " the strong," testified to its natural strength. Despite, therefore, of the terror caused by the overthrow of Tyre, Gaza ventured to resist Alexander, and was not reduced to submission until after five months. Its king perished, and the city lost that semi-independence, which it seems to have had under the Persian empire. For the Persians, like their prede- the last edit, of Gesenius' Lex., by Miihlau and Volck, for fpt?' is tliere used. Zecli. vii. 7 is a better instance of the intransitive use of the verb, for which Jer. 1. 13, 39, have also been cited. In most of these passages "sit," or " remain," is preferable, and it is the translation given generally by Evvald. Jer. xvii. 6 has been translated by Kohler, " And he will dwell in a barren place in the wilderness, and in a land which is salt, and where thou canst not dwell." Kohler and Ewald both translate in Zech. ix., " shall not remain." The matter is too uncertain to allow any such argument to be drawn from it as Chamberlain has (lone (in his Azotes on the Kcstoration and Coiiz'crsiott of Israel), that, because Ashkelon has not been utterly destroyed, therefore the prophecy is to be reckoned as one which refers to a still future age. The language used of cities is generally designed to refer to their inhabitants, and the inhabitants of Ashkelon and their city did not remain in a quiet condition at the era referred to. Ashkelon was taken by Jonathan Maccabeus without resistance (i Mace. x. 86), and is spoken of afterwards as being friendly disposed to the Jewish patriots (i Mace. xi. 60, xii 33). The modern town of Ashkelon, which Herod adorned and which became afterwards of importance in post-biblical times, was situated on the shore, and probably occupied a different site from the ancient city of that name. Jer. xlvii. 7 is not sufficient to prove that Ashkelon was originally a maritime city. ' Four of the five cities of the Philistines are mentioned here, ^ath is not spoken of in the later prophets. It seems sometimes to have belonged to the kingdom of Judah (2 Chron. xi. 8), and at other times for long intervals to have been a Philistine city. It may ultimately have been incorporated with the king- dom of Judah. But note 2 Chron. xxvi. 6. ^ Ch. ix. 4, 5-] THE PREPARATION OF THE LAND. 21 5 cessors, the Assyrians and the Babylonians, were wont to permit many of the cities and districts which formed a por- tion of their empire to retain a state of semi-independence. Hence frequent mention is made of kings subject to the Persian king of kings. Herodotus, in his description of the battle of Salamis, mentions the kings of Tyre and Sidon and the other sovereigns of the nations who sat in a prescribed order round the throne of Xerxes {Ha^od., viii. 6-]). He too, speaks of Damasithmys the Calyndian king (viii. Z^), and of Queen Artemisia (vii. 99). Other writers give similar in- stances. Xenophon mentions the wife of Syennesis the king of the Cilicians {Auab., I. ii. 12) ; Diodorus Siculus (xvi. 42) and Arrian (ii. 20) speak of the vassal kings of Cyprus ; the latter writer also of the king of Aradus and the king of Byblus. Similarly Josephus, in narrating Alexander's march to Jeru- salem after the capture* of Gaza, speaks of " the kings of Syria" who were in his train {Antiq. Jitd., xi. 8, § 5). Special mention is made of the king of Gaza having been brought alive to Alexander by Leonatus and Philotas after the capture of that city.^ Hegesias seems to refer to Betis, or Batis, whom Dionysius himself styles only a leader {qr^efioov,) but apparently without seeing anything strange in the same man being also styled " king " by Hegesias. Josephus, in- deed, calls this same individual only the commandant (? ) are used because the collective body of the people is referred to. The use of the feminine mitjht, however, be explained as referring to the expressions, "daughter of Zion" and " daughter of Jerusalem," which occur in verse 9. 244 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. lo. the children of Israel were inscribed on its several gates Rev. xxi. 12). Nor were the exiles who returned from captivity- forgetful of their brethren of the ten tribes, to whom full liberty to return to their land had also been accorded by the decree of Cyrus, had they chosen to avail themselves of that liberty. At the dedication of the second temple, in which Haggai and Zechariah took part, a sin-offering was offered, " for all Israel twelve he-goats according to the number of the tribes of Israel" (Ezra vi. 17) ; and when at a later period Ezra went up to Jerusalem with a new band of exiles returning out of the land of exile, "burnt offerings" were offered "unto the God of Israel, twelve bullocks for all Israel, ninety- seven rams, seventy-seven lambs, and twelve he-goats for a sin-offering" (Ezra viii. 35). It is more than probable that not a few members of the ten tribes returned along with their brethren of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin with Zerubbabel, or went up later with Ezra, although the majority of the Israelites belonging to the two tribes, as well as the members of the ten, were indisposed at that time to quit the abodes to which they had been habituated from their infancy for new dwellings in the land of their forefathers. (See our remarks on pp. 279-283.) In the books of Ezra and Nehe- miah ' the name of Israel is constantly applied to the whole body of the returned exiles, who are likewise styled by the name of Jews. It does not, however, follow that they all belonged to the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin or to the tribe of Levi. The genealogical registers of the tribes com- posing the northern kingdoms no doubt had perished, though possibly a few families retained by tradition the memory of their descent from a particular tribe. Only a small portion of the genealogical registers, even of the two tribes^ seems to have been saved. The registers of the priestly families and of ^ See, for instance, Ezra ii. 2, 70, iii. i, iv. 3, vi. 16, 21, vii. 28, viii. 29 ; Neh. i. 6, vii. 7, viii. 17, ix. i, 2. \. Ch. ix. lo.] THE COMING OF THE KING. 245 the royal family of David had naturally been preserved with greater care than the others, but even in these cases the genealogies were by no means perfect (Neh. vii. 64, 65). Nor must it be forgotten that the Gentile colonists who had been planted in the land of Samaria had become mixed with the poor Israelites who had either been left in the land, or who had returned to their land from the surrounding countries whither they had fled for refuge after the Assyrian armies withdrew from Palestine. Thousands of Jews were left behind in their land during the Babylonian deportation, and the de- portation of Israelites by the Assyrians cannot be supposed much more complete than the Babylonian. Purity of race was neither preserved nor regarded as of much moment after the captivity. Many of the Gentile people of the land, after the return, attached themselves to the Jewish Church and people (Ezra vi. 21), and " became Jews," which is the expression used of similar adhesions to the Jewish religion mentioned in the book of Esther (Esther viii. 17). The separation of the Jews from their foreign wives, which was brought about later by Ezra, must necessarily have been for the most part a separ- ation from such foreign wives as had not separated themselves from "the filthiness of the people of the land" (Ezra ix. 11;. If it were otherwise, the act of Ezra would have been nothing else than a plain transgression of one of the most solemn ordinances of the law of Moses (Exod. xii. 48, 49 ; see also Ezra vi. 21, etc.), which did not forbid marriages with indi- viduals of other nations except in the case of idolators (see the case Deut. xxi. 11-13). Many of the Israelites and Jews who were not able or willing to return with Zerubbabel or Ezra came back at different times to the land of Palestine. Traces of the ten tribes were not only to be found among the people of Galilee, but among those in Jerusalem, some of whom kept alive the memory of the tribe to which their forefathers originally belonged (Luke ii. 36), though in most cases this was 246 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 10. entirely forgotten. The idea of the " lost tribes " is a myth of later ages. The prophets often termed the members of the two tribes, even when they formed a separate kingdom apart from that known as the kingdom of Israel, by the sacred name of " Israel," and the name of Israel was unquestionably used in post-exilian times to denote all the members of any of the twelve tribes without distinction. Inasmuch, however, as the Jeivs were the last portion of the covenant people to retain their political independence, and as they had retained on the whole their religious faith, and inasmuch as from the tribe of Judah the great kings of an united Israel had sprung, and that the Messiah was to come from its royal house, the name of "Jew" became in later days the appellation of the entire nation. For the prophets of that tribe, and those of the tribe of Levi, which always shared its destinies, encouraged the people in the days of captivity to look forward to a return to their land, and the people of the tribe of Judah, with their princes, their priests and prophets, were the first to respond to the permission to return to Palestine. The name of "Jew" was, therefore, looked upon by all the Israelites as a name of honour, and became in every land the usual designation of the people of the whole of the twelve tribes. The New Testament knows no distinction whatever between those whom it designates alike as "children of Israel," "men of Israel," and " Jews." There is, therefore, nothing whatever surprising in a prophet of the restoration speaking of " Ephraim and Judah ;" for in thus speaking of the two component parts of the people of God, he pointed out Israel's unity, and predicted a common blessing of which both portions were alike to be partakers. When the prophet spoke of the chariot, horse and battle bow being cut off and destroyed, he used language which is almost cited verbatim from the prophet Micah, and is employed in a similar sense. Such language cannot ftwrly be adduced as a Ch. ix. lo.] THE COMING OF THE KING. 247 proof of a pre-exilian date in face of the passage in Ezekiel (xxxvii. 16-22) and the earlier passage in this book (chap. viii. 13). By the adoption of such language as his own, the prophet seems to predict incidentally that the political independence which his countrymen so yearned after would be granted to them according to their desire, but that the military power which they coveted would itself come to an end (as Micah had previously foretold) when the king, whose advent they looked for, should come in his glory. The glory, however, of that king would be essentially diverse from the glory so prized on earth. His victories would be won not by the might of man but by the power of the Spirit. The sword with which he would subdue the heathen should be that sharp sword which Cometh out of his mouth (Rev. xix. 15). With the breath of his lips he would slay the wicked (Isa. xi. 4), and speak peace unto the nations (Zech. ix. 10). This last expression can scarcely signify that the Messiah by his word of power should command peace to the nations (as Hitzig, Kohler, and others imagine),^ or compose their quarrels and disputes (as Rosenmiiller, etc. ; comp. Mic. iv. 3). The phrase " to speak peace " {Qy?U} 12,1) is not found in this signification. It is used sometimes in the sense of to speak that which avowedly has peace as its object, whether that pro- fession be genuine or not (as Ps. xxviii. 3 'Ti^ "^l^i, Ps. xxxv. 20; Jer. ix. 7, verse 8 in Eng. Ver.), or that which announces peace and the removal of hostility. Thus God is said to speak peace to his people (Ps, Ixxxv. 9, verse 8 in Eng. Ver.), and the Messiah is said here (verse 10) to declare and publish peace, not merely to his own people (Isa. lii. 7), but also to the nations (comp. Mic. v. 5), This he would do by setting up his spiritual kingdom among the nations. Thus, too, the 1 Hitzig, however, appeals to the fact that the noun 121 is used frequently in the sense of a command, which cannot be denied. The usage of the special phrase is, however, against his view. 248 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 10. Psalmist says of Jerusalem, " let me speak peace concerning thee " (Ps. cxxii. 8, as Delitzsch renders the passage, com- paring the const. '2 121 in Ps. Ixxxvii. 3; Deut. vi. 7), or "let me speak peace in thee " (as Hupfeld, ie., wish peace in thee ; comp. also the phrase to speak good, Jer. xii. 6 ; 2 Kings XXV. 28). The phrase is also used in Esther x. 3 of Mordecai, who in his high office sought the wealth of the Jewish people, and spoke that which tended to the peace of their posterity. ^ The limits assigned by the prophet to the Messianic rule are in accordance with those mentioned in the prophet Micah (Mic. vii. 12). The words are, however, exactly the same as those which occur in Ps. Ixxii. 8. This fact is sufficient to disprove the view maintained by Hitzig, namely, that the boundaries here assigned to the Messiah's rule are those assigned to the holy land in Gen. xv. 18, i.e., from the Nile to the Euphrates, which rivers, he thinks, are also referred to in chap. X. II, under the name of" seas.'" Here he would regard the boundaries marked out to be from the Nile to the Euphrates, and from the latter river to the Mediterranean. From sea to sea must be used here as in other places (Amos viii. 12 ; Mic. vii. 12) in a general and indefinite signifi- cation, and not as marking out any well-defined limits. For similar reasons we cannot suppose with Eichhorn that the limits alluded to are from the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean, and from the Euphrates to the deserts of Arabia. The ex- pression "the river" must, however, denote the Euphrates, the word without the article being sometimes used as a proper name (comp. Mic. vii. 12 ; Isa. vii. 20). As Keil well notes, the river Euphrates is the tcrinimis a quo, the point whence the kingdom begins, the ends of the earth are the terminus ad qucin, the limits to which it extends. The suffix in 'WlT (Esther x. 3) does not refer to Mordecai, as the transl. of our A. V. implies, " speaking peace to all his seed," but to the ,noun people imme- diately preceding (itSr). ^ Ch. ix. lo, II.] THE COMING OF THE KING. 249 The address in verse 11 is most naturally regarded as spoken to the " daughter of Zion," who is immediately before addressed in verse 9, and by which expression the whole remnant of the covenant people is signified. " Thou even ! (even thou !) by the blood of thy covenant I will send forth thy prisoners out of the pit in which there is no water." ^ It is perfectly arbitrary to suppose with Pressel that the prophet turns away from Judah to address Israel as distinguished from Judah. There is no intimation of such a change in the text. Israel as distinguished from Judah is only casually referred to in the expression " I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the horse from Jerusalem," and no intimation is given in the previous portion of the prophecy that Ephraim is regarded as otherwise than closely united to Judah and as forming part and parcel of one people. It would be most harsh to view verses 11 and 12 as containing a special address to Ephraim ; especially (when in verse 13) Judah and Ephraim are again spoken of as the two portions of one people who are in that very verse addressed in their collective and united character as Zion, or Jerusalem, which city was ever regarded by the prophet as the capital of the united twelve tribes viewed in their theocratic character." The blood of the covenant is the blood spoken of in connexion with the great covenant between Jahaveh and his people in Exod. xxiv. 3-8 ; Ps. 1. 5. In the solemn rati- 1 On the difficulties connected with the expression J^X D5 with which the verse commences, see our crit. comm. 2 Hitzig maintains that the prophet turns to address a different class from those addressed before, and thinks that the persons here spoken to must be the cap- tives in Javan or Greece, the captivity (Amos i. 6), whose prisoners (D'^T'DX) were the children of tlie captivity (niPJn ''22, Ezra vi. 16), the sale of whom by the Phccni- cians to the Greeks he considers alluded to in verse 13. Maurer rightly condemns this interpretation as exceedingly arbitrary. The fern, pronouns in verse 1 1 must refer to the daughter of Zion, or the daughter of Jerusalem addressed in verse 9, and addressed again under the name of " Zion" in verse 13 — see our crit. comm. It is harsh to regard the feminine pronouns in verse 1 1 as used in a collective sense. They ought in such a case to have a noun to which they could be referred. 250 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. ii. fication of that covenant Israel had offered up offerings to God, and presented before him the blood, which indicated both atonement on the one hand and surrender of soul (for the blood is the life or soul) on the other. By the sacri- fices of the law, atonement, reconciliation, and dedication to God were typified. By virtue of that covenant made with his people God was determined to save and redeem them from their afflictions. With New Testament light we cannot but think of the fact pointed out so forcibly by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the blood of bulls and of goats could not really remove sin (Heb. ix. 18-24, x, 4), but was a sure sign of a more noble sacrifice, and of another covenant established upon better promises than those of the Mosaic law (Heb. viii. 6). But we cannot assert that such is the meaning to be assigned to this special passage. The language of the passage (verse 11) might be regarded either as referring to the past or the future ; for the perfect used in the original might be taken in either signification. If the words refer to the future, the prophet speaks of a more extensive deliverance of the covenant people, for whom a day of greater freedom was at last to dawn. If to the past, the deliverance already vouchsafed from the Babylonish captivity is that referred to. The passage appears to us to contain a reference to the past deliverance, on which an exhortation is founded, setting before them a present duty, to which is annexed a promise of a future blessing. Zion, who was exhorted in the pre- vious verse to rejoice in the thought of the future coming of her king, was reminded of the deliverance which had already been granted to her, and of the ground on which that deliverance had been vouchsafed. God, who had been mind- ful of their forefathers in Egypt, had not forgotten the blood of the covenant which he had made with them when he brought them up out of the house of bondage. By virtue of Ch. ix. II, 12.] THE COMING OF THE KING. 25 1 that covenant he had already delivered the captives of Zion out of the pit in which they had been cast, namely, out of the captivity in Babylon. They had been cast into that pit as Joseph into the cistern. But the pit was dry, there was no water in it (comp. Gen. xxxvii. 24). Had there been water in that pit they must have already perished. But in their case, as in that of Joseph, they had been cast into misery with the hope of a future deliverance (Gen. xxxvii. 22). The decree of Cyrus, in which God's overruling providence on behalf of his people might have been clearly seen, gave both Jews and Israelites permission to return to their own land. If many of that nation still preferred to remain in the land of exile, the fault was their own. They had been hindered in many cases by worldliness and unbelief. Hence there were still many of the covenant people who were in reality but as prisoners, bound in exile. Such the prophet earnestly exhorts again to return. There were glorious blessings in store for Israel in the land of promise. The prisoners in exile were, therefore, "prisoners of hope," men with glorious hopes and blessed expectations before them. (See Targ. in crit. comm.) They were bidden to come up from the low-lying pit, where they were no longer constrained to abide. At the call of their God they should return to the steepness, or rocks like a fortress of their own native land (such is rather the sense, and not " for- tress," as in our Authorised Version). God would then plant their feet indeed upon a rock and put a new song in their mouths (Ps. xl. 3, 4, or verses 2, 3, Eng. Ver.) ; he would place them upon the rock that was higher than they (Ps. Ixi. 3, 4). They should lift up their eyes unto the hills whence their help should come (Ps. cxxi. i). For the Lord had done great things for them, whereof they should be glad (Ps. cxxvi. 2, 3), and he would yet do greater things : " Even to-day," said the Lord, " I announce it, I will restore double to thee," ^ i.e., a 1 The Chaldee Targum paraphrases verse 12 : "To-day also I send lo announce 252 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. ii, 13. double amount of glory in the future as compared with all the days of suffering in the past (Isa. Ixi. y)} In the verses that follow the prophet depicts how this state of things would be brought about. In his prophecy that the war chariots and war horses of Ephraim and Jeru- salem should be cut off in the days of the Messiah, Zechariah incidentally predicted that the people of the Jews so lately recovered from exile would before the Messiah's coming once more possess military power. Of that day of the people's independence the prophet, speaking in God's name, says (v. 13) : " For I will bend (or draw) Judah for me as a bow, I will fill it with Ephraim (as a bow is filled with arrows), and I will lift up (as a spear) thy sons, Zion, against thy sons, Greece ! and I will make thee as the sword of a mighty one." 2 Those scholars who regard this prophecy as belonging to a pre-exilian period have generally maintained that the prophet here predicts that the Jews who were sold as slaves to the Greeks by the Phoenicians and Edomites (Joel iv. 6, E.V. iii. 6) to you, that I will bring to you the double good things which I sent before to you." R. Salomo ben Yizhak explains it as, " moreover I announce to you a second mes- sage besides that concerning the building of the temple. But what that other announcement may be is explained in those things which follow." ' Pressel, we believe, stands alone in translating this "the second rank will I give back to thee," which he explains of Ephraim attaining again to the rank which was allotted to that tribe in the blessing of Jacob (Gen. xlix. 8, ff.). But in that case the article would have naturally been used. There is also no mention made of Judah's superior position in this passage. The word can well be rendered double, as in Exod. xvi. 22 ; Isa. Ixi. 7 ; Job xlii. lO. 2 Pressel calls attention to the fact that the first two verbs in this verse are simple perfects, while the last two are perfects with the so-called vav conv. (as is seen by the tone syllable). He maintains that this proves that the former are to be taken not as proph. perfects, but as past tenses, while the two latter must be regarded as futures. The tenses in the past he regards as referring to the Davidic era, when Judah was the bow and Ephraim the arrow in the hand of the Lord, while the last two refer to the future. But he is mistaken in his criticism. The two perfects with vav conv. prove that the perfects preceding are to be regarded as prophetic, otherwise the perfect with vav conv. would not have been used, but the verb would have been in the imperfect, see Driver, § 1^5, I ; Ewald, § 342 c. Ch. ix. 13.] THE COMING OF THE KING. 253 would by Divine power rise up against their masters and over- come them. This view presupposes that the event alluded to by Joel was recent, or at least that its memory was fresh in the minds of the people at the time when the present prophecy was composed. Though Joel probably prophesied in the early portion of the year of Joash, yet to suppose that the incident he alludes to casts light upon the prediction in our passage when considered as pre-exilian, is to explain what is admittedly uncertain by that which is equally so. It may be disputed whether Amos i. 6, 9, really casts any light upon the passage in Joel. For while the Phoenicians and the Philistines are denounced by the prophet Amos for selling the Israelite or Jewish captives to the Edomites, the prophet Joel speaks of the captives as being sold to the Greeks. The Greeks, who merely purchased the captives, could scarcely be considered as the most guilty parties ; and there is no allusion whatever made to the ill-treatment of such captives by the Greeks, as has been ingeniously suggested in order to assign a cause for the prophetic denunciation. Moreover, the prophecy in Zechariah cannot be supposed to speak of an insurrection of such captives against their masters. The prophecy distinctly speaks of a national uprising of the " sons of Zion " against the " sons of Greece," and of a murderous warfare carried on between them, in which conflict Jahaveh represented as a mighty hero, armed with bows and arrows, spear and sword, going forth to deal death and destruction against his enemies on every side.^ ^ Bleek {Stiidien 11. Ki-itiken) concludes from a comparison of Amos i. 6-9, and Joel iv. 4-8, that shortly before the composition of this prophecy, which he con- jectures was written a little earlier or later than the prophecies of Joel and Amos, the Philistines and Phoenicians carried on a successful war against Israel and Judah allied together. Though the historical books of the Old Testament do not any say anything of such a war, Bleek regards this as nothing strange when one takes into consideration the very incomplete accounts given in those writings of the long reigns of Uzziah and of Jeroboam II. The successful campaign of Uzziah against the Philistines (2 Chron. xxvi. 6) he thinks must have been earlier. In the 2 54 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 14. It is now generally agreed by scholars that Javan, in verse 13 really signifies Greece, and that Greece is also to be under- stood in Joel (]V signifying the lonians and then the Greeks). The view, of Credner and Hitzig, that a city or district in Arabia Felix is signified is now abandoned. Pressel seems correct in considering that Javan means rather the Grecian people than the land of Greece. He refers to the great table of nations in Gen. x, 2-5, and to the occurrence of the name with those of Tubal and Meshech in Ezek. xxvii. 13, as nations who traded with Tyre, and brought slaves and vessels of copper into her markets (comp. Isa. Ixvi. 19). He maintains that these allusions to Greece, as well as the other references to Chittim (D''JJ)3), in the Old Test, (see Num. xxiv. 24; Isa. xxiii. i; 12 ; Jer. ii. 10 ; Ezek. xxvii. 6), coupled with the facts that David's body-guard was composed of Cretan and Philistine mercenaries CJl^DHT ''Jl'lSn 2 Sam. viii. 18), ^ and also that the tribe of Dan had entered into close communication with Javan, as stated in Ezek. xxvii. 19, etc., all prove that Grecian influences and culture were more known to the Israelites than is generally imagined. His view of this prophecy, is that the writer (who according to his idea lived in pre-exilian times, " in which Greek culture began gradually to exert its re- actionary influence over Asia") prophesied that a contest would take place between the Greek culture and religion and the religion of the God of Israel, which contest actually occurred. The explanation is ingenious; but while admitting that there was early intercourse with the Greek people on the part of the Israelitish people through means of the Phoenicians on war which Bleek considers referred to, many prisoners of both Israel and Judah were sold to the Greeks. At the same time he considers Damascns and Hamath may have been unfriendly to the Israelites, and hence the predictions of the prophet. But who can be satisfied with such arbitrary conjectures in which, however, Bleek does not stand alone ? ^ See Ewald's /y/j/. of Israel, vol. i. (MartineauS transl., p. 246). Ch. ix. 13, 14] THE COMING OF THE KING. 255 the north and the Philistnies on the south, we fail to see that it is at all likely that a prophet, in the days of Ahaz, according to Pressel's idea, could have conceived the idea of such a contest, Zion and Greece in Zechariah are opposed to one another as the city of God (civitas Dei, Aiigustiiie) and the city of the world (civitas mundi). This idea is new and is post-exilian. The true exposition of the passage is no doubt that stated by Jerome to have been given by the Jews in his day, namely, that it is a prediction of those Jewish wars waged under the leadership of the Maccabee chieftains against the Greek rulers of Syria. Mention is made in the book of Daniel of Greece in connection with the Jewish people, al- though no clear prophecy was even then given which, prior to its fulfilment, would have led any one to consider that the Jews would be brought into a struggle with the Grecian power. The name of Greece, however, must have become known to the Jews who had returned from Babylon and the other lands of their captivity, soon after the burning of Sardis (B.C. 499), as the fame of that act must have been spread widely through the east, as well as the news of the breaking out of the war between Persia and Greece. It was probably in this later period that Zechariah delivered this special prophecy, which seems to have been separated from his earlier predic- tions by a very considerable period. The wars of the Jews against Greece, under the heroic leadership of the Maccabees, were occasioned by the attempt to overturn the Jewish religion and substitute in its place Grecian customs. Comp. i Mace. viii. 9, 18 ; 2 Mace. iv. 13, 15. Those wars were essentially religious in their character. The Maccabean heroes went forth to the contest with the full con- viction that the cause in which they were engaged was the cause of God, and that the Lord was with them in all their various difficulties and trials. In the glowing language of the prophet (ver. 14), Jahaveh was seen over them, and his arrow 256 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 14. went forth as the lightning ; ^ yea, the Lord Jahaveh blew with the trumpet, for he was the real captain of his host, and the war waged by the Jews was in defence of his truth. The Lord is further described as going forth in the storms of the south, because the storms from that quarter, coming from the desert, were generally the most violent (Isa. xxi. i). The language used is highly figurative, but it need not surprise us that the exploits of the Maccabees should be so described, when we call to mind the vivid language in which David depicts his own deliverance in the remarkable song which he sang in the day when God delivered him from his foes (Ps. xviii. 6-19 ; compare also Ps. cxliv. 6, 7, Ps. Ixxvii. 16-19, and especially Habb. iii. 12-14). Small as were the armies which Judas and his brethren commanded, those armies were the armies of Israel, and they went forth to battle in the name of the Lord of Hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, who was then defied by the Grecian foe, even as in former days he had been defied by the Philistine (i Sam. xvii. 45). Thus doing battle against the enemies of their God, " out of weakness they were made strong, they waxed valiant in fight, and turned to flight the armies of the aliens " (Heb. * It is difficult to know how to treat such expositions as the following of Bishop Wordsworth, namely, that by "Christ's arrows" the apostles are here meant " whose name means sent forth, whom after he had risen from the dead and ascended into heaven (Ps. Ixviii. 18 ; Eph. iv. 8-1 1.) he sent forth from his bow like arrows winged with feathers from the plumage of the Holy Ghost, the Divine Dove, whose wings are silver wings, and his feathers like gold (Ps. Ixviii. 13). They are the missionaries whom Christ is ever sending forth from the bow of his Divine commission to subdue the world to himself. They are his arrows, his quiver is full of them, and they will never fail of victory, his sagittis totus orbis vulneratus et captus est, says St. Jerome. . . . And they are like arrows discharged from Jerusalem against the sons of Greece, or Javan (Dan. viii. 31), because they were sent forth from Zion against the Greek or heathen world to bring it into subjection to Christ." We feel it a duty to protest in the interests of evangelical interpretation against all such expositions from whatever quarter they may come. 2 Mr. Chamberlain, who is perhaps the best repfresentative of his school of pro- Ch. ix. 13.] THE COMING OF THE KING. 257 The persons composing the armies of Israel at that time were no doubt members of all the twelve tribes. The frag- mentary histories of the restoration do not warrant us to con- clude that there were not very many Israelites and Jews who found their way back to the land of Palestine at other times than those mentioned by Ezra and Nehemiah. We must not forget that Jewish history is almost a blank from the death of Nehemiah (about B.C. 415) up to the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes in B.C. 175. We have but a few fragmentary incidents of that long period of two centuries treasured up by Josephus. (See Milman's History of the Jews, 4th edition, vol. i. p. 443.) It is highly probable that both previous to the Maccabean era, during the wars of that phetic interpretation, seeks in every way to depreciate the victories gained by the Maccabee chieftains, and the deliverance vouchsafed at that era. He maintains that such victories can scarcely be termed a deliverance from the Lord their God (ch. ix. 16). The troubled state of that time is dwelt upon by him with emphasis, as also the state of Jerusalem during a considerable portion of that period. With all their failings, the Jews of that day were as a people resolute for their faith and religion. They did achieve their independence though that independence lasted but for a brief period. See Milman's History. The period of the Judges of Israel, so favourably spoken of by Samuel (i Sam. xii. 11) could, if treated in a like spirit, be represented as a much darker era than that of the Maccabees. If the noble Maccabean chiefs, Judas and Jonathan, are to be censured because they sought the alliance of the heathen in their contests, what may not be said of the moral cha- racter of Ehud, Gideon, Jephthah, or Sampson, who yet performed mighty acts in the name and by the strength of the Lord their God ! Surely the guidance of the Lord was as conspicuous in the days of the Maccabees as in those of Sampson or Jephthah ? Chamberlain's argument that the Jews did not then contend against Greece deserves just a passing notice. The four kingdoms founded by the suc- cessors of Alexander are distinctly recognised as Grecian in Daniel viii. 21-25. The armies against which the Jewish chieftains fought were essentially Greek armies trained on the Greek method. The soldiers were " sons of Greece." Anti- ochus Epiphanes was essentially a Greek king. See I Mace. viii. 9, 18 ; 2 Mace. iv. 13, 15. Chamberlain seeks to refer all this to the future, and talks of an alliance of the Greek Church and kingdom with the Russian Empire, which he views as Gog, and of an union of these with the Papacy ! The special part which the Jews are to bear in this contest is to fight the Greeks ! It may be well to refer to such views, which always crop up in England in the time of any Russian difficulty, and are sure to be highly popular in some quarters. They are discreditable to the state of Biblical exposition among us, and cannot be discussed at length by the sober expositor. Mr. Chamberlain's A'otes on the Restoration of Israel., appeared during the Crimean war. S 258 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 15. period, and especially after the Jews had obtained their inde- pendence, large numbers of the Israelites returned to their land. But, as already noted, the name " Jew " had become the name whereby all the members of the covenant people were known, and their religion was termed the Jewish religion. The difference between the tribes was practically of no im- portance, and was generally unknown by the nations among whom they were so widely scattered. No fair argument can, therefore, be drawn from the silence of history as to their re- storation. Josephus was evidently as ignorant of the annals of that time as we are. Zechariah describes in vivid language the holy war which was afterwards carried on by the Maccabees. In that day of conflict with the might of Greece, the third world-monarchy of Daniel, Jahaveh would himself be the defence of his people (verse 15). He would defend them as with a shield, and they should eat up their foes who would desire to eat up the people of the Lord (Ps. xiv. 5, verse 4 in E. V.), even Israel. The object of the verb ''eat" in verse 15, is not directly mentioned, but the idea before the prophet's mind was most probably that to which Balaam gave utterance ages before when speaking of Israel : " Behold the people shall rise up as a great lion, and lift up himself as a young lion ; he shall not lie down till he eat of the prey and drink the blood of the slain " (Num. xxiii. 24). Compare also the passage in Micah v. 8, which was evidently in the prophet's mind. The figure of eating up one's enemies as a lion is used in Deut. vii. 16 ; while in other places foes are compared to bread eaten and devoured (Num. xiv. 9 ; Ps. xiv. 4). The figure of drinking the blood of one's enemies is found in Ezek. xxxix. 17-16 (conipare, though not exactly alike, Deut. xxxii. 4? ; Isa. i. 20, xxxiv. 5, 6 ; Jer. xlvi. 10). The idea of actually drinking blood was repugnant to the Jewish religion, and condemned in both the law and the prophets ; bu^ when nations are com- Ch. ix. 15.] THE COMING OF THE KING. 259 pared to wild animals, language must be used characteristic of the habits and usages of such animals. The idea is further carried out when the warriors are described at the close of the verse as raging like men drunk with wine, the drink with which they were made drunk being the blood of the enemies of the Lord. With this blood the Israelites were to be filled like the sacrificial bowls in which the priests were wont to catch the blood of the victims which were slain, and they would be sprinkled therewith like the corners of the altar, which expression includes the horns of the altar ; which were wont to be sprinkled with the sacrificial blood. Comp. Lev. i. 5, II, iii. 2, V. 9, and in reference to the horns, more especi- ally, Lev. iv. 7, 18, 30.1 The reference made in the passage (verse 15) to sling stones can scarcely be " they shall subdue with sling stones " (as our Authorised Version, following the authority of the LXX. and Vulgate, Grotius, etc.), that is, overcome their enemies, as David did Goliath of Gath, with the most con- temptible weapons. Nor can the sling stones be regarded as ' The latter image, however, can scarcely signify, as Dr. Pusey thinks : " They shall be consecrated instruments of God ; they shall not prevail for themselves, but for him ; they shall be hallowed like the bowls of the temple, from whenc'- the sacrificial blood is sprinkled on the altar, or as the corners of the altar which receive it." The similar figures used here and in ch. xi. 9, 16, tend to prove unity of authorship. Ghillany, in his treatise on Die Menschenopfer der alten Hebrder (Niirnberg, 1842), has explained Zech. ix. 7 (p. 631), to allude to human sacrifices among the Philistines. No evidence whatever can be adduced in support of such an exposition ; though human sacrifices, and even the drinking of human blood on occasions, existed among the Phoenicians. Zech. ix. 15 is adduced by the same scholar (p. 640, ff.) as if the prophet "in his dreams of victory let us have an insight into the barbarism of the victorious Hebrews," who in ancient times ate their fallen foes as food, and drank of their blood in the rage of victory, as well as par- took of portions of their bodies ! In support of this idea he refers to Isa. xlix. 26 ; Jer. v. 17, xiii. 16 ; Micah iii. I ; and some of the passages alluded to above. He admits, indeed, that in these passages the eating of men is only figuratively spoken of, but thinks that such figurative language had its foundation in the bar- barism of former times. It is, however, more natural, and in accordance with the earliest mention of the figure, to explain the passage as above. There is reference made in some of these passages to figurative sacrifices (comp. Isa. xxxiv. 6, 7), but none whatever to cannibal practices, which is a far-fetched idea. 260 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 15-17. meaning their enemies, which is the sense advocated by Heng- stenberg, " they shall overpower sling stones," their enemies being so styled as contemptible, i Sam. xxv. 29 is not a case in point. The view of Umbreit, Gesenius, and Ewald is preferable, namely, that they would despise the sling stones hurled against them, and treat them as very stubble, treading them under their feet (comp. Job xli. 20, 21, or verses 28, 29 in E. V.) Sling stones were no contemptible instruments of warfare (comp. 2 Chron. xxvi. 14, 15 ; i Mace. vi. 51, 52). But whatever the might and power of their enemies, Jahaveh would save his people in that day (verse 16), that is, in the long day of warfare, so that the enemy should not be able to crush and destroy them. The Lord would save and de- liver them as a shepherd is wont to deliver his flock. While the Israelites would tread under their feet the stones hurled against them by their foes, they themselves should be as the stones of a diadem shining forth in the land of Jahaveh,^ for the land in which the people of Jahaveh should dwell, and in which they should thus war a good warfare for his truth, was in very deed entitled to that appellation. Comp. Isa. viii. 8, though a different word for " land " is there made use of The prophet closes with an allusion to the glory of the people of Israel at the great crisis in their history to which ' niDD"l3n?D is the part, hithpoel (Ges. § 67, 8), from the root DD3 in the sense of trembling, vibrating, hence gleaming, glittering. The idea of rising tip given by Hengstenberg is scarcely suitable to stones. Miihlau and Volck have adopted this explanation from Kcihler. Fiirst's explanation is very similar. The LXX. have StoTi \Woi &yioi KvXlovrai iirl yrjs avrod, because holv stones are thrown tipoti his land, which must be regarded as a free translation. The Syr. also render "holy stones," and render the last clause by " which are hurled (thrown) in his land." The Targum renders "for he shall choose them as stones of the ephod, and he shall collect them into his land." All these, as well as the Vulgate (lapides sancti), regard the expression ~1T3"''J3^< to mean '^ holy stones"; "but "ITJ is also used for the diadem of a king (2 Sam. i. 10 ; 2 Kings xi. 12). Gesenius in Thes. would also render "lifting themselves up in his land," i.e., rising up. The form of the verb is reflective, not passive, and therefc^e can scarcely mean as Pusey, " a consecrated diadem, raised aloft so that all can see." Ch. ix. 15-17.] THE COMING OF THE KING. 261 the prophecy refers : "For how great is his beauty, and how great is his goodness." ^ Israel shall yet take root in the land, " his branches shall spread, and his beauty shall be as the olive tree, and his smell as Lebanon " (Hos. xiv. 6). It would certainly be natural (more natural, if strict grammar alone were regarded) to consider the beauty and goodness of Ja- haveh himself to be referred to by the prophet, as Heng- stenberg, Ewald, and others think. But the Old Testa- ment writers are not unfrequently wanting in precision of language, and leave much to be understood from the general sense of the context. Beauty, as Kohler observes, is never ascribed to Jahaveh himself in the Old Testament, and the expression must be regarded as peculiarly strange when applied to God, though beauty (as Keil notes) is cer- tainly predicted of the Messianic King (Ps. xlv. 3 ; Isa. xxxiii. 17). The prophet further adds, that in this day of Israel's sal- vation and Israel's dignity, when the old heroic spirit in connection with valour for truth, should once more be dis- played, the abundance of corn and wine in the land should produce a multitude of young men and maidens. Whenever an abundance of food exists, the population, as Hengsten- berg has remarked, is sure to increase. A similar idea is found in Ps. Ixxii. 16. The mention of young men and maidens merely heightens the general picture of prosperity given by the prophet, and may be compared to that pre- sented in the earlier portion of the book, where the boys and 1 The goodness referred to here is not moral goodness, but the goodness of external form and appearance; as in the phrase "upon her fair neck" n-1D"?y n"}X5V in Hos. X. II ; Exod. ii. 2, where 210 is fair of a babe; I Sam. ix. 2, goodly, of a young man. See also Num. xxiv. 5, and comp. Cant. vii. 2. LXX. strangely Srt el' rt dyaObv aiiTov, Kal d tl KaXbv avToO, trtros veavldKOis, kol oli/os 6i}co5tdfwi' ei's wapdiuovs. The Syr. is " how good and how useful is corn to the youths, and wine delights the virgins." But the Targ. allegorises here as often, " for how good and how fair is the instruction (doctrine) of the Law to the leaders, and the judgment of truth directed in the congregation. 262 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 15-17. girls are spoken of as playing in the streets of Jerusalem (chap. viii. 5). We must here also express our dissent from Dr. Pusey's comment on these verses, in which he considers the glory of the Redeemer to be pointed out. Dr. Pusey even spiritualizes the mention which is here made of " young men and maids." Equally mistaken is the unwise attempt made by some to refer the passage to millennial glories. The expressions which are used by the prophet simply refer to a considerable amount of prosperity promised to the Jewish people at the special era which the prophecy depicts, and the measure of blessing vouchsafed to that nation in and after the Macca- bean period fully meets all the requirements of the prophecy. CHAPTER IX. THE WAR OF THE SONS OF ZION. " THE LOST TRIBES." CONTENTS. Opinions concerning Zecli. x. , 265 — Prayers for rain, 266 — Such blessings to be sought only from God, 267 — The teraphim. Different opinions regarding tera- phim, 267, ff. — The diviners, 268 — Such sin a cause of the captivity, 269 — The evil shepherds and God's anger against them, 270 — Different explanations, 271 — Different explanations of chap. x. 4, 272-275 — The triumphant Jews, 275 — Ephraim and Judah, 276 — Both partakers in the struggle, 277 — Jahaveh's hissing for the scattered people, 278 — The "ten tribes " invited to return, 279 — Different accounts of the number of Jews who returned with Zerubbabel, 278 — The unas- signed exiles, 280 — Explained as the members of the "ten tribes," 280, ff. — State- ment of Josephus, 281 — of 4th Ezra, 281 — The Anglo-Saxon race not Israelitic, 281, note.— Union of the tribes, 282-288 —Genealogies fragmentary, 283 — The exiles mentioned in Ezra and Nehemiah not the only ones who returned, 284 — The " Lost tribes " a myth, 284 — -Traces of Israelites, 284 — The twelve tribes, 285 — Sown among the nations, different views, 285, ff. — Blessings given to the Israelites, 288, ff. — Argument from mention of Assyria in verse 10, 289^Assyria and Babylon, 290 — Assyria and Eg}'pt, 291 — Explanation of mention of Egypt, 291, note, 292 — The land of Gilead and Lebanon, 293 — Solution of difficulty, 293 — Difficulties connected with verse 11, 294 — The Deliverances of the past the symbols of the future, 296. CHAPTER IX, THE WAR OF THE SONS OF ZION.— " THE LOST TRIBES." The tenth chapter of Zechariah has been regarded by some as being in itself a separate and distinct prophecy rather than a continuation of the ninth chapter. Such is the view advocated by Bleek. But on account of the reference to the fertihty of the land, at the close of the former chapter, and to the result of that fertility as seen in the increase of young men and maidens, it seems more natural to connect the open- ing section of this chapter (x. i, 2) with the closing portion of the ninth. For these verses contain a direction to seek from Jahaveh the necessary showers required at the season of the latter rain, in order that the land might be fertile, because it is God alone who makes the lightnings, and gives the abundant rain. Such blessings of nature were not to be sought for by a use of the enchantments of the heathen, to which too many had recourse even in day's when the people of Israel worshipped the true God, and had not fallen into the idolatrous practices of the heathen nations around. The Hebrew punctuators held evidently similar views with regard to the connection of these two opening verses with the preceding prophecy. For the section marked by them as beginning at chap. ix. 9 closes with the two opening verses of chap. X. Ewald, also, considers that the last verse of the ninth chapter is to be connected with chap, x., and chaps, ix. and x. are regarded by him as forming essentially one prophecy, which he subdivides into four almost equal sections. These opening verses, however, can scarcely be viewed as forming a suitable close of the former chapter. For if they be connected 266 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. x. i. in their subject-matter with the verses at the close of that chapter, they are as intimately connected with the verses which follow in this. The second verse speaks of the afflic- tion of the people which was occasioned by there being no true shepherd, and the foreign shepherds who ruled over the people are denounced in the following verse. We are therefore inclined to follow the opinion of the punctuators, and to regard the third verse as commencing a new section or paragraph, though that section is an integral portion of the preceding prophecy. The directions to seek in the time of the latter rain for the promised blessing of showers, so essential in order that the earth might bring forth her fruit (Deut. xi. 14, 17 ; Jer. iii. 3 ; Joel ii. 23), was but natural, after the results of such a blessing had been spoken of as distinctly conducing to the increase of the Lord's people in the Lord's land. It is, therefore, best to understand the expression as used in its literal signification (Kohler), while the prayer for rain may be regarded as in- cluding a prayer for all other necessary blessings. There is no need to allegorise the expressions, as Kliefoth is inclined to do, and to regard the harvest for which the rain was re- quired as being the spiritual harvest to appear at Messiah's advent. Still worse is it with Bishop Wordsworth, to view the former rain as signifying the Old Dispensation, and the latter rain the New. The lightnings alluded to in this passage are those which usually precede the wished-for rain (Jer. x. 13 ; Ps. cxxxv. 7). The result of such copious showers would be that each man in Israel would have grass in his field, or a full supply of all those crops needed for man's use (Gen. i. 29 ; Ps. civ. 14). The expression " grass " need not be confined (as Hengstenberg imagines) to that signification, as in Deut. xi. 15. As the prophet spoke of the latter rain, and of its value for the sake of the land and the people of Jahaveh, he was naturally led, after the example of See M. Clermont-Ganneau's article on "The Arabs of Palestine," reprinted from MacmiHan's Magazine in the Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Explora- tion Fund, for October, 1875. 268 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES, [Ch. x. 2. similar to the " lares " and " penates " of the Romans.^ They were certainly images which were human in form and often as large as life. Such were the teraphim placed in David's bed by Michal in order to deceive the messen- gers of Saul (i Sam. xix, 13, 16). They were, however, sometimes smaller, as were those of Laban, which were able to be concealed by Rachel in the litter in which she used to ride upon her camel, and upon which she sat in her tent, when she successfully pleaded the excuse of illness as a reason for not rising to salute her father while he searched the furniture of her tent (Gen. xxxi. 34). It is not unlikely that the teraphim were originally actual human heads, though in process of time they were formed of gold, silver, etc. These h-eads were supposed to possess the power of giving oracular responses {Judg. xvii. 5, with xviii. 5 ; Ezek. xxi. 26, E. V. ver. 21), and were often used in connection with magic.^ Though their use was often forbidden, and condemned as sinful, they were yet again and again found in use among the Israelites (Gen. xxxv. 2, 4 ; i Sam. xv. 23 ; 2 Kings xxiii. 24), as well as among the more ignorant heathen. Similar prac- tices prevailed for centuries after the Christian era among the inhabitants of the land where Laban dwelt, and, there- fore, it is not surprising to find a prophet of the post-exilian period alluding to such superstitions.^ The preferable translation of the next clause in verse 2 is, "and dreams speak vanity"; dreams being mentioned here as a type of that which is unreal.^ The imperfect which is ^ See Delitzsch on Genesis (4te Ausg.), p. 455, where the analogy is pointed out, and also Rodiger in Gesenius' Thesaitrns. 2 See Chwolson, Die Ssabier tiiid dcr Ssabismiis, vol. ii., in his Excursus on human sacrifices of the late period, and on the oracular human heads, pp. 142-155. ^ See Chwolson, as before. •* So the LXX. TO. hvwvi.a. i/'enS^ eXdXovv, Hitzig, Ewald, Hengstenberg, etc. Others refer it to the diviners, and so the Vulg. The omission of the article has been considered to be an objection to the fomfcr view. But " dreams " may be Ch. X. 2, 3.] THE WAR OF THE SONS OF ZION. 269 used in the original in both the sentences, "they speak vanity," and " they comfort in vain," may possibly convey the idea that the facts alluded to were of frequent occurrence even in the prophet's own day (Kohler). But it must not be for- gotten that these imperfects are preceded by perfect tenses, and that the diviners must be considered as the subjects of all the three verbs. The imperfects may be used here in a future signification, of a time succeeding the pretended visions referred to. The perfect tense which, however, occurs in the next clause, following as it does after the illative conjunction, can scarcely be regarded with Maurer as used in a present signification. It stands out distinctly in contrast with the imperfects im- mediately preceding, and, therefore, may be viewed either as used in reference to the future as the prophetic perfect, or, which is more in accordance with the contrast, as referring to past time. " Therefore," because the people followed lies, and those that sought to comfort them comforted them with vain expectations (comp. Jer. vi. 14), "they departed (migrated) as a flock,^ they are afflicted (oppressed) because there is no shepherd." The allusion thus is to the _ captivity which happened on account of the people's sins, and which was partly sent as a judgment for their superstitious vanities. The metaphor of the verb is taken from the pulling up of the stakes of a tent or sheepfold. The captivity referred to considered as spoken of generally, and not with reference to those of the diviners. It is scarcely sufficient to regard the omission of the article as employed simply for the sake of varying the expression, as Hitzig imagines. On the other hand, the trans- lation of our A. v., "and have told false dreams," according to which XIE^Tl is regarded as the genitive, though defended by Keil and others, is contrary to the Hebrew accentuation. Such expressions do not occur with reference to dreams. niDTTI may also be considered as the adverbial accusative* Ges. § 118,3, "As to dreams, they (the diviners) speak vanity." On the expression ponj'' 7211 com- pare the parallel in Job xxi. 34, and on the subject matter see Jer. vi. 14. 1 The LXX. have i^-qpaveyiaav, they were dried up, which is also the rendering of Symmachus. But Field notes that the Complutensian, with two MSS. and Syro- Hex. read e^-qpdrjaav, which Schleusner approves ; Theod. has airripav. 2/0 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. x. 3. cannot be the captivity of a portion of the tribe of Naphtali, etc. (2 Kings xv. 29), as Maurer imagines, nor even the captivity of the rest of the tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel, as Hitzig maintains. For, as Kohler well observes, the subject of the two verbs "they migrated" and "they are oppressed " must be the same, which is sufficient to show that the captivity of the twelve tribes as a whole is referred to, as Israel and Judah are alike addressed in the exhortation of the first verse. The use of the imperfect tense in the last verb, " they are oppressed," denotes the continuance in some form of the state of oppression down to the days of the prophet. The phrase, " for there is no shepherd "^ seems to intimate the total cessation of royalty among the people, and nbt merely the want of a good monarch. Hence the view of Hitzig cannot be adopted, who, comparing this passage with those in Hos. iii. 4, iv. 3, and x. 3, concludes that the prophecy refers to the days of the interregnum in the northern kingdom. The whole passage refers to the state of the people of Israel in general, and not to either portion of it exclusively. The prophet having thus pictured the great want under which the people groaned, proceeds to declare that the anger of Jahaveh was already kindled against the evil shepherds who oppressed his flock. By this appellation the foreign rulers and oppressors of Israel are signified, as in Jer. vi. 3, 4, XXV. 34-38, xlix. 19 (comp. also Isa. xliv. 28). The same expression is also used of native kings, priests and prophets (Jer, ii. 8, xvii. 16, xxiii. 1-4 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 2, etc.). The prophet further announces that the Lord would visit in ven- geance "the he-goats," by which especially foreign chieftains or commanders appear to be signified (see Isa. xiv. 9, where our A. V. has rendered the expression by " the chief ones"). It is, however, possible that the same persons may be signified by ' Comp. Num. xxvii. 17 ; l Kings xxii. 17 ; Jer. xxiii. 4 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 5, 8, 23, xxxvii. 24. Comp. also the N. T. application of the expression in INIatt. ix. 36. Ch.x. 3>4] THE WAR OF THE SONS OF ZION. 27I the "shepherds" and the "he-goats," for they appear to be identified in Ezek. xxxiv. as the same persons viewed from a different point of view. But there may be a distinction be- tween the two, the former indicating the monarchs of the nations, while " the he-goats " signify their nobles and those in high office. Hitzig would explain the " he-goats," after the analogy of Ezek. xxxiv. 17, 21, to indicate the rich men in Israel, who despised and oppressed their po'orer breth- ren. Such marked distinctions between class and class were, however, scarcely in existence among the restored exiles in the time of Zechariah, although the conduct of the nobles of Judah became very oppressive in the days of Nehemiah (Nell. v). Moreover, the passage cannot well be explained as speaking of one portion of the people of Israel being punished, when, as the next clause proves, the whole nation is spoken of as to be raised, by the Lord's gracious visitation of his flock,^ to higher dignity than before. Thus the house of Judah was to become the state-horse of Jahaveh in the impending con- flict, that is, Jehovah would ride gloriously forth on that people to war against their foes, and would fill them with courage by guiding and directing them, so that they would be fitted for that day of battle (comp. Job xxxviii. 19, ff.). It is worthy of note that the house of Judah is here spoken of as the flock of Jahaveh, though the prophecy is by no means confined to that tribe (see verses 6, 7, etc.). The language seems to have been chosen because that tribe was to be pre- eminent in the day of future conflict, and because the name of Judah was coming into use almost as a designation for Israel in general. The verse that follows (verse 4) has been differently under- stood. " From him proceeds corner, from him nail, from 1 The distinction must be noticed between the constraction 'Q~?V IpS which is used of visiting in judgment, that is, of punishing and chastising, and DTlX npD, which is used in a good sense of visiting in mercy. 2/2 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. x. 4. him battle-bow, from him every oppressor together." There is no difficulty as to the comprehension of the several expressions which are made use of The corner means the corner-stone, and in Isa. xxviii. 16, this title with others is used in reference to the Messiah, The word translated " nail " may either signify the peg with which the tent was fastened firmly to the ground (Exod. xxvii. 19, XXXV. 18 ; Judg. iv. 21, 22), or a peg or nail driven into a wall (Ezek. xv. 3) on which various articles were hung. In this latter signification the term is used figuratively of persons upon whom others are dependent (Isa. xxii. 23-25). The " battle-bow " needs no explanation, for it is evidently used in the signification of an archer or warrior. 1 But the last expression, " every oppressor," has been variously explained. The signification of commander {Feldherr), assigned to it by Hitzig, cannot be regarded as proven. The cognate word in Ethiopic, Neg/is, is employed in the sense of king, and it has been supposed that the word is used in this signification in this passage of Zechariah (so the Targum), as well as in Isa. iii. 12, xiv. 2, and Ix. 17, None of these passages are at all conclusive, as the idea ^ Kliefoth is scarcely correct in considering that tlie passage spealis of the full preparation of Judah for warfare at the time referred to. Explaining each word on the principle of a part for the whole, Kliefoth interprets " the corner-stone" to indicate the walls or fortifications; the "tent peg" to denote the camp; the " battle-bow," warlike weapons of offence in general. All these, according to his view, are included in the last phrase 1111'' C'JIJ"?^, which he translates "all which rules," that is everything which helps to bring the foe into the position of a slave under the lash of a driver. But this explanation of the first three nouns is fanciful, while that of the last is in direct opposition to the ttsus loqiioidi. Nor can we regard Lange as really giving the real sense of the passage when he maintains that the four terms are expressions denoting the leaders of the people, two of them indicating the leaders required for war, and the other two the leaders in days of peace. According to him, the corner-stone denotes the fixed and established government, and the tent peg, those who take charge of all who travel, while the battle-bow is supposed to indicate the regular leaders on the battle-field, and the " assaulter," or ' ' oppressor," the man who breaks through the hostile line of battle. Such an exposition has, in our opinion, nothing^ to recommend it, while the ex- planation of the last term is also against the usiiswqiiendi. Ch. X. 4.] THE WAR OF THE SONS OF ZION. 273 of despotic treatment seems to pervade them all (see Delitzsch on the passages in Isaiah). The verb occurs so frequently in the meaning of driving, oppressing, that the participle is most naturally explained as having that sig- nification. Hengstenberg and Keil explain it in that sense, but consider that the reference in this passage is to the oppression to be exercised by the people of the covenant on those who had oppressed them. The passage would thus form a contrast to chap. ix. 8. Hengstenberg regards the passage as stating that the Jews, by the blessing of God, would ultimately obtain rulers of their own, and again exercise military power, instead of being in subjection to other nations. This does not appear to us the natural ex- planation of this passage. According to the latter interpre- tation the pronoun " from him," must be referred to Judah, in which reference Neumann, Kliefoth, and Keil agree with Hengstenberg. Keil maintains that the words "to go forth from" are quite decisive against the reference of the pronouns in this verse to Jahaveh ; for, he argues, while one might well use the expressions that Judah would receive its firm foundations, its inward fortification, and its strength for 'war from Jaha- veh, the statement that every warlike leader was to come forth from Jahaveh is without parallel. It is not even once said of the Messiah in the Old Testament that he was to come forth from God, although his "goings forth" (Mic. v. i) are from eternity, and he is styled "the mighty God " (Isa. ix. 5). Still less can such an expression be used of every ruler of Judah. But it may well be replied to Keil that the expression " to go forth from " is not used in the sense to which he objects. It merely signifies that all such powers, whether for good or ill, actually proceed from God. The same expression is used of " the four chariots " described as " going forth " from standing before T 2/4 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. x. 4, 5. Jahaveh in the seventh vision (chap. vi. 5). The angel of Jahaveh was also said "to go forth," evidently from Jahaveh (though that is not expressly stated) to destroy the hosts of the king of Assyria (2 Kings xix, 35). The evil spirit likewise "went forth from" Jahaveh's presence to seduce Ahab to his ruin at Ramoth-Gilead (i Kings xxii. 21, 22). Numerous other instances could be cited. The phrase is simply used in the sense of proceed from (comp. Mic. v. i), and Hitzig is right in referring to such passages as Isa. i. 26, in order to show that all good rulers proceed from the Lord (comp. also Isa. xli. 2). The idea of a local " going forth from " is utterly foreign to the passage. The expressions " corner," " nail," " battle-bow," as well as "•oppressor," are all used metaphorically to denote persons, and, therefore, there is no impropriety whatever in regarding all these nouns as the subject of the verb "go forth." Hitzig is right also in maintaining that the pronouns repeated for emphasis can only refer to Jahaveh. His reference to Hos. viii. 4, where the pronoun of the first person with the same preposition is used in a similar sense, is quite defensible. ^ Kohler, in support of the same reference of the pronoun, notes that the 3rd pers. sing, sufifix (^H^D) stands in this passage in such close proximity to the sufifix of the 3rd pers, used in the previous verse (VliH), that it can scarcely refer to Judah. For " Judah " is treated as a plural and construed with the verb in the 3rd pers. plural in the verse following, and the pronominal sufifix of the 3rd pers. plural is used also with reference to ^' Judah" in the last clause of verse 3. It would be doing violence, therefore, to the syntax, without any necessity whatever, to refer the pronoun of the 3rd pers. singular, which occurs in this verse, to any other than to Jahaveh. The expression "together" (HrT) at the close of the verse refers to "the ^ Compare the use of JD, though the passage b^recative, in Gen. xlix. 24, 25. Ch. X. 4, 5.] THE WAR OF THE SONS OF ZION. 2/5 Oppressor," and indicates that more than one single op- pressor is referred to. The sense is that each of such op- pressors, and all of them together, viewed as a whole, are to be regarded as directly sent from Jahaveh, who, however, had resolved to visit in mercy his people, and to comfort them after their past days of sorrow. The sense put upon the passage by Pusey must be re- garded as incorrect. He explains the former clause of the passage as equivalent to the prophecy in Jeremiah (xxx. 21), "their nobles shall be of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from the midst of them," which would be perfectly admissible, except for the reasons mentioned above ; and then, as if the second clause of the verse was not to be explained homogeneously with the first clause, he interprets it to mean ''from it (Judah) shall go forth every oppressor together ; one and all, as we say, a confused pele-7nele body." 1 The explanation also given by Dr. Pusey, Bishop Wordsworth, and others, of the expressions "corner-stone" and " nail," as here referring to the Messiah, which is also sup- ported by the Targum, cannot be defended on any rational principles of exegesis. The Targum, however, it ought to be noted, correctly refers the pronoun to Jahaveh, The picture of the triumphant Jews given in the fifth verse forms a parallel to that in chap, ix, 14-16, "and they shall be (proph, perf) like heroes treading upon mire (or treading upon their enemies in the mire, see crit, comm.) of the streets, in the war, and they shall fight, for Jahaveh is with them, and riders upon horses shall be ashamed." The 1 Still worse is the exposition of Mr. Chamberlain {T/ie National Restoration and Conversion of the Tivelve Tribes of Israel, London : Wertheim & Macin- tosh, 1854), who argues at length that "Palestine has ever been, and will be, until this prophecy is fulfilled, the land of strongholds, and battlements, and munitions of war, and oppressors. But Zechariah predicts a time yet to come when all these will come out of Judah together," or, as he explains it, will cease to exist for ever. 276 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. x. 4-6. difference of opinion which exists in respect to the translation of the first clause is of no moment as regards the general import of the passage, which sets forth the spirit and energy of the warriors. Their success would be certain, since Jahaveh was with them, and would infuse into them such a martial spirit that even the cavalry of the enemy should be worsted in the encounter. The scene is a vivid picture of the Maccabean times, in which the Jews met with remarkable success, " turning to flight the armies of the aliens," though they were strong in cavalry, which formed the most powerful portion of the armies of the Greeks. See i Mace. iii. 39, iv. 7, 31, vi. 30, 35, ix. 4, II, X. 73, 'j'j, XV. 13, etc. The promises set forth in the fifth verse are all described in the prophetic perfect ; the construction that is used in the verse following is that of the perfect with the vav con- versive followed by the imperfect. The latter construction is used to indicate emphasis, and to express the intimate con- nexion of the thing promised with what has been already spoken of. The house of Joseph was not to be forgotten, since Ephraim and Judah formed essential parts of one great whole. If Judah was to be made the majestic war-horse ridden by Jahaveh to victory, the prophet does not forget to note that the divine blessings were not merely to be bestowed upon that portion of the covenant people. Both portions alike should have a blessing ; therefore the promise proceeds, " And," or " so, I will strengthen the house of Judah, and the house of Joseph will I save, and I will bring them back," or, " I will cause them to dwell," scil. in safety (as Jer. xxxii. 37), or, " I will place them," 1 scil. in their own homes 1 The reason of this uncertainty of translation is that the verbal form which occurs here, D''ri"!2C^'f H, may be explained in two ways. First, as an irregular hiphil from 1^\, for □"'jyiZli^'ln (IIos. xi. 11), which latter is actually the reading of some MSS. The form is a mixed one, and partakes of the peculiarities of both verbs i"Q, and 1 "ti. In this case the copyist had probably the similar form D^nU^^n. in his mind. See Ges. Lehrg., p. 464^1shausen, § 225 e. This is the Ch. X. 6, 7.] THE WAR OF THE SONS OF ZION. 277 (as Hos. xi. 11). The salvation of Ephraim is not, however, stated to be brought about by Judah. Whatever translation of the verb be preferred, the pronoun must be taken to relate to the two parts of the covenant people. To both the words refer : " for I have compassion upon them, and they shall be (both verbs are prophetic perfects) as if I had not loathed them, for I am Jahaveh their God, and I will hear them " (compare chap. xiii. 9 ; Isa. Iviii. 9) ; namely, when they call upon me for aid in their distresses, though the latter idea is not exactly stated in words. Ephraim is spoken of in this connection with Judah, not as indicating that the members of the other tribes would rejoice at Judah's victory, and at the Lord's compassion vouchsafed to the nation in general, while they should have no share in the previous struggle. The very opposite is rather the case. That which was affirmed of Judah in the former chapter (verse 15) is here also affirmed of Ephraim. The Ephraimites would not be excluded from any of the blessings promised, but would have their part in the contest, as well as rejoice in the victory. " Ephraim, therefore, shall be as a hero, and their heart shall rejoice as with wine, and their children and their sons shall see it and be glad ; let their heart rejoice in Jahaveh."^ They would be made strong view taken by the LXX., Maurer, Hengst., Bleek, etc. Secondly the word also may be regarded as an irregular hiphil from 31B', which is the opinion adopted by the Vulg., Targ., and Syr., and supported by Ewald, § 196 ^, note, as well as in his remarks on this passage in his Proph. d. A. B. Both views are equally admissible ; see Bottcher's LeJtrb., § 466, 4 ; Kalisch, § Ixvii. A. 3, e. 3. Possibly the word was so pointed to indicate an original difference of reading. In Jer. xxxii. 37 the two regular forms from the two verbs occur almost side by side in the same passage, which may have floated before the mind of the prophet. Double punctuations, as well as double accentuations, occur in the Decalogue (Exod. XX. 3, 13 ; Deut. v. 7, 17), and have been supposed to indicate an ad- missible difference of reading. See Olshausen, § 37 b. But see Delitzsch's article " Dekalog " in the new edition of Ht-rzog's Real-cncyclopddk. Hitzig prefers to read D''niK^l "I will bring them back," which he thinks more suited to the context. ' This is one of the instances often cited as a case in which the jussive is used 278 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. x. 7, 8. strong as heroes to fight in the common cause ; and, in- vigorated as a giant refreshed with wine, they would fight the battle of their common Lord (comp. Ps. Ixxviii. 65, 66). Their joy in the fight would communicate itself to their children, and all would rejoice together because God was with them of a truth. The prophet further declares God's goodwill towards these lost ones of the house of Israel. " I will hiss for them (the sense of the Hebrew form of the verb can best be expressed in English by a slight emphasis), and I will gather them, for I have redeemed them " ; their liberty was decreed already by God, hence the perfect tense ; " and they multiply as they multiply." ^ The words are best understood to refer to both parts of the nation, though more especially used with respect to Ephraim. Numbers of Jews, as well as Israelites, were still scattered throughout the lands of the Gentiles. The Lord promised to hiss for these, that is, call them loudly as with a pipe, in order to bring them back to their own land,^ Such signals God gave in the sense of the imperfect. But the jussive probably retains its ordinary signifi- cation even here, and is used to express the sympathy which the prophet felt in the scene which he depicts. See Driver's Hebretv Tenses, § 58. Kohler explains the jussive as used here rather in reference to the purpose of Jahaveh himself. ' This last clause of the verse has been explained by Kohler, Keil, and others, as containing an allusion to the increase of population once granted to Israel in Egypt (Exod. i. 7, 12). In such a case the first perfect here used in the phrase ^1~s to? •12")1. must be regarded as a prophetic perfect, and the clause be rendered, " and they shall increase as they have increased" (A.V.), or "were increased." If such were the intention of the prophet we would rather have expected an im- perfect in the first clause. It cannot be proved that the copula here is the vav consecutive, or conversive (as Kohler thinks), as the tone proves nothing in the 3rd pers. plur. perf. in verbs H"?. Hence it is safer to explain the second perfect as the mere repetition of the first, and both as used in the same signification. The passage is equivalent to " they will be as numerous as ever they wish." So Ewald, and also Delitzsch {Comm. iiber Genesis, 4te Ausg. p. 476). See Ewald, Lehrb., § 350 ^. _ , • ^ The allusion contained in the verb pIK' may, however, be to the manner in which those in charge of bees make a noise in order to induce the bees to settle down in a desired locality. Comp. the verb in Isa. vii. 1,8 and Delitzsch on Is. V. 26 ; also Virgil Gcorg. iv. 54. It has been shggested by the reader for the Ch. X. 7, 8.] THE WAR OF THE SONS OF ZION. 279 again and again by his gracious providence during the days of the prophet, at the period of the disasters which came upon Babylon, by the noise of the overthrow of the Persian empire, and later by the victorious struggles of the Macca- bees. Such providential calls were again and again re- sponded to by bands of believing Jews and Israelites, who at various intervals, often widely separated from one another, returned to their own land. A great deal of confusion with respect to the restoration which took place in the days of the prophet has been created by a commonly received opinion that the ten tribes did not share in that restoration, but that the restoration to Palestine, the beginnings of which are described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, was confined to the members of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin in general. This point has already been referred to in chap, vii., and we shall have occasion again to recur to it. By the terms of Cyrus' decree the members of the ten tribes were as freely permitted as the people of Judah and Benjamin to return to the land of their forefathers. It has, however, been repeatedly asserted that though a few individuals of these tribes may possibly have been found among the first bands of exiles who came back to Palestine, no large number of the people of these tribes can have re- turned with Zerubbabel. The truth of this oft-repeated as- sertion is, however, by no means evident. ^ The books of Ezra and Nehemiah, as well as the later book known as the 3rd Ezra, or ist Esdras in our Apocrypha, agree in giving the sum total of the Jews who returned with Zerubbabel as 42,360. The number assigned, however, in those three books, in the detailed lists of the descendants of those who had been carried away captive to Babylon, when press that the reference may be to some such sound as that used on the Conti- nent to attract attention, so much like hissing, cgr., the German /j/. The Greeks too, when calling a companion, make a sound like hissing, ps, ps. ' See our remarks on p. 243-245 in connection with the statements of chap. ix. 10. 280 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [ Ch. x. 8. added together, by no means make up such a total. The detailed numbers given in Ezra (chap, ii.) only make up 29,818. The figures given in the list found in Nehemiah (chap, vii.) amount to a somewhat larger number, namely to 31,089; while those in 3rd Ezra (ist Esdras), possibly derived in part from another tradition, when added to- gether, according to the several numbers given in Tischen- dorf's text (1850) of the LXX., only make 30,143, a number slightly in excess of that given by Nehemiah. Mistakes are very apt to be made in ancient MSS. with respect to num- bers. The substantial agreement, therefore, of these three lists is remarkable. Moreover, according to these authorities, a very large body, in proportion to the whole, consisted of persons whose names were not to be found in the genealogies then extant, and who could not be definitely assigned as belonging to any special portion of the Holy Land. And be it noted that this unassigned body of exiles amounted to some 11,000 or 12,000, out of a grand total of 42,360.^ It has been maintained as a possibility by Bertheau, Schulz, and others, that the statement of 3rd Ezra (ver, 41) is correct, and that the larger number ought to be regarded as that " of Israel from them of twelve years old and up- ward." The insertion of the clause, " from them of twelve years old and upward," may possibly have been designed to explain the difference perceived to exist between the sum total, and the sum of the various numbers assigned to the different families. In this case, the lesser numbers would be those of the persons from twenty years old and upward. But this attempt to explain the difference is by no means satis- factory, nor is it at all clear that this was the real intention of the writer of 3rd Ezra. It is more probable that the view ^ The totals, as given by Michaelis, whose statement has been followed by Fritzsche in the Kurzgef. exeg. Handbtich zu den Apocryphcn, are incorrect ; the correct sums are those above, given by Bertheau in his Comin. on Ezra and Nehemiah. V Ch. X. 8.] THE WAR OF THE SONS OF ZION. 28 1 of Rabbi Salomo ben-Yizhak, and other Jewish commentators, is correct, namely, that the difference between the grand total and the sum of the numbers given in detail in the several lists, was the number of the individuals of the ten tribes who came up with the families of Judah and Benjamin, but who could not be assigned definitely to any special cities in the Holy Land. The number of exiles who went to Jerusalem with Ezra at a later period was far smaller than that of the first body led by Zerubbabel ; but it is deserving of note that the letter from Artaxerxes in favour of the rebuilding of the Temple at Jerusalem was not only read by Ezra to the Jews in Babylon, but, if we may believe the testimony of Josephus {Antiq. Jiid. xi. 5, § 2), was sent by Ezra to the members of the ten tribes who were dwelling in Media. The statement which Josephus makes in the same place respecting those Israelites, bears on its very face the stamp of improbability. It was evidently based on the vaguest rumour, and not made from his own actual knowledge. For Josephus speaks of the Israelites as existing in his own day in countless myriads beyond the Euphrates (jivpidSe^ ctTreipoc, Koi apiOfiu) 'yvo)(Tdi]vai firj Suvdfievai). But if they had been then in existence in such numbers, they certainly would have been taken notice of by other writers. The statement of Josephus, as Ewald has suggested, ^ probably had its origin in the language of the prophets, which men were anxious to explain literally. The wild statements of the writer of 4th Ezra (2 Esdras xiii. 39-50) are, of course, of no value, except as showing, as Ewald observes, that in the first century after Christ a large host of Israelites was believed to exist in some remote country situated in the north-east. ^ ' See Ewald's History of Israel, English Translation, vol. v. pp. 90-96. 2 The fanciful notions which every now and then are put forward by some dreamer who imagines that he has discovered the supposed lost tribes, scarcely deserve much attention. Isolated bodies of Jews or Israelites may, no doubt, from 282 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. x. 8. It is certain, however, as far as our knowledge extends, that no hindrances were placed in the way of the return of either Jews or Israelites to their own land. While a large number of Jews did actually return, a very considerable number even of the people belonging to the two tribes did not return up to the time of the prophet Zechariah. These the prophet urged to flee out of Babylon, and to them he announced the calamities which would fall upon that city (chap. ii.). We may well believe that many obeyed the directions of the prophet, though we have no distinct his- torical notice of their return to the holy city. It must be remembered, as already noticed (p. 257), that the annals of the Jews concerning that very period present a blank of nearly two centuries. The people also of the ten tribes, like their brethren the Jews, preferred in the majority of cases to remain in the lands where they had settled for generations, and which they had learned from infancy to regard as their home. On the other hand, it is not unlikely that, since the political reasons which had divided the two portions of the covenant people from one another had ceased to exist, on account of the captivity of both portions, those Israelites who time to time be discovered in remote countries. Several interesting works have been written on such, as for instance the little work of Mr. Finn, late H. B.M. Consul at Jerusalem, on The Orphan Colony of Jews in China (Nisbet, 1872), and others, some of which are referred to by Ewald. But the recent attempt to trace the Anglo-Saxon race to an Israelitish origin, which has been made by some English enthusiasts, filled with national pride on the one hand, and with an igno- rant contempt for any other form of Evangelical Christianity than that which they have seen and learned to value in their own land, arises only from spiritual pride, and must be treated with contempt. The theory of the identity of the Anglo-Saxon race with the ten, or any one of the tribes of Israel, is one which could only be propounded by men ignorant of histoiy and philology, and of the lessons to be learned from a careful study of such departments. Such theories are injurious, because they are often readUy embraced by a portion of the unlearned mass of the public, and they frequently cause others to entertain an undesei^ved contempt for that evangelical teaching which is often dear to the adherents of such fanciful opinions. They tend also to divert many from a sober and pains- taking study of the Word of God. V Ch. X. 8.] THE WAR OF THE SONS OF ZION. 283 did not amalgamate with the heathen among whom they dwelt, as many no doubt did, became gradually known in common by the name of Jews. The exiles who returned with Zerubbabel and Ezra, though mainly appertaining to the remnant of the people of Judah, were often termed by the common name of " the children of Israel " (see p. 244). The prophets had frequently spoken of a day when the nation, after its return from exile, should no longer exist as two divided portions, but should form one covenant nation. When the kingdom of Israel was overturned by the Assyrians, years after the greater portion of that people had been transported from their land and planted beside the rivers of Media, the remnant of the people of those tribes which still remained in the land were by no means unwilling to enter into religious communion with the people of Judah (2 Chron. xxxiv. 9), It is highly probable that what happened at that period occurred to a greater extent afterwards. The faithful remnant of the northern tribes in all probability united themselves readily with their Jewish brethren, possibly even in the land of exile, and returned as one people, known on the one hand by the general appellation of "the chil- dren of Israel," the term properly belonging to the whole nation, and on the other by that of " Jews," as more distinctly indicating their religion, whose central-point was, as it ought ever to have been, fixed at the Jewish capital, Jerusalem. The people of the two tribes, the Jews proper as they may be termed, seem to have preserved their genealogies with greater care than their brethren of the other tribes ; but even the Jewish genealogies were to a great extent fragmentary. The people of Judah were, however, able for the most part to hand down to their children, even in the land of their captivity, the tradition of the various cities to which they had severally belonged in the land of Judah. Hence the 284 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. x. 8. exiles were arranged in many cases not according to fami- lies, but according to the cities in which their forefathers had dwelt. It ought also to be remembered that the exiles mentioned in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were not the only bands of Jews who returned to the country of their forefathers. Large numbers must have returned in smaller troops at dif- ferent periods. Many, no doubt, returned from Babylon after the prophetic warning given by Zechariah, and many others at a later time, when the predicted troubles occurred, made haste to flee from that land. The favours granted to the Jews in the days of Alexander must have caused still larger numbers to flock to their country, though no chronicler has recorded the story of their march from the east or the north. The fame of the Maccabean victories, which was soon spread abroad in all the bazaars of Asia, must have caused still more of the Israelites to join themselves to their kindred. For though many Jews remained at a distance from Jerusalem, those exiles kept up constant intercourse with their people in that city. Some portion of the ten tribes were not, as we have seen, carried away captive from their own land (2 Chron. xxxiv. 9), and a considerable number of them may have re- mained even after the Babylonish captivity. A portion of this remnant in process of time was no doubt incorporated with the Samaritan people, while those who resisted such amal- gamation probably united themselves with the Jews, and were called by their name. The story of " the lost tribes " mnst be regarded in the main as a mere legend, though it may be very true that large numbers did not return from the land of their exile. Yet even in their land of exile all Israelites were generally known as Jews, to whatever tribe they might have originally belonged. We do not deny that some traces of the northern Israelites may be found among the Nestorian Jews, described by the American missionary Dr. Grant, or even Ch. X. 8, 9.] THE WAR OF THE SONS OF ZION. 285 among the Karaites and other Jews, who here and there exist in the south of Russia^. (See pp. 243 ff.) The people of Israel in general are spoken of by St. Paul as " our twelve tribes" (Acts xxvi. 7), and St. James writes also to "the twelve tribes scattered abroad." No countenance what- ever is given in the New Testament to the fables of Josephus, or of the writer of 4th Ezra (2nd Esdras), already- alluded to ; though had there been any real foundation for their statements, it would have been only natural that some allusion should have been made to such a remark- able fact. The people of all the twelve tribes did actually form one nation, as predicted, and were known as forming such. If they did not return in greater numbers to Pales- tine, the fault lay with themselves. The blessing w^as there, had they availed themselves of it ; and greater blessings, had they embraced Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah. The predictions of this chapter were fully realized in the trials, struggles, and victories of Israel during the glorious period of the Maccabees. The statement of ver. 9, " I will sow you among the na- tions," has been variously understood. The word in the ^ See Dr. Asahel Grant's The Nestorians, or the Lost Tribes, London : 1844 > as also Prof. Dr. Chwolson's Achtzehn hebrdische Grabinschriften aus der Krim, St. Petersburg, 1865. But Harkavy in his Catalog, and Dr. H. L. Strack in his tract, Firkowitsch und seine Entdeckungen : ein Grabstein den hebr. Grabschriften der Krif?i, 1876, have maintained that none of these inscriptions in their present form can be considered as genuine, but that they have all been designedly falsified by Firkovi'itsch. These scholars seem, however, to have gone too far. Chvvolson, in his interesting " Mittheilung " appended to the third Heft of the Zeitschrift der D. M. G. for 1878, still maintains the genuineness of many of the assailed inscriptions. He gives there an account of a visit he paid to Tschufutkale during the summer of this year, and of his excavations in the cemetery in which the inscriptions were found. The result of his investigations has been in his opinion completely to demonstrate the genuineness of some of the very inscriptions which have been called in question. It is at any rate highly probable that there is much truth at the bottom of the assertion made in these inscriptions of the descent of the Karaites of the Crimea from those Israelites who were carried away captive by Shalmaneser. 286 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. x. 9. original, unless this passage be regarded as an exception, is never used of dispersion in a bad sense. Even the passage in Ezek. xxxvi. 9 cannot, if its context be regarded, be viewed as an instance in which a passive form of the verb is used in that signification. Notwithstanding, therefore, that Ewald and Hitzig adopt this view, and the latter scholar even considers this passage so translated as a proof that the captivity alluded to could not have taken place in the past, we must (with Kohler, Keil, Pusey, etc.) adhere to the usus loquendi, and render the verb " to sow." The word is used in a good sense of the increase of Israel, even in a state of exile among the nations, as in Hos. ii. 25 ; Jer. xxxih 27. The in- crease promised in the verse before was a blessing, and that blessing was to be vouchsafed to Israel, even though scattered among the nations. That blessing would lead them to re- member the Lord their God. For among the nations, they should live (comp. Ezek. xxxvii. 14) with their sons, for the blessing would not be merely transient ; even in Gentile lands they would preserve their own distinctive nationality, and thence they would return. As Israel increased in Egypt, and the very increase of the people in that country was a sign that the time which had been foretold was at hand, when God would lead them forth out of that land, so the mul- tiplication of the holy nation in the various Gentile lands among which they were scattered would lead the people to think of that God who had so wonderfully protected them, and whose will it was that they should return to their own land. Kliefoth considers that the prophecy sets forth that Israel, after it should have emerged victoriously from the wars with the Grecian power as a numerous people, should be strewn as a seed among the nations in the most distant lands of the earth, in order that in those far distant regions they might think of the God who had delivered tltem, and be witnesses to Ch. X. 9, lo.] THE WAR OF THE SONS OF ZION. 28/ his power and glory among those nations. He rightly objects to the opinion propounded by von Hofmann, namely, that the prophecy refers to the dispersion of the Jewish people, which was the result of the crucifixion of our Lord ; for if the prophecy related to such a dispersion, it would have been expressed in very different language. The interpretation of von Hofmann is not only against the uniform usage of the special word, but not even in harmony with the general tenor of the passage. Kliefoth considers the prophecy to contem- plate the sowing of the people among the nations as a fact which was to last for a long period, and that the object of such a sowing of Israel among the nations was to call the heathen unto Christ. He thinks that the prophecy was fulfilled when thousands and tens of thousands of Jews believed in Christ in the early ages of the Christian Church, as such believers, scattered among the peoples, composed in the majority of instances the basis of the Christian Churches founded by the Apostles. He goes, however, further, and considers that as this " scattering " among the peoples was for a definite object, when that object, namely the gathering of the nations to Christ, should be attained, God would again gather his people. This gathering of the people of God out of all the world at the end of days is that which is, according to Kliefoth's view, described in the last two verses of this chapter. But, inasmuch as he maintains that the names of Assyria and Egypt which occur in those verses can be considered as used only in a typical signification, the places in the Holy Land there mentioned must be viewed as also typical, and the bringing back of God's people to the land of Canaan is to be regarded as really signifying the bringing in of the people of God to that blessed resting-place which will be the ultimate abode of the people of God belonging to every tribe and nation. Though there may be something in this view, it is better 288 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. x. 8-10. to regard the prophecy as speaking first, of the gathering together of the people of the twelve tribes in common, and of the increase of Israel among the nations in the land of their exile ; and secondly, of the increase of the same people after they should have been brought back to their own land. The blessing spoken of was promised to the whole Israelitish people, to Judah as well as Ephraim. Had the nation more generally hearkened to the sound of Jahaveh's call (ver. 8, see note 2, page 278), and returned in larger numbers to their land, the Jewish State would have been far more powerful and independent than it ever actually became. The love of ease and riches marred to some extent the promise. Yet a rich blessing was actually bestowed. The restoration of the Jews was a marvel. What occurred to them did not occur to any other people. The Israelites increased among the nations, and, as the book of Esther points out, became in many parts of the Persian empire an important power in the state. Their restoration to their own land, incomplete as it was through their own fault, was a preparation for the coming of the Messiah. Both among the nations, and afterwards in their own land, the Jews were witnesses to the truth of God, and by their example eminent preachers of the doctrines of monotheism. The successful struggle for independence un- der the Maccabean leaders, a struggle undertaken, however, more for the sake of their religion than for political in- dependence, forms a glorious page in the history of the Church of Israel. Their non-adherence to the directions of the law as regards the High Priesthood of Israel, and the mistake they made in uniting the secular and ecclesiastical power, was a new illustration of that carnal policy, which in another form had proved the ruin of the kingdom erected by Jeroboam in earlier days. It seemed for a time to have been a consummate stroke of worldly wisdom, but it proved ulti- mately the ruin of the State, and th^ downfall of the Church Ch. X. 10.] THE WAR OF THE SONS OF ZION. 259 It was. a policy in opposition to the law of Moses. But in the struggle with the Grecian power the Jews were wonder- fully successful, and even after they had begun to decline from the truth, they were for a considerable period sustained by God's gracious Providence. As " the holy seed " among the nations, the Jews prepared far and wide the way for the victories of Christianity. It must not be forgotten that a large number of that nation, a number far larger than that of any other nation under heaven in apostolic days, accepted Jesus as their Messiah and Deliverer, and that these Jewish converts formed the groundwork of the Church of Christ which was laid on the day of Pentecost. Had not "the god of this world blinded the minds " (2 Cor. iv. 4) of the ecclesiastical rulers of the nation in general, though even " a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith " (Acts vi. 7), the blessings which the Jewish people would have received cannot be calculated. In the remarkable position occupied by Israel in the early Christian Church, — for our Lord and his apostles were Jews, and the majority of the early evangelists were men of this nation, — in the wonderful fact that the Jews, though politically crushed beneath the Gentile yoke, con- quered the nations of the earth by means of that religion which sprang from their midst,— in such facts this prophecy, and other similar prophecies, found a most glorious and real fulfilment. The nations have been enlightened by the Jews, and books written by Jewish pens have become the laws and oracles of the world. It is necessary to notice here some of the special difficul- ties connected with the closing verses of this tenth chapter. The mention of Assyria in verse 10 in place of Babylon has been considered by many scholars, such as Bleek and von Ortenberg, to be a clear proof that the prophecy was composed before the Babylonish captivity. It may, however, be argued on the other hand, that special mention is made of Assyria, U 290 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. x. 10-12. because the return of the northern tribes is specially spoken of, and these tribes were originally carried away captive to Assyria (2 Kings xv. 29, xvii. 6). It is unsatisfactory to assert that Assyria and Egypt are used in this passage not as the names of powerful empires, but as the names of the places whence the exiles were to come ; for " the pride of Assyria, the sceptre of Egypt," are specially alluded to in verse 11, which shows that those nations themselves are referred to. But it has been well observed that, though those kingdoms were subdued under the yoke first of Baby- lon and afterwards of Persia, the relation in which the people of those lands stood to the exiles in their midst remained unaltered by these various conquests, and they may have in many cases exercised their authority in a tyrannical manner over the Israelites and Jews. On the other hand, it must also be borne in mind that in post-exilian times the king of Babylon was sometimes styled " the king of Assyria" (Ezra vi. 22 ; 2 Kings xxiii. 29 ; Judith i. 7, ii. i ; comp. Herod, i. 178, 188), inasmuch as his authority extended over Assyria, In later books the ex- pressions, " king of the Persians," and " king of Assyria,'^ are interchanged. Compare 3rd Ezra (i Esdras) ii. 30 with vii. 15. The king of Persia is also styled king of Babylon (Ezra V. 13 ; Neh. xiii. 6), and references are sometimes made to Assyria when Babylon is really signified, or when, as in this passage, allusion is made to the enemies of the covenant people north and south of their land (comp. Lam. v. 6 ; Jer. ii. 18). The restoration of Ephraim is generally spoken of in connexion with that of Judah, because the restoration of both formed integral parts of one great event. When their united restoration is spoken of by the prophets, refer- ence is frequently made to the bringing up of Israel out the bondage of Egypt. Therefore, when Israel is spoken of as delivered out of the hands of those enemies, who from Ch. X. IO-I2.] THE WAR OF THE SONS OF ZION. 29I the north and south were so often wont to oppress them, mention is made of a recovery from the hand of Assyria, as the first great enemy that subjugated them from the north, and from the power of Egypt, which had so often harassed Israel by invasions from the south. Allusions, more or less distinct, are frequently made to the wonderful dr3ang up of the waters of the Red Sea on the occasion of the first great deliverance of that people, which was to be regarded as a type of the deliverance to be expected in future days. See Isa. xi. II, 12, 15, 16, xxvii. i, 12, 13 ; Mic. vii. 12-15. In the last-named passage, worshippers are spoken of as coming to Jerusalem " from Assyria and from the cities of Egypt," (not " the fortified cities " as in our Authorised Version), and from Egypt (incorrectly rendered in our Authorised Version " the fortress "), " even to the river," that is, the Euphrates. The mention made of the bringing down of the pride of Assyria may be regarded as fulfilled when Assyria and Babylon were finally crushed by Darius, after repeated rebel- lions. The victories over those enemies Darius commemor- ated in the great rock inscription at Behistun (see pp. 38 and 39, note). Those nations were finally absorbed in the sea of the surrounding peoples by the conquests of the' Macedonians. The passing away of the sceptre of Egypt was accomplished when that country, which had also revolted against Darius, was finally subdued by Xerxes, and placed under a harder yoke than Darius had laid upon it (Herod, vii. i, 7). The prophecy was more fully accomplished when Egypt was transformed into a Grecian kingdom. In the special men- tion of " the sceptre of Egypt," a reference may be made, as Lange has suggested, to the tyranny of Pharaoh in early days, which was the great type of all future oppressors of the people of God.^ ' The prophet Hosea speaks of the ten tribes as destined to become in part exiles in the land of Egypt; Hos. viii. 13, ix. 3, 6. Compare the emphatic declaration 292 ZECHARTAH AND HIS TROPHECIES. [Ch. x. 10-12. It is not unlikely, as Koliler has observed, that at the time of the invasions of Tiglath-Pilneser and Shalmaneser, numbers of the ten tribes fled to Egypt. That country was often resorted to as a place of escape from dangers arising in the land of Israel (i Kings xi. 40 ; Jer. xxvi. 21). There was a party favourable to Egypt at the court of the later kings of Israel, as well as one more inclined to form an alliance with Assyria. This appears from the book of Hosea; and it is quite natural to suppose that, when the king of Assyria invaded the land of Israel, many fled into Egypt. The same conflict of parties prevailed at the court of the kings of Judah, and after the captivity many of those Jews who had been left in the land fled to Egypt, in consequence of the treacherous assassination of Gedaliah by Ishmael, in order to avoid the vengeance of the Chal- daeans (Jer. xli. 17, xliii. 7). As a common slave-mart of the world, many Israelites as well as Jews may have been often deported thither "in ships" (Deut xxviii. 65), and sold for bondmen and bondwomen. This was a notorious fact in later times, and it no doubt occurred also at earlier periods. Kimchi has in this manner explained the passages in Hos. viii. 13 and ix. 3. On the latter he remarks, that " although the kingdom of Ephraim was carried into cap- in Deut. xxviii. 65. Zechariah is supposed by some to refer to such prophecies. The latter declaration (Hos. xi. 5), " he shall not return to Egypt," has often been considered to be in direct contradiction to Hosea's earlier prophecies. Some propose therefore, on the authority of the LXX., to erase the negative in that text, while others (as Ewakl) prefer to treat the sentence as interrogative. "Shall he not return to Egypt ? " to the land of bondage under the Pharaohs. Interroga- tive sentences without any interrogative particles form one of the peculiarities of Hosea's diction. So in Hosea xiii. 14, " Shall I not rescue them from the hand of Sheol ? " Nor can we consider that the mode of explaining the difficulty is satisfactory, which is resorted to by Wiinsche and Keil, namely, to explain Egypt as spoken of typically as the land of bondage in the first passage (IIos. viii. ix.), while it is taken literally in the latter ; for the return of Ephraim to Egypt is distinctly implied in Hos. xi. 1 1 . Ch. X. 10-12.] THE WAR OF THE SONS OF ZION. 293 tivity by the king of Assyria, yet there were many of them who before that captivity returned to Egypt, in consequence of famine and the trials they met with in their own land. There were also some of the Ephraimites who remained in their own land until the captivity of Judah and Benjamin, with whom they returned into Egypt, although the prophet Jeremiah would have kept them back in the name of the Lord."i A second difficulty in the passage arises from the men- tion which is made in it of the " land of Gilead and Leba- non " as the place whither the exiles should return. This has been regarded by von Ortenberg and others as an " in- contestible" proof that the prophet must have referred to the deportation by Tiglath-Pileser, and consequently that the prophecy must be assigned to a period considerably earlier than the Babylonian captivity. Bleek maintains with Maurer and Ewald, that though it is possible for Gilead to be used to signify the portion of the territory of Ephraim east ot the Jordan, Lebanon cannot, as Hengstenberg has asserted, be taken to signify the territory of Ephraim west of the Jordan, but only its most northern portion. The prophecy of Zechariah, according to their view, must, therefore, have been composed at a time when the northern part of that Israel- itish territory was depopulated by the king of Assyria, who, in consequence of the treaty of alliance which he made with Ahaz king of Judah (2 Kings xv. 29 ; i Chron. v. 6, 26), ravaged that part of the territory of Israel, and carried away a large portion of its population. To this argument in favour of a pre-exilian date being assigned to this portion of the book, Kohler gives a satis- factory reply. If Gilead could, on the principle of a part for the whole, be used to designate the territory of Israel 1 Kiinchi on Hosea, quoted by Wiinsclie, Der Prophd Hosca iibcrsetzt Mid erJddrt. Leipzig: Weigel, 1S68. 294 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. x. 10-12. on the other side of Jordan, of which it only formed a small portion, the land of Lebanon might on the same principle with equal propriety signify that portion of the land which lay on the other side, designated from its highest range of mountains. In Ezekiel's parable of the eagles (chap, xvii.) the whole land of Palestine is described as Lebanon, and the king of Judah as the foliage of the cedar of Lebanon. Similarly in Mic. vii. 14 " the wood of Carmel " is used as a designation of Palestine on the west of the Jordan, while " Bashan and Gilead " denote the possessions of Israel on the other side of that river. The translation of verse 11 is attended with difficulties. The simplest rendering perhaps is, "And he (Jahaveh)i shall pass through (perfect proph.) the sea, (that is, or where is) affliction," the last word being viewed as in apposition to the noun preceding it. So Umbreit, C. B. Michaelis, and Keil. The translation, "sea of affliction," is ungrammatical, though the meaning is almost the same. The passage might also be rendered as an exclamation, "and he shall pass through the sea, affliction ! " {i.e. trouble arises !) So Kohler ; but this is not a natural translation. On the other hand, Maurer, von Ortenberg, and Kliefoth consider the word to be a verb. The verb does not actually occur in this signification in Hebrew, but is used in Aramaic in the sense of to divide, and derivatives are found in Hebrew from the verb in that signification. According to this view, the passage may be rendered, " And he passes through the sea, he divides, and strikes the waves in the sea." This affords a fair sense. * Lange considers that the IMessiah is here distinctly referred to. He thinks this is evident from the works which the Messiah here performs, namely, making a pas- sage as Moses through the sea, and smiting the waters as Elijah. If such, however, were the meaning of the passage, Zechariah would hardly have introduced the verb without even a pronoun as its subject. We cannot, therefore, believe that what fol- lows is represented as the special work of the Messiah. As the Messiah is, however, the GreatServant of Jahaveh, what is representedi^s done by Jahaveh himself may be considered as done by him who performs all Jahaveh's good will and pleasure. Ch. X. IO-I2.] THE WAR OF THE SONS OF ZION. 295 The only objection which can be made to it is, that the verb itself does not actually occur in the remains of Bibli- cal Hebrew.! The word H"!^ might also be regarded as an adverbial accusative, thus : " he passes through the sea, with affliction." So Marck, Koster, Delitzsch. The explanation of Hitzig is most arbitrary. He translates, " and he passes through the Sea Affliction and strikes the Sea Surging ( Woge7id, properly, he notes, waves, surges), and all the deeps of the Nile dry up, and the sceptre of Egypt yields." Hitzig understands the prophet to refer to two seas, one symbol- izing Assyria, and the other Egypt. In the Hebrew word r\yi, rendered "affliction" or "trouble," he conceives there is a play upon the name of Egypt ("liii^^' ^"^ ^^ "waves," in the second clause, he understands the river Euphrates. One sea, however, is alone referred to in the passage, namely, the sea of Egypt, and one river, that is, the Nile. Some of the difficulties of the passage would be solved by the adop- tion of Ewald's suggestion, namely, to read in both clauses, in place of 0"^ with the article, DU without the article. The clauses then would be rendered "a sea of affliction" and "a sea of waves." The latter expression, "a, sea of waves,'^ would signify a stormy sea, and the terms might be ex- plained to refer to the Red Sea and the Euphrates, as severally indicating Egypt and Assyria, or to the Red Sea and the Nile, in which case both would signify Egypt. The Euphrates, however, cannot here be regarded as spoken of, for the word used in the expression " the depths of the river "^ ('^''i^!) is almost exclusively used of the Nile. ' Drake., in the Speaker's Commentary, has translated " and he shall pass over by the narrow sea, literally by the sea, narrowness, meaning the Red Sea, and shall smite by the rolling sea, literally by the sea, rollers." He appeals to Jonah ii. 3, but that passage does not support his interpretation. This would require D*n 'y'i'Tl, per angiistam (angustias) maris; "IV as in Isaiah lix. 19, "as a stream dammed-up " which having broken through is driven forward by a mighty wind. See Delitzsch on that passage. 2 Scarcely to be rendered with Drake " the floods of the Nile," especially if such 296 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. x. ic^i2. This fact proves that the reference is really to the great deliverance from Egypt, which is used as the type of fu- ture deliverances. In the picture, therefore, which is drawn, the later foe, Assyria, is dropped almost out of view, or figuratively referred to under the symbol of Egypt. Under the symbol of an exodus from Egypt and from under its power, and a march through a sea and river, such as occurred in the days of the first triumphal march of Israel, the great truth is set forth, that amid all trials and afflictions the covenant people would be delivered by the protecting hand of God. The deliverances of the past had been indeed glorious, and he who dried up the waters of the great deep could make a way out of every difficulty, in order that his ransomed people might pass over to their allotted inheri- tance. Compare Isa. li. 9-1 1. For though the pride of Assyria and Babylon would be humbled, and the sceptre of Egypt depart, " I will strengthen them in Jahaveh, and in his name they shall walk," that is in his strength and by his power (see Mic, iv. 5). Deprived of the blessing of God, Israel was weak and helpless ; but Avith the blessing from above, and walking steadily in God's ways, Israel would indeed be strong, and tread upon the high places of all their foes (Deut. xxxiii. 29). a rendering be supposed to convey a reference to the overflowing of that river, ■which -would be contrary to the usage of the word in other places. CHAPTER X. THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HIS REJECTION-THE EVIL SHEPHERD AND HIS DOOM. CHAPTER X. The opening of chapter xi., opinion of critics, 299 — Objections, 300 — The expres- sions not to be regarded as symbolical, 300 — The destruction of trees spoken of by the prophets, 301 — The prophecy one of the literal desolation of the land, 302 — The desolation affecting north and south, 302 — Remarkable traditional interpretation, 303, note — The actions of the prophet represent the actions of God, 304 — The sheep of slaughter, different opinions, 305— Feeding the flock, 306 — The shepherds foreign oppressors, 306— The inhabitants of " the land " or "the world," 307 — The punishment of the nations, 308— The shepherd and his staves, 308 — The prophecy supplemental to the preceding, 309 — The times to which it refers, 310 — Mercies vouchsafed to Israel after the restoration, 311 — The cutting off of the three shepherds, 312— The kings of the Gentiles, 313 — Difficulties arising from the term, " one month," 313 — Review of various exposi- tions, 313-316, 320, note— The "month " as a symbolical term, 317— The thirty years of the Maccabees, 317 — Attempts to explain prophecy as pre-exilian, Davidson's view, 318— Hitzig's, 318— View of Ewald and Dean Stanley, 320 — The weariness of the shepherd, 321— His solemn decision, 322 — The breaking of the staves, 322, 342 — The covenant with the nations dissolved, 322-324 — "The most wretched sheep," 325 — "Those who observed me," 325, ff. — Sugges- tion of Hitzig, 326 — " Psalter of Solomon," 327 — The demand for wages, 328 — The proffered remuneration, 329 — " Fling it to the potter," 329 — The command performed in the temple, 330 — Different translations, 331— Objections to the view of Hengstenberg, 332— Review of Kliefoth's exposition, 333— The citation in St. Matthew, 333-338, 342— No difficulty in admission of a mistake, 337 and note — The prophecy of Zechariah an allegory, 338 — Christ as the shepherd, and his rejection, 339— The fulfilment as noticed by St. Matthew, 341 — The quotation a free one, 342— The brotherhood broken, 343 — Review of opinion of modem critics, 343, ff.— The fulfilment, 345— The wicked shepherd, 346—" Idol shep- herd," an erroneous translation, 346, note— The instnnnents of the evil shepherd, 347— Folly and sin, 348— Opinion of modern critics, 348— The Roman oppres- sor, 349, ff. — The destruction of the evil shepherd, 351. CHAPTER X. THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HIS REJECTION— THE EVIL SHEPHERD AND HIS DOOM. The opening of the eleventh chapter is couched in dramatic language — " Open thy doors, O Lebanon, and let the fire devour thy cedars." There is no doubt a connexion between this prophecy and that which precedes it ; but it is not so close that the one can be fairly viewed as a direct continua- tion of the other. The denunciation of the anger of Jahaveh against the shepherds who did evil instead of good to the sheep committed to their charge is similar to that which occurs in the preceding prophecy (x. 3). Moreover, while Lebanon and the land of Gilead are spoken of in the pre- vious chapter (x. 10), Lebanon, Bashan, and the Jordan are mentioned in this. Some scholars, as Bleek, Knobel, and von Ortenberg, main- tain that the first three verses of the eleventh chapter form an independent prophecy, without any connection with the prediction in the latter part of the chapter. These three verses are viewed by these critics as a prophecy of the cam- paign of Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria, against the allied forces of Syria and Israel, then commanded by their respec- tive monarchs, Rezin, king of Syria, and the wild and savage Pekah, king of Israel. The invasion of the Assyrians into Syria and Israel was made by Tiglath-Pileser at the urgent request of Ahaz, king of Judah, who had become a vassal of the great king, and sought his assistance against his northern enemies, who pressed him sore. As the Assyrian campaign was carried on chiefly in the north of Israel, a portion of the 300 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. i, 2. language of this prophecy would fairly enough agree with that theory. But when examined more closely, these verses appear to describe a desolation not merely affecting the northern portions of the land, but also its southern districts, and, therefore, the theory of Bleek and Knobel cannot be re- garded as a satisfactory explanation. Nor can these verses be considered as forming a suitable close of the prediction immediately preceding them. The expressions found in them are far too vague to permit us to regard them as an independent prediction of any special invasion of the Holy Land ; for the language made use of might be applied to any invasion whatever undertaken against the Holy Land from the north, if such an invasion affected also the southern portion of the country. Hence the opinion of Hitzig, Ewald, etc., is to be preferred, namely, that the verses in question are to be regarded as introductory to the prophecy which follows. We agree with Bleek and Keil in thinking that the vivid description of these opening verses is not to be regarded as figurative or symbolical. The cedars of Lebanon, oaks of Bashan, and other kindred expressions, need not be in- terpreted to signify rulers and great men of the earth. The great difference of opinion which has always existed in the interpretation and application of these supposed symbols tends to prove, as Bleek has well remarked, that the alle- gorical interpretation is by no means so clear as has been asserted by some commentators.^ No doubt parallel pas- ' Thus the Targum and Kimchi understand these expressions to mean the kings of the Gentile nations who oppressed the covenant people, and this opinion has been defended by v. Ilofmann and Kliefoth. On the other hand, Hitzig, Maurer, and Ewald have explained the terms to denote the later kings of Israel and their nobles. They do so, of course, on the supposition of the pre-exili.tn authorship of the prophecy. Hengstenberg, Kohler, and others, have regarded them as signify- ing the rulers of the Jewish nations in later days. Others have maintained that they mean the Pharisees and Sadducees of New ':^stament times. The use of the expression the mighty (DTHX) in verse 2 is not By any means so conclusively in Ch. >i. I, 2.] THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HIS REJECTION. 301 sages can be cited where trees are used in a symbolical sense (Ezek. XX. 47, 48, xvii. 22-24), and where despots and ty- rants are figuratively termed "lions" (Ezek. xix. 2-7). But it is very questionable whether a single clear passage can be adduced where tyrannical rulers are referred to (without a distinct interpretation being given as in Ezek. xxxi. 3) under the imagery of cedars of Lebanon, cypresses, or oaks of Bashan (Isa. ii. 13 is not a case in point), though the imagery in itself cannot be considered as altogether destitute of analogy. But there is no necessity whatever to regard the language as figurative. The prophet Isaiah uses similar expressions in allusion to the march of Sennacherib into the Holy Land : " With the multitude of my chariots I am come up to the height of the mountains, to the sides of Lebanon, and will cut down the tall cedar trees thereof, and the choice fir trees thereof, and I will enter into the lodgings of his borders {i.e., his most distant lodging place, in Isaiah, " his highest peak,"), and unto the forest of his Carmel " {i.e., his fruitful grove) — 2 Kings xix. 23 ; Isa. xxxvii. 24. The same prophet, in his exquisite song over the downfall of the king of Babylon — often terribly misapplied and perverted, as if it contained any prophecy of the Antichrist of a latter day — thus poetically describes the joy of the trees in being freed from the fear of continual destruction : " Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying. Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up (or will come up) against us" (Isa. xiv. 8). It is therefore more natural to regard the prophecy of Zechariah as graphically depicting the physical desola- tion which was to befal the land. Lebanon is bidden to favour of the symbolical interpretation as Hengstenberg and KHefoth imagine, who maintain that by it is signified the nobles of the nation. For though that adjective is often applied to individuals, it is likewise applied to the waves of the sea (Ps. xciii. 4), and to trees, as vines and cedars (Ezek. xvii. 8, 23), which is the most natural explanation of the expression in this passage of Zechariah. 302 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. 1-3. open its doors, that is, its steep mountain paths, in order that the fire of the enemy might consume its cedars. The firs, or cypresses, are called upon to howl and lament because the cedars are fallen,^ for if the more excellent and valuable trees were felled without mercy, the poor firs and cypresses must needs expect a similar fate (comp. Isa. xxxii. 19, in the original Hebrew). From the heights of Lebanon the des- tructive storm sweeps down on the land of Bashan, and the oaks, the pride of the land (with their kindly shade from the burning heat), are likewise felled by the enemy to meet the wants of the invading army, and to construct his means of offence and defence. Thus the wood hitherto practically inaccessible is brought low (see crit. comm. on verse 2). The desolating storm sweeps from the high lands to the low lands. The very shepherds are forced to howl, because their splen- dour is laid waste, namely, the pasture lands in which they were wont to tend and feed their flocks in the days of peace and quiet. The conflagration extends even to the south of the land. Judah is wrapped in flames. The close thickets which fringed the Jordan river as it ran along through the territory of the southern kingdom are consumed by the fire. The thickets which shut in that stream so closely that its waters could not be seen till the traveller was close on its banks, which were wont to be the abode of lions and other beasts of prey in those days, are likewise described as des- troyed. " The pride of Jordan" is rendered desolate, and hence the voice of the roaring of lions is heard wailing over the general ruin. The destruction is thus really presented as one afiecting both the north and south of the land. The terms in which it is described are not such as would be used to describe a calamity that was to fall only on the northern part of the country. The language does not, therefore, suit the invasion of Tiglath-Pileser. But the prophc^ is couched in such Ch.xi.i-3.] THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HIS REJECTION. 303 general terms that it might describe any invasion which em- braced in its limits the north and south of the land, though it would most naturally refer to such an invasion coming from the northern quarter. The cedars of Lebanon, and the firs and oaks of Bashan, were always in requisition for the siege works of any army, whether Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek, or Roman. But if the cedars, oaks, and other trees were des- troyed, Lebanon and Bashan would be thoroughly laid waste. " The splendour of the shepherds " can only signify their pasture-lands, and if the thickets of Jordan were consumed, much more must the fertile lands be also considered as laid waste. Hence the prophecy really depicts the whole land as desolated, as it would be if all its trees and thickets were consumed.^ After announcing in general terms the judgment that was coming on the land of Israel, the prophet proceeds to describe the causes which would ultimately bring upon the land this terrible visitation, similar to that which had occurred in the days of old. In setting forth the sins of the people, Zechariah, after the analogy of the earlier prophets, describes certain symbolical actions as performed by himself, which actions 1 A remarkable traditional exposition of this passage, thotigh it is one which cannot be regarded by a scientific expositor as otherwise than fanciful, is that which supposes the prophecy to refer to the destruction of the second temple, which was constructed, lili.e the first, in gi-eat part of the cedars of Lebanon. The tradition is referred to by Kimchi, and is thus given by McCaul from the Talmud Bab. Yoma, 39, col. 2 : " Our Rabbis have handed down the tradition that forty years before the destiaiction of the temple, the lot (for the goat that was to be sacrificed on the day of Atonement) did not come out on the right side ; neither did the scarlet tongue (that used to be fastened between the horns of the scapegoat) turn white (as according to tradition it used to do, to signify that the sins of the people were forgiven) ; neither did the western lamp bum ; the doors of the sanctuary also opened of their own accord, until R. Johanan, the son of Zakkai, reproved them. He said, O sanctuary, sanctuary ! why dost thou trouble thyself? I know of thee that thine end is to be left desolate, for Zechariah, the son of Iddo, has prophesied against thee long since, ' Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars.' R. Isaac, the son of Tavlai, says, Why is the temple called Lebanon (white mountain) ? Answer : Because it makes white the sins of Israel, etc." — McCauVs transl. of Kimchi, note on p. 119. 304 ZECHARIAH AND. HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch.xi.i-S. shadowed forth events that were to come. His language had, no doubt, a reference to the past ; but it pointed in the main to the future. The actions recorded in the chapter are not to be regarded as done by the Angel of Jahaveh. In the earlier prophecies of Zechariah that angel is, indeed, spoken of as being an actor in the visions which the prophet beheld. But no intimation whatever is given in this chapter, that either the Angel of Jahaveh, or the future Messiah, is to be regarded as the doer of the things related. The prophet, and the prophet alone, must needs be considered as the doer of them. Nor can we regard the prophet as typifying or representing the Angel of Jahaveh in such a way that he is to be regarded as speaking sometimes in the name of that angel and sometimes in the name of Jahaveh. This is, indeed, the view of Hengstenberg, but there is something strange in considering the prophet to act as the representa- tive of an angel who is not named in the prophecy. We have no right to assume that the prophecy is a continuation of the visions in the earlier part of the book. The simplest view of the whole is that which is given by Kliefoth, namely, that God communicated to the prophet what he designed to do to Israel and the world, but in such a way that the prophet is described as doing and saying that which God really did in his own person. The actions of the prophet, therefore, though represented as done by him, are to be regarded as the actions of God. Jahaveh himself is the true shepherd of his people, as is beautifully described in the prophecy of Isaiah (xl. 1 1). He is the Righteous One who is repre- sented as destroying the three shepherds in one month. He it is who asks from an ungrateful people his hire for having discharged the office of a shepherd, and complains of the low and unworthy price at which his services were estimated. The prophecy is, we believe, one of a peculiarly Messianic character. What Jahaveh is said ^o perform through his Ch. xi. i-S.] THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HIS REJECTION. 305 prophet, was done in very deed by the Messiah. But this is no objection to the view already stated ; for, as Kliefoth remarks, the coming of the Messiah is often spoken of as the coming of Jahaveh. If again, at the close of the chapter, the prophet represents the character of a foolish shepherd, that foolish shepherd is, from the stand-point of the vision, re- garded as in reality raised up by Jahaveh himself, a judgment permitted and, therefore, sent forth by God. In both cases the prophet must be regarded as acting as the representative of Jahaveh. This view is, on the whole, the most consistent with the statements of the text. It is unnecessary to discuss the question whether the symbolical actions of the prophet are to be viewed merely as the form into which the prophet himself cast the revelation given to him by God, the more vividly to depict the impression communicated to his own mind ; or whether the prophet describes a vision which he saw, and in which he himself appeared to perform the actions here set forth as done by him. For though by the light of the New Testament, we are led to regard the prophecy as Messianic in the highest sense of the word, it does not follow that the prophet himself acted consciously as a repre- sentative of the Messiah, the great servant of Jahaveh. The prophet describes the sheep, which he, as the repre- sentative of Jahaveh, was commanded to feed, as " the sheep of slaughter." The phrase may signify either a flock which is already being slaughtered, or one marked out for slaughter at a future day. Both interpretations of the text have found defenders. The former, however, appears to be the sense intended. It best harmonises with the statement which follows : " Whose buyers slay them and are not punished, and those who sell them say, Blessed be Jahaveh that I am rich, and their shepherds spare them not." " To feed a flock " is always used in Scripture in the sense of guarding and X 306 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. i-8. protecting it in all its needs and difficulties (Ps. xxiii. and John X.), and cannot well be understood in the signification of preparing it for slaughter. Though the flock may be intended for slaughter, its ultimate destination is not that which is thought of when we speak of a shepherd feeding his flock. The shepherd's care over and attention to the wants of the flock is that to which attention is directed, not the destination of its several members. Nor can the command to feed the sheep be understood to mean, "feed the flock for the last time " (Kliefoth). In the course of the prophecy the ruin of the flock is, no doubt, depicted. But the ruin which ultimately overwhelmed the sheep is described as the result of their own ungracious conduct towards the good Shepherd, not as the consequence of any Divine decree. The commission which the shepherd received was " to feed the flock " given over to his care, and by so doing to rescue the sheep from the hands of those who were slay- ing them for their own selfish purposes. It was on account of this latter fact that the sheep are styled " the sheep of slaughter," that is, the sheep that are being slaughtered instead of being fed. In the early part of his prophecy the prophet speaks of the harsh treatment which Israel received at the hands of those who ruled over them. The people of the covenant had been tyrannized over, and trampled down by their oppressors. They who ruled over them had indeed caused them to howl (Isa. Hi. 5). But who were the oppressors to whom reference is made ? Were they the foreign rulers who bore sway over Israel, and into whose hands that people had been sold for their sin ? Or were the oppressors referred to the native kings or rulers over Israel } Hengstenberg and others think that the native rulers are signified. But foreign oppressors are alluded to in the passage quoted from the book of Isaiah, and this seems to be the most natural meaning of the expres- Ch. xi. 1-8.] THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HIS REJECTION. 307 sions used in the present passage, " I will not spare any- more the inhabitants of the world " (yi^^rr), among whom the flock had been located, and under whose power the sheep , were placed ; " and behold I will deliver over mankind (D~IhirT"Jli kmg," is evidently to be understood distributively, just as the term jl^yi, "his neighbour ," vfh.ic\\ precedes it. It can scarcely be understood in this connexion to refer to a king of tlie earth or the world, common to all, such as the Roman emperor, according to Hengstenberg's explanation. 308 ZECHAKIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. 7. hands Israel was delivered had acted in every way a purely selfish part, and had slaughtered the sheep they should have tended, Jahaveh himself determined to act the part of a shepherd to his people and to avenge them of their adver- saries. This he would do by causing civil wars to break out among the Gentile nations, permitting them to be the instru- ments of punishing one another, and also by allowing their kings and rulers to rule tyranically over the several peoples. In feeding again his people like a shepherd — for Jahaveh had been of old " the Shepherd of Israel " (Gen. xlix. 24 ; Ps. Ixxx. 2, verse i in E. V., Ixxvii. 21, verse 20 in E. V.) — God determined to use the staff of beauty and the staff of bands ; that is, God promised to restore again the old beauty, both external and internal, of the Levitical dispensation. Com- pare the wish of David " to behold the beauty of the Lord and to enquire in his temple" (Ps. xxvii. 4), and his prayer, " let the beauty of the Lord our God be upon us "(Ps. xc. 17).' The continuance of that beauty 'was a sign of God's favour and grace towards them. The staff therefore indicated that the favour of the Lord was with his people. The law of God was to be their rule. They should be united as one people, with none of that rivalry between its several portions which had embittered the national life of Israel since the days of Reho- boam. The wilfulness of the people themselves, and their distaste and loathing of God's guidance, should ultimately cause the staff of beauty to be broken, the beauty to be marred. Still, after the staff of beauty should be broken, and the Church of Israel should no longer be a Church well- pleasing in the eyes of its Lord, God should still feed his people with the staff of bands, and they would exist as one people, until their inveterate obstinacy and their final rejec- 1 Dyh is used in the sense of pleasantness in Prov. iii. 17, xv. 26, xvi. 24. These passages, with that in Zech. xi. 7, 10, and those alluded to above, are the only places where the word occurs. ^ Ch.xi. 7.] THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HIS REJECTION. 309 tion of the Good Shepherd should cause him also to break the staff of bands, and the national covenant of God with Israel would then be set aside. The prophecy so explained is in nowise contradictory, as Kliefoth notes, to the prophecies of the two preceding chapters. On the contrary, it supplements those predictions in a remark- able manner. Victory over foreign foes was promised in the previous predictions — the same promise is also virtually given in this. For they who are tended and fed by Jahaveh shall want no good thing, and, therefore, they who oppress his people must necessarily be punished. Thus the prophecy may be regarded as a confirmation of the former in that very particular. The prophecy of the eleventh chapter commences, as that of chapter ix., with the description of an invasion of the country which should sweep from the north to the south of the land. Both prophecies speak of a people marked out for slaughter by man, but protected and preserved by God. In both there is a vision of the beauty of Israel, and of Ephraim and Judah being united as one people by the staff of " bands," or " binders." The picture is quite consistent with the build- ing of the temple, and the final restoration of Jerusalem " in troublous times." The promise in the one prediction is to the effect that the people would be delivered from the power of any taskmaster (ti^JIJ); in the other, one evil shepherd after another is represented as successively deposed. The prophecy of the eleventh chapter thus predicts great blessings. . It has, no doubt, another and a darker side. It contains a solemn warning that if in a day of grace and blessing the people would not indeed have the Lord to be their shepherd, that "beauty" which they saw reviving among them would fade away like a flower, and the union of the tribes of the covenant people which was to take place, instead of the fatal division which had so long existed between the people of Ephraim and Judah, would be finally broken up. Thus 3IO ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. 7. the prophecy starts from the prophet's own present, though it reaches onward to a far distant period. It does not, as Hengstenberg and others think, spring without warning or intimation over the bounds of the prophet's own period, and depict the conquest of Palestine by the Romans, then far distant, or the civil wars of the Jews which preceded that terrible catastrophe, although it may be regarded as not completely fulfilled until that period. The prophecy of the eleventh chapter is to be considered as referring to the same period as that embraced in the ninth and tenth chapters ; that is, it commences with the same period and reaches onward to the time of the Messiah. If this fact be borne in mind, several passages, which otherwise would present peculiar difficulties, can be easily explained. The judgments alluded to in verse 6 are according to this view judgrnents upon the nations in general, more especially affecting those who had rigorously oppressed the people of the covenant, characterised as "the flock of slaughter." While God's judgments are poured upon the Gentile world, and the quiet which the nations had enjoyed is represented as broken up by civil wars, internal disorder, and the despotism of cruel tyrants, the flock which had been previously cruelly treated by the Gentile nations, is depicted as fed and tended by God himself That flock might be poor and despised, but it was made to lie down in green pastures and led beside still waters. It was tended with a staff of "beauty," or " favour," and with a staff of " bands." The nation of Israel was in favour with God, and they were at peace among them- selves. Thus passed away those times, which, when com- pared with other periods, might be termed days of quiet. Those times were not without their special difficulties and their special disorders and disturbances, but withal they were days of growth and progress. The colony of the Jews increased in the land to which they had been so mercifully restored. Ch. xi. 7.] THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HIS REJECTION. 31I City after city was filled with a Jewish population, while the Gentile inhabitants of the land to a very large extent became Jewish in their habits, and Jews in religion, and were no longer separated from the commonwealth of Israel, of which in accordance with its fundamental laws they became when circumcised an integral part. A large number of immigrants from all the tribes of Israel must have joined the Jewish colony during the long stretch of time which elapsed between the days of Zerubbabel, Haggai and Zechariah, and the days of Ezra, the great scribe, who led a fresh body of Jewish exiles back to the holy city. For the latter must not be regarded as the last band of exiles who returned, though it was by far the most important which immigrated thither after the first large body of exiles headed by Zerubbabel. Fourteen years more bring us to the date of the governorship of Nehemiah, and to the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. Many years later the prophet Malachi appeared on the scene. We know very little of the state of the Jewish commonwealth at that period, so fragmentary after all are the allusions made to it in history. But in the prophecies of Malachi, amid the very quiet of the times, the growing deadness of the people in matters of religion can be easily traced, aiid the prevalent spirit of worldliness be seen. Still, however, Israel as a flock was guided by the loving hand of Jahaveh. The warnings addressed to them by Malachi, his earnest denunciations of sin, his exhortations to repentance, his prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah and the solemn character of tha^ advent, were all so many proofs that the Lord had not for- gotten his people. The protection which Divine providence so graciously extended in one very notable crisis even to those who had voluntarily chosen to remain in exile, is related in the book of Esther. The wonderful protection afforded also to them by Divine power during the great contest in which, at a later period, the Persian empire was overthrown, 312 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. 8. has been specially alluded to in the preceding prophecy. All this long period is summed up in the present prophecy in the comprehensive sentence, "and I fed the flock." Though the land of Judaea, at the close of the period referred to, formed part of the theatre in which the bloody contest between the kings of Syria and Egypt took place, the Jewish nation on the whole fared well under the gracious protection of the Most High. It is in these times that we must look for the cutting off of "the three shepherds," spoken of in the eighth verse. The article points back to the mention made of "shepherds" in verse 5, and those shepherds, as explained in the light of verse 6, appear to be heathen rulers. If we are right in con- sidering the prophecies of chapters ix. and x. to be synchro- nous with that of chapter xi., and to traverse in some respects the same ground, the cutting off of these three heathen rulers must be looked for in the midst of the war of " the sons of Zion " against " the sons of Greece." That war was none other than the noble struggle of the Jews for their re- ligion and their liberty under the leadership of the Macca- bean chieftains. If it were not (i) that the use of the article seems to compel us to look for the cutting off of certain heathen rulers, and not of any Jewish chieftains ; and (2) that the cutting off of the three shepherds is evidently re- garded by the prophet not as an act of judgment exercised upon the covenant people on account of their sin, but as an act of gracious interference on behalf of that people, and a proof of the protecting love of the Shepherd of Israel ; we would naturally think that the three great Maccabee leaders, Judas, Jonathan, and Simon, were signified, who, after performing marvellous exploits of valour, were suc- cessively removed in times when their services seemed to be peculiarly required. But these reasons lead us to look for the fulfilment of the prophecy rathh- in the cutting off of Ch. xi. 8.] THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HIS REJECTION. 313 the enemies of the Jewish people, in the removal of three noted oppressors of the people of the Lord ; and so we are naturally driven to think of the three kings of the Gentiles, Antiochus Epiphanes, Antiochus Eupator, and Demetrius L, whose armies were all successively worsted and broken by the Maccabee chieftains, upheld as those heroes were by the mighty power of God, who enabled them again and again to defeat the mighty hosts of their enemies with armies far inferior in numbers, material, and organization. The difficulty which lies in the way of accepting this solution of the passage lies in the statement that the three shepherds would be cut off in one month. The expression has been understood by some to signify an ordinary month of thirty days. This, if correct, would necessarily be fatal to our exposition. The term has, however, been explained by Kimchi, Calvin, Drusius, Umbreit, etc., to signify an indefinitely short period, which would agree well enough with this inter- pretation. Hosea v. 7 is adduced by Kimchi and Drusius as an instance of such a signification, but that passage is not a satisfactory example. Von Hofmann considers the month to signify a prophetic period of thirty prophetic days, each of seven literal years' duration. As such it would be equivalent to 2 10 years. In support of this theory he refers to Dan. ix. 24, But " the seventy weeks " of Daniel are seventy weeks of years, i.e., 490 years, '' each day for a year " (Ezek. iv. 6), and on that principle the one month could only signify thirty years. No instance can be cited in w^hich a prophetic day is equivalent to a Sabbatic period of seven years. Von Hofmann (with whom Schlier agrees) has interpreted the " three shepherds " as the three empires, the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and Macedonian, which lasted 215 years, reckoning from the captivity of Babylon to the death of Alexander the Great. As to the slight discrepancy of five years, it is of little consequence in reckoning Sabbatic periods, 314 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch.xi.8. five years being less than one such period. But the objection to this theory is that no instance of such a usage can be adduced. Moreover, it is not in accordance with fact, or with Daniel's prophecy in chapter viii., to view the death of Alex- ander as the destruction of the Macedonian empire, which continued to exist, though no longer as a united empire, under the rule of the Diadochoi or successors of Alexander. Kliefoth, Kohler and Keil, have proposed another explana- tion of the month, considered as containing three times ten days, the number ten being the symbol of completion. Keil supposes two things to have been signified by the statement : first, that a shepherd was cut off every ten days, and, secondly, that the whole three were cut off in one month. The latter fact, according to his view, signifies that the destruction of one shepherd followed immediately after that of the other ; the former indicates that each individual shepherd was not cut off until the full time allotted to him had expired. This explan- ation appears highly artificial. Kliefoth, on the other hand, considers that the three periods are included in one term, to indicate the comparatively short duration of the period during which the three monarchies (which he regards as represented by the three shepherds) should endure. Rethinks, moreover, that the thirty days, included under the term " one month," have a direct reference to the thirty shekels of silver after- wards mentioned as offered to the good shepherd in reward for his work. The last idea is peculiarly fanciful ; for it is evident that the good shepherd is represented in the prophecy as tending the flock for a much longer period than the month, and his destruction of the three evil shepherds is only one remarkable instance of his care of the flock committed to his charge. The extirpation of those shepherds is .mentioned, because, after such a special proof of the shepherd's love and care, the ingratitude of the flock appears in a more striking light, inasmuch as they, notwithstanding his watchfulness Ch. xi. 8.] THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HIS REJECTION. 315 over them, are represented as loathing that care, and, conse- quently, the shepherd became weary of tending them. This latter fact is opposed to the explanation of the passage given by Dr. Pusey, namely, that the three shepherds in- dicate the Jewish "priests, judges and lawyers," who, having " delivered to the cross the Saviour and Redeemer of all, were taken away then in one month, Nisan, A.D. 33. The three offices. King, Divine Teacher, Priest, were to be united in Christ : they might have been held under him : those who rejected them in him forfeited them themselves. These then he made to disappear, effaced them from the earth." The good shepherd, however, did not break his pastoral staves until a considerable time had elapsed after the extirpation of the three evil shepherds, nor until the flock, regardless of that act of love, manifested their loathing for him. Then, but not till then, did the shepherd ask for his hire, and then did the flock offer to him the paltry sum of thirty pieces of silver as remuneration for his toil. But this latter fact took place after the cutting off of the three shepherds. Consequently that event cannot be supposed to refer to the extinction of the Jewish offices by Christ's death upon the cross, and this attempt to explain the month as a literal month of thirty days must be considered as a failure. Hengstenberg clearly saw the 'difficulty in the way of this explanation occasioned by the fact, that the extermination of the three shepherds is mentioned as preceding the breaking of the shepherd's staves. He tried to obviate it by explain- ing the cutting off of the shepherds to indicate simply their virtual deposition from office, " the tacit assertion of their non-existence," which was to be in due time followed by their outward removal. He considers that the later incidents of the prophecy describe the casting away of the Jewish people consequent on their rejection of our Lord. This interpreta- tion as a whole will be noticed presently. But we must here 3l6 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. 8. note his interpretation of the " one month." He maintains that something more is signified by this expression than an indefinitely short space of time. If that were all, as Hitzig observes, " an hour " or " a day " would have been a more appropriate expression. In proof of this Hengstenberg appeals to chap. iii. 9. He considers that the " month " is to be reckoned from the commencement of the shepherd's ministry, and that the expression signifies a period long in- deed when compared with one day, but short when contrasted with other periods of time. Its use " shows that the exter- mination of the three shepherds is not to be viewed as a single act like the expiation, but as a continuous act, which occupied some time." Hengstenberg accordingly regards the month as representing the period during which Christ endeavoured by repeated efforts to deliver the lost sheep of the house of Israel from the spiritual tyranny of their blind and corrupt guides. All the attempts, as we shall presently show, made by various scholars of the modern critical school to explain the term "month" in its hteral sense must be regarded as failures. The objection to the explanation of the term as indicating either an indefinitely short period, or a period of time short when compared with the whole time spoken of in the pro- phecy, but long when contrasted with that indicated by " a day," is that no satisfactory instances of either signification can be brought forward. Either the one or the other of these explanations would suit the exposition which we have sug- gested, namely, that the period of the Maccabees is that re- ferred to, when, by means of the valorous deeds of Judas, Jonathan and Simon, the three evil shepherds, Antiochus Epiphanes, Antiochus Eupator and Demetrius, were succes- sively cut off, because they sought to devour the flock which they as " shepherds of the people " should have fed.^ ' It is well known that the end of Antiochus Epiphanes in Persia was a Ch. xi. 8.] THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HIS REJECTION. 317 But the " month" can be more satisfactorily explained as a symbolical term. With the books of Ezekiel and Daniel before him (believing, as we do, the genuineness of the latter), Zechariah could not have been unacquainted with the sym- bolical treatment of numbers. Days, weeks and years, are used as symbolical designations in Ezek. iv. 4-6 and Dan. ix, 24-47, ^s well as in other places. " One month," if ex- plained on the principle made use of in these and similar passages, would signify a period of about thirty years. We say about thirty years, for if that number was meant to be taken strictly, the number thirty would have appeared in the arithmetical symbol as thirty days. A period of about thirty years embraces all the most remarkable events affect- ing the Jewish Church and nation, from B.C. 172, when Antiochus Epiphanes made his terrible attack on the holy city and desecrated its sacred temple, up to the year B.C. 141, Avhen the three evil alien shepherds of the Jewish nation were cut off, and the last trace of Syrian supremacy was removed by the expulsion of the Syrian garrison from its fortress in Jerusalem. Within this period the great exploits of the Maccabees occurred, and the great salvation was wrought miserable one. His successor, Antiochus Eupator, under the advice of Lysias attempted the subjugation of Judaea, and with partial success, notwithstanding the heroic efforts of Judas Maccabeus. He was put to death after a short reign by Demetrius I., who claimed to be the rightful heir to the throne, but at the time of Antiochus's accession was a hostage in Rome. During the reign of Demetrius some of the greatest victories of Judas Maccabeus were obtained, notably that of Caphar- salama. Demetrius I. was in his turn overthrown by the impostor Alexander Balas, with whom Jonathan entered into an alliance. Demetrius Nicator, who succeeded Alexander Balas after his overthrow by Ptolemy, at first made a treaty with Jonathan. When Jonathan transferred his friendship to Antiochus Theos, Demetrius II. had to flee. Tryphon, who had raised Antiochus to the throne, after- wards acted perfidiously towards Jonathan and threw him into prison. But Simon succeeded his brother in command, took Jerusalem, and for many years the country enjoyed comparative quiet. See i Mace. xiv. 9, ff. The three kings, Antiochus Epiphanes, Antiochus Eupator, and Demetrius I., were the only kings who in this period were able to rule oppressively over the Jews, and they were successively cut off in consequence of that oppressive conduct. 3l8 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. 8. whereby the Lord delivered his people (comp. i Sam. xiv. 45). The three shepherds who exhibited their evil character by- hostility to God^s truth and people were (after a brief period, in which their true character was brought to light) succes- sively rooted out and cut off in that eventful prophetic " month," during which the arm of the Lord was so strikingly revealed. Within the bounds of that " month " those shep- herds were permitted to manifest their malice and hatred against the Church and people of Jahaveh, and within its bounds they were successively swept away. It has, indeed, been often asserted that in the passage just considered one of the clearest proofs is to be found that the second part of Zechariah must have been written previously to the Babylonish captivity. But the attempts to demonstrate this point have been singularly inconclusive. Dr. Samuel Davidson maintains that the three evil shepherds who were cut off in the space of one month were "most probably Zachariah, son of Jeroboam II., his murderer Shallum, who reigned but a month, and a third unknown usurper whose downfall speedily took place, but whom the history in 2 Kings XV. 10-13 passed over." This is a conjecture which Davidson has borrowed from Maurer and Bunsen. It is not only unsupported by positive evidence (as is admitted), but it is absolutely contradicted by the narrative in 2 Kings XV. 10-14, where Zachariah is expressly said to have been murdered by Shallum, and Shallum by Menahem. There is therefore no room whatever left for "the third unknown usurper." Hitzig seeks to get rid of the difficulty in another way. He explains the phrase " I removed the three shepherds in one month " as equivalent to " I removed the three shepherds which were in one month," that is, who within that short space of time exercised their authority. He, therefore, con- siders that the prophet refers to the three kings, Zachariah, Ch. xi. 8.] THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HIS REJECTION. 319 Shallum and Menahem, which three kings in about the space of one month sat upon the throne of Israel. The omission of the relative pronoun in the original is by no means a fatal objection to this interpretation. Hitzig refers to examples in Exod. xxxiv. 31 ; Isa. xxiii. 17 ; Jer. xviii. 23 ; Ezek. xxvi. 20; Ps. Ixxvii. 6. But the explanation is too artificial. Thenius, however, has adopted this view.^ In anticipation of the objections which might be urged against it, he argues that the month during which Shallum reigned cannot be regarded as "a full month." The expression, however (C^p^ ^y.)> used with respect to Shallum's reign in 2 Kings xv. 13, is evidence directly contrary to Thenius's view. That phrase has been rightly translated by our Authorised Version as "a full month" (see Deut. xxi. 13, and compare the equivalent ex- pression D'^D"' tl^lh in Gen. xxix. 14 ; Numb. xi. 20, 21). The three kings alluded to did not ascend the throne of Israel within " one month ; " the events which occurred occupied more than double that time. Still less is it true that they were cut off within that period. Hitzig discloses the weak- ness of his position in his attempts to answer this latter objection. He argues that Menahem was not recognised at first as king of Israel, and certainly not bjr the prophetic order. In proof of this statement he appeals to 2 Kings XV. 16, 19, which is no proof whatever. It is, therefore, clear that the passage in Zechariah can by no means be brought into agreement with the history of the times referred to. Moreover, the verb used in Zechariah points most distinctly to a violent removal, as is seen by its use in Exod. xxiii. 2^, that is, to a destruction of some kind or other. Even assigning to it the meaning which Hitzig has suggested, some special act of Divine providence must be alluded to by which Menahem was no longer permitted to be a ruler over ' In his commentary on Die Biichcr da- Konigc, contained in the Kiirzgcfassics exeg. Handbuch zuin A. 7'., 2 Kiilgs xv. 13. 320 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. S. Israel. But Menahem was not cut off by any visitation of Providence ; after a reign of ten years he " slept with his fathers," and was succeeded on the throne by his son Peka- hiah. Ewald has proposed a strange conjecture, based on a blunder of the LXX. translators, who for some cause did not comprehend the meaning of the phrase " before the people " which occurs in 2 Kings xv. 10; namely, that Zachariah was succeeded on the throne by a king named Kobolam, and Kobolam by Shallum. This conjecture has not been accepted by any critic of eminence save Dean Stanley, who has gene- rally adopted all Ewald's ideas as facts of history. No place is left in the history of the books of the Kings for the inser- tion of this fictitious king ; for Shallum the son of Jabesh is distinctly stated to have ascended the throne immediately after the murder of Zachariah (2 Kings xv. 10). No device can really conceal the fact that, in spite of the confident language used by eminent scholars, all attempts have failed to demonstrate that three kings of Israel were violently removed, or even successively followed one another, in the course of a single month at any period previous to the exile. The idea, therefore, that the statement of chap. xi. 8 proves that the prophecy was penned by a writer previous to the Babylonish captivity is a fallacy.^ The second part of this verse (xi. 8), "and my soul was wearied at them, and even their soul loathed me," must not be considered as referring to " the three shepherds," but as a 1 Many wild conjectures have been made respecting the three shepherds. They have been explained as Moses, Aaron and Miriam (Jerome); or Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim and Zedekiah (Kimchi) ; or as Eli and his two sons ; or Samuel and his two sons (Burger) ; or David, Adonijah and Joab (Grotius) ; or with more apparent probability as the three Maccabees, Judas, Jonathan and Simon (Abar- banel); or the three Roman emperors, Galba, Otho and Vitellius (Calmet); or the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes (Lightfoot). The explanation of the three shepherds as the prophets, priests and kings, has been adopted by many com- mentators and has much ou its side, but in our opinion it must be rejected for the reasons assigned above. V Ch. xi. 9.] THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HIS REJECTION. 32 1 statement concerning " the flock " in general which had been committed to the shepherd's care. Grammatically, no doubt, the pronoun would more naturally be supposed to refer to "the three shepherds" spoken of in the previous part of the verse. But by common consent verse 9 must relate to " the sheep " themselves, which proves that the noun to which the pronoun here refers must be the sheep spoken of in verse 7. Moreover, the verb in the original cannot be rendered as a pluperfect,! as if the second clause of verse 8 referred to some action performed by the shepherds previously to their having been "cut off." But if we cannot translate " my soul had loathed them," still less can the prophet be supposed to speak of his being wearied with the acts of the shepherds after he had actually cut them off. The cutting off of the three shepherds was an act of God's lovingkindness towards the sheep of his pasture, and not an act of judgment towards Israel as represented by their rulers. Hence Hengstenberg's explanation of the words as referring to the deposition of the theological guides and rulers of the Jewish nation by our Lord is unsatisfactory. Such a deposition he considers as formally pronounced in Matt, xxiii. 2, 3, a passage which in our opinion has quite the opposite signification. Nor can we agree with Kliefoth in supposing that God's displeasure against the first three world-monarchies is that referred to by the prophet. The weariness which the good shepherd symbolized by the prophet gives expression to, did not arise from any reluctance on his part to perform the task of feeding the flock in con- sequence of the toil which that office required. The weariness exhibited by the shepherd was solely occasioned by the con- ^ The imperfects with strong vav, or vav copversive, which occur in verse 8 and verse 7 must all be rendered alike, and it is more than doubtful whether this con- struction can be used under any circumstances to signify the pluperfect. It is clear it does not in this instance. See Driver's Hebrew Tenses, § 76. Obs. Y 322 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. 9, 10. duct of the sheep. That conduct led him to declare (verse 9) : " I will not feed you : that which is dying, let it die; and that which is being destroyed, let it be destroyed ; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of the other." Thus the care of the shepherd over his flock was in a great measure to cease, and the evils from which he would fain have delivered the sheep were to come upon them, in consequence of their loathing and dislike to his gentle rule. Hengstenberg has well compared with this passage of Zechariah that in Jer. xv. i, 2, " Cast them (the Jewish people) out of my sight, and let them go forth. And it shall come to pass, if they say unto thee, Whither shall we go forth ? then thou shalt tell them, Thus saith the Lord ; Such as are for death, to death ; and such as are for the sword, to the sword ; and such as are for the famine, to the famine ; and such as are for the captivity, to the cap- tivity." The passage in Isa. ix. 20 is a fitting parallel to the second statement in verse 9 — " And he shall snatch on the right hand and be hungry, and he shall eat on the left hand, and shall not be satisfied : they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm." Comp. also Jer. xix. 9 ; Deut. xxviii. 53. The " beauty " had indeed departed from the people when the high priesthood was made with their consent a political institution. When that change was acquiesced in by the nation generally, and no disposition exhibited to follow the law of Moses in such an essential particular, the " favour " of God was removed from the people. The shepherd, therefore, broke his staff of beauty, or favour, to indicate that the cove- nant which Jahaveh had made with the nations was at an end. That covenant does not mean a covenant made with the nations for their own good, but rather one made with them for the good of the people of Israel. For the breaking of that covenant is described as the immediate consequence of the breaking of the staff of beauty, with which staff Israel, since its restoration, had been tended by the good shepherd. Ch.xi.9,io.] THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HIS REJECTION. 323 The expressions breaking the covenant and breaking the shepherd's staff are identical in meaning. In consequence of the determination of the shepherd, as the representative of Jahaveh, and acting under his directions, no longer to feed the people who had been originally committed to his care, the people of Israel were to be given up to eat of the fruit of their own ways and to be filled with their own devices (Prov. i. 31). Hence the dying sheep would no longer be cared for, nor the wounded be succoured in their extremity. The covenant, therefore, made with the peoples and nations must be understood as a covenant which had been made with them on behalf of the people of Israel, for the good of that people. It was a covenant whereby the nations had been partially restrained from hurting the people of Israel, and by virtue of which, when the nations acted injuriously to the people of God, they met with suitable chastisement from the Keeper of Israel, the most notable instance of which was the destruction of the three shepherds who dared to oppress mightily the people of the Lord. This view, as far as regards the covenant with the nations, is that adopted with slight modifications by Hitzig, Maurer, Ewald, Hengstenberg, Kohler, and Keil, , In support of it the passages in Hos. ii. 20 (English Version ii. 18), and Ezek. xxxiv. 25 have been appealed to. In the former of these passages God is described as making a covenant with the beasts of the field on behalf of his people. The latter passage is not strictly a parallel, as far as the exact form of expression is concerned, but its meaning is essentially the same. The objection urged against this interpretation by Rosenmiiller, Kliefoth and Volck, is that the passages referred to are not really parallels, as to be so the insertion of some such words as "for them," or "for Israel," is needed. It is, however, sufficient to reply (with Maurer and Keil) that such an addition was not at all necessary, as the context 324 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. 9, 10. SO plainly demonstrates for whose benefit the covenant was made. Moreover, several other passages can be cited in which a similar idea is contained, as, for instance, that in Job (v. 23), "Thou shalt be in league with the stones of the field (lit, thy covenant shall be with the stones of the field), and the beasts of the field shall be at peace with thee." So also Isa. xxviii. 15-18, where a covenant with death is spoken of, i.e., a covenant whereby those spoken of as making it should not be swept away by death before their proper time. A similar expression occurs in Sirach xiv. 12 (see Fritzsche's note on that passage). This is the simple sense of the passage here. It is not at all necessary, with Rosen- miiller, to explain the expression "with all the peoples" as referring to the twelve tribes of Israel, although Keil (in his Comm. on Deut. xxxii.) and others, perhaps, go too far on the other side, when they assert that that expression is never used except in reference to heathen nations. In consequence of the sin of Israel at the period referred to, and of the transgression and carnal policy, which caused the glorious revival of the Maccabean period, which began in a dependence upon the aid of God, to end in a mere seeking after worldly ends, the first staff of the shepherd, that named "beauty," or " favour," was broken. That the Jewish nation was no longer tended by that staff was soon apparent. The Jews were harassed by the Gentile nations from various sides, who, as in the days of old, " mightily oppressed " them. The Mosaic ordinances in many points were set at nought. The high priesthood was often held by persons who had no right or title to that dignity. That dignity almost ceased to be regarded as a religious office ; it became viewed in the light of a political position. The internal divisions among the Jews of this period, and the troubles which assailed them from all sides, need not here be related. Among the reli- gious thinkers of the age a very general impression prevailed Ch.xi.7-ii.] THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HIS REJECTION. 325 that the glory had departed from Israel. By the constant incursion of foreign foes into their land, by the oppres- sive conduct of the rulers even of their own nation, who abused their power and position, by the reduction of their country to a Roman province, the Jews acquainted with the prophecies of Zechariah " knew that it was the word of the Lord" which had been spoken by him, just as the prophet Jeremiah when urged in prison by his (uncleo Hanameel to buy his fields in Anathoth, on which the Babylonian soldiers were encamped at the time, knew that it was the word of the Lord (Jer. xxxii. 8). The fulfilment of the evil denounced by the prophet proved the genuineness of his commission, as much as the performance of the promises of good made through his means was a proof that the Lord had indeed spoken unto him that which he declared for the encouragement of his people (Zech. ii. 13, E.V. verse 9, vi. 15). The phrase which occurs in verse 7 and again in verse 11, rendered in our A. V. by " the poor of the flock," is more cor- rectly understood to mean "the most wretched sheep," or "the most miserable flock " (Kohler, see our crit. comm.). It is a description not merely of a certain portion of the sheep, but of the flock in general. It had been a " flock of slaughter," and had been rescued from that evil condition by its Lord. But the members of this flock of the Lord's pasture being men (Ezek. xxxiv. ii), had turned back quickly every one to his own way (Isa. liii. 6), and by their ingratitude to their shep- herd, proved themselves to be the " most wretched sheep." The expression " those who observed me," applied to the flock in verse ii, does not support the views of those who, like Hengstenberg, Kliefoth and others, consider that " the most wretched " or " poorest sheep " represent the pious por- tion of the Jewish nation. For that expression does not necessarily signify those who attended to the teachings of the prophet of Jahaveh, or denote that part of the Jewish 326 ZECHARIAH AND HIS TROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. 12. people, of whom our Lord spoke when he said, " My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me " (John X. 27).! The interpretation of this phrase given by Hengstenberg might be defended if the clause stood alone ; for the word occurs in that signification in Prov. xxvii. 18 ; Hosea iv. 10, etc. But as the same expression is used in other places of observing for evil purposes (i Sam. xix. 11 ; Job X. 14), and occurs also in the simple meaning of observing generally, without any expressed intention of either good or ill (as in i Sam. i. 12 with ace. of person, Job xxxix. i with ace. of thing, and Eccles. xi. 4), the context must be appealed to in order to decide the special sense in which the phrase is to be taken. And as the next verse speaks of the shepherd's demanding from these wretched sheep some remuneration for his toil, and of their offering him a most miserable price in return for his loving care, we cannot regard the phrase other- wise than as used in a sense applicable to the entire body of the sheep tended by the shepherd, and not as a description of that small part which followed the good shepherd. The demand of the shepherd for his wages is not to be interpreted as made only at one special crisis in the nation's history. It was in reality made at every period, especially after the staff of " beauty " had been broken, and before that of " bands " was snapped asunder. The demand preferred by the shepherd of Israel is only another expression for the Lord's watching and waiting long to receive fruit from the fig tree planted in his vineyard. That demand may well be regarded as having reached its culmination when the Lord of * There is little to be said in favour of Hitzig's suggestion, namely, to translate the phrase here, "who regarded," or "attended to my sign," taking ""riX as the noun nix with suffix (my sign) instead of the demonstrative pronoun with suff. [inc). ^nX might indeed be taken in either sense. In the passages which Hitzig refers to (Ezek. iv. 3 and Isa. vii. 11) a special sign is distinctly spoken of But there is no indication of such here. Hence we m^t regard the word as used for the objective case of the first personal pronoun. See crit. comm. Ch. xi. 12.] THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HIS REJECTION. 327 life and glory sought in his own person to obtain fruit from the Jewish fig tree (Luke xiii. 6-9), or when the Lord of the vineyard, as a last effort, sent forth his only-begotten Son in the hope, which alas ! proved vain, that the husbandmen might give to him as the heir, of the fruits of the vineyard, which they had not rendered to his servants who had been sent before him (Luke xx. 13). Students of the Law and the Prophets must have noted, if not the special fulfilment of the predictions of Zechariah, at least the general truth that the calamities of the nation were calamities occasioned by its sins. As the study of the Law was more or less enjoined on all Israel, and as the Jews regarded more or less what was written in the Law and the Prophets (even when they, like professing Christians in later times, did not practically do the things there enjoined), they may well be comprehended under the designation of observers of the prophetic word. The Jews must have remarked that the covenant whereby the nations had been restrained from acting according to their desires had ceased to be effective. The Gentiles are even represented in the Prophets as discover- ing by the acts of God's providence that th^ Lord was the protector of Israel (Ezek. xxxix. 23) ; and the Jews them- selves, in other places, as learning by the calamities which were sent upon them that God had forsaken them on account of their sins (Jer. xliv. 28 ; Mai. li. 4). There is evidence in Jewish writings composed in or shortly after the era of the Maccabees, of the fact that the change in God's dealings with the Jewish nation was distinctly per- ceived. Among the writings of that era which recognise that the real cause of the calamities of the people was that the hand of the Lord was heavy on them on account of sin, may be instanced the very interesting collection of eighteen Greek psalms known by the name of " The Psalter of Solo- mon." Those psalms probably belong to the era referred to 328 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. 12. in this prophecy, for they appear to have been composed some time after the days of Antiochus Epiphanes. Ewald is probably correct in assigning them to that period. In these interesting psalms occur several striking confessions of sin, and expressions of repentance mingled with bright hopes of the near approach of the day of the Messiah.^ The shepherd demanded some return for his unrequited toil (comp. Deut. xxxii. 6) in these words : " If it be good in your eyes, give me my wages ; and if not, forbear." ^ The demand was made in order to try whether the people would sub- mit themselves further to his guidance. It was an attempt to bring them to consider the position in which they stood with regard to Jahaveh himself, whose representative the good shepherd was. On the words, " if not, forbear," Dr. Pusey's remarks are worthy of consideration : " God does not force our free-will, or constrain our service. He places life and death before us, and bids us choose life. By his grace alone we can choose him ; but we can refuse his grace and himself ' Thou shalt say unto them,' he says to Ezekiel, ' Thus said the Lord God, He that heareth, let him hear, and he that for- beareth, let him forbear' (Ezek. iii. 27, add ii. 5, 7, iii. ii). This was said to them, as a people, the last offer of grace. It gathered into one all the past. As Elijah had said, 'If the Lord be God, follow him ; but if Baal, then follow him ' (l Kings xviii. 21) ; so he bids them at last to choose openly, whose they would be, to whom they would give their service ; * Drammond, in his Javish Messiah, pp. 140-2, however, places the composition of these psalms at as late a date as the time of Pompey, B.C. 48, owing to the allu- sions in Ps. ii. 30-33. But this is doubtful? On the other hand Graetz on account of Pss. xvii. and xviii. assigns the whole to a post-Christian era, which hypothesis has been rightly rejected by Drummond. On the whole the date assigned by Ewald appears to us more probable. These Psalms are to be found in the appendix to Yx\\.zic\\€% Libri Apocryphi Vet. Test. C^-^ct? (Leipzig,) 1871. See crit. comm. ^ This demand of the shepherd cannot be supposed to be addressed to the three shepherds of verse 8 (Jahn), or to the rulers of^he people (as Hengstenberg), or even to the more pious portion of the people (as Kohler seems to imagine). Ch.xi. 12,13-] THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HIS REJECTION. 329 and if they would refuse in heart, to refuse in act also. For- bear, cease, leave off, abandon ; and that for ever." The remuneration offered to the shepherd by his miserable flock expressed most fully their utter disregard for his care, and their ingratitude for the mercies vouchsafed to them. They weighed out for him thirty shekels of silver. This sum is mentioned not as a professed remuneration for the thirty days during which he had tended them, as v. Hofmann and Kliefoth imagine, according to their artificial explanation of the month in verse 8 which has been already noticed, but rather, as the majority of commentators have remarked, because thirty shekels was the compensation directed by the Mosaic law to be given to the owner, if a foreign slave belonging to him, whether male or female, was accidentally gored by an ox (Exod. xxi. 32). The offer, therefore, of such a price was insulting in the highest degree.^ The indignant command of Jahaveh, who marked the insult conveyed by the ungrateful flock, was : " Fling it to the potter — a magnificent price at which I was priced by them." For Jahaveh identifies himself with the shepherd, and the indignity offered to the latter was an insult offered to^God. The word we have rendered " fling " is properly to cast out, and is used of flesh thrown to the dogs (Exod. xxii. 30, verse 31 in the English version), of a corpse cast out without burial (Jer. xxvi. 23, xxxvi. 30, etc.), and of idols flung to the moles and to the bats (Isa. ii. 20). Note especially the use of the verb in Ezek. xvi. 5, The price so insultingly offered to the shepherd was to be flung to a potter as one of the lowest of the labouring classes, to be cast to a poor worker in clay, whose productions were of so little value that when marred by any accident they could easily be replaced at a trifling expenditure ^ The same price was given by Hosea for the adulteress, half of which was paid in money, and the other half in kind (Hosea iii. 2) ; see Hengstenberg and Wiinsche on the passage. 330 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. 13. of cost or toil. The price offered by the people to the Lord was so mean and despicable that it could only be regarded as offered in mockery, and hence the worthless silver was not to be cast into the treasury, or used for pious purposes, but flung to one of the lowest of the people, thrown back to one of themselves, even as a dishonoured carcase was flung upon the graves of the common people (Jer. xxvi. 23). The prophet accordingly took the thirty pieces, and went forth in vision to the temple to perform the awful duty im- posed upon him. No mention was made in the command of Jahaveh of the temple as the place in which the wages which had been insultingly offered were to be vilely cast away. But the temple was the place where the people of the cove- nant, the Israel of God, were wont to assemble to present themselves before the Lord. In that holy place the awful repudiation on the part of the nation of him who was the Shepherd of Israel was to be publicly made known. The base transaction (however done in a corner) was to be proclaimed upon the house-tops. In the place where the solemn covenant between Jahaveh and his people had so often been ratified by sacrifices, the fearful divorce between the people of Israel and himself was to be declared. What was done in the temple was done in the presence of both the parties to the covenant ; in the presence of Jahaveh, in whose honour the temple had been erected, and in the presence of the nation who by its erection of that temple had accepted Jahaveh as their Lord and God. In the presence of both parties the rejection of the Lord as the Shepherd of Israel was to be announced, and the dissolution of the covenant made by Jahaveh to be publicly proclaimed by the act of his representative. There is not the slightest necessity on critical- grounds to translate the noun which occurs here by^ anything else than "a potter." The verb ("1^^) from which the participial noun which is here used ("I^V) is derivea, signifies to fonn, to Ch. xi. 13.] THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HIS REJECTION. 33 1 fashion (Ps. Ixxiv. 17 ; sometimes with the special signification of moulding out of clay, Gen. ii. 7, 8, 19). When the parti- ciple is used as a noun it occurs in the special signification of a potter (as Isa. xxix. 16, xxx. 14, xli. 25, xlv. 9; Jer. xviii. 2-6, xix. i ; i Chron. iv. 23, etc.). But the verbal form often retains its participial meaning, and is followed by the accusative of the thing formed, whether a real or an ideal creation (as Hab. ii. 18 ; Isa. xlv. 7, 18 ; Ps. xciv. 20).^ The LXX. and Symmachus translate the word here by ''foundry" or "furnace,'' most probably because they did not comprehend why " a potter " specially should have been spoken of. The verb is occasionally used of fashioning or forming metals (Isa. xliv. 12, etc.). But this translation is impossible in this place, unless it be intended only as a paraphrase. The Tar- gum and Syriac render it respectively by treasurer and treasury, which translation has been adopted, but on very in- sufficient critical grounds, by eminent modern critics (see our crit. comm.). For, apart from all considerations arising out of the reference made to this prophecy in the New Testament (Matt xxvii. 9, 10), it would be indeed strange that the prophet should receive special directions from Jahaveh to cast the ignominious price offered for his care into the treasury of the Lord. Dishonourable gains of any kind were not to be brought into that treasury, much less a paltry sum of money offered to the Lord in mockery and derision (Deut xxiii. 18 ; Matt, xxvii. 6). We have already assigned the reason which appears to us the most rational for the command to cast the money to the potter. Various other reasons have been given. Grotius has maintained that the money was cast to the potter to 1 It may be considered as a noun or participle in Isa. xliv. 9, but more probably it has there the force of the former, and signifies generally "a sculptor," " an artist." It is often used as a noun in the same sense in reference to God, probably in allu- sion to Gen. ii. 7; so in Isa. xliii. i, xliv. 2, 24. 332 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. 13. show that the Lord did not value the pieces of silver more than broken pieces of pottery. This explanation seems to leave out of sight the fact that the price was offered in deri- sion. Moreover, as Keil has noted, a potter has not merely to deal with potsherds. Others have imagined that the clay with which the potter is accustomed to work is referred to, and that the meaning is identical with our expression, throw it into the dirt or mud (v. Hofmann). Potter's clay is not, however, mud or mire (Kohler) ; but compare Is. xli. 25. Hengstenberg does not seem more felicitous in assigning reasons why " the potter " is specially mentioned in the passage. The article, we must note in passing, is simply generic. There is no necessity whatever to suppose that *' the potter " specially employed in making pots for the temple was alluded to, as Hengstenberg imagines. Nor can the expression " to the potter " be shown to be an equivalent to such an expression as " to the hangman ! " Neither is to cast anything to the potter equivalent to casting it into an unclean place. Hengstenberg's theory on this point is based upon the supposition that there is a reference in the prophecy of Zechariah to a prophecy of Jeremiah, and that the potter mentioned by Jeremiah (chap, xviii. 2, and xix. 2) had his pottery in the valley of Hinnom, which had been made an unclean place by Josiah (2 Kings xxiii. 10). This, however, cannot be proven. On the contrary, as Keil has observed, the passage in Jer. xix. I, 2, implies that the potter's house there spoken of was inside the city. For Jeremiah was directed first to go and buy a vessel at the potter's house, and then to go forth with that vessel outside the gates to the valley of Hinnom. Even if the potter had his workshop in the valley of Hinnom, it by no means follows that his work was regarded as unclean, so that casting to the potter should be equivalent to casting into an unclean place. If his work done in that valley were so unclean, Ch. xi. 13.] THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HIS REJECTION. 333 how could he (and this is necessary to complete the argument of Hengstenberg) have prepared the pots which were used in the sacred service of the temple ? The idea that the money was taken by the prophet to the temple in order that it might be carried thence unto the potter, is a rather strained interpretation of verse 13. The explanation of Hengstenberg has solely arisen from a wish to make out that the prophecy of Zechariah is a renewal and repetition of the previous prophecy of Jeremiah, and that St. Matthew has, therefore, quoted the whole as written in the book of Jeremiah. But there is no real ground for identifying the prophecies of Jeremiah with those of Zechariah, except that in both pro- phecies "a potter" is spoken of; all the rest is simple imagination.! KHefoth's attempt to explain the mention of " the potter," must also, though well-meant, be rejected. Convinced of the fanciful character of Hengstenberg's hypothesis, and yet bearing in mind that this prediction is adduced by St. Matthew, not as a prophecy of Zechariah, but as a prediction of Jeremiah, Kliefoth maintains that it is not to be con- nected with the passage in Jer. xix., in which the potter's vessel, and not the potter himself, comes urider considera- tion, but must rather be connected with that of Jer. xviii., where the potter himself is spoken of. In the latter passage God is represented in his dealings toward Israel by the potter, who did with the clay as he thought fit, moulding it into various forms, and breaking up any vessel that dis- pleased him. Assuming that this passage in Jeremiah is referred to, Kliefoth thinks that there is a possibility of explaining the passage in Zechariah in two ways. God may be regarded as himself " the potter " who had formed ' I regret to observe, however, that Hengstenberg's viewr of this matter has been endorsed by Archdeacon Lee, in his interesting treatise on The Inspiration of Holy Scripture, 3rd edit., 1864. 334 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. 13. Israel, and could with ease dash Israel in pieces as a potter's vessel. Thus the prophet might well be directed to cast down the pieces of silver to the great Potter in his temple, not indeed as an offering well-pleasing to him, but as a corpus delicti, in order that he might punish the people for their base return for his care, and deal with them as the potter in Jeremiah dealt with a misshapen pot. The second explanation suggested by Kliefoth, based, it must be remembered, on the same assumption, namely, that the command of God presupposes a reference to the passage in Jer. xviii., is as follows : In the prophecy of Zechariah future occurrences are narrated under the form of imaginary actions. The prophet, therefore, after he had received the pieces of silver, which were a proof that the nation had rejected God as their shepherd, was commanded to cast those pieces to a potter, as the potter figuratively represented the position in which the Lord then stood to Israel. In going forth to obey the Divine command the prophet found a potter in the temple, and flung down to him the money. In the latter case, as well as in the former supposition, the price is to be regarded not as a thankoffering, however small and worthless, offered for God's care, but as a memorial of ingrati- tude, which would draw down the Divine vengeance. In both cases "the potter" would represent Jahaveh ; directly accord- ing to the first explanation, or indirectly according to the second ; and inasmuch as on either supposition the words used in Zechariah would be regarded as really based on the prophecy of Jeremiah, the evangelist in the New Testament quotes the prophecy of Zechariah as, properly speaking, be- longing to Jeremiah. This interpretation is no doubt ingenious, but the more it is considered the less satisfactory does it appear. It is al- most impossible to consider that Jahaveh refers to himself in the command, " cast it to th^ potter." The people in Ch. xi. 13.] THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HIS REJECTION. 335 whose ears Zechariah first delivered his prophecy could not by any possibility have thus understood his words. Nor would any students of the prophetic scriptures have im- agined such an interpretation. The whole is evidently devised in order to avoid admitting a mistake of some kind or other in the Gospel of St. Matthew. Even if the prophecy be regarded as having been fulfilled as narrated in the New Testament, the correspondence between the predictions, if it is thus to be understood, and its fulfilment in the way narrated by the evangelist, is very small indeed. The following is Kliefoth^s view as to the connexion of the prophecy and its fulfilment, which it is only fair to give, though we regard it as most unsatisfactory. This prophecy was, according to Kliefoth, fulfilled in a peculiar manner. Israel paid over the price which indicated their rejection of the Lord, namely, the thirty pieces of silver, to the traitor Judas. He afterwards flung them down in the temple, and the priests bought with them the potter's field, in the valley of Hinnom, to bury strangers in. Thus were the chief points in the prophecy fulfilled ; the price of rejec- tion was paid, it consisted of thirty pieces of silver, it was cast down in the temple before God, who dealt accord- ingly with Israel as the potter in Jer. xviii. dealt with his marred vessels. In the minor details, which are not pro- minent in the prophecy, the fulfilment is something difi*erent from what might have been expected. Thus the traitor Judas, and not a prophet, received the money which indi- cated that Israel had rejected its Lord. Judas brought the money into the temple, and the chief priests, and not a prophet, paid that money to the potter for his field. The potter to whom the money was paid was not Jahaveh, the great Potter, but a common potter in the valley of Hinnom. But even in these minor circumstances, which are somewhat different from the prophecy, the fulfilment does but pass 336 ZECHARIAH AND HIS TROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. 13. beyond the prediction of Zechariah in order to include other prophecies than that contained in Jer, xviii. and that men- tioned in this passage of Zechariah. For the chief priests and rulers of Israel lost by this action the true Potter, Jahaveh, and his temple ; while they gained in place thereof the field of a common potter in the valley of Hinnom, a Tophet. Thus was fulfilled also the prophecy of Jer. xix. This was the reason why, Kliefoth thinks, St. Matthew referred to Jeremiah instead of to Zechariah. Even the evangelist himself, Kliefoth observes, does not forget to glance at these unimportant details in which the prophecy of Zechariah differed from the actual history. For in his quotation from the Old Testament prophet, the evangelist says, "and they took the thirty pieces of silver, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me " (Matt, xxvii. 9, 10) ; whereas in the Old Testament prophecy the prophet himself was to take the pieces of silver and give them for the field in question. Such is Kliefoth's theory of the connexion between the prophecy and its fulfilment. As regards the citation of this prophecy of Zechariah in the Gospel of St. Matthew,i as a prophecy of Jeremiah, it ^ An ingenious theoiy has lately been propounded by Bohl {ForscJiungeti nach einer Volksbibel zti7- Zdt Jesii: Wien, 1873), namely, that there was in existence at, and previous to, the Christian era a translation of the LXX. into the popular Aramaic, and that this translation formed the Volksbibel, or Popular Bible of our Lord's day, and from it the quotations from the Old Testament found in the New were originally taken. This opinion deserves consideration, but we cannot say that it has been proved. The fanciful opinion propounded by Roberts, in his Discussions on the Gospels, that our Lord and his apostles were Greek-speaking Jews, has not been favourably received by Biblical critics. Bohl of course adopts the commonly received view that our Lord and his apostles spoke the vernacular Aramaic of that day, which was termed Hebrew. Bohl in a more recent work, Alt-lcstamentUclieii Citate iiit Ncuen Testament (Wien, 1878), has attempted to apply his theory to the problem of the New Testament quotations from the Old. His treatment of this passage is not successful. His mode of explaining the mistakes of the LXX. and extracting therefrom the text of the Volksbibel is highly ingenious, but not convincing. He argues that the words in l\Iatt. xxvii. 10, KaBa. (jvvirai^iv fxoi Kvptos were taken from Jeremiah, in which prophet they were contained in the Volksbibel. He supposes that the entire^assage Zech. xi. 12, 13, occurred Ch. xi. 13.] THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HIS REJECTION. 337 is most easily explained as a simple slip of memory, as Augustine, Luther, Baza, Jewell, and others have regarded it, as well as among modern orthodox expositors, Keil. Kohler, and others. By whom the mistake was indeed actually made, whether by the writer or the scribe, cannot be ascertained. But no real danger accrues to the authority of Scripture as a Divine revelation by such an admission. Those who argue as if the admission of an error is fraught with danger to the authority of Scripture are far from acting as its true defenders. The solemn words of Job may be profitably borne in mind in all such discussions (Jobl xiii. 7). No satisfactory demonstration has been yet ad- duced to show that the evangelist referred to any prophecy en of Jeremiah in the same manner as the prediction quoted , in Mark i. 2 3, as belonging to Isaiah is partly taken from the prophet Malachi ; or that the evangelist considered the prophecy as virtually contained in that of Jeremiah, asy being partly based on his predictions.^ as a whole in Jeremiah. In defence of this view, Bohl cites the well-known words of Jerome respecting an apocryphal book of Jeremiah, "legi nuper in quodam hebraico volumine quod Nazarena; sectce mihi Hebra^us obtulit Jeremire apocry- phum in quo hac (Zech. xi. 13) ad verbum scripta reperi." Bohl maintains that the words found in Zechariah bear the impress of being those of Jeremiah, and ought to occur after Jer. xix. 15. His whole argument is unsatisfactory because it is founded on a series of unproved hypotheses. If we oppose such assumptions when they are against our views, we must also oppose them when on our side. If we shrink from the honest admission that, as far as the evidence goes, there was some mistake on the part of the evangelist, the opinion of Valckenar (Schol. in Luc. ii. 38) quoted by Bohl is preferable, namely, that T^pTov (Zaxapiov) occurred in the original text of the evangelist, which an early copyist mistook for I^v (lepe/uov), and hence the blunder arose. This suggestion is, however, set aside by Turpie in his able note {New Testament View of the Old: Hodder & Stoughton, 1872), and by others, because such contractions do not occur in the oldest MSs'. Turpie concludes, with Davidson in his Sacred Herm., after Mede, that Jeremiah must be considered the author of the prophecy, ix.-xj. The quotation in the N. T cannot be viewed as a proof of this. Henderson coincides with the view that the passage in St. Matthew must be regarded as corrupt. But it is dangerous to go against the weight of evidence, just because it seems to run counter to «/n^rz views of inspiration. It is safer to acknowledge the difficulty as yet unsolved. 1 See the important remarks on this point in Row's Bampton Lectures on the Evidences of Christianity. The value of the New Testament writings as Z 338 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. 13. It might indeed be asserted, but there is no evidence to support the assertion, that the mistake originated not with the evangehst, but with one of his early copyists, inasmuch as copies of the entire writings of the prophets must have been extremely rare in that day. Lightfoot would solve the difficulty by appealing to the tradition of the Talmud, (Baba bathra 146) in which the order of the prophetic writings in the sacred volume is stated formerly to have been Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah. This order is actually found in many Hebrew MS S. Lightfoot concludes from this that St. Mat- thew simply quotes the passage as occurring in the roll of the prophets, which roll he cites by the name of the book which stands first in order. As an instance of such quotation ,he appeals to Luke xxiv. 44. That example, however, is not conclusive. Moreover all the other quotations found in St. Matthew's Gospel are made on a very different principle, and hence this explanation cannot be regarded as satisfactory, nor has it found defenders among modern scholars. The prophecy of Zechariah in some respects may be re- garded as an allegorical history of the manner in which the inspired by the Holy Ghost is by no means affected by such an admission. Moreover, the honest critic is bound by the laws of evidence to admit of mistakes occurring when he cannot otherwise explain passages. One must not be led by a priori assumptions in such matters, and so expose oneself to the charge of unfair dealing. When similar mistakes occur in other writings we are not slow to ascribe them to the author. Thus for instance, with regard to the very book on which we are commenting, we find Justin Martyr in his Dial, cum TrypJione, c. xiv. , ascribing through a slip of memory Zech. xii. 10 to Hosea, though in other places. Dial. 121, and Apol. i. 52, he ascribes it to Zechariah. In the latter passage, he combines the text with sentences from Isaiah. Again, in Apol. i. 35, he ascribes Zech. ix. 9 to Zephaniah, while again in Dial. 53 he rightly assigns it to our prophet. Similar mistakes occur elsewhere. On what principle then are we to admit of mistakes occumng in Old Testament citations in Justin Martyr, and, contrary! to all the evidence which is forthcoming, refuse to admit such in St. Matthew ? The Christian apologist will find that it is much safer to admit the possibility of such mistakes, and to argue that such are in no wise incompatible with the fact that the Scriptures arc an authoritative revelation from God. This is the strongest and safest line for him to take. His character for honesty is lost when he refuses to submit to positive evidencdS Ch; xi. 13.] THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HIS REJECTION. 339 prophets in general were treated in almost every age by the people of Israel, who, on account of their sins against the Lord's prophets, were permitted to eat of the fruit of their own ways, and to be filled with their own devices (Prov. i. 31 ; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 16). But the prophecy attained its complete and final fulfilment, when, after a long period of expectation on the part of Israel, and of forbearance on the part of God, the Lord sent unto his people his only-begotten Son to receive of the fruit of the vineyard which he had planted on the very fruitful hill (Isa. v. i, 2 ; Luke xx. 9-15). He who had tended his people in former ages by his prophets, and preserved them by his watchful providence, came in the flesh to teach and instruct Israel in the things concerning the king- dom of God. The fulness of time arrived, and the house of Israel {Luke ii. 32) was called on to "repent and believe the gospel" (Mark i. 15), which was preached unto them by the lips of the Holy One of God. The truth of his Divine mission was proved by mighty works which none other man did (John xv. 24), by the deeds of power and acts of love which he performed in the cities and streets of Judaea, He taught as one that had authority, and not as the scribes (Matt. vii. 29). He expounded the true meaning of the Divine law, which had been so concealed by " the hedge " made up around it by "the men of old" (Matt. v. 21), with very probably the best intentions.^ But though he came unto his own people, who had been prepared for his advent by the predictions of so many prophets and holy men, and by the 1 Compare the saying in the Pirke Ahoth : "Moses received the I>aw from Sinai and delivered it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the pro- phets, and the prophets delivered it to the men of the Great Synagogue. They said three things, Be deliberate in judgment, and train up many disciples, and (nninS yp -ib'yi) make a hedge for the law." The meaning of the last sentence is, impose such additional restrictions as to make men k«ep at a safe distance from the forbidden ground. See the Rev. Charles Taylor's critical edition of the Sayings of the Jewish Fathas, cojnprising Pirqe Aboth and Pereq R. Meir, in Hebrew and English, zuith critical atid illustrative N'otes (Cambridge, 1877). 340 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. 13. spirit-stirring preaching of John the Baptist in the wilderness, "his own received him not " (John i. 11). The Pharisees could not endure that their traditions should be set at nought, the scribes that their false interpretations of the law should be made manifest to all men, the priests and rulers of the people that their selfishness, hypocrisy and irreligion should be so mercilessly exposed. Though the common people heard him gladly (Mark xii. 37), they listened too often to his preaching as children, mainly for amusement (Luke vii. 31, 32), because it embraced topics the discussion of which must in themselves be ever more or less subjects of interest to all. They had, however, little inclination for the most part to take up the cross and to be his disciples. The manner in which he was received by the Jews but too plainly ex- pressed their feeling : " We will not have this man to rule over us " (Luke xix. 14). They were glad enough to be benefited by his works of mercy, but they were unwilling to accept his doctrine. His appearance and conduct were opposed to their false notions respecting the Messiah and his kingdom, for his kingdom was not of this world (John xix. 36), and came not with the external accompaniments of worldly pomp and show (Luke xvii. 21), Consequently, save during a transient hour of fitful enthusiasm, he was not accepted as the Messiah sent from God. The Jews rejected him as their ruler and deliverer, as their forefathers had once rejected Moses (Acts vii. 35). They denied the Holy One and the Just (Acts iii. 14). They denied him as their King in the presence of Pontius Pilate (Acts iii. 13). Their rejection of Christ was a fact performed in essence long before the awful day of its public avowal. The rejection of our Lord by the Jews as their Messiah might well be considered as having substantially fulfilled the prediction of Zechariah, even if the thirty pieces of silver had not been actually paid by the chief priests and rulers as tKe price of his betrayal. Ch. xi. 13.] THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HIS REJECTION. 34I For, as in the prophecy the payment of those thh'ty pieces of silver to the prophet was designed only figuratively to indicate the ingratitude exhibited by the people towards Jahaveh, so the Jewish nation had plainly indicated their contempt for the leader and deliverer whom God had in his love sent to them, long before that day when in the bitterness of their hate they procured his death on the cross. The fulfilment, however, of the prophecy actually recorded by the evangelist was in itself most remarkable. The slight differences in the minor details do not in the least detract from its peculiar significance. The thirty pieces of silver paid to Judas by the chief priests and elders of the Jews were in reality the price at which those representatives of the Jewish nation valued the services of our blessed Lord. By fixing that as the price for his person they manifested how much they despised him and his work. No prophet, as in the prophetic picture, but the traitor Judas it was who received that despicable price. But Judas as one of the chosen twelve might well in this particular be regarded as the representa- tive of our Lord. The money paid to him was virtually paid to his Master as a compensation for his toil. It is most remarkable that Judas was ultimately driven by remorse for the crime he had committed to bring the thirty pieces of silver into the temple of God, and that he, when the chief priests listened coldly to his confession of guilt, should in very deed have dashed down the pieces of silver on the pave- ment of the house of the Lord. And it is even still more remarkable that those unfeeling priests did not venture to cast that money into the treasury, but deterred, notwith- standing their callousness, by the prohibition of the law in Deut. xxiii. 18, took counsel and bought with the paltry sum a potter's field, probably denuded of the clay which had once made it valuable. Thus it happened that the money literally passed into a potter's hand, one might 342 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. 13, 14. almost say, having been flung to him in the house of the Lord. All these facts certainly prove that foreknowledge is exhibited in the prophecy, and that the hand of an over- ruling Providence so directed the events that, though the prophecy had been essentially fulfilled when Christ was rejected by the Jewish people, a visible sign was given to all whom it concerned that the awful rejection of the Lord spoken of by Zechariah had become an accomplished fact when Jesus of Nazareth, having been betrayed into the hands of his enemies, suffered death upon the cross. It only remains to note in general that the quotation of the passage by the evangelist is a free quotation from the Hebrew, given, one might almost say, with a running com- mentary. The words in the Gospel (Matt, xxvii. 9), " they took the thirty pieces of silver," assume the place of " I took" in Zechariah, because the chief priests in this particular acted as Caiaphas before them (John xi. 49-52) in God's stead, and unwittingly fulfilled the Divine will. " The price of him that was valued " is (as Keil well expresses it) a free translation of the words in Zechariah, " a goodly price at which I was priced ;" and the clause that follows in the Gospel, viz., " whom they of the children of Israel did value," corresponds to the concluding words of the sentence in the prophet, " at which I was priced by them." Further the words in Matt, xxvii. 10, "and gave them for the potter's field," coincide with the words in Zechariah, " and I cast it to the potter in the house of the Lord," while the concluding words of the quotation in St. Matthew, " as the Lord appointed me," seem to refer to the original direction of the Lord concerning the money, namely, " cast it to the potter." The prophet Zechariah further describes the result of this contemptuous rejection of the Good Shepherd by his people. The staff of '•' beauty," or " favour," had long since been broken, and the Jewish nation* had experienced the Ch. xi. 14.] THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HIS REJECTION. 343 bitterness of no longer being led and tended thereby. The staff of " bands " was now broken asunder, and the " brother- hood " dissolved between Judah and Israel. The " brother- hood " between Israel and Judah had been originally broken by the schism which occurred in the days of Rehoboam. That brotherhood was never afterwards restored, up to the time of the Babylonian captivity. An alliance indeed sub- sisted for a short time between the two kingdoms in the reign of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, and afterwards during the reign of his son Jehoram ; but that friendship was but short- lived, and the alliance itself was condemned by the prophets. In fact, no real "brotherhood" could exist without agreement in matters o( religion. And there was no agreement in the latter particular, even during the last days of the king- dom of Israel, during which period so many of the modern critics have attempted to prove that this prophecy was written. Verse 14 cannot refer, as Rosenmiiller imagines, to the old schism under Rehoboam. Such an idea has been condemned by Maurer as unnatural, and it is quite sufficient to notice it in passing without further discussing the matter. The majority, perhaps, of modern critics, such as Maurer, Hitzig and Ewald, consider the prophecy d'istinctly to refer to the rupture which took place between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, when Pekah, the king of Israel, made an alliance with Rezin, king of Syria, and invaded the land of Judah. This view takes it for granted that the prophet con- sidered the kingdom of Israel previous to that rupture with Judah as standing in a covenant relation to God. But that kingdom never was regarded by the prophets as occupying such a position since the days of the great schism. Nor is there in the history of the breaking out of the war, to which reference is supposed to be made, the slightest hint given of any efforts having been previously made for a union, or brotherhood, between the two portions of the people, as 344 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. 14. Hitzig seems to suggest, or that, in consequence of the failure of such attempts, the estrangement between the kingdoms became more bitter than before. For it must not be forgotten that, from the time of the great schism in the days of Reho- boam up to the time of the Assyrian captivity, a chronic state of more or less decided hostility existed between the two kingdoms, during which long period the intervals of peace were short, and there was scarcely ever any cordial alliance between them, save that already noticed as having taken place in the days of Jehoshaphat and Jehoram. But the restitution of the real " brotherhood " between Ephraim and Judah formed one of the objects of hope looked forward to even by the prophets of the exile (Ezek. xxxvii. 15-28). Such hopes were not altogether unrealized. In the war of the sons of Zion with the sons of Greece, and during the events pointed out in the tenth chapter, the union of all the twelve tribes of Israel actually took place. The prophet here predicts the breaking up again of the unity of the people on account of a rejection by the nation of Jahaveh as their Lord and shepherd. Zechariah did not announce that the unity of the nation would be broken up in a manner similar to that in the days of Rehoboam, and that two hostile nations would be formed out of the one people. The disruption of national unity which took place in the days of Jeroboam may indeed be referred to as an illustration of that which would occur again in a more serious form. The schism of Jeroboam had considerably weakened the nation of the twelve tribes. The dissolution of the brotherhood here spoken of was to result in its ultimate ruin; for Israel, deprived of the good shepherd, was to fall into the power of the foolish shepherd, or shep- herds, depicted in the close of the prophecy. Some modern commentators, such as von Hofmann, Ebrard and Kliefoth, consider that the prophecy depicts the breaking up of the Jewish or IsFsielitish nation into two Ch. xi. 14.] THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HIS REJECTION. 345 parts, divided from one another by a great religious chasm, the one portion consisting of those who should preserve the true religion, the other of such as should follow paths of their own devising ; the one party corresponding to Judah, the other to Ephraim ; the former being partakers of the blessings, the latter of the curses. Kliefoth maintains that " Judah " signifies the Christian Church, which was essentially Jewish in its origin. He further considers that the part of the nation which rejected Christ is designated under the more general term of "Israel"; the very name indicating that those who would thus reject the Christ of God were following in the steps of the insurgents in the days of Rehoboam, who ex- claimed, "what portion have we in David .?" (i Kings xii. 16). The objection which appears fatal to all such expositions is, as Kohler and Keil have noticed, that no mention is made in this prophecy of the faithful who adhered to the good shep- herd. The prophecy is entirely confined to a narrative of the rejection of the shepherd and his care by the nation in general. A faithful remnant does not come under the consideration of the prophet. The breaking up of the " brotherhood," which was to be in existence at the time to which the prediction refers, was the final result of the determination of the shepherd no longer to feed the people as his flock. The breaking up of that " brotherhood " cannot, therefore, be considered to be the separation of an " Israel after the spirit " from an " Israel after the flesh." We agree, therefore, with Hengstenberg, Kohler, and Keil, in considering that the prophecy refers to the fearful bursting forth of wild party spirit among the Jewish nation, so vividly described by the Jewish historian Josephus, and also among later historians in the pages of Milman. The story of the dissolution of all the bands of " brotherhood " during the great war with the Romans, and especially during the awful siege of Jerusalem, needs not to be repeated here. Among the 34^ ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. 15-17. curiosities of interpretation we may rank such explanations as that of Cocceius, which makes Judah to represent the Chris- tians under Presbyterian government, and Israel to depict the Christians adhering to Episcopal rule ; or even that of Vitringa, according to which the great schism between the Eastern and Western Churches is supposed to be here predicted. The people having finally rejected the good shepherd were given over by Jahaveh to the tender mercies of a foolish or wicked shepherd. The translation "idol-shepherd" in verse 17, given by our A. V. and by Luther is erroneous ; and, conse- quently, all expositions founded upon such a rendering, which regard the false shepherd as setting himself up as an idol to be adored by his followers, are completely erroneous, whether the passage be considered to refer to some imaginary Antichrist of the future (Jerome and Dr. Pusey), or to the Pope of Rome as adored in the church of St. Peter by the cardinals after his election (Bishop Wordsworth). Though the adjective in the original of verse 17 (which literally signifies empty, vain) is used with reference to idols (Lev. xix. 4, xxvi. i), as being in themselves things utterly vain and foolish, the word occurs here as a substantive (as is proved by the use of the article), and the construction is almost identical with that in Job xiii. 4, where the words of our A. V. are " physicians of no value," literally, physicians of vanity, that is, vain physicians, useless comforters. That this is the meaning of the word is evident from the fact that it is used as a synonym for the expression in ver. 14, "foolish shepherd," while no indication is given in the prophecy that the false shepherd claims or obtains any worship whatever from the miserable flock de- vastated by his means. ' ^ The phrase in verse 17 is ^V?!>i7 ''^"'* The word '?vS is used as an adjec- tive to describe idols as vain and useless. So in Lev. xix. 4, and xxvi. i ; Ps. xcvi. 5, etc. It is often used in the prophets as an equivalent for idols, as Isa. ji. 20, xix. I, etc. Fiirst in his ]Vdrtcrb. consider^ idolto be the original meaning, Ch.xi.i5-i7-] THE EVIL SHEPHERD AND HIS DOOM. 34/ It is quite useless, as Maurer, Hitzig and others have pointed out, to inquire in what particulars the instruments of a foolish shepherd, which the prophet was bidden to take in order to represent that character, differed from those of a good shep- herd. The words simply indicate that the prophet having represented the one character should also personate the other. Nor is it necessary to suppose that what is here represented as done by the prophet was exhibited dramatically before the eyes of the people. It was a drama, or tragedy, set forth in words, not one pictured before the eyes of the people. There is no need, therefore, to imagine, with Hengstenberg, that the instruments of the foolish shepherd consisted of a strong stick mounted with iron with which the sheep were hurt and wounded, whereas the good shepherd was wont to keep the sheep in order with a thin staff and with gentle strokes. Such a picture is far from correct in its details, for even the staff of a good shepherd could not have been a thin stick. Nor need we "picture to ourselves a shepherd's bag full of holes, and containing nothing of any use to either shepherd or sheep " (Hengstenberg). The instruments of the false shepherd are and vai7t, worthless, the derived. The word is used in this passage as a noun, as is proved by the article which, though used with the genitive, qualifies the govern- ing noun. It also occurs as a noun in Job. xiii. 14, T'''?S "''N13"l, and the K'ri reads the word in Jer. xiv. 14, instead of b\7'^, which is found in the text, both alike giving the same sense " nothingness," or as our A.V. translates "a thing of nought " in reference to false visions and divinations. The phrase here means "the useless (or worthless) shepherd." It has been rendered " Hirt der Vernein- ung," shepherd of negation (compare Latin nihili, nequam), as referring to one who will embody in himself the opposite of the Divine, that is, an Infidel Anti- christ. This appears to us too modern an idea. The usage of the word is against this view. We do not agree with those who think that such an incarnation of evil is predicted anywhere in Scripture, much less here. The LXX. have in verse 15, ■n-oi/xT]v direipos, but in verse 17, they read the sentence in the plural, & ol iroL/xalvovrei CPl) to. fidraia, KaraXeXonroTes to, irph^ara, though the singular is in the rest of the passage. The Vulg. has " pastor stultus" in v. 15, but here " O pastor, et idolum (reading 7''T'X1) derelinquens." The Syr. and the Targ. render alike in both places, the former by "foolish shepherd," the latter Kp'BD XpJ1|l '^foolish ruler." On the form of ""^"1 see crit. comm. 348 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. 15-17. simply spoken of in order to fill up the picture, and to form a suitable contrast to the staves of the good shepherd which were of such peculiar significance. But inasmuch as it was never intended that the prophet should act the vision before the people, we need not inquire as to what outward change in his appearance the prophet might in such a case have assumed. Of more consequence is it to note that the foolishness which is stated to have been the characteristic mark of this evil shepherd is equivalent to sin. Folly and sin in the eyes of the sacred writers were almost identical terms (Ps. xiv. i, fif; Prov, i. 7, ix. 10, etc., compare also Job v. 3, where the word occurs which is found in verse 15). The bad shepherd, as Kohler notes, is depicted rather in the character of a foolish shepherd than of a wicked one, because, in acting as he did, he only brought down vengeance at last on his own head. God causes even the wrath of the false shepherd against the flock to praise him, and "restrains the remainders thereof," or " girds himself with it," makes himself to be glori- fied thereby (Ps. Ixxvi. 11, verse 10 in E. V.). God would raise up such a shepherd in the land in order to punish the nation of Israel for having rejected his love. Just as Assyria and Babylon were used as instruments to execute the Divine vengeance, and then punished for their own sin, so Israel was to be punished by the means of the evil shepherd, who in his turn was afterv/ards to fall beneath the vengeance of the Most High.^ It follows from what has been already said that the evil shepherd spoken of in the prophecy cannot be supposed to be * Inasmuch as the prophecy speaks of Israel's sin and Israel's punishment, the translation "I will raise up a shepherd in the land," adopted by Evvald, Umbreit, Hengstenberg, Kohler, etc., is more correct than to render the last words by "in the earth," as proposed by Neumann and Kliefoth. Of course both trans- lations are possible. But even if we adopt the former rendering, it need not necessarily follow that the power of the foolish shepherd is to be regarded as confined to the limits of the land of Israel, thoujjh the land of Israel is the only country spoken of in the prophecy. Ch.xi. 15-17-1 THE EVIL SHEPHERD AND HIS DOOM. 349 Menahem, as Hitzig imagines, or Hoshea, as Maurer sug- gests, or even Pekah, " the hard wild king who was then reigning " (Ewald). Not the slightest reason can be given why any of these kings should be depicted in the character here represented, except that those scholars who insist on the pre- exilian composition of the prophecy must needs propose some interpretation for this portion also. No such correspondence has been made out between the predictions of this chapter and the events of the pre-exilian era as would justify any conclusion to be drawn in favour of the composition of the prophecy in pre-exilian times. Hengsten- berg's opinion as to the foolish shepherd is much more defen- sible, namely, that by it is meant the whole body of evil rulers who ruled the Jewish nation after their rejection of Christ, and who were permitted to work out their own evil designs on that people, and so to bring about its destruction and their own ultimate ruin. Something, however, more definite seems designed by the picture. The term " shepherd " in this prophecy of Zechariah, except where the good shepherd is signified, is uniformly applied to the Gentile oppressors of Israel. Compare also Jer. vi. 3-5, and xxiii. 1-4. In the latter passage of Jeremiah a contrast is drawn between the heathen oppressors of Israel, the pastors or shepherds who destroyed and scattered the sheep, and the true shepherds who were to be set over the flock by Jahaveh himself The same contrast is found in this passage of Zechariah. The true shepherd, represented typi- cally by the prophet, is contrasted with the foohsh shepherd, or the Gentile oppressor of Israel. If the true shepherd was rejected by the flock, its members must needs fall under the dominion of the false shepherd. If he who had fed, and would still have fed them, was rejected ignominiously, he, whom in their blindness they said they preferred, would be permitted to exercise his authority to the full. If he who came in his 35(5 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch.xi. 15-17, Fathef's name was not received by his people, he who came in his Own name and in his worldly authority would be per- mitted to treat the people of Israel as his subjects (John v. 43). The Jews were allowed the choice of masters. They rejected him whose kingdom was not of this world (John xviii. 36) ; they accepted him who was the head and representative of the world-power. In other words, they rejected Christ the king of Israel ; they accepted Caesar the emperor of Rome. In the madness of their rage against Jesus of Nazareth they cried out "we have no king but Ceesar " (John xix. 15). They obtained their choice and found it bitterness in the latter end; for they rebelled against the king whom they had chosen, and the Romans came and took away both their place and • nation (John xi. 48). The evil shepherd is represented not merely as neglecting the flock over which he had rule, but as actually destroying the same. The power with which he was entrusted by Divine providence was to be used by him without mercy. The dominion of any empire is permitted only for the good of those governed. Kings and emperors who do not act up to that character by which the epic bard loves to describe them, " shepherds of the people," will ultimately be destroyed, and empires which do not seek the good of those ruled over must finally perish. The Roman shepherd is described as one who did not look after the perishing sheep of his Jewish flock. The poor animal which was driven away (the expression does not signify " the young one " ^ as in our A. V.) he would not 1 "1^3 n is not the young, the tender, as Hengstenberg thinks, referring it to the lambs. The lambs which feed beside their mothers do not generally go astray. It is better to regard the word as Gesenius as an abstract used as a concrete, a driving out, for that %ohich is driven out, the scattered. LXX. rightly t6 iaKopirur- fiivov, Vulg. dispersum, similarly the Syr. Hitzig proposes to altpr the punctuation and read "1^3 n i.q. 11'??!!!) the scattered, in which case the participle would be the only participle of the masculine gender in the verse. He tries to obviate this objection by noting that there are rams also in a flock. But the alteration is un- necessary. V Ch. xi. 15-17.] THE EVIL SHEPHERD AND HIS DOOM. 35I seek, that which was broken he would not heal ; even those sheep which were strong and able to stand on their own legs he would not take care of. He ate the flesh of the fat, that is, consumed the rich among the Jewish people by his rapacity; and not merely consumed their flesh, but even tore the hoofs of the sheep's feet in order to devour that which might be between them, in order that nothing whatever of the animal might be lost which could possibly be consumed.' The Jewish nation was wasted by oppression, and their riches destroyed by the grinding rapacity and greed of their cruel Roman masters. The description is given in language suitable to the character of an evil shepherd, under which the Roman empire is described. It is strikingly similar in meaning to that given of the fourth or Roman world-empire, in the book of Daniel, as a wild beast more dreadful, terrible and strong than those beasts that were before it, furnished with great iron teeth and brazen claws, devouring, breaking in pieces, and stamping even the residue of its prey under its feet (Dan. vii. 7, 19, 23). But as the wild beast in Daniel is represented as ultimately slain, its body destroyed, and given to the' burning flame (Dan. vii. 11), so Zechariah pronounces a curse upon the Roman shepherd for the tyrannical and cruel exercise of his power. Woe to the false shepherd who deserts the sheep ! May the sword of Jahaveh descend with power upon his right arm, the right arm of power which should have guarded and protected the flock ! May that sword strike the right eye of the shepherd which should have sought out pastures in which the flock might have fed, and thus have guarded the poor sheep from harm ! The arm of power should be dried up, the 1 So Kohler and others. Hitzig and Ewald think the meaning of the phrase to be that the shepherd would destroy the hoofs of the sheep by driving them over rough and hard roads. But the other vievr is preferable. 352 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Cli. xi. 17. mighty strength paralysed ! and the light of the right eye of that false and wicked shepherd of the people should be quenched in utter darkness ! ^ The last world-empire should perish as that of Babylon under the judgment of God ; its power and authority would pass away, the wisdom of its wise men would fail, and its strength be dried up under that sentence which ever rings out the death-knell of all human power and might, " I will overturn, overturn, overturn, till he come whose right it is, and I will give it to him " (Ezek. xxi. 27). ^ The latter threatening does not seem to correspond to the former ; but as Hengstenberg, Kohler and Keil have noted, the sword is only mentioned as an instrument of punishment, and the combination of different kinds of punishment is designed to depict more vividly the terrible nature of the ultimate doom. CHAPTER XL THE TRIALS AND VICTORY OF ISRAEL— THE GREAT MOURNING. A A CHAPTER XL The superscription of the chapter, 335, note — God's general government over man, 356 — Views of the early expositors, 357 — The Prophecy considered as a con- tinuation of the preceding, 357 — Objections to the typical interpretation, 358, 375 — Other theories, 35S — Traverses the same ground as that preceding, 359 — Opinion of modern critics, 359 — Pressel's view examined, 359, ff. — The bow of reeling, 361 — Differences of translations of verse 2, 361 — ^Judah not opposed to Jerusalem, 362, 364 — The stone of burden, 364, 370— General view of the passage, 364-5 — Different readings of verse 7, 366— Meaning of the passage, 367 — Deliverance to be granted first to Judah and then to Jerusalem, 367-8 — Reference to the Maccabees, 369 — Attacks upon Jerusalem injurious to the nations, 370 — The struggle of the Maccabees, 370-1 — The house of David at that period, 371 — The titular princes of the house of David, 372, note — The Breviarium of the pseudo-Philo, 372, note — Remarkable allusion of the prophet to the house of David, 372 — an indication of post-exilian authorship, 374 — The name of Judah and Israel, 374, 355, note — Hengstenberg's view of the prophecy, 375 — Explanation of Kliefoth, 376-7 — Objections to, 378 — Views of Maurer and Hitzig, 378 — v. Hofmann's attempt to refer it to the future, 379 — The pro- phecy fulfilled in days of Maccabees, 380 — Remarkable expression in verse 9, 380, ff. — Transition to the deliverance by Messiah, 381 — Translation of the tenth verse, 383 — The pierced one, 384 — Different readings of tenth verse, 3S3 — Rival explanations, 384 — The Sent identified with the Sender, 3S6 — The mourning for the Representative of Jahaveh, 386 — Objections to Ewald's view, 387 — Reference to our Lord's crucifixion, 387 — Not to the special piercing of his side, 388 — The national mourning, 388 — Teaching of the Synagogue about the two Messiahs, 389 — Jewish interpretation similar to that of Ewald, 390 — Messiah's sufferings vicarious, 391 — The mourning of Hadadrimmon, 391 — Views of Hitzig and Pressel, 392 — Hadar-Ramman, 393, note — Article of Count von Baudissin, 392 — The mourning for Josiah, 394, ff. — Difiiculties met, 395 — Peni- tential sorrow of Israel, 396 — The sorrow national and individual, 397 — Its fulfilment, 398, 403, ff. — The families mentioned, 398— Nathan and Shimei, 399 — Bishop Hervey's, view, 401 — View of Geiger, 402 — The mourning for Jesus of Nazareth, 403 — The fulfilment of the prophecy, 403, ff. — The prophecy to have a larger not a more literal fulfilment, 405. CHAPTER XI. THE TRIALS AND VICTORY OF ISRAEL — THE GREAT MOURNING. The similarity of the opening of the twelfth chapter to that of the ninth is very striking. It not only commences with a similar superscription, viz., "the oracle of the word of Jahaveh," ^ but with a like reference to the power of God. In the ninth chapter the eyes of men are spoken of as looking upwards to Jahaveh on account of his judgments, which should ^ Both chapters begin with nilT' "111 NtJ'O, but in chap. ix. i those words are followed by ^'IXn, in chap. xii. by bX"lk^''' bv. As KC^O does not necessarily sig- nify a prophecy of woe and disaster (see p. 202), it is better to translate the 'y^i-~)]}here "concerning Israel, "not "against Israel." The expi-ession that follows, n')n''"DX3 is in apposition, and is found as a superscription in Ps. ex. i ; 2 Sam. xxiii. I ; Num. xxiv. 3, 15. The mention of Israel in this title, coupled with the fact that that name does not occur in the prophecy which follows, has been considered by v. Ortenberg to be a proof that the superscription was added by a later hand. He compares the use of "Iti^X in the title lof Cant. i. i, which nowhere else in that book occurs in the uncontracted fonn and which has con- sequently been regarded as a proof that that superscription was added Ijy a later hand. In support of this view, v. Ortenberg observes that the important words which occur in such titles generally re-appear in the predictions which follow (comp. Isa. xxi. i, and 13, xxx. 6, xxii. i, 5 ; 2 Sam. i. 18, 22). The similar super- scription in Mai. i. I, v. Ortenberg also views as an addition by a later editor after the analogy of this passage. But the peculiar construction used in Malachi, 7S'lJi^''5 ?X, is against such a view, and moreover the name Israel occurs in Mai. i. 5, as also ^acoi in contrast with Esau in Mai. i. 2. Other critics, as Bleek {Studien u. Krii., p. 294) maintain that the mention of " Israel " in the superscrip- tion of this prophecy which speaks solely of Judah, is a proof that the prophecy itself was composed in the last decades before the destruction of Jerusalem, when Israel in the Holy Land was only represented by Judah. Our view is far more tenable, namely, that in post-exilian times " Jtidah " was the general name for all the members of the twelve tribes, so termed after the tribe best known, to which the greater part of the people belonged. The name "Israel" was sometimes used as the religious title of the nation. Hence the mention of Judah only in what fol- lows is to us a proof of the post-exilian authorship of the prophecy. 356 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. i. rivet the attention of all ; the twelfth chapter commences with an allusion to the almighty power of that God who hath spread forth the heavens, founded the earth, and formed the spirit of man in his midst. The ninth chapter, however, speaks of God's judgments against the nations that had oppressed his people, and of his mercy towards his own people. The twelfth chapter, on the other hand, speaks of the trials and judgments about to fall on the people and city of God, and then of the punishment to be meted out to those nations who sought to afflict and destroy Judah and Jerusalem. The superscription is the last which occurs in the book, and this may be regarded as an indication that the prophecies of this and the following chapter are to be viewed as forming one distinct prophecy plainly divided into two portions, namely, that ending with the sixth verse of chap, xiii., and that commencing with the seventh verse of that chapter and running on to the close of the book. The expressions made use of (in verse i) respecting the creative work of God, need not be limited to the work of creation as recorded in Genesis. They may refer to the con- tinual manifestation ' of Divine power in the upholding of all things, as Scripture considers the upholding of the world as a continuous creation (John v. 17).^ The statement that God forms the spirit of man within him is not to be considered as teaching any dogma of creationism as contrasted with traducianism, nor even as teaching that all gifts and affections of the mind are to be ascribed to God. Neither meaning is suited to the context." God's general government over man ^ Kohler's objection to the view of Hengstenberg (who regards the participles not as used as pasts, but in the sense of presents) is that the Scriptures always speak of creation as a completed act, though the continuance of it is represented as depending on the Divine will. Participles in Hebrew are, properly speaking, independent of time, and a series of participles sometimes occurs in which some refer to the past and others to the present. See Ps. civ. 2-4, referred to by Kohler. - It may be well to observe that the word used in the clause in relation to the spirit of man, signifies properly to form, to mou'Hk, as a potter. Ch. xii. I.] THE TRIALS AND VICTORY OF ISRAEL. 357 is that referred to whereby he turns the hearts of the children of men as it seems good to his glory (Prov. xxi. i ; Ps. xxxiii. 15). The prophet seems to have have had in his mind, Isaiah xlii. 5, the language of which is here reproduced. Compare also Amos iv. 13 ; Isaiah xl. 21-31 ; and in the New Test, John v. 17 ; Heb. i. 3. The older Christian expositors, as Jerome and Cyrill, and many Reformation divines, as Luther, Tremellius, Piscator, Marck, etc., have explained Israel in this and the following chapters to signify directly the Christian Church. Others, as L. Cappellus and Calmet, view the name Israel a& used in a double sense ; firstly, to indicate the literal Israel in post-exilian days, especially in the Maccabean times, and secondly, the Christian Church, of which Israel w^as the type. The prophecy, on the other hand, has been regarded as a continuation of those preceding it. According to this view, Zechariah takes up the thread of prophecy which he had dropped at the close of the last chapter, and speaks of the things which were to follow in chronological order. The events recorded in this chapter, according to this view, are those which happened immediately after the rejection of Christ by the Jewish people. In such a case a sort of typical interpretation must be adopted, and the Christian Church considered as the legitimate continuation of Israel, as Heng- stenberg expresses it. It will not be forgotten that our Lord chose twelve apostles, corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel, and promised them, as the reward of fidelity, that they should judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. xix. 28) ; a promise which is evidently not susceptible of a literal inter- pretation, but which is true in relation to the Church of Christ (comp. Rev. xxi. 12, vii, 4-8), which, as composed of Israelites and Gentiles, is represented as one olive tree (Rom. xi. 16-21), one flock (John x. 16), one people, one nation (i Pet. ii, 9, 10), 358 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. i. being the very commonwealth of Israel (Eph. ii. 12, 18-22), the Israel of God (Gal. vi. 16). To this interpretation it has been objected, that an Old Testament prophet could not possibly have understood Israel to have meant the Church, as Luther, Tremellius, Chr. B. Michaelis, have supposed. This objection is met by Heng- stenberg's view, that the Church is " the legitimate continu- ation of Israel." The prophet may not, indeed, have thus understood his own words. While he imagined that he was speaking about his own people, he may have been led by the Spirit to speak about the Israel of God. But though this method of exposition has certain strong points, there are peculiar difficulties connected with it. On such a view it is impossible to assign the same definite meaning to " Jerusalem," throughout the prophecy ; and it is almost im- possible to regard the names Judah, Jerusalem, and the house of David, as designations of the several portions or divisions of the Christian Church. Others take tm entirely different view of the prophecy, and regard it as a prediction of a campaign to be undertaken in the near or distant future against Jerusalem, after that city has been repeopled in consequence of the restoration of the Jewish nation and of the national conversion of that people. All such theories and explanations do considerable violence to the words of the prophet. They, moreover, introduce peculiar features into the events supposed to take place at the period of the end, which are at variance with other parts of Holy Scripture. The view which seems on the whole to be the most correct is that which regards the prophecy as partly traversing the ground already trodden in the previous predictions, and refer- ring to the events which took place in the period between the time of the prophet and the day of the Messiah. Points closely connected in time with the second advent are inter- Ch. xii, I.] THE TRIALS AND VICTORY OF ISRAEL. 359 mingled with others more properly connected with Christ's first coming. For there are events, which are indeed conse- quences of the first advent, which will not be accomplished until the period of the second. Such results are sometimes spoken of by the prophets as if they followed closely on the steps of the first. This is the view of the prophecy before us which will be found on examination most in harmony with the details of the special prediction, and most in accordance with the analogy of the other Old Test, predictions. Many recent scholars, who assign to the writer of this portion a date previous to the Babylonian exile, look upon the prophecy as a kind of political divination of the affairs of the kingdom of Judah, in which ardent hopes were expressed by the prophet, hopes destined however to be sadly dis- appointed, respecting the final result of the struggle of the Jewish kingdom with the Babylonian power. We must refer to our Introduction for a general discussion of such theories, and for the opinions propounded by eminent critics as to the authorship of the various portions of this prophecy. Many of their suggestions, however, as to points of translation and criticism must be discussed in the course of our general remarks on this portion. The view of Pressel, who considers the prophecy to refer to the events connected with the invasion of Sennacherib and his repulse from the walls of Jerusalem, may be here noticed. Pressel argues that the following points are in favour of his view: — namely, (i) the remarkable manner in which (in verse 7) Jahaveh is mentioned as being a shield to Jerusa- lem amid the troubles which are depicted ; (2) the marvellous way in which the angel of the Lord overthrew the Assyrian army, which he considers to be referred to in verse 4 ; (3) the fact that, by the march of the Assyrian army from Libnah to Jerusalem, the tents of Israel were at that time actually delivered, before Jerusalem itself was so wonderfully 360 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. i-8. rescued (verse 7) ; and (4), that the deliverance vouchsafed must have caused the princes of Judah in relation to the hostile border tribes of Palestine to be " as a pan of fire among wood and a torch among sheaves " (verse 6). Moreover (5) the result of that deliverance was the exaltation of Heze- kiah and his family to a similar position to that which David and his house held in former days. Many, however, of these resemblances disappear when more closely examined. The deliverance vouchsafed to the inhabitants of Judah prior to the deliverance of Jerusalem, in consequence of the army of Sennacherib breaking up from its encampment at Libnah in order to march against the capital city, can scarcely seriously be looked upon as an adequate fulfilment of verse 7. The reformation, which is spoken of at the close of the prophecy as the result of the wonderful deliverance vouchsafed by God, cannot possibly refer to the reformation effected by Hezekiah in Judah years before the invasion of the Assyrians. It must also be remembered that Hezekiah's successes over the hostile border nations preceded the Assyrian invasion, and no mention is made of those nations forming any part of the army of the Assyrians on that occasion. If we were even to assume that the remarkable passage in verse 10 refers to the death of some prophet slain by the people of Judah and Jerusalem on account of his fidelity to Jahaveh, the death of that martyr prophet ought to have taken place previously to the troubles related as falling on the nation. It cannot possibly refer to the death of a pre-exilian Zechariah the son of Berachiah, or Jeberechiah (Isa. viii. 2). Moreover, it would be strange for a prophet in the days of Hezekiah, when announcing a deliverance to be vouch- safed to that king and his people, to speak of the house of David, then foremost in the rank of religious reformation, ^s concerned in the martyrdom of one of the prophets of Jahaveh. Ch. xii. 2.] THE TRIALS AND VICTORY OF ISRAEL. 36 1 For these and other reasons the interpretation of Pressel must be rejected. We, therefore, proceed to examine in detail the prophecy before us. The signification of the first clause in the second verse is tolerably clear. " Behold I make Jerusalem a bowl of reeling to all nations round about." ^ The figure is one common to the prophets, and is used by the prophet Jeremiah in reference to Babylon (li. 7, xlix. 12, xxv. 15-28). It occurs also in Isaiah (li. 17, 22), as well as in the Psalms (Ixxv. 8, E.V. verse 9). In all these passages a cup is mentioned, while in the passage of Zechariah a boivl is spoken of. For we have no right, as Pressel does, to render the word in this passage, as equivalent to " a cup." The idea presented in Zechariah is that of a bowl, or basin, so large that all the nations could drink out of it either together (Schmieder), or one after the other in succession. The contents of this bowl, however enticing they might be in appearance and to the taste, were to have the efiect of intoxicating all those that drank of it, and of making them reel as drunken men. This signified that all the attacks which the nations would make upon Jerusalem would ultimately be hurtful to those that made them, and cause their giddiness and confusion. The second clause of the verse is beset with some diffi- culty. The rendering of our Authorised Version, " When they shall be in the siege both against Judah and Jerusalem," is decidedly incorrect. The marginal rendering, " and also against Judah (shall he be), which shall be in the siege against Jerusalem," is more defensible, though it is scarcely the ' The LXX., Vulg., Calvin, Hesselberg, and Schegg understand by PjD the threshold, which Schegg explains as that leading into the wine-^shop into which the drunkard is enticed to enter. He compares Obad. 16, and Isa. xxix. 2-10. But the rendering /^Ot 3-nd the O doubled as a compensation. But Friedr. Delitzsch {Chalddische Genesis, p. 269) has since shown that the appellation Ramanu or Jiammaiut \n&3.n?, ^^ exalted," and Schrader himself has lately adopted that view. The correct mode of writing the compound is probably |"lJO"|""nn, Hadar-Ram- moii or P"l""nn, Hadai'-Raviman. In many cases the utmost confusion prevails in MSS. and Versions in names in which T and "1 occur. The first part of the compound is that which stands second in the name Ben-hadar (as Benhadad should be written), after the Assyrian inscription of Salmanassar II., where Bin- idri or Bin-hidri occurs (Schrader, Keilinschriften, p. loi). Sayce prefers to read the ideogramm Rimmon-'hidri {Records of the Past, vol. iii. p. 99, vol. v. p. 34). The sense of the compound Hadar-Rammon seems to be GIot'wus is the Ex- alted one. The name was never given to Adonis. It is used as the name of a place, so termed from the God worshipped there, possibly before the land came into the possession of the Israelites, or so called after the overthrow of the kingdom of Israel, by some Syrian or Assyrian colonists who settled in the locality. See von Baudissin, Studien ziir Seniitischen Rcligionsgeschichte, Heft. i. Leipzig, 1876. ' The idea of Lightfoot is a very strange one. He mentions in his Chr. Temp. V. &' N. T., p. 47, in the folio edition of his works, that two mournings are here referred to ; the fii'st that around the Rock of Rimmon (Judg. xx. 45), on account of the reduction of the numbers of the tribe of Benjamin, and the second that for Josiah. But there is not the slightest ground given in the text in support of the former idea. 394 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. ii. heathen mother over a son, who was a bitter and ruthless enemy of the people of God. The mourning for Josiah, re- ferred to in 2 Chronicles (xxxv. 25), was of a very different character, and was in reality a national mourning. In that national lamentation Jeremiah took part, and for it he com- posed special dirges, which are unfortunately lost. The battle in which Josiah fell was a battle fought " in the valley of Megiddo " (2 Chron. xxxv. 22), the identical words used in the end of the clause, " as the mourning of Hadad-rimmon in the valley of Megiddo." Josiah was not only lamented by the nation when he died, but for many years after that fatal battle the custom of lamenting this pious king was kept as an ordinance in Israel (2 Chron. xxxv. 25). There is probably a- reference to this national mourning in Jer. xxii. 10. Hadad- rimmon, or Hadar-Ramman, which appears to be the correct form of the name (v. Baudissin) must be the name of some place not far from Megiddo. Jerome in his note on this pas- sage observes that "Adadrimmon is a city near Jezreel, which was formerly called by this name, and now is called Maximian- opolis, in the place of Mageddon, in which the pious king Josias was wounded by Pharaoh surnamed Necho." Baudissin notes that it is highly improbable that Jerome should, as Hitzig imagines, have taken the name Hadad-Rimmon for Maximian- opolis from this passage in Zechariah. The situation of the towns Megiddo and Maximianopolis seems now fairly ascer- tained. The former was probably on the site of the later Legio, the modern LedsJmn, and traces of the latter are said to be found in the modern village Rummaneh, little more than a couple of miles south of the other, in which name the old Hadar-Ramman may be preserved, though that is doubtful.i ' Lieut. Conder has informed me that Maximianopolis is placed by the Bordeaux Pilgrim ten Roman miles from Jezreel in the direction of Ca?sarea, and was iden- tified by Vandevelde with Rummaneh. See Gender's Tent Work in Palestine, vol, i. p. 129. ^ Ch. xii. II.] THE GREAT MOURNING. 395 A slight difficulty arises with respect to the notices of the death of Josiah in the books of Kings and Chronicles. In the fuller account given in the latter book Josiah is said to have been brought wounded from Megiddo to Jerusalem, where he died (2 Chron, xxxv. 22-24.) How then could the mourning over him have taken place at Hadad-rimmon ? In the shorter account in the book of Kings it is mentioned that the king was carried dead to Jerusalem. It is, however, quite possible to render the word translated " dead " (J1^) by "dying" (compare Gen. xxxv. 18), as Ewald, Bertheau, and V. Baudissin have suggested, although Thenius {Coiiivi. iiber die Konige) is opposed to that translation. The mourning may be considered as having commenced at Hadad-rimmon, where the king received his deadly wound, even though the great national mourning took place at Jerusalem, whither his body was brought from the fatal field. Moreover (as Bau- dissin observes), "the mourning of Hadad-rimmon" maybe explained as " the mourning over Hadad-rimmon," i.e., over the national calamity which took place there. ^ ^ It has been questioned whether the fatal battle in which Josiah lost his life actually took place at Megiddo. Josephus states that it occurred at the city of Mende {ko-to. 'MMr\v -kIAlv, Antiq. x. 5, § i). This Baudissin seems to regard as an error of writing (pJJD for |niO). Herodotus (Book ii. 159) speaks of the battle as having taken place at Magdolus, which would most naturally be taken to signify the city Migdol (?ilpP) on the confines of Egypt, well known to the classical writers, and not far from Pelusium (Jer. xliv. I, xlvi. 14 ; Ezek. xxix. 10, XXX. 6, compare Exod. xiv. 2 ; Num. xxxiii. 7). This would have been a most natural place for the battle to have occurred. Herodotus, however, was much more likely to make a mistake in such a matter than the writers of the books of the Kings and Chronicles, and both place the scene of the battle at Megiddo. Ewald [Gesch. Israels, vol. iii. 3 Aufl. p. 762) conjectured that el-Medshdel (PSnjD) is meant by Herodotus, which is south of Akko on the Nahr-el-Melik (the king's river), which designation he suspects was given to it after the fatal battle. As far as locality is concerned, this conjecture is not at all improbable, the place being not far from the valley of Megiddo. The objection to it, as noticed by Baudissin, is that there is no trace of the spot in ancient authorities. Pharaoh Necho according to Herodotus was wont to make much use of his fleet for the purpose of transporting the army in drder to save time and lengthened marches by land, and Thenius and v. Baudissin think it most probable that he did soon this 39^ ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. 11-14. The objection brought forward by Hitzig, that the solemn mourning for Josiah took place, not on the battle-field where that Jewish monarch fell mortally wounded, but at Jerusalem, is of no weight. For the death of Josiah was the event which led to the utter discomfiture of the Jewish army, and the signal victory of Pharaoh Necho. The loss of the king must have been bitterly bewailed by his soldiers on the field of battle, as well as afterwards lamented by the nation at large, when the dead body of their monarch was brought to Jerusalem. The mourning in Jerusalem was but the con- tinuation of that began on the fatal field of Megiddo. The sorrow of the children of Israel which is described as taking place in the day of their national repentance, is then most suitably compared to the greatest national sorrow that ever befell that nation, when its most pious and beloved mon- arch was slain by the Egyptian archers on the bloody field of Megiddo. But the penitential sorrow of Israel for the great martyr was to be grief not only affecting the nation as a whole, but all the families of the nation in their individual character. The prophet therefore compares it not only to the national mourning which took place for Josiah, but also to the sorrow experienced when a firstborn and only son, the single hope of his parents, is borne to the silent grave. The mourning was one in which the whole land should take a part. It is strikingly pictured as one which should not only be manifested in public, but be participated in by each family apart. Families are spoken of as mourning occasion. In this case he would have landed his troops north of the territory of Judah, and his shortest course in marching against the king of Assyria from the sea coast of Palestine would have been through the valley of Megiddo. Hence it would be quite natural for Josiah, who seems to have possessed some authority over at least a portion of the ancient territory of the kingdom of Israel (i Kings xiii. 2 ; 2 Kings xxiii. 19 ; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 6), to march across his own frontiers in order to attack the Egyptian army on its flank. Ch. xii. II-I4.] THE GREAT MOURNING. 397 apart from families, individuals as compelled, by the deep sorrow which should overwhelm them, to weep apart by themselves. The lamentation was to be greater than anv former lamentation. Husbands would mourn apart from their wives, and wives apart from their husbands. The sorrow, though national, was also to have all the charac- teristics of individual sorrow. It was to be national and private at the same time ; it was not to be a mere ceremonial lamentation, but a genuine sorrow of heart. Each individual was to experience the grief so keenly as to desire to hide himself from the eyes of others. The nation in general, and each member of it in particular, was to experience the full bitterness of penitential grief The outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost caused the first outburst of such a sorrow Many Jews were then partakers of that deep penitential grief, both in public and in private. The sin of having slain the Lord's Christ broke their hearts, although through Divine grace they were enabled to look by faith unto him whom they had pierced, as their fathers had looked unto the serpent of brass in the wilderness (Num. xxi. 9), and thus to mourn for him with a godly sorrow that worked repentance unto life (2 Cor. vii. 10). The tears of penitential sorrow for the sin which caused the death of the Redeemer have never from that day onward ceased to flow. Thousands and thousands of Jews wept for their sins then, and beheld by faith the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world (John i. 29). The great national mourning of that nation in its fullest sense will take place when the fulness of the Gentiles shall have come in and the children of Israel shall return to the Lord their God.' In that penitential sorrow the Gentiles have had their share. Made children of Abraham by faith in Christ Jesus, they, too, have in the long vista of ages been led in thousands and tens of thousands, nationally and individually, to mourn 398 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. 12-14. for sin, and to look to the Redeemer, in the sin of whose crucifixion they, too, have had their share. As Pressel has beautifully remarked in his meditations on the chapter, in a countless number of silent chambers, the sighs and prayers of individuals have ascended to heaven. Men and women of all stations and positions, of all families of the earth, have joined in this lamentation, princes and beggars, learned and un- learned, teachers and hearers. And " when he comes in the clouds of heaven, this lamentation will arise to heaven at once in all languages and tongues, until it is silenced before his throne of grace, and changed into that song of praise, * Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing,' Rev. v. 12." (Pressel.) The families of the greater portion of the inhabitants of the land are summed up in the expression, " all the families which are left, family by family, apart, with their wives apart." Four families are, however, mentioned by name, two of them well known, though with respect to the other two there is much difference of opinion. The two well-known families are those of the house of David and of the house of Levi.^ The others are the family of the house of Nathan, and " the family of the Shimeite," or " the family of the house of Shimei " Of the four, two, as we shall see, belonged to the royal house, and two were priestly families. The explanation given by Jerome, namely, that the family of David represents the royal tribe or Judah in general ; that of Nathan, the prophetic order ; that of Levi, the priests ; and that of Shimei, the teachers, " for the different orders of magistrates sprang from this tribe ;" points to the Jewish tradition respecting the tribe of Simeon alluded to in the ^ Hitzig observes that it is strange that Levi appears only as a family, but he notes also that the word is used in a more extended signification, and is employed as a synonym of £33^' (a tribe^ in Judg. xviiJ^ig, as also in Josh. vii. 17. Ch. xii. 12-14.] THE GREAT MOURNING. 399 Targum Jerushalmi on Gen. xlix. 7. That tradition is, how- ever, devoid of any historical basis, though it is mentioned by Tertullian {cont. Jitdccos, 10, and cont. Marcion, iii. 13). Nathan, is probably not to be regarded as the distin- guished prophet of that name, who flourished in the time of David, but rather as the name of one of David's sons^ (2 Sam. v. 14), who was an ancestor of our Lord (Luke iii. 31). The patronymic used by Zechariah, viz., "the Shimeite," cannot, as Hengstenberg and others have noted, mean the members of the tribe of Simeon, for which '^'the Simeon- ite" (Num. xxv. 14) would have been used. ^ The latter objection is fatal to this view, independently of others which might be urged. The family of Shimei probably means the descendants of Shimei, the grandson of Levi, mentioned in Exod. vi. 17 ; Num. iii. 17, 18, 21 (Hengsten- berg, Kohler, v. Ortenberg, Kliefoth), which family is named as one of the subordinate branches of the sacerdotal line. The house of Nathan seems also to represent a subordi- nate branch of the royal house (2 Sam. v. 14; Luke iii. 41), mentioned along with that branch from which the kings of Judah were descended. The special mention of these two minor subdivisions of the house of David and of the house of Levi respectively may be supposed (as Hengstenberg has suggested) to indicate that the mourning spoken of was to pervade every family, from the highest to the lowest, of which predicted fact, these two subordinate " houses " are only given as examples. The prophet names specially the royal and priestly families in order to intimate that in the > In connexion with the opinion that Nathan was the son of David, it is wortliy of note that Delitzsch has shown that the Synagogue have partly traced the genealogy of the Messiah to that branch of David's family. See Delitzsch's Talmudische Studien in the Luth. Zeitschrift, i860, p. 640, ff. 2 The patronymic from flUpt?' {Simeon) is ^JVpEJ^H Num. xxv. 14 ; Josh. xxi. 4 ; while that from ''yf?L*' {Shimei) is ''I'pti'n, Num. ii. 21, as in this passage of Zechariah. That ''i2r::i^r\ nnS*t:'0 is equivalent to TDE^n-ir'a C'O is plain from the similar constructions in Num. xxvi. 5, 6. 400 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROrilECIES. [Ch. xii. 12, 13. crime of the nation, in the murder of the great martyr, to which reference is made, those families should bear a part, and that they, therefore, should have a special share in the great penitential mourning. Neumann thinks that the Shimei whose family is here spoken of was Shimei the son of Gera, the Benjamite, who cursed David with a heavy curse in the day that David fled from Jerusalem before Absalom his rebellious son. At that time Shimei charged David before the people with being " a man of blood," whose sins were justly visited upon his own head (2 Sam. xix. 16, fif.). Hitzig has adopted a somewhat similar view, for he considers the Shimeites to represent the tribe of Benjamin, and the house of David to "represent the tribe of Judah. But this is improbable. Neu- mann supposes that the family of Shimei is mentioned as an example of God's pardoning grace, because Shimei, by cursing the Lord's Anointed, had exposed himself to the just sentence of death. The Shimeites, according to this view, represent the lost and abandoned sinners who by the power of the Spirit of God will at last be found among such as mourn penitentially for the pierced Redeemer. But this explanation does not suit the context, and the word can only be used as a simple patronymic. Lange has adopted the same view, and thinks that the prophet in speaking of " the Shimeites," and not of " the family of Shimei," has designedly withheld from them the more honourable title and appellation. This appears more than fanciful, and the criticism is doubt- ful (see note 2, p. 399). Kimchi considers that the families specified by name are mentioned prophetically as families which would become great and well known at the time when the prophecy would be fulfilled. This may also be dismissed from serious consideration. It may commend itself to some who yearn after so-called "literal interpretations," though they seldom reflect, that to render "^ch fulfilments possible, it Ch. xii. 13.] THE GREAT MOURNING. 4OI would be necessary that Divine revelations should be given of long and involved genealogies. Dathe and Hezel think that there is a reference in all the names to the family of the Messiah. They observe that the four names occur in the genealogy of our Lord in Luke iii., namely, Simei in verse 26, Levi in verse 29, Nathan and David in verse 3 r. But, as Kohler observes, the Simei of Luke iii. 26 could not have been alive in the days of Zechariah. Hence the similarity of names proves nothing. Lord A. Hervey, the present Bishop of Bath and Wells, in his work on the Genealogies of our Lord, though he considers the Levites to be referred to by " the family of Levi," yet maintains that both Shimei and Nathan are to be regarded as descendants of David. He thinks that Shimei was the brother of Zerubbabel (i Chron. iii. 19), who bore such an important part in the restoration from the exile. In I Chron. iii., however, no mention is made of any family of Shimei, the brother of Zerubbabel. That text, however, seems to be peculiarly corrupt ; for though seven sons of Zerubbabel are actually enumerated in verses 19, 20, the number of Zerubbabel's sons is stated in the close of verse 20 to be but five. The mention made of Hattush in verse 22 as the fifth or sixth in descent from Zerubbabel (or according to the LXX. the ninth or tenth) presents a serious difficulty ; for Hattush is mentioned in Ezra viii. 2 as a member of the house of David who returned from Babylon with Ezra. But it is quite impossible in that case that so many generations as are stated even in the Hebrew text could have intervened between Hattush and Zerubbabel. It is probable, therefore, that the persons whose names are given in verse 21 have no connexion at all with the genealogy of Zerubbabel. Bishop Hervey thinks it possible that those names have been inserted in some way in their wrong place, " The sons of Shemaiah " in verse 21 he regardsas a simple repetition from the end of D D 402 ZECUARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. 13. verse 20. He would further erase the words at the beginning of verse 22, " and the sons of Shechaniah, Shemaiah," which clause seems to be partly an accidental repetition of the words at the end of verse 21. Verse 22 would then com- mence with the clause "the sons of Shemaiah, Hattush, etc.," Shemaiah being in that case considered as identical with Shimei (the names being really the same in the Hebrew) ; and Shimei would then naturally be identified with the Shimei who in verse 19 is mentioned as the brother of Ze- rubbabel. In order to avoid the difficulty arising from the fact that the family of Shimei is mentioned in Zechariah after the family of Levi, and apart from the family of David, the •Bishop supposes that Shimei, the brother of Zerubbabel, may have remained in Babylon, though Hattush his son returned to the land of Judsea. The Bishop evidently feels that this difficulty is almost fatal to his entire theory, though he is un- willing wholly to abandon it. The explanation is ingenious, but it rests too much upon mere hypothesis to be regarded as probable. The separation of the names of Nathan and Shimei from one another in this verse was not thought by Rabbi Salomo ben Yizhak to be fatal to a similar theory propounded by that commentator, who maintains that the Shimei of Zech. xii. 13 was identical with Shammuah the son of David. He says, " Sacred Scripture first speaks in general of the family of the house of David, and afterwards specially enumerates each (family)." The authority of Geiger may also be adduced in support of the opinion that " the family of Shimei " is to be regarded as the family of Shimei the brother of Zerubbabel {Urschrift, p. 59, footnote). But it must not be forgotten that Geiger identifies Nathan in this place with the priest Jonathan, the father of Jaddua (Neh. xii. 11) and of Manasseh the Samaritan high priest. This, of course, would be impossible, uri^ss the composition of the Ch. xii. 12-14.] THE GREAT ^lOURNING. 403 prophecy were to be assigned to the times of the Maccabees, and there is little to support that view. As the house of Levi was mentioned by the prophet among those who should " mourn apart " the sin of rejecting the Messiah, it is interesting to call to mind the fact that a great number of the priests are expressly mentioned among those who mourned for the Redeemer in early days (Acts vi. 7). Members of the house of David also joined in that penitential mourning, which was awakened by the descent of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. If our Lord's brethren did not believe in him during the days of his humiliation, they were foremost among the disciples that afterwards worked in his cause. Cleopas, who mourned with a fellow disciple the decease of the Lord during that remarkable Sabbath day's journey to Emmaus (Luke xxiv. 18-21), was probably him- self a member of the house of David. Women, too, joined in large numbers the great company of penitents. They had wept for Jesus of Nazareth as he was borne along to his terrible death (Luke xxiii. 27) ; they wept bitterly at his cross (John xix. 25) and at his tomb (Mark xvi. 47 ; John xx. 1 1). But their sorrow was turned into blessed joy, and not a few of them rejoiced after their short days of sorrow, having re- ceived the end of their faith, even the salvation of their souls (I Pet. 1.9). There are those who consider that the prophecy of this chapter is to be regarded as one of those predictions which are as yet unfulfilled. They refuse to admit that the mourn- ing predicted is that great mourning for sin which has been exhibited by thousands and thousands of penitent Jews and Gentiles, and which, beginning at Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost, was afterwards more or less shared by all parts of the land of Palestine. A literal fulfilment of this prophecy in the future would, as has been already ob- served, require as its preliminary a special revelation with 404 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. 12-14. respect to the genealogies of the Jews, which have been long since lost beyond hope of recovery. To dream that such a revelation will be vouchsafed for the purpose of making known the families to which the Jews severally belong, and with the view of specially distinguishing the descendants of David and Nathan and Levi and Shimei, is an idea too monstrous to be entertained by the sober expositor. Few realize to themselves what would be required in order to obtain a literal accomplishment of the prophecy. Even the great Messianic prophecies were not fulfilled in such a "literal" manner as some look for these supposed prophecies of the future to be accomplished. Nothing less than a miracle would be required in order to trace the families of David and of Levi in all their various ramifications. The age of genealogies is gone for ever. The royal line of David has probably been extinct for ages. The last certain trace discovered of that family in ecclesiastical history is most in- teresting, but the story tends to show at the same time that the family of David was almost extinct.^ Its course was run when the promised Son of David was caught up to God and his throne (Rev. xii. 5). The heads of the Babylonian Jews who still remained in exile, and who afterwards established schools of learning in Babylon, — the race of chieftains who kept up a shadowy court, and were known in early times by the old title of " the Princes of the Captivity," — may possibly have had some slight right to be regarded as members of ' We refer to the well-known incident narrated by Neander in his Church History (vol. i. p. 131, English translation published by T. & T. Clark of Edin- burgh), and by Robertson {History of the Christian Church, vol. i. p. 6) on the authority of Hegesippus ap. Euseb. iii. 19, 20. The emperor Domitian having been informed that some descendants of the house of David were living in Judcea ordered them to be brought before him, fearing that they might be disposed to rebel against the Romans. They were the grandchildi-en of St. Jude, the " brother" of our Lord. They showed the emperor their hands, horny with manual labour, and having thus convinced him that they were p^r innocent countrymen, they were permitted to depart in peace to their homes. Ch.xii. 12-14.] THE GREAT MOURNING. 40S David's line. But even that shadowy title and claim has long since passed away. Its very memory has well nigh perished. The literal fulfilment of the prophecy took place when thousands, awakened to a sense of the sin they had com- mitted in crucifying the Lord of life and glory, bitterly bewailed their transgression. The penitential sorrow of those days was not confined to Jerusalem, but pervaded the whole land of Judaea. Many thousands of the Jews believed (Acts xxi. 20), a fact too much lost sight of in the contem- plation of the rejection of the Gospel by the majority of the Jewish people. If the Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit was an event of such importance as to be predicted by Joel, the mourning on account of our Lord's crucifixion was equally worthy to be noted by Zechariah. Both fulfilments were no doubt in some respects only inchoate ; both prophecies will yet have a grander, but not a more literal fulfilment. The fact is, that as the gift of the Spirit has not been with- held since its primal outpouring, so neither has the mourn- ing even of the Jewish people for their sin come to an end. There never has been a period in the history of the Church when some believing Jew has not mourned because of the sin of his people, nor a time when such a penitential mourner has not found comfort in Christ. Prophecy is wont to view the commencement and the end as closely connected, and both are often embraced in one grand picture. Were it not for St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, and his distinct pro- phecy respecting Israel's final recovery, it might be argued that there was no reason to look for anything further as regards Israel. The prophecy, however, of verse 9, when expounded in the light of the prediction of the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, leads us to expect a still further and more glorious day of blessing, when, in the language of Hosea, "the children of Israel shall return and 406 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. 14. seek Jahaveh their God and David their king, and shall fear Jahaveh and his goodness in the latter days " (Hos. iii. 5). "And so," in St. Paul's emphatic language, "all Israel shall be saved : as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob " (Rom. xi. 26). CHAPTER XII. THE REACTION AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS, AND ITS CONNEXION WITH THE GREAT TRANSGRESSION, CHAPTER XII. The connexion with the previous chapter, the open fountain, 409 — The cleansing water, 410 — Different views of the open fountain, 411 — Objections to Pressel's view, 412 — The expression "in that day," 412 — The allusion to the past na- tional sins, 413, 415 — Danger of idolatry not past in Zechariah's time, 413 — False prophets and superstitions in post-exilian days, 414, 416 — No reference to a future apostasy, 415 — The change of feeling in the Jewish nation as to prophets, 417 — Instances given by Zechariah to show this, 417 — The son slain by his parents, 418 — -Flaming zeal, 419 — Cessation of real prophecy, 419 — Reason why that gift was taken away, 420 — Reaction against sin leading to transgression, 421 — False prophets in secret, 421 — The hairy garment, 422 — ^Jewish asceticism, 423 — Zechariah's second instance, 424 — The defence of the false prophet, 424 — The reference to Amos, 424 — Meaning of the false prophet's defence, 425, 429 — Difference of translation of fifth verse, 425 — Reply of the accuser, 426 — The wounds of the false prophet, 426 — Explanation of Kimchi, 427 — Fresh wounds, 428 — Idolatrous woundings, 428, 430— Hengst en- berg's view of the passage, 429 — No reference to the wounds of our Lord, 430 — Pusey's statement of that view, 431 — Feeling of Jews against all claims to inspiration in our Lord's day, 432 — The fifth and sixth verses a suitable trans- sition to the seventh, 432 — Proposed transfer of that verse to chap. xi. 433 — The seventh verse commencing a new section, 433 — The sword of Jahaveh, 434 437 — Titles of honour given to the Stricken One, 434 — My shepherd, 435 — My fellow, 435 — Usage of latter term, 435 — Its significance, 436 — ^Jewish hatred against idolatry, 437 — The terrible sin, 437 — Kliefoth's view of passage, 438, note — The crucifixion of our Lord, 438 — The turning back of the hand of Jahaveh, 439 — The humble ones, 440 — The shepherd smitten because of the sin of the flock, 441 — The third part, 441 — Fulfilment of prophecy, 442 — Refer- ences in the New Testament to this prediction, 442 — The sheep scattered, 443 — The necessity of our Lord's death, 444 — The scattering of Israel, 445. CHAPTER XII. THE REACTION AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS, AND ITS CON- NEXION WITH THE GREAT TRANSGRESSION. The thirteenth chapter, so far at least as its earlier verses are concerned, is evidently a continuation of the great pro- phecy begun in the twelfth. That chapter closed with a description of the great mourning in the land of Israel on account of the crime of which the people of the covenant had been guilty in piercing him who was the representative of Jahaveh. The chapter now before us describes the gra- cious answer given by Jahaveh in reply to the earnest and contrite prayer of his people. The first proof of Jahaveh's gracious return to his people would be seen in his pouring out upon them the spirit of grace and supplication ; and, inasmuch as prayer aroused by the Spirit of God cannot long remain unanswered {Rom. viii. 26, 27)„ the spirit of supplication would be succeeded by the gift of pardon and acceptance. In the day when the nation of Israel should by Divine grace be led to see the nature and enormity of their trans- gression, " in that day," says the prophet, " a fountain will be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness." ^ By "the house of 1 The LXX. evidently read Dlp^ for "llpO rendering irds T(57ros, thereby confusing the meaning of the passage. The last words of the verse they trans- late eis TTjv fi€TaKlvT]crtv (al. exx. /xeToiK-rja-iv) Kai et's rbv x'^P^^M'^" (^^- exx. pavTifffiov). Possibly, as Schleusner suggests, the foi-mer rendering was derived from the original meaning of* the verb NOn, or they regarded the word as indicating the punishment inflicted for sin, which was deportation into exile. The latter opinion 410 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiii. i. • David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem," the members of the covenant people in general are to be understood. For the mourning of the land (xii. 12) is identified with the mourning to take place in Jerusalem (xii. 1 1), which is more fully termed the mourning of " the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem " (xii. 10). The national sin is represented under the metaphor of uncleanness of a special kind (r\1^). Com- pare Ezek. xxxvi. 17, and, though the word used there is different, Isa. Ixiv. 6. The Jewish nation is represented as defiled with sin and uncleanness, just, as in the picture given in the earlier visions of the prophet, Joshua the high priest was exhibited as clothed with filthy garments (chap. iii. 3, 4). The water whereby that filth is cleansed away corresponds to the gracious command of the Angel of Jahaveh in the earlier chapter, whereby the filthy garments were removed from the high priest of Israel. The illustration of water as cleansing and purifying from sin is found also in the prophet Ezekiel (chap, xxxvi. 25 ; compare also Ps. li. 9). The words of the original show that reference is here made to the water so constantly used by the priests and Levites for purification (Num. viii. 7), which was termed sm-water (ni^^rt V2), or water whereby purification from sin was obtained. There may also be a reference to that water with which the ashes of the red heifer were to be mixed, which was to be used as " water of uncleanness " (H'IVQ'?), or as "a sin-offering" (K^H JIJ^^H, Num. xix. 9, ff.). In Ezekiel the water is spoken of as sprinkled upon is favoured by the reading tieTolKtiaiv. Their translation of T\11 has been derived from the original signification of the root. The Arabic translator, possibly unable to attach any meaning to the passage as it appeared in the LXX. has omitted all the vv^ords following *in 0^3? {fo the house of David). Aquila renders /cat et's ttjj' ixeTaKivqaLv /cat et's rbv pavTKTjxbv. Either the word /xeraKlvricni has been imported from the LXX., as Montfaucon thinks, or the words, as Field is inclined to believe, ought to be transposed, in which case fieTaKLvrja-is is Aquila's translation of mj. ^ Ch. xiii. I.] THE REACTION AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS. 4II the individuals who are to be the subjects of grace. The figure here is much stronger ; a fountain of living water is opened in which the guilty can wash and be clean. In the " fountain opened " some have supposed that Zech- ariah refers to waters which are closed up, being designed only for the use of those persons to whom they belong. Thus the loved one in the Canticles (iv. 12) is compared to a spring thus secured, a fountain sealed, indicating that her loveliness was to be reserved for her beloved alone. Schultens, how- ever, is more correct in regarding the idea of the passage to be that the fountain is closed as long as it is hidden in the rock, but opened when it breaks forth. The same idea is presented in Isa. xli. 18, "I will open (nJlSJ^) rivers in high places and fountains in the midst of the valleys," and in Isa. XXXV. 6, " in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert." The Targum thinks that a reference is made to the Law — " the doctrine of the Law will be revealed as a fountain of waters." It sees in the passage an allusion also to the puri- ficatory water spoken of in Num. xix., for it adds : " And I will forgive their offences, as they are cleansed with the waters of sprinkling and the ashes of the heifer which is the sin-offering." The fountain for sin is, however, to be under- stood generally of the pardoning grace of Jahaveh (Kohler). That grace was manifested in former times to Israel by the sacrifices ordained of God, and a greater display of grace was to take place in Messianic days. The great manifestation of God's love in the days of the New Dispensation was no doubt the atoning sacrifice of the Cross of Calvary, where- by sin was removed and transgression forgiven. But the text can scarcely be regarded as a direct prediction of the effects of the death of Christ and of the pardon obtained thereby, as Hengstenberg and others seem to think. The believer in the New Testament will, however, consider that 412 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiii. i. fact as the true realization of the grace spoken of in this pas- sage in more general terms (John i. 29 ; i John i. y)} Pressel, who ascribes the prophecy contained in these chap- ters to a pre-exilian date, thinks that distinct allusions can be traced in the statements of the prophet to the events of his own day from whence Zechariah seeks to draw spiritual lessons. He considers the open fountain to refer to the Levitical arrangements for making atonement for sin. He observes that it is not the water itself which is spoken of, but the fountain whence it flowed. In this he thinks an allu- sion is made to the great works undertaken by Hezekiah for the purpose of providing Jerusalem and its inhabitants with water. Pressel is inclined to view the words of Isaiah (xii. 13) as referring also to those works of Hezekiah. There would be no objection to this view if it could be proved that the prophecy under consideration was composed in the time of Hezekiah. But an idea which has no basis except in the imagination of its author cannot be assumed as correct, and an argument drawn from it in favour of a pre-exilian date. The fallacy of arguing in a circle is certainly not con- fined to the conservative school of criticism. The expression "in that day," which occurs so frequently in the last three chapters of the prophet, does not signify that all the events spoken of as occurring " in that day " are to take place at the same time, or even within a short period of one another. The events stated to occur " in that day " are indeed conceived to belong to a special period, which may be either long or short according to the nature of the par- ticular case. The period referred to is always that which is 1 In Isa. xii. 3 and Iv. I the grace of Jahaveh is viewed under a different aspect from that in this chapter of Zechariah. No reference to sacram^tal grace or to the water of baptism is contained in the passage in Zechariah ; but as to whether the grace here spoken of may be considered as contained in baptism will altogether depend on the standpoint from which that ordinance is viewed as a channel of Divine grace. S Ch.xiii. 1,2.] THE REACTION AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS. 413 treated of in the special prophecy in which the phrase occurs, which space of time, viewed from the prophetic standpoint, is regarded as one day, or one definite period. It need not necessarily refer to a pre-Messianic or to a post-Messianic period, but may be a portion of time embracing parts of both. An examination of the places in which the phrase occurs, not only in Zechariah, but in the other prophets, is sufficient to prove this fact. Compare the frequent use of the phrase in Isa. ii. — iv. The exiles who returned from Babylon must often have been reminded by the prophets among them of those sins which had in the days of old brought down upon their fathers the heavy judgments of God. Of those national sins the most prevalent were idolatry on the one hand, and a disposition to give heed to false prophets on the other. It was, therefore, only natural, when Zechariah spoke of the banishment from the midst of the people of the evil practices which had formerly caused the nation's ruin, that he should specially mention those national sins (Heng- stenberg, Kliefoth, Reinke, etc). It is by no means necessary to suppose that those particular sins were common among the people in the days of the prophet. Still less are the words of the prophet to be regarded in the light of a prediction that previous to the arrival of the day of grace spoken of in this chapter such transgressions should once more prevail in Israel. The allusions made here to idolatry and false prophets have been, indeed, by many modern critics regarded as decisive proofs of the composition of this prophecy at a period pre- vious to the great exile (Ewald, Bleek, Pressel, etc.). Such "proofs" are, however, eminently unsatisfactory. But though it is not necessary to imagine that the prophet refers to the sins prevalent among the people of Israel in his own day, it is too much to assume that all danger of idolatry was past even at that period. Zechariah might very well have 414 ZECHARIAH AND HIS TROPHECIES. [Cli. xiii. 2. feared that false prophets would rise up among Israel then as in the days of old. For mention is made in the book of Nehemiah (chap. vi. 10, 12, 14) of false prophets, plying their evil trade after the Restoration, though not perhaps in the same manner as before the exile ; and mention is made of intermarriages taking place with the Canaanitish and other heathen people of the country, the offspring of which marriages were unable to speak the Jewish language (Ezra ix. 2, ff. ; Neh. xiii. 23). Such children could have been very imperfectly acquainted with the Jewish religion, and must have imbibed no small amount of the superstitions of their mothers. If it be a fact that heathen practices and super- stitions actually continued to be practised for ages among nations converted in early days to Christianity, ^ and that distinct traces of such are found even in the present day in various Christian lands, though in many cases deprived of their most objectionable features; if heathen practices still exist in many places even under the profession of Moham- medanism ; it is not surprising that idolatrous practices of various kinds should have been found among the Jews and Israelites at this period. The idolatry of the Chaldseans was, as Schegg has observed, in some respects peculiarly dangerous and enticing, and the superstitions of that people as regards soothsayers and magicians were easily incor- porated with the tenets even of a hostile religion. Chaldaean astrologers were well known throughout the Eastern world, and the vaticinations of those who laid claim to prophetic skill were often believed by the people. It is not at all un- likely that many such superstitions were to be found among the Jewish exiles of Zechariah's period. Some of the Jewish 1 See abundant proof of this fact in Chwolson's interesting volumes on Die Ssabier und dcr Ssabismus. On the fact of ancient idolatrous practices still existing in Palestine, see M. Clermont-Ganneau's article on the Arabs in Pales- tine, as published in the Quarterly Statevient^x October, 1875, of the Palestine Exploration Fund. Ch. xiii. 2.] THE REACTION AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS. 415 popular beliefs of a later age are firmly imbedded in the book of Tobit, and similar superstitions may have prevailed to a considerable extent in the days of Zechariah. Distinct allusion is made to such in chap. x. 2, which verse would by itself be satisfactory evidence on this head, were it not that those scholars whose views we are here opposing maintain that the prophecy contained in that chapter also was com- posed in the pre-exilian period. It is true that the sin of idolatry and the sin of giving heed to false prophets were not the transgressions for which the prophets Haggai (i. 5-10) and Zechariah (i. 2-6) specially reproved the people of their day. But it must not be for- gotten that Zechariah, in alluding to the transgressions of former days whereby their fathers had provoked the Divine displeasure, distinctly referred to those great national sins. The history of the Jews in the days of Zechariah is frag- mentary, and we have no full account of the moral and religious state of the Jewish people during that period. The instances already cited prove that the danger arising from idolatry and false prophets was even in that day not an imaginary one, while the statements of the prophet are by no means inconsistent with the idea that the sins alluded to were no longer prevalent in the land. There is no reason to suppose that the prophet was opposing idolatrous practices carried on in secret among the people (Burger, de Wette), though it is likely enough that such practices did actually exist. The fact is even implied in the charge brought against those who had intermarried with the people of the land as doing " according to their abominations " (Ezra ix. i). The view put forward by Kohler that Zechariah alludes to an apostasy of the Jewish people previous to their future national restoration is in our opinion a most forced in- terpretation to put upon the passage. If the prophet had meant to predict an apostasy, he would have announced it in 41 6 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiii. 2. distinct terms. The very notion of such a falling away again into idolatrous practices on the part of the Jewish •nation is, we conceive, opposed to the prophecy of Hosea (iii. 4, 5). Lange has well observed with regard to all such theories that it is very convenient for those who can find no historical proofs in favour of literal interpretations to seek to transfer their difficulties to an unknown future. We must, however, dissent from Lange's own view of the passage, namely, that the prophet refers specially to idols of the imagination, which Lange seeks to prove from the phrase " the names of the idols." That theologian observes, that " without doubt the ideals of holiness of the Pharisees, Sad- ducees and Essenes belonged to such idols," as well as the ' false ideas with regard to the Messiah and the universal empire of the Jewish nation. The taking away, or cutting off, of the names of the idols simply indicates the utter de- struction of idolatry among the people (Hosea ii. 17), the events of the past or the present being often used by the prophets as types of the future. Hence we do not deny that such sins as Lange has mentioned may well be included under the phraseology made use of, though the idea present to the prophet's own mind seems to have been the abolition of actual idolatry. The prophets, the cutting off of whom from the land is here spoken of, are no doubt " false prophets " (so the LXX., Syr. and Vulg.) ; for they are spoken of in close connexion with the idols, and with " the spirit of uncleanness," which Jahaveh would also take away. The epithet "false" is not made use of by Zechariah, because the real character of the persons is clearly indicated by the context (compare chap. X. 2). " The spirit of uncleanness," mentioned in contrast to "the spirit of grace" spoken of at the close of the preceding chapter (xii. 10), is that "evil spirit " which had so often and so fatally manifesteS* its power in the earlier Ch. xiii.2,3.] THE REACTION AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS. 417 days of the nation. The use of the article perhaps implies such a comparison. That evil spirit had been permitted by- God's judgment to deceive the godless Ahab, and to lure him to his ruin on the field of Ramoth Gilead (i Kings xxii. 21-23). Oui" Lord has described the departure of that " unclean spirit " ('n-vevfia aKcidaprov) from the Jewish nation in one of his parables (Luke xi. 24-26), and similar "unclean spirits " are spoken of in the book of the Revelation (xvi. 14) as gathering together even in nominally Christian days the armies of the earth " to the battle of that great day of God Almighty." ^ The prophet cites some examples in order to point out how complete would be the change which in these respects would come over the Jewish nation, as compared with its state in the days before the exile. Not even the natural love of parents to their children would prevent the full penalty of the Mosaic law from being executed in future days upon all such as should assume the 7-S/e of false prophets. By the Mosaic law parents were enjoined to deliver up their children to death if found guilty of the sin of enticing to idolatry. Such offenders were to be stoned, and the nearest relation, or friend, was commanded to cast the first stone at them (Deut. xiii. i-io). No instance has been put on record in the Sacred Writings in which these injunctions were actually carried into practice. But in the case adduced by Zechariah the parents are described in their burning zeal for the law as doing far more than that law required, and thereby themselves actually becoming transgressors. For the example given by the prophet is not that of a son found guilty of enticing his parents to commit the sin of idolatry ; the person is supposed to be guilty only of the crime of uttering a pre- ' Rabbi Salomo ben Yizhak or Raslii conceives that by " the unclean spirit " is meant the incHnation to sin which is common to man. But, as Rosenmiiller ob- serves, the mention made of this spirit along with " false prophets" proves tliat the spirit which incited those prophets is the one here signified. E E 41 8 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiii. 3. diction in the name of the Lord which is assumed to be false. In the case of such a crime having been actually committed, and the guilt of the offender clearly demonstrated by the failure of his prophecy, then, but not till then, the man con- victed of uttering a false prophecy in the name of Jahaveh was to die (Deut. xviii. 19-22). No hasty judgment was to be made in such a case, no jealous relations, or zealots for the law, were rashly to take away life. Time was to be granted in order that the character of the prophecy might be duly tested by the event ; but when the untruth was plainly detected, the false prophet who dared to blaspheme the great name of Jahaveh was to die. The instance given by Zechariah is marked by a total neglect of all the provisions laid down in the law on this very point. " And it shall happen, when a man (or, any one) shall still prophesy, then they shall say to him, (even) his father and his mother, they that bare him, Thou shalt not live, be- cause thou hast spoken lies in the name of Jahaveh. There- fore they shall pierce him through, his father and his mother, they that bare him, on account of his prophesying." The passage thus describes a zeal for truth, but a zeal "not according to knowledge " (Rom. x. 2). Instead of friends having any prepossession in favour of the idea that a relative of their own might be honoured as an instrument of com- municating a Divine revelation, such friends and relations would regard the very idea with abhorrence, as an assumption manifestly false. Their zeal for the 'law would lead them in such a case to go beyond its directions, and without any in- vestigation whatever into the claims preferred by a kinsman, animated with the spirit of hatred at that which they would regard as an attempt to deceive them in the highest and holiest matters, even parents would be ready to pierce their own son through with a spear if he should dare to pretend to be a prophet of Jahaveh. ^ Ch. xiii. 3-] THE REACTION AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS. 419 This view of the passage, as we shall see presently, will remove some of the peculiar difficulties by which the state- ments of the context are attended. This illustration of Zechariah sets forth most strikingly the complete revulsion as to prophetic claims which would take place in popular feeling among the Jewish nation. The evil spirit which had stirred up so many pretenders to prophetic claims in former times should be so far exorcised, that pretensions to super- natural inspiration, instead of being a mode of attaining to influence, would prove a sure path to ruin. Zeal for the law should be so flaming as to consume all natural affection towards the nearest relations in the case of any such pre- tence to inspiration being put forward by them. Though the passage speaks only of false prophets ceasing out of the land, that fact is conveyed in such terms as imply that no more divinely inspired prophets should in this period be raised up among the people. Ewald and Hitzig have noticed this point, though the latter has added the incorrect observation, that the words of the writer convey the con- viction on his part that prophets in general were false. Hitzig considers the writer as refusing, like Amos (vii. 14), to place himself in the class of prophets, but, like Jeremiah, Ezekiel and others, as determined to oppose them as a wicked caste. But the statement of Amos (see p. 424) was made in a very different sense, and Jeremiah, when he opposed false prophets, himself distinctly assumed the cha- racter and title of " a prophet" (see Jer. xxviii. 5, 10, 11, 12, 15, xxix. I, etc.). So far from Zechariah intending to make any such insinuation against the profession of prophets in general, he gives very clear and distinct marks in this pas- sage whereby a false claim to prophetic powers may be dis- tinguished from a true one. The cessation of prophecy, here incidentally alluded to, does not by any means imply that Israel should on account 420 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiii. 3 of their sins be left to grope in spiritual darkness, until the day of national conversion spoken of in chap. xii. 10, in which no man should any more teach his neighbour to know the Lord, but when all should know him from the least even to the greatest (Jen xxxi. 34 ; Isa. liv. 13). No intimation is given that the gift of prophecy should be taken away on account of sin and apostasy. The prophetic gift, instead of being represented as at an end in the great days of bless- ing spoken of by the prophets, is represented as one to be then granted in greater measure than before (Joel ii. 28, 29). The gift of prophecy was no longer bestowed, when the object for which it was originally given was achieved. The work of the Old Testament prophets was accomplished when Malachi finished his testimony. It was not, however, in consequence of the sin of Israel that no further prophet was sent to the Jewish nation, either to arouse them to a sense of their sin in the days of the decay of national religion which followed, or to reanimate and sustain their courage and zeal in the glorious outburst of religious enthusiasm and patriotic heroism which occurred in the Maccabean period. The Jews had the Law and the Prophets, and they did hear them. Those writings kept alive the light of truth even in the days of religious indifference, and awakened and stimulated the martyr spirit which characterised the Church of Israel in the gloomy days of the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes. The prophecy must not be regarded as arranged in strict chronological order, nor must the state of things in verses 2-6 be viewed as necessarily taking place after the national con- version of the Jewish people. Zechariah depicts the period which was to occur before the death of the great martyr referred to in verse 7, for whom the mourning previously spoken of (chap. xii. 10) was to take place. The sin of Israel, in the period spoken of by the prophet, would hinder the complete deliver^ice of the nation (chap. Ch.xiii.3,4-] THE REACTION AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS. 42 1 xii. 9), even as the sin of Israel had done in the days previous to the great captivity (2 Kings xiii. 18, 19). But a day of repentance should at last be granted to them in which they would mourn for the sins committed by them in killing the prophets in general, and more especially for the crime com- mitted in the murder of the great Prophet and Redeemer. The national sins which had in previous ages caused national disasters would indeed be banished from the land, even at the very period when the gracious efforts of the Lord on behalf of his people would be actually rendered ineffectual because of their sin (chap. xii. 9, xi.9). The unclean spirit of idolatry and false prophecy, which had once exercised such power, would be exorcised (chap. xiii. 2). The gift of true prophecy would cease, and the pretence to Divine inspiration would be too perilous to be indulged in by any except in secret. But the very reaction against the national sins of former days would ultimately hurry the nation into a more terrible crime (chap. xiii. 7), for which they would at last bitterly lament (chap. xii. 10), but for which sin they should be terribly visited (xiii. 8, 9). Days of gracious reconcili- ation would however follow, when God would extend his grace to Israel as a nation (chap. xiii. i), and Israel would become the people of the Lord in deed and in truth (chap, xiii. 9). The false prophets themselves are represented by Zechariah not as altogether ceasing to exist, but as plying their art in secret corners, and as confounded and ashamed when brought to the light of day. In former days they had been bold enough to assert their claims even in the very face of true prophets raised up by Jahaveh. Now popular feeling would run so strongly in an opposite direction, that persons would be ashamed of making any pretence to supernatural visions, and confounded when charged with having made such as- sumptions. Instead of being anxious to be considered as 422 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiii. 4. prophets, they would rather seek in every way to avoid the reputation of such a dangerous and unpopular profession. Hence the hairy mantle or cloak worn by some of the great prophets of Israel, and afterwards adopted by those who pre- tended falsely to Divine inspiration, would be entirely aban- doned. Whatever other means the false prophets might adopt in plying their profession in secret, the old devices would be discarded, as the very profession would be viewed by the people generally with contempt and hatred. The false pro- phets are not, indeed, represented by Zechariah, as some have imagined, as " repenting truly for their sins past." The reply of the prophet to his accuser in verse 6 is not represented as the language of confession, but as a lying defence set up in order to avoid detection. Such defences are, however, tribute paid to the power of truth ; for hypocrisy in religious pro- fession, however odious in itself, may well be regarded as homage paid to the power of " true and undefiled religion." In directing attention to the lying pretences and false excuses whereby the false prophets would seek to screen themselves, Zechariah does not predict a time when such sin and wicked- ness would altogether cease, but rather means to describe a time when false prophets and soothsayers would be driven by a popular revulsion of opinion to deny that they ever followed such contemptible practices. The " hairy garment " worn by the ancient prophets has been described by Kohler as a cloak made of untanned skins. Pressel regards it rather as a garment formed of camels' hair, such as that worn by John the Baptist. These garments were the favourite clothing of the prophets. Vitringa {Comm. in jfesaiam, cap. xx. 2) has maintained that such garments were worn to indicate a strict course of life and an abstinence from worldly pleasures. Hengstenberg, however, thinks that the " hairy garment " was worn by the prophets as a " sermo pro- pheticus realis," or an " outward symbol of the grief for the Ch. xiii. 4.] THE REACTION AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS. 423 sins of his nation and the consequent judgments of God." That it was used for this purpose on some occasions is prob- able. But, as Reinke remarks, the false prophets could not have used the hairy cloak for this purpose. For though in popu- lar estimation " the dress makes the man," such persons were remarkable for announcing things pleasing to the people, saying, " Peace, peace, when there was no peace " (Jer. viii. 1 1 ; Ezek. xiii. 10). Though the prophets were not "ascetics" in the mediaeval sense of the term, many of them having been married men, it appears that in some particulars, not per- haps easy to define, they did adopt a peculiarly strict course of life. Elijah seems to have been ascetical in his habits though he did not, like modern ascetics, abstain from the eating of flesh (i Kings xvii. 6) ; nor is there any indication of his having inculcated any notion of the virtue of celibacy, an idea which did not take any root among the Jews until in later times they imbibed such opinions from the Gentiles. John the Baptist, who assumed the old prophetic garb, was no doubt ascetic in his mode of life, and perhaps wore that dress in token either of mourning for the sins of his nation or as suited to his peculiar habits. The drpss as referred to in Zechariah seems to have been indicative of a claim to peculiar sanctity. The false prophet, whose examination and lying defence is narrated in verses 5 and 6, is not said by Zechariah to have worn such a garment, though Schegg con- siders that the prophet intended to represent him as wearing such a garb, and as maintaining that he wore it only as being one of the .common people. The text, however, does not lead us to any such conclusion. The prophet having shown the national opposition which would be exhibited to all such pretences in the period of which he treats, first by the instance of the young false pro- phet slain by his parents because of his pretence to Divine inspiration, and secondly by the general statement that false 424 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiii. 4, 5. prophets would seek in every way possible to avert all sus- picion from themselves of having anything to do with such practices, proceeds to give, in verses 5 and 6, a further in- stance which more fully illustrates the state of the times. The case is that of a man accused of having followed the profession of a prophet. The accused is represented as stoutly denying the charge, and as asserting that he never belonged to such a class. So far, he says, from his ever having professed to be an inspired teacher of the people, he asserts that he was himself but one of the humblest class of the people. He was no prophet, and unable to aspire to such a position, for he was but a mere tiller of the ground. As such he had been employed from his very youth, and, therefore, had never received the training necessary for one of the prophetic order. The words made use of by the accused person in his at- tempt to repel the charge are very similar to those employed by the prophet Amos on a remarkable occasion. Amos had, by Divine command, prophesied against the false sanctuaries of Israel, and against the monarch that ruled over that king- dom. His daring prophecy against Jeroboam 11., one of the ablest and most successful monarchs that sat upon the throne of the northern kingdom, excited the indignation of Amaziah, the high priest of the temple at Bethel, which was the chief sanctuary of the kingdom, and the chapel in which the king of Israel was wont to worship. Amaziah accordingly com- plained to the king, and commanded the prophet, if he had any intention of uttering any further prophecies of that kind, to leave the land of Israel and go to the land of Judah, where he could enjoy a quiet life, and make his livelihood by his profession, but on no account any more to dar.e to utter his predictions in Bethel. To this command of the high priest of Bethel, Amos calmly replied, " I was no prophet," or, " I am no prophet," "nor was I a prophet's sbn " — (that is, I was not Ch. xiii. 5] THE REACTION AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS. 425 trained up to be teacher in the schools of the prophets, or set apart for such a profession (comp. i Sam. xix. 24, and the fre- quent mention made of such pupils, who were termed " sons of the prophets," in 2 Kings) — " but I was a herdman and a cultivator of sycamore figs, and Jahaveh took me from following after the sheep, and Jahaveh said to me, Go, pro- phesy to my people Israel" (Amos vii. 14, 15). That is, Amos did not mean to deny that he was a prophet of the Lord, but, on the contrary, he asserted that, though he had not been trained for such a position, he was called thereto by direct inspiration, and was determined to speak that which the Lord put in his mouth, notwithstanding the threats of the priest and the power of the king. The passage in Amos casts some light upon that in Zechariah. It shows that the accused person, in asserting that he was a tiller of the soil, was in reality taking the most effective means he could to repel the charge of his accuser, and to remove from himself all suspicion of being one who professed to be a divinely inspired and a divinely appointed teacher of the people. Such a person was not likely to be found among the lowest of the people. To indicate still further the unlikelihood or impossibility of such a charge, the false prophet adds, " for a man bought me (or used me as a slave) from my youth." From my very youth, I was pur- chased as a slave for the purpose of being employed in agri- cultural work or among cattle. If a herdman or a plough- man was an unlikely person to be a prophet, how much more unlikely was it that a slave should be so. Amos was, in- deed, a remarkable instance of a herdman being a prophet, but no instance had occurred of a slave being one. It is a matter of secondary importance, as regards the general meaning of the passage, whether we translate the verb in the last clause " sold," or " purchased," or " used me as a slave." Kimchi renders, " a man, one of the common 426 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiii. 5, 6. people, taught me to keep cattle from my youth," which can scarcely be regarded as a possible translation. Dr. Pusey seems to follow Kimchi's view, as he translates, " for a man hath taught me from my youth," and explains it, " there was no room for his having been a false prophet, since he had from his youth one simple unlettered occupation." Dr. Pusey's objection to the translation "bought," or "sold," namely, that it w^ould have been contrary to the Levitical law for a Hebrew to have been held so long a slave, is far indeed from " decisive " of the question, as the Levitical law was in many points not always attended to, especially in such enactments (see Neh. v. 1-13, and comp. Jer. xxxiv. 8-22), and it is very conceivable that amid the disorders of the day such an excuse might appear valid. Hitzig's idea, that the words are to be considered as a confession of truth, and that the false prophet admits he was a runaway slave who had taken up the vocation of a prophet to get his bread without toil, needs only to be mentioned. ^ The accuser of the false prophet is, however, described as not so easily put off the right track by the plausible defence set up by the accused. Returning to the charge, the assail- ant asks the false prophet, if his statement were true, " what ' r\^p is a very common Hebrew verb, and is used in the signification of /o found, to create, to acquire, to buy. The hiphil occurs only in this passage. Dr. Pusey's translation is possible, but it would scarcely bear the explanation he puts upon it. The hiphil is most naturally explained as a denominative from nJpD, a possession, obtained me as a possession, that is, procured me as a slave to serve him. The hiphil is sometimes found with the same signification as the kal, e.g. nnjn, which is identical in meaning with nPiJ. Comp. Ewald, § 122, c. But, as Kohler observes, the hiphil may have its usual causative force in this verb, in the sense of completing the purchase. The ancient versions are mostly wide of the mark. The Targ. has n.-Wjip ''J.^^ipS StJ'jX ni<|, "for a man made me a pos- sessor (of land?) from my youth." The LXX. have 6Vt ^vOpuyiros eyivv-qai /xe iK veoT-qros /jlov, which Schleusner explains as "begat me as such," i.e., as a husbandman. This is, however, questionable. Aquila ^ra^^ fie, Symm. ifi^ptcre /lie, Theod. Idet^i fj,e. The Syr., connecting the verb with NJp, render, "and a man stirred up my zeal from my youth." The ^ulg. strangely "quoniam Adam exemplum meum ab adolescentia mea." Ch. xiii. 6.] THE REACTION AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS. 427 are those wounds between thine hands?" The wounds be- tween the hands may possibly mean wounds on the palms of the hands, or on the arms,^ or (as is far more probable) wounds on the breast, between the hands. Compare the use of the cognate expressions " between the arms " in 2 Kings ix. 24, and "between the eyes" in Deut. xi. 18, vi. 8. The phrase certainly cannot mean, as Rashi seeks to explain it, "between thy shoulders," where persons are wont to be scourged. Hitzig thinks that these words refer to the first case adduced in verse 3, and maintains that the false prophet of this verse is the same who is spoken of as pierced or run through by his parents, but who was not actually slain. Hitzig refers to Jer. xxxvii, 10, where the verb is used in the signification of wounding, but not mortally. The passage in Jeremiah is translated in our Authorised Version, "for though ye had smitten the whole army of the Chaldaeans that fight against you, and there remained but zvoimded men (men pierced through), yet should they rise up every man in his tent, and burn this city with fire." The false prophet is sup- posed by Hitzig to be seeking to excite the s}/mpathy of his accuser by informing him that the wounds he had noticed were indeed received at the hands of those who ought to have loved him. But such an interpretation does violence to the language, and renders the passage extremely pointless. Kimchi explains the answer of the false prophet to mean, " these are the Avounds with which I was wounded in the house of my friends, in the Beth Hammidrash (house of study) my friends beat me on account of my writing, when we used to write or were learning," in order to make me give up study and attend to my pastoral or agricultural ' In defence of this translation Rosenmiiller has cited the expression mUfTin p3 in Prov. xxvi. 13, which means "in the midst of the streets," as expressed in Prov. xxii. 13, nnm linn. 428 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiii. 6. employment Rosenmiiller explains it as a confession of his having been punished in his parents' house for false prophecies, which opinion is not very different from that of Hitzig. The word here used for " wounds " denotes fresJi wounds, and not old scars, still less the marks of old castigations. The fresh wounds, in whatever part of the body they may have been noticed, whether on the hands, arms, or breast, are evidently referred to by the accuser as affording proof of the truth of his accusation. The wounds, there- fore, must have been regarded by the accuser as having been inflicted on his person by the prophet himself, in order to arouse his prophetic frenzy, or in connection with some idolatrous rites. It must not be forgotten that such rites were sometimes observed even where Jahaveh was acknowledged to be the highest object of adoration. In the idolatrous court of Ahab there were hundreds of false prophets who were wont to prophesy in the name of Jahaveh (i Kings xxii. 5, 6, 7, 1 1, 12), and yet at the same court priests and prophets of Baal cut themselves with knives and lancets until the blood gushed out upon them (i Kings xviii. 28) in order to procure answers from their god. That such practices were common among the Israelites in the days of apostasy is plain from the passage referred to, as well as from the prohi- bition of similar doings in Deut. xiv. i, in cases of mourn- ing for the dead, which were employed in later times by the Israelites (Jer. xvi. 6, xli. 5). Similar usages were found among the Philistines and Moabites (Jer. xlvii. 5, xlviii 37). Hitzig and others are quite right in asserting that the accused man cannot have referred to " wounds " which were self-in- flicted, inasmuch as the verb " I was wounded " is a pure passive, not a reflexive. This objection is fatal to the views of those who regard the words as a confession of some sort on the part of the false prophet. But though the accused Ch. xiii. 6.] THE REACTION AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS. 429 sought to account for his wounds by assigning an untrue reason for their existence, the accuser regarded those wounds as self-inflicted. We cannot, therefore, with Hengstenberg, regard the statement as signifying that the prophet acknow- ledged with the deepest shame his former folly, and that he speaks of himself either as having been wounded during some idolatrous rites in which the worshippers actually inflicted wounds on one another, or because, though he himself was the instrument, the real authors of the wounds were "his lovers," or the idols whom he worshipped. It is no doubt true, as Hengstenberg has observed, that the particular form of the verb which occurs here C^IIJ^Q) is used only of impure love, and specially of idols. Still the objection of Hitzig is well founded, that, though a people might indeed call their gods by such a term (Hosea ii. 7, 10, 12 ; Ezek. xvi. 33, 36), a single person would scarcely use such a phrase. Though it be true that the special conjugation of this verb (piel) is used in all other cases of dishonourable love, there is nothing in the form of the verb to render that meaning necessary, intensity of love being all that is expressed thereby, and the expression might, as far as the form is concerned, be used with reference to parents, or any friends, whether good or bad. The simple meaning of the passage seems to be, that the false prophet, when pressed to explain how, if his statement was correct, he could explain the wounds in his hands or on his breast, at once, with a ready, if a lying excuse, replies, " I have been wounded in the house of my friends." It may be possible that he meant simply to suggest that the fresh wounds which were so suspicious had been accidentally in- flicted when with his friends, or he may have suggested that these wounds were received by him on the occasion of some carousal with boon companions. The words are too indefinite to allow us to decide what sort of friends are re- ferred to. It is clear, however, that the man denies com- 430 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiii. 6. pletely that his wounds had anything whatever to do with any rehgious rite, and equally clear that no reference is made to the parents spoken of in the eighth verse. It is unnecessary to do more than allude to the numerous passages in the classical writers and in the Fathers of the Church, as well as in the works of later travellers, in which mention is made of wounds inflicted by worshippers on them- selves in connexion with idolatrous rites, and more especially in connexion with prophesyings of various sorts. The Latin poet Tibullus speaks of such in a well known passage, — Ipsa bipenne suos cxdit violenta lacertos Sanguineque effuso spargit inulta deam, Statque latus prasfixa veru, stat saucia pectus, Et canit eventus, quos dea magna monet. I. Eleg. 6, 47-50. Similar self-lacerations are spoken of in i Kings xviii. 28 in close connexion with the priests of Baal when they acted as prophets (^hi^l^Jl^). Such voluntary torture was not had recourse to at all times, but was regarded as a mark of more than ordinary devotion, and was used only on extraordinary occasions. Dr. Pusey's remark that " the idolatrous incisions have a technical name" (J1*niil) is no objection whatever to the opinion that the wounds spoken of were considered by the accuser to be of this kind. No doubt they were fresh wounds, not fully healed, wounds caused by the " cuttings " used by false prophets to arouse prophetic enthusiasm. The notion that a reference is made to the wounds in- flicted on our Lord on the cross is quite at variance with the entire context. Even modern Roman Catholic scholars, such as Schcgg and Reinke, have abandoned -this view as untenable. It has, however, been recently adopted by Dr. Pusey. He arbitrarily separates verse 5 from verse 6, and supposes the latter verse to refer to me Pierced One, of whom Ch. xiii. 6.] THE REACTION AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS. 43 1 the seventh verse treats. But who that desires to explain the passage according to its context and strict grammatical sense can give in his adhesion to the following .'' " The most literal interpretation of the wounds in the hands harmonizes," says Dr. Pusey, "with the piercing before, and the smiting of the Good Shepherd which follows, of whom David, too, pro- phesied they pierced my hands and my feet (Ps. xxii. 16). What are these wounds of thy hands } . . . And He shall say : With these I zvas wounded in the house of those who loved Me. O great sacrilege, sacrilegious homicide, that such wounds were inflicted in the house of those who loved. He will not say, ' with these I was wounded by those who loved Me,' but *in the house of those who loved Me!' For they who inflicted them loved Him not. But they were the house of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and David, and the rest like them, who loved Me, and expected Me, Who was promised to them." Dr. Pusey makes no effort to point out any connexion between the former and the latter part of the prophecy, on the assumption of the truth of this exegesis. In the instances adduced Zechariah points out that one striking characteristic of the future days should be a popular mistrust and hatred of any claims to prophetic inspiration. There is much more described than a sound reaction against the pretences of false prophets. The age is represented as impatient of any such supernatural claims. This opposition to false prophets and idolatry was to be the natural result of the more general knowledge of the ancient prophetic writings on the one hand, and of the cessation of Divine prophecy on the other. It would lead the people to exhibit an antipathy against the peculiar sins into which their forefathers so often fell, but it would render them liable to be led away into the excesses of a blind bigotry. Reaction from sin in one direc- tion is often wont to predispose to transgression in another. Opposition on the part of the Jewish nation to all kinds of 432 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiii. 5, 6. false claims to Divine inspiration would render that people liable, at the impulse of a blind fanatic zeal, to cry out against the Messiah, who had come to redeem and to save, " Crucify him, crucify him!" In the first instance given by Zechariah, the parents of the young false prophet, indignant beyond all bounds that a claim to Divine inspiration should be made by one whom they knew so well, are described as hurrying him off at once (deserving though he may have been of his fate) to a too hasty death, without that calm and quiet examina- tion of his claims to such inspiration expressly provided for by the Law of Moses. Similar feelings actuated the minds of the people of Nazareth, who, when they had heard the wisdom and seen the mighty works which Jesus performed (Matt. xiii. 54), asked indignantly concerning the young car- penter whom they had known for years, probably as a young man of a silent and retiring disposition, but who then came forth in a very different character, " Is not this the carpenter's son .'' Is not his mother called Mary.^ and his brethren James and Joses, and Simon and Judas? and his sisters, are they not all with us ? Whence then hath this man all these things .-* And they were offended in him " (Matt. xiii. 55-57). The self-same feeling may have been that which led them on another occasion, as he was setting forth in the synagogue his claims to be regarded as a prophet like Elijah and Elisha, and his right to be permitted to act in accordance with their examples, to rise up in a body and to thrust him both out of the synagogue and out of the city, hurrying him along in their rage to the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong (Luke iv. 28, 29). The fifth and sixth verses, when viewed in this light, are no unsuitable transition to the remarkable prophecy that follows in verse 7. The exaggeration of truth was to lead to the sin against him who was the Truth, and the change in the national disposition, from a fat^ readiness to accept the Ch. xiii. 7.] THE REACTION AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS. 433 Utterance of any pretender to supernatural afflatus, to an utter * antipathy to all such claims, was ultimately to lead the Jewish nation to reject him who spake not his own words, but those of him who sent him, and who solemnly affirmed " I came down from heaven " (John vi. 42). Viewed superficially, verse 7 seems to be out of place in the position where it is found, and would appear more pro- perly regarded as the rightful conclusion of chap. xi. The sword was spoken of in chap. xi. (verse 17) as the instrument by which the evil shepherd, whose character is there por- trayed, was to be destroyed, while no shepherd is mentioned in the course of the present prophecy. We are not surprised that, looking to these points alone, Ewald and von Ortenberg should have been led to maintain that the verses following are out of their place, and that they ought to be transferred to the end of chap. xi. There a shepherd is depicted upon whom the sword of Jahaveh was to descend in vengeance ; here the sword of Jahaveh is called upon to do execution on a shepherd. The critical arguments by which this transfer is sought to be supported must be considered elsewhere. Even internal evidence is strongly in favour of the verses being retained in their present position. For the language of verses 8 and 9 is clearly connected with that in chap. xiv. 2 ; and Hitzig, as well as other commentators, has rightly rejected the arbitrary severance of this passage from its present connexion, which has no support whatever from MSS. or Versions. " Sword, awake against my shepherd, and against the man who is my fellow, 'tis the utterance of Jahaveh of hosts. Smite the shepherd, in order that the sheep may be scattered, and I will turn back my hand upon the humble ones." The verse does not begin a new prophecy, but commences a new section, which partly traverses the same field as that which precedes, being in some respects an enlargement of F F 434 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiii. 7. what has gone before. The sword is addressed as a person wakened up from slumber, and bidden to rouse himself to his special work. A similar personification of the sword of Jahaveh is found in Jer. xlvii. 6, 7. The fact that the sword of Jahaveh should be called forth from its scabbard in order to strike, has been adduced by Hitzig, Maurer, Ewald, von Ortenberg and others, as a proof that the person stricken must needs be considered as some one who had sinned against Jahaveh, and provoked him to anger. But Kohler, Keil and others, have justly observed that this conclusion by no means follows. " The servant of Jahaveh " is distinctly represented in Isa. liii. as bruised by Jahaveh, but not for his own sin (Isa. liii. 4, 5, 6, 8,9, 10, 12). Similarly the smiting of the shepherd is mentioned as a judgment which was indeed to descend on him personally, but was to be inflicted in order that the sheep might be scattered. The flock is that which in the previous prophecy (a prophecy intimately connected with the present one) was depicted as worthy of punishment, and as visited therewith. The smiting of the shepherd was a special judgment to descend on the flock. If the shepherd was to be removed by the stroke of Jahaveh's sword, it is because his death, like that of the servant of Jahaveh in Isa. liii., though innocent, was viewed as a stroke from the hand of God. The striking passage in the Psalms must be recalled to mind, " Arise, O Lord, disappoint him, cast him down : deliver my soul from the wicked, which is thy sword " (Ps. xvii. 13). God is often said to perform that by his own consent and will which is accomplished through the means of the ungodly (Acts ii. 23. See note on p. 439). The expressions used in verse 7 are rightly regarded as appellations of honour — "my shepherd," and " the man that is my fellow." Such expressions might possibly be used in solemn irony, as some modern scholars have supposed ; but a special reason must be shown for ijhe use of irony. We are Ch. xiii. 7-] THE REACTION AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS. 435 not at liberty, " as Schegg has truly observed, to explain, according to our fancy, honourable epithets as ironical. No such reasons can be here shown. When mention is made of an evil shepherd in chap, xi., his character is distinctly stated. The reverse is the case here. The judgment that is depicted in the verses following is a heavy judgment on the land and its people, who are represented as godless, and, therefore, God-forsaken (verse 9). The expression " my shepherd " is indeed used of the heathen Cyrus (Isa. xliv, 28), and, apart from any other qualifying statement, might refer to any king appointed by God. When used with respect to Cyrus, the name was a title of honour, and Cyrus was so called because he was to per- form the special work of gathering again the Lord's scattered flock. The wild godless Pekah, the idolatrous Manasseh, the God-defying Jehoiakim, or the false and foolish shepherd of chap, xi., cannot be so designated, even though that shepherd was raised up in judgment by Jahaveh. The removal of such shepherds could only be a blessing to the flock, while the removal of the shepherd is here represented as utterly dis- astrous. The sense in which the title is used is mote clearly defined by the words "the man who is my fellow." The word ren- dered " my fellow " ("'/T'D^) is used elsewhere only in Levi- ticus, though there is no proof whatever that it had become " entirely obsolete," and was " revived by Zechariah out of the Pentateuch," as Hengstenberg, Pusey and others have asserted. Its very use in Leviticus in laws which affected the ordinary relations of life, and which must have been fre- quently appealed to, was enough to keep the term alive in popular language, even though it does not occur in the extant literature of the Hebrews until the days of Zechariah. In the book of Leviticus it is used in the sense of a neighbour, a member of the same tribe, and as a synonym for " brother," 436 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiii. 7. when employed in reference to a fellow-member of the nation of Israel (Lev. xxv. 15). Its meaning in Leviticus must necessarily be the guide to its signification here. It was originally an abstract noun, but only used in a concrete meaning, and consequently it is safer to reject the rendering of Gesenius and Hitzig, " the man of my fellowship," though that is possible, and the second word is in the genitive.^ The word might, indeed, denote unity of essence with Jahaveh, a relation as close and intimate as that designated by the same term among men. Hence it may refer to that mysterious unity of being which existed between our Lord and the Father. The Christian believer may, with the teach- ings of the New Testament before him, naturally conceive that some such idea is conveyed. Such a sense, however, cannot be proven, and inasmuch as the prophet must have used the term in some sense which he himself comprehended, it is more likely that the title is to be understood to mean similarity of position. Thus understood it indicates that the person of whom the prophecy speaks would be one who should stand in the same relation to the sheep which he fed as Jahaveh himself As " the shepherd of Israel," he was to be " the fellow of Jahaveh " (Ps. xxiii. i ; Isa. xl. 1 1 ; Ps. Ixxx. 2, or verse i in E.V.). We pause here to consider the fulfilment of this prophecy. The popular hatred against idolatry and false prophets — the good features of which sentiment were so remarkably displayed in the noble struggle against that sin in the days of the great persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes — would ultimately lead the nation on to great transgression. That feeling would compel the false prophets, who in secret sought to ply their evil pursuits, to resort to all sorts o( untruths to ^ See crit. comm. It is used in eleven passages in Leviticus — v. 21 (E.V. vi. 2) twice in the same verse ; in xviii. 20, xix. 11. 15, 17, xxiv. 19, xxv. 14, twice in the verse, and in xxv. 15, 17. It always occurs with the suffixes. Ch. xiii. 7-] THE REACTION AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS. 437 conceal their actions. But with all the zeal of the people as to religion, the age which succeeded the mighty deliverance which the Lord granted in the era of the Maccabees was a time of religious declension. As it was said of the Redeemer that he could do no mighty work in a certain place because of the people's unbelief (Mark vi. 5, 6), so it is said in reference to the era affer the Maccabees that the Lord would seek to destroy all the nations that were coming up against Jeru- salem, but would be hindered because of his people's sin (chap. xii. 9 ; see p. 380). Some great sins were indeed put away, but others were indulged in. One unclean spirit departed, but seven unclean spirits soon took its place (Luke xi. 24-26). In place of superstition there sprang up irreligion. Bigotry took the place of righteous zeal. The sword of judgment, which in a theocracy might justly have been unsheathed against the impostor, was 'drawn to smite the true Prophet of God. The shepherd of Israel, mysteriously identified with Jahaveh in chap. xi. 13, and whose con- temptuous rejection is there depicted — that mysterious per- son of whose martyr-death obscure hints are dropped in chap. xii. 10, and whose death was viewed there as a piercing of Jahaveh himself, which was to be bitterly bewailed by the nation — that shepherd termed here by Jahaveh " my shepherd and the man that is my fellow " — was to be stricken down by the sword of Jahaveh. That sword was to be drawn, not indeed, as the fulfilment shows us, directly by Jahaveh him- self. Wicked men, Jahaveh's sword, as they are styled (Ps. xvii. 13), were to execute, not Jahaveh's wrath, but his determinate counsel (Acts ii. 23). The servant of Jahaveh was to be led as a lamb to the slaughter, and cut off from the land of the living (Isa. liii. 7, 8). In the bitterness of his soul he was to cry, and for a time apparently in vain, " Deliver my life from the sword, my only one from the power of the dog" (Ps. xxii. 21, or verse 20, E.V.). The death which he 438 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiii. 7. was to die was a death which was to be inflicted in the name of Jahaveh, in professed accordance with the law of Jahaveh. The sword of Jahaveh was drawn against him, as against a false prophet who had spoken falsely in the name of Jahaveh, and the weapon of the Law (John xix. 7) struck down the Son of God, the very image and representative of Jahaveh. Condemned as an impostor, in avowed accordance with the law of God, Jesus Christ suffered on the awful charge of im- piety against his Father ! His death was a judicial murder.^ This wonderful fulfilment fully explains the language used, which Zechariah no doubt understood to signify that on account of the sin of the people of the covenant, the man who was to be Jahaveh's fellow, and the shepherd of his flock, was to be taken away by a violent death. The sin of the nation, which led the good shepherd to demand his hire at the hands of the wretched flock, and led them to add insult to their neglect of his guidance, by offering him a con- temptible price, was permitted to work out its own punish- ment by finally culminating in the commission of the great ^ Kliefoth maintains that the smiting of the shepherd is not to be understood of the death of Christ, but as a prediction of the great apostasy which is, according to him, yet to come. By that apostasy, he considers, Christ will be cut off, so as to be no longer a power on the earth. We cannot here discuss his interpretation of the various texts to which he refers, which either speak of such an apostasy, or are supposed by him to do so. His mistaken view that the ex- pression )^"lXn 73, "the whole land," throughout this book is to be understood of "the whole world," has led him into strange notions, not in accordance, in our opinion, with the analogy of Scripture. He has a great difficulty to overcome in the fact that his exposition is directly contrary to the natural sense of our Lord's words in Matt. xxvi. 31, in which our Lord most plainly interprets this prophecy of his death on the cross. Kliefoth's attempt to get over this difficulty is most unsatisfactory. See crit. comm. His argument that Zech. xiv. must refer to the future, because it speaks of a gathering of " all nations" against Jerusalem, will be discussed in our remarks on that chapter. No mention is made in that chapter of the cessation of day or night, or of an end being put to the constant change of seasons, as summer and winter, which Kliefoth imagines to be predicted in chap. xiv. 6-8. As his argiunents do not rest so much on the textual criticism of Zech- ariah as on his views of other prophecies of Scrinfure, they may be the more ex- cusably passed over by us as beyond the main purpose of our present work. Ch. xiii. 7.J THE REACTION AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS. 439 national crime of crucifying our Lord. And, inasmuch as that crime was to be visited severely on the guilty nation, the death of Messiah, which was to be the prelude to national disaster, is represented as effected by the sword of Jahaveh. The flock which is referred to as scattered in verse 7 is most naturally explained to signify the sheep spoken of before in chap. xi. We cannot, therefore, with von Hofmann (in his Schriftbeweis, ii. § 2, 565) and Ebrard, regard it to signify mankind in general and Israel in particular. Nor can we think, with Kliefoth, that the Christian Church as existing at the time of the end is that referred to, composed of believers and unbelievers, out of whose midst he imagines the apostasy of the latter days is yet to take place. Nor can we even regard it as signifying the early Christian Church, which view shall be presently noticed. It rather denotes, as Hengsten- berg, von Hofmann himself in his earlier work, and the critics of the modern school, consider, though on very dif- ferent grounds, Israel in general, the people of the covenant. This is the flock of which mention is made in chap, xi., and there are no sufficient reasons to suppose that a different flock is referred to here. The expression which follows is one concerning which there is some difference of opinion, first as to the meaning of the phrase rendered in our A.V. "I will turn my hand upon," and next as to the translation of the word " the little ones." The phrase " to bring back one's hand " is generally used in the ^ Compare the numerous passages which speak of things permitted by God as done by his decree, though often brought about by the sin of man. Gen. xlv. 5, 1. 20 ; Exod. iii. 19, iv. 21 ; Isa. liii. 5-10 ; Acts ii. 22, 23 ; Luke xxii. 22, with 2 Cor. V. 21 ; Rom. xi. 1 1, 12. The sword, being a common weapon of warfare and instmment of inflicting death, is spoken of here, not as necessarily implying that the shepherd referred to would fall by the sword. We read of Uriah as slain by the sword of the children of Amnion (2 Sam. xii. 9), though he really fell by the arrows of the Ammonites (2 Sam. xi. 24), and in that place the general expres- sion occurs " the sword devoureth one as well as the other." See also Exod. v. 21 ; Ps. xxii. 21 (E.V. verse 20) ; Matt. xxvi. 52. 440 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiii. 7. signification of doing so in anger, as in Amos i. 8, " I will turn my hand (or, I will turn my hand back) against Ekron," or in Ps. Ixxxi. 15 (verse 14 in A. V.), where Jahaveh is de- scribed as saying, " I should soon have subdued their enemies, and turned my hand (back) against their adversaries " (see crit. comm.). But the same phrase is also used in a good sense, where Jahaveh is said to deal out his loving chastise- ment for the purification of his people, as in Isa. i. 25, " I will turn my hand (back) upon thee, and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin." In either case, how- ever, the constant use of the phrase employed implies that the turning back of the hand would be accompanied with chastisement, even though that chastisement might be designed for purposes of purgation. The word translated "little ones" (DH^iJ) ought not to be so rendered. The verb is found in two places (Jer. xxx. 19; Job xiv. 21), and the word which occurs here, and here only, is properly the participle active of that verb, and is not to be regarded, as it has been too often, as an equivalent to the adjective DH^Jl^l^ (Jud. vi. 15 ; Ps. cxix. 141), which is derived indeed from the same verb, but is of a different grammatical form. Bottcher has correctly pointed out that the word in this verse signifies not those who are little, but those w4io appear as little, the patient, the humble. This signification of the word proves that the phrase " I will turn my hand back " must be here taken in a good sense.^ For the phrase is not equivalent to " the wretched of the flock," " the wretched flock" of chap, xi., as Keil, Reinke and others, think, 1 We cannot, therefore, with Kohler regard the sheep so t< ed as identical with the whole flock spoken of as scattered, or consider thui. chey are styled " little,^' small ^ or weak, as compared with other sheep which far exceed them in power and might on earth (comp. Jer. xlix. 20, 1. 45), under whose superior force they were to be subjected, inasmuch as they had themselves refused the good shep- herd's care. This need not imply that any comparison is here tacitly introduced with the Gentiles, who are not spoken of ui^er the similitude of sheep in Zecliariah. Ch.xiii. 7,8.] THE REACTION AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS. 44I treating the word here as an equivalent to "lii'iJ, which occurs in the Hebrew text in Jer. xiv. 3, xlviii. 4, where the margin has the adjective T^Vik, which is found in Jer. xHx. 20, 1. 45 ; Ps. cxix. 141. Bottcher's opinion must be regarded as cor- rect, namely, that the phrase means the suffering, the hwnble, the poor, which is that also adopted, though for different reasons, by Hitzig. The ancient versions and readings are noted in our crit. comm. The text evidently signifies that the shepherd should be taken away on account of the sin of the people, in order to hasten their punishment. After his removal, the sheep in general were to be scattered. But mercy was reserved in store for a portion of the flock. The Lord would turn back his hand, outstretched in anger against the flock considered as a whole, in love and chastening grace upon the lowly and the humble. The latter would not, indeed, be free from chas- tisement, but in their case all trials would serve for the removal of their dross and tin. Judgment might indeed commence at the house of God (i Pet. iv. 17), or with the humble sheep. In the world they might have tribulation ; but if Jahaveh was with them in the times of trouble, and would give them the support of his sustaining and comforting grace, they ought indeed to rejoice (John xvi. 33). Their days of mourning would be short. For them a fountain would be opened for sin and for uncleanness. Their sorrow would be turned into joy, their mourning into gladness. The misery which was to accompany the dispersion of the flock is more fully set forth in the verse that follows : " And it shall come to pass in the whole land — 'tis the utterance of Jahaveh — that two parts in it shall be cut off, shall expire, and the third part shall remain in it." The expression " in all the land " must not be regarded, as Marck, von Hofmann, Neumann and Kliefoth imagine, to signify " the whole earth," but rather the land of Israel, in which the flock that was 442 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiii. 7, 8. tended by Jahaveh dwelt. So correctly Hengstenberg, Ewald, Bunsen, Kohler and Keil. The passage is somewhat akin to Ezek. v. 2, 12, where the nation is spoken of as divided into three parts, all of which were to be punished in a different manner. In 2 Sam. viii. 2, David is recorded as having thus dealt with the Moabites, destroying two parts and saving the third alive. Isaiah in his prophecy (vi. 13) repre- sents a tenth only as escaping. Zechariah speaks of a third. Both are to be regarded as emblematical expressions for a fezv, not as describing the exact proportion of the remnant that should escape. This prophecy met with a striking accomplishment. The Shepherd was slain when Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, an act ascribed no less to the determinate counsel and fore- knowledge of God on the one hand than to the malice of men on the other. In consequence of this national sin the nation was given over to party spirit, which rapidly developed to an extraordinary degree. That party spirit was the means of delivering the people into the power of the cruel shepherd, who devoured instead of feeding the flock, that is, into the hands of the Romans. The Jews madly invoked on them- selves and upon their children the blood of the Messiah, and wrath indeed came upon them to the uttermost (i Thess. ii. 16). It is needless here to do more than refer to the fearful manner in which the Romans quenched all the Jewish attempts at in- surrection. At the siege of Jerusalem by Titus upwards of one million one hundred thousand Jews are said to have perished, and during the revolt of Bar Kokhba, which occurred not long after, some six hundred thousand more were destroyed, and the whole land of Judaea was reduced to a desert. A remarkable reference to this prophecy of ' Zechariah concerning the smiting of the shepherd is found in our Lord's words (Matt. xxvi. 31 ; Mark xiv. 27)^ After our Lord had partaken of his last passover, and had instituted the ordinance Ch.xiii.7,8.] THE REACTION AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS. 443 of his Supper, he proceeded with his little band of dis- ciples on the way to the garden of Gethsemane. On the road he addressed them in these striking words : " All ye shall be offended because of me this night, for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad : but after I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee." From the use of the phrase " it is written," it is evident that our Lord intended to refer to this passage of Zechariah, The quotation, however, is a free one, and does not altogether agree with the Hebrew text on the one hand, nor with the LXX. on the other. The smaller differences cannot be noted here. It may, however, be observed gene- rally that the address to the sword is entirely omitted, and the imperative changed into the future. The meaning of the passage is preserved unaltered. The closing words of our Lord, " I will go before you into Galilee," may possibly con- vey, as suggested by Reinke, the same thought as is expressed in the words of the prophet, " I will turn my hand upon the humble ones." If the observation be correct, it is plain that our Lord understood that phrase in a good significa- tion. , The expression " the sheep shall be scattered " has been often regarded as a prediction of the flight of our Lord's disciples when he was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane. Justin Martyr considered that event as a complete accom- plishment of the Old Testament prediction, though Ambrose explains it of the scattering of the apostles in all lands, and Jerome of the multitudes of those who believed in Christ. The correct view appears to be that the desertion of the Lord in the hour of trial by his most faithful followers, whereby they w^ere scattered every man to his own, and left the Saviour alone (John xvi. 32) — a desertion which added so much to the bitterness of that " hour of darkness " — was indeed of importance in itself, but still more so as prefiguring 444 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiri. 7, 8. the desertion of Christ by the Jewish nation, and the terrible scattering of the flock of Israel. It was expedient for the sake of the disciples themselves that the Lord should go away from them (John xvi. 7), in order, among other things, to wean them from the false views which they entertained respecting his kingdom, as well as that by " his precious blood-shedding " atonement should be made for the sins of the whole world. Omitting all considerations concerning the necessity of Christ's death as an essential part of his redeeming work, the death of our Lord was also necessary for other reasons. It was necessary to teach the disciples the true nature of his kingdom. Their unbelief in his higher nature and mission, which manifested itsdf at times, notwithstanding the teaching of our Lord and the wonderful acts which he performed ; and the " hardness of heart" which prevented their acceptance of the essence of his teaching, namely, that self-denial was the law of his kingdom ; all rendered it expedient that the Master should be removed from the midst of his disciples, that the Shepherd should be smitten, in order that the disciples should hence- forth " know him no more after the flesh " (2 Cor. v. 16), and that they might learn practically that which they could not learn theoretically, namely, the vanity of all their carnal notions with respect to his glory and kingdom. Hence for these causes, as well as for others, Christ had to go "the way of the cross." The sin of his own disciples, therefore, in a peculiar sense necessitated his crucifixion, and consequently 'they, too, were to be chastened for their un- belief and hardness of heart, though in mercy and in love. Their confidence in themselves was to, be rudely shaken, their faith in their Lord thereby confirmed. They w^re first to learn their own weakness and unspirituality. Afterwards, when "filled with the spirit" (Eph. v. 18), they were to receive power to be witnesses unto Christ both in Jerusalem and in Ch.xii. 7-90THE REACTION AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS. 445 all Judsea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth (Acts i. 8). Hope had well-nigh died out in their souls when the third day dawned after the crucifixion of their Lord (Luke xxiv. 21). But even when the little flock was scattered, it was the Father's good pleasure to give them, when humbled, the kingdom (Luke xii. 32). Though they fell, they rose again, and though they sat for a time in darkness, Jahaveh was at last a light unto them (Micah vii. 8), In their case also the prophecy was to be fulfilled : *' The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light : they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined " (Isa. ix. 2). It was the gracious promise of the Redeemer that after his resurrection he would go before them into Galilee, where he was to exhibit himself to the Church in general, to the five hundred brethren at once (i Cor. xv. 16), as him who was dead and is alive for evermore (Rev. i. 18), as the Resurrection and the Life (John xi. 25). There on the mountain in Galilee was the Church to have indisputable proof of the resurrection of Jesus, and there all hesitation and doubt as to whether he ought to be worshipped by his followers was set at rest by his own words, which quenched the smoke of doubt, and kindled at the same time the flame of love, " All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost " (Matt, xxviii. 16-19). This interpretation does not, indeed, exhaust the meaning of the passage. The scattering of the sheep of Israel was in its full sense the dispersion of that people into all parts of the earth. The terrible disasters which befel the Jewish nation in the land of Israel have already been glanced at. But not even those fearful trials should cause "that genera- tion" to pass away or perish (Matt. xxiv. 34). A third part would still remain, which should " be left in it," i.e., " in 44^ ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiii. 8, 9, the land," even as in the days of the earlier captivity (Isa. vi. 13). These words, like the words of Isaiah which relate to the Babylonish captivity, are not to be pressed too literally. The so-called " literal interpretation " has proved too often destructive of all true comprehension of the spirit of the prophetic word. The words are rather to be re- garded as giving a description of the future exhibited in the colours of the past. Amid all the disasters and horrors of the national deportation to Babylon, the poor of the land had still been permitted in considerable numbers to abide in the land, until, through their own folly and sin, the greater por- tion of that remnant fled to Egypt, and brought upon them- selves more terrible misfortunes (Jer. xli.-xliv.). Amid the fearful calamities of the period of which Zechariah speaks, a feeble remnant would still be left in the land as seed of future hope (Isa. vi. 13). Some few relics of the seed of Abraham would be found in the land of promise, and in that land, when purified by affliction, and tried as gold in the fire, days of blessing would dawn at last for the ancient stock of Israel (Matt, xxiii. 37-39)- CHAPTER XIII. THE ESCHATOLOGY OF ZECHARIAH, OR "THE LAST THINGS" AS SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE OLD DISPENSATION. CHAPTER XIII, The New Dispensation the " world to come," 449 — Why called " the world to come," 450 — Conflicting views respecting the prophecy, 452 — The Roman war under Titus not the main subject of the prediction, 453, 460 — The prophecy not literal, 454, 460, 507 — View of modern critics, 455, ff. — " Aday of Jahaveh," 455, note, 457, 516 — ^Jahaveh's fighting with the nations, 456, 464, 517,522 — The cap- ture of Jerusalem, 457, 459 — The gathering of the nations, 458— The half of the remnant, 460 — The remnant not cut off from the city, 461, ff., 518, ff. — Parallel passages, 464 — Meaning of the phrase "to fight against" or "at," 464, note — The appearing of Jahaveh on the Mount of Olives, 465, ff., 472, 519— Dean Stanley on the Mount of Olives, 467 — The phenomena attending the coming of Jahaveh, 46S, ff., 478, ff. — The imagery of the prophets, 469— Tlie earthquake, 469, 471 — The Mount of Olives only mentioned here in the Old Test., 470— The valley opened through it, 471, 472, 473, 475 — "My mountains," 471, and note 2 — The escape from Jerusalem, 461, 471, ff., 519— The Mount of Corruption, 466, 470, 473, note 2, 519— The flight into the valley, 473, ff. — The reading of the fourth verse according to the Oriental Jews, 475 — Different opinions regarding Azal, 476, and note. — The earthquake in reign of Uzziah, 477, ff. — The holy ones, 479 — The day of darkness, 480 — Different readings of the sixth verse, 481, and note, 482, and note, — Mistake of our A. V., 483—" Oneday" 483 — The day "known" to, or " chosen " by the Lord, 484 — " Not day and not night," 485, 521 — Light at eventide, 486 — The "Regeneration" of the world beginning at Jerusalem, 487, 521 — The living waters, 487— The rivers of grace and the day of blessing, 488, 521— Jahaveh a king, 4S8— The land of Judah referred to in ninth verse, 489 — Objection of Lange, 490— Jahaveh one and his name one, 489, 490 — The change in the land, 490— The Arabah, 491— The elevation of the city of Jeru- salem, 493 — Its limits, 494— Its gates, 494, ff.— The king's wine-presses, 496— The abolition of the "curse," 496 — The blessings given to "the remnant," 497) 519 — Th*^ destruction of the foe, 498 — Pestilences, 499, ff. — Confusion and panic, 499, 500— Judah fights at Jerusalem, 500, ff. — Conflicting opinions, 501 — Spoiling of the foe, 502— The plague of the animals, 502— The nations wor- shippers of Jahaveh, 503 — Israel and the Gentiles, 504 — Supposed reference to Messiah, 504 — The pilgrimages to Jerusalem, 505, 506 — The feast of Taber- nacles, 505 — The punishment for disobedience, 506 — The mention of Egypt, 507, ff. — Its punishment, 510 — The bells of the horses, 511 — Opinions of the Jewish commentators, 512 — The pots in the temple, 513 — ^Jewish interpretations, 514 — The abrogation of ceremonial law, 512, 514 — The Canaanite no longer in the temple, 515, ff. — Concluding survey of the prophecy, 517 — The Messianic dispensation a state of light and darkness commingled, S20-^False views of Antichrist, 521 — The glorious future, 522. CHAPTER XIII. THE ESCHATOLOGY OF ZECHARIAH, OR, "THE LAST THINGS " AS SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE OLD DISPENSATION. The passing away of the dispensation of the law of Moses, which as limited in great part to Israel after the flesh, might well be called the Jewish dispensation, was justly regarded as "the end of the age " {rj crwreXeia rov alwvo^, Matt. xxiv. 3). The Messiah was viewed as the bringer in of a new world. The period of the Messiah was, therefore, correctly character- ised by the Synagogue as " the world to come." In this sig- nification our Lord used that expression when he uttered the solemn warning that the sin against the Holy Ghost would be forgiven " neither in this world (the then dispensation), neither in the world to come " (Matt. xii. 32), or the new dispensation, when, "having overcome the sharpness of death," Christ " opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers." ^ The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews makes use of a * This was fulfilled first by the kingdom of heaven being opened to the Jews when repentance and remission of sins were preached in Christ's name to them first (Acts ii. 33, 38-39), and afterwards to the Gentiles (Acts x. 42-47), The Gospel dispensation, in one aspect, may be regarded as having begun with the preaching of John the Baptist (Matt. xi. 12, 13) ; but in the fullest sense it did not commence till after the resurrection of our Lord, when all power was given to him, after he had been made perfect through sufferings (Heb. ii. 10, v. 9), and was, therefore, henceforth to be worshipped (Matt, xxviii. 17, 18). The first great proof of Christ's possessing and exercising this power was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 32, 33), and by virtue of that power from on high, received from their risen Lord, which thedisciples were bidden towait for (Luke xxiv. 49), the teachers of the new dispensation went forth and preached everywhere, "the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following" (Mark xvi. 19, 20). G G 450 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch.xiv. i. similar phrase when contrasting the two dispensations, the old being in some respects under angelic government, while the new is placed directly under the government of the Son of God. "Unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come (rrjv oiKovjjbevrjv rrjv jxeXkovaav) whereof we speak" (chap. ii. 5). That writer further speaks (chap. vi. 5) of the powers of the Messianic age as " powers of the world to come " (BvvdfjLei^ /jLiXkovTo^1t:^'' Jll^D, Exod. xii. 19); or, "from his people" (Ti'^lp^D, the noun li'SlJ being fem., Lev. vii. 20, 21) ; or even, "cut off from my presence, I am the Lord " {or, " from before me, '•^3^!p, I am Jahaveh," Lev. xxii. 3). The royal Psalmist expresses in one of the Psalms his determination, in the day when Jahaveh shall take up his dwelling-place in Jerusalem, " every morning," by the exercise of righteous judgment to " destroy the wicked of the land," in order that he might " cut off all workers of wicked- ness from the city of Jahaveh," or Jerusalem^ (Ps. ci. 8) ' See Delitzsch and Perowneon this Psalm. Ch. xiv. 1-3.] " THE LAST THINGS " AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 463 The dream of the Psalmist is to be realized in all its fulness in the New Jerusalem (Rev. xxi. 27) ; and Zechariah in this chapter, in predicting the great events which, as foretold by / another prophet, would scatter the power of the holy people (Dan. xii. 7), speaks of the half of the "remnant" that should remain after such judgments shall have been executed as not S ^^ being cut off from the holy city. In other words, the whole [ nation would not be cast off as in the days of the Babylonish captivity ; there would be " a remnant according to the \ election of grace " (Rom. xii. 5), which would not be cast away by God, even in that terrible day when he would visit Israel for their sin. In giving this interpretation of this passage we coincide in the main with Reinke, who observes that the cutting off from the theocracy, threatened against the transgressors of the Law, denoted not merely the death-penalty, but every judg- ment v/hereby any one was removed from the land whose sacred laws he had refused to obey (Ezra vii. 26, x. 18). After that judgment had been laid to the line and righteousness to the plummet (Isa. xxviii. 17), a certain portion of the people would be purified thereby, though the judgment itself might tend rather to harden others. The statement, " a remnant shall not be cut off from the city," must denote more than simply shall not be driven into exile. If the language of the Law, which in this, as in many other cases, is the language of the Prophets, did not define the sense of the expression which is used, we might naturally think that the prophet meant something like that recorded as the result of judg- ments in the book of Revelation, "the remnant Avere affrighted and gave glory to the God of heaven " (chap. xi. 13) — a pas- sage which as it speaks of an overthrow of a tenth part of the mystical city, of an earthquake, and a rescue of the witnesses of Jesus, may be regarded as based, as far as its imagery is concerned, on this prophecy of Zechariah. 464 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 1-3. Independently of the parallel in Psalm ci., to which atten- tion has been already drawn, there exists another striking parallel, which Reinke has referred to, in Isaiah iv. 3. In that passage Isaiah speaks of the day which was coming when the ordinary state of affairs should be completely al- tered ; when in Jerusalem persons would be no longer classi- fied according to worldly rank and position, without regard to real moral worth, but when each member of the remnant of grace (Rom. xi. 5) should bear the glorious name of " holy," or " saint," in accordance with the original ideal of the people of God (Exod. xix. 6). " He that is left in Zion (after the days of tribulation), and that remains in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, every one that is enrolled unto life in •Jerusalem " (Isa. iv. 3), having been marked on the forehead with the mark of God, or with his name (Ezek. ix, 4 ; Rev. vii. 3, xiv. i), "when the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughter of Zion, and purged away the blood- guiltiness of Jerusalem out of its midst, by the spirit of judg- ment and by the spirit of burning " (Isa. iv. 4), namely, by that spirit which consumes and destroys all that which is evil. This prophecy of Isaiah, as well as that under considera- tion, refers to the day when " the Branch of Jahaveh shall be beautiful and glorious ; " or, in other words, to the days of the Messianic dispensation. The language of Isaiah there- fore, may properly be considered as casting light upon that of Zechariah. It is when the godless have thus been cut off from the number of the people of the Lord, and when the judgment on the house of the Lord has been accomplished by the Gentiles, who are permitted to tread the holy city under foot (Rev. xi. 2), because of the sin of the professing people of God, that Jahaveh is described as going forth to fight against' those nations. The expression "to go forth" (i^T) ' The LXX have here incorrectly rcnd'fti'ed Kal TrapaTd^eTM €p roh idveaiv I Ch.xiv.i-4.] " THE LAST THINGS " AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 465 is used almost technically for the going forth of an army to battle. The prophet Isaiah speaks (chap. xlii. 13) of Jahaveh going forth "as a hero," and stirring up his anger "as a man of war," when he " goes forth," as in the great day of Israel's deliverance of old, " for the salvation " of his people (Hab. iii. 13). A suitable parallel also occurs in Isaiah (chap, xxvi. 20, 21) : " Go, my people, into thy chambers, and shut thy door behind thee, hide thyself for a little moment until the indignation (the judgment righteously executed by the Divine anger) be overpast. For behold Jahaveh is coming forth (^i!!i*) out of his place to punish the iniquity of the dweller on earth on him, and the earth shall disclose her blood (the blood shed on her), and no more cover her slain." That is, not till judgment had been executed upon those who, whatever their profession, were " not the people of God," could mercy be exhibited to the remnant which had been purified in the days of affliction. Thus Jerusalem, which as apostate is regarded by the prophet no longer as the holy city, and as consequently given over by Jahaveh as a booty to the plunderers (Isa. xlii, 24), was no longer a place in which Jahaveh could appear. The hill of God (Ps. Ixviii. 16, 17, E. V. 15, 16) was to be given by God's own decree into the hands of his enemies. Hence Jahaveh is represented, when he appears to help the remnant eVeiVots, "shall fight in those nations." This translation was one of the reasons why Theodoret and Cyrill considered the prophecy to refer to the destruction of Jem- salem by the Romans. Theodoret expressly remarks, Tr^tpard^erat 5^ oi)/c 'lovdatuv virepfiaxCiv dXXa /car' ixeivwu arpaTrpfCiv. The phrase 3 DPIpJ generally means to Jight agaijtsf, whether against a people or an individual^ as in Exod. i. 10, 2 Chron. xxxv. 22 (bis); or against a city, Jud. ix. 45, i Sam. xxiii. i, 2 Sam. xii. 27. But the preposition is also used with the same verb to indicate the place at which the battle occurs, as Exod. xvii. 8, "at Rephidim " ; Jud. v. 19, "at Taanach" ; 2 Chron. xxxv. 20, 22 (" at Carchemish," "in the valley of Megiddo "). The context of chap. xiv. 14 proves that the sentence there has been correctly rendered by the LXX., KaVlovbas irapard^eTai ev 'Iepov light, not heavy. So Buxtorf, Chald. and Tabu. Lex. s.v. , and Levy, Chald. Worterbuch. ^ The reading of the text according to the k'ri is jlXSpl nni^l. The second noun is nowhere else met with. According to this T\V\\>\ is to be understood as equivalent to ri"I~l|'^, after the analogy of the k'ri on Prov. xvii. 27, where, instead of n-1"l""lj!5'!, which is found in the text, the marg. has '"I""1j2^.. Dnj^ would be an extensive plural (orig. of ni[5, adj. cold), like HlpVy, gleanings, D^S, the coun- teiiance. Bottcher {Neue Aehrenlese) would prefer the sing, form H-llp, which, though it does not occur, yet suits better with the other singular nouns, and has analogies for it, such as ri-1"11p, darkness. The form would also harmonise with the late date of the book. As the adoption of a root ~lp*="np is doubtful, Rosenmiiller, Hitzig, Ewald, etc., would read simply riflj^l. The letters and '' are with difficulty distinguished in MS S. ; in the oldest MSS., as well as in inscrip- tions like those of the Galilean synagogues given by Renan, no difference is per- ceptible. The LXX. support this opinion, reading koX ^piixn ^al Trdyos, and Symm. dWi. \pvxos Kal irdyos. So Syr., Siud Yulg. sed /)-igus et geln. But the difficulty in the way of such a translation as is given by the ancient versions is that the first of the two copulas must be understood in an adversative sense, and next that it would be necessaiy to supply in the second clause the subst^^ntive verb without the negative which occurs in the first. The rendering of Ewald, Umbreit, etc, avoids these difficulties. See above. " Kimchi's words are "the light shall neither be HI"! pi //raw/ j, nor }fXSp thickness''' (McCaul's transl.). He cannot possibly have meant that those words Ch.xiv.6.] "THE LAST THINGS" AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 483 But Ewald, Umbreit and Bunsen, understand the passage as depicting not the terrors or horrors of the day, but the very- opposite, rendering " there will be no sunshine with cold and ice." Bunsen explains the passage to mean that the regular change of summer and winter, of light and darkness, shall cease, and there shall be constant sunshine. And Ewald refers to "the pure, unclouded, changeless light" (Rev. xxi. 23). Theiner adopts the translation of Ewald, but explains it to mean " the ambiguous, uncertain state of the nation ! " The difficulty in the way of these renderings is that there is no real antithesis between light and cold. Had such been his meaning, the prophet would rather have spoken of light and darkness, heat and frost. In no other passage of any of the prophets is there a word about cold and frost. Ewald's rendering " sunshine " is rather a strange rendering of the simple word " light " (")")><), which in the original does not convey the contrast which Ewald's translation expresses. Kimchi has given a different explanation of the reading of the k'ri, which has been adopted by our Authorised Ver- sion, " the light shall not be clear nor dark." This translation is recognised now as indefensible, though it was that adopted by many of the older post-Reformation critics, as Miinster, Calvin, Drusius, etc. It is unnecessary, therefore, to discuss whether its meaning is, as Kimchi says, " the day shall not be entirely light nor entirely dark, i.e., it shall not pass entirely in tranquillity nor in affliction, for they two shall be in it, and so he says afterwards, not day and not night;" or, as in the marg. note of our A. V., " it shall not be clear in some places and dark in other places of the world." The day, or period, of which the prophet speaks, was to be a day or period completely unique, " one " of which there are to be regarded as predicates to TlX n'TT' VC?, as such a connection would be grossly ungrammatical, but rather as genitives governed by "Ili<, "there shall not be light of preciousness (lux pretiositatum — Vatabliis) nor of thickness (lit., coagu- lated light)." 4^4 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 6, 7. was to be no second. Compare the expression in Ezek. vii. 5, " an evil, one evil," which at once was to make such an end of Israel that no second stroke would be required. The numeral might almost be said to be used in the sense of " peculiar," "unique." Cant. vi. 9 and Job xxiii. 13 have been cited as instances of this signification, but they are somewhat doubt- ful. The idea seems to be that presented in Jer. xxx. 7, " alas ! for that day is great, so that none is like it ; it is even the time of Jacob's trouble ; but he shall be saved out of it." Rosenmiiller, Hitzig and Keil thus explain the passage, Kohler considers that one single day is spoken of, but such an exposition does not seem to harmonise with the clause that follows, where the peculiarity of this " one day " is said to consist in its being neither day nor night, and in its evening ending not in darkness but in light. Nor does Hengstenberg's explanation, " a very short period " (tempus non longum — Cocceius) seem to suit the context. The next clause has been translated by Hitzig and Kohler, " it will be chosen by Jahaveh." Compare the use of the verb rendered in our A. V. " known," in Amos iii. 2 ; Gen. xviii. 19. The construction of the verb in this place with the preposition 7 is an objection in the way of this trans- lation. Hengstenberg explains it as : " it is known to the Lord, it is under his supervision and direction. It does not come unexpectedly or interfere with his plans." But the verb can scarcely imply so much. Nor are we inclined to coincide with the view of Keil, that the nature of this day is known to the Lord, distinguished absolutely above all other days, though this sense would suit the previous clause, and might be taken as an explanation of it. We are rather inclined to agree with the rendering of Ewald, " it is known to Jahaveh," though we cannot exactly adopt his explana- tion : " it is a day which as yet no man has seen, but Jahaveh knows it ; it is possible with Jahaveh, and he will bring it." Ch.xiv.7.] " THE LAST THINGS " AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 485 Rather, " it is known to Jahaveh," he has a constant and abid- ing knowledge of this period, and he knows both its begin- ning and its end, which man does not. The meaning of the phrase is similar to, though not exactly identical with, our Lord's expression concerning the day of his second coming, " Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father " (Mark xiii. 32). The great day of judgment is not, however, that which is here intended. No mention is made of the great events of that day, or of the dissolution of the world at large. A period rather than a single day is signified, and the commencement and conclusion of that important period are said to be known only to Jahaveh. This period is described as " not day and not night." Kohler thinks that this means that the day is to be a confused mixture of both. Keil considers that the " day " spoken of really belongs neither to the day nor night, because the lights of heaven which severally rule the day and the night (Gen. i. 18), have lost their lustre, and because at the evening of the day to which Zechariah refers, when the darkness of night might have been expected, light appears. It i$, however, per- haps better to adopt a modification of the view proposed by Kohler. This day, or period, should partake somewhat of the nature of night on account of the darkness which is prevalent, and somewhat of the character of day, by reason of the light which should be manifested throughout its course in spite of the darkness. The great period of the Messianic f dispensation seems to us to be signified by the "day of Ja- haveh," that dispensation which in some respects may be I considered as having commenced in darkness and judgment \ for Israel, but which is to end in blessing for that people, — its evening will be a time of light. This day is not a period of darkness, for the light has come, and the glory o{ the Lord has risen, even upon Jerusalem with all hjr 486 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 7. trials (Isa. Ix, i), by the advent of the Messiah. The dark- ness which covered the Gentile earth, and the gross darkness which enveloped the peoples, have been partially chased away. It is day, but not yet the perfect day, for though " the Light of the world" (John viii. 12) has come, the light shines in the darkness and the darkness comprehends it not (John i. 5). The promise that " at evening," just at the very period when it usually begins to grow dark, the threatening dark- ness shall be dispelled by a flood of light, is very beautifixlr Pressel seems to be correct in his observation that this characteristic of the day of redemption for Israel is borrowed from the description of the day of creation (Gen. i. S)- The usual order of things is inverted, the day does not terminate in darkness. A remarkable contrast occurs in Amos viii. 9, where, speaking of a day of judgment, mention is made of the sun going down at noon, and darkness coming over the land in clear day. But it is not said that the light of this glorious evening shall endure for ever, and never pale, as has been thought by several commentators. Keil, indeed, observes that this is not stated in words, but is to be con- cluded from a comparison with Rev. xxi. 23, 25. But though in some respects the same period may be considered as referred to, the picture presented by Zechariah is different from that in the Revelation. The natural processes of nature, winter, and summer, and rainy seasons, and consequently day and night, are represented by Zechariah as still going for- ward (verses 8, 17). On the other hand, we can scarcely agree with the idea of Kohler that the passage is to be explained, after the analogy of Josh. x. 12, 13, of the pro- longation of twilight, in which case the meaning would be that the day should be long enough therein ' to complete the great purposes designed to be accomplished. It need scarcely be observed that the pas^ge is one which was not intended to be understood in a literal signification. Ch.xiv.8.] "THE LAST THINGS" AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 487 Having spoken of the day or period itself, and noticed its peculiarities, Zechariah next describes the beginning of the renovation and transformation of the world. That " re- generation " begins " at Jerusalem." The land is gradually- transformed in that glorious period by the " living waters " which " go forth from Jerusalem," " half of them towards the eastern sea, and half of them to the hinder (western) sea." " Living water " properly means in the language of the sacred writers that water which springs, or bubbles up, from the ground, the supply of which is lasting when compared with the rain water, which comes down in torrents in the East, and soon fills the valleys, but flows off rapidly towards the sea. The " living waters " are represented here as coming from Jerusalem, now once more viewed as the holy city (Isa. lii. i). Similarly a fountain is spoken of in Joel iv. 18 (E.V. iii. 18), as coming forth out of the house of Jahaveh ; and Ezekiel, in his vision of the waters which transform the whole face of the land, describes the river as flowing forth from the sanctuary (chap, xlvii. 1-12). Thus also the Apocalyptic seer represents the pure river of the water of life as proceeding out of the throne of God and the Lamb (Rev. xxii. i). For as a stream went forth out of Eden after watering that garden to refresh the whole face of the earth (Gen. ii. 10), and as the river of God's grace is represented, even in the old dispensation, by the Psalmist (Ps. xlvi. 5, E. V. verse 4) as making glad the city of God (comp. Ps. xxxvi. 9, E.V. verse 8); so the prophet describes the living waters as going forth out of Jerusalem to water the whole surface of the land. These streams are not merely to flow in the winter, in which time streams abound everywhere in Palestine, but are to be such as last all the year. Compare Job vi. 16-18, where the failure of winter streams during the summer is vividly de- picted. The picture described by Isaiah is here realized. For that prophet predicted that in the day of the Lord, 488 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 8. when the loftiness of man should be brought low (Isa. ii. ii), and the proud towers should fall ; in their stead there would be fruitful heights, whence fertilizing streams would proceed (Isa. XXX. 25). The two streams represented here as flowing east and west correspond to the four streams of Paradise spoken of in Genesis. The whole is to be viewed as an ideal scene, and not as a literal description. Comp. Isa. xli. 17, 18, xliii. 20, xliv. 3, etc. The physical nature of the whole land would require to be changed to permit literal rivers to flow forth from Jerusalem. The prophet, indeed, describes such a physi- cal change in the position of Jerusalem (verse 10), but the change must be considered as an ideal one. Rivers of grace are here signified, which are depicted as forming one mighty stream in Ezekiel and the Revelation. As all nature is repre- sented as mourning and sad in a day of God's wrath, for then the fertile fields become a wilderness, and the trees and plants wither, the cattle die, and the birds of heaven flee away ; so in a day in which the mercy and grace of Jahaveh are displayed, the wilderness becomes a fertile field, the trees clap their hands and are clothed with verdure, the birds sing in their branches, while the mountains and hills break forth into singing, and the lambs feed after their manner, no longer terrified by beasts of prey. (See Isa. v. 17, xxxv. i, 2, Iv. 12, 13, Ixiv. 10, with Jer. iv. 23-27, etc.). Compare the language of the apostle, one day to be gloriously realized, " the creation itself shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God " (Rom. viii. 21). In such a day of blessing, " Jahaveh shall be as a king over all the land " (verse 9). This has been generally ex- plained to mean " over all the earth." But Kohler, Keil, and Pressel are right in rejecting this view. For in the previous verse Zechariah speaks only of the land of Judah, not even Cli.xlv.8,9.] " THE LAST THINGS " AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 489 of the whole of the land of Israel. In that which fol- lows (verse 10) he mentions the land of Judah under the same designation (YlhiH b^), for its limits are expressly stated as reaching from Geba to Rimmon, It is almost im- possible to consider " the whole earth " to be meant in the intervening verse (verse 9). It is there stated that the reign of Jahaveh would first embrace Jerusalem and Judah. The great battle which was to result in victory is described as " beginning at Jerusalem " (verse 14). Judah is to acknow- ledge the true God, and to be victorious in his cause. Zecha- riah's description of the transformation of the Holy Land (verses 10, 11) presents evident marks of having been com- posed at a time when only the narrow district there named was in actual possession of the people of the covenant, and he accordingly describes the great blessing as commencing within that territory. Thus the description might be viewed as affording an indication of the date of the writer, who lived some years after the erection of the second temple, when that district only was in the possession of the Jews, and when there was much reason to fear a gathering of the nations around against Jerusalem. The prophets often saw the future on the background of their own present, and it was under such circumstances and amid such fears that Zechariah was inspired to portray this picture of " the last things " or " the latter days." The statement that " in that day Jahaveh shall be one, and his name one," is by no means superfluous. It may be com- pared with Jer. xxxi. i, "at the same time, saith Jahaveh, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people." In the commencement of this prophecy of Zechariah, Jahaveh is described as acting against Jeru- salem on account of its sin. He is now represented as the one King and God of his ransomed people, recognised by them as such, his name only, and not that of other gods, 490 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 9. being- named by his people. No doubt Jahaveh was from the beginning the only God, " for all the gods of the nations are idols, but Jahaveh made the heavens " (Ps. xcvi. 5), But he was not recognised as such by his people, for they often forsook him and served other gods. The difficulty which Henderson seems to find in this translation of the verse, that it would make the passage teach either that Jahaveh was not one be- fore, or that he would cease to be triune, is purely imaginar}^ Lange protests strongly against the view of those who consider verse 9 to refer only to the land of Judah. He forgets, however, that no one maintains that the prophet imagined the limits of Jahaveh's reign would be confined to the limits of Judah, but only that he speaks of the Lord's king- dom as commencing in that place where his wrath would be most terribly poured forth on both Israel and the Gentiles. There, as the very result of that judgment, was Jahaveh first to be honoured and accepted as king by both Israel and the Gentiles. The latter are to be thought of as intermingled with Israel, for that which is only briefly related in verses 8-1 1 is described more in detail in verses 12-17. Lange prefers to adopt the explanation of the last clause given by Hitzig, namely, that in consequence of the display of Jahaveh's glory, the heathen who had hitherto worshipped God under other names, such as Moloch, Baal, etc., should from henceforth honour and adore him as Jahaveh, under which name he had made himself known to the people of Israel. The idea that the heathen under the various names of their gods really meant to worship Jahaveh appears to be an attempt to engraft modern ideas upon those of the Old Testament prophets. The prophet next proceeds to speak of tire change in the configuration of the whole land. "All the land will change itself," or, " be changed, ^ ^o as to become) as the ^ The form here found, 31D^ has been considered by Gesenius as a Chaldee Ch.xiv.9,io.j "THE LAST THINGS ' AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 49I Arabah." ^ The clause cannot certainly be explained with Kliefoth, " as the plain from Gebah to Rimmon," for, as Keil notes, the whole of that country is composed ot mountains and hills.^ Khefoth is not forgetful of this fact, but his idea is that the passage first describes the country around Jerusalem as sinking so as to become a plain with the city of Jerusalem towering aloft in its centre, and after- wards the whole of the earth as becoming in the future a plain like that plain, watered literally by streams from Jerusalem. But this is a most unnatural exposition, and need not be discussed here. The Arabah is the name of that remarkable depression which runs from the slopes of Hermon to the Red Sea, known as the deepest depression on the surface of the globe, the Sea of Galilee, situated within it, being 652 feet below the level of the Mediterranean, while the Dead Sea, which is also form for 3'DJ impf. kal. See Ges. § 67, 5, rem. Olshausen, § 243 d. But on the other hand Fiirst maintains it is a niphal. It would be then a mixed form, like that of verbs I'T. Bottcher, Lehrb. § 1147 (vol. ii. p. 519 note), maintains this latter view. He observes that the imperfect of this form is distinguished from 3bj in meaning, and is clearly used as a reflexive, while SDJ is never used in such a sense. Hence he agrees with those Jewish grammarians who consider the form to be a niphal. The masculine form of the verb is frequently used with a fem. subject as here, where the verb precedes its subject. See Ges. § 147 a. When construed with 3 the verb signifies as here " so that it will become as." ^ Though Ewald, Arnheim, Bunsen, etc., translate with our A.V. "as a plain," and it is possible that the article might be explained as used often in Hebrew in comparisons where we make use of the indefinite (Ges. § 109, 3, rem. i), there is little doubt that the great plain known by the Arabic writers as the Arabah or the Ghor is that referred to. This is the view defended by Hitzig, Hengstenberg, Maurer, Lange, and Keil. Kohler also prefers this translation. It must, however, be noted that the more correct punctuation of the passage, according to the Maso- retic text, seems to be Ha'jrs, without the article, and this reading is adopted by Baer in his critical edition of the Minor Prophets (Leipzig, 1S78), as well as in his edition of Isaiah (xxxiii. 9). The majority of MSS., including the Babylonian codex, appear to express the article, and this is the more suitable reading as far as the sense is concerned. See our crit. comm. 2 The translation of Umbreit is the same as that of Kliefoth, but Umbreit docs not understand the passage differently from Ewald, as he explains it to mean " the city of God will be situated high and glorious in a wide plain, throned as a queen, safe, etc." 492 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Cli.xiv. lo. included in its course, is 1,316 feet below that level, or the level of the Red Sea. Hitzig thinks that reference is made by the prophet to the fertility of that valley ; but though the Ghor has fertile spots, such as that once described in Gen. xiii. 10, its features are generally of the very oppo- site character,^ and it is evident that it is to its great depth that the prophet here refers. The portion of the land mentioned as to be depressed to the level of the Ghor or Arabah is that which extends from Geba, the modern Jeba', probably Gibea of Saul, in the territory of Benjamin (Josh, xviii. 24), situated between Mich- mash and Ramah (Isa. x. 28, 29), which formed the northern bpundary of the kingdom of Judah (2 Kings xxiii. 8), even to Rimmon south of Jerusalem. The latter place formed the southern boundary of Judah on the borders of Edom, south of Eleutheropolis, probably Rimmon (Josh. xv. 32) belonging to the tribe of Judah, not far from Beersheba, now the ruin Umm er Rumamin. It afterwards belonged to the tribe of Simeon (Josh. xix. 1,7; i Chron. iv. 32), and is mentioned as south of Jerusalem, to distinguish it from the Rock of Rimmon (Rumman) in the territory of Benjamin (Jud. XX, 45, 47),, and the town of Rimmon (now Rummaneh) in Galilee (Josh. xix. 10, 13). While the whole country of Judea is thus represented as sunk to the level of the Arabah, the city of Jerusalem is represented as exalted/ and as finnly dwelling upon that ' See tlie article Arabah in Smith's Biblical Dictionary, and the description given of its lower portion, bnt not of that exclusively, in Pyof. E. Palmer's Desert of the Exodus. 2 nJDJ^T may be regarded as from a verb Dt<"1 = D-1"), from whence DXI, f^'<^ buffdlo, and n^-ISI. a proper name (Gen. xxii. 24). So Gesenius.and Fiirst. Or it may be considered with Hitzig, Olshausen, Gr. § 233 cL, Bottcher, § 1 147 C. b, as a lengthened form of nJpT from D1"). Compare t^'ST for t^T (2 Sam. xii. 1,4), DNp for Di^, (IIos. x. 14, etc.), Ges. § 72, rem. 1. Fiirst, in his Worterb., considers '"I here to be a proper name, " Jerusalefh and Ramah (which he supposes to have been a town of importance in the time of Zechariah) shall be fruitf'ji as the Ch.xiv. lo.] " THE LAST THINGS AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 493 which was under it, — that is, on the ground on which it was built. The passage in Jen xxxi. ^,8, was plainly in the pro- phet's mind, where the Lord promises that the city should be built from the tower of Hananeel unto the corner gate. Keil, therefore, considers that Zechariah's object in adding this clause when speaking of the elevation of the entire city, in its extent as mentioned by Jeremiah, was to describe the whole city as destined to be recovered from its ruins, and built upon its base in all its extent as before. The elevation of the city predicted by Zechariah is the same as the exaltation of the mountain of the house of Jahaveh above the hills, spoken of by Isaiah and Micah (Isa. ii. 2 ; Mic. iv. i), or the construction of that city which was seen by Ezekiel upon a very high mountain (chap. xl. 2). No actual physical elevation of Jerusalem or depression of the country around is signified. If such a sinking of the country were to be understood in all its literality, and the district named to subside by some volcanic action to the level of any portion of the Arabah, the whole land would be submerged by the waters of the Mediterranean. All that is signified by such language is that Jerusalem is to be the centre of the kingdom of God. The place where Jahaveh rests and is enthroned must needs be glorious, and, therefore, Jerusalem will be glorious when Jahaveh displays his glory there (Isa. xi. 10, Ix. 13). In Dan. ii. 35, the stone which represents the Messianic kingdom becomes a great mountain, and fills the whole earth. Accordingly, Zechariah describes the holy city as elevated above the whole land of Judah, in order that all the nations might be drawn to worship valley of the Jordan, and inhabited." In his supposed reference to the fertility of the Arabah he seems mistaken (see above, p. 492). His translation is opposed to the accentuation and has nothing to recommend it. Chambers notes that Fiirst has in his new German version returned to the old interpretation ; but this is a mistake, as Arnheim, and not Fiirst, was the translator of Zechariah, if the German version edited by Zunz be referred to. 494 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. lo. the God of Israel, "the God of the whole earth shall he be called" (Isa. liv. 5). The mountains of Judaea are regarded in the eye of the prophet as hindrances in the way of this consummation, and, therefore, they were to be levelled, not only that Jerusalem itself might be exalted, but also that the streams of living water might flow forth from thence (Reinke) to fructify the land of Israel, and thereby blessings might be bestowed upon the nations. " The natural situation of Jerusalem," remarks Hengsten- berg, "forms the starting point here. . . . All around are higher hills. This external position of Jerusalem w^as also regarded by the writer of Psalm cxxv. (verse 2) with the eye of a theologian. But whilst, in his view, the moun- tains round about Jerusalem were symbols of the protec- tion of God, to Zechariah the comparative height of Jeru- salem was a symbol of the depressed condition of the king- dom of God under the Old Testament." The limits of Jerusalem mentioned by Zechariah are "from the gate of Benjamin to the place of the former gate, even to the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel to the wine presses of the king." These limits cannot be positively ascertained. The gate of Benjamin was that which looked towards the territory of Benjamin (Jer. xxxvii. 13, xxxviii. 7), and was, therefore, in the direction of Ephraim. It was probably the same as the gate of Ephraim mentioned in connexion with the corner gate (2 Kings xiv. 13 ; 2 Chron. XXV. 23), and in connexion with the tower of Hananeel (Neh. xii, 39), not far from the present Damascus gate, if it be not identical with it. There is little to surprise us in the fact that Zechariah should call this "the gate of Benjamin," while Nehemiah speaks of it as " the gate of Ephraim." For if the two were identical, which is very probable, the gate must have been known under both names before the Captivity, and was therefore called by both 'lifter the Restoration. In Ch.xiv. lo.] " THE LAST THINGS AS SEEN IN O.T. LIGHT. 495 order to justify such a statement being treated, with Pressel, as a presumption against the authorship of the prophecy by the post-exiHan Zechariah, we should be able first to de- monstrate that the two gates are not identical. The expression rendered in our A. V. ** the first gate," may be also translated " the oldest gate " or " the outermost gate." The translation " first gate" is preferred by Hitzig and Ewald, who consider that it was so termed in the sense of " the former gate," i.e. that which was destroyed. In defence of this signification, Hitzig appeals to several passages (Exod, xxxiv. i; 2 Kings i. 14; 2 Chron. iii. 3; Jer. xi. 10). But these passages cannot be regarded as conclusive proofs that the nu- meral has such a meaning. Hitzig thinks that there was no gate of that name then existing, but that the one which the prophet refers to was identical with " the corner gate " named immediately afterwards, at which Uzziah built a tower (2 Chron. xxvi. 9), and that the old name was added because the tower was no longer standing, and every one did not know that "the tower of the corner" had stood there. The expres- sion " into the place of the first gate " seems to indicate that the gate itself was indeed not in existence in the days of the writer. The "oldest" gate would be a rather indefinite signification, and we can hardly suppose that a particular one was known by such a designation. Hence Kohler and others prefer to regard it as " the outermost gate," the first counting from the east, probably identical with the TM^\ ")^t^, the gate of the Altstadt, or old city, mentioned together with the gate of Ephraim in Neh. xii. 39.1 The limits thus far defined the breadth of one side of the city, the starting point being from the gate of Ephraim in the middle, first in the direction of the "first gate," and then from the gate of ' So also Thenius in the Anhang on Das vorcxilische Jenisalcin tmd dcssen Tempcl, appended to the first edition of the Commentary on the Book of the Kings, in Xhs. Kuv'^gef. excg. Handb. zum. A.T, 496 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. lo, ii. Benjamin to the corner gate. The breadth of the city from north to south is defined as running from the tower of Hananeel to the royal wine presses. The tower of Hananeel formed part of the wall of Jerusalem in the days of Nehemiah (Nell. iii. i, xii. 39). The corner gate is mentioned by Nehe- miah as the gate in the west end of the north side of Jeru- salem (Jer. xxxi. 38), and was four hundred cubits distant from the gate of Ephraim (2 Kings xiv. it,; 2 Chron. xxv. 23). The wine presses of the king, which are not mentioned else- where, probably lay in the royal gardens in the valley at the extreme south-east of Jerusalem, near the junction of the valley of Jehoshaphat and the valley of Hinnom (2 Kings xxv. 4 ; Jer. xxxix. 4, Hi. 7 ; Neh. iii. 15). These wine presses, being probably cut out of the rock, may easily have been in exis- tence in the days of Zechariah. Unfortunately no remains of them have been discovered during the recent explora- tions in Jerusalem, and Lieut. Claude R. Conder, who has recently conducted the survey made under the auspices of the Palestine Exploration Fund, has informed me that he knows of no wine presses in the immediate neighbourhood of Jerusalem. The mention of them is no proof of a pre- exilian date, as regarded by Bertholdt, Rosenmiiller, Maurer and Hitzig; but, as Bleek {Stud. ti. Krit. p. 302) has rightly conceded, the name is used simply as a topographical descrip- tion of a distinct point in Jerusalem, which might have been in use after the Restoration as well as previous to the exile. The prophet proceeds next (verse ii) to describe the different condition of the inhabitants of the newly formed Jerusalem as contrasted with that of the inhabitants of that city in other days : " And they shall dwell (proph. perf ) in her, and there shall be no curse more, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely." The verb DIH, from which the word trans- lated " curse," or " bann," is derived, seems to signify " to cut off," " to sunder " (see Miihlau ancf^Volck's edit, of Gescnins' Ch.xiv. II.] "THE LAST THINGS AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 497 Lexicon), and the verb is used in the signification of devoting something to God which could not be redeemed. It is specially found in the signification of devoting something to destruction, e.g. a city, in which meaning our A.V. has ren- dered it by destroy {Deut. ii. 34). It is also used of persons to be cut off and devoted to destruction (Exod. xxii. 19, E.V. verse 20; Lev. xxvii. 29). Hence the noun signifies such a " consecration " as would cut off a person or a thing from ordinary use, and make over that person or thing to Jaha- veh. Property, whether consisting of chattels or of non- Israelitish slaves, could thus be consecrated to Jahaveh (Lev. xxvii. 28). An Israelite, if guilty of idolatry, was to come under such "consecration," and to be put to death (Exod. xxii. 19, E.V. verse 20); and a city guilty of such transgression, whether Canaanite or Israelitish, was to be destroyed (Deut. vii. 2, xiii. 15, 16). Such an act of "consecration," or the fulmination of such a " curse," could only be performed by competent authority after due examination into the matter (Deut. xiii. 14). In such a case all the goods of the city were to be destroyed, and the cattle slain. A milder kind of bann, in which no death penalty followed, though the same verb is used, is that spoken of in Ezra. x. 8. God is said to have given up Israel to such a "curse" for their sin (Isa. xliii. 28), and Malachi records the Divine threat to smite the earth with such " a curse" (Mai. iii. 24, E.V. iv. 16). The statement, therefore, that " there shall be no more curse," im- plies that there should be no more any destruction caused by God's righteous judgment, or, in other words, that there would be no more unrighteous persons to become objects of the Divine anger. A similar statement is made in more simple terms in Rev. xxii. 3, and is substantially set forth in Isa. Ixv. 18, ff. Such is Zechariah's description of the blessings to be vouch- safed to " the remnant of the people." In one sense of the K K 498 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. ii, i?. expression they should "not be cut off from the city," though in another sense they would be enabled by Divine providence to escape therefrom in a period of peril and danger. There is no difficulty in supposing that Jerusalem here is at one time to be taken for the professing people who were so sadly unfaithful, while that city at another time is used to express a higher ideal. In the New Testament, true believers, the sanctified, the holy, are in one sense the only persons recognised as really belonging to the Church of Christ ; and yet the apostles often use other language, the language of fact, and denounce such transgressors as are outwardly in communion with the holy, but on account of whose sins judgment must commence at the house of God. Zechariah, moreover, gives us clearly to understand that the character of Jerusalem is to be completely changed at the close of this great day or period introduced by the advent of Jahaveh, even though that advent might not at once be perceived by Israel in general. Having thus glanced at the blessings to be manifested at the close of the great period commencing with such horrors, on account of the sin of Israel, Zechariah returns to give further details connected with the destruction of the enemies of the people of God. The destruction of the foe was passed over for a time in the prophetic narrative, in order that the wonderful rescue of the people of Jahaveh from peril and the transformation of the city of Jerusalem might be first de- scribed. In consequence of Jahaveh's going forth to fight with the nations, a pestilence or plague would fall upon all the peo- ples ' who should war against Jerusalem. The word in the ^ As the word W'TOV is used here, instead of DMH as in verse 2, Lange main- tains that the nations are thouglit of as made subject to the ne^v order of things, and are, therefore, considered as rebels for carrying on war against Jerusalem. The simple change of one word for its synonym does not justify such a conclusion. Note the use of W'M in verse i8. No mention is made of the nations having sub- mitted to the new order of things. The prophet does not, up to verse 12, make Ch.xiv.i2,i3.] "THE LAST THINGS " AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 499 original (nSiJD) is used of a plague or pestilence sent forth from God (Exod. ix. 14; Num. xiv. 37, xvii. 15, E. V. xvi. 50; 2 Sam. xxiv. 21), and also, but more rarely, of a defeat in battle (i Sam. iv. 17 ; 2 Sam. xvii. 9). The enemies are represented as stricken with the plague in the very moment of warfare, as the Assyrian army was stricken before Jeru- salem (Isa. xxxvii. 36).^ They are also depicted as at the same time seized with a sudden panic, which creates such a tumult among them that they turn their hands against one another (verse 13). And lastly, while the foes are thus con- sumed by pestilence, stricken with terror, and engaged in fight- ing with one another, Judah, as we shall see, is described by the prophet as stirred up to do valiantly in the cause of God. The plague which Jahaveh would send upon the hostile army was to be of a fearful character. While the enemies are in the act of standing upon their feet, engaged in their godless warfare, the plague begins among them. Jahaveh would cause ^ their flesh to consume away, their very eyes would melt away in their sockets, and their tongues rot in their mouths (verse 12).^ Their tongues were to be punished even an allusion to them, unless it be that the " remnant " fl^ from before them, which is only an inference from verse 2. Verse 12 is, therefore, most naturally to be viewed as resuming that part of the subject which had been passed over for a time in the narration. ^ If an earthquake is spoken of as accompanying the going forth of Jahaveh on this occasion to punish his foes, natural phenomena are also mentioned as accom- panying the pestilence caused by the Angel of Jahaveh in the ranks of the Assyrian army, for we read in Isa. xxx. 30, 31, that that pestilence was accompanied by a terrible storm, mingled with lightning, thunder and hailstones. Compare our remarks on pp. 468, ff. ^ The inf. abs. pDH is the explanation of nXTI, and, therefore, is virtually the subject, " and this will be the plague, namely, to consume their flesh." See Ges. § 131.4^- 3 See Deut. vii. 23, where Moses predicts of the nations of Canaan that the Lord " shall terrify them with a great confusion until they be destroyed," a passage inaccurately rendered by our A. V. "shall destroy them with a mighty destruc- tion until they be destroyed," for there is no connexion at all between the last two words, as there is between the first two, though not, however, so close as to justify the translation "shall confound them with a great confusion." Such a 500 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 12, 13. because with them they had spoken blasphemies against God and his people (comp. Isa. xxxvii. 6) ; their eyes, for there- with they had spied out the nakedness of the city of God (Keil). Jahaveh would send that "confusion" (HDinQ) upon the ranks of the plague-stricken foe which had been once threatened against Israel as a punishment for sin, together with outbreaks of pestilence (Deut. xxviii. 20, 21), which judg- ment was actually inflicted on that people (2 Chron. xv. 5 ; Amos iii. 9), though a visitation originally designed to be used only against their adversaries.^ Such " confusions " are spoken of as actually occurring along with pestilences (i Sam. V. 9), and as caused by God in war (i Sam. xiv. 20; Isa. xxii. 5), and in this passage of Zechariah as connected with both. The consequence of such confusion among the foes would be seen by their ranks being set at variance with one another, as often happened in former times (Jud. vii. 22 ; i Sam. xiv. 15, 20 ; 2 Chron. xx. 23), " so that they shall seize each on the hand of his neighbour, and his hand {each man's hand) shall be lifted up against the hand of his neighbour." ^ A still further element of confusion would be added to the adversaries. When Jonathan gained his wonderful victory over the Philistine garrison at Michmash, there was a "confusion " caused by God in the ranks of the Philistines (i Sam. xiv. 20), which resulted, as here, in a terrible conflict taking place in "confusion" accompanying a pestilence God had once sent among the Philistines (i Sam. V. 9), and it is depicted as " a deadly confusion," lit. "a confusion of death" (verse 11). Our A. V. have thus rendered the word in both verses by "destruction." 1 The suffix with the first noun is singular used distributively, with the other two nouns the singular suffix passes into the plural. Compare, with Hitzig, the second clause in Hos. iv. 8. 2 The verb TVV to go up, to arise, is often used of things without life, and ought to be rendered passively be lifted up, as Amos iii. 5 ; Prov. xxvi. 9 ; Job xxxvi. 20. So Gesenius and Pusey, but the first two instances may be disputed, ^nd even here the verb might be translated actively. It is better, perhaps, to render the preposition ■py in the clause, "against," than to suppose with Kohler special reference to be made to the fact that in such a hand-to-hand struggle a man seeks to raise his hand above the hand of the other. See crit. comm. "^ Ch.xiv.i3,i4]"THE LAST THINGS" AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 50I their own ranks. Those Hebrews who on that occasion were with the Philistines, as well as Israelites who had fled into the holes or fastnesses of the mountains, plucked up courage when they saw the confusion of their adversaries, and stood up boldly against them. Thus in the picture here given, when the ranks of the enemies are thinned by pestilence and mutual slaughter, the prophet represents the whole of the people of Judah, not merely those who had escaped out of the city, but also those who were outside its walls, as once more fighting at Jerusalem, or in its very streets, against the terror-driven, plague-stricken, God-confounded foe. The first clause, indeed, of verse 14 has been rendered, " and Judah also shall fight against Jerusalem," a translation which is perfectly defensible, as the verb in question is generally construed with the preposition which occurs here in that signification. But the preposition is also used with this verb in a locative signification. See the passages adduced in the note on p. 464. The context of each passage alone can decide which of the two renderings ought to be adopted.^ Ewald, Maurer, Umbreit, and others, adopt " fight against," following the Vulgate, the Jewish commentators, Luther, Calvin, etc. The Targum also renders " even those of the house of Judah shall the peoples bring by violence to wage war against Jerusalem." But the LXX. and the Syr. take the other view of the passage. If the former was neces- 1 The construction of Judah here with a feminine verb proves nothing, as "Judah" though generally construed as a masculine when used in the sense of the people, is often used in that signification when treated as a feminine, as is noted also by Gesenius in his Thes. Instances of this are Ps. cxiv. 2 ; Nah. ii. i (E.V. i. 15) ; Jer. xiv. 2, xxiii. 6, xxxiii. 16. The statement made by Gesenius in his Worterbuch is not to be taken as universally correct, namely, that when Judah signifies the land of Judaea it is fem., and masculine when it signifies the people. The reason of this fluctuation in gender arises from the comparison of states and countries to women, a comparison which is used even when the people of a state or country are signified, as Jer. iii. 8. De Dieu translates, "etiam, o Juda, ciba- beris in Jerusalem." This rendering of the niphal is against the iisus loqucndi. Tremellius and Junius, Marck and others, also take the name as in the vocative. 502 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES, [Ch. xiv. 14, sarily the rendering of the clause, we should feel ourselves constrained, with Hitzig and Lange, to consider the clause as an interpolation from chap, xii., because thus interpreted the passage has no connexion with what precedes, and no ex- planation is afforded of such a strange statement. We main- tain, also, that even in chap. xii. no mention is made of any hostilities between Judah and Jerusalem, and such a thought would be peculiarly inappropriate in the present connexion, introduced as it would be without notice between a statement concerning the destruction of the foe and the distribution of their spoils. Kohler understands "Judah" in this place to signify the inhabitants of the lowland of Judsea, but it is better to regard it as signifying the entire body of the people of Israel who had escaped from Jerusalem, united with their friends outside its walls. According to the description given in verse 2, with which this is to be connected, Jerusalem is considered as entirely in the hands of the nations, trodden down by them. The mention of Judah fighting at Jerusalem is introduced in order to show the new courage infused into the people, and is absolutely necessary to prepare us for the statement made in the next clause of the verse respecting the gathering of the spoil of the foe. The camp, or camps (verse 15), for the camps of various nations are thought of as round about Jerusalem, are described as thoroughly oriental in their character. Hence the gold, and silver, and the garments in such abundance gathered by Judah on this great battle-field. Compare the description of the camp of the Syrians spoiled by the Israelites in 2 Kings vii. 8, Inasmuch as the nations had fallen under the Divine curse, their animals are also represented as destroyed by the pestilence — the horses as well as their riders die of the plague, even the mules, the camejs, and the asses, and all the cattle ; everything which had been used in the service Ch.xiv. 14,15-] "THE LAST THINGS AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 503 of the kingdom of darkness. Such cases perhaps as that of Josh. vii. 24, where the cattle of Achan are represented as destroyed along with himself and his family, may have passed before the prophet's mind. The horses may, as Hitzig has suggested, have been thought of first as generally employed in war; next the mule as an animal used by the commander- in-chief, even in battle (comp. 2 Sam. xviii. 9) ; and lastly the beasts of burden (Isa. xxi. 7). Thus is the plundering of Jerusalem by the nations to be fully avenged, and by the help of Jahaveh, not by their own prowess, the people of Judah are represented as getting the victory and as enriched with the spoil of their foes. The prophets are wont to represent the judgments of Jaha- veh denounced against Israel as destined ultimately to result in the recovery of that people from their sin, and in their reception into the favour of God. The judgments, too, which fall upon the nations are sometimes represented as having a like effect. For when the judgments of Jahaveh are abroad in the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness (Isa. xxvi. 9). Such is also here depicted as the result of the victory of Jahaveh over the nations, and of his gracious acts on behalf of the remnant of Judah, under which name the entire of the people of Israel must be understood. " The entire remnant of all the nations " is spoken of as going up to worship Jahaveh, and to keep in conjunction with Israel the feast of tabernacles. It is clear that the entire of the nations is here meant, and not merely the beaten relics of the army of the nations which had fought against Jerusalem, and which is described as consumed by pestilence, like the army of Sennacherib, and dispersed by the sword of Jahaveh and his people, like the hosts of Midian in earlier days (Jud, vii. 20). It is remarkable that the priest-prophet should next speak of the advent of an age when no distinction should be made 504 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. i6. between Israel and the Gentiles, an age introduced and con- cluded with special mercies vouchsafed to Israel intermingled with judgments, but destined to close with Israel and the nations keeping the feasts together, the Gentiles as well as the Jews going up to Jerusalem " to worship as a king Jahaveh of hosts and to keep the feast of tabernacles." Kohler has noticed that many Jewish commentators, as Ibn Ezra and Abarbanel, consider that there is a reference here made to the Messiah.^ But, as he observes, it is fatal to this view that the Messiah is not spoken of in this chapter, while Jahaveh is distinctly mentioned in verse 9. Lange remarks that the Messiah, whose first coming is so clearly prophesied in chapter ix., would hardly be expected to disap- ipear at the close of the book, but rather to appear there in a more glorious character. But the question is not whether the coming of Jahaveh in this chapter may not, when combined with other passages, be explained as identical with the coming of the Messiah, but whether the prophet himself has dis- tinctly so represented it. The answer to this question must be in the negative. Nor can we venture to assert, with Lange, that it is clear that the prophet speaks of all the members of the families of the nations, and not merely the males, as going to Jeru- salem. This is rather too great a strain to put upon the word rendered " family," which can with equal propriety be ren- dered " tribe." The passage gives no indication that the pro- phet contemplated any departure from Jewish usage in that respect. 1 They seem to have regarded the word king in the phrase " to worship "i nin'' ■Jl/'P?" as in the construct state, as if the phrase meant "to worship the king of Jahaveh," i.e. him who was constituted king by the decree of Jahaveh (Ps. ii. 6). But this construction is a forced one, and contrary to 'the accentuation. The 1?D must be regarded as in the absolute state, and it refers to Jahaveh, as the Targinn has rightly viewed it. Jahaveh is spoken of " as a great king over all the earth," as well as "the great king." The woi^s might be rendered here "to king Jahaveh, etc." Ch.xiv. 17.] " THE LAST THINGS " AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 505 The tribes or families of the earth are represented as going up yearly ' to Jerusalem for the feast of tabernacles. Com- mentators are much divided in opinion as to the reason why that feast is specially mentioned by Zechariah. Hitzig thinks that the writer speaks only of one feast, because all the nations could not possibly be required to go up yearly from all parts of the earth to three feasts in Jerusalem. His idea, that the feast of tabernacles was the only one which in earlier days was observed at the central sanctuary, is un- supported by any evidence. Others have supposed that the feast of tabernacles is specially mentioned in this place, because it was held in the autumn, which is the season of the year when travelling is most agreeable. So Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Grotius, Bauer, Rosenmiiller. Others have conceived a deeper meaning, namely, that the wander- ings of the Israelites in the wilderness and their entrance into the land of Canaan represented the redemption through Christ and the admission of the Gentiles into the blessings of the Church of Christ (Calmet, Hesselberg, and nearly so Cyrill). Hengstenberg and others think that the feast of tabernacles is specially mentioned because that feast was celebrated when the toilsome journey of the Israelites through the desert was ended, and that the feast itself was a com- memoration of Israel's sojourn in the desert (Lev. xxiv. 39-43). So when the Church, composed of all nations, shall have come to the end of her long pilgrimage, she may well be represented as keeping a similar feast of thanksgiving unto God. This is substantially the view of Jerome, Cappellus, Munster, Dathe, and Kliefoth, though some of these commen- ^ The phrase which occurs in this place is thus to be explained : ^^ID (comp. of }P and "'1) is used in the sense of "as often as," in which it fre- quently occurs, ^3t^'3 niC' means year added to year, i.e., every year as it joins itself on to another year. See i Sam. i. 7 ; i Kings v. 25. So also t^'lhll ^"iu "month by iiiojtth,^'' and '1J1 It^'inil t^'"^^ '•'^P " as often as month (joins) to its month, and as often as Sabbath (joins) to its Sabbath " (Isa. Ixvi. 23). 506 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 17. tators view the prediction as fulfilled spiritually in the case of believers, while others of them consider it to be a prediction of something which is yet to come. Kimchi considers that this feast is mentioned because the victory spoken of in the former part of the chapter will be actually gained at that time of the year, and therefore will be celebrated from year to year in connexion with the feast of tabernacles. We need not discuss such an interpretation. Nor can we regard the view of Hezel as correct, namely, that the feast of tabernacles is only alluded to as one of the feasts to be kept. This appears also to be the opinion of Pressel, who thinks the prophet mentions that feast only be- cause it was the greatest festival of joy celebrated by Israel ; and because the festival which commemorated the establish- ment of God's rule over earth would naturally be celebrated with gladness and rejoicing. The feast of tabernacles was not merely a feast in which Israel recalled to mind the mercies which God granted to them in the wilderness or in their entrance into Canaan, but was mainly a harvest festival, celebrated when the harvest had been completely gathered in (Exod. xxiii. 16; Lev. xxiii. 39-43 ; Deut. xvi. 13-15). It was therefore a festival in which all the nations of the world might well join together in grateful thanksgiving to God for the blessings of nature, which in the days of darkness they had too often sought from vanities of their own devising (Zech. x. i, 2; Jer. xiv. 22). This is the view of Kohler, and it harmonizes with the state- ment in the next verse, in which the prophet says that any neglect in the celebration of this festival would be followed by the withdrawal of the rain which was needed for the harvest (verse 18). The festival was also that of the wine harvest, and wine is often employed as a symbol of higher joys. It is clear, from the mention made of all the families of the Ch. xiv. i7,iS.] " THE LAST THINGS " AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 507 earth going up to the feast of tabernacles in Jerusalem, that the words of the prophet are not designed to be taken literally. Their literal fulfilment would be impossible. The impossibility will appear more glaring if the closing portion of Isaiah be borne in mind, where the Gentiles are said to go up to worship at Jerusalem, not merely at one but at all the festivals, and even on the new moons and Sabbaths. A con- siderable time, moreover, is contemplated by Zechariah as elapsing before all flesh is brought thus to worship the Lord, and occasional exceptions on the part of the nations in the performance of this duty are considered possible. Though he represents " the nations " as brought into covenant with Jahaveh, the sin of apostasy is not regarded as impossible, though it would be visited with certain punishment. The rain, the cessation of which is mentioned as the judgment wherewith Jahaveh should punish the apostate nations, is evidently the " early rain," which generally falls in Palestine shortly after the harvest time, about the end of October and the beginning of November. Hence the use of the article in verse 17 (Dti^JH). The withholding of rain in the days of the theocracy, was one of the ways ,by which God was wont to punish idolatry and apostasy {comp. i Kings xvii., xviii.). The translation of verse 18 presents some difficulties. The rendering of our A. V. is no doubt incorrect, " and if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that Jiavc no rain, etc." It implies that the prophet refers to a supposed fact in the physical geography of that country, which is not the case. The most natural translation of the clause is, " and if the family of Egypt go not up and come ^ (to Jerusalem), there * The participle is here used, as is shown by the tone on the ultimate. Ewald considers the participle is chosen simply for the sake of change, and must be ex- plained as equivalent to the imperf. preceding, just as in chap. xiii. 3, 4, the infini- tives are used for the same purpose. But see crit. comm. 508 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. i8, 19. (there shall be) no (rain) upon them, there will be the plague with which Jahaveh will smite the nations, who do not come up to the feast of tabernacles." This is perhaps the best view to take of the passage, though the reading of the LXX. has considerable support, which omits one of the negatives and thus obtains the sense, " and if the tribe of Egypt does not go up nor come, the plague will be upon them with which Jaha- veh will smite all the nations, etc." 1 Hitzig, with Bunsen and Lange, render the passage interrogatively, " and if the family of Egypt will not go up and will not come, will then the plague not fall upon them, with which Jahaveh smites the heathen which will not go up in order to keep the feast of tabernacles.''" Verse 19 must in this case be regarded as giving an emphatic answer to this question, and affirming that the plague would assuredly fall upon all transgressors without exception. ^ In verse 17, instead of the phrase "and the rain shall not be upon them," the LXX. have koI oh-oi. eKelvois ■n-podTeO-qaovTai, " and these shall be opposed to those," reading perhaps, as Kohler has suggested, D^]]p •VH'' DH''?!^ HpSlI where the Vulg., as well as the Greek vei-sions of Aq., Symm. and Theod., support the reading of the Hebrew. In verse 18 the LXX., followed, of course, by the Arab., read koL iirl toijtois ^orot i] irTuxxts, thus omitting the third N? and con- necting the Dn''?y with the following sentence. Similarly the Syr., which has ^a^^ even, also, in place of the N?. This reading is approved by Dathe, Umbreit, and Ewald, and would simplify the passage. But it is the more sus- picious on that account. Six Hebrew MSS. support this reading, two of them with the LXX. simply omitting the H?, while four omit N?1 altogether. The difficulty of the present text is not that we have to supply after DUvI^ N7l the two latter words of the phrase occurring in the previous verse, Dilv^ X7l DEJ'Jn ^''^^ which is quite natural, but that one feels the want of somesuch word as nST, i/iis, before the substantive verb, as in verse 19. The Targ. paraphrases, " the Nile will not increase (pQ\ lit. aseena) for them." Vulg. has "nee super eos erit (evidently wiber is to be supplied) sed erit ruina, etc." Hitzig's translation is ingenious, but Kpl can, as Kohler notes, scarcely be used in the beginning of the apodosis of a question. Exod. viii. 22 would hardly war- rant this translation here, while it is very doubtful whether Ezek. xvi. 56 is to be rendered interrogatively, with Hengst. and Hitzig, and not as a simple statement of fact, as Rosenmiiller, Ewald, and Schroeder regard it. Venema suggested long ago that this passage in Zech. might be taken^nterrogatively, though he rightly considers it harsh. Ch. xlv. iS, 19.]" THE LAST THINGS " AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 509 The mention of Egypt in this passage must not be regarded, as Bleek, Berthold, von Ortenberg, Knobel and others have viewed it, as an indication that the author hved in pre- exiHan times when poHtical differences existed between that country and Judah. The pohtics of Egypt previous to the exile were, as Pressel notes, of considerably less importance to Judah than those of Assyria and Babylon, and, therefore, Egypt would scarcely be thought of by a pre-exilian writer as the principal enemy of God's people. The most probable interpretation of the fact is that put forward by Cyrill, and adopted by March and Ewald, namely, that the writer re- fers to the old hostility between Egypt and Israel, which existed from the time of the exodus. Nor must Egypt, as has been suggested, be viewed as a designation of the Gentiles in general, or the opinion of Venema be followed, who con- siders that that country is specially mentioned because many Jews lived in Egypt, and had synagogues there, and a temple was built there in later days by Onias. Egypt would thus be regarded as a country which had opportunities of learning the ways of God, and hence peculiarly culpable in case of disobedience. The interpretation is a strange one, because the temple in Egypt was not built by Onias till' B.C. 149, and Venema is not to be classed among those scholars who have called in question the authenticity of the book of Zechariah.^ The view of Kohler is peculiar. He considers the prophet to refer to an objection which some one might in mockery ^ Among those interpretations which are now exploded is that of Grotius, who explains " the tribe of Egypt " as referring to the Jews scattered in Egypt, who went into that land with Onias, and erected the temple referred to above. Grotius understood the expression, "all nations," used in verse 19, to refer to the dis- persed Jews. This is quite contrary to the usage of that phrase. Bauer, also refers the expression "the families of the earth " to the families living upon Jewish soil, though he does not agree with Grotius in his exposition of verse 18. But the expression " families of the earth " evidently means the Gentiles, and not merely Jewish families, as in chap. xii. 12. See the use of that expression in Amos iii, 2 ; and also in Ezek. xx. 32. 510 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv.iS, 19. adduce against the statement that God would punish the re- calcitrant nations by sending them no rain. Such a scoffer might inquire how such a penalty could be inflicted on the Egyptians, inasmuch as the fertility of their land did not de- pend on the rain or showers from heaven, but on the rise of the waters of the Nile. Against such an objector the prophet emphasizes the statement that even the Egyptians would be punished with the same plague as the other nations. For the prophet may have been fully aware that the rise of the waters of the Nile depended entirely on the fall of rain in the highlands of the countries south of Egypt. But this interpretation seems too artificial.^ The most natural translation of the following verse (verse " 19) is : " This will be the punishment of Egypt and the pun- ishment of all the nations which do not go up to keep the feast of tabernacles." The word J^^^D^, which properly means sin, signifies also sin in its effects as bringing punishment in its train. Such is the natural meaning of the sentence. Com- pare Isa. v. 18 ; Num. xxxii. 18. Sin and punishment are always closely connected. This is substantially the view of Ewald, Keil, and Kohler. Nor is there any essential difference between Ewald's translation, " this will be the punishment of Egypt," and that of Hengstenberg, " this will be the sin of Egypt," which he explains as sin looked upon in the light of its consequences. The meaning of the translation "sin-offer- ing," adopted by others, as Hitzig and Lange, is not very different, for punishment for sin is in that case figuratively regarded as the offering for sin ; though perhaps from a theo- 1 The vei-y fact of such a plague being described as the peculiar punishment of the nations for not going up to Jerusalem, proves that the prophecy is not to be regarded as absolutely literal. For, as Lange observes, if tlie family of Egypt were to be punished by the deficiency of water, the Abyssinians, even though they attended the feast at Jerusalem, would have to suffer at the same time, as Egypt can only suffer from a scarcity of water in connexion with all the lands to the south of that country. ^ Ch. xiv. 19,20.] " THE LAST THINGS " AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 5 1 1 logical standpoint this latter translation is objectionable. It might, however, be explained in an unobjectionable sense. Others have suggested that the meaning of the passage is, "this is the sin ;" and explain it as signifying that the chief or only sin of the age referred to would consist in such a refusal to keep the feast of tabernacles at Jerusalem. But this gives a very poor sense. The last verses of the chapter do not present any difficulty. They are decisive against the opinion advocated by some that Jewish observances and rites are to be restored at the end of the Christian dispensation. No clearer statement than that found in these verses could be made to show that everything peculiarly Jewish should pass away. " In that day there will be upon the bells of the horses ^ 'holiness to Jahaveh.' " For the mitre of the high priest had upon it a plate of gold with this very inscription (Exod. xxviii. 36, 38, xxix. 6, see p. 62) ; and if the bells on the horses' trappings were in future to have such inscriptions, they would be regarded as being as sacred as that mitre. It is a well known fact that horses as well as other animals were adorned with bells in the east as well as in the west ; sometimes, instead of bells, small pieces of metal were used, which striking against each other gave forth a tinkling sound. The horses, which were 1 There is no uncertainty as to the meaning of the word ni^^'O, though it only occurs in this passage, as the signification of the root is dear, and another word formed from it (D.^VP) is used in the sense of cj'mia/s, so called from their sound. Yet the LXX. render it by xaXcvds, Vulg. frenum, 6ii or drid/e, and so Syr. ; while Aquila and Theod. give it ^v96t, depth, regarding it as identical with nH'P Zech. i. 8. Symm. has Trepi'Troros av aliovijov. CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMMENTARY. CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMMENTARY. CHAPTER I. I. On the months, see note on verse 7. C. B. Michaelis considers that as the day of the month is not named, the ordinal which quali- fies the month is also to be understood as marking the day. Hitzig maintains that in such a case that fact would have been expressly mentioned, as in Exod. xix, i, or be directly deducible from the context, as in Deut. xvi. i ; i Sam. xx. 5. But as ^"tn is often used for the day of the new moon, the first of the month, it might, as Kohler notes, have that signification here. If this be so, Zecha- riah received his first recorded prophetic inspiration on a feast- day, as Haggai did, and exactly two months later than his fellow prophet. The Syr. translator was of this opinion, for he adds '' in the first day of the month." The Darius mentioned in Zechariah and Haggai cannot be any other than Darius Hystaspis, for Haggai speaks of some of the exiles as having seen the temple of Solomon in its glory. As that temple was destroyed in B.C. 587, this could not have been the case if the Darius referred to was Darius Ochus or Nothus, who ascended the throne of Persia in B.C. 424. Joseph Scaliger, who took the latter view, tried to avoid the difficulty arising from Hag. ii. 3, by an erro- neous translation of that passage. See Kohler's Comm. on Haggai, pp. 7, 8. The Hebrew ^V^r}^ corresponds to the old Persian Darya- vush, found in the arrow-headed inscriptions of Persepolis and Be- histun. Son of Iddo. Zechariah is mentioned as a son of Iddo in 526 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. i. 2, 3. Neh. xii. 1 6. Iddo was one of the heads of a priestly family in the days of Joiakim the high priest, who was the son of the great high priest who with Zerubbabel headed the first band of exiles which returned to Jerusalem. Zechariah is also mentioned as the son of Iddo in Ezra v. i, vi. 14. p is used not merely of a son, but also of a grandson. Compare, besides the present text, 2 Kings :si«. 14 with 20. See Introduction § i. The term " the prophet " no doubt refers to Zechariah, So the LXX. and Vulg. The Hebrew accentuation, however, connects it with " Iddo." This accentuation rests upon an old idea that when a prophet is specially distinguished by the addition of his father's name, the father so named was also a prophet. Kimchi adopts this view, without perceiving the gross anachronism of identifying the Iddo here mentioned with Iddo the seer who prophesied against Jeroboam I. (2 Chron. ix. 29). In the year two. On the cardinal for the ordinal, see Ges. §120,4; Kalisch § 91, 4. 2. ^VR- ^^^T- When a verb takes as its object a noun from the same stem expressing the idea inherent in the verb, the action of the verb is expressed more vividly (Ges. § 138, i, rem. i ; Kalisch § 102, 7 ; Ewald § 281, a). Its force in the present case is to add emphasis to the verb, and is well expressed by Ewald's rendering, which we have adopted. The phrase is not, however, to be regarded with Rosenmiiller as altogether equivalent to that used in verse 1 5 and in chap. vii. 1 2, though the LXX, and Syr. have rendered them alike. An intransitive becomes transitive with the accusative of kindred meaning. Comp. verse 14, chap, viii. 2 ; Ps. xiv. 5 ; 2 Sam. xii. 16 ; 2 Kings iv. 13 ; 2 Kings xiii. 14, etc. 3. ri"i»i?, originally affirmative, then restrictive, otily, yet, however, as limiting what was said before (Ewald § 105 d), It is closely con- nected with ?, 1?, !5>?. See Bottcher Lehrb. § 520. "1^1, used of threatenings, as Ezek. xii. 28; Jer.xxxix. 16. '^\>V\. Here not statutes, ordinances, but divinely appointed decrees (Ps. ii. 7 ; Zeph. ii. 2). 3^3 only used in hiphil. It occurs with reference to blessings (Deut. xxviii. 2), and in the same chapter (verses 15, 45) also of curses. Designed to do. The prophet perhaps had Lam. ii. 1 7 in his mind. 7. "131 is revelation in general (chap, xi, 11), though taken in with the eye ; ntn, and ll^n, though properly referring to visions, are also used of a revelation communicated through the ear. See p. 5. 1311?'. The names of the Hebrew months seem to have been changed after the captivity. The names which then came into use were of Assyrio-Babylonian origin, as is proved by a table of Assyrian months discovered in Nineveh and published by Norris in his Diet. The following list with the Assyrian names is based upon that given by Schrader [die Keilinschriften und das A. Test.-^. 247): (i) |D\3 Nisan (called in Pent. !''?>< v!, Abib), April, Neh. ii. i ; Esth. iii. 7 ; Ni-sa-an-nu. (2) 1*>^, 'lyyar (not Biblical, Talmudic), Ai-ru, May, Heb. 1?, Ziv, i Kings vi. 37. (3) IVP, Sivan, Si-va-nu, y?^^/^, Esth. viii. 9. (4) T-l'Sri Tammuz (not Biblical as the name of a month, Talmudic), Du-vu-zu, Ju/y. (5) 3^, Ab, A-bu (not Biblical, Ch. i. 8.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 529 Talmudic), August (6) ^^^% 'Elul, U-lu-lu, Neh. vi. 15, September. (7) n.t^'n, Tishri, Tas-ri-tu (not Biblical, Talmudic), October. Hebrew once D''Jnsn nij?, " in the month of ever-flowing streams," Ethani?}i, I Kings viii. 2. (8) V^^Pp, Marchesva?i, originally called ''•IS, Btd, I Kings vi. 38 {Joseph. Antiq. i. 3, § 3), A-ra-ah {i.q. ni;:)sam-na {^Pf), i.e., the eighth month, November. (9) I^P?) Kislev, Neh. i. i ; Zech. vii. i, Ki-si-li-vu, Decejnber. (10) ^np, Tebeth, Ti-bi-tuv, Esth. ii. \b, January. (11) t23^, Sebat, or Shebat, Sa-ba-tu, Zechi. 7; I Mace. xvi. 14, February. (12) "il^, ^^ar, Ad-da-ru, Esth. iii. 7, March, and 11*J"i., the intercalary month, Ar-hu ma-ak-ru sa Addaru {i.e., the month after the Addar). The EngUsh equivalents are only of course approximately true as the months were lunar. 8. Ti'^Sl without a formal object, the whole vision being in fact the object. It scarcely means, as Umbreit, Kohler and Pressel, suppose, ^'Iwasm the peculiar condition of a seer," or ns'l, as Samuel, the father of Old Test, prophets, is called. The Hjn introduces the special details of the vision. n^vilj ace. of time, by night or in the night, hardly indicating, as Keil and Lange think, " during the night," as if it meant that the whole night long was occupied with visions (Ges. § 118, 2 ; Kalisch § 86, 4/). On the article, see Ges. § 109 rem. at beginning, Kalisch § 79? 5 [6]- It might be rendered "in the night," but is scarcely equivalent to " this day," in which case it would have been HTn TO'hr^. See note 2, p. 5. As the Jewish day began at sunset, the night was what we would call the night of the twenty-third day. Night was frequently the season for Divine revelations, as in the cases of Samuel (i Sam. iii.), Solomon (i Kings iii. 5), Job (iv. 12, ff), Paul (Acts xvi. 9), etc. IJDy J^inij might refer either to the man, "and he was standing between the myrtle trees," in which case the suffix in Vinsi would refer to the same person, " and behind him ; " or, as Hitzig notes, if verse 10 were not in the way, it might refer to the horse^ "audit was standing, etc.," and "behind it." Verse 10, however, shows that the reference is to the man. "The Jews," says Jerome, " suppose this man to be the angel Michael, who is the avenger of the iniquities and the sins of Israel." Fiirst {der Kanon des A.T.) notes that the Jewish opinion given in the Talmud is that the man on the red horse is God, that the red horse signifies blood and war, and that the myrtles in the deep valley M M 530 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. i. 8. where he halts represent the three pious men, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (Dan. i, 6), who restrain God from executing his ven- geance. The deep there is explained as representing Babylon. The rendering of the LXX. koL oSros da-T-qKu ava ixiaov tQv (alia ex- emp. Twi'Svo) op€'cov(as if reading D ''inn P?) twv Karao-KtW (nPVOn X'X) seem to have arisen from a confusion of the first with the seventh vision in chap. vi. i, fif., the horses in both passages being supposed to be represented in the same place. The variations in the reading are given below. But the character of the two visions is totally different (see pp. 12, 13). Aq. and Symm. correctly twi/ /xupo-tvewi/wi', the myrtle groves. Syr., " and standing between shady trees." n^^J??. On the article see p. 10 and the note there. It has also been explained as akin to our phrases, " on the shore," " in the shade," Germ, ''am Ufer," " im Schatten." The correct reading is as we have given it, (not nWoa with daghesh in the ''), following Baer ■ and Delitzsch in their critical edition of the Minor Prophets. They note that it is one of the forty-eight words only written once without vav. They observe that the note in the Rabb. Bibles, ti*3Ti "iDn TT)^ is correct, for ^3*11 means that ^ has daghesh, which fact distin- guishes this word from npivp? (Ps. cvii. 24). Hence its plural occurs with the script, plena in chap. x. 1 1. The Vulg. has in prof undo ; the Targ. gives an interpretation when it renders " in Babylon." Hence deep valley seems its proper meaning (the plural is used of the depths of the sea, Jonah ii. 4 ; of a river, Zech. x. 1 1 ; and of miry places, Ps. Ixix. 3), rather than shade, or shady place, in which case it should be written with the daghesh in the ?. Fiirst treats nbvp or n>ivp as put for nWp and considers the word to signify a tent (com- paring nsD^ Ps. xviii. 1 2) represented as the dwelling place of God in heaven and symbolised by the earthly tabernacle (Rev. xi. 19, ii. 17), the myrtles denoting the olive trees which were in the court of the temple (2 Mace. xiv. 4). But see note p. 8. Very similarly Bottcher, who would read npV'??, in the shady roof (im Schatten-Dach),z>., under cover of the shade of the surroundings of the tabernacle in which God was supposed to dwell. He maintains that np^^n cannot mean the sacred tabernacle itself, but rather the space before that tabernacle which was planted with trees. This is a mere fancy,'and is strangely supported by a reference to Gen. iii. 8 ! The view of Hitzig and Ewald is not very dissimilar. (See p. 8). The LXX. and Syr. connect the word with the idea of shade, L!^X. dva /xeVov twv opeW twv Ch. i. 8.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 53 I Karao-KtW, reading for D'^BIDlI either D'^lv^n, or Cl^nn, as Rosen- miiller and Schleusner, or perhaps Qn-ltD, which the LXX. translate in Isa. xlv. 2 by oprj. With respect to the golden vine alluded to in the note on p. 8, it ought to be observed that Josephus speaks of such a vine being stretched by Herod the Great upon the door of the temple {Antiq. XV. II, § 3; Bell. /lid. V. 5, § 4). It has been, however, disputed whether the vine spoken of by Josephus as given by Aristobulus to Pompey ever belonged to the temple, and it has been supposed by some to have been a treasure or heir-loom of the Asmonsean family. So Hudson and Havercamp. The Talmud says that the golden vine was the gift of the Queen-mother Helene of Adiabene. On the significance of the colours see our remarks on p. 14, ff. Ibn Ezra considers the colours here to be of no significance, no more than the material of the cake in Judges vii. 13. That red is often used in a figurative meaning is shown by 2 Kings iii. 22, where the water which appeared red in the rays of the sun represented slaughter ; and the red garments of the rider spoken of in Isa. Ixiii. i, 2, are evidently symbolical. The question whether the colours are symbolical in Zechariah is a different matter, and the uncertainty about the colour signified by D''p"iK', and the disagreement betAveen commenta- tors as to the symbol intended, make us adhere to the view expressed in the chapter referred to. But in addition to the articles noticed in note I, p. 20, Delitzsch's interesting paper on " Die Talmud und die Farben" in the number of Nord u. Slid iox May 1878 ought to be mentioned. It is not clear Avhat precise colour is designated by D'^i'^X'. Rashi and Kimchi confess that they do not know what colour is meant. The word occurs in a slightly different form, C3''i>'-1"i?^, in Isa. xvi. 8, in the sense of the clusters or grapes of the vine. From the same root comes pip (Isa. v. 2 ; Jer. ii. 21), and Hpnb' (Gen. xlix. n), a kind of noble vine, so called from the colour of the grapes. The root P"i£^, to be pale red, is to be connected with the Arabic J\ tiij to shine, which is used in the derived sense of becoming red. With the letters transposed there is >2ji«, from whence the common adjective -lSJs) applied to both men and horses. 1 ' P"i'K^ to card, to comb, is quite a different root. Pressel is decidedly wrong in seeking to connect the noun p^.tJ' with the root in the sense of combing, carding, as if it meant the finely striped zxid^ fine fibred vine as contrasted with the 532 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. i. 8. When applied to a man it denotes a ruddy complexion combined with fairness ; when applied to a horse (and the very word is used here in the Arabic translation) it denotes a sorrel colour, a yellowish red or brown, or a red colour inclining to a dull red. Though horses of this colour are said by some to be the best, Hariri says that the Arabs generally regard the colour as of evil omen (See Lane's Arab. Lexicon). Saadiah gives <5H?** ^^ an equivalent for the Hebrew VSP, the vine, which is a mere transcription of the Hebrew, but Abu'l- wahd speaks of ^^„y^\(ox as it is in Neubauer's edition sj ,^1) as the name of a most noble species of vine which grows m Syria, The ancient versions do not cast much light on the matter. The Targum has VT\)\>,, according to the London Polyglott, of whose meaning Buxtorf is uncertain, but which Bochart renders red. The Ethiopic for red is 'f'^rh: kayeh. Levy writes pnip or T^VP-., which latter is the reading of de Lagarde, and which Levy considers to be probably the Greek KvavoxaLTr}<;, dark inaned. The LXX, have kox ij/apol koL ttolklXol, speckled and piebald, though some MSS, omit the first epithet, Aq. ^avQoi, Vulg. varii. The Syr. has |2^co*;2, which, as it is used for the Hebrew 5<-vt? in their translation of Gen. xxx. 32, must mean spotted, parti-coloured. The Arab, version has five adjectives, " red, and sorrel, and black, and white, and grey," reading -n-yppos for i/'apos, which reading Jerome mentions (see Ges. T/ies.). Gesenius seems to be correct in regarding the Hebrew word here as identical with the Arabic equivalent which we have here translated sorrel, and which is a word used of horses and explained as above on the authority of Lane. In the passage in chap. vi. 3, respecting the horses of the the fourth chariot, the Arab, translates D^^'f^X Dmi by ^Sja ^^ variegated, sorrel, where the LXX, have ttolklXol xj/apot, the Arab., perhaps, reading irvppoL, which Jerome says was the reading of some copies, though not now found in any MSS. The CVDNH of verse 7 is similarly rendered. Aquila in the latter passage has -mippoL Kohler translates D^'?lb by fire-coloured or fiery-red, comparing the Chald. and Talm. pll*' or pID to paint, to rouge, of women, with transposition of letters "ipD, whence ^IP^P, rouge. This is evi- dently connected with the Arab, root spoken of above. Keil's re- coarser sort in Jer. ii. 21, and then viewing tli^ word in our text, when referring to horses, as signifying y/y;c.'-/^(i//Vi/, sleek-coated. Ch. i. 9.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 533 mark that the meaning " pale red " or " fiery red " is not provable in Hebrew is misleading, as it seems to leave out of sight the important fact that the word is nowhere else used except in the passages already- referred to. Delitzsch thinks that pl'^ is to be explained as scarlet, corresponding to the colour of fire. He considers that the ^~P was so called from its colour, and compares ^5^, the red, or blood- coloured dSitxaow^ {Lane). See Delitzsch's remarks on Isa. v. Comp- %y>-^ of a cloth stained with a red colour. The fem. ij-^lis is used, as Lane notes, as a substantive iox fire. The Arab, adjec- tive when applied to a camel means one ^'' intensely red.''' There is no doubt a great temptation to try to explain the term here, as the ancient versions have apparently done, by a reference to the phrase in chap. vi. 2, or even to the colours in Rev. vi., and thus to seek to make out, with Keil, that the word is equivalent to the Greek x^wpos, in defiance of all philological considerations. The order, moreover, here is (i) the D^JDHX, red, rendered by the LXX. TTvppoi; (2) the D''P"IK', LXX. i/^apoi KoX TTOLKcXoi; (3) the D''33?^ white, LXX. XevKoL In chap, vi. the order is (i) the red, as here, expressed by the same words in Hebrew and LXX. ; (2) the Q'''?np', black, so LXX., which colour is not found here; (3) the white, expressed by the same words as here both in the Hebrew and the LXX. ; (4) the ^'''l'!!)?, speckled, also not mentioned here, unless we arbitrarily consider that, though mentioned /^z^r///, these horses are to be identified with the D^plb* mentioned second m this place. These Q^ia have a further epithet, that of D''^'t35<, on which see p. i28,ff and note. The LXX. render the two tewns in chap. vi. 3 ttolklXol i[/apoL. Inasmuch as the cognate word in Arabic is used of the colour of horses, and the Hebrew adjective here describes such animals, and as the Arabic term is used of chestnut or bay horses, we feel compelled to adopt that signification. We do not deny the symbolism of colours in other places, but we cannot see that such symbolism is used in this passage. We observe that Drake, in the Speaker's Commentary, agrees with the view defended in our Lectures as to the colour of the horses in chap. i. not being symbolical, though he inconsistently speaks of the colours as symbolical in chap. vi. 6. 9. The personal pronoun is sometimes used separately for the substantive verb when the present state of a person or thing is signi- fied, as -l^m nnx &^ \:f 13^3, Gen. xlii. 11, and here, n^S non HD. See Ges. § 121, i, 2 ; Kalisch § 78, 4. Ewald regards the n^n at the end of the verse as peculiarly emphatic, Ewald § 297 b. The 534 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch.i. n-ij- non is omitted in the first clause of the verse. Observe, too, the same usage in chap. iv. 4, and chap. iv. 5. HD expresses the inquiry- after the kind, quaUty, or sort, ''P after persons, Evvald § 325 a. " llie angel that talked with me." LXX. 6 Xakwv Iv iixot. Jer. ^t/i loquebatur in me. See our remarks on p. 12. Syr. »_,o V\ \v^n-ii. Dr. P. Zingerle says the same expression is found in the Apoca- lypse of Paul, translated by him in Heidenheim's Vierteljahrsschrift, iv. I, p. 140, fif., see specially p. 145. Ewald considers that the force of the 5 is to give the subordinate idea of the speech especially of a higher with a lower as his servant. He compares, for this sense of ?, the phrase ? "t^V, to do work with, through any one, i.e. to force him to work. Exod. i. 14; Ewald § 217,/ 3. XI. r\^\p) n7f\ Compare nj^^-1 n:if\ chap. vii. 7, and T\^?p\ ni5^-1, I Chron. iv. 40, also Jud. xviii. 7, where the people of Laish are described as ^057 T\yyv^ after the custom of the Sidonians nnhl t3p.b>. Some regard the expression here as a hendiadys for dwelling tranquilly, but 3^* has sometimes that sense when used alone ; Mic. v. 3 ; Zech. x. 6. C. B. Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, and others suppose that the land of Judah was not included under the report alluded to inverse 11. Hitzig is of a contrary opinion. Inasmuch as the import of the vision seems to be to represent the Gentile world in a state of proud security, while Judah was in a state of misery, Lange thinks Judah must not be reckoned among the lands traversed by the angelic riders, as Hitzig imagines. But the quiet in the case of Judah was that caused by oppression and hopelessness, while the quiet of the nations was that of proud security. 12. nnoyTlK'X. On the full form of the ending see Ges. § 44, 2, rem. 4. lt^^< is the accusative governed by the verb, as in Isa. Ixvi. 14; Mai. i. 4. Drake considers the seventy years to de- note the years during which the temple lay desolate. But the deso- lations of the cities of Judah, including Jerusalem, are specially referred to by the angel in his prayer, as well as spoken of in the answer of Jahaveh. 13. ^3 "iZin is in apposition to IX^^OHj as is indicated by the accents, and is not to be connected with the words following. D>210 Dnm. Comp. I Kings xii. 7. Rashi thinks that Zechariah did not hear the reply of God to the anget, but understood its import from what the angel said to him. Ch. i. 14, 15.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 535 D'*6ri3. The ^ is marked with raphe as in Isa. Ivii. 18. This is noted in the Masora, The noun occurs without daghesh in Hos. xi. 8, ,'''?-in3. It is not an adjective, as rendered in our A. V., "com- fortable words," but a substantive in apposition to Q''131. Compare n*P1 ]'\^'b^ Ps. cxx. 2, 3. It is a piel verbal form, hence there is a daghesh implicitum in the H. The doubling of the third radical might be defended (see Ewald § 155 ^), though it is better omitted as directed by the Masora. The noun is a plural, the plural of ex- tension, used not only to denote extension in space, as COCi', heaven, or in time as ClIW, youth, but also in thought, as D''Onn viercy, D"'DnJj consolation, Q^JSimn, id., D'^JI^nn^ supplication, Zech. xii. 10. See Bottcher § 689. 14. ^^"ip. Proclaim, cry aloud. Comp. Isa. xl. 6, Iviii. i ; Jonah i. 2. TlXJp. Used of the zeal of love, as Joel ii. 18 ; Num. xxv. 11, 13. The perfect is best regarded here as an inchoative, as Josh, ii. 18, n -IJrn.ltn ^^hy which you are letting us dowji."" See Ges. § 126, 3 ; Ewald § 135, <^ ; Driver § to ; KaUsch § 93, 3. The perf. is to be distinguished from the participle which is used in the next verse (^>'P). God's zeal is represented as already stirred up for his people ; the participle perhaps indicates that the wrath aroused was an enduring one (Keil). The root 'p properly signifies to be red and the verb is used in Hebrew of the burning of jealousy as seen in the glow of the countenance (Num. v. 14), then of envy gene- rally (Gen. xxvi. 14, xxxvii. 11). The red of the countenance may also arise from /cz^^and desire to assist, hence the verb is used oi zeal, indignation {e.g., of the zeal of Phineas, and of Elijah, Num. xxv. 11, 13 ; I Kings xix. 10), and of compassion (Joel ii. 18). It does not refer here to the Lord's indignation against the former sins of Jeru- salem (as Luther and Hesselberg have considered), for 'p in that meaning is construed with the ace, as in Num. v. 14 ; Gen. xxvi. 14, or with ? against, as Gen. xxx. i, xxxvii. 11. When construed with ?, as in this passage, it signifies to be jealous, or zealous, on behalf of, in the cause of any one, as Num. xxv. 13 ; 2 Sam. xxi. 2 ; I Kings xix. 10 ; Joel ii, 18, 15. Compare on the subject matter of the passage, Isa. xlvii. 6, also Isa. x. 5, 7, 12-15. O^ the const, of the participle see note on verse 14. D''33Kt:', A noun derived from pilel. Observe the retention of the a sound under the first radical, as in Arab, and Aram. See 536 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. i. 15, 16. Bottcher § 102 1, 2. Vulg. getites opulentas. LXX. hn. to. IBv-q ra. a-vveTrLTLOejxeva, against the nations who devise plots, possibly reading C^i^'f 3n, as Schleusner has suggested, which is followed by the Syr. and Arab. "lEJ'X, Because, as Gen. xxx. 18, xxxi. 49; i Kings xv. 5; Ges. § 155, \,e; Ewald § 353, a ; Kalisch § 107, 3. ^^^. See note i on p. 25, Lange opposes the view of Kohler, who regards the adverb as denoting time, and thinks it refers to the degree of wrath exhibited, which was small in comparison with that manifested against the heathen ; but his main argument against Kohler's view, namely, that the anger of Jahaveh did not commence with the seventy years, appears to us weak. For though that fact is true, the angel in his intercessory prayer, to which Jahaveh here returns an answer, only alludes to that period as that in which God's wrath was poured out upon Israel. Kohler's view is not opposed "to the fact that at the end of the seventy years God commenced to show mercy to his people. In one sense that was true, yet the oppression of Israel by the Gentiles in another sense still continued. ni;i^ nTU. Compare the meaning of ni;"ip in Jer. xliv. 11, and JT'n^O? -"nw^ 2 Chron. XX. 23. It is not to be rendered, "they helped the evil," after the analogy of 2 Sam. viii. 5, in which case the article would have been used. Kohler, who considers that nyi? in the one sentence corresponds with ^V^ in the other and forms a contrast, explains the meaning as '' helped it for evil," by protracting the affliction longer than designed by God. But Keil's view is preferable, that "they helped it for evil," with an evil design ot destroying altogether the people of God, comparing Isa. xlvii. 6. 1 6. The building of the temple had begun, but it was not at that time far advanced. Tilli'. This is regarded by Driver {Hebrew Tenses, § 14, «) as a prophetic perfect, " I will return," and so Bottcher § 947> / Similarly LXX. eVio-Tpei/'w. But it is better, perhaps, to regard it, with Keil, as indicating a past action, the consequences of which continued to operate at the time the words were uttered, " I have returned," or " I am returned," and consequently the temple will be built. Compare also Driver § 8. nip, which occurs in the received text, must be pointed n.}|5 or n)i5. The word is found also in i Kings vii. 23 ; Jer. xxxi. 39, but the k'ri has in all these places Ij^ or Ip. which latter Baer has edited on the authority of MSS. and according to the Complut. and other Ch. i. i6, ii. I.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 537 ancient editions. It means a measu7'ing line which was used sometimes for the purpose of destruction (2 Kings xxi. 13 ; Isa. xxxiv, 11), and also for building up, as here, and in Job xxxviii. 5, is figuratively used in reference to creation. n3"nJl\ The daghesh in the 3 is daghesh forte conj., though not -to be strongly pronounced. Ewald § 91, d; Ges. § 20, 2, a ; Kahsch § 5, 6. 17. nJVIS^ is for nvvia^, the nun being doubled instead of the usual insertion of the '•7. Compare i^?p-10p ^^, Ezek. xiii. 19; mOTlIil, Micah ii. 12 ; Ewald § 196, c; Kalisch § Ixv. 23, Imder T'''^- But Baer edits njyisn, without yod and with the nun with raphe, on the authority of MSS. and ancient editions, referring to MicJdol, 1 14, a. ps occurs in another sense in chap. xiii. 7. On the subject matter of verse comp. Jer. xxxiii. 12, 13. The Targ. render the verb by 17^^'.'', ^^ shall be filled" the LXX. liayyQy](TovTai, Vulg. affluent. The Syr. JAci^ _lc JAii^io —oVAmJ '^*q1c " heiiceforth cities shall be deprived of all goody Cn3 is not to be regarded as a niphil, and translated to have com- passion (as Ewald, Umbreit), as in that sense the word is construed with ?y, ''X or ?. As it is active here, it is better to regard it as piel, in the sense of to comfort. ini can scarcely be regarded as having the signification of to love, as Gesenius, Ewald and others render it. The passages cited for that signification are more than dubious. The word? D'p£i''n''a TIU ini are very like those in Isa. xiv. i, ?X"i^'''a Til? "ina. The threefold occurrence of "11^ in this verse is to emphasize the fact that Judah and Jerusalem would again be restored to God's favour. "Zechariah thrice [here, ii. 12, iii. 2] repeats the promise given through Isaiah to Jerusalem, before the wasting by the Chal- deans, reminding the people thereby, that the restoration, in the dawn whereof they lived, had been promised two centuries before " {Pusey). CHAPTER II. I. The Targ. renders "four kingdoms," and so in verses 2 and 4. Michaelis supposed the horns to refer to two oxen running wild in a field of grass, so high that nothing but their horns could be 538 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ii. 2-S. seen, who desist from their attack on the approach of the plough- men accustomed to fasten them to the plough. But see pp. 26, fF. 2. See remarks on pp. 28-30. 3. The four smiths are explained in the Shir ha-shirim Rabba chap. ii. verse 13, to be Elijah, the king Messiah, Melchizedek, and the priest anointed for war, or Messiah ben Joseph (see p. 389). They are differently explained in Succa, fol. 52, col. 2, by R. Channah bar Bisna, as the Messiah ben David, the Messiah ben Joseph, and Elijah and the priest of righteousness, t^'in is there taken in the sense of architect. 4. innn?. LXX. TQv o^vvai avTo. eis ^etpas a^rwv to. recrcrapa Kepara, reading, perhaps, T'lnn?, or, as Schleusner thinks, simply ex- pressing what they regarded to be the sense of the passage, inasmuch as they erroneously took the '^^'^'b following, not as the infinitive from HT", but as the plural of T", and to sharpen them in their hands may be equivalent to stir them up to activity. The LXX. further inserted the numeral after nii-ipTlS, in order to render the passage somewhat more intelligible. The Arab, of course follows the LXX., but not the Syriac. Blayney would read, partly following the LXX., QriSt nnnn?, to sharpen their coulter, in order to use it as an instrument of demolish- ing the horns. But in this arbitrary conjecture he has not been followed by later scholars. "1^1 ^^'^ ''S3. The Syr. has strangely y 0 o 1 ->i ■> ' rendered " who have dispersed Judah" by >a..; I jj, j;^ . ; cjt^cia ^j OLa-.; " as the mouth of a man who does not lift up his head." 8. T?n, that one, a strong demonstrative, contracted for nr^n, masculine here and in Jud. vi. 20, but feminine 2 Kings iv. 25. It is compounded of ^^, afterwards used in its contracted form as the article, and HT. Gesen. § 54, rem. 2 ; Ewald § 103, d, and 183, b ; Olsh. § loi, e; Kahsch § xx. i. nins. See note 2, p. 35. Plural of extension (Bottcher § 694), used almost as an adverb (Gesen. 100, 2 ; Kalisch § 70, 3). LXX. /caraKapTros, abundantly, Symm. dTet^iVTcos, Theod. ets 7rA.aTos. Aristeas' letter to Philocrates, which is referred to by Josephus, Antiq.Jiid. xii. 2, ff., and in which a description of Jerusalem after the restoration is given, may be found in the Appendix to Havercamp's edition of Hudson's Josephus. The text there given, as well as that by Hody, is very incorrect. The meaning of Aristeas has been in some places mistaken by Josephus. A cntical edition of the text of Ch. ii. 9-II-] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 539 Aristeas, based on a collation of MSS., has been given with an intro- duction and variants by Prof. M, Schmidt, in the first vol. of Merx's Archiv filr Wisseiischaftliche Erforschung des A. T. Aristeas seems to have been an Egyptian Jew, and his account of Jerusalem and its temple bears the stamp of authenticity, whatever may be thought of his other statements. See Dr. J. Hildesheimer's Besc/uribung des hero- dianischen Tempels im Tract. Middoth und bet Flavins Josephtis, pub- lished in Jahres-bericht des Rabb. Seminars fiir das orthod. Jitdenthntn for 5637 (1876-1877), Berlin. He comments on the fragment extant containing Hecatseus' description of the Jews. Hecatseus flourished under Alexander the Great, and was brought into close connexion with Ptolemy Lagus I. of Egypt. He describes the Jews as possessing many fortresses and towns, moreover one fortified city, by name Jerusalem, fifty stadia in circumference, and inhabited by 120,000 men. Samaria was at that period a fortified town, as it is mentioned in Euseb. Chron. A description is given by Hecatgeus of the temple in Jerusalem, which indeed bears the impress of coming from one who was not quite correct in his observations or derived his know- ledge from hearsay. His account confirms, however, Aristeas' description of the prosperity of Jerusalem at that period. 10. ''tn '•in. An exclamation which does not merely call attention, but is always, more or less, in accordance with its sound, a cry indicating a feeling of pain on the part of the speaker, often arising from compassion (Amos v. 16; Jer. xxii. 18; i Kings xiii. 30), or expressive of the distressing condition of those addressed, as even in Isa. Iv. i, and here. It is often used as Woe ! 7;ae ! But it cannot be rendered thus in this passage. See Bottcher's Proben, p. 148. b"iD may mean to scatter, as in Ps. Ixviii. 15 (E.V. verse 14); Ezek. xvii. 21 ; though it is better to take it in its more ordinary signification, as we have done on pp. 37, 38. On the various readings, see note on verse 10, p. lii. It can scarcely be rendered otherwise when followed by ?• In the sense of scattering it is con- strued with f, as in Ezek. xvii. LXX., incorrectly, o-uvafw. 11. '3 2 nat^'V. The first word in this phrase might be regarded as a synonym of 02^ as in Jer. xlvi. 19. The context, however, shows that '2 ri2 is to be explained after the analogy of " the daughter of Zion " and " the daughter of Jerusalem " (i.e., the inhabitants of Jerusalem in connexion with their city), to signify the inhabitants of Babylon. ^C'' is here construed with the accusative, as in 540 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ii. ri, 12. Ps. xxii. 4 (E. V. verse 3) ; 2 Sam. vi. 2, etc., in the sense " thou that dwellest with the inhabitants of Babylon." ^t3??Dn, The LXX. give a paraphrase : eis 2twv dvao-oj^eo-^e ot KaToiKOWTCS Ovyarepa 'Ba(3vXwvo<;, " let those who dwell with the daughter of Babylon return safe to Zion." Drake renders, " Ho ! Zion, make haste to deliver thyself," and translates the second clause, " that remainest as," i.e., art content to remain as a daughter of Babylon ; but his translation of the latter clause expresses more than is contained in the original. 12. ^' A/fer glory." See p.39. This can scarcely be explained with the Targ., " after the glory which he said he would bring upon you," or, as Dr. Pusey explains, after the glory " of which God says, ' I will be the glory in the midst of you,' " as the article would have been used. The words are not to be viewed as part of the message of Jahaveh, otherwise he would be considered as the person 'sent. If the sense of the passage were as Pusey renders, " Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, He hath sent me," the emphatic ^in would have been expressed. But we must either supply the relative, as Kohler, " who hath sent me after glory," or the angel must be sup- posed merely to refer to the Lord's words, mingling with them some of his own. So Rosenmiiller, Maurer, and others. Or we may, with Evvald, more distinctly regard these words up to the end of the verse as a parenthetical insertion of the angel, — the direct speech of Jahaveh being contained in the next verse, — which comes to nearly the same thing. Hitzig seems to regard it as the indirect speech. The "inx is here a preposition, and hence connected with the fol- lowing word by a conjunctive accent. When used as an adverb immediately before a noun it is marked by a disjunctive, as in Ps. Ixxiii. 23. (See Delitzsch on that Psalm.) In such cases as Ps. Ixviii. 26 (E.V. verse 25) ; Gen. xviii. 5, where a conjunctive accent is used, the construction is unambiguous, for the adverb is connected then with the verb following ; while the word here is connected as a preposition with the noun following. Hence Ps. Ixxiii. 23 and this passage are not parallel. The translation of Neumann, " Once Glory sent me to the nations," in which case " Glory " would be regarded as equivalent to " the Glory of Jahaveh," is at variance with Hebrew syntax and with the context (see Kohler's note). Bottcher, in comparing Zech. ii. 12 with Ps. Ixxiii. 24, lays aside the traditional accentuation. But his interpretation, which supposes Ch. ii. 12.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 54I that the angel speaks of himself as sent forth on an honourable mission, as compared with other heavenly beings who are often sent forth on sad and disagreeable errands (referring to 2 Sam. xxiv. 16 ; Job. ii. 6), does not suit the context. We must observe, to prevent some English students from being misled, that the interpretation of Dr. A. Clarke, given in his Commentary as suggested to him by "an intelligent correspondent," by which "1123 "inx is explained to mean " the future glory " and considered as a name of the Messiah, is utterly opposed to Hebrew idiom. The apple of his eye. This is one of the eighteen places called Dn?!^ I'lpn^ " the correction of the scribes." The eighteen are : — Gen. xviii. 22, Num. xi. 15, Num. xii. 12, Num. xii. 13, i Sam. iii. 13, 2 Sam. xvi. 12, i Kings xii. 16, and the parallel passage 2 Chron. x. 16, Ezek. viii. 17, Hab. i. 12, Mali. 13, Zech. ii. 12, Jer. ii. 11, Job. vii. 20, xxxii. 3, Hos. iv. 7, Lam. iii. 20, Ps. cvi. 20. All these are mentioned in the Tanchuma, though the Mechilta only cites eleven, omitting Num. xii. 13; 2 Sam. xvi. 12 ; Hos. iv. 7 ; Job xxxii. 3 ; Lam. iii. 20 ; i Kings xii. 16 ; 2 Chron. x. 16; and Gen. xviii. 22, and adding 2 Sam. xx. \\ but the Mechilta, at Exod. xv. 7, seems to give no formal list. Buxtorf has enumerated the various corrections introduced into these passages, or the most of them, in his Lex. Chald. et Talm. See also Levy's Chald. Worterbuch, and the list of authorities on the subject given by Strack in his Prolegomena Critica in Vet. Test. Heb., lib. ii. § 14, iv. Geiger {Urschtift, p. 324) maintains that in all these passages corrections were made in the text by the scribes to avoid offence being taken with the original readings. In the passage in Zech., the original reading seems to have been ^3^^ " my eye" instead of t^''^, " his eye" as in the received text. Several MSS. have the reading ''3''^. The alteration was made, according to Geiger, because it was considered unsuitable to speak of the apple of God's eye; and the object of substituting the suffix of the third person was to make it possible to explain the text as referring to the apple of a man's eye. In Deut. xxxii, 10, where a similar idea occurs, it was thought possible to give such an interpretation to the text as it stood. The explanation given by Kohler, however, is that such corrections were introduced where the scribes imagined that the writer, if he had wished to express the thought passing through his mind, would have written as given in the " corrections," but that while 542 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch.ii. 13-17. he was in the act of writing, he gave a new turn to his thought. In this place the scribes considered that the prophet intended to have said that whosoever touched Israel would commit a sin against Jahaveh and also against the apple of his own eye. Com- pare Jedidiah Salomo Norzi on the passage as translated by Delitzsch in his Comm. on Habakkiik, p. 206, fF. The word ^23 is not to be regarded with Gesenius in Thes. as for '"inn?, cavity, as if the phrase meant " the door or window of the eye," but is rather to be regarded as a natural word of endearment corresponding to the Lat. pKpa, indicating a doll, daicghter of the eye. See Miihlau and Volck's edition of Gesenius' Worterb., and Fleischer's additions to Levy's Chald. Worterb., ersterBand, p. 419. 14. '•ii'}- On the form of the imperative, see Ges. § 67, rem. 2 ; Kalisch § Ixii. 3, a ; Bottcher § 497, 10. TlJ^ti'l^ perf. with vav conv., after the participle ^3, in the sense of the future, just as the 1'''"'1 in the preceding verse after ^''^fO. Driver § 113, i ; Ges. § 126, 6, d. 15. 11 ''31. The LXX. incorrectly, but quoad sen sum, koI Kara- ^eu^ovrat Wvr] TroWa ctti tov Kvptov, and similarly in Jer. 1. 5 (LXX. xxvii. 5), where the same phrase occurs in the Hebrew. Comp. Isa. Ivi. 3, xiv. i. ^nJ3CJ*1. LXX. Kol KaTa(TKy]V(i>(Tov(TLV iv fJieaw crov. 16. Drake translates, "shall take possession of Judah as his in- heritance for a holy ground." But this can scarcely be the meaning of 'n nons hv. 17. on is not to be regarded as an apoc. imp. piel from HDn^ but as an onomatopoetic interjection used to enjoin silence. Arab. c - transposed, d-o- This interjection has however been treated as a verbal form, and a plural formed from it -IBD^ Neh. viii. 11, as well as an imperfect. Num. xiii. 30 ; Ewald § loi, d, and § 106, a. Comp. the verbal root ii^'H, to be siletit. LXX. evXa/SeiaOo). A similar translation is given by them of the word and its derivatives in Num. xiii. 31 (Heb. verse 30) ; Hab. ii. 20 ; Zeph. i. 7. The Syr. has " and all flesh shall fear," the Targ. " let all the wicked fear before the Lord." 111^?. niphal from 1W. See Ges. § 72, rem. 5; Ewald § 140, a, at the end. Compare on the subject matter of the passage, Ps. xliv. 24 (verse 23, E. V.). His holy dwelling. The same phra§e is used of the temple in Ps. Ixviii. 6 (verse 5 E. V.) Comp. verse 36 (E.V. 35), and Ps. xxvi. 8 • Ch.ii.i7,iii.i.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 543 2 Chron. xxxvi. 15, here used of heaven, as Deut. xxvi. 15 ; Jer. XXV. 30. See Bottcher, Dc Inferis, § 402, ff., p. 209. The LXX. translate here Ik veva-€t. yap ttcos ad tolovtov 1(JTl to Twv 'louSattov c^vos. Symm, Oavfjiaa-roi The Targum paraphrases the text : " Hear now, Joshua the high priest, and Hananiah, Misael, and Azariah," thy companions (the London Polyglott omits these names, but they are given in de Lagarde's text), who sit before thee, for they are men, Ni?^3 pn"? layo? PT'? Pl.?-^^ worthy to have a wonder (Lond. Polygl. wonders) done to them, etc." Kimchi has N N 546 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ii. 8. followed this explanation. The mention of the names of Hananiah, Misael, and Azariah arises from the same anachronism which is found in the story given on p. 51, note 2. A further summary of expositions is given by Kohler, p. 125, note 2. Kohler understands the phrase nov ''12V to mean " my Servant who is the Branch," and objects to the latter word being considered as in apposition to " my servant," inasmuch as in that case the word should have the article. But, as Ewald says (§ 277, c), poets or prophets form sometimes new proper names after their own peculiar taste, and use such without the article to distinguish them from ordinary proper names. See, on the name, p. 70. Kuenen in his Prophets and Prophecy in Israel (authorized English translation, p. 206: Longmans, 1877) maintains that the name "Branch of Righteousness" is used in Jer. xxiii., xxxiii., as a collec- tive, and signifies simply "righteous kings," which the prophet expected to come from the Davidic dynasty. His idea is utterly opposed to the context of those passages, and leaves out of sight entirely the fact that the term "Branch" in Jeremiah has been borrowed from the earlier passage in Isaiah iv. Surely we must admit, from the lowest standpoint, that Zechariah was a fair exponent of the hopes of his nation. The object of Kuenen seems almost avowedly to be the reduction of all the Messianic predictions to the barest hope of some " grand day coming." We protest against this mode of treatment as most " unscientific," though made under the assumption of being the only " scientific " mode of regarding such passages. The I^XX. render nov by avarok-i], both here and in chap. vi. 1 2, which word they use sometimes in the sense of a shoot, as Ezek. xvi. 7, c ''ii 0 "^ xvii. 10. Vulg. oriens; Arab. ^3-''/"'^ ^^^^ east) Syr. ^j simrise, the Divi7ie sunrise. The Syr. Hex. has also the same rendering. Dean R. Payne Smith notes in his Thes. Syr. that this interpreta- tion of the Hebrew word is not to be despised, as nnv is equivalent to LyJic,, the shining or splendour of the sun. To this phrase of Zechariah Simeon alludes when he calls the Messiah jicoj ^> JaaJj the rising coming from on high, Luke i. 78. The Dean further notes that in Isa. iv. 2 "•* n»V is rendered by the LXX. i7n\dfnl/u 6 Oeos, Syr. \*\1d > olwO >, but Vulg. germen Domini. From these places in the Syriac translation of th% prophets the phrase is used, Ch.iii.8-iv.2.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 54/ " the rising of the Messiah," and the festival of Epiphany is called in Syriac " the feast of the rising." 9. See remarks on p. 71, ff. Observe the dual used for the plural 0^^.''^ nyn"ir, clearly not to be taken as seven pair of eyes. See chap. iv. 10. Comp. ^IWi^ ^^'^ three teeth, i Sam. ii. 13, and D.''?^? t^.^, six wings, Isa. vi. 2. See Ges. § Z^, 2, rem. ; Kalisch § 77, 4; Ewald § 180, a. T^ is here treated as a masculine ; so in chap. iv. 10 ; Cant. iv. 9 (kethibh). ^'' Behold I am graving its graving^ Kimchi understands this to mean, I will finish the stone in all its preparation for the building ; for he notices that the last thing in connexion with the preparation of a precious stone is the engraving — the ornamentation upon it. The Syr. translates " I will open its gates," possibly meaning the doors of the completed temple. The LXX. tSou eyw opwcrw ^69pov, " l?eho/d I will dig a trench,^' possibly reading nnsi, an opening, as Schleusner, or perhaps rather rins^ a pit, which translation has been explained by Jerome and Cyrill as containing a reference to the wounds of Christ. Aquila, StayXv^co avoiyfxaTa avTrjs. Symm., y\v{j/oi yap tyjv yXv(})rjv avrov. Targ. ^^OOtIC ''''■t ^^^ ^?j " behold I will reveal its (the stone's) visions," the meaning of which is obscure. ''^f'Q% perf. with vav conv., used as a prophetic perfect after the participle preceding. Comp. note on chap. ii. 14. CHAPTER IV. 1. See note i, p. 81. "ili^.l, see note on itw, chap. ii. 17. 2. " And I said." So we read with the k'ri, very many MSS., and all the ancient versions, and this reading is adopted in our A. V. The received text, however, is "itOSM, "and he said." Ewald explains this reading as an Aramaism for 1^3X1, in his Lehrbiich, § 45, d, but in this he seems to be mistaken. Instead of ^}), ''and its bowl," some MSS. have "/".^l, "and a bowl" The LXX. and Syr. do not express the suffix, but this is no decisive proof that they had a different reading. The form i^}\ occurs in the next verse. Perhaps the form which occurs here is for ^ppa (comp. Eccl. xii. 6) ; see Delitzsch on Ps. xxvii. 5, foot-note, and Bottcher, § 734, b. The Vulgate translates it by " lampas ejus." T\V2'^\ nyztJ'. There has been much discussion among scholars 548 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iv. 3. whether these words are to be taken distributively, indicating that each lamp had seven pipes, in which case the number of the pipes would be forty-nine, or whether they are to be taken accumulatively, " seven and seven," that is fourteen pipes in all, in which case each lamp was provided with two pipes. There is no doubt that the cardinals are usually repeated without the copula intervening when intended to be understood distributively, as in Gen. vii. 2, 3, 9 ; i Kings xviii. 13 ; and as in the case of other words, Zech. xii. 12 ; Gen. xxxii. 17 ; Num. xvii. 17. It is argued by Keil that the intervention of the 1. does not prevent the number being used distributively, and an appeal is made to 2 Sam. xxi. 20, and i Chron. xx. 6, where it is said of a giant at Gath that his fingers and his toes were '1^1 t^'t^l ^''^*, making "four and twenty in number." Keil maintains that this ought to be explained that the fingers of his two hands and the toes of his two feet were six each. It appears, however, to us that the .t^^l ^^ is here rather to be understood accumulatively, six and six = twelve, and that the number twelve is to be considered as predi- cated separately of " the extremities of his hands," or the fingers, and of " the extremities of his feet," or the toes. In i Chron. xx. 6, the same fact is stated in slightly different words, K^tJ'1 ^^ vnynVSI ynxi D''"lK'y, " and his extremities (fingers and toes) were six and six ( = 12), four and twenty," that is, each set consisted of that number. No other examples are cited of words or numerals used distributively having a copula between them, and these instances are inconclusive. The text therefore seems to indicate that each lamp had two pipes, and that the whole number of such pipes was fourteen. This is the opinion of Kalisch (Gram. § 91, 7, footnote), and of Kohler, who considers that the number was thus expressed in order to indicate that the second seven pipes ought to be sought for in a different place from the first, and that seven of the pipes are to be regarded as con- necting the lamps with the reservoir and the other seven as connecting the lamps with one another. Hitzig regards the ^V2^ before n'TlllJ as a mistake, and would read " and its lamps upon it were seven," referring to Exod. xxv. 37, xxxvii. 23, where, however, as Maurer notes, the collocation is quite natural, as the candlestick is there mentioned for the first time; but it would not be natural here, where only a reference is made to it. Ewald, after the LXX., would erase the former of the two words, nj?2C>1 nynti'^ which emendation has also been made in our A.V., and is aj^roved by Henderson. The Ch.iv.3-7.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 549 Vulg. only expresses one seven {et scptctn infusoria lucerjiis). Pressel's translation " seven (was) the number of its lamps above the same, — seven, and seven the number of its pipes," as if the number was re- peated on account of its importance as corresponding with the seven eyes of God, is scarcely in accordance with Hebrew idiom. The LXX., like the Vulg., render nip^'ID by iTrapvarptSes, vessels for pour- ing in the oil. The Syr. translates that word by iicoa " mouths^ 4. ■'Jli^. The LXX. have Kupte, not however necessarily reading ■•nK. Aq. and Symm. have Kvpii /aov. 5. rh^ nnn no. On the construction, see Ges. § 121, 2; Ewald § 297, b ; Kahsch § 78, 5. 6. P^nn KP. The LXX. have ow Iv 8wa/xet fjnydXr}, which is simply a free translation. 7. hmn -in. On the use of the article before the adjective and not before the noun, see Ewald § 293, a; Ges. § iii, 2, a; Kalisch § Ixxxiii. 15, c. This construction is used in the older language when greater emphasis is to be placed on the adjective. Wiinsche is quite correct in stating that the passage referred to, p. 96, note 2, occurs in Baba bathra, 3 b. This reference was printed in the proof-sheet as ^6, hence our mistake. The passage occurs also in Arachin, 6, a. The citation is also given in Bacher, Agada der babylonischen Amor der, Budapest, 1878, p. 44. The Targ. is '^J'lI ^?3nT Dni^. XW^p i |''3V, a tmterfall. The doubling in the latter case cor- responds to the n which is inserted in iriJV (see Bottcher § 300 b). The LXX. have fjLviwTrjpe?, noses, beaks. So Syr. Vulg. rostra. Lange strangely imagines that '^* is compounded of !>', a thorn, and p"]'?, to rub, and understands it of sharp golden points standing erect for the purpose of splitting the olives and making the oil flow. "But independently of other reasons, this derivation appears philo- logically impossible. Neither is Pressel's explanation tenable, that fruit-baskets are meant, for, not to mention other reasons, the words into which he divides the assumed compound are not found in the exact sense required. The expression T? simply signifies by meatis of, and is used gene- rally with reference to personal agents, though sometimes more gene- rally, as in Job viii. 4 ; Prov. xviii. 2 1 ; Isa. Ixiv. 6, and here. There is no reason to think that in the first three passages the agent is personified, as Dr. Pusey considers, and there is no personification in this passage, even were we to suppose with him '* that these two pipes were symbols of living agents " not mentioned by the prophet. Compare also the kindred expressions in 2 Sam. xv. 2 ; Deut. ii. 37; Ps. cxl. 6, etc. Which pour forth the gold, that is, the golden oil, which flowing forth from golden pipes into a golden bowl, and seen in the light of the lamps, seemed to be golden, von Hofmann and Kliefoth strangely think that, actual gold is signified, and the latter imagines that not only the oil proceeded from the olive trees which fed the lamps, but also the gold of which the candlestick itself was composed. 14. Kliefoth maintains that the expression "l^V^^ properly signi- fies oil for burning in the lamps. But this distinction between the oil for anointing and the oil for burning, irisisted on by Kliefoth, does Ch.iv.i4-v.3.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 553 not really exist, as Keil has shown. For l^^ is not only used for anointing oil, but also for the oil burned in the lamps, as Exod. xxvii. 20; Lev. xxiv. 2, where the oil for burning, is described as n^t |»?^. The same expression is used of the anointing oil, Exod. XXX. 24. The latter is termed nn^sn \y^%> (Exod. xxix. 7, xxxi. 11, etc.), while the oil for burning is I'l^W \^}^ (Exod. xxv. 6, xxxv. 8). The oil for burning is never called "irjV?, though that word occurs frequently where oil is spoken of as a product of the land (Num. xviii. 12; Deut. vii. 13, xi. 14, etc.). ""CV? is the oil viewed as the sap of the olive, the natural product of the country, while I'?'?' is more particularly the oil considered as prepared for use. LXX. 01 hvo vXoi T'^s TTtoTT^TOs, Aq. (TrCktTvoTqTO'i, Symm. iXaiOV. Y')iir]-h^ |nx-^y. The article is omitted before P"IX because it is in the construct state. CHAPTER V. I. The LXX. have SpeVavov, a sickle, taking njijp as i.q. 7^P. The other Greek versions render correctly, Aq. and Theod., 8t Symm. xee^aXts, or, according to another reading, €(,'A.7;/Aa. 2. riDSa Dnt^^U^ lit. twenty by the cubit. Similar expressions occur in Exod. xxvi. 8, xxvii. 9, 18, xxxvi. 15. See Ges. § 120, 4, rem. 2 Kalisch § xc. 14. 3. npxn. LXX. correctly ^ dpa. Symm., in plural, 01 opKou Aq.' a)o-ai;Ta)?. pxrT73. See remarks on p. 108. njp— n:TPj on this side and on that (Exod. xxxii. 15 ; Num. xxii. 24; Ezek. xlvii. 7). This is evidently the meaning, as appears from the close connexion of n-|p with nim. Kohler regards the construction of i^i^? as a const, prsegnans (Ges. § 141), and considers the demonst. pronouns to refer to the land of Israel, " from this," scil. land. So Drake, appealing to Gen. xxxvii. 17 ; Exod. xi. i ; Deut. ix. 12. HpJ is of course a prophetic perfect. There is no doubt that HTD might mean Iwice, but the reduplication of it evidently implies a contrast. It does indeed occur twice in Exod. xi. i, but in a very different connexion. If it was to be connected with the verb it should have stood immediately before or after it, not, as here, before l"'^?, which precedes the verb. Hence we agree with Keil in considering the reference to be made to the two sides of the flying roll. Comp. Vulg. " quia omnis fur, sicut ibi scriptum est, judicabitur; et omnis jurans ex hoc similiter judicabitur." 554 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. v. 3-6. nit2)3. In the first place where this word occurs in the verse, the LXX, read cws Oavdrov ; the text of Tischendorf omits it altogether in the second place, but the cod. Alex, and other MSS. (see Field's Hexapl.') read also there ews Ba.va.rov. They probably read T\\rh, Comp. the rendering of t07 by the LXX. in Isa. liii. 8, I^i^i. See note on p. 108. The LXX. render it iKStK-QO-^a-eraL. Symm. Si/ct^v Swo-ct. Syr \zi\, shall be justified. The Targ. ""i?.?, shall be struck, seems, Avith the LXX. and Vulg. judicabitur, to have con- sidered np3 to mean the same as n33, 4. C^i^^fn is the perf prophetic, and nxn-1, the perf. with vav conversive ; pashta being a postpositive has to be repeated over the real tone syllable. nj7. 3rd pers. sing, perf kal from ]y> or v7, for Hip, which is the reading of one MS. See Ewald § 38, b, y, § ijs,/; Ges. § 73, 2, rem. i; Kalisch § xxxviii. i b ; Bottcher § 349,/, § 498, 17, § 928, 2. Though this is the only instance of such attenuation in the verb, it is found also in a participle nniT (Isa. lix. 5), and in other words. Bottcher suggests that the object of it was to give an air of lamenta- tion to the word. in^DI. 3rd pers. fem. with suff. for -inri^?, see Ges. § 75, rem. 19. The perfects are to be viewed as instances of the proph. perfect. On the subject matter, comp. i Kings xviii. 38. 5. Targ. r?>5 t^y'l P \Tqi, " and see who are these who appear." 6. The Syr. gives an interpretation rather than a translation of the verse, " and I said, what is this ? And he said to me, this is a measure which is going forth, and in it are the sins of the whole earth." LXX. avrr] rj aSiKLa avrwv, as if reading ^W for ^^'^V.. This is said to be the reading of one MS., that is, as far as regards the con- sonants, but query as to the vowel points ? Jerome has noted that if the Hebrew word had a vav instead of a yod, "recte legeretur ONAM ut LXX. putaverunt." Symm., more correctly, Trpos tovto ciTro^XeVouo-i. Other commentators, as Rosenmiiller, explain " this is their appear- ance," comparing Lev. xiii. 55 ; Num. xi. 7. See p. 114, ff. Duhm (Z>/l p/fP Vr]-\;n, i.e., Israel and Judah. The Lond. Polygl. adds, " among the kingdoms of the peoples of the earth," but these words are not in de Lagarde's text, — " and swift peoples took them away captive with speed as the eagle flieth [Deut. xxviii. 49], and they caused the people to migrate who received and gave false measures among the kingdoms of the peoples of the earth under the whole heaven. (10) And I said to the angel w^io talked with me, Whither are they removing the people who received and gave false measures? (11) And he said to me. To prepare for them a place in the province of Babylon, and they shall be kept and tarry there till their time shall come." 7. Ewald {Lehrbiich, § 174, c, (3) seems to consider "i?? as a feminine, when used in the signification of a " cover." As a noun signifying a portion of the earth's surface (as in Gen. xiii. 11), it would come under § 174, <5. But "13? is used as a fern, in all its significations, even where it denotes a weight of metal. 2 Kings v. 5 is conclusive on this point. Pressel is wrong in 'stating that it is masculine (see Bottcher § 654). The word has two plurals, the masc. form C"!??, used for that which is valuable (i Chron. xxii. 14, xxix. 7), and the fem. form nni?, for that which is common or comparatively valueless, e.g. of bread, Judg. viii. 5 (see Bottcher § 712, y, and 719, y). nxb'3. Participle fem. niphal (Ewald § 240, d). It might, as far as form is concerned, be perf. niphal 3rd pers. sing. fem. (i Chron. xiv. 2 ; Ewald § 194, h). A second pers. fem. cannot of course be thought of here. Kohler views it as used in a reflexive sense " lifted itself up." Pressel renders the second sentence, " and this one woman car- ried," supplying riXE^'3 from the preceding sentence, or a corresponding ns^^J. Rashi's rendering is better, '131 nnj5 nti'X nxn IIU ^n^Xi. The nST points out the woman (8etKTt/cws) as the HJn preceding. It has the disjunctive pashta which shows that the punctuators regarded 55^ ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. v. 7-11. it almost as a kind of interjection. Hitzig similarly renders nxn as an. adverb, " and there ! " But the fem. nST is not elsewhere so used, though nr often occurs in that signification. The LXX. have Kal I80V yvvr] jxia. Hnx is, as Kohler observes, not used as a sort of in- definite article, as Maurer and Drake suppose, but in its proper signification as a numeral, " one." 8. 'N \?^'*^. LXX. Kal eppti/^ev avT-qv, but Theod. has lavT-qv, which would signify, as Jerome has noted, that she threw herself down inside the ephah to hide herself from the angel, which of course is impossible. Drake suggests that we ought to read I?i< lohed, in place of 1??, with the view of making the phrase signify a circle of lead, as in verse 7. The simple meaning of the phrase, however, is that the talent weight was itself formed of lead. The word ps< is also used, as here, in other places in the signification of "a weight;" so Deut. XXV. 13; Prov. xvi. 11 ; comp. 2 Sam. xiv. 26, The explanation ^^ upon the mouth of the ephah" (see p. 116) can be defended by comparing such expressions as 1^^?n "•?, Gen. xxix. 2 ; y(^^ '•3, Ps. Qxli. 7. 9. nfb^l for n;xb'ril^ which is the reading of many MSS., see Ges. § 74, rem, 4 ; Evvald § 198, b. Dn"'D33a, masculine for fem. See next verse also. One of Baer's MSS. has |n''SJ33. See Ges. § 121, 6, rem. i ; Ges. Lehrg. p. 731 ; Kalisch § 77, 21, 2. 10. riDn, masc. for fem. Comp. Cant. vi. 8 ; Ezek. xiii. 20 ; Ruth i. 8 ; Ges. §32, rem. 7. Two MSS. read HJn. 11. np for np, as Exod. ix. 18; Lev. xiii. 4; Ewald § 247, d. Comp. Ges. § 58, rem. i. I?-1'"I1.. Perf. hophal from 1-13. The clause is to be regarded as hypothetical or conditional. Ewald § 357 ; Ges, § 155, 4, a. nn''5n, 3rd pers. fem. sing, perf from n-13, a strong Chaldaism, see Ewald § 131, d; Bottcher § 907, 4, 8. Comp. nso, Ezek. xli. 9. Note the double forms of hiphil and hophal in this verb. Evvald remarks that we might read '^O^^'^!!, but he observes that it is not necessary {Proph. d. A. B. vol. iii. p. 204). See Kalisch § Ixvii. 3, c, and also on the form, Ewald § 115, ^; Ges. § 72, rem. 9. nnJ30 With shortening of the 0 into u. See Ges. § 27, rem. i ; Bottcher § 491, 17. Ch. vi. 1-8.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 557 CHAPTER VI. I. ni331??. In this form instead of rmsitt we have an instance, as Kohler notes, of the change of the a sound into the obscurer e sound before the heavy termination of the plural. So Joel ii. 5 ; ]\Iic, V. 9. Comp. for such a change the instances given by Ewald § 212, d, y, near end. 3. 'N Dmn 'D. LXX. l-mroL ttolklXol \papoi Symm. and Theod. have for the third adjective TreXtSvoi, livid, Aquila for the second Kaprepoi. The Syr. omits the second adjective. Targ. have pjnpi? |''n"'V^ 'D, /lorses spoofed and ash-coloured ; in verse 6 it also renders D"'l"i3 by f'^'^^S, and in verse 7 it renders D''VDXn by T^'^^P. The LXX. translate C^J^X in verse 7 by 61 ^apot. Aq. TrvppoL Symm. crvv€cr^iy[jifvoL. Theod. IcrxypoL 5. Compare Jer. xlix. 36, and Rev. vii. i. The Targ. has, "these are the four kingdoms which are the four winds of the heavens." R. Salomo ben Yizhak takes the same view, explaining the four chariots of the four empires of Daniel, and the four winds, as " the princes of the four kingdoms or monarchies which are ruling the four quarters of the world." 6. Ewald's proposed change of -l^^^; perf in the two instances in which it occurs in this verse into -I^^V.^ imperfect, is unneces- sary. The chariots were seen by the prophet rushing at full speed; hence the change from the participle used to describe the first chariot to the perfects employed in speaking of the others, which had passed by as the interpreting angel was speaking. 7. Ewald and others would read in this place "the red," instead of " the strong." This is supported by the Syr., which omits D''^*?3Sn in verse 3, and reads here " the red horses," using the same words which it employs for the horses of the first chariot in verse 2. But this appears to be a conjectural emendation. Others consider ]'b^?=po^ (Isa. Ixiii. i), after the LXX. and Syr. See p. 128. 1C^*p3"'"l. LXX. Kttt cTre^XeTTOv tou rropevecrOat, Other copies kol i^-qrovv, Koi c7re)3A.e7rov tov tt. 8. ^ns pVV), i.e., the interpreting angel. p^T with the ace. of the person called to, as in Jud. xii. 2 ; Neh. ix. 28. A.V. translates " then cried he upon me." The Targ. renders the verse, " see those who are going forth to the north country, say to them, do my will (my pleasure, ^rij^l) in the north country." 558 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch.vi. 8-14. 10. nip? inf. abs. for imp. See Ges. § 131, 4, b \ Kalisch§97, 4. The object to the verb is expressed in the verse following. It is understood here. 'i^ p^?-1. The perf. vith vav conv. is used here imperatively after nip7. The LXX., explaining the names in some fashion as symbolical, render the verse : Aa^e ra Ik ttjs alxfji-akw- crtas Trapa Tihv dp^ovTwv, Kat irapa. twv ^prjCTLfioiv avrrj?, Kai irapa TOiv iire- yvwKoTwv avTTjv. Other copies, according to Field's Hexapla, give the nouns as proper names, and so Aquila. Later commentators, as Hengstenberg, von Hofmann, and Baumgarten, maintain that the variations in the names, which probably arose from errors of copyists, are of significance. But see note on p. 156. Note the perf. with vav conv. after the inf. absol. used imperatively, just as after an im- perative (Driver § 112,/), J^^^l, as the sense is clear; the con- struction is continued by the simple perf. with vav O^^'', i-ised in a future signification. Bottcher, § 974 B., seems to regard the second also as the vav conv. In verse 11 all the verbs seem to be in the perf. with vav conv. for no change can be made in the tone in the perf. kal. of verbs n"7. The LXX. and Syr. read the singular instead of the plural 1^3 at the end of the verse. 11. On the crown or crowns see p. 147. The LXX. and Vulg. express the plural. The Targ. has the singular, "a large 12. The Targ. renders, " behold the man, Messiah will be his name." LXX. avaToXr], as in chap. iii. i. Syr. and Vulg. as there. See note on that passage. On the phrase vnnriDlj see p. 149 and note. Targ., " who is to be revealed and magnified." The Syr. omits the words at the end of the verse, viz. nin"* ^^Ti T\^ mm. 13. ^ini. See remarks on p. 150, and note on verse 15. The LXX. omit "• 'rrrit^ run^ Sini. Compare the omission of the Syr. in verse 12. The Targ., according to the Lond. Polyglott, has 3"i }n3, high priest, but de Lagarde reads ti'noLJ'Q pn3, a ministering priest, ^^ Between them both." See p. 153. "He shall be a priest upon his thro7ie, etc" The LXX. have kox eo-rat lepois Ik Sc^iGv auTov, Ktti ftovXrj etprjVLKr] earai dva fiiaov diJ.' ov (oKoS6fji,r]Tai, to have read ritJanp ID. The suffix in i^^V^, which expresses the predicate, agrees with the genitive HDnan, instead of the governing noun. See Ewald § 317 c, who classes this case with the examples in i Kings xvii, 16 (compare verse 14) ; Lev. xiii. 9. Hitzig denies the simi- larity of the cases, as the predicate cannot here be properly affirmed of the genitive. He maintains that "'^''^ is properly speaking of no gender, and that the masc. ^''nj was used on account of D1>?n im- mediately preceding. "i^'n. Not "^/le afflidmt," as the A. V., after LXX., Targ., and Vulg., but rather with the Syr., "the oppressor." ^F^^?1. The 1 is not here the simple copula, but the vav conv. with the omission of the usual lengthening of the vowel as compensation for the daghesh which cannot occur in the i<. Compare ^1J,>^!1, Jud. vi. 9, also XX. 6, 2 Sam. i. 10, etc. See Ewald § 232 h\ Kalisch § xlix. 2. Hitzig observes that though it is better to regard the 1 as conversive, yet the use of the imperf with the ordinary copula might be defended as referring to a repeated action. The meaning is scarcely, with Ewald and Kohler, " I gave each man into the hand of the other," which would require ^1?, but perhaps rather, with Keil, " I drove each against the other," or, "/Z?/ loose, etc." comp. Prov. vi. 14, 19, xvi. 28. 11. "in D''D"'3, On the construction see Ges. § 118, 3, rem. 12. On " the seed of peace" see note on p. 186. Dr. Pusey trans- lates the passage, " for the seed shall be peace." He remarks that " ' seed ' has no relation to the ' vine.' " But, in addition to what is mentioned in the note referred to, Jer. ii. 2 1 may be cited, where the \>~>y^ is indirectly called ^1T., " a seed." 14. Tiom. Our A. v., following the LXX. koX oh ixcrevoija-a, has " and I repented not." The verb has this signification in niphal and hithpael, and must likewise be considered as having the same in the piel, although this meaning is not given by Gesenius or Fiirst. Kohler and Keil regard it as reflexive. Perhaps it is better to translate with Ewald, "I repented it not." The tippecha is perhaps used with fr5? for emphasis. The Syr. has, according to Lond. Polygl., Z\a3oijo "• and I turned back" but Lee's edition prefixes the negative particle. 564 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. viii. 15-23. 15. *nO»T Til^, " / /lave again pui'posed^' (see Ges. § 142, 3*^; Kalisch § 103, 2 ; Ewald § 285 b). The full form 'noOT, instead of ^nJSt (Jer. iv. 28), may be an indication of a late date. See Bott- cher § 1 118, I «. The LXX. have oiVtus TrapariTayixaL Koi StavevoT^ fxai, perhaps reading Tint:'!!, 16. See note i, p. 189. 17. See note 2, p. 189. 19. The LXX. insert after C^ID Kat cu^pai/^r/o-eo-^e. See also on the verse the remarks on p. 191. 20. "iJl 1t^'^ 1^. See note i on p. 192. Rosenmiiller cites Ps. X. 6 as an instance of a similar omission of the substantive verb, but such cannot be the case in that special place (see Delitzsch). The accentuation is here in favour of the translation, "it will yet (be) that people will come," for ^V is separated from 1t''^< by the dis- junctive yethibh. • 21. rinX "'^D'V. LXX. KaroLKOvvTes TreVre TroXet?. ■[ipn n37J. See on the construction note 2, p. 192. n3?X. See Ges. § 1 28, i ; Kalisch § 94, 1 1. 22. n^OIVi; U^):\ LXX. Wvij TroAXa. They render Cl^'l? also by TToXv in Gen. xviii. 18. 23. See note on p. 193. Iti'K. T/taf. The Vulg. regarded it as relative, hence its rendering, " in diebus illis in quibus apprehen- dent, etc." In the Yalkut Shimeoni, the statements of which concerning the sufferings of the Messiah are given by Wiinsche in his Leiden des Messias, the following reference is made to this passage: "And all of them (the nations) will come and fall down upon their faces before Messiah and before Israel, and will say. We wall be to thee and to Israel for servants ; and every one of Israel will have two thousand and eight hundred servants, as it is written, ' In those days (it will happen) that ten men shall take hold, out of all the languages of the nations, even take hold of the skirts of a man (who is) a Jew, saying, Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you'" (pp. 82, 83). Wiinsche, in his note, explains the re- ference to the number of the servants, from R. Bechai's explanation of the Thora, fol. 168, col. 2, in the parashah 1? n?K' (-Num. xiii. 2, fif.), as alluding to the 70 nations, ten men from each of whom would make 700 at each corner, which multiplied by the four corners makes 2,800 ! ^ I Ch. ix. I.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 565 CHAPTER IX. Stiihelin in his Einleitung has well remarked from his standpoint, that the prophecy concerning the Gentiles contained in verses 1-7 of this chapter is one well suited to the Persian period. For the calamities here announced are such as were to fall on the territory along the coast, which was the usual road taken by the Persian armies in their march southwards. Moab and Ammon, or even Edom, against which Jeremiah directed certain of his prophecies^ might well be passed over by the prophet, inasmuch as these neighbours, being Persian subjects, could not do anything against a colony which, in the time of Darius, was specially protected by Persia. Though it is well to note Stahelin's remarks on this point, we prefer the view ad- vocated by Kohler, and adopted by us in our remarks on pp. 201 ff. I. ^^^. See remarks on p. 202. The LXX. have Xrjixixa, an oracle (see Schleusner), which the Itala always renders by assimiptio. So here, chap. xii. i, and also in Jer. xxiii. ^Zi ff- j Nah.i. i ; Hab. i. i; Mai. i. I J Lara. ii. 14. Aquila, ap/xa, a weight, a burden. The LXX. elsewhere render it opao-ts (Isa. xiii. i) ; opa/x.a (Isa. xxi. i), and prilia. (Isa. xiv. 28). According to Jer. xxiii. 33-36, the prophets seem to have termed their prophecies "oracles" or "utterances," but, as the word was capable of being understood in another sense, the scoffers mockingly pretended to understand the, word in the other signification, wherefore the Lord threatens in that passage to punish them for their mockery. The Syr. renders the word variously; in this place it omits '0 altogether, and in chap. xii. i it translates it by " vision." On Hadrach, see p. 202, IT. The catalogue of Syrian cities referred to on p. 206 is also given by Schrader in his lately published work on Keilinschrifteii und GeschicJitsforschung. Magida, or Ma-gi-du-u, as Schrader writes it, seems not to be the same as Megiddo in the territory of Issachar. See Schrader's remarks, pp. 1 19-123. There seems to be no doubt about the identification of Hadrach with the city of the name of Hatarika (as given on p. 205), after which a considerable territory was also called. See Schrader, Kcilinschriftcn II. Gesch. pp. 95, ff. Prof. Dr. Delitzsch has called my attention to the fact that the mosque referred to by Neubauer, as quoted in note 2, p. 206, is 566 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 1-4. written in Arab. J i^A^ \\ (Arab.-Heb. ^i"lV^7X nJDD)^ the green mos^ue,a.nd hence it has no connexion with Tin. '131 pt^'0'^1. The Targum paraphrases, " and Damascus shall be turned to be of the land of the house of the Shekinah," and so the clause respecting Haniath in verse 2. innUD. The LXX. render here Ova-La avTov. This rendering may possibly be an interpreta- tion like that of the Targum. Compare, however, their rendering of the same word in 2 Sam. xiv. 17, where they must have read ^mp. The Syr. has similarly oiiOJoo. Aquil. has koI cv Aa/xacr/^ ^'^io iZo j^i .? ^ ^.\ ■ " because men and all the tribes of Israel are manifest to the Lord." Similarly the Targ., " because before the Lord the works of the children of men are revealed, and he is pleased C^iri^) with all the tribes of Israel." Drake translates, "for the eye of J. is over man, and over all the tribes of Israel." He suggests, after J. D. Michaelis, to read Ci">5< instead of D1^*, in which case the phrase C3"iX py would mean, " the whole face of Syria" (comp. Exod. X. 15, Num. xxii. 5, 11). One MS. is said to have this reading. But the change is unnecessary, as are other changes which have been proposed. Pressel translates, " the circle of men," i.e., "all men round about." He appeals to the texts already quoted, which do not, however, justify that translation. See on the passage, p. 207. In support of his view that the genitive is to be viewed as objective, Hitzig refers to verse 12, Isa. xxv. 4, Jer. xxvi. II, though he confesses the construction is hard. 2. '131 nOrrDJI. LXX. koI iv 'H/xaO iv Tots opiots auT7^s, Tvpos Koi 2. They seem simply to have translated quoad sensuin. Thus they render also the singular at the end of the verse by the plural, rightly considering that the clause refers both to Tyre and Sidon (see p. 210). The Targ. renders the last clause of the verse, "for it is very strong." Aquila has, Katye 'H/^a^ opto^eTr/o-erat Iv avrrj. Symm., /cat iu 'HixaO rfj bjxopovarj, koi Ti^pw koI ^tScovi. 4. For ''Jit? many MSS. read nin*, Avhich Henderson would adopt. nS^II^. Owing to the diversity of meanings of the verb t^'1'' Fiirst has recognised a double stem. But this is unnecessary. The verb seems properly to take into possession, sometimes by violence, and hence to Ch. ix. 4.5-] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 567 dnve away, as well as to possess, but also to impoverish. Hence Ewald's translation, " the Lord will impoverish her." -''•n or ^D^ means the ditch of the fortress, or its bastion, as Is. xxvi, i ; Lam. ii. 8. If the word be taken from '?!n it might mean riches, as Ewald (comp. Ezek. xxviii. 4), and the form before suffixes is identical. But it is better, for the reasons given in note 2, p. 211, to take it in the sense of a fortification, for though originally it meant the ditch of the fortress, it seems to be used generally for the bastions. LXX. SvvafjLLV avTrjs. 5. On verses 5-8, comp. the very similar passage in Zeph. ii. 4-7. ^IB. So Baer on authority of MSS. for ^1^, impf. apoc. or jussive of HNl. On the form and the tone milra, see Ges. § 75, rem. 3, b ; Kalisch § Ixvii. 1$, b ; Ewald § 63,^. Bottcher supposes that the peculiarity of the accent is caused by the word being pronounced in a threatening tone, Bottcher § 497, 9. The jussive has here the force of ^^ must see." See Driver § 58; Bottcher § 961, A, 7. Note the paronomasia between ^IB and ^TB^ so also in Ps. xl. 4, hi. 8; Isa. xli. 5. '''0^1.. Ewald regards this as a jussive for ^nni., the verb ^■in being one of those which do not readily change the ''t into ~, Ewald § 224, b, at end, but Bottcher {N. Aehrenlese, 1015) thinks that it is better to regard the speech as passing over from the jussive into the prophetic future, " and it must tremble." Thus in the end of the verse we meet '•3^51. followed by 3^n N?"!. The imp. kal. of this verb is considered by Gesenius to have two , forms, >in* and '''"HJ. Fiirst in his Worterb. regards ''''H'' as a hiphil, though with the signification of kal. In his Concord, he follows the opinion of Gesenius. t^'*3t^ from ti'D, Ewald § 122, e; Olshausen § 255, i. p. 566 ; Kalisch § Ixvii. A, 3, 4. Gesenius in the TJics. takes it as a hiphil of J^^\ The meaning would be the same. i^^?? for Huino from t32D (for t33?p, stem t33J), expectation, hope, pathach shortened into seghol like "1^,^,3? for ""Ot?^, see Ges. § 27, rem. 2, a ; Ewald § 88, d, § 160, ^; Kalisch § xvi. 9, footnote c. Bottcher § 498, 17, imagines that it is because the word was pronounced in the tone of lamentation. The LXX. have i-rrl tw TrapaTrrco/xaTt aur^s, as if they read i^^pnp, but perhaps they intended to give merely the sense of the passage. ^^B iib. See note on p. 213. Mr. Chamberlain maintains that this prophecy of Zechariah was not fulhlled up to the year a.d, 1270, when the fortifications of Ashkelon " were at length utterly destroyed by Sultan Bibars." It 568 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 5-7. is true that a Christian city, built on the site of the ancient one was the seat of a Christian bishop in a.d. 536. But though no mention is made of the destruction of Ashkelon in the days of the Maccabees, inasmuch as its citizens seem to have surrendered with- out resistance (i Mace. x. 86), and were afterwards friendly to the Jews (i Mace. xi. 60), it does not follow that it was not destroyed or deserted in the later troubles which fell upon the land. Benjamin of Tudela speaks of the new Ashkelon as being four parasangs from the ancient city, of the destruction of which we have no account. 6. l.tP'?. Seep. 216. The word only occurs in this passage and in Deut. xxiii. 3 (E.V. verse 2). It is most probably derived from ITOj unused in Hebrew, but equivalent to '.Sj to be corrupt, dirty, signifying one of impure descent, or it may be taken from the same root in the sense of mingle, Talm. IIP, to mix threads, to spin. So Fiirst. Geiger maintains that it is equivalent to "it ^-^^, ''' of a foreign nation," but instances of such a compound are wanting, that appealed to by Geiger being unsatisfactory. The LXX., in Deut., render it Ik TropvTj's, Vulg., de scorto natus, and so the other versions. LXX. here dXXoyevcis; Aq., Symm., and Theod., ixafjit,iqp. Vulg., "et sedebit separator in Azoto." See Ges. T/ies., and Add. by Rodiger. The conjectures of Redslob and of Maurer need not be discussed here. The Targum has widely mistaken the sense of the passage : "and the house of Israel shall dwell at Ashdod where they were strangers." R. Salomo ben Yizhak explains it, " and a foreign people shall dwell in Ashdod, these are the Israelites who were strangers in that city." 7. Seep. 217, ff, 230. The Targ. renders, "and the strangers," (or ^'proselytes,'' ll''! is used in both significations) " who shall be left among them, even they shall be joined to the people of our God." nmnn pi^X?. The term ^l-I^X* is the peculiar name of the princes of the Edomites, and is applied only by Zechariah to Jewish princes or chieftains. It is connected with ^^N*, a thousand, and means the head of a thousand, ^ikiap^';, not ^v\ap^-TU l>y'^ (Gen. xxxvii. 31). The plural is the plural of kind, 'i<"P meaning a foal such as she-asses are wont to bear (see Bottcher § 702, a). It may, however, signify here the meaning given on p. 236. The LXX. render, quoad sensum, ttwAos veos. Aq., Symm., and Theod., more literally, ttwXos vtos ovaScov, ttwAos vLo Ci1?t^ "imi. See p. 247, and note. LXX. render kol ttXtjOo^ koI dprjvr} i^ iOvwv. Schleusner conjectures that they read n^"] or 31, which is very doubt- ful. Aquila, kol XaX-^cru dpriv-qv TOis 'iOvi-cn. '1^1 "l^t^'^l. LXX. kol KardpieL {iSarcov cws 6aKa.(j(Trj, " J will even send forth thy captives," in which case JJi^^ would be regarded as used absolutely. This is the view adopted by Kohler. See note on p. 243. CiJ some- times refers not to the word which immediately follows, but to a word more remote in the sentence. See instances in Gesenius' IVorterb., and Ges. § 151, 3. It is quite possible to suppose, with Hengsten- berg, that Jyi5<"Di stands for "even thou," as DI'D D5 in verse 12, and the reference would then be to tlie miserable state of Zion, but not necessarily as contrasted with a former state. ""m^y has been taken by LXX., Vulg., Syr., Luther, and others, as the full form of the second pers. sing, fem., " thou (fem. referring to Zion) hast sent forth." This form always appears before sufhxes in the inflexion of the regular verb, and often occurs in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, as "'JTlppn Jer. xxxi. 31, where in the k'ri the usual form is given (Ges. § 44, rem. 4). There is no k'ri reading in this place, and moreover the first person suits the context better (see Ges. Lehrg., p. 266). The Targ. considers the passage to refer to the deliverance from Egypt and the passage through the desert. 12. 1j1 1j"1i»^. LXX. Ka9{](j(.a6f. Iv 6\vpu}jxa(XL Sea/JiLOL tt}? crwaywy/ys 5/2 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Cli. ix. 12, 13. (connecting nipn with ^'^?^^ in the sense of gathering together, comp. Gen. i. 10, and the niphal of the verb in Jer. iii. 17), koI o.vt\ fjnas rjiJL€pacai ^ i<^\*/0 JA^Qio? \i-*sc\ |j.au*^ ooZ " remain in the fortress, ye bound of the congregation, and for one day I will repay two to you." The Targ. "return that ye may be as strongly fortified cities, ye captives who have hoped for deliverance " (NJi^n-IQ^^ r^?P>?-! SJTpJ?), " captives imprisoned " tV ^TrtSt (Rom. viii. 21). ni'V? is a a-rra^ Xey. properly meaning '■'■ steepness." Comp. "i-iva^ chap. xi. 2, and ^n-l^f? nntn, a steep wall, Isa. ii. 15; Deut. i. 28, and comp. Isa. xiv. 13-15. So Hitzig, Maurer and Kohler. The steep rocks of Palestine are contrasted with the "if3 (verse 11), or ''pit," the flat lands of Babylon. Ewald suitably renders it by " the dry land." See also p. 251. T'lP. Bottcher would render impersonally, " one announces," comparing Isa. xvii. 5, xxi. 11. So Ewald § 200, a, § 294, b, 2. The personal pronoun, however, is not unfrequently omitted in participial clauses (comp. Tsa, xxvi. 3 ; Ps. xxii. 29 ; Job xxv. 2 ; see Gesen. § 134, 2, rem. 3, and comp. Hab. i. 5). The verb makes it plain that the pronoun of the first person is that which must be supplied. An impersonal rendering would be pointless. It is unnatural, as Kohler has well observed, to separate 2J from D1''n, and connect it with n^tJ^D, treating "fJ^ QT'n as a parenthetical sentence : " I will even — to-day I declare it— render double to thee." See p. 252. 13. '131 Ti^m ''3. Perf as future. See p. 252, note 2. riv!'P. at the end of the sentence is to be viewed as in apposition to " Judah," not as an accusative governed by the following ''D^^?^, as Hengstenberg. No doubt the punctuators have placed a zaqeph qaton over rnilT'j but no other accentuation was possible; and nt>*p is separated from ""riXTO by the disjunctive yethibh. The con- struction of the first sentence would otherwise be too harsh. ri'J'p must, however, be supplied as the object of TIN/'Dj one member of a sentence is often thus supplied from another. To suppose, as Hitzig does, an ellipsis of H!^?, and to regard it as equivalent to the phrase in 2 Kings ix. 24, Exod. xxviii. 17, is^oo harsh. Our translation is that of Ewald, Maurer, Kohler, and Keil. The phrase ^"^'Vt. ^.?9 Ch. ix. I3-I5-] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 573 is only used here. The explanation of Gesenius, in his Thes. p. 7 88, after Schultens, as if the phrase were put for ntj'i^n t)'"!!.? N?Pj is not so good. The Syr. has very erroneously explained the clause, " for I have drawn my bow against Judah, and have fitted it against Ephraim." TiDD'l. The LXX. paraphrastically, koX \l/r]Xa(f>y]a(jj ere, " and I will handle thee as the sword of a warrior." See on the verse generally, PP- 253, ff. Grotius has remarked that the Jews called all the kings of Syria and Eg)'pt, P'' ''2?D, " kings of Javan," because of their Greek extraction. See note 2, p. 256, and the reference there to this mode of speaking in the books of the Maccabees, 14. mn'' ""JIX. The LXX. render Kvpws TravTOKparcop, as if it were nixnvnin\ Syr. jZoV^ j;^i " Zord of lords." p^n Da i^ni. LXX. TTopcTjerat iv o-aXw uTretX?^? omtov, perhaps reading, as Kohler suggests, tO^^< (='(no''S) instead of I9'E Syr. " he will go forth in a whirlwind to the south," taking 'H as the accusative of place. 15. 173K1 and lE^'aai. Perfects as futures in lively narration. On this verse see p, 258 and p, 259 note, also p. 260. '151 11^*331. LXX. Kttt Ka.Ta.^rTov(Tiv avTovs, k.t.X., "and they shall overwhelm them with sling-stones." Syr. " and they shall subdue the stones with a sling." '1JT "iJ^n IDK'I. LXX. kol eKTrtovrat avTov ■>■ -^ , rendering jpo^ ^..j ^qX» ^oAajo "and they shall drink confusion as wine." "IJI '^23 1XP01. The LXX. have koX ttAi^o-owi ras (^taAas u)s 6vcna1D, but de Lagarde has ^^^), and 574 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 15-X.2. they shall shine as the blood which shines on the wall of the altar" (J from l-li'^, but this is very doubtful. Targ. ^'n'>^V i"^''3p, " from his Messiah." The translation by the LXX. of '0 HE^^p 'is also strange, to^ov eV Ov/xw, reading according to Cappellus HOnp. The Targ. renders this expression n^nnp fjlpj;!, f/ie strengt/i of his jvar,'' the archers being the most important part of an army. '1^11 N*^"* UOO. The Targ. renders ^7D? ^■^1DJ"]^ ^3 \\1-\r)\ n''3p, "by him shall all his rulers be magnified together;" Syr. "and from them shall all their princes proceed together." See pp. 273 fif. 5. '03 13^0^3 'J3 -vni. The subject of the verb is Judah, referred to in verse 3 (comp. verse 7). D^pf3 is the participle kal, and the form is generally viewed as indicating an intransitive signification (comp. hi D^Ofp, 2 Kings xvi. 7). Elsewhere it is always construed with an accusative, which may, however, easily be understood here. The form, cannot be proved to be intransitive. The clear sound of the a has become obscured in later writers, and hence the 0. See Bottcher § 463, ^, § 1132, 9, /; Ewald § 151, ^ ; Olshausen § 164, ^; Gesen. § 72, rem. i. On the other hand, Kalisch regards such forms as intransitive (§ Ixv. i, c), and so Hengstenberg and Keil. Mic. vii. 10; 2 Sam. xxii. 43 ; Ps. xviii. 43, have been referred to as illustrating the passage, but in all these the expression is nwn D"'P3, and not as here, 'n t3^:?f The rendering of the Vulg., " concul- cantes lutum viarum in pr?elio," is scarcely correct. The phrase seems rather to mean, "treading upon their enemies in the mire." The enemies can scarcely be regarded as compared to the mire itself. The clause might be rendered intransitively, " treading upon the mire of the streets." 6. On DTiniJ'in see note on p. 276. TJ'X3. '<■ As if:' Comp. Isa. xxix. 8; Job x. 19. On the perfect D^nmr-S'^, expressing the contingent occurrence, see Driver § iS. 7. Dnsx-rni. Compare verse 5. On the const, with a plural verb 57^ ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. x. 7-xi. 2. see Ges. § 146, i; Kalisch § 77, 6. LXX., koI co-ovrat ws fjLaxvTou Tov 'E0pat/x.. r'' 1^3. See chap. ix. 15. 7.JJ. See note i on p. 277. 8. ^p^:^'X. LXX. a-rjfjiaLvw. Aq., Symm. and Theod. avpi^w. On the form of the verb, see Driver § 49 ; Ges. § 128, i. See note 2 on p. 278. '1J1 mi. Targum incorrectly, H^?.* ]'^r\hv_ ipx n N*P? H^Pr^ " and they shall be multiplied as it is was said of them they should be multiplied." See note i, p. 278. 9. Seep. 285. "1^1 "l''ni. LXX., eK^pet/^ovo-t Ta TeWa auToir, and so Syr. 10. See on this verse p. 287, and pp. 290, ff. DHP NVD'' N7"i, Comp. Josh. xvii. 16. The verb is used impersonally, or some such word as C2lpO is understood. LXX., koX oi fxyj vTTo\u(^6y ii auraJv ovSe ets. 11. See pp. 294, fif. Delitzsch has been by mistake mentioned on p. 293 as agreeing with the view of Marck and Koster. He regards the construction as a case of apposition. '1^1 niv U''2. 0 7 -^ 7 y o o ■> 0 V r -^ LXX., iv Oakdcro-ri areyrj. Syr. jv^.-^ ^ouo ^-Aoj ^*0 f.Ci.i>.JO )i \ " and affliction shall pass through the sea, and shall roll waves in the sea." Vulg., "et transibit in maris freto, et percutiet in mari fluctus." The Targ. paraphrases the verse, " and miracles (PB3) shall be done to them, and great acts (H.^'^fl), as have been done to their fathers when they passed through the sea (de Lagarde reads ^^''^ pmnrDa, the Lond. Polygl. omits the first Avord), and they shall see the punishment ('D n-1Jy")1D?) of their enemies, as their horses are covered in the waves of the sea, and all the kings of the peoples shall be confounded, and strength shall cease from the Assyrians, and the dominion of the Egyptians (or " of Egypt," as Lond. Polygl.) shall pass away" (^.V-)). The LXX. render i"!X^ 'D by TO. /3d6r] TTora/Awv. "ilt^'N. LXX., 'Ao-o-vptcov • 'AXA.OS- /3y]fxaTi^6vTO)v ; perhaps this latter rendering is that of Aquila, but see Field's Hexapla. 12. The LXX., instead of nirr'n^ have Iv KvpM O^w avTwv. CHAPTER XL 2. C'lin, cypress. On the rendering of the Syr.', see Ges. Thcs. See p. 300 and note there. ?3J ''3, Observe the use of the perfect after '•3, for the event though future was deemed certain. See Driver § 14, A Ch. xi. 2-5.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 577 "Il!»nn ny\ ^'■Thc inaccessible forest.^' On the use of the article before the adjective alone, see Ges. § iii, 2, a; Kalisch § Ixxxiii. 15, c. This construction occurs also in chap. iv. 7, xiv. 10, and is used when a greater stress is laid on the adjective than the noun. The k'ri reading "i^V^D probably arose from a wish to correct this unevenness. "'''V? must be considered as a noun denoting steepness, inaccessibility, although it never actually occurs in that signification. The rendering of the A.V., "the forest of the vintage," gives no good sense, nor is the marginal rendering, " the defenced forest," which follows the Vulg. and Syr., a good one. 3. See pp. 302-3. 072,1. The ~ is to keep the consonants more apart and distinct (Bottcher § 205, ^). 4. n:-inn-lX^*. See p. 305. Comp. Ps. xUv. 23 {E.V. 22). The Syr. in this verse and in verse 7, renders the expression by " the lean sheep." 5. "iDi<'' jnnDni. The verb is used distributively, hence singular. So also in the next sentence 71Dn'' S?. T^yxi, shortened for "i^L^yX"! in short lively diction. See Ewald § 73, b, § 235, b; 01s- hausen § 78, ^ ; Kalisch § iii. 4 ; Ges. § 23, 2, b ; Bottcher § 428, 4. •1Dt^'^J. i^jy as Ewald prefers (§ 353, b). The latter designation expresses that which is a logical deduction from the very name just given them, n3"inn |XV■n^^ ; for because they were " a flock of slaughter," " slaughtered " and not " fed" by their shep- herds, therefore they were "the most miserable flock." Compare, on the superlative force of the expression, Jer. xlix. 20, 1. 45 ; 2 Chron. xxi. 17. The l^^^'n '•''Ji; have been explained by others as a portion of the larger flock, either as part of the human race (von Hofmann), or the true children of God everywhere (Kliefoth), or the godly and pious in Israel, the ecclesia pressa. But the passages of Jeremiah re- ferred to show that it is quite lawful to^xplain the expression of the whole of the people. iN'Vn in this case does not stand for the Cb. xi. 7-] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 579 nJinn ISV, but is used generally as a description of all such sheep as are upon the earth (comp. John x. 16). In this view of the verse we agree in the main with Kohler. Keil takes the opposite view. On the expression " sheep of slaughter," compare Ps. xliv. 23 (E.V. verse 22). nibpD Fern. plur. of ?i'?.'?, a staff. The stem is not ^P?2, as Gesenius and Fiirst give, but rather ?^P, to be in inotion. The form is like P?^P from \>\>'''^, or more exactly like V^P. from VT\. See Dietrich's edition of Ges. Worterb., or that of Miihlau and Volck. Bottcher observes that the word is fem. when it signifies a fresh stick from the tree (Gen. xxx. 37), but masculine when it means a staff for a journey, or a rod to correct with (Hos. iv. 12). Hence here ni^pp >l^, while five MSS. have the fem. in^pD ^Fi'f . See Bottcher § 650, I, and § 656. Dyj. See note p. 308. LXX., KaXXo?, Aq. and Sym. evTrpe-n-eLa. insp-lj instead of the ordinary ■'n>^7l. Cases of this punctuation in the abs. state are rare. See Ewald § 26'j,b ; Olshausen § 161, a ; Bottcher § 850, 2. But Kohler prefers to consider the word here as in the construct state before QHD understood. Gesenius also views the form as the construct state used for closer connexion (Ges. §116,6). 0 vSn. LXX., Aq., and Symm., o-xotVto-/xa, punctuating Qy^D., o-xotVto-yua being a rope, or a piece of ground measured therewith, an allotment. Syr. '^lij.j, a rope. Cl\^?n, being properly the par- ticiple kal can scarcely mean "the united," with Hitzig, who explains it of the alliance between Israel and Judah, and appeals in defence of this intransitive sense of the participle to the analogy of D''"iI^V in chap. iii. 7. ''^n is, however, transitive, whence Q\?^n is properly " binders," as Gesenius renders it. D v2n is rendered by Kimchi " destroyers," which is possible. Kimchi thus explains it : " when they were evil, then evil came upon them, and then the staff (De- stroyers) was there, but when they did good, then the good came upon them, and the staff Beauty (pleasantness) was there." But this is not reconcileable with verse 14. As the staff DW is inter- preted by some to mean "pleasafitness,^^ so the staff Dv2n has also been interpreted to signify " woes,^' as the plural of abstraction (see Ewald § 179, «), or, as Ewald there renders it, harmony, unanimity. This variety of meaning arises from the fact that the verb -'^n pro- 5 So ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. 7, S. perly means to twist, to turn, whence the idea of writhing, twisting,, in pain, and from twisting as a cord comes the meaning of to bind. $. See on this verse, pp. 312-321. insi^l. '■'■And I cut off." The verb properly means a^avi'C^Lv. Comp. on the meaning ot the verb, Exod. xxiii. 23; i Kings xiii. 34; 2 Chron. xxxii. 21; Ps. Ixxxiii. 5. The form of the verb in the first person is seldom shortened with vav conversive, as here (Ewald § 232, g; Kalisch § xhx. 3). D''i;-in T\^b\y ni«. This perhaps ought to be translated rather the three shepherds, than " three of the shepherds " (comp. i Sam. xx, 20 ; Isa. XXX. 26), but the article might be used to qualify the genitive alone (see Ges. § in, i, rem.). Exod. xxvi. 3, 9, are conclusive instances of this construction with numerals. Blayney's translation, " I will set aside the authority of the shepherds," is utterly impos- sible. It requires a Hebrew word to be invented which has no existence. The suffixes in QHIl and i3u'?3 are supposed by Hengstenberg, Ebrard and Kliefoth, to refer to the three shepherds. But it is scarcely possible that different persons can be meant from those referred to by ^5^? in the next verse. Moreover it is, as Keil has observed, impossible to take the imperfect with vav. conv. (IVpJill) in the sense of a pluperfect, preceded as it is by the same verbal form (in^SI) in this verse, and followed by a similar, PP^!I, in the commencement of verse 9. The shepherd could scarcely be said to be wearied with them after they had perished or had been cut off. The LXX. render "i^'pni by /3apuv6'i;o-erat, " will be distressed (or, provoked) against them." See Schleusner. Pnn occurs in Hebrew only here and in the k'thibh in Prov. XX. 21. It cannot be explained here by the corresponding word in the Arabic, nor even perhaps after the Syriac usage, to loathe, as Gesenius and Fiirst. Targ., ''^np-'l2? nVi^ Jinj^p'^J":] 7^, " because their soul rejected (loathed) my service;" Syr., "and even their 7 V souls, .^ \v woli, barked against me ; " LXX., at i^v)(aX avrm^ eTTuip-vovTo kiT e/x,e (at. ex. i-n-opevovTo) . Differently Aquila, iTripKaaev iv ifjLOL. (Vulg. variavit in vie.) Symm., rjKjxaa-ev iv i/jboL 7n3 seems in Chald. and later Heb. to be used in the sense of to he ripe, properly, to break forth out of the bud, to burst it, to cast it off, and hence to reject (see Levy's NeiiJichr. u. Chald. JVorterb. Ch. xi. S-ii.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 581 iiber die Talmudim u. MidrascJiiiii). Hence there are no grounds to suppose that the reading in the Hebrew text ought to be regarded as a softening down of an original, ^1^3, as Geiger has maintained in his UrscJu-ift, p. 270. In reference to Ewald's conjecture with regard to 2 Kings xv. 10, referred to on p. 320, the Hebrew text of that passage is ^^>'^\> -in?*!! "IJI, and the LXX. translation, Kai lirara^av airov Ke/JXaa/x, KOL Idava- Twcrav avTov, koI i/SaaLXevaev dvT avTov, where K.€J3Xadfji is just a mis- understanding for Di?"?3p, l^e/ore the people, or rather before people, i.e., publicly, as Bottcher as shown. See Thenius' Comvi. on the passage. The word is very variously written in the Greek MSS. See Pusey's note on p. 509 of his Minor PropJiets. Ewald has inserted this imaginary monarch in his GeschicJitstabelle ! We have, however, erred in stating on p. 320 that P^wald's conjecture has been adopted by no critic of eminence except Dean Stanley, as the same view has been taken by Fiirst in his GcscJi. dcr bibl. Literatur, 2ter Band, p. 355. 9. The imperfects in the latter clauses of this verse are translated by Hengstenberg as futures, but it is better, with Kohler and others, to regard them as used in a jussive signification. The participles nn^n and nin?3n are here used in the signification of present participles (Bottcher § 997, 2, a ; Ges. §134; Kalisch § 100, 4). The feminine form is to be explained as collective, the feminines being used as neuters in a collective simification (Gesen. § 107, 3, d; comp. Kalisch § 77, 10). The flock is elsewhere referred to in this verse C^jri^) and in the preceding (^D?, i2!^'?J3) as mas- culine, because the people symbolised thereby were uppermost in the mind of the prophet (comp. also verse 5). nniVT X-n-nx n:rx. See Ges. § 124, 2, rem. 4; Kalisch § 82, 12. On the subject matter of the verse, compare Jer. xv. i, 2, xix. 9 ; Deut. xxviii. 53. 10. ^'i'^^}. ''And I broke it:' The LXX., who render the imperfects Avith vav conv. in this verse as futures, translate here, airoppiij/o}, I ivill cast it muay (so also in verse 14), as the broken staff was no doubt cast away. 11. The LXX. render this verse, /cat yT/wo-oi/rat o\ XavavoLot ra TvpojiaTa to. e^uXao-o-o/^eva /x,oi Stdrt Aoyos Kvpiov can. Compare their rendering of verse 7. '1^1 P iyT'1. Compare Jer. xxxii. 8. ''? Vli^) X-in n.}nri?1. Similar expressions occur in a good sense in chap. ii. 1 3 , 5S2 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROniECIES. [Ch. xi. ii, 12. vi. 15. Compare also the equivalent statements met with in the sense of our passage in Jer. xliv. 28, xvi. 21 ; Ezek. xvii. 21, xxxix. 23 ; Mai. ii, 4. Note also the test given for distinguishing true prophets from false, in Deut. xviii. 21, 22 ; Jer. xxviii. 9. See on this verse in general, pp. 325, fif. As to Hitzig's suggestion to take ''^'^^ as a noun with suffix, as observed in note p. 326, it may be further noted that the me after D^iJ^CTi could not otherwise be expressed, ^IPp* would be too vague. The translation of this clause by the LXX. (see above) is incorrect. With respect to the Psalter of Solomon referred to in our note, p. 328, it is well to note here that a later edition of these Psalms has been published, with an able critical commentary, by the Roman Catholic scholar. Dr. E. E. Geiger, Augsburg, 1870. Prof. Dr. Oscar von Gebliardt, of Halle, the editor of the Grcecus Venetus (Leipzig, 1875), is ^t present engaged in the preparation of a new edition, with a critical commentary, and with a translation of the Greek into Hebrew by Prof. Dr. Franz Delitzsch. All these Psalms may not belong to the same age, — the seventeenth Psalm seems certainly to refer to Pompey, — but some of them may possibly be older. The arguments adduced by Geiger in favour of the later date of their composition are very strong, and similar views have been defended by Movers, Dehtzsch, Keim, and Hilgenfeld. But see Schiirer's Nciitest. Zeitgeschichte. 12. 1?pt:'''l. The LXX. here, as in other places, render this verb by la-TT/z^t. Compare their translation of 2 Sam. xiv. 16, Job vi. 2, Isa. xl. 12. So Aquila here. Compare the same usage in Herod, ii. 65. ^D3 DiJ^'^ti'. On the construction, see Ewald § 287, /; Ges. § 120, 4, rem. 2 ; Kalisch § 90, 13. The Jewish interpretation of this chapter is worthy of note which is given by R. Isaac Troki in the Chizzuk E>nii/iali, pub- lished by Wagenseil in his Tela Ig?ica. The staff of beauty he considers to mean the governorships of Zerubbabel and Nehe- miah, both of whom were supposed to have sprung from the house of David. By the staff Dvan, which he renders destroyers (after CiV?DP, Cant. ii. 15), he understands the rule of the Asmonasans, who unlawfully usurped the supreme power. Herod and his sons are, according to him, signified by the foolish shepherds, while the three shepherds were Haggai, Zechari^h, and Malachi, who all died in one month. This latter statement is quite unhistorical. Ch.xi. I2-I6.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 583 The thirty pieces of silver are, according to his view, not to be taken literally, but signify the thirty just men who kept the precepts of God after the days of Zerubbabel and Nehemiah. 13. "i^*Vn. LXX., Symm., to ;;((iDV£UT?7ptov. Itala, conflatorium (see pp. 330, ff). Aquila, correctly, 6 TrAao-rr/s. Vulg., statuarius. Syr- \\ V Aa^, the treasury. Targ., ^/|"}^^?, which Buxtorf ren- ders treasurer, and has here that meaning. Levy {Neu/ieb. u. Chald. Worterb.') maintains that this title means /r^j-/^^;//, being compounded of "iP, with prosthetic ^, and ^3 i.q., lord of all, hke Katholikos, and indicates a priestly office which was sometimes distinct from the treasurer, and sometimes of higher dignity. Riickert and Ewald (§ 45) ^) understand the word here as an Aramaism for "i>*i^, treasury. It has also been explained as a mistake for "i^"i*< (von Ortenberg), or as another form of that word (Hitzig) ; or as a secondary form of "i^f^, treasurer, as Gesenius in Thesatirus, etc. Two MSS. of Kennicott read 1V1xn-^X, while five have lVf*n n>3 h^. See pp. 330, ff. '1J1 ~lp^"^ •T^^?. Lit., ^^ the glory of the friee," i.e., a glorious or mag- nificent price, spoken ironically (see Ewald § 293, c ; comp. Gesenius § 106, i). LXX., Kox o-K€\j/ofji.at. (reading l^^l?;? instead of 11^) d hoKLjxov eo-Ttv, ov rpoTTOv iSoKLfido-d-QV virep avTOiv. miT' n''3. Drake seems to regard with approbation the conjecture of Mede {Works, book iv., epist. xxxi.) that St. Matthew read in place of jI^? the phrase ^"1?. That phrase occurs iniEzra and Esther, and, as Mede observes, is literally /cara crvvTayfia Kvpiov, and, he thinks, it is rendered freely by the evangelist, KaOa awera^e jxol KvpLoossesslon, reading i^-1^^l}. Other copies have t^v haOrjKriv (see Field). The noun nirti^ is an abstract, a denominative from ^^^J used only here in Biblical Hebrew, but found in later Hebrew. On its form, see Bottcher § 644, a. On the passage, see p. 343. 15. Vl?^. LXX., diTupo<;. On the adjectival ending "t, see Ewald § 16^, a; Ges. § 86, 2, 5. 16. See on this verse the note on p. 348. na-yan. That which can stand, the healthy. So the LXX., to bXoKXrjpov. Vulg., id quod stat. Other commentators, as mentioned by Kohler, wrongly take the word to mean standing still from fatigue. "iwn. See note on p. 350. 584 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. 17- xii. 4. p"lB* [n*D"lS1. LXX., Kol TOi)s aarTpaydXov; avToiV eKaTpeipei. 17. • ^y DJl. The LXX. seek to avoid the difficulty in this verse by translating, koX kv rfj 'Ioi;8ata co-rat Trepioxrj evrl 'Icpovcrakrjix. See the remarks on pp. 361, fF, and especially the note on p. 362, Ewald, in his Lehrb. § 295, e, explains the phrase as meaning, "they must do the business of the war," after the analogy of i Chron. ix. i^t \ Ezra iii. 3, but we prefer Lange's view. The Targ. is ni-in.'' n''2"7 fiX") ^VT\'h NTV? rp^JJ? T5 mm |-1>in^, "and even those of the / house of Judah the peoples shall bring as by the hand of violent men into the siege against Jerusalem." Compare the note on chap, xiv. 14. Several MSS. read njrin for rs)))), but incorrectly. 3. noJDI^D px. 1SKX...Xl9ov KaraTTaTovfjicvov," a stojie t/iat is trampled on. Similarly Syr. The Targ. simply N^pri jas " a stone of offence." lOki''' t3"lK>. LXX., e//.7rat^wv ifji,7raL$€Tai, reading perhaps py^. The inf. absolute used before a verb does not always belong to the same conjugation as the verb with which it is conjoined, but the inf. absolute kal is often used in preference to any other conjugation, because it expresses the notion of the verb in the simplest man- ner. See Kalisch § 97, 9 ; Bottcher § 990. 4. See the remarks on p. 365. Ch.xi. 5,6.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 5S5 5. ''-'Ziba. See the note on chap. ix. 7. '7 n-^m. The LXX. render cvpi^a-oix^v iavrols Tovs KaroiKowras 'lepovcraXijfJi, " AVe will find on our side (dcrf. comm.') the inhabitants of Jerusalem." They thus take nvox from i^VO, as if ^V?p^!l=i1S np^i'^'^J, "salvation has been found for the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the Word of the Lord of hosts their God." Aquila renders KapTeprjcrov fxoi, reading nyrpj^, or considering the form without daghesh as the imp. piel with n para- gogic. One of Baer's MSS. actually reads Tny??>«. Another MS. of his reads vTiypx, perf. kal, but no feminine subject occurs in the sentence. The Vulg. translates similarly to Aquila, " conforten- tur mihi habitatores Jerusalem in Domino exercituum Deo eorum." Hitzig would divide the words v n^iTas differently, alter their vocalization, and by changing the * into "I produce 1?nv DK, which he translates, " if the inhabitants have indeed cried to Jahve (gewimmert haben)," that is, if they cry to God mightily in prayer they will be succoured. The usage of ^1"^^* in Isa. x. 30 might support such a rendering of the proposed phrase, but the conjecture is arbitrary, and the meaning educed does not suit the passage. "^^'P^ is properly a noun feminine as ^^^'^ g^tilt, TO^p. 7inrighteo7isness, nyyj' cry, ni^w' security. On the construction, see Ges. § 106, I, rem. 2. ?. Dat, comm., '^ for vie" (Kalisch § 86, 9, a ; Ges. § 154, 3, e, Lehrg. § 195, 4). 'h is here for -IJ?, the singular being used to indicate that the thought was that of each of the princes of Judah previously mentioned. 6. IVSD. LXX., ws SaXoV. '3 means originally a bason, and then a brazier. The LXX. have taken the word as used by metonymy for the wood which is burned therein. Similarly Syr., ''-like a coal of fire." The plural 2''Vr is frequently used in the sense of faggofs, as Gen. xxii. 3, 19; Deut. xxi. 225 Josh. x. 26. 586 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. 6-8. "T'PVj i-q-, "^?y properly denotes a loose sheaf not firmly bound to- gether. 1?3X1, The qadma over the 5< is the substitute for metheg. nTinn. Comp. chap. vi. 12, xiv. 10. 7. nX'XiB as opposed to njnqxa, Deut. xiii. 10 j 1 Kings xvii. 13. Five MSS. read nJD>Si3?, "-as at the first,'' which is supported by the LXX., Vulg. and Syr. The original reading might possibly have been '"irC'Sl3, Deut. ix. 18. '?^J^l X?. The im- perfect naturally follows \V'cb as expressing the result. Bottcher § 949, d. 8. "W^ r\'\r\^ 1.2:. Comp. Ps. iii. 4, ^.1^2 |jp T\)p;i nnx^. DpC^IT* I^V, Collective, as in previous verse, as is shown by the fol- lowing 0^3. 7t^2:n. The tottering, or the weak. Comp, 2 Sam. ii. 4. LXX., o do-^eycov, which is the sense given by the Targ. and Syr. The Vulg. renders ^^ qui offender it ex eis." _ DlT'ja?. ^^ Before thei?i" i.e., leading them on. So Syr. ^^who is before them." See note on p. 368. Venema translates, " the weak will be in that day among them as David, and the house of David as God (or in God, for he suggests the reading DTibxa without, however any MS. authority), as the Angel of Jahaveh before them." This rendering does not coincide with the Hebrew accentuation, and would require ri''3D"i. The house of David evidently means, as Maurer notes, the king who was to spring from the house of David. Comp. Isa. vii. 13, where it includes the princes belonging to the royal family. On the passage, see p. 380. Umbreit rightly remarks, " The Messianic expectation cannot ascend higher in the exaltation of the royal house : for we see the expected Anointed walking in the superhuman height of God-like omnipotence." He observes also that Ernst Meier {Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1842, p. 1041) recognises here a prediction of the Messiah, though free from any dogmatic preposses- sions on such points. Tholuck {Die Proph. ic. ihre JFeiss.) also observes that this passage contains the striking statement concerning the future Ruler from the house of David, that he should possess Divine powers, if it does not actually go so far as to distinctly assert his Deity. The Vulg. " domus David quasi Dei" scil. domus, and the LXX., 0)5 oiKos 0eov, though possible as translations, cannot be regarded as giving the sense of the passage, for " the house of God," as Schegg observes, is not used in the Old Test, as a figurative name of the family of God, though the expre^ion " sons of God " perhaps occurs in that sense. Ch. xii. 9, 10.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 5S7 9. See remarks on pp. 380, ff., and note on page 3S0. nhm-\' hv n^xnn. Compare hv n^y, Isa. vii. I. Baer notices that one MS. (de Rossi, 319) has the note C]''X:?b>n 5<"D, namely, that other copies have that reading. But Baer observes that this contradicts the Masora, which says that D''t^?'i>'n is only found in Num. xxxi. 42, and Isa. xxix. 7, 8. 10. "1^1 Tiasi^'l. Perf. with vav conv. connected with the subst. verb iT'i^l in the preceding verse. Compare chap, viii, 2, and note on p. 162. On the phrase, see note i, on page 383, The writer continues the narration in the perfect tense. in. See note 2, p. 383. "IJI ^^« inoni. The reading ^^i^, ''unto me,'' is that of all the old versions and of the great majority of the MSS., and must be regarded as the original. The reading " imto hz?n " 1 vi< is doubt- less a correction, as de Rossi has abundantly shown, and a most natural one, too, on account of the following Ivi?. Geiger asserts ( Urschrift, p. 58) that vS is a correction of 1'' aS', but he has adduced no grounds for his opinion. The latter reading arose as a very natural marginal emendation (see p. 384), and probably without any intention of tampering with the text. Even Rabbi Isaac Troki, the able Jewish controversialist, in his Chizzuk Emunah, given in WagensiPs Tela Ig?iea, pp. 303, 304, arguing against the Christians quotes the reading vX. The reading 1 vX is defended by Kennicott, Ewald, Geiger, Bunsen, etc. Many have asserted that it is supported by John xix. 37, Rev, i. 7 ; but St. John seems merely to have given the sense of the passage, and not quoted its actual words. Others, as J. D. Michaelis, Bleek, Reinke, point the word v^., and consider it as a preposition. So Bottcher {Neiie Aehrenlese). The latter explains it thus, " Dann blicken sie auf das, was Jener war = auf die Person Jenes [den] sie erstochen," i.e. then they look upon that which that one was, or, upon the person of that one whom they pierced. So also Lehrb. § 897, 8. The form of the preposi- tion v.^ only occurs in the book of Job, and there but four times. The suggestion of von Ortenberg to insert the verb and copula •I^J^'^'I. after 1 vt< and before 1t^•^< nx is arbitrary. There is no trace of tliis reading even in the Targ., which paraphrases the verse, " and I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of mercy and compassion and (^y ^Pli"?;!'? \^^'^^\ ^ryh\ |-n?pM^ 6p'?t2X"})^ they shall pray before me because that 588 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. lO. they have been driven away (from their land), and shall mourn for him." This a loose paraphrase of what the Targumist regarded as the sense. The translation given by v. Hofmann, in his Weissagung und Erfiillung, ii. p. 152, is "they shall look to me with reference to him whom they had pierced." In his Schriftbeweis, ii. 2, p. 562, he renders the clause " my heroes {i.e. the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem) see him whom they have pierced." ''^, DV^ may possibly occur in the meaning of mighty, heroes, Job xli. 17 ; Ezek. xxxii. 21 (see Gesenius) ; though this is disputed by Fiirst, Hitzig and Hengstenberg, and not without cause. But even granting that the word has such a meaning, it never occurs with a suffix. Moreover, as Kohler observes, the verb t2''3n is commonly construed with ?^, and ''^^? must, therefore, naturally be taken as the prepo- sition with suffix of first person. Had the prophet wished to express the meaning of "heroes,^^ he could have used the simple li^l. But no such subject was required, as the sense of the passage would have been clearer without such an addition. X'J< nx is the object to the transitive verb 11p"t. The trans- lation given by the LXX. is against the usage of the Hebrew. They render avB'' i)v KaTwpxyjo-avTo " because they insulted ; " Aquila renders 10S1 vns. Comp. 2 Sam. xvi. 11. The addition of '* is made for emphasis. Thou shalt not live. Compare for subject matter, Deut. xviii. 20; 2 Kings X. 19. On the expression "• Dtrn ipii' im^ comp. Deut. xviii. 20 ; Jer. xiv. 50. inipTl. LXX., (jv\xTTo^iov(jiv avTov, '■'■shall restraiji " or " bind him" not necessarily reading, as Schleusner suggests, Ipl', but more probably toning down, as they do in other places, the apparent harshness of the statement. So also the Syriac. But Aq., Symm. and Theod., koX iKKevT-rjcrovcnv avrov. 1x53 n?. Not necessarily, with Hesselberg and Reinke, " in the act of prophesying,^' but "w^ account of his prophesyifig" or " his having Prophesied." Comp. the same construction in 2 Chron. xvi. 7, xxviii. 6. 4. "151 ri:'n\ Not as Hengstenberg, " they will desist, with shame, from their vision in their prophesying," but rather, according to the usual sense of ^'f2 when construed with iP, " they will be ashamed each of his vision, on account of his prophesying." insnan? is for txnsn?, as in verse 3 (see Ewald § 238, e\ Ges. § 74, rem. 2). The form is akin to that of n"? (see Bottcher § 1083, 13). On the hairy mantle, see p. 422, and 2 Kings i. 8 ; Isa. xx. 2 ; Matt. iii. 4] Heb. xi. 37. 5. "Tpl^ "^"'^j ^s in Gen. iv. 2. ''SiX, emphatic. The substan- tive verb is implied; see Ges. § 121. i. 6. "10X1. And he shall say, or one shall say (Ewald § 294, b). LXX., Ktti e'jow. Syr., "and they shall say unto him." " Between thine hands." See p. 427. TT'DH yea. Comp. Ges. § 138, i, rem. i and 3,' and § 143, i. "•^nXO n"'2. LXX., wrongly, cV tu oIkio to) dyaTn^Tw [mov. The Targ. renders the verse : " and he shall say to him, Wliat are these stripes (^OP?) which have come upon us ? Are they not on Ch. xiii. 6, 70 CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 59I account of the work of our (so de Lagarde, but Lond. Polygl. reads " thy ") hands ? And he shall say, Deservedly have we been beaten on account of the sins which we loved." 7. '"'iiy. On the tone, see note on chap. ix. 9. Compare as to the subject matter, Isa. lii. i, Ix. i. Though Ewald and v. Orten- berg consider chap. xiii. 7-9 properly to be the conclusion of chap, xi., Bleek and Hitzig have rightly opposed that view. See p. 433. In addition to the arguments there alluded to, v. Ortenberg alleges that no prophet ever closed his prophecy with such a terrible description of woe as that in chap. xi. 17. But this statement is scarcely correct, for that chapter ends with a description of the de- struction to fall upon the oppressor of Israel, and, therefore, in- ferentially announces a blessing to the people of Jahaveh. It need not therefore be viewed as any exception to the general usage of the prophets. ''VT'py. LXX., em Toil's 7rot/i,ei/as fxov, pointing ''^"1. Hitzig suggests that ''VI, " my friend" would be better. "i^^. A man, not, however, necessarily indicating the human in contrast to the divine, as Hengstenberg thinks. The word shows that an individual person is referred to, and cannot well be regarded as a collective designation, as Calvin, with the LXX., understood it. No article could have been used with this noun, as it is in the construct state, nor before the genitive following because it is qualified by a suffix. Hence the word is not necessarily indefinite. On the construct state, as used in apposition as here, see Ges. § 116, 5. Compare "^^.''PD t^''';?, Deut. xxxiii. 8 ; "il1"ip5 Dy, Ps. cxlviii. 14; " the people near him, the people of his near- ness" (see Delitzsch on that passage). LXX., eVt avSpa TroXiT-qv fxov. Aq., cTTi avSpa a-vfK^vXov fiov. Synim., eVt avSpa tov Xaov fjiov. Theod., cTTt avSpa -ttXtjo-lov avrov. Vulg., super viriim cohcBre?item mihi. Syr., "against the man, my lover (i^icu^;)-" ^n. Masculine, although 3"in is feminine, as the sword is per- sonified and addressed as an individual in the first imperative ^"i-iy. Compare Gen. iv. 7, where rixon is also construed with the mascu- line for similar reasons (see Ges. § 148, rem. 2). The sword, though personified, is treated as a feminine in Jer. xlvii. 6. Hitzig considers the imperative as addressed to some unknown person, which would explain the difficulty. Kliefoth, who would refer this verse to some future denial of Christ by the world at large, makes the extraordinary remark that the shepherd is said here to be struck but not killed. 592 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES, [Ch. xiii. 7, 8 But no such subtlety is conveyed under the expression here used. To strike with the sword is always used in the sense of to kill (comp. Josh. viii. 24, X. 30, xix. 47). The LXX. have also the plural, TraTa^are toi)S Trot/AcVas kox iKcnrda-are ra 7rp6j3aTa. So the Cod. Vat. and Sin., but the Cod. Alex, and Compl. have, Trara^ov tov 7rot/x,eVa • Kol ^Laa-KopiTLcrOya-ovTaL ra 7rp6/3aTa Trj'n"7y. The participle only occurs here. Bottcher {Neue Aehrenlese, 1020) notices that this form of the participle, as being active, must be rendered not the little ones, but rather those who makes themselves as litde, the poor, the humble. The Arabic ^'^ .is not equivalent to T'l^V, small, which is j^^-o (see W. Wright's Arab. Grammar, vol. i. § 230, rem. a, d, with § 232, rem. c). The LXX. and Symm. render, e-n-lTov's fiLKpovs; some copies, as Cod. Alex., cTTi Toiis TTOLfievas ; other copies, combining both readings, eVi tous fiLKpovs TTot/Aevas. Aquila, IttI tous [Trot/Aevas] /3paxcts. Theod., iirl Tous vewrepov?. Syr., } A \-\ ^^, "against the overseers'* The Targum renders the verse, "Sword, show thyself (*^/|r>^) against the king, and against the prince his fellow, who is as he, who is like him {^h ^»l"n ^'r!l?"=i.), saith the Lord of hosts ; kill the king, and the princes shall be scattered, and I will bring back the stroke of my power C^l/I^l nnp l''n^?!l) against the seconds," i.e., those who rank next to the monarch. The text is quoted twice distinctly in the N. T., as well as referred to in other passages. In Matt. xxvi. 31, yiypaivra.i ydp • •jrara^to TOV TTOLixiva Koi ^laa-KopTncrO-qcrovTai to, Trpofiara tt/s Trot/AVTjs, and similarly in INIark xiv. 27, save that t^s Trot/xvvys is omitted. The words in the N. T. are not therefore quoted in this case from the LXX. (see our remarks on p. 443), but they substantially agree with the Hebrew. The addi- tion of T-^s ■n-oLfjLvrjs is considered by Bohl as " a real Targumic addi- tion," and to be in favour of his theory noticed in the note on p. 336. 8. d;;:^"''?. So Deut. xxi. 173 2 Kings ii. 9 (see Ewald § 269, b). Lit., a mouth of tzuo, a mouth-portion for two, an expression founded upon the custom of placing a double portion of food before those whom it was intended to Honour. Comp. Gen. xliii. 34 Ch. xiii. 8-xiv. 2.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 593 (Hengstenberg). •"in"!|3.'' may possibly refer to death by the sword, and ^V^^^ to death by pestilence, as Drusius, Hengstenberg, and Reinke think. The second verb may, however, be preferably con- sidered as defining the sense of the first more completely (Ges. § 142, 3, b)- 9. On the idea of melting and purifying, compare Isa. i. 25, xlviii. 10; Jer. ix. 6 ; Mai. iii. 3 ; Ps. Ixvi. 10, etc. '131 Nip'' Sin. The masculine is used because the purified remnant is treated as one individual. Similarly, though feminine, JT'EJ^P^n is construed in the preceding verse with "inil, while in the previous part of this verse it is spoken of as resolved into its component parts ; hence the use of the masc. plural suffixes. On the expression Dt^'n i<")p, comp. Is. Ixv. 24, and on the passage in general, see Hos. ii. 23 ; Jer. xxiv. 7, xxx. 22, etc. ^mox. The accent is pashta, which is a postpositive, and hence repeated over the tone syllable, which is here the penultimate. The perfect is, however, used for the perf with vav. conv., though the ordinary accentuation is retained. In lively narrative the perfect is often thus used without vav preceding. See Bottcher § 974, b. CHAPTER XIV. 1. On the expression, " a day is coming for Jahaveh," see note 2, on p. 455. "Thy spoil." See the note on p. 458^ 2. D''mn. The munach is used instead of metheg, but not, as Ewald considers (§ 96, a, foot note 4), because the article in the ante- penultimate syllable appeared to the punctuators of less importance than the rare vowel in the penultimate. For metheg in general is not used with the article, as Ci''0»n, Neh. ix. 6, unless in cases where the article is followed by a letter without daghesh and pointed with sh'va, i^??Pp, Lev. iii. 3, to which usage there are certain exceptions. The metheg, or the munach which in this passage takes its place, is used to indicate that the kametz is long {a), not kametz-chatuph {0), as it is generally regarded. The metheg is used for a similar reason in nax (munach for metheg) Gen. 1. 17. n3X, Ps. cxviii. 25 (see the critical edition of the Psalms by Baer and Delitzsch). The word is not to be read hottim, as even Gesenius thought, but, as partly recognised by Rodiger, in the twentieth edition of Ges. Gram., Q Q 594 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. Ch. xiv. G-5. bdtim, the daghesh after heavy metheg serving merely to distinguish Cna, the participle plural of H-ia. This is proved by the syllable having sometimes an accent (as Exod. viii. 7, xii. 7), which it would not if the vowel was short. See Noldeke in Merx' Archiv. i. p. 456, and Baer, p. 66 ; also Miihlau and Volck in the last edition of Gesenius' Worterbuch. Kautzsch (Gesenius' Gr. § 66) remarks in addition to the reasons there assigned, that the Babylonian vocaliza- tion has finally shown that bdtim is the correct pronunciation. njpJEJTi. The punctuators considered the verb ?^^ as an ob- scene expression, and hence have always substituted 3?^. So here nn;5irj|i, which from the k'ri has crept into the text of many MSS. Comp. Deut. xxviii. 30; Isa. xiii. 16; Jer. iii. 2. The vowels in the k'thibh in all these places belong to the k'ri reading and not to that in the text. Bottcher regards this as an instance of a passive form of kal and would read it njpi:?'^. The perfect occurs jn Jer. iii. 2, and the imperfect is also found in Is. xiii. 16 (see Bottcher § 906, a). LXX., iKoKvvOricrovrai. Schol., KoiTaa-B-qdovTa.i. npun— X^"'1. See note on p. 459. 3. IDDpn DV3. On the meaning of ?, see Ges. § 118, 3. 3^i? is a poetical word, only found in prose in 2 Sam. xvii. 11. On the LXX. transl., see the note on p. 464. The Targ. thinks that the reference is to the victory at the Red Sea. 4. nxp npnj) S''5. Adverbial accusative (see Ewald § 280,^/3 Ges. § 118, 3). The construct case is occasionally used before adjectives qualifying nouns, especially with such as express the ideas of great, bad, and the like. So nnn noq, Great Hamath, Amos vi. 2 (the absol. state is ^^D) ; also ?n5 n''3^ 2 Kings xxv. 9 ; ^3? ?"'n3, 2 Kings xviii. 17 (see Ewald § 287, a'). Fiirst regards ^''11 as an absol. state of a noun of that form found only in this passage in the singular. This is unnecessary. The plural is nt^XJ. The transposed form is met once in the k'thibh, ri1X''3^ 2 Kings ii. 16, and must be read ms'']i. (Bottcher § 811), for which the k'ri put the usual form. The LXX. render the phrase here ;>(aos /xe'ya crt^oSpa, a very great chasm. The form 5<''5. only occurs here and in verse 5 as the construct of ^\\, the usual form being '•3. In Isa. xl. 4, a form '^''1. also occurs. 5. '131 N''3 DJIDJI. The LXX., koX (f>pa)(9ija-€TaL rj cfidpay$ twv opioiv fiov. They read here, with the oriental Jews, ^^iiP??, the niphal from oriD. So also Symm. This reading is adopted by the LXX. throughout the verse, which they render koL lyKoXk-qOrjcmaL Ch. xiv. 5-7] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 595 »y n^:rnp Oiain p^r, namely, that some correct MSS. have the reading "all his saints with him" as the Targum translates. But Baer observes that the Masoretic reading was certainly D"'£?'np. (as in the general text), for the Masora observes that 1^*^"Ip. only occurs in Deut. xxxiii. 3, Ps. xxxiv. 10. Kimchi expressly states that "^?3i; is the reading of this passage. 6, pj^Sp^ ri'np\ See note on p. 481. LXX., ovk eo-rai <^w?, koX ^v^f] /cat Trayos ecrrai \x.ia.v rjfxepav, connecting it with the first words of the next verse, and omitting the copula in ^^'^1 with which that verse be- gins. TheTarg.is"i^^^-i(qu.ny?)'"jy VD^^ X"ifn5 ^n\ i6 Sinn i^p'^p^ \n^), " and it shall be in that time there will be no light, but cold and frost." 7. See note on pp. 483 flf. The Pesikta Rabbatki in Yalkut Shitneom, ii. fol. 129, col. 4, thus explains the day here alluded to : "As we have every seventh year a year of release, so God will give the Israelites a day of release, which shall last a thousand years, as it is written, ' and it will be one day of the Lord,' that day is the seventh," i.e., the seventh period of a thousand years. This exegesis of the passage does not, however, agree with the context. S96 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 7-9. The Pesikta Rabbathi, however, explains correctly the evening here spoken of as signifying the Messianic age. Similarly Pirke Uiiezer^ c. 28, " before the great evening will break in, the Son of David will double the light of Israel, as it is written, ' at evening it will be light.' " ^ 8. 'Ipn D'*n"'?X. LXX., £ts TTjV dciXaa-a-av rrjv TrpwTTjv , . . kol rr]v 6. TTjv ia-xdrrjv. So also they render the words in Joel ii. 20. ^!!'n2-1. LXX., cV eapL, as in other places. The suggestion of Michaelis is probably correct, that they render thus from an Egyp- tian standpoint, as winter is the season of spring in Egypt (see Schleusner's Lex.). 9. The Synagogue understood the Messianic dispensation to be signified by " in this day." In Sohar on Genes, fol. 22, col. 85, and fol. 37, col. 145, we read, " After the destruction of the temple follows that period which is termed "'HST i«3nT3, the time to come''' And in the cabbalistic commentary on the Thora it is said' that "When the Matron will again return to her Lord in that time will the Lord be one." The Matron (^C'Jtip^) which sometimes appears to be used for the Shekinah, seems almost at other times to indicate the Church of Israel. Thus, in a passage from Shir ha-shirim Rabba, fol, 7, col. 3, quoted from Schottgen by Dr. Pusey, in his note on Zech. 9, there occurs this explanation of Cant. i. 4, "let us exult y and rejoice in thee" : "The Matrona is like a royal bride, whose husband the king, her sons and sons-in-law, were gone beyond sea. When they brought her word that her sons were returned, she said, * What cause of joy have I ? Let my daughters-in-law re- joice ! ' Another messenger came that her sons-in-law were returned. She answered, ' What cause of joy have I ? Let my daughters rejoice !' But when they told her that the king her husband was returned, she said, 'This is perfect joy, a joy above all joys!' So also in the time to come, the time of the Messiah, the prophets shall come to Jerusalem, and say (Isa. Ix. 4), 'Thy sons shall come from far ;' she will answer, 'What cause of joy have I?' The prophets will add, ' thy daughters will be nurtured by thy side.' She will answer in the like way. But when they shall say to her, ' Be- hold, thy king cometh unto thee, just and a Saviour,' then she shall say, 'This is perfect joy;' as in, 'Exult greatly, daughter of Zion,' and elsewhere, ' Sing and rejoice, O d^ghter of Zion.' Then shall she say, ' I will rejoice greatly in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God' (Isa. Ixi. 10)." Ch. xiv. IO-I2.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 59/ 10. 'IJI 2f3.''' On the form of the verb, see note on p. 490, and Kalisch § Ixii. 3, b. The LXX. consider Jahaveh to be the subject of this verb, and render, very uninteUigibly, kvkXwv iraaav ttjv yrjv koI rrjv epr][jLOV d-rro TajSe ews 'Pc/x/xwv Kara votov 'lepovaaXt^fM. Similarly the Syr., " and he shall surround the whole earth as a plain." The Targ. is '13VX"5C?'''0? SU"]X 73 nSi?.'', " and the whole earth shall be surrounded as the valley from Geba, etc." Vulg., erroneously, " et revertetur omnis terra usque ad desertum, de colle Remmon ad austrum Jerusalem." See also note i on p. 49;, and on p. Ixxiv, '131 ^0^?^l, for nO")!. See note 2 on p. 492. The V'y verb is treated as if ^"V. Comp. D^pl, Hos. x. 14, and so one of Baer's MSS. noS'ni., and Moses the Punctator with Ben Naphtali. The LXX. take '"• as a proper name, omitting the copula, 'Pa/xa Se ctti toVou /x€i/€t. The proper name, however, is non. The verb seems to be peculiarly inflected in order to avoid the confusion between the two words. The Syr. correctly regards it as a verb. The Targ. explains nnriiS? n-'rin) ''51J;ini., ''and it shall be exalted and inhabited in its place." '1 "ly^P?. See p. 494. The compound W? is to be regarded as a mere strengthening of IP, not, however, as identical with ? IP, with Gesenius in Thesaur2is, p. 807. The <* is to be regarded as the ? indicating direction, though it is untranslatable in most cases. See Miihlau and Volck's edition of Gesenius' IVorterb. ; Kohler, Comm. on Haggai, pp. loi, ff ; Ewald § 218, ^. ptJ'K-in SW. Comp. for const, of article, chaii iv. 7. See Ges. § III, 2, a; Ewald § 293, a. 'n pHJPI, for 'l^PP-l, the IP being probably omitted for euphony. Many MSS. have the fuller reading. 11. C^.n. So Baer correctly, instead of Q"?.^^ ^s in the usual text (comp. Ewald § 146, b, footnote 2, p. 379). Another read- ing 3"ini. is found in some MSS. The Targ. is said to have had that reading, but this cannot be fairly deduced from its rendering, liy ""n^ xp NpPi?, ^^ there will no slaying any more." On the expres- sion, see pp. 497 ff. 12. ppn. Inf. absol. of ^V''^. See note 2, p. 499. n3?pri Third pers. pi. niphal of W^, instead of ^^i??^) with the dropping of the inserted ''7, and the omission of the daghesh in the p. Comp. nj?-V^, kal intrans., Jer xix. 3. See Ewald § 197, « ; Kalisch § Ixii. 2, c. 598 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 12-20. '^rhv nnr Sini. "As he is standing 7/pon his feet." The sentence is a dependent one, indicating the position during which the plague falls upon the man (see Ewald § 341, a). 13. """nDirUD. "A co7tfusio}i from Jahai'ehr LXX., lK(jTaxji% and so Symm. and Aquila. Similarly Syr., jZaioZ,. '131 n^ nnpyi. See note 2 on p. 500. LXX., koI c-vp^TrXaK-qa-CTai rj X^lp avTov TT/sos Trjv x^^P°^ K.T.X. Targ., '^''T!?D'7 i^^? ^P '^''1^ ^^JTin^., " and his hand shall struggle with the hand of his neighbour." In- stead of 1^ ^'^, many MSS. have *T'2 ^>^, 14. ^B^l. LXX. point this word actively, Ka\ a-vvdiei (^D??1.), and refer it to Judah, " and he shall collect the strength, etc." The Targ., as in chap. xii. 2, and translate : T? Xl^pr pMp;: nn-in; n^51 ^^) nh'0'\>2 Nnnp xn|N^ ^p^J^', "and even those of the house of Judah shall the peoples bring by the hand (qu. 11? ?) of violent men, to wage war in Jerusalem." The Lond. Polygl. reads, \V^^ "13. Levy (Chald. Worterb.) reads (tanquam coacti) fp-l^b' 1?, and renders," vio- lently" '^ by force." See on the first clause of this verse, note on p. 501. 15. ?~i?. Generally the order is I?-?. Comp. Ps. cxxvii. 4 ; Joel ii. 4 (Kohler). H'-n"' 'X 'nn-'?D1. The agreement of the predi- cate with ?3 is rare (see Ewald § 317, c). Some MSS. have, how- ever, n^^n, which seems to be a correction. 16. On no see the note on p. 505. See also the note on p. 504. 17. "And upon them shall be no rain." See note on p. 508. On the construction of the apodosis with 1, compare Exod. ix. 21. 18. Though the participle '"1X3 X7I. has been explained by Ewald in his Proph. der A. B. vol. ii. p. ()i, as given in the note on p. 507, Prof Delitzsch considers that the participle in this passage cannot be defended on the principles of syntax. The conjecture of von Hofmann in his Schriftbe^veis is ingenious, namely, that the text ought to be read ^a^?|P1. or even ^'^'^\ pual (comp. Hosea xiii. 5), " then it (Egypt) will thirst" or be depri\ed of the necessary rain. 20. ni"?^*©-!?!;. See note on p. 511. r\\T\h Cnp. The LXX. add nisnv, as in verse 21. INDEX OF TEXTS, ILLUSTRATED AND NOT MERELY REFERRED TO. OLD TESTAMENT. Genesis. PAGE Nehemiah. PAGE iv. lo . xix. vii. 279, ff. iv. i6 . 118 xiii. 16, 20 . S15, 516 X. JO, II. . 136 Job. Exodus. vi. 16-18 487 xii. 15, 19 . 462 xix. 6 . 464 Psalms. Deuteronomy. xii. 4 118 xxii. 8 234 vii. 23 . 499 xlvi. 5 (4) 487 xiii. i-io 417 M 9 • 240 ,, 14-16 497 Hi. 10 (8) 8 xviii. 19-22 418 Ixviii. 27 28 xxviii. 65 . 292 Ixxvi. 10 348 xxxiv. 6 Judges. 58 xcii. 13, 14 ci. 8 . 8 462 ex. 155 vii. 20 . • 503 cxxvi. 1-4 193 I Samuel. Proverbs. i. 9. 152 xxx., xxxi. 202 iv. 13, iS 152 xiv. 20 . 500 Isaiah. xvii. 47 368 ii. 11-19 457 ., 17 517 I Kings. iv. 3, 4 • 464 xv.IO-13 . . 318, Ezra. 319, 320 viii. 18 . xi. I. xiv. 8 . 69 149 301 iL . . ■ . 2S0, fif. xxvi. 9 . 503 6oo INDEX OF TEXTS. Isaiah. Daniel. PAGE PAGE xxvi. 20, 21 . 465 ii- 31-35 17. 131 .xxviii. 15-18 324 vii. 7, 19, 23 351 xxix. 1-6 469, ff. „ 12 . 33 XXX. 30, 31 499 viii. 132 „ 25 . 488 ix. 2 . 22 „ 17, 18 xxxi. 9 . 457 126 HOSEA. xxxvii. 24 301 xi. 5 . 292 „ 36 499 xiii. 14 . j» xl. r, 3,4 xlv. IS . 96 466 Joel. liii. . '387, 434, 437 iv. 2, 16. 126, 472 lix. 19 . Ixv. 20 . 295 180 Amos. Ixvi. 21 . 92, 180 vii. 14, 15 424, ff. „ 23 . 507 iii. 2 457 j EREMIAH. viii. 9 . • 4S6 xviii. 2 . 332, ff. MiCAH. xix. 2 li. 25 . 332, ff. 473 V. 9-1 1 . Haggal 241 EZEKIEL. ii.3 . 100 ix. 6 457 ii. 7 20, 89 XXXV. 7 . xlv. 3 . 176 514 Malachi. xliii. I, 2 5^4 i. II 94 xlvii. 1-12 487 iii. 1-4 . 45 „ 21,22 188 i. I XXX., 355 APOCRYPHA. xiii. 29, 50 2 ESDRAS. TOBIT, 279 281 xiv. 8-12 I Maccabees. 181 2 Maccabees. ii. 4, 5 • 124 XIV. 4-9 . 531 INDEX OF TEXTS. 60 1 NEW TESTAMENT. Matthew, V. 21 V. 34 . X. 41, 42 xii. 15, 20 ,. 32 xiii, 41 xvii. 20 xix. 28 xxi. 2 xxi. 21 xxiii. 35 xxiv. 3 , .. 34 xxvii. 9, 10 xxviii. 16-19 vi. 5, 6 . xiii. 8, ff. ,, 32 . i. 78 . vii. 31, 32 xi. 24-26 xvi. II . xxi. 10, 12 1- 5 iii, 16, v-43 vi. 38 xi. 48 xvi. 7 xix. 37 333. 335. 342 Mark. PAGE 339 109 156 237 449 120 96 454 236 96 xviii. xix. 449 445 ff., 583 445 437 522 485 Luke. John. 546 340 417.437 IIS 522 155 350 155 350 444 5S6, ff Acts. i. 6 ii- 39 Romans. IV. 4 V. 16 u. 13 2 Corinthians. Ephesians. 13, 17 James. Peter. viii. 21 . . 4S8 X. 2 . 418 xi. 2-12 . 521, 522 ..7 . 518 „ 17.24 • 93. 195 ,, 25, 26 519 xii. 5 . I Corinthians. . 463 96 519 444 157 Hebrews. ii. 5. . 450 „i6 77 vi. 5 450 IX. I 88 „ 26 . 450 522 457 INDEX OF TEXTS. ii. 19 1. 20 ii. 17 I John. JUDE. PAGE 119 Revelation. 21, 53,ff. 119 Revelation. FACE vi. 1-8 • 13. 133. ff- xi. 2 • 464 M 4 93 .. 13 463 „ 19 • 9 xvi. 14 . 417 xix. II, I ^ 13 XX. . 459 xxi, 23 . 40 „ 27 . 462 GENERAL INDEX. The critics specially mentioned in the Introduction § 8, as frequently referred to in this work, are noted in this Index by the word "passim." Abarbanel, xvii., xxi., Ixii., 27, 504. Abassi, Joseph, 204. Abu'l-walid, 532. Aben Ezra, see Ibn Ezra. Adonis, the mourning for, 392. Adversary, the, 46. Alford, Dean, 57. Alexander the Great — destruction of Tyre, 212 ; destruction of Gaza, 2i4,ff; visit to Jerusalem, 224 ; favour shown to the Jews by, 226. Allegory of the shepherd and the sheep, 338. Angel that talked with me, 12 ; Angel of Jahaveh, 11, 21; intercession of, 21, 23; answer of Jahaveh to, 23; adjuration of Joshua by, 64 ; not the Pierced One, 386 ; the high priest before, 46, ff. Angelic riders, vision of the, 11, ff; their report respecting the Gentile world, 20. Anglo-Saxon race not Israelitish, 282. Animals, plague of the, 502. Annals, blank in Jewish, 257. Annius, 373. Antichrist, not depicted in the sixth vision, 120; kingdom of, not the strongest, 132 ; not spoken of in Isa. xiv. 8, 301 ; false views of, 521. Antiochus Epiphanes, 316, 317, 420, 436- Apollinaris, 53. Apostasy, supposed reference to future, 415.438- Apostumus, 163. Apostolical Cofistitittions, xxiv. Arabah, the, 491. Ariel, 469. Aristeas, 36, 538, 539. Arnheim, xl., passim. Arrian, Exped. Alex., 215, 2i6. Asceticism, Jewish, 423. Ashdod, bastard or rabble in, .216. Ashkelon, judgment on, 213, 568. Ass, the riding on an, 236 ; not neces- sarily a sign of humility, 237, ff. Assyria and Egypt, 129 1 ; the king of Assyria styled kmg of Babylon, 290. Assyrian inscriptions, 205, 220, 22S ; eponyms, 205 ; months, 528. Assumption of Moses, 53, ff. A\hm-i?isms,, Syftopsis Sand. Script., 54. Atonement, Day of, festal close of, 77. Augustine, 255. Azal, 476, ff. Babylon, command to flee out of, 37 ; judgments on, 38, 39 ; the deputa- tion from, 145 ; reception of gifts from the exiles in, 146 ; names of the deputation, 156. Bacher, Agada, 549. Bacchides, 469. Baer, xlvii., passim ; on metheg, xlviii., 545, 594 ; crit. edition of /'W^i.7-, 593. 6o4 GENERAL INDEX. Baptism referred to, 412. Bar-Kokhab, 164, 442, 476. Batis, 215. Baudissin, Prof, von, xlvi., 392, 393, 394, 395- Bauer, G. L., xxvi., xlii., passim. Baumgarten, xlii. ; on the contest about the burial of Moses, 58. Beauty of Israel, 261. Bede, 57. Behistun, inscription on the Rock of, 38, 39, 291. Benjamin, Gate of, 494. Bercshith Rabba, 549, 570. Bertheau, 280, 362, 395. Bertholdt, xxvi., 496, 509. Bethel, deputation from, 166, ff ; ques- tion put by, 169; answer of Jahaveh, 170; Bethel and the Belhelites, 167. Bether, storming of, 164. Blank in Jewish annals, the, 257. Blayney, xxvi., xlii., Ixv., 538, 55?, 569, 580. Bleek, xv., xxxviii., xlii., passim. Blood taken away from the mouth, 218; of the covenant, 249, 250. Bochart, 128., Bohl, Forschmigen nach ciner Volksbibel, 336 ; Alt. Test. Citate iin N. T., 336, 390, 570, 592. Bosanquet, S. R., Prophecies of Zecha- riah, 31, 90. Bottcher, xliii., Aiisf. Lchrbuch, xlvii , passim. Bowl of reeling, 361. Boys and girls in the streets, 181. Branch, the, 70, ff, 149, 546. Brass, mountains of, 123. Brez'iaritim of the Pseudo-Philo, 372. Brotherhood broken up between Israel and Judah, 343 ; opinion of modern critics,/^., the fulfilment, 345. Briick, Pharis. Volksitten, etc., 191. Brunet, 373. Bunsen, xli., passim. Analecta Ante- Nicana, xxv. Bunyan, John, xxviii. " Burden" and oracle, 202. Burger, xliv.,415, 528, 578, 588. Buxtorf, Lex. Heb., 574; Tiberias, xvii. ; Lexicon Chald. and Talm. , passim. Cadytis, 36. Calmet, 357, 505. Calvin, xli., 234, 235, 313, 361, 452, 483, 501. Canaanite no longer in temple, 515, ff. Candlestick, vision of the golden, 81 ; constructed on the basis of the candle- stick of the tabernacle, 81, 85, 87 ; c. in the temple, 82, 85, 87 ; c. on the Arch of Titus, 83 ; differences be- tween c. of tabernacle and that seen in the vision, 83, 88 ; bowl of the, 83 ; pipes of the, 83, 84, 85, 548, 552 ; peculiarities of the c. of the vision, 88 ; meaning of, 87, 88. Cappellus, xliii., Ixv., 55, 357, 505, 575. ' Captivity," the, 145 ; causes of the, 269, ff. Ceremonial law, abolition of the, 512, 514. Ceriani, 54. Chamberlain, Rev. Walter, mistake as to chap. ix. I, 2, p. 209 ; on Ashkelon, 214, 567 ; view of the war with Greece, 257 ; depreciation of the Maccabees, 257 ; on Zech. x. 4, 5, p. 275. Chambers, Dr. Talbot, xli., 24, 173, 176, 380, 493. Chariots, vision of the four, 123 ; the chariots comp.ared to winds, 127; not to be identified with the winds, 137 ; the horses in the, 127 {see/iorses) ; the four empires of Daniel, 130, 135 ; other views, 130, ff. Christ (see Messiah), entry into Jerusa- lem, 239 ; advent in humility, 239 ; as the shepherd, and his rejection, 339. Chrysostom, xviii. Chwolson, Die Ssabier, 268,414 ; Hebr. Grab-inschrijien, 285 ; Mitthcilung ZeitscJirift D. M. G., 2S5. City, see cutting off. Clarke, Dr. Adam, 541. Cleansing of the land, no. Clermont-Ganneau, 267, 414, 476. Cocceius, 31, 346, 4S4. GENERAL INDEX. 605 Colours of the horses used to mark the three divisions of the riders, 12, 20 ; supposed to be symbohcal by Keil, 14; by Kohler, 15; by Ewald, etc., 16 ; of the horses of the four chariots, 130 ; of no symbolical significance in Zechariah, 18-20, 135, 531, ff; the colours employed not those men- tioned in the Revelation, 133, 134, 531, ff- Commerce, the sins of, 109. Composition of chap.vii. and viii, 161; of the second portion of Zechariah, 199, XXV., ff, xxviii., ff. Conder, Lieut. Claude, 394, 476, 496. Conditional nature of promises, the, 179. Confusion and panic, 499, 500. Consecration to destruction, 497. Copper, see bi-ass. Corner gate, the, 495. Comer stone, the, 97. Counsel of peace, 153-155. Corruption, the mount of, see Olives. Covenant, blood of the, 249, 250 ; with the nations dissolved, 322, 324. Credner, 254. ■ Crown of silver and gold made by Zechariah, 146 ; one crown only, 147 ; deposited in temple, 155. Crucifixion of our Lord, 387, 438 ; ne- cessity of, 444. Curse, the, and its size, 105, ff; abol- ished, 496. Curtiss, Levitkal Priests, 20, 92. Curtius, Quintus, 213,513. Cutting off from the city, the, 461, ff; 518, ff. Cyrill, 93, 204, 214, 357, 453, 460, 465, 476, 505, 509, 527, 545, 547. Cyrus, called "my shepherd," 435. Damascus, 201, 228. Dan, tribe of, communication with Greece, 254. Daniel's four empires represented by the four chariots, 130, 135. Darkness, day of, 480, ff. Darius Hystaspis, 525 ; Ochus, 525. Dathe, xliii., passim David, body-guard of, 254 ; house of, XXX., xxxiv., 371 ; titular princes of, 372 ; remarkable allusion of Zech. to, 372 ; an indication of post-exilian authorship, 374 ; story of the last known descendants of, 404. Davidson, Dr. Samuel, xxix., xxx., xxxii., xxxviii., xliii., xlvi.,lxii., Ixxv. 318, 337- Davison, oti Prophecy, xlvi. Day, meaning of the phrase "in that," 412, 596; of darkness, 480; or period, 413; "one day," 483; known to Jahaveh, 484 ; not day nor night, 485, 521 ; day of blessing, 488, 521. Delitzsch, Dr. Franz, xliii., xlvii.,lxxiv., 533' 582, 593, 598 ; Comm. on Baba- kkiik, 542 ; Psychology, 74 ; Preface to Curtiss' Levitical Priests, 20 ; Article on Dekalog, 277 ; Farben- Studien, 20 : Die Farbett, u. d. Tal- mud, 531 ; Cor?im. iiber Genesis, 21, 22, 175, 268, 278, 568; Comm. iiber die Psalmcn, 28, 248, 540, 584, 591 ; Comt>i. iiber Jesaia, 74, 92, 278, 569. Talmud. Studien, 399. On Psalter oj Solomon, 582. Delitzsch, Dr. Friedrich, Chald. Gene- sis, 393- Didymus of Alexandria, 53. de Dieu, L., 481. Diodorus Siculus, 215. Dion Cassius, 476. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 215. Dispensation, the New, "the world to come," 449. Diviners, 268. Dorotheus, xvii. Drake, xliii., passim. Driver's Hebrrtv Tenses, xlvii., passim. Drummond's Jewish Messiah, xlvi., 55, 328, 391. Duhm, xlii., 554. Earnestness among the returned Jews, I So. Earthquake, on Mount of Olives, 469, 471 ; in reign of Uzziah, 477, ff ; 6o6 GENERAL INDEX. earthquakes accompaniments of Divine manifestations, 48, ff. Ebrard, xxvii., 344, 37S, 439. Egypt, a general place of refuge, 292 ; mention of in chap, x., 295 ; in chap, xiv., 507, ff; the temple in, 509- Eichhorn, xxvi., 248. Ekron as the Jebusite, 218. Elijah, 423. Elxai, Libri.fragm., 124. Ephah, vision of the, 1 1 1 ; woman in the, 112. Ephraim, gate of, 494; Ephraim and Judah partakers in the Maccabean struggle, 276, ff. Epiphanius, 124 ; notices of Zech. by the pseudo-E., xvii. , xviii., xx. Eusebius, 54, 404, 460. Eventide, light at, 486. Exhortations, fruitlessness of former, 173- Exiles, the lists of returned, 279. Ewald, xliii., passim; Ansf. Lehj-b. passim ; Dichter des A. Biindes, 28 ; History of Israel, 254, 28 1, 320, 395. 581. Fabricii, Bibl. GrcBca, 373. Farrar's Life of Christ, 239. Fasting for national calamities, daj'S of, 1 63, ff ; duty of the people as regards, 172. Fasts and feasts in God's sight, 171; Jewish tradition respecting the aboli- tion of, 191. Feeding the flock, meaning of, 305. Fellow, my, meaning of the term, 435. Field's edition of Origcn's Hcxapla, xlviii. , passim. Filthy garments, 48, ff., 544. Finn's Orphan Colony ofjfcws in China, 282. Fire, brand plucked from the, 51, ff. Fleischer, 172, 542. Flight into the valley, the, 473, ff. Fliigge, xxvi., 207, 578. Forberg, xxvi., 233. Fountain opened, 409 ; closed, 411. Four, significance of the number, 137. Friedlieb, Oracula Sibyllina, 543. Fritzsche, Libri Apoc. V. T., 53, 54, 328 ; Handbiich z. d. Apoc., 280, 324. Fiirst, Julius, xliii. ; Concord, passim ; Heb. und Chald. Worterbuch, pas- sim; Kanon des A. T., xvii., xxiii., 529 ; Geschichte dtr bibl. Lit. xxiii., 581. Gains, The New Testament, 156, Gaza, overthrow of, 214; ruled over by a titular king, 215. V. Gebhart, 582. Geiger, Abraham, Urschrift, xxvi., xliii., 362, 402, 541, 568, 581, 587. Geiger, E. E., der Psalter Salomo^ s , 582. Gemara, 389, 390, 481, see Talmud. Genealogical registers, 244 ; fragmen- tary character of, 283, ff. Gentiles, the sin of, against Israel, 25 ; conversion of the, 39, 40, 192 ; wor- shippers of Jahaveh, 503 ; keeping the feasts, 194 ; pilgrimages of, to Jerusalem, 505, 506 ; believing G. and Jews the olive branches, 93; punishment of the, 308; strangers from, 156 ; mixed with Jews, 220, 245 ; often became Jews, 188 ; to have equal rights in the land of Palestine in the future, 188. Gesenius, Grammar, xlvii., passim ; Lchrgebdude, xlvii., passim; Heb.- Chald. Worterbtich, xlvi., passim; Thesaurus, xlvi., passim. Ghillany, Menschenopfer dcr alt. He- briier, 259. Ghor, the, 491, ff. Gilead and Lebanon, 293. Ginsburg, xlvii., lii.; Glaucus, story of, iio. Gog and Magog, 3S9, 391, 451. Grant's, Ncsioriaiis and Lost Tribes, 285. Graetz, 328, 375, .478- Greece, war of the sons of Zion against the sons of, 253, 312 ; Jewish inter- pretation of, xxiii.; intercourse with, ^•254 ; known to Jews after the burning of Sardis, 255. GENERAL INDEX. 607 Greek culture and Jewish religion, 254, 255 ; Greek kings and Greek soldiers, 25s, 257, 573- Hadadrimmon, mourning of, 391, ff. Hadar-Ramman, 393. Hadrach, land of, 202 ; different views, mistakes concerning, 203 ; name found in the Assyrian inscriptions, 205, 565. Haggai's sermon to the Jews, effect of, 3- Hairy garment, 422. Half of the remnant, 460. Hamath, 209, 228. Hananeel, Tower of, 494. Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, 51, 53o> 545, 546, 559- Hardness of heart, result of, 176. Harkary's Catalog, 2S5. Hariri, 532. Havercamp, 531, 539. Havernick, xxvii., xxx., xliii. Hecat^eus, 539. Hegesias, 215. Hegesippus, 404. He-goats, 270. Heidenheim, Ascensio Moysis, 57, 534. Henderson, xliv., passim. Hengstenberg, xliv., passim. Herodotus, 36, 39, 1 10, 200, 215, 291, 395- Hervey, Lord Arthur (Bishop of Bath and Wells), on the Genealogies of our Lord, 225, 401. Herzfeld, 372, 373. Herzog's Real-encydopiidie, 277. Herxheimer, 236. Hesselberg, 361, 505, 535, 590. Hesychius, xvii. Hezekiah, victories over the Philis- tines, 230; entry into Jerusalem, 233 ; waterworks of, 412. Hezel, 211, 401, 477, 506. High priest before the Angel of Jaha- veh, 46, ff ; engaged in some sacer- dotal duty, 47 ; his filthy garments, 50, ff, 544; Ewald's view, 48 ; gar- ments removed, 60 ff; mitre of, 61, ff ; to judge the Lord's house, 65, ff ; crowned by Zechariah, 148 ; the priest upon his throne, 151, ff. Hildesheimer, 539. Hilgenfeld, 5S2; Noi'. Test. extr. Can. reccpt., 54, 55 ; Elxai Lib. fragm. 124. Hitzig, xxvi., xliii., passim. von Hofmann, xliii., passim. Holy land, the, 41 ; Holy Place, see Sanctuary ; holy ones, the, 479, 595. Horizon, the near and the distant, in- termingled, 451 ; the prophetic, 6. Horns, the four, 26 ; different views, 27 ; signify hostile kingdoms, but not the four kingdoms of Daniel, 27 ; views of Ewald and Hitzig, 27 ; of Pressel, 28. Horses in the first vision, 12, ff ; of the four chariots, 127 j different explan- ations, 130, ff; their colours of no symbolical significance, 18-20, 135, 531, ff ; used to mark off the several divisions of the riders, 12, 20 ; or one chariot from another, 135 ; speckled and strong, 136; use of, 236; bells of the, 515 ; plague on, 502. Hudson, 531, 539. Human sacrifices, 259. Humble ones, the, 440, 592. Hupfeld, 248 551. Huther, 56, 57. Ibn Ezra, 1S2, 235, 479, 504, 512, 530, 595- Iddo, XV., xvi., 526. Idolatrous practices still found in Pales- tine, 267. Idolatry, danger of, not past in post- exilian days, 267, 413 ; Jewish hatred against, 437. Inspiration, feeling of the Jews against claims to, in our Lord's day, 432. Isaac, Rabbi, Chizzuk Einiinah, 582, 587. Isidore, xviii. Israel after the flesh and after the spirit, 376, ff ; the scattering of, 445 ; not blinded more than the Gentiles, 518 ; 6o8 GENERAL INDEX. a blessing and a curse, 187 ; devour- ing as a Hon, 258 ; beauty and in- crease of, 261. Israelites, see under Jews, Jewish. Jahaveh, pronunciation of the name ; xi. ; advent of, 39 ; answer to depu- tation from Bethel, 170 ff, 190; re- turn to Zion, 178; men's eyes directed towards J. by judgments, 208 ; camp- ing around his house, 221 ; beholding oppression, 223 ; the shepherd of Israel, 308 ; sword of, 434, 437 ; the shepherd of, 435 ; the fellow of, 435 ; turning back his hand, 439 ; a day of, 455, 457, 516; fighting with the nations, 456, 464, 517, 522; appearance on Mount of Olives, 465, if, 472, 519 ; phenomena attendant on, 468, ff, 478, ff; a king, 48S ; " one, and his name one," 489, 490. Javan, signifies Greece, 254. Jebusites, 218. Jehoshaphat, valley of, 126. Jehudah, dispute of R. Jose with R. , 204. Jerome, xviii., xix., xxi., 130, 337, 346, 357, 362, 364, 394, 398, 457, 458, 471, 476, 527, 532, 547, 556, 559, 561, 595- Jerusalem, captured three times by Nebuchadnezzar, 22, growth in post- exilian days, 35, 36, 539 ; the spirit- ual, 40 ; a city of truth, 179 ; Israel to dwell in, 184 ; a stone of burden, 364-370 ; attacks on, injurious to the nations, 370 ; capture of, 457, 459 ; escape from, 461, 471, ff, 519; re- generation of the world begins at, 487, 521 ; living waters at, 487 ; elevation of the city, 493 ; natural situation of, 494 ; its limits, 494 ; its gates, 494, ffjudah fighting at, 500, ff. Jew, the taking hold of the skirt of a, 194 ; name of Jew applied to all the tribes, 1S9, 246, 283, 374 ; a name of honour, 246. Jews, a commercial people after the exile, 109 ; improved state of, after the return, 180, 185 ; depressed con- dition of, 200 ; honour bestowed on, 195, 289; called "children of Israel," xxx., 244, 2S3 ; to possess military power, 252 ; war against Greeks, 253, see under Greece, Greek ; bles- sings derived from, 289 ; mercies vouchsafed to, at the restoration, 311, Jewish captives, sale of, 232, 252 ; loss of independence, 241 ; blank in annals, 257; superstitions, 414, ff; history after the restoration up to the times of the Maccabees, 310. John the Baptist, 422, ff. Jordan, the pride of, xxxvi., 302. Josephus, 9, 36, 49, 165,215, 224, 231, 281, 372, 395. 477, 478, 529, 531, 538, 595- _ Joshua, the high priest, the representative of Israel, 50, 60 ; filthy garments re- moved from, 60, ff; Jewish legend about, 51 ; the crowning of, I48, ff ; see under Zeriibbabel. Josiah, the mourning for, 394, ff. Jost, Gesch. des Jtid., xvii., 165. Judah, Israel and Jerusalem, 28 ; dif- ferent views, 29-3 1 ; Kliefoth's inter- pretation, 30 ; Judah and Israel, 40, 187 ; J. the state-horse of Jehovah, 271 ; not opposed to Jenisalem, 362, 364, 378; deliverance first given to J. and then to Israel, 367 ; and Israel, the names of, 355. See also xxx., xxxix. , xl. Judjea, change in the physical state of, 490, ff. Judas Iscariot, 341. Judgment of peace, 189. Jude, reference of, to dispute about body of Moses, 53, ff ; no reference to Assumptio Mosis, 56, 57, 59; the reference to Zechariah, 53, 58. Junius, 57 ; see Tremcllius. Justin Martyr, xxiv., 338, 443, 570. Kalisch, xlvii., pas'sim. Kahnis, 386. Karaites of the Crimea, 2S5. i^jiutzsch, xlvii., passim. Keenan, Thomas V., 373. GENERAL INDEX. 609 Keil, xxvii., xliv., passim. Keiin, 582. Kennicott, Hcbrav Bible, passim. Kimchi, Comvi. on Zechariah, xliv., passim , Michlol, Iviii. , 537. King, the Messiah a, 233 ; the king and priest of Ps. ex., 148. Kliefoth, xliv., passim. Knobel, xv., xxvii., xliv. Kohler, xviii., xx., xxi., xliv., passim. Koster, xxvii., xlvi. Kuenen, xxxviii, xlvi., 546. de Lagarde, xlviii. , Ivii., 391, 511, 532, 549. 554, 555, 558. 573> 577, 59i- Lamps, the lighting of the, 87, ff. l^zwes Arabic English Lexicon, 61, 532, 533- Land, wasting of the, 177 ; the " land " or the " world," 307. Lange, J. P., xliv., passim ; on S- Matthrcv, 96. Lapide, Corn, a, 457. Lebrecht, Dr. F., 164. Lee, Archdeacon, Inspiration of Holy Scripture, 333. Lee, Prof. Samuel, Syriac Bible, xlviii. Levy, Dr. M. A., Gesch. der Jitd. Miinzcn, 164. Levy, Dr. J., Chaldliisch. Worterbiich, passim ; Neuheb. und Chald. IVortcrb. , passim. Light at eventide, 486. Lightfoot, xix., 31, 68, 96, 163, 164, 238, 338, 393, 467. Lion, Israel like a, 258. Literal fulfilment of some prophecies impossible, 181, 184, 194, 454, 460, 507, 510. Luthardt, 56. Luther, German Bible, passim. Lying and deceit, warnings against, 189. Maccabees, wars of the, 255 ; not too vividly described by the prophet, 256 ; Chamberlain's attempt to depreciate, 257 ; their conflicts a war of Israel, 256; mistakes of, 288; era after, a period of declension, 437; prophecy concerning, 369 ; struggles of, 370, ff ; from Modin not Jerusalem, 371 ; why called princes of Judah, 374. Madden, F. W., Jewish Coinage, 164. Maimonides, 71. Makrizi, 373. Marck, xxi., xliv., passim. Martini, 385, 549. Maurer, xliv., passim. McCaul on the Angel of Jehovah, 22; see under Kimchi. Measuring line, man with the, 33 ; for- bidden to measure the city, 34, 35. Measure of the sanctuary, 107. Mede, XXV., xliv., 337, 521, 5S3. Megiddo, 565. Meier, E., 386, 586. Merx, 393, Archiv, xlviii., 55, 539, 545, 594- Metallic image, Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the, 17, 131. Messiah, as the stone, 73 ; called the corner stone, not the top stone, 97 ; to build the temple, 149 ; glory and majesty of, 151 ; predicted as a king, '^'hZ'-< "righteous and saved," 234; " afflicted" and "lowly," 235 ; riding on an ass, 236, fF; as the Branch, 70, ff, 149 ; predictions respecting, 149, 233, ff, 305, ff, 381 ; his sufferings vicarious, 391 ; priest and king, 153 ; counsel of peace between him a«dja- haveh, 154; New Test, confirmation of this view, 155 ; causes wars to cease, 240 ; destroys his people's weapons, 240 ; speaks peace to the Gentiles, 241, 247 ; rejection of the, 242, 328, ff, 340, ff ; victories of, 247 ; limits of his rule, id. Messiahs, Jewish opinion about the two, 238, 389. Messianic dispensation represented as "the world to come," 449, ff ; a mingled state of light and darkness, 520. Meyer, 56. Mijhael the archangel, 21, 53. Michaelis, J. D., xxvi., 26, 32, 207, 2S0, 473, 477, 537, 566, 587, 596. Michaelis, C.B.,294, 358, 525, 534. R R Cio GENERAL INDEX. Millennium, supposed references to the, 119, 180, 181, 262. Milman, History of the Jrcvs, 165, 226, 257,345,373. Minchah, the three parts of the, 86. Mitre, the clean, 61, 62 ; the inscrip- tion on, 62. Month as a symbolical term, 317; vari- ous interpretations of, 313-316, 320. Months, Jewish and Assyrian, 528. Moses, legend of the death of, 55 ; the body of Christ and body of, 57 ; burial of, 58. 59. Mount of Olives, see Olives. Mountain, levelling of the, 95 ; mean- ing of, 97. Mountains overturned, 96 ; of brass or copper in the seventh vision, 123 ; probably Zion and the Mount of Olives, 126. Mourning for the representative of Jahaveh, 386. 388, 396, ff, 403 ; national and individual, 397, ff; for Josiah, 394, ff; for Adonis, 392. Movers, xxvii., 393, 582. Miihlau and Volck, see Gesenitts' Wor- terbuch ; Miihlau, De Proverb. Agitr, 202. Myrtle-trees in the vision, 8, 10 ; in the temple, 8. Naegelsbach, 26. Nathan, family of, 399. Co7tcord. of R. Nathan, lii. Nations, gathering of the, 458. Neander, 404. Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Tyre, 212 ; see Metallic Image ; his captures of Jerusalem, 22 ff. Nethinim, 219, 515- Neubauer, Adolf, Geographic dii Tal- ?nud, 206, 565 ; Abu'l-walid, 532. Neumann, xliv. , passim. Newcome, xliv, Ixv. Nicephorus, 54. Night suited for Divine revelations, 5. Nile, the, 295. Noldeke, 594. Norrls, 528. Numbers, symbolical treatment of, 317 ; see under Month, Day, Third-part, Half. Obedience, results of, 184. Oecumenius, 54, 56. Observed me, those who, 325, ff. Oil for burning and anointing, 552. Olive trees, in the fifth vision, 88, ff ; two fruitful boughs of, 91, ff; meaning of, 93 ; according to some, in the court of the temple, 9 ; in Scripture, 89. Olives, Mount of, appearance of Jaha- veh on, 465, ff, 472, 519 ; Dean Stanley on, 467 ; mention of, in the Old Test. , 470 ; valley through, 471, 472, 473, 475; Mount of Cor- ruption, 466, 470, 473, 519. Onias, 509. Oppert, 39. Origen, 53. von Ortenberg, xv., xxvii., xxxi., xli., xlv., passim. Palestine and Philistia, 220, 568. Palmer's Desert of the Exodus, 491. Party spirit among the Jews, 442. " Passing by and returning, 176, 221. Peace, see Counsel, Seed. Pella, the escape to, 519. Perjurers and thieves, 109. Perowne, Dean, xxxviii., xl., xlv. ; on the Psalms, ix., 462, 551. Pestilences, 499, ff; of the animals, 502. Philippi, IVesen u. Ursfrung d. Stat. Const., 550, 551. Philistia and Phoenicia, prophecies against, 201. Philistines, conversion of the, 217, blood taken away from their mouth, 218 ; incorporated into the body of Israel- ites, 220 ; prophecies against, 229, ff. Philo, Breviarium of the Pseudo, 372. Pierced One, the, 384, ff, 387, 437. Pinsker, 206. Pipes of the candlestick, 83, 548. Pir/!:e Aboth, 339. Pirke Eliczer, 596. SJjt without water, the, 251. Pool, Matthew, xlv. GENERAL INDEX. 611 Porch of the temple, 107. Potter, flinging to the, 329 ; view of Hengstenberg, 332; of Kliefoth, 333. Pressel, xlv., passim. Priest, see High Priest. Prisoners of hope, 251. Promises, why not more largely fulfilled, 188. Prophecy, cessation of real, 419 ; why gift removed, 420. Prophet, actions of the, represent the actions of God, 304. Prophets, no insinuation against, in Zechariah, 419 ; imagery of the, 469, ff ; sons of the, 425 ; false p. and superstitions in post-exilian days, 414, 416; change of feeling as to, 417; instances given by Zech. to show this in the future, 417; (i) the son slain by parents, 418, ff ; (2) the defence of the false prophet detected, 424, ff ; false p. in secret, 421 ; hairy garment of, 422 ; wounds of false prophet, 426. Prophetic horizon, the, 6. Psalter of Solomon, 327, 582. Purifier, Christ the, 119. Pusey, xxvii., xl., xlv., passim ; Daniel the Prophet, 17, 21. Rab-mag, 169. Rahmer, 478. Rain, prayers for, 266 ; only to be made to God, 267 ; withdrawal of, 507, ff- Rashi (R. Salomo ben Yizhak), xvii., xlv., 51, 96, 115, 116, 252, 281, 390, 402, 417, 427, 512, 531, 534, 555, 557, 568, 595- Rawlinson,Rev.Prof.,//£';Woto5, 36, 39. Rawlinson, Sir Henry, 38, 205, 206. Reaction against false prophets, 410, ff; leading to transgression, 421. Records of the Past, 39, 205, 231, 393. Regem-melek, 168. Reinke, xlv., passim. Remnant, half of the, 460 ; not cut off from the city, 461, ff, 51S, ff ; blc>- sings given to ihc, 497, 519. Renan, 21, 482. Revelation, the riders in the. Horses, Colours. Ribera, 595. Rider on the red horse, 11. -^ Riehm,xlvi. ; on the prophetic horizon, 6. Rivers of grace, 487, ff, 521. Roberts' Discussions on the Gospels, 336. Robertson, Hist, of the Christian Church, 404. Rodwell, Rev. J. M., 205. Rodiger, xlvi., xlvii., 594. Roll, the vision of the flying, 105, ff. Rosenmiiller, xxvi., xlv., passim, de Rossi, xlvi., passim. Row's Bampton Lectures, 337. Rufus, Titus Annius, 165. Russia, 257. Ruckert, 583, 588. .Saadiah 130. Samaritans and Jews, 146, 245, 284. Sammael and Michael and Moses, 55 ; destroyer of Leviathan, 53. Sanctuary, the three parts of the worship in, 86 ; dimensions of, 107 ; measure of the, 107. Sandrock, xlv. Sapor, raillery of king, 238. Sarezer, 168. , Satan accusing the high priest, 46, ff ; Neumann's strange view of, 52 ; rebuke of, narrated by Jude, 53 ; rebuke narrated in Zechariah, 52 ; mention of, x., xxi. " Saying, "meaning of the expression, 5. Sayce, 393. Schegg, xlv., passim. Schrader, Keilinschriften d. A.T., xlvi., 168, 169, 205, 393, 528, 577 ; Keilin- schrifteii u. Geschichtsforschiing, xlvi., 565. 569- Schlier, xlv., 174, 313. Schleusner, Thes. Phil. Crit. sive Lex. in LXX., etc., xlix., 186, 392, 409, 536, 545. 549. 565, 571. 5S0, 59(5- Schmieder, 174, 361, 473. Schmidt, see Merx. Schotlgen, De Mesua, 549, 570, 596. ; sec yU' 6l2 GENERAL INDEX. Schultens, 551, 573. Schroeder, 192, 508. Schiirer, 582. Seder-olam-zutta, 372. " Seed of peace," the, 186, Self-lacerations, 428, ff. Seleucidian dynasty, the, 132. Sermon on the mount, 109. Seven eyes on the stone, the, 73, ff, 98. Seventy years, the, 22, 171, 534, 536 ; seventy weeks of Daniel, 313. Severus, 57. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, see under Hananiah. Sharezer and Regem-melech, 168. Sheep of slaughter, different explana- tions, 305 ; scattered, 443 ; the most wretched, 325. Shephelah, the, 173. Shepherd and his staves, 308 ; weari- ness of, 321 ; his solemn decision, 322 ; breaking of the staves, 322, 342 ; demand for wages, 328 ; the remuneration offered to, 329 ; rejected, 329; "my shepherd," 435; shepherd smitten for the sin of the flock, 441, ff. Shepherd, the wicked, 346 ; " idol- shepherd " an erroneous translation, 346 ; instruments of, 347 ; folly and sin of, 348 ; opinion of modern critics, 348 ; the Roman oppressor, 349, ff ; destruction of, 351. Shepherds, evil, foreign oppressors, 270, ff, 306, 349 ; the cutting off of the three, 312, ff. Shimeitcs, the, 399. Shinar, the land of, 118. Shir ha-shirim Rcibba, 538, 596. Shoulder, the refractory, 175. Sibylline oracles, 543. Sidon, 210, 231. Sin, punishment for, no. Slaves bought, 425. Sling stones, 259. Small things, day of, 99. Smiths, the four, 31, ff; why smiths were seen in the vision, 45. Smith, Dean R. Payne, xlvi. ThcsauvKs Syriacus, 546, Smith, G., Assyrian Canon, 205. ,, W., Biblical Dictionary, xlv,, 26, 225, 492. Sohar, 570, 596. Solomon, The Psalter of ; 327, 582, 565. Spirit, the resting of the, 139 ; of un- cleanness, 416; exorcised, 421. Spoiling of the foes, 502. Stiihelin, xlv., 72, 140, 152, 200, 565. Stanley, Dean, Lectures on the Jewish Church, 49, 50, 226, 320, 581 ; Sinai and Palestine, 467. "Standing before" one, meaning of the phrase, 46. Staves of beauty and bands, 308. Stone, of burden, 364, 370, see Temple, Christ, Messiah ; stones of a diadem, 260. Storms of the south, 256. Strack, xlvii., Proleg. Critica, 541 ; Fir- kozvitzsch und seine Entdeckungen, 285. Stork, the, and stork-winged women, 117. Svedberg's notion concerning the mountains of Dalarne, 124. Swedenborg, 124. Synagogue, men of the Great, xvii. Syria, prophecies against, 201. Tabernacle of God, 8 ; candlestick in the, 82 ; see under Candlestick ; dimensions of the Holy Place in the, 107. Tabernacles, the feast of, 505. Tacitus, 9. Talbot, H. F., 231. Talent- weight, the, iii. Talmud, 71, 77, 96, 163, 164, 165, 225, 303. 338, 389. 390, 481, 531. xvii., xix., xxiii. Taylor, Rev. C., PirkeAboth, xvii. , 339. Taskmasters abolished, 222. Temple, commencement of the build- ing of, 4; foundation stone of the second, 71, ff; glory of the second, 100 ; porch of the, 107 ; the spiri- tual, 150 ; pots in the, 513; Canaanite no longer in the, 515; ff- GENERAL IxNDEX. 613 Ten tribes, see under Twelve, invited to return, xxxix. , 279 ; large numliers of the members of these tribes among the exiles who returned, 278, 2S1 ; myth of the lost, 281, 284. Tents of Judah, 366. Teraphim, 267, ff. Territories ruled over by David and Solomon, 201. Tertullian, 399. Theiner, xlv., passim. Thenius, 319, 395, 495, 568, 581. Theodoret, 47, 204, 453, 460, 465, 505- Theodore of Mopsuestia, 204, 505. Third part, the, 442. Thirty shekels, the, 329 ; thirty pieces of silver given for Christ, 336, ff. ; 341- Thieves and perjurers, 109. Tholuck, xlvi., 235. Proph. u. ihre Weiss., 559, 5S6. Tibullus, 430. Tischendorf, xlvi. Titus, candlestick on the arch of, 82 ; war of the Romans under, 453, 460, 461. Tremellius and Junius, xlv. Trees, destruction of, spoken by the prophets, 301 ; used for siege pur- poses, 303; spoken of as symbolical, 301. Turpie, xlv., 337. Twelve tribes one whole, the, 243 ; their return from captivity, 244 ; all called "Jews," 246; termed "chil- dren of Israel," xxxix., 244 ; united in the struggle of Maccabee days, 277, ff; union of, 282-288; sown among the nations, 285 ; blessings granted to, 2S8, ff ; 344 ; see under, Jrw, Jc'lVS. Twenty-fourth day of the month, sig- nificance of, '4. Tyre, siege of, by Nebuchadnezzar, 212 ; destruction by Alexander, 21 3. Umbreit, xlvi., passim. Unicorn, 26. Uzziah, leprosy of, 478 ; earthquake in the days of, 477. Valckenaar, 337. Valley between the mountains, 138 ; valley of myrtles, 10; meaning of, 10 ; see under Mount of Olives. Venema, xlvi., passim. Vicariousness of Messiah's sufferings, 391- Vine "the seed of peace," the, 186; the golden, 8, 531. Virgil, 10, 278. Vossius, 575. Vitringa, 17, 346, 422. Volck, 132, 323, see Mithlati and Volck. Wagenseil, Tela Ignea Satani, 582, 587. Water of cleansing, 410 ; the living waters, 487, ff. Wellhausen, xxvii., xlii., 393 ; Der Text der Biicher Sam., 167, 569. de Wette, xxvii., xxxviii., 57, 383, 415. While, God angry for a little, 25. Wickedness and her instruments, 113. Winds, the four chariots compared to, 127, ff; do not signify [the winds, 137 ; winds in Scripture, 127. Wine-presses, the king's, 496. Woman in the ephah, 112; with the talent -weight, 115; punishment of, 116 ; rescue, 117. Women, stork-winged, 117; signifi- cance of, 117. Wordsworth, Bishop, xlvi., 24, 256, 266, 275, 346. " World to come," the, 449, 450. Wounding for idolatrous purposes, 428, 430- Wright, Prof. W., Arabic Gratninar, 551: 592. Wiinsche, Erliiuteniit!;- der Evaiigelien, 96, 564, 571 ; Leiden des Messias, xi., xlvi., 239, 389, 390, 549; Der Prophet Ilosca, 292, 293, 329. 6i4 GENERAL INDEX. Xenoplion Anabasis, 215 ; Cyropredia, xxxii. Yalkut S/ti?neoni, 564, 595, 596. Zeal, flaming, 418, ff. Zechariah's visions not mere poetic fancy, 6 : first vision, tlie angelic riders, 8, ff ; second vision, the four horses, 26 ; third vision, the man with the measuring line, 33 ; fourth vision, Joshua before the Angel, 45 ; fifth vision, the golden candlestick, 80; sixth vision, flying roll and woman in the ephah, 105 ; seventh vision, the four chariots, 123. Zechariah not the young man of chap, ii., p. xvi., 35 ; notices of in the Tal- mud and Church Fathers, xv., i{'^ date of his earliest predictions, xxii., if; the name, xx. the martyr Zech- ariah, xix. ; the son of Jeberechiah, XV., xvii.; external evidence as to the unity of the book, xxii., ff; sketch of the rise and progress of critical opinion on the integrity of the book, XXV., ff"; differences between the first and second part, xxviii. , ff"; considerations in favour of its in- tegrity and genuineness, xxxiv. Zerubbabel and Joshua the two olive trees, 90 ; encouraged, 95 ; no crown placed on his head, 147, 148. Zingerle, Dr. P., 534. Zunz, 493, see Aniheim. -. & Idjiuei-, The Selwuod I'riuUug Works, froiue, .lud London. WORKS BY CHARLES H. H. WRIGHT, M.A., B.D. OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN, M.A. OF EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD, PHIL. D. OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG, INCUMBENT OF ST MARY's, BELFAST, LATE CHAPLAIN OF TRINITY CHURCH, DOULOGNE-SUR-MER, FORMERLY BRITISH CHAPLAIN AT DRESDEN, BAMPTON LECTURER IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD FOR 1878. A Grammar of the Modern Irish Language, designed for the use of the Classes in the University of Dublin. Second Edition, revised and enlarged. London and Edinburgh : Williams & Norgate. Dublin : Hodges, Smith & Co. i860. Price 2s. 6d. %* This Grammar is used as a class-book in the University of Dublin. " I consider it in many ways an excellent specimen of a succinct grammar of so perplexing an idiom, whilst at the same time it has the merit of being the first in a popular way to exhibit the lights thrown on the subject by Comparative Philology." — T/ze late Rudolph Tit. Siegfried Ph. D. , Professor of Sanskrit in the University of Dnblin. , "It was undertaken most kindly by Mr. Wright at my request, and I am happy to testify that he has most admirably executed his undertaking. . . . To students of the Irish lan- guage, especially to those previously unacquainted with the language, it is a great boon." — Intro- ductory Preface to first edition, by the late Rev. Dr. Foley, Professor of Irish in the University of Dublin. The Book of Genesis in Hebrew, with a critically-re- vised Text, Various Readings, and Grammatical and Critical Notes. London and Edinburgh : Williams & Norgate. 1859. Price 5^. " This work bears satisfactory evidence of most commendable diligence and accurate scholar- ship. It supplies a defect much felt in our English exegetical literature, and will prove a very useful manual, even to advanced scholars." — English Churchman. " No one can fail to admit that this work is a most valuable contribution to a department of literature in which the English have not excelled. Its eminently scholarly character is sure to re- commend it." — Clerical Journal. "We consider the book highly creditable to the learning and the judgment of the editor, and we think he has conferred a great benefit on Hebrew students by its publication." — Literary Churchman. 2 WorJi's by Charles H. H. Wright, B.D., M.A., Ph.D. The Book of Ruth in Hebrew, with a critically-revised ■ . Text, various Readings, including a new collation of twenty-eight Hebrew MSS. (most of them not previously collated), and a Grammatical and Critical Commentary, to which is appended the Chaldee Targum, with Various Read- ings, and a Chaldee Glossary. London : Williams & Norgate. Leipzig : L. Denicke. 1864. Price ^s. 6d. "The work is full and complete. It is highly creditable to the learning, talents, and philological attainments of Mr. Wright. . ._ . Mr. Wright has given the 'J'argum, with various Readings, and an excellent Glossary to it, which will introduce the student to an acquain- tance with ChaTdee. The Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Hebrew text is thorough and clear, omitting nothing that can throw light on the construction and meaning of the words. . . . The editor has executed his design in a manner that deserves the thanks of every student of Hebrew ; and we trust that he will see the reward of his labour in the use of his volume by junior classes in the Universities. Professors could not do better than make it a text-book. It is admirably fitted for that purpose." — Atheiiizum. " Beide Werke sind die Friichte eines eisernen Fleisses und riihmliche Proben einer auf der Hohe der Wissenschaft stehenden Sprachkenntniss, wie sie einer Zeit noth thuen, in welcher manche Exegeten sich mit Umgehung der in Schweiss des Angesichts zu erwerbenden linguis- tischen Grundlagen, allzu schnell und unvermlttelt auf theologische Hohen versteigen." — Prof. Dr. Delitzsch, University of Leipzig. "I have already expressed my high opinion of your work on Genesis, but your recent edition of Ruth ought to go even more decidedly in your favour. It is a work of pure Hebrew Scholarship, in which exact knowledge, critical acumen, and diligent research have been brought to bear upon the text of Ruth, and in which all those niceties which the commentator may pass over with a light hand have to be carefully treated." — The Very Rev. R. Payne Smith, D.D., Dean of Canterbury, late Regitis Professor of Divinity, Oxford. " It displays an estimable knowledge of Hebrew and the Oriental languages, a punctilious . accuracy in treating grammatical and critical matters, and an uncommon acquaintance with the literature of the subject, the German included." — The late Prof. Dr. Hermatin Hnpfeld, Ujiiversity of Halle. " Durch diese Arbeiten [upon Genesis and Rnth^ hat er nicht nur seine Gelehrsamkeit und wissenschaftliche Genauigkeit documentirt, sondern atich mit vielem Ge.schick die dem Stand- punkte des Hebrew Student angemessene Method befolgt." — The late Prof. Dr. Rodiger, University of Berlin. The Pentateuch, or the Five Books of Moses, in the Authorised Version, with a critically-revised Translation, a collation of various Readings translated into English, and of various Translations ; to- gether with a Critical and Exegetical Commentary. For the use of English students of the Bible. Specimen part containing Genesis i.-iv., with commentary, pp. viii., 48. Price \s. London and Edinburgh : Williams & Norgate. 1S69. The University of Dublin: a Scheme of Reform, sub- mitted to the Board of Trinity College, and the Senate of the University, London : Williams & Norgate. Dublin : Hodges, Foster & Co. Price 6d. The University of Dublin and the Divinity School: Re- forms submitted to the Board of Trinity College, the Senate of the University, and the General Synod of the Church of Ireland. Dublin : Hodges, Foster, & Co. London : Williams & Norgate. 1874. Price bd. Letters on Reforms needed in the Divinity School of Trinity College, Dublin, in consequence ot the University Tests Act of 1873. Dublin : Hodges, Foster & Co. London : Williams & Norgate. Price 6./. Works hy Charles H. H. Wright, B.D., M.A., Ph.D. 3 The Fatherhood of God, and its Relation to the Person and Work of Christ, and the Operations of the Holy Spirit. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark. London : Hamilton, Adams, & Co. 1867. Price ^s. "Mr. Wright has dealt with these problems in a scholarlike, and withal a Christian, spirit, and has shown that the freest discussion is compatible with the most reverent regard for Divine revelation. . . . He brings with him to the subject all the aid which a logical mind and a thorough scholarship can bestow ; and whilst every page attests the extent of his reading and in- formation, there are evidences of an honest and independent criticism pervading all he writes." — Christian Examiner (Dublin). " Mr. Wright has given a very useful manual on the entire subject discussed, and the manly, free, generous spirit in which he has accomplished his task deserves all recognition." — English IndepeiuieJit. '• Plus conciliante que polemique. M. Wright, qui s'est deja fait connaitre par les travaux d'emdition appartient dans I'Eglise anglicane au parti evangelique. . . . Sa tractation se recommande par un merite qui lui est propre, la grande clarte exegetique qu'il met dans la dis- cussion des points controverses." — Bulletin Theologigue (Paris). Memoir of John Lovering Cooke, formerly Gunner in the Royal Artillery, and late Lay Agent of the British Sailors' Institute Boulogne; with a Sketch of the Indian Mutiny of 1857-8, up to the final capture of Lucknow. London : James Nisbet & Co., 21, Berners Street, 1873. Second Edition, with illustrations, 1878. Price 3^. "The subject of this Memoir is an interesting one, and the Memoir itself is written in a pleasing and attractive style." — Daily Review. " This little book should be read by mothers and fathers whose sons have 'gone for soldiers.' It will show them what a private soldier can do for the honour and glory of God." — Sunday at Ho}iie {article, May, 1874,/. 312). " His Memoir is interestingly written ; and while no one can read his book without pleasure and advantage, it is especially suitable for barrack club-rooms, and for places where soldiers or sailors congregate." — London Quarterly Review. The Church of Ireland, and her Claims to the Title, considered in the light of History and Recent Legislation. Dublin : Hodges, Foster, & Figgis, Grafton Street. London : Williams & Norgate. Belfast : W. E. Mayne. Second Edition, with an Appendix. 1875. Price bd. Religious Life in the German Army during the War of 1870-1. A Lecture and Review. London and Edinburgh : Williams & Nor- gate. Dublin : Hodges, Foster & Co. Belfast : Mayne. Price 6 Stoughtofj. Heroes of the Mission Field. By the Right Rev. W. Paken- HAM Walsh, D.D., Bishop of Ossory. Crown 8vo, cloth, price $s. Macd on aid's Life and Writings of St. John. Edited, with an Introduction by the Veiy Rev. Dean HowsoN, D. D. With five Maps and thirty full-page Illustrations. Royal Svo, cloth, price 2ls. A Memoir of Achilles Daunt, D.D., Late Dean of Cork. With Selections from his Sermons and Letters. Edited by the Rev. F. R. Wynne, M.A. Crown Svo, cloth, 75. 6d. Plain Proofs of the Great Facts of Christianity. For the Help of Minds Perplexed with Difficulties. By the Rev. F. R. Wynne, M.A. Crown Svo, cloth, price 2s. bd. The Pauline Theory of the Inspiration of Holy Scripture. By the Rev. W. E. Atwell, D.D. Crown Svo, cloth, price 7^-. bd. Letters to a Young Clergyman. By the Rev. Canon Miller, D.D. Crown Svo, cloth, price ^s. Godet's Studies on the New Testament. Edited by the Hon. and Rev. Canon Lyttelton. Third edition, crown Svo, cloth, 7.?. 6(/. A Popular Exposition of the Epistle to the Seven Churches of Asia. By the Rev. Prof Plumptre, D.D. Second edition. Crown Svo, cloth, price 55. Side-Lights on Scripture Texts. By Francis Jacox, B.A. Crown Svo, cloth, price 'js. 6d. The Prophets of Christendom. Sketches of Eminent Preachers. By the Rev. W. Boyd Carpenter, M.A. Crown Svo, cloth, price 5j. The Christian Creed : Its Theory and Practice. With a Preface on some Present Dangers of the English Church. By the Rev. Canon Leathes, M.A., D.D. Crown Svo, cloth, price 7^-. 6d. The Jews in Relation to the Church and the World. A Course of Lectures, with a preface by the Right Rey. Bishop Piers Claughton, D.D. Crown Svo, cloth, price 4J. 6d. LONDON : HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW, ^( Theological Semmary-Speer 1 1012 01131 1612