fMmsmmmm

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES,
CONSIDERED /
IN RELA TION TO MODERN CRITICISM :
WITH A
Critical anir Grammatical €ammmt%xv

NEW TRANSLATION.

EIGHT LECTURES DELIVERED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY VI
OXFORD IN THE YEAR 1878, ON THE FOUNDATION
OF THE LATE REV. JOHN BAMPTON, M.A.,
CANON OF SALISBURY.

CHARLES HENRY HAMILTON WRIGHT, B.D.,
Of Trinity College, Dublin ; M.A. of Exeter College, Oxford ;
Pkil.D. of the University of Leipzig ; and Incumbent
of St. Mary's, Belfast.

Ilcto fork:
P. DUTTON & CO.,
713, BROADWAY.
MDCCCLXXIX.

Butter &> Tanr.cr,
The Selivood Printing Works,
Frame, and Loitdon.

ERRATA.
P. 131 — Line 1 of note 1, read " Daniel ii." for Daniel iii."
0 0 7 ¦* T, 0 ? ¦>•*
P. 186— Note 1, read the Syriac jv-A.o |cau ^ <\^
P. 295 — Line 5 from the top, erase the name " Delitzsch."
P. 303 — Line 3 from bottom, " Tablai " ought to be read for " Tavlai,"
though the latter form is used by McCaul.
P. 328— Note 1, line 3, erase the " ? " in " But this is doubtful ? "
P. 347 — Line 5 from bottom of page, read &> for <S. In the same note
two broken 7 s .appear.
P. 353 — Line 8, read ''renderings" insteadof "readings."
P. 362 — Second line from bottom, a broken 7 occurs in ?in.
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'^D with broken ?.

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 the 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 :
AND TO
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, " haud paribus gressibus," and to
promote the study of the Old Testament on a philological and grammatical
basis, IS DEDICATED BY
THE AUTHOR.

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.1
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 XI. on May 26th, and Chapter XII., being
the eighth and concluding Lecture, on June 2nd. 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 niH or Hf!
as explained in Exod. iii. 14. From the form ii l.H all the
other forms of the sacred name, used in composition, or
otherwise (such as iT, -liT, or 'lIT, i1"), can be explained, as
well as the 'Ia/3e of Theodoret and Epiphanius. The form
"Jahaveh" is better suited to the rhythm than "Jahve,"
adopted by Ewald and most German 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. 11, xi. 8, 11. 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 -

Xll 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-sbeets
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. 2$tk, 1879.

CONTENTS.

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 Critical1
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  xiii.
New Translation of the Book of Zechariah . . xlix.
CHAPTER I.
The First Three Visions (Zech. 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.) 81
CHAPTER IV.
The Sixth Vision — The Flying Roll, and the Woman
in the Ephah (Zech. v.)  105

Xlv CONTENTS. PAGE
CHAPTER V.
The Seventh Vision — The Four Chariots (Zech. vi. 1-8) 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 XI.
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 XIII.
The Eschatology of Zechariah, or " The Last Things "
as seen in the light of the old dispensation
(Zech. xiv.)  44g
Critical and Grammatical Commentary . . . .521;
Index of Texts Illustrated  enq
General Index  g0.

INTRODUCTION.

§ I. Notices of the PropJiet Zechariah.
ACCORDING to the statement in chap. i. I, Zechariah was the
son of Berechiah and the grandson of Iddo (see crit. comni).
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.1
The accounts given of the prophet in the early Christian
writers of the 4th and 5 th 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
1 On the men of the Great Synagogue, see Buxtorf s Tiberias, cap. x. ; Jost's
Geschichte des Isr. Volkes ; and Taylor's Sayings of the Jewish 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 /J,v^/J,r) 'T^iarov, which is pos
sible, or Niktjt7i<} Xeovroi, which is impossible. Isidore of
Spain (7th century) says of Haggai, "Aggaeus natus in
Babylonia, juveniculus Hierusalem venit, sedificationem tem-
pli ex parte conspexit. Hie juxta sacerdotum monumenta
gloriose sepultus quiescit." Of Zechariah he adds briefly,
"Zacharias, Alius Barachise, cum eodem Aggseo 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 (Tepara iv
T&) vaa> iroWa, <{>avTao-id>Sr]), 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
(ovre Sovvai ^pT)o-fiov<; etc rov Safirjp, Heb. "VZTT), nor answers
to the people as formerly by means of the visible things,"
81a t&v SijXav, 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 Talmud Yerushalmi
(Taanith, 69, col. 1, 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.), i|ra\/A05 TwAaviS, 'Ayyaoov xal Zayapiov, and Psalms
cxlv. to cxlviii. are distinctly assigned to Haggai and Zecha-
hria (AXKrjXovia. 'Ayyalov ical Za%aptov). The Arabic ver
sion generally agrees in this with the LXX. In some MSS.
of the Itala the superscription of Psalm lxv. (Itala and LXX.
Ixiv.) is : " In finem, psalmus David, canticum Jeremiae et
Aggaei deverbo peregrinationis, quando incipiebant proficisci."
Similarly according to the Vulgate and Itala, Ps. cxii. (Vulg.

XX INTRODUCTION. § 2.
Ps. cxi.) is entitled, " Alleluia, Reversionis Aggaei et Zecha-
riae," and Ps. cxlvi. (Vulg. cxlv.) is ascribed to them, " Alleluia,
Aggaei 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 seinscriptions 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 : Kal avrbs (Ayyafos)
eyfraXkev eicel (iv 'IepovcraXrjfj,) 7T/3WTO? aXXrjXovia, b epfiTjveverai
alveaa>/j,ev tw %5)vtl 0ew' ap/rjv, b iari yevoiro, yevoiro. iicel
ovv airiOave, Kal irafyr) ttXtjo-Iov tcov lepemv eVS6£a>?. Sob
\eyop,€V aXh.7]\ovia, 6 eanv v/nvos Ayyaiov Kal Zayaplov.

§ 2. The Name of the Prophet.
The name Zechariah has been explained by Jerome to
signify (ivrj/iT) Kvpiov, memoria Domini, " memory of the
Lord." According to this explanation the first part of the
compound is regarded as a noun. In that case the punctu
ation would rather have been, rTHDt or better rtHDf, after the
analogy of (Tp^n and THpTS. The longer form Wl3t
occurs in 2 Kings xv. 8 (the shorter form being used of the
same king in 2 Kings xiv. 29), and in other places. The
name is a very common one, and upwards of twenty persons'

INTRODUCTION. § 3. xxi
who bore it are mentioned in the Old Testament. It
is, however, better to regard "IDT as a verb, with TV as its
subject, in which case the name would signify "whom Jah
remembers." Some indeed, like Abarbanel, have considered
TV as the object of the verb ; in which case the name would
mean " who remembers Jah," and would, therefore, be equiva
lent to the Greek Mvqo-Ldeos, and analogous to Tt,p,66eo<;. But
in Hebrew proper names compounded with TV and a verb
in the 3rd person sing, kal, the sacred name is the subject
of the verb, and there is no reason to treat this as an ex
ception. Some render more generally " Jah remembers," or,
is mindful of us ; compare Gen. xxx. 22 ; 1 Sam. i. 11, 19 ;
and the proper name "1DTV in 2 Kings xii. 22.
The explanation of Marck, namely, that the word is com
pounded with "IDT, a male, used in the sense of a hero, as if
meaning " man of Jahaveh" must be rejected, for "DT is not
found in that signification.
The name of the prophet has been sometimes thought
to stand in close connexion with his prophecies, and the
names of other prophets have been similarly interpreted.
Most of these coincidences rest, however, upon mere fancy ;
and, with respect to the name of Zechariah, Kohler has
observed that it cannot be shown to have any special con
nexion with his prophecies. Many other names, such as
Daniel or Isaiah, would have been equally suitable to the
subject matter of the predictions contained in the book.

§ 3. The Date of his Earliest Predictions.
The circumstances during which Haggai and Zechariah
discharged their prophetic office are fully stated in Ezra v., vi.,
and need not be here repeated. It may, however, be well
to observe that it is highly probable, from a comparison of
Ezra v. 1, 2 with Haggai i., that Zechariah acted as a pro-

xxii INTRODUCTION. § 4.
phet some months previous to the date of the earliest
written prophecies contained in this book ; for Ezra states
that it was in consequence of the prophecies delivered by
Haggai and Zechariah two months before the date of the
first prophecy of the latter given in chap. i. 7, that the Jews
re-commenced the work of the restoration of the temple,
which, in consequence of the opposition of the adversaries
of Judah and Benjamin, had ceased for many years. It is,
however, possible that the narrative of Ezra merely mentions
Zechariah with Haggai, because he was shortly after asso
ciated with the latter prophet, without intending absolutely
to state that both prophets actually prophesied to the Jews
some time previous to the resumption of the work on the
temple. The earliest prediction of Zechariah contained in his book
is that delivered in the eighth month of the second year of
Darius ; the latest dated prophecy is that in the ninth month
of the fourth year of Darius. The prophecies which follow,
even to the close of the book, have no date prefixed to them ;
and if they are to be regarded as genuine predictions of our
prophet, they must be considered as delivered several years
later than his earlier predictions.
§ 4. External Evidence as to the Unity of the Book.
No doubt has ever been entertained concerning the
genuineness of the first portion of the book, namely, that
consisting of chaps, i.-viii. Almost all of the prophecies
therein contained have inscriptions mentioning the name of
the writer and the date at which the individual prophecy
was delivered. The portion which succeeds (chaps, ix.-xiv.
inclusive) contains no mention whatever of its author, nor
are the dates specified at which its several parts were com
posed. The prophecies of the earlier portion of the book

INTRODUCTION. § 4. xxiii
contain unmistakeable references to the circumstances of the
Jewish people at the time they were delivered, while no such
clear and distinct references are made in the second part.
External evidence, however, is wholly in favour, both of the
unity and genuineness of the book. The tradition of the
Synagogue is clear on this point, as well as the testimony
of the Church. No traces are to be found in any ancient
writings of any hesitation to ascribe the second portion, as
well as the first, to the post-exilian Zechariah.
Fiirst in his interesting work Der Kanon des A. T. nach
den Ueberlieferungen in Talmud und Midrasch, Leipzig, 1868
(though his own views on the point as set forth in his
Geschichte der bibl. Literatur, Leipzig, 1870, are in harmony
with the most advanced modern views), gives the following
interesting sketch of the mode in which the Synagogue in
terpreted the second portion of the book, which it did not
scruple to assign to Zechariah as well as the first. The
Talmud and Midrash rightly considered the second portion
to contain in the main a prediction of Jewish history in the
times after Alexander the Great, with occasional references
(as in chap. ix. 9, 10) to Messianic days. The countries men
tioned in chap. ix. were regarded as destined to lose their
independence and to be brought under Jewish rule, while at
the same time the sacred temple at Jerusalem was to be pro
tected against all hostile attack. The eleventh verse of that
chapter was supposed to refer to the Jewish captives carried
off by the Greeks (the Seleucidian monarchs) ; and the war of
the sons of Zion against Greece was rightly considered to be
that so successfully waged by the Jews against their Greek
oppressors during the Maccabean period. Even the name
Asshur in chap. x. was regarded as signifying Syria under
the Seleucidian monarchs, and Egypt as meaning that king
dom under the Ptolemies, while Judah denoted the Israelites
in Judaea, and Ephraim those living in Galilee, Syria, Phce-

xxiv INTRODUCTION. § 4.
nicia, and beyond Jordan. Similarly the allegory of chap.
xi., and the destruction of the three shepherds, were con
sidered as referring to events which occurred in the Grecian
period. Such views, however, as to the interpretation of
the book did not interfere with the distinct and unvarying
testimony given by the Synagogue to its unity and genuine
ness. It has sometimes been asserted that there is at least one
remarkable exception to this uniformity of external evidence ;
that the Apostolical Constitutions (Didascalia seu Constitt.
Apostolorum, ii. 53) in quoting a passage (chap. viii. 17) from the
book of Zechariah ascribe its authorship to' Jeremiah. Some
portions of the Apostolical Constitutions may possibly be
of the third century, but that work in its extant form appears
to be several centuries later. The ascription of the passage
in question to Jeremiah can only be regarded as a slip of
memory on the part of the writer or his copyist, as the pas
sage referred to is from that portion of Zechariah the gen
uineness of which is admitted on all sides. The Apostolical
Constitutions contain, however, another passage from this
book which is distinctly referred to Zechariah, that passage
being from the second portion (chap. ix. 9), the genuineness
of which has been disputed in modern times. Consequently
the Apost. Const, cannot be viewed as forming any exception
to the uniformity of the evidence on this head. Many similar
errors in the quotations of O. T. passages occur in the
writings of the ancient Fathers. Compare the quotations
found in Justin Martyr, referred to in the note on p. 338. It
is to be observed that the part of the passage in the Apost.
Const, which refers to Jeremiah does not occur in all the
forms in which the text of those Constitutions has been pre
served, and hence it may be an interpolation. The words are:
"How often, therefore, hast thou remitted to thy brother,
that thou art unwilling to do it now ? when thou hast also

INTRODUCTION. § 5. xxv
heard Jeremiah saying, ' Do not any of you impute the
wickedness of his neighbour in your hearts.'" '

§ 5. Sketch of the Rise and Progress of Critical Opinion on
the Question of t/ie Integrity of the Book.
Doubts respecting the authorship of the second portion of
the book of Zechariah were first expressed by Mede in his
Epistles (Works, pp. 786, 833). These doubts were in his
case originally and mainly based upon the fact that the
passage from the second part of Zechariah (chap. xi. 12, 13) is
ascribed to Jeremiah in Matt, xxvii. 9. Having once begun
to conjecture that it was likely to be found on careful exam
ination that the writers of the New Test, actually corrected
errors which had crept into the Hebrew text previous to
their day, Mede naturally looked about for grounds on which
to defend his opinion, and ultimately was led to maintain that
the later chapters of Zechariah contained in themselves indi
cations of having been composed previous to the Babylonish
captivity. Mede's opinions were adopted by several English scholars :
by Hammond (1653), Kidder (1700), Whiston (1722), and
later by Seeker and Newcome. All these, however, mainly
rested on the testimony of Matthew's gospel, and showed
themselves disposed on the most trivial grounds to charge
the Jewish scribes with having seriously tampered with the
text of the Old Testament. It was on such grounds that
they were led to ascribe the second part of the book of
Zechariah, either in whole or in part, to Jeremiah. These
1 TTOtr&Kis oSv ifSt] d07Jras t$ dSeXc/x? <rov, tva fii) 0e\i5<ri;s airifl 6,(j>iivai Kal vdv ;
kclLtol aKotitras tou 'lepefitov \iyovros, 6'rt ^/caoros ttjv Kaiciav rod irXfjatov airoO fii)
\oyl£e<rde iv rah Kapdiais i^wv. See the text in Bunsen's Christianity and Man
kind, vol. vi., being vol. ii. of the Analecta Ante-Nicana, p. 117. The passage
from Kafroi onwards does not occur in all the Greek forms, but is given by Bunsen
after the more extended version.

xxvi INTRODUCTION. § 5.
opinions were strongly opposed by various scholars, especially
by Blayney (1797), and were ultimately regarded in England
with little favour.
The doubts expressed by English scholars were, however,
transplanted to German soil, and Fliigge in 1784 opposed the
traditional view of the unity of the book, and was followed by
Seiler, G. L. Bauer, Augusti and Doederlein. J. D. Michaelis
also expressed himself doubtful as to the unity of the book.
Bauer, however, though inclined to hold that the second part
was not the composition of Zechariah, regarded that portion
in his Kleinen Propheten (1786, 1790) as containing a pre
diction of the times before and after the Maccabean era. He
appears to have modified his views at a later period.
Eichhorn in his Einleitung followed in the main this in
terpretation, and considered the second portion to contain a
clear description of the times subsequent to Alexander the
Great, and, therefore, to have been composed by an author
at a time considerably later than that of Zechariah. Very
similar views are expressed by Corrodi, and H. E. G. Paulus,
as also later by Gramberg (1830), Vatke (1835), and still
more recently by Stahelin, Abraham Geiger, and Bottcher.
Stahelin, however, defends the unity of the book.
Other opinions, however, began to prevail in Germany after
the publication of Bertholdt's Einleitung in 18 14. The con
jecture there put forward, that Zechariah the son of Jebere-
chiah was the author of a part of the second portion (see pp.
xv., xvii.), received the approval of Gesenius in his Comm. on
Isaiah ; and other scholars followed in his wake, who, how
ever widely they may have differed in details, agreed in
thinking that the author or authors of the second portion
lived at some date previous to the Babylonish captivity. The
most important advocates of this view were Forberg (1824) ;
Rosenmiiller in the second edition of his Scholia (1828) ;
Hitzig, first in the Studien and Kritiken (1830), and afterwards

INTRODUCTION. § 5. xxvii
in his Zwolf kl. Propheten (ist ed. 1838, 3rd 1863); Kno-
bel der Prophetismus der Hebrder, 1837; Maurer, Comm.
Gramm.-Crit. in V. T., vol. ii., 1836; Bleek, in the Stud, nnd
Krit., 1852, and in his Einleitung (2te Ausg., 1865) ; Ewald in
his Proph. des A. B. (2te Ausg. 1867, 1868) ; v. Ortenberg
(1859) ; and Bunsen in various works, especially in his Bibel-
werk, vol. ii. (Die Prophete?i), i860. Similar views have been
advocated by Dr. Samuel Davidson in his Introduction to
the Old Test., 1863 ; by Dean Stanley in his Lectures on the
Jewish Church; and by Wellhausen in his revised edition of
Bleek's Einleitung (Berlin, 1878). Other eminent scholars,
as Herzfeld, Hupfeld, Thenius, Movers, Schrader, have also
expressed like opinions, though they have not written at any
length on the question.
Notwithstanding the boastful language made use of by
some, as if the contest had already resulted in a decisive
victory for the scholars of the modern critical school, " adhuc
sub judice lis est." The unity and post-exilian origin of
the book have been ably defended by Koster (Meletemata
Critica, etc., 18 18), de Wette in the latest editions of his
Einleitung, Jahn, Burger (Etudes exe~g. et critiq. sur le proph.
Zach., Strassburg, 1841), Umbreit, Havernick, Hengstenberg,
Stahelin, von Hofmann, Ebrard, Sandrock, Kliefoth, Keil,
Delitzsch, Kohler, Lange, Pusey, and by the Roman Catholic
scholars, Theiner, Schegg, and Reinke. Prof, (now Dean)
J. J. S. Perowne in Smith's Bibl. Dictionary, and after him
Drake in vol. vi. of the Speaker's Commentary, can scarcely
be said to have arrived at any definite conclusion on the
subject. Henderson, and the American scholar Cham
bers, in his comm. attached to the English translation of
Lange's Bibelwerk, defend the traditional view. Just as able
scholars are to be found in the ranks of the defenders as in
those of the opposers of the traditional view, and the reckless
taunts thrown out by some as to the lack of scholarship on

XXviii INTRODUCTION. § 6.
the part of the defenders of the genuineness of the book are
as unfounded as they are ungenerous. Such charges ought
not to be made on either side. Indeed one cannot help re
marking that in such disputes a disposition quietly to bow to
the authority of those "held in reputation" is as remarkable
a characteristic of "the rank and file" of the followers of
the school which opposes traditional views, as of those on
the conservative side.

§ 6. The Differences between the First and Second Portions
of the Book.
It must be admitted that the style of the second portion of
the book is in many respects very different from that of
the first part. If the visions related by the prophet in the
larger portion of the first part were really beheld by him,
it is not surprising that the description of them given by
him should be drawn up for the most part in ordinary
prose. The question assumes a very different aspect if it be
maintained on the other hand (and an assumption is made
on one side as well as on the other), that the writer merely
put forth his 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
lacks 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
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. 1-6, 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. 1-6 and x. 10 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. 1 1 of " Israel '
and Jerusalem" as identical with Jiidah.
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. 1 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 much
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. Cyropced. 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 with 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 chaps, 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. 1, 4, 8,
viii. 1, 18), and "thus saith Jahaveh of hosts" (chaps, i. 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. 1, 7, vii. 1), mentioning his own
name (chap. vii. 1) and the names of some of his contempo
raries, such as Joshua and Zerubbabel (iii. 1, 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. 1) and to those of Ezekiel (i. 1-3, viii. 1, 2, xl. 1, 2) ;
and dates are very frequently found in the prophets where
answers are recorded as given by Divine command to certain
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. 12 (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
lxv. 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. 1. Chap. viii. 20-22 may,
as far as its substance is concerned, be compared, with Micah
iv. 1, 2 ; Isa. ii. 3. The prophecy of the four chariots is evi
dently based on that of Daniel's four empires (Dan. ii., vii.),
though it must not be forgotten that this is not admitted by

xxxvi INTRODUCTION. § 7.
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 1 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. Ii. 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. lxxii. 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 AV.
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. 1, where Jahaveh is spoken of as spreading forth
the heavens and founding the earth, is plainly connected with

INTRODUCTION. § 7. xxxvii
Isa. Ii. 13. Zech. xii. 6, where the princes of Judah 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 "tower 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- lxvi- 23> and Isa- lx- I2 were Plainly m tne 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

xxxviii INTRODUCTION. § 7.
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 Einleitung 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, must 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. § 7. xxxix
10. The attempts made to discover essential differences 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. 1), 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. § 7.
between the two portions. But there is a general likeness
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 D^D1) *1D#D occurs in vii. 14 and
n ix. 8. See note 3, p. 176 and p. 221. "VD^n in the sense
of to remove, occurs in chaps, iii. 4, xiii. 2. TVsTV DN.3, which is
used in fourteen places in the first part, occurs also in the
second in chap. x. 12, xii. 1, 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. 1) ; 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.' "
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. § 7. xii
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 prophets 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

xiii 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, n,
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 Criticus.
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 Theol.
Studien u. Kritiken for 1852.
BUNSEN, C. C. J. Vollstandiges Bibelwerk fur die Gemeinde.
2te Theil. Die Propheten. Leipzig, i860.
His Gott in der Geschichte I know only at second hand.

INTRODUCTION. § 8. xliii
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
Graec. opin. Dresden, 1846.
Calvini, lo., Praelectiones in Duodecim Proph. Minores.
Geneva, 1610.
CAPPELLl,Lud. Comm. etNotaeCrit. in Vet. 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. Prophetae Minores Latine versi notisque phil.
et crit. Must. 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.
FiJRST, 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. Keil. 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
lish trans. (4 vols.). T. & T. Clark, 1863-1865.
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 Biicher 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.
Keil, Prof. Dr. C. F. Comm. iiber die zwolf kl. Propheten.
2te Aufl. Leipzig, 1873.
KlMCHi, 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 Bibelwerk.
Bielefeld and Leipzig, 1876.
MARCKII, lo., in Proph. Min. Comment. Amst, 1696-1701.
Maurer, F. J. V. D. Comm. Gram.-crit. in Vet. Test. (4 vols.).
Leipzig, 1835-1847.
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. xiv
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, Matthari, Synopsis Criticorum. Folio (4 vols.). London,
1 669- 1 674.
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. Prophets: Minores, editio secunda.
Leipzig, 1827, 1828.
REINKE, Laur. Die Messianischen Weissagungen bei den
gross, u. kl. Proph. des A.T. (5 vols.). Giessen,i859-i862.
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 AT. 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.

xlvi introduction. § 8.
Wordsworth, Bishop. The Minor Prophets in the Auth.
Version, with notes and introductions. London,
Rivingtons, 1875.
Koster'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 Bibliotheca
Patrum, 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 Worterbuch
edited by Miihlau and Volck (Leipzig, 1878) ; and Fiirst's
Heb. und Chald. 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 Prophecy (Lond., 1839) ;
Duhm's Theologie der Propheten (Bonn, 1875) ; Drummond's
(Jas., B.A., Prof, in Manchester New College, London) Jewish
Messiah (Longmans, 1877); Tholuck, Die Propheten u. ihre
Weissagungen (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 in 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 Lectures
on the Jewish Church (London, 1 875-1 877) ; Prof. Count
v. Baudissin's Studien zur Semitischen Religionsgeschichte,
Heft 1, Leipzig, 1876; Heft 2, Leipzig, 1878 ; Schrader, Die

INTRODUCTION. § 8. xlyii
Keilinschriften u. das alte Testament (Giessen, 1872), and
his Keilinschriften ttnd Geschichtsforschung (Giessen, 1878);
Turpie (David McC, M.A.), Tlie Old Testament in the New
(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. (Lipsiae, 1873); Dr. Gins-
burg's edition of Levita's Massoreth ha-Massoreth; 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 Rodiger (the
2 ist 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' Lehrgebaude der
Heb. Sprache (18 17), and given frequent references to
Kalisch's Hebrew 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 Ausf. Lehrbuch, 8th edition (Gottingen,
1870); and on some points to Olshausen's Lehrbuch der Heb.
Sprache (Braunschweig, 1861), to Bottcher's great work, his
Ausfuhrl. Lehrbuch (Leipzig, 1866, 1868), and to Driver's
(S. R.) very excellent Treatise on tlie 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 Merx's Archiv, 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 Origen's 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 Prophetce Chaldaice e fide codicis reuchliniani (Leipzig,
Teubner, 1872).

THE
BOOK OF THE PROPHET ZECHARIAH.

NE W 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 whom 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 forever?" The Syr. has " and my
prophets." 6 The LXX. supply -IPip? after " decrees, " translating ir\ty robs \byovs p.ov Kal
t& v6/j.ip.& nov dixeade. So the Arab. , but not the Syr.
After " I commanded my servants the prophets," the LXX. add iv irve6p.aTl
p.ov, which may be regarded as an interpretation.
The LXX. render the clause " have they not overtaken your fathers "by ot
KaTekafioa-av toi>s iraripas 0/j.Civ, rendered by Schleusner " who lived at the time
of your fathers." d

1 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 nut) and white. And I said, What are these, my lord ? And
the angel that talked with me said, I will shew thee what
io these are. And the man who was standing between
the myrtles answered and said, These are they which
1 1 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, We have 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, Jahaveh of hosts, how long hast thou not pity for
Jerusalem and for the cities of Judah, against which thou
13 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 13nS- Theod. ifuv, and so i/iuv for f/pt&v in the preceding clause.
16 Cod. 1 and Syr. have at the commencement of the verse ' ' Jahaveh of hosts.''
The LXX. add ft-t (TO) at the end of the verse.

THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, i. l6-ii. 6. Ii
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 Kal elire irpbt /xi 0 &yy(\os
& \a\fiv iv i/iol. They are followed by the Arab., but not the Syr.
2 After " what are these ?" the LXX. add Kipie.
3 The LXX. riKToves, Vulg. fabri ; see p. 32.
4 After "and he said," some MSS. add '7K, which is expressed* by the
LXX. (cod. Alex.) and Syr. The LXX. and Syr. omit the following "saying."
ISn'l. LXX. Kal itfXBocrav oBroi rod 6£vvai. See crit. comrr,
The LXX. add after " scattered Judah," Kal rbv 'lo-paijX Karia^ay, " and have
broken Israel," followed by the Arabic, but not by the Syriac.
, For "the land of Judah" the LXX. read<?ir! ttjv y^v Kvpiov.

Hi THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, ii. 6-14.
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.
11 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 8¥' by eJor^Kei, stood up, namely, to measure Jerusalem.
8 The LXX. insert before " run," \tyav.
9 The Syr. adds "in her midst," after " to her," as at the end of the verse.
10 Instead of WlfcO several MSS. have 5?l"ISO. This can, however, scarcely
have been the reading of the Vulg. in quatuor ventos, or of the Syr., which would
require I721M7.
12 D^liiTvN. R. Nathan '}"5JJ in his Concordance. The Oriental reading is
D'lJn 7)}, and so Codd. The LXX., Syr. and Targ. are quoted as supporting this
reading, but this is more than doubtful.
Vii. Codd. W33. The LXX. would appear to have had this reading, as they
translate &s 6 dm-cfytei/os. rD32. Some Codd. read 1"D3, but incorrectly.
See Elias Levita's Massoreth-ha-Massoreth, edited by Ginsburg, p. 219.
13 DiJJ'lISJff?. So correctly Baer, after all the old editions and very many MSS.,
and so our A.V.. The third edition of the Rabb. Bible (Ven. 1568) has the read
ing DHHSV?., 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. 14-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 ? And 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
* y p
ported by the LXX. tois SovXeiovaiv a^rois. The Syr. render .oab^l\ " their
works." 4 Codd. 5 read TW- 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. Kal iTrldere Kldapiv KaOapav. Two MSS., Vulg., Syr.,
" and he said." See p. 63.

liv THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, iii. 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.
I 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
S The LXX. transl. "IOU in the last clause as if it were the perfect, (efcmJKei)
but it is pointed in the Hebrew as the participle to indicate that the Angel was
standing by during the whole transaction.
2 "And I said." See crit. comm.

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 *D. Cod. I has 'O.
9 TSTV\. Codd. have DrUTPI. The plural is also expressed by the Syr.,
Targ. and Vulg. ED^K. Cod. I has "pK, and so the LXX.
10 Or, "there rejoice and see," taking the perfects as presents. Codd. 5
omit non.
The Orientals read blTW 'JB? instead of 71TH TO in the kethibh, and have
the latter as the k'ri reading. So the Babylonian Codex.
13 Codd. insert nDH before n?K.
14 Codd. 3 read ^S "IDN'1.

lvi THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, V. I -9.

CHAPTER V.
I And I turned and lifted up my eyes, and I saw, and
2 behold a roll flying. And he said to me, What art thou
beholding ? And I said, I see a roll flying, its length
3 twenty cubits, and its breadth ten cubits. And he said to
me, This is the curse which is going forth over the face of
the whole land, for every one that stealeth shall be cleansed
away on this side according to it, and every one that
sweareth shall -be cleansed away on this side (on the other
4 side) according to it. And I will bring it forth, ('tis) the
utterance of Jahaveh of hosts, and it shall enter into the
house of the thief, and into the house of him who swear
eth by my name, falsely, and shall lodge in the midst of
his house, and shall consume it, and its timbers and its
stones.
5 And the angel that talked with me went forth, and he
said to me, Lift up now thine eyes and see what is this
6 thing which is going forth (or, appearing) ? And I said,
What is it? And he said, This is the ephah which is
going forth (or, appearing). And he said, This is their eye
7 in all the land. And behold a talent of lead was being
lifted up (i.e., carried), [and I saw] and this (was) one
8 woman, sitting in the middle of the ephah. And he said,
This is Wickedness; and he flung her down into the
middle of the ephah, and he flung the weight of lead (i.e.,
the talent weight) on her mouth. And I lifted up mine
9 eyes, and I saw, and behold, two women going forth, and
(the) wind was in their wings, and they had wings, like the
wings of the stork, and they lifted up the ephah between
the earth, and between the heaven. And I said to the
angel that talked with me, Whither are they bringing the
ephah ? And he said to me, To build for her a house

THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, V. 9-vi. 10. Ivii
in the land of Shinar, and (if) it shall be established,
then she shall be set there upon her base.

CHAPTER VI.
1 And I lifted up mine eyes again, and I saw, and behold,
four chariots going forth from between the two mountains ;
2 and the mountains (were) mountains of copper. In the first
chariot red horses, and in the second chariot black horses.
3 And in the third chariot white horses, and in the fourth
4 chariot horses speckled, strong. And I answered and said
to the angel that talked with me, What are these, my lord ?
5 And the angel answered and said to me, These are the
four winds of the heavens, going forth from standing before
6 the Lord of the whole earth. That in which the black
horses are, (they) are going forth to the land of the North ;
and the white, (they) have gone forth to that which is
behind them ; and the speckled, (they) have gone forth to
7 the land of the South. And the strong went forth, and
they sought to go forth to, walk to and fro through the
earth ; and he said, Go forth, walk to and fro through the
earth, and they walked to and fro through the earth.
8 And he cried to me, and said to me, saying, See these
(horses) going forth to the land of the North, (they) have
caused my anger (lit., my spirit) to rest upon the land
of the North.
9, 10 And the word of Jahaveh was to me, saying, Take
from the captivity, from Heldai, and from Tobiah, and
5 3S»nnD. Codd. 2 LXX. (Tapao-Trjvai), Ar., Syr., Vulg. (ut stent) read
3V*nn?. But this reading is against the sequel of the narrative.
10 fVlID J1KD1. So Baer has rightly edited, instead of flND on the
authority of many MSS., LXX. (see crit. comm.), Aquil., Syr., Targ., Vulg.
ISO. Codd. 2, Syr., LXX., read K3, in the singular. So the Targ., according
to the Lond. Polygl., but de Lagardehas the plural.

Iviii THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, vi. IO-vii. 2.
from Jedaiah, and go thou on that day, and go, to the
house of Josiah the son of Zephaniah, who are come from
1 1 Babylon. And take silver and gold, and make a crown,
and place it on the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak
12 the high priest. And say unto him, saying, Thus saith
Jahaveh of hosts, saying,
Behold a man, Branch (or, Shoot) is his name,
And he shall branch up (or, shoot up) from his place,
And build the temple of Jahaveh.
13 And he shall build the temple of Jahaveh,
And he shall bear majesty,
And sit and rule upon his throne,
And be priest upon his throne,
And the counsel of peace, (it) shall be between them both,
14 And the crown shall be for Helem, and for Tobiah, and
for Jedaiah, and for the kindliness of the son of Zepha-
15 niah, for a remembrance in the temple of Jahaveh. And
those from far shall come, and build in the temple of
Jahaveh, and ye shall know, that Jahaveh of hosts sent
me to you — and it will be, if ye verily hearken, to the
voice of Jahaveh your God.

CHAPTER VII.
1 And it was in the year four of Darius the king, the
word of Jahaveh was to Zechariah, in the fourth (day) of
2 the ninth month, in Kislev. Then sent Bethel, (that is)
1 1 1VW1. Kimchi, in his Michlol, 6 b, ya, mentions the reading JJ W1 as that
of Ben Naphtali.
12 Codd. omit the first "IDS? {saying), which is not expressed by the LXX.,
Syr. and Arab., but this does not prove that they had a different reading. " From
his place," lit., " from under him."
14 Codd. 2. n^nn plural.
2 Baer has edited 5K1V3 in one word, instead of ^KVPa, on the authority

THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, vii. 2-12. lix
Sarezer, and Regem-melek, and their men, to intreat the
3 favour of Jahaveh (lit., to stroke the face of /.), saying (with
directions to say) to the priests who (belonged) to the
house of Jahaveh of hosts, and to the prophets, saying,
Shall I (i.e., the city of Bethel and the inhabitants thereof)
weep in the fifth month, using abstinence, as I have done,
for how many years ?
4 And the word of Jahaveh of hosts was to me, saying,
5 Speak to all the people of the land, and to the priests,
saying, When ye fasted and mourned in the fifth and in
the seventh (months), even now (or, and this) seventy years,
6 — have ye then fasted me (or, to me), ME ? And when ye
eat, and when ye drink, are not ye (the persons) who eat,
7 and ye (they) who drink ? (Do) not (ye know) the words
which Jahaveh hath proclaimed by means of (lit, by
the hand of) the former prophets, when Jerusalem was
dwelt in and was safe, and her cities round about her,
and the South and the Lowland were (lit. was) inhabited ?
8 And the word of Jahaveh was, to Zechariah, saying,
9 So saith Jahaveh of hosts, saying,
Judgment of truth judge ye,
And mercy and compassion
Do ye each to his brother.
10 And widow and orphan, stranger and poor, do not ye
oppress,
And evil against each one's brother
Do not ye conceive in your heart.
1 1 But they refused to hearken, and they gave a refractory
shoulder, and their ears they made heavy in order that
12 they might not hear. And their heart they made (hard
of MSS. The word is often so written in the best MSS. in other books. On
Sarezer see note on p. 168.
3 'E'DPiri' So Baer on the authority of MSS.
4 Codd. 2 with the Syr. and Targ. omit J11K3V.
S The Babylonian Codex and an Erfurt MS. omit 1 before PIT. See Baer.

Ix THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, vii. 1 2-viii. 7.
as) a diamond, in order that they might not hear the Law,
and the words which Jahaveh of hosts sent through his
Spirit, by means of the former prophets. So there was
great wrath from Jahaveh of hosts. And it was as he
13 called and they did not hear, "so they shall call, and I
will not hear," said Jahaveh of hosts. " And I will toss
14 them over all the nations which they knew not, and the
land shall be desolate after them, so that there shall be
no one passing through or returning." Thus they made
a pleasant land as a desolation.

CHAPTER VIII.
1 And there was the word of Jahaveh of hosts, saying,
2 Thus saith Jahaveh of hosts, I am zealous for Zion with
great zeal, and with great anger am I zealous on behalf of
3 her. So saith Jahaveh, I have returned to Zion, and I am
dwelling (or, I will dwell) in the midst of Jerusalem, and
Jerusalem shall be called a city of the truth, and the
mountain of Jahaveh of hosts, the holy mountain.
4 Thus saith Jahaveh of hosts, Old men and old women
shall yet sit in the streets of Jerusalem, and each (with)
his staff in his hand on account of the number of (his)
5 days. And the streets of the city shall be full, of boys and
girls playing in its streets.
6 Thus saith Jahaveh of hosts, If it be wonderful in the
eyes of the remnant of this people, in those days, shall
it be also wonderful in my eyes? ('tis) the utterance of
Jahaveh of hosts.
7 Thus saith Jahaveh of hosts, Behold, I am about to
save my people from the land of the rising (of the sun),
1 Codd. mult., Syr., Targ. insert *7tf, but the Masora notes that it ought not
to be read here.
3 Codd., Vulg. insert TWKXi after Jahaveh.

THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, viii. 7-17. lxi
and from the land of the entrance of the sun (into its rest,
8 i.e., the west). And I will bring them, and they shall
dwell in the midst of Jerusalem, and they shall be to me
for a people, and I will be to them for a God, in truth and
in righteousness.
9 Thus saith Jahaveh of hosts, Let your hands be strong,
ye who hear in these days these words from the mouth
of the prophets, who were in the day the house of Jahaveh
of hosts was founded, the temple, in order that it should
10 be built. For before those days there were no wages for
man, and there was no hire for the cattle, and for him
who went out and for him who came in there was no peace
on account of the oppressor, and I let loose all of the men
1 1 each one against his companion. And now am I not as
in the former days for the remnant of this people ? ('tis) the
12 utterance of Jahaveh of hosts. For the seed of peace,
the vine, shall give its fruit, and the earth shall give its
produce, and the heavens shall give their dew, for I will
make the remnant of this people to possess all these
13 things. And it shall be, as ye were a curse among the
nations, O house of Judah and house of Israel, so will I
save you, and ye shall be a blessing ; fear not, let your
hands be strong !
14 For thus saith Jahaveh of hosts, As I purposed to do
evil to you, when your fathers provoked me to anger, saith
1 5 Jahaveh of hosts, and I did not repent (it) : so have I again
purposed (or, / purpose again) in these days to do good to
16 Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. Fear not. These
are the things which ye shall do :
Speak truth each man with his companion,
Truth and judgment of peace
Judge ye in your gates.
17 And do not devise in your hearts each evil against his
companion,

lxii THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, viii. 17-ix. I.
And love not a false oath.
For all these things are what I hate,
('Tis) the utterance of Jahaveh !
18 And the word of Jahaveh of hosts was to me, saying,
19 Thus saith Jahaveh of hosts, The fast of the fourth
(month), and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the
seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house
of Judah for gladness and for joy, and for good (i.e. joyful)
seasons. Therefore truth and peace love ye.
20 Thus saith Jahaveh of hosts, It will yet be (happen)
that peoples will come, and inhabitants of many cities.
2 1 And the inhabitants of one (city) will go to another, saying,
" Let us go constantly to intreat the face of Jahaveh, and
22 to seek Jahaveh of hosts." " I will go also." And many
peoples and strong nations will go, to seek Jahaveh of hosts
at Jerusalem, and to intreat the face of Jahaveh.
23 Thus saith Jahaveh of hosts, 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 skirt of a
man (who is) a Jew, saying, " Let us go with you, for we
have heard God is with you."

CHAPTER IX.
1 The oracle of the word of Jahaveh on the land of Had-
rach,
And Damascus is its resting-place,
For to Jahaveh (will) the eye of man (be directed),
17 Codd. omit IK'S. It is not expressed in the LXX., Syr. and Arab.
20 "After DBJ' insert D»31, Codd. 2, LXX., Ar."— Davidson's Hebrew
Text Revised.
23 D^r6x. Codd. 2, DWK '3. The Versions express the *3, but it is n t
necessary to conclude that they had that reading. Cod. 1 has 1TI1V '3.
1 Two MSS. of Baer have ^Tin. Codd. 2, Wimp, see note.

THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, ix. 1-9. Ixii
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, even) 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. Si6ti i(f>p6v)jo-av o~(p6Spa.
8 Or, against the passer by and him who returneth.

Ixiv THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, ix. IO-15.
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.
1 2 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.
1 5 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. comm.
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. 1, LXX.,
Arab, read "p, instead of *?.
15 lDm. 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 (1DH1), 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. lxv
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 D37 " to you " instead of " to them; " so Syr.
2 See on this verse p. 268 and note. Codd. 13171 " 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 \ (and) before " the house of Judah." e

lxvi THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, X. 3-IO.
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 willbringthem back," or " I will place them." Both readings have the
authority of MSS. See the note, p. 276.

THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, X. IO-xi. 5. lxvii
And (place) will not be found for them.
11 And he (Jahaveh) passeth through the sea (where is)
affliction,
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.
12 And (or, For) I will strengthen them in Jahaveh,
And in his name shall they walk.
('Tis) the utterance of Jahaveh !

CHAPTER XI.
1 Open, Lebanon, thy doors,
And let the fire devour thy cedars !
2 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)
3 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.
4 Thus saith Jahaveh my God :
Feed the flock of slaughter,
5 Whose buyers slay them, and are not punished, (or, do not
feel themselves guilty),
And they who sell them, say each,
" Blessed be Jahaveh, that I am rich ! "
And as for their shepherds,
(Each) spares them not.
11 See on this verse pp. 294, ff.

lxviii 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 off 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.
15 And Jahaveh said to me, Take unto thee yet the in
strument of a foolish shepherd.
13 Codd. read D3»?M3 "by you," instead of " by them."
15 Cod. I reads the plural *?|. The plural is generally expressed by the

THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, xi. l6-xii. 3. lxix
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.
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).
Behold I am making Jerusalem a bowl of reeling to all the
peoples round about,
And also over Judah shall be (the reeling) in the siege
against Jerusalem.
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 "lMPIl, " and the scattered." On the transl. see note on p. 350.
So also Codd. n3V3ni, " and the strong."
17 See notes on p. 347 and p. 348.
2 See notes on p. 361 and p. 362.

lxx 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. 1 "]{6oi " and the Angel '," etc.
10 See note on p. 383.

THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, xii. IO-xiii. 2. lxxi
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 XIII.
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 JlDTVin, pD'Yin,
{IB-Tin. pDVnn, flD-| Tin, Cod. I pOI-lin, Vulg. Adadremmon. After Ha
dadrimmon Codd. 5 insert PD'ISD J3, but incorrectly, as this reading has crept
in from the Targum. See note 1, p. 392. Codd. 1T3D.
I On the LXX. see note on p. 409.

Ixxii THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, xiii. 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 111? after 1B>3;>\ The Targum and Kimchi seem to have
had this reading.
5 See note on p. 426.
6 See p. 427, and the note there.
7 On "my fellow," seep. 435. Baer edits TpSPrtl, perf. consecutive with
the tone on the ultimate, on the authority of MSS. and editions. Theile's text is
TDtJTll, with the accent on the penult. The word is then the ordinary perf., and
may be regarded as a perf. proph. On "the humble ones," see p. 440 and crit. comm.

THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, xiii. 9-xiv. 5. lxxiii
9 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. 731, "and all." The copula is expressed in all the versions.
Cod. 1, Syr., Targ., VBHp, "hissaints." Many MSS. VSO,"mth him;" and so
all the versions. See note on p. 479.

lxxiv THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH, xiv. 6- 1 4.
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 n3"UJ3 instead of milO. Baer has on the authority of
four MSS. pointed n3"ll?3 instead of "1JJ3, 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. lxxv
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, punishment) 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 K71 before DiVTW, and so LXX. and Syr. Codd. 2 omit the
copula, reading X7. Very many MSS. insert 73 before D'HH, " 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'SJJiTPSTlK, "all the peoples." Some
Codd. D'DJJ!T73. The verse is wanting in some copies. See on this verse the
note on p. 508.
20 See note on p. 511. For D17XD many MSS. read defectively r)7¥D.
"Codd. mult, in the sing. So the versions. Codd. D17DD. Codd. 5 ni7*DD."
Davidson.

CHAPTER I,

THE FIRST THREE VISIONS.

CHAPTER I.

Haggai'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, II — 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, 21, 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 building. 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.1
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. 1, as Baumgarten has done.

Ch- ;- i-7-l 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. 1 ; ii. 1 ; Amos. i. 1), so the prophet Zechariah styles the
visions which he saw, " the word of the Lord which came to
him." l
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.3
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
1 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 ")DSO is used ;
and comp. I Mace. viii. 31, Luke i. 63, where its equivalent, \iyiav, occurs, as
also Joseph. Antiq. xi. 4, § 7.
2 So Rosenmiiller, 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 PROPHECIES. [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 lifted 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. 1, 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 the prophets' own present,

W1- i- i-7-l 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. [Ch. 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.1 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
1 The passages are Ps. Iii. 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 which 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, § 1 ; Tac. Hist. v. 5). But see crit.
comm. In that case the construction of the words in 2 Mace, irpbs Si toijtois tu>v
vo/ufofihuv SaAXwc rod lepov, must be regarded as equal to rivas twv OaWwv tQv
tov lepov vofu^o/xivov (Vulg. qui templi esse videbantur). 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, 8a\\<2v should have been placed before twv vofugop-ivuv , and not after
it. Hence he prefers to translate the passage, with De Wette, "of the customaiy
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 his 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 ; QaKkol, 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. 11 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.1 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
1 It is strange for Hitzig to argue that the use of the article with the word
translated in our A.V., " the bottom " (but by Hitzig and Ewald, " the lent"), 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.1
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 10 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.
1 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 bitter, opposed to corruption, indicating the principle of immortality.
We consider such expositions as sacred trifling. Or that the valley represents the
kingdom of God in its outwardly depressed condition, but still under the gracious
protection of the Angel of the Lord (Hengstenberg). Or that that vale depicts
the abyss-like power of the kingdom of the world (Baumgarten). Nor can
we agree with Keil that the myrtle thicket is " undoubtedly " (which is rather

Ch. i. 8, 9.] THE FIRST VISION— THE ANGEL-RIDERS. 1 1
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 Judah, 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 Lang'e, Rosenmiiller, and others think. Lange appeals to Ps. xxiii. 4 (ver. 5 in
E.V.), and Ps. Ixxxiv. 7 (ver. 8 in E.V.) It might possibly refer to the ravine of
the fountain of Siloah (v. Hofmann, Wets. u. Erf, i. 333), if only myrtles actually
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 Virg. Georg.
ii. 112, litora myrtetis lalissima, and iv. 124, amantes litora myrti. 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 (1 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 with a
person (Num. xii. 6, 8 ; 1 Sam. xxv. 39), and even of speaking
to a person (Hos. i. 2 ; Hab. ii. 1). 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-n.] THE FIRST VISION THE ANGEL-RIDERS. 13
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 the Revelation
are represented as going forth on their different errands on
horses of four different colours (Rev. vi. 1-8). 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.1
1 In the consideration of the vision before us, we pass over the bold and original

14 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. i. 8-n.
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 chestnut 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 riders? (See crit. comm.)

Ch. i. 8-1 1.] THE FIRST VISION— THE ANGEL-RIDERS. 1 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^pll^), 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 afford
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. 17
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 Rosenmuller. 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.1
In Daniel's vision of the metallic image (Dan. ii. 31-45),
the various portions of that image denoting the four empires
1 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. [Ch. 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 rSle 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. 8.] 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, (1) 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.1 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,2 and blessings would accrue to the people of
Israel. When, therefore, the celestial riders reported that no
1 But this is somewhat doubtful. See Delitzsch's Preface to Curtiss' Levitical
Priests, and his articles on Farben-studien 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 note, passed over the
real difficulty. In the sentence D.,'!illl"73 rnBO -1X3-1 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 ? " l
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 iTb\p.T]o-e) 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 (Daniel 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. 7ff, 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 JTiptpP, or JTltpU**?, to be explained from the
Latin metator, not=/i.eTa0povos (Renan), or as the Greek fieTaripavvos (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. 1, 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 Chaldseans 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 '^ (Shaddai) the Almighty. The ablest de
fence of the view that the Angel of Jahaveh is the Logos, is to be found in
McCaul's valuable dissertation at the end of his translation of chapter i. of
Kimchis Comment, on Zechariah ; and amongst the numerous articles by Ger
man scholars, the most satisfactory perhaps is that by Delitzsch, in his Commentar
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. 1, 2 ; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 5-7 ;
2 Kings xxiv. 1 ; the second in 2 Kings xxiv. 10-15 ; 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.1
1 Dr. Talbot Chambers, in the English edition of Lange's Commentary, 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 shaandn, rendered at ease in Isa. xxxii. 9, II, '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, JIDjTb', 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.1 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.
1 BBID 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 )P, 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. 18, 19 (ii. 1, 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.1 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. on Klagelieder, iii. 53 ; Lange's
Bibelwerk). 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 Smith's Dictionary
of the Bible.

Ch. i. 18, 19 (ii. i. 2).] THE SECOND VISION — THE FOUR HORNS. 27
To the question of the prophet, " What are these ? " the
interpreting angel replied that "these are the horns which
scattered Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem."1
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 four 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. 18, 19 (ii. 1, 2).
east, and from the north the Syrians, Assyrians, and espe
cially the Chaldseans" (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,1 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 ; Egyn^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,3 that Judah is named before Israel
as occupying the higher place of honour, just as Benjamin is
named before Judah in Ps. lxviii. 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
1 See T\~\\ in Jer. xv. 7 ; Isa. xii. 16 ; Ezek. v. 2, 10, etc.
2 See his Propheten des A. B., vol. iii. p. 194, and his Dichter des Alten
Bundes, p. 424.

Ch. i. iS, 19 (ii. 1, 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 J"IN 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. 14).2 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,"
8 On the use of the flX, and the finer shades of meaning connected therewith,
see Ewald's Ausf. Lehrb., § 277 d. 2.

30 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. i. 18, 19 (ii. 1, 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.1 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. 1, 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 Jerusalem.

Ch.i. 18-21 (ii. 1-4).] THE SECOND VISION— THE FOUR SMITHS. 31
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. 1, 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.1 They cannot denote
angelic agency (an opinion alluded to with favour by Pusey),
1 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 general whereby God's pro
vidence overthrows the enemies of his people (Kohler). If the
number four 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 (1 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 ploughmen 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 "smiths!' 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. 1,2 (ii. 5,6).] THIRD VISION — THE MAN WITH THE LINE. 33
longed, by making the animals fast, and then cutting off 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. 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^-Thls,latterris"thexview of Kliefoth, D

34 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ii. 3, 4 ("• 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,1
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." a
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" (K#). Comp. Micah i. 3, IDlpDO fcW mil* rUD <3-
* 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 will 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.1 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).3 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
1 Compare, however, with Neumann, Prov. i. 4, vii. 71 ; Kings iii. 7, xii 8 ff.
2 Compare the contrast between the "IX3D "VB the fortified city, and the
'HSn 1B3, 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
ninSn yjS 7B, against the land of villages, or towns in the open or flat country
(xxxviii. 11). In Esther ix. 19, we read of the Jews who were such villagers,
(D*nsn according to the Keri, or D'tflSn, 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 (niflSn HIQ), or in the towns which lay in the
flat or open land. The throwing down of the strongholds (TI','nV5P"7>3) is threat
ened as a judgment in Mic. v. 10 (ver. 11 in E. V.). The meaning of the root
HS seems to be " to stretch out," " to make level."

36 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.1
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. Jud., 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
1 Cadytis is equivalent to the Hebrew Kadesh, the Holy, the name retained in
the Arabic name of Jerusalem, El Kuds. 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 Herodotus, vol. ii.

Ch. ii. 5-13 ("• 9-i7)-l 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. Ii. 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-

38 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ii. 6, 7 (ii. 10, 11).
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
was 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. I 10 (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.1 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 was 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
hiferis, §§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 coming of Christ in the flesh.

't)

1 The first was that of Nadinta-belus, 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. n (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.1
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
1 Stahelin, Die Messianischen Weissagungen des alien Test. pp. 11 8-9.

Ch. ii. 12 (ii. 16).] THIRD VISION— ADDRESS OF THE ANGEL 4 1
inherit (the tense is the prophetic perfect) Judah as his portion
upon (i.e. in) the holy land." The first words arp 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. lxxviii. 54). Jeru
salem is also termed the "holy city " (Isa. Hi. 1 ; Neh. xi. 1),
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, 5 1 , note — Neumann's view of
Satan, 52, note. Rebuke mentioned in Epist. of Jude, 53 — Differences between
Jude and 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, 63— 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 office 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.1 It is more in accordance with the analogy
1 Nor does the passage iri chap. 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 which it occurs, as signifying kthat 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 1 Chron. xxi. 1 ; 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 ; 1 Kings iii. 16) and the defendant (Num.
xxxv. 12 ; Deut. xix. 17 ; Josh. xx. 6).1 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. xii. 46 ; Deut. i. 38 ; 1 Kings i. 2 ;
1 Kings x. 8, etc.).
Hengstenberg is of opinion that the high priest was seen in
the sanctuary engaged in the work of his priestly office
(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

1 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 a 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 peculiar 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
(1 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." 1 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.3
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 Jewish Church, vol. iii. p. 103. Second Edition.
2 No less emphatic are other passages, such as " and they were defiled in their
own works (-IKDtQ^I) " Ps. cvi. 39. Corrip. 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.2
1 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."
2 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 whose
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. 1 1, 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 ; 1 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 which
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. 1 1— 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.1
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'i?,.
1 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 it
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. 1), 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.1 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 2 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." 3
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 tJTU corresponds with that of the woid
Messiah. 1 But see Note on the Angel of Jahaveh, on p. 21.
2 See the passages given in full in Fritzsche's Libri Apocryphi Vet. Test. Grace
(Lips. 1871), in Pra^fatio, pp. 34, 35.
The book in question is called by Origen ' AvifSao-is tov Hwaius, or, as it is

54 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iii. 1-3.
It has been also supposed that GEcumenius (in Judae ep.
Bibl. Patr. iv. p. 336) quoted from this apocryphal book ;
but this is by no means certain, for CEcumenius 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,1 who are agreed that it
was composed in the first century after Christ, if not earlier.3
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 'Aj'aXiji/'is Muxr^ws (Mwvtriws) 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 Sacrae Scripturse," and by Nicephorus 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 recept. 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.
1 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 Heidenheim, to which must be added the articles by Ewald,
(Gb'tting. 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— JOSHUA 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." l
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 destruction of Jerusalem
by Titus.
1 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 Assumptio.
Drummond in his Jewish Messiah asserts the fact as if it were not doubtful. But
Schmidt and Merx (Archiv fiir wissenschaftl. Erforschung des A.T., Bandi. 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 (Prsef. 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.
und exeg. Comm. on Jude), 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 (1) 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 CEcumenius 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. 57
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 Afford, 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,1 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. 2
'Junius, as quoted, in Poli Synopsis, refers to 2 Mace. xv. 12 as an instance
in point, where he says that use is made of the expression ' ' the body of the Jews "
(corpus JudjEorum) for the Jewish people. But the phrase in 2 Mace. xv. 12 is
tOsv 'lovSalav o-io-TTj/ia, which is certainly no parallel to the tou Murius <rdp.a of Jude.
2 Dr. M. Heidenheim in an interesting article in his Viertdjahrschri.fi, Band iv.
(Zurich, 1871), entitled " Beitrage zu bessern Verstandnissder 'Ascensio Moysis,'"
considers St. Jude to refer to some tradition which was afterwards incorporated
with " the Assumption of Moses." The real origin of the legend or tradition must,
he thinks, be ascribed to a general allegorical interpretation of Zech. iii. The
filthy garments of Joshua were, according to this interpretation, explained to repre
sent tlie body of man, which, as it has been defiled by sin, must be changed into the
new body of the resurrection. The action of Satan in Zech. was explained as an
attempt to hinder the resurrection of man. The contest might veiy naturally be
supposed to have occurred with reference to the body of Moses, more especially
on account of the statement that the Lord buried him (Deut. xxxiv. 6). The
language of St. Paul about the "body of sin" (Rom. vi. 6) and " the body of
death" (Rom. vii. 24), as well as his expressions in I Cor. xv. 43, are in accordance
with such an explanation. Heidenheim might also have added to his Pauline
references 2 Cor. v. 1-4. Note the view of Baumgarten given above, pp. 58, 59.

58 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iii. 1-3.
Baumgarten cannot then be wrong in maintaining that
Jude must have had the passage of Zechariah in view when
he wrote his epistle. Baumgarten does not indeed assert that
the subject of contention narrated by the Old Testament
prophet and by the New Testament apostle are to be viewed
as identical ; but he rightly maintains that both cases at
least fall under one law. No higher proof could be given
of the inviolability of the law of God, and that that law
knew no respect of persons, than the fact that Moses the law
giver had himself to die. The death of Moses was indeed a
triumph of Satan, who through sin had brought death into
the world (Rom. v. 12), and of whom the writer of the Epistle
to the Hebrews (ii. 14) speaks as having "the power of
death." If he, to whom God had spoken face to face as a
man speaketh to his friend (Exod. xxxiii. 11 ; Num. xii. 6-8),
whose face had often shone with the glory of the Lord
(Exod. xxxiv. 29), who had twice in the presence of Divine
Majesty fasted forty days and forty nights (Exod. xxiv. 18 ;
xxxiv. 28) — if such a man fell at last under the curse of
death, and had to die like the other Israelites in the wilder
ness without having been permitted to tread the land of
promise, there was much to favour the idea that Satan, the
Adversary of Israel, and not God the Redeemer of Israel,
had gained the victory. To prevent such a conclusion being
arrived at, Jahaveh himself buried Moses, and concealed
the place of his sepulture (Deut. xxxiv. 6). Thus the
assurance was given to Israel that even in a case where
the great enemy had done his worst, and Satan seemed
to win the day, the Divine power at last intervened, and
wrested the victory from the Evil One. By burying the body
of Moses, the Lord delivered it from the power of Satan,
and declared that the Evil One had no more claim over it.
The passage of Zechariah exhibited to Jude the mode in
which a similar result was brought about by God. In that

Ch. iii. 1-3.] FOURTH VISION. — JOSHUA BEFORE THE ANGEL. 59
passage Joshua the high priest was exhibited as placed in a
position similar to that of Moses, that is, exposed like him to
the power of the great Adversary. Who could save from ruin
the high priest, discovered on the most solemn occasion, in
the presence of Jahaveh, clad in filthy garments, with the
enemy at his right hand to charge him with the guilt which
was in itself so terribly apparent ? But if Joshua the high
priest had been condemned, Israel must also have been con
demned with him, and the Adversary would have gained his
desire, namely, the destruction of the whole people of God.
As by an exercise of Divine grace and love the impending
ruin was averted in the case of Joshua, so, according to Baum
garten, did Jude consider the great Archangel to have dealt
with the Adversary in earlier days, when with words of like
rebuke he hindered that Evil One from wreaking his vengeance
on the body of the great lawgiver of Israel. It must not be
forgotten that the special object for which this instance is
cited in the Epistle of Jude is to show how lofty dignity
even in its utter ruin was respected by angels, and the very
same object would have been attained by a quotation from
the Old Testament prophet. Why then should the apostle
have gone out of his way to quote either Jewish tradition
or some recent Jewish book ? Why should he not rather
have quoted the instance from the book of Zechariah which
must have been present to his mind ? All this tends to con
firm the opinion that the passage in Zechariah was really that
cited by Jude. That the enemy was merely rebuked and not
destroyed proved that the vengeance which was to be meted
out to him was to be executed in God's good time and in God's
own way. On the other hand, the people of Israel had been
chosen by an act of God's free love (Deut. iv. 37, vii. 7, 8,
x. 15 ; 2 Chron. vi. 6; Ps. cxxxii. 13, etc.), and, because they
were thus chosen, God would fully accomplish his work of love,
and re-establish them in spite of their sin and rebellion.

60 ZECHARIAH AND. HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iii. 4.
For Joshua appeared in the vision of Zechariah as the
representative of Israel, and what was done to him was a
type of what God purposed to do to his people. The Ad
versary was rebuked, because what he desired to see accom
plished was opposed to the gracious purposes of Almighty
love. Israel as a people were not to be abandoned to the
consequences of their sins. They were to have an opportunity
afforded them to exhibit the works which were " meet " to
follow such an exhibition of Divine grace and love. The
priests, in the person of Joshua, were to be exhorted to ob
serve in future the laws and ordinances of their God. "For
the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek
the law at his mouth : for he is the messenger of the Lord of
hosts" (Mai. ii. 7). Unfaithfulness to their privileges and
blessings might indeed at last change those blessings into a
curse (Mai. ii. 2). The close connection between the warnings
addressed to the priests of Israel by the prophets Zechariah
and Malachi, and the solemn fact that when the great
Messenger of the Covenant came unto his own, his work was
opposed specially by the members of that priesthood, his
sacred person treated with contumely, and he himself at last
delivered over to a shameful death, is a point, however inter
esting, which can only be glanced at here.
The vision of Zechariah did not close with the rebuke which,
put to shame the Adversary of Israel. The guilt of which
Satan had accused the high priest and his nation had to be
entirely removed. Hence, by an exercise of Divine grace,
the filthy garments were taken off from the high priest, and he
was clothed with a change of raiment. The prophet could
not fail to see in this action a picture of God's pardon granted
to Israel in the person of its high priest, or to learn thereby a
lesson of God's love to an undeserving but ransomed people.
The Angel of Jahaveh at once commanded the ministering
angels, who (whether visible or not) are always considered to

Ch. iii. 4, 5.] FOURTH VISION.— JOSHUA BEFORE THE ANGEL. 61
be present and ready to execute the will of God, to " take
away the filthy garments " from Joshua.
Ewald understands by these words that the angel com
manded the ministering priests in attendance on the high
priest to perform the required office. But no such priests
were alluded to in the vision, nor were priests always in
attendance on the high priest of Israel. On the contrary, in
the most solemn function which that high priest had to
perform, he was quite unattended. Alone, and clothed not in
his gorgeous garments, but in holy garments of plain white
linen, such as Joshua should have worn, the high priest
entered once every year into the holy place, as well as into
the holiest of all (Lev. xvi. 17). l
No absolute proof can, indeed, be given that the word
rendered correctly in our Authorised Version "change of
raiment," indicates specifically high-priestly robes. The
exact word (JTfiPnQ) used in this passage only occurs in one
other place (Isa. iii. 22), though a synonyme from the same
root ( rTCvn ) occurs elsewhere in the sense of " spoils "
stripped from the slain (Jud. xiv. 19 ; 1 Sam. ii. 2ih The
word may mean festal robes, or robes of honour ; it may also
mean only change of raiment. The context alone can decide.
The Arabic equivalent (3*1^) is used not only for such
robes of honour, but also for any garment which a man
pulls off or takes off, from himself (see Lane's Arab. Eng.
Lexicon, s. v.). Nor has the expression which occurs in
ver. 5, and is rendered in our Authorised Version, " a fair
mitre," any necessary connection with the " mitre " worn
1 Hitzig notes that Ewald would refer the suffix in V337, "before him," in
ver. 8, to Joshua. But he rightly objects to this, because the reference to the subject
ot |1?*1, " and he answered," lies so much nearer, while if the he in |1P1, " and he
answered," is to be regarded as referring to a. different person from the him in
V3S7, "before him," the writer to avoid ambiguity should have written >]3?
K^lil*, i.e. "before Joshua." But Hitzig adds, somewhat incongruously, "when
one, who is not expressly named, gives a command to servants, one naturally
expects that it is to his own servants, not to those of others."

62 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iii. 5:
by the high priest. It certainly indicates more than a mere
ordinary turban, something more akin to that worn by
princes and kings. x At the same time, when we re
member that the adjective "fair" 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
iwork 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 mitre which he wore on other
occasions, the plate of gold with the inscription " Holiness to
1 See Job xxix. 14 where the word (fpX) seems to mean a diadem, as in
Isa. lxii. 3, where the Keri has S^y but the text t)-13y not P)UX 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 fem. HB^V.

Ch. iii. 5:] FOURTH VISION. — JOSHUA BEFORE THE ANGEL. 63
the Lord '' was directed to be placed (Exod. xxviii. 36, 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.1 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
1 Von Hofmann strangely imagines that the angel intended that Joshua's head
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 >• thought here 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. 1, ix. 15), because the
verb judge (fl) 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 away 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 between can scarcely
mean " out of the number of," seems fatal to this interpreta
tion.1 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.2 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 (1 Sam. xviii. 16 ; 1 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. 1 1), even between them that stand in God's immediate
presence (1 Kings xxii. 19). This does not mean, as Hitzig
imagines, that, in the restored commonwealth of Israel, the
1 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 afforded, 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-
1 Von Hofmann's translation "walkers, " 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.
2 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 soul in heaven, while his body was on
this earth."

Ch. iii. 8.] FOURTH VISION — JOSHUA BEFORE THE ANGEL. 6j
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. 18 ;
1 Chron. xvii. 16 ; 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. 1), and of the elders of Israel who often came to
converse with and receive instruction from the prophet
Ezekiel.1 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
1 Ezek. viii. 1, xiv. 1, xx. 1, 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
Lhe 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 sign, 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,

70 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 CpJH) 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 " (npi) 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 (!T)iT PTDS) Jahaveh be beautiful
and glorious for them that are escaped of Israel." The
same idea (though the words are different) recurs in Isa. xi. 1,
where the Messiah is described as the rod (itin) which was
to come from the trunk of the tree of Jesse, and the shoot
("12JJ1) 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 (flDS
pH2J), 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 (iljrTC Tim ivb rTCttN), 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" (TOS ,<rI4A?) may be a remi
niscence of the expression in Ezekiel, " my servant David "
(TV7 '''7?^, 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 holies 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
Marck) 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, Weis. und Erf., i. p. 341; Stahelin, Mess.
Weiss., pp. 1 19-120) can scarcely be reconciled with the precise

Ch. iii. 9.] FOURTH VISION — JOSHUA BEFORE THE ANGEL. 73
expression used in verse 9, " one stone " (JTJN pN" bjf). Von
Hofmann altered his opinion in his Schriftbeweis (ii., 1, 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 ; 1 Cor. iii. 1 1 ; Eph. ii. 20-22 ; 1 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. 1 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. g.
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. 2.1 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
1 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

76 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 (iTIlT).
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. 38, 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." l
The " one day," on which such emphasis is here laid, is
most easily explained as identical with the " once " (e<paira%)
so often emphasized in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb.
1 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 regards 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, 10.] FOURTH VISION— JOSHUA BEFORE THE ANCEL. 77
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
like 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 (WnrvyiNn). But
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

78 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iii. 10.
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, 81 — Formed on the basis of the candlestick
of the Tabernacle, 81 — 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, 100 — 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.1 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," 2 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
1 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.
2 Kohler's translation, "And seven were the number of its lamps which were
upon it," is scarcely defensible. For Hitzig's suggested emendation see crit.
comm. G

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. Iii. 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 (1 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.1
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
1 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 candlestick 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 Authorised
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 pitchers 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 two 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, they
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 vision1 stood two wonderful olive
trees, on which were two fruit-bearing branches, from the
1 In the woodcut given above, the reservoir or bowl (73. n72) is repre
sented (marked I ) as above the candlestick ( FIB'fcOvB ) verse 2. The two chan
nels (ni")HJV), verse 12, are marked 4, 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 ( JTipy-ID, verse 2), marked
respectively by the number 4, which pipes conveyed the oil directly to the seven
lamps (verse 2) marked 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 fortnmg 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.i-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 (see 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
seen.

86 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 offered
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 offerings 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

Ch. iv. 1-3.] 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 symbolical 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

88 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. 1). 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. Iii. 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
1 The 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 (f) and Tsadde (X) 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 X of the word 7S, 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-ell ' 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 "OH). But in effect
it is a reduplication of the ' b,' as the K 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.i-3-] FIFTH VISION — THE GOLDEN CANDLESTICK. 91
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. lxvi. 21).1
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
1 See Delitzsch's remarks in his Comment, on Isaiah, on this latter passage,
which has sometimes been erroneously explained to refer to the restored Israelites.
See also on this text Curtiss' Levitical Priests, p. 130, and p. 205 ff.

Ch. iv. 1-3, II-I4-] FIFTH VISION — GOLDEN CANDLESTICK. 93
merely to represent Zerubbabel and Joshua, whose united
efforts to procure the restoration of the Jewish State and
temple were so important at that time to the restored Jewish
colony. It had no doubt in the first place a special reference
to those leaders of the people. But the prophecy reached
farther than to them. Nor did it merely depict the Jewish
civil and ecclesiastical authorities of later days in their re
lation to the Jewish Church. The prophetic vision reached
forward to Messianic days, and, as was correctly seen by
Cyrill of Alexandria, represented the Jews and Gentiles
jointly aiding and sustaining the light of truth. Kliefoth
has, therefore, rightly regarded the two olive trees to re-
present Israel and the Gentile Church. The true believers
in each portion are represented by the two^fruit-bearing
branches on the two distinct olive trees. St. Paul, in his
Epistle to the Romans, represents the Jews and Gentiles under
the same figure of two olive trees (Rom. xi. 17, 24), though he
represents the latter as a "wild olive." The same idea is
probably conveyed in the book of the Revelation (xi. 4),
where, in language, plainly borrowed from Zechariah's vision,
the two witnesses, who may, perhaps, symbolize the Jewish
and Gentile believers, faithful to truth amid the apostasy
in the outward Church which is there predicted, are repre
sented as "the two olive trees and the two candlesticks
standing before the God of the earth."
The vision thus prefigures, indeed, the realization of the
great objects which the pious Jews of Zechariah's time had so
much at heart, the completion of the temple building and the
restoration of the temple worship. But it also looks forward
to a better era, when by reason of the atonement achieved by
him who is called " Branch," " the Branch of the Lord," " the
Servant of Jahaveh," both Jew and Gentile alike should be
redeemed, and should no longer worship in a confined sanc
tuary, but in the wide sanctuary of the earth. Jew and

94 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iv. 6.
Gentile together would worship him who is a spirit " in spirit
and in truth," standing alike before God as kings and priests,
presenting their bodies as living sacrifices, holy, acceptable
unto God, which is their reasonable service (Rom. xii. 10),
holding forth the light of truth to the world. The vision of
Zechariah (as Kliefoth has observed) teaches the same truth
in different language, which is set forth by the prophet Malachi
at a somewhat later period. In the prophecy of the latter
prophet, however, instead of the candlesticks of the holy
place being referred to, allusion is made to the offering up
of the incense and to the presentation of the minchah, or
bloodless offering, both of which had to be presented in the
sanctuary. " For from the rising up of the sun even unto
the going down of the same my name shall be great among
the nations ; and in every place incense shall be offered unto
my name, and a pure offering ; for my name shall be great
among the nations, saith Jahaveh of hosts " (Mai. i. ii).
With this general view of the object of the vision itself, we
turn to consider the cheering words of Jahaveh communicated
by the interpreting angel to Zechariah, in order that he
might in turn encourage Zerubbabel and his fellow worker's
in the prosecution of their work on the temple of the Lord.
The interpreting angel bid the prophet in effect observe
that the kingdoms of the earth really belonged to the Lord
and that he was the governor among the nations (Ps. xxii. 29,
ver. 28 in the English version). The exiles of Judah would
be successful if they followed the commandments of their
God. The Spirit of God had raised up from among the
people two prophets, one of them at least belonging to the
priestly order, in order that thepeople might be stirred up
to perform the good work of building again the temple of
Jahaveh. The total absence of all political independence,
which was such a trial to the Jewish colony, together with the
avowed hate of their numerous adversaries on every side,

Ch. iv. 7-] FIFTH VISION— THE GOLDEN CANDLESTICK. 95
should not keep Zerubbabel from boldly prosecuting the
work which was given to him to perform. Zerubbabel was,
indeed, a pasha of the great king of Persia, who was wont
proudly to assert that "all the kingdoms of the earth" (2 Chron.
xxxvi. 23) were given into his hand ; but Zerubbabel was
also a servant of the true " King of kings," and as such he was,
in doing this work for God, to take as his watchword, " Not
by power, nor by might, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of
hosts." The God of Israel designed to make his people " a
light to lighten the Gentiles," and the glorious light of the
lamps of the golden candlestick, which the prophet had seen
in his vision, might serve to teach him the lesson that what
God purposed would surely come to pass.
In the expression that follows, "Who art thou, O great
mountain? before Zerubbabel become a plain," we cannot
accept the novel explanation of Pressel, that an allusion was
made to the great rock out of which the stones had been
already quarried for the foundations of the temple, which
rock or mountain was destined to be reduced to a level plain
by its stones being made use of in the building of the temple.
Far better is the view given by Ewald, namely, that the moun
tain spoken of by the angel was simply a figurative expres
sion for the various difficulties placed in the way of the
temple-building. Or even that of Hitzig, that the " moun
tain " was a symbol of the world-power which was at that
time opposed to the reconstruction of the sacred edifice of the
Jews. The latter interpretations derive much support from
the imagery made use of by Isaiah in a well-known passage,
which must often have been repeated by the exiles who came
back to their desolated homes, " Comfort ye, comfort ye my
people, saith your God. . . . The voice of him that crieth
in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Jahaveh, make
straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley
shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made

96 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iv. 7.
low : and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough
places plain " (Isa. xl. 1, 3, 4).1
Nor can we forget that when the great Messiah rebuked his
disciples for their want of faith, he made use of similar words :
" Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard
seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to
yonder place ; and it shall remove ; and nothing shall be im
possible unto you " (Matt. xvii. 20). And when, during the
last week of Christ's work on earth, his disciples marvelled at
the withering away of the barren fig tree (which was a fit
type of the drying up and death of the barren fig tree of
Israel), Christ, with a vivid anticipation of the victory which
his Church would obtain, pointed towards the mountain on
which the gorgeous temple adorned by Herodian art was then
standing — the temple cleansed the day before, but probably
again desecrated — -and exclaimed, " Verily I say unto you
if ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this
which is done unto the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this
mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea,
it shall be done" (Matt. xxi. 2i).3 That mountain was re
moved, the hindrance which its continued existence opposed
to the spread of Christ's religion was cast down, and rolled
into the sea of the nations. Not for the first or for the last
time did faith remove mountains (1 Cor. xiii. 2). "This is the
victory that overcometh the world, even our faith" (1 John iv.4).
1 R. Salomo-ben-Yizhak, or Rashi, interprets the mountain here spoken of to
indicate the opposition raised by Tatnai, Shethar-boznai and their companions to
the building of the temple by the Jews. See Ezra iv. and v. 3 ff.
2 Lightfoot has observed (Horae Heb. in loco) that a similar expression was used
in the schools of the Jews, in which men distinguished for their deep learning and
splendid virtues were spoken of as " tearers up " or " removers of mountains."
See the instances cited by him. Wiinsche, in his Neue Beitrdge zur Erlduterung
der Evang. aus Talm. u. Midrasch, quotes another passage, "Samuel said, If
the Government says, pluck up mountains C"l1t2 fcOlpl?) i.e. when it demands
something extraordinary and impossible, then pluck up mountains ClltS ~\pV), for
it will not take back its word." But this phrase is not to be found in the place in
the Talmud to which Wiinsche refers. See also Lange's excellent remarks on
this passage (Matt. xxi. 21) in his Bibelwerk.

Ch. iv. 7-9.] FIFTH VISION — THE GOLDEN CANDLESTICK. 97
The word of Jahaveh delivered to the priest-prophet
was not, however, entirely expressed in figurative language ;
Zerubbabel was informed in plain language that, as his hands
had laid the foundation-stone, so his hands should place the
topstone on the completed building. That topstone should be
reared and placed in its right position by his own hands amid
the loud acclamations of a rejoicing people. Shoutings of
" grace, grace unto it," should rend the air, as the stone was
being raised to its proper position in the edifice, " all favour
from God unto it, redoubled favour, grace upon grace" (Pusey).
Such should be the loud exclamations of the people on the
occasion, praying that the work accomplished should have a
blessing from on high, inasmuch as it had been begun and
completed under the gracious power of Jahaveh.1
Zerubbabel was to have the honour, as a son of David, not
only of commencing but of finishing the work. This was t
stated by the angel in these words : " The hands of Zerub- 1
babel have laid the foundation of this house, and his hands 1
shall also finish it ; that thou mayest know that Jahaveh of \
hosts hath sent me unto you." By the fulfilment of this
promise, Zechariah would have a distinct proof that the inter
preting angel had been commissioned by Jahaveh to announce
this prophecy unto him (LXX. 71-009 ae), and through him
unto Israel. Compare chap. ii. 13, 15. (Kohler.)
The words that follow (verse 10) have been very differently
translated and explained. On the translations of the ancient
versions, see our crit. comm. That of Our Authorised Version,
though differing from them in details, agrees so far as that it
does not make the seven eyes of Jahaveh the subject of the verb
"rejoice," which, however, is the preferable translation. Ewald,
1 The Targum thinks that the Messiah is here predicted, and so Pusey and
others. The Messiah is called !"I|S, the corner-stone, used as a foundation
(Isaiah xxviii. 16), also n|S tJ>&TI (Vs. cxviii. 22), but not as here ntWin pKH,
the stone which crowns the building. H

98 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iv. 10.
whom Bunsen follows, renders the passage thus : "For they
who have despised the day of small things, they will rejoice
and see the lead-stone in the hand of Zerubbabel ; these
seven are the eyes of Jahaveh roaming through (durchstreif-
end) the whole earth." He strangely explains it thus : those
who mocked at the day when the foundation of the temple
was laid under weak beginnings, would yet with joy behold in
the hand of Zerubbabel the corner stone adorned with the
leaden inscription (comp. Job xix. 23).
Apart from the critical difficulties connected with this
translation, especially as respects the rendering and interpre
tation of the words rendered " the lead-stone," which transla
tion we hold, with Hitzig and Kohler, to be incorrect, con
sidered from a grammatical point of view (see crit. comm.),
there is another point which must be noticed, namely, that this
rendering identifies the stone mentioned in the former vision
with the corner stone mentioned in this, for which identifi
cation no evidence can be adduced. The Hebrew expression
cannot signify a stone into which lead has been molten,
but must mean a stone the substance of which is lead, and,
therefore, is correctly explained in our Authorised Version by
" the plummet."
The most probable translation is that given by Hitzig, Keil,
Pusey, etc., in accordance with the Masoretic accentuation,
taking the pronoun as interrogative : " For who hath despised
the day of small things ? And [i.e. seeing that] these have
rejoiced, and seen the plummet in the hands of Zerubbabel,
these seven, the Eyes of Jahaveh, they are running to and
fro in all the earth." The answer to the question was ex
pected in the negative. No one who seeks to perform or ac
complish anything great ever does despise the day of small
things (Keil). The words that follow signify that the Seven
Eyes of the Lord which run to and fro in all the earth had
already rejoiced to behold the plummet in the hands of-Zerub-

Ch. iv. 10.] FIFTH VISION — THE GOLDEN CANDLESTICK. 99
babel. But if the Spirit of the living God, who saw all things
and knew all that was done, rejoiced to behold Zerubbabel
performing that work which he aroused him to undertake, the
people of the Lord had good reason likewise to rejoice.
" The day of small things " was no doubt understood by
the hearers of the prophet to refer to the circumstances under
which the rebuilding of the temple was begun. When the
foundation stone of that second temple was laid, though the
young men, who had not beheld the glory of the first temple,
rent the air with their shouts of joy, there arose at the same
time loud wailings on the part of the old men that had seen
the first house in its glory (Ezra iii. 12, 13). The day of
great things, on the other hand, was that which was looked
for when the house of the Lord should be fully restored and
sanctified (Kohler).
It may be urged against this interpretation, that the days
which saw the temple building actually completed were as
dark and gloomy as those that saw its foundation laid. That,
therefore, the day of small things refers to the whole time
from the days of Darius until the coming of the Messiah, who
first would accomplish great things (Keil). In a certain sense
this is no doubt true, but the day which was then looked for
ward to with earnest longing was the day when the restora
tion of the temple should be completed ; and although the
political condition of the Jewish people was not very different
in the sixth year of Darius, when the house of God was duly
dedicated, from their condition in the second year of Darius,
that dedication festival was indeed a day of great things and
was kept with great joy (Ezra vi. 14-22). This is the only
natural sense in which to understand the words of. the vision.
It is not impossible that some of the expressions made use
of in this vision may be taken in a wider meaning and with a
deeper signification. We have already pointed out this fact
in connection with the mention of thfe two olive trees that

IOO ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iv. 10.
! supplied the oil required for the golden candlestick. But the
main object and end of this vision seems to have been to cheer
and inspirit the Jews who had already begun the work of
rebuilding the temple, and who, amid the constant opposition
they met with in their work, needed Divine consolation and
encouragement to induce them to prosecute that work unto its
end. It is unnecessary to seek special references to Messianic
days in all the phrases which the prophet uses with reference
to the things of his own day, the literal meaning of which
could scarcely be mistaken by his countrymen whom he
addressed. " Who is there left among you that saw this house in its
first glory, and how do ye see it now ? Is it not in your
eyes in comparison of it as nothing ? " (Hag. ii. 3). So spake
the prophet Haggai, of the second temple, in "the day of small
things." Haggai appears to have regarded the first advent
of the Messiah as nearer than it really was. As St. Paul
seems to have expected, at one time at least, the second
advent to occur in his own day, so Haggai speaks of Mes
sianic days as closely connected with the restoration of the
temple. The prophet was permitted to see by faith the glory
that should be revealed in the second time, though the day
of the manifestation of that glory was more distant than he
imagined. With reference to the days of the Messiah, Haggai
predicted : " The latter glory of this house " (this is the cor
rect rendering, and not "the glory of the latter rfouse") "shall
be greater than the former (glory), and in this place will I
give peace, saith Jahaveh of hosts " (Hag. ii. 9). x
1 This is the rendering of Hitzig, Ewald, Kohler and Keil. If the adjective
"latter" qualified the noun "house," the pronoun in the Hebrew would, as Hitzig
has correctly noted, have been placed after that adjective and not before it, as in
this verse. The distance of the adjective from the word " glory" is no objection to
this construction. For that noun is in the const, state, and the adjective follows
the genitive by which the noun is conditioned, Comp. 2 Sam. xxiii. 1 ; Isa.
xxxvi. 9 ; see Ewald, § 2,89 a.

Ch. iv. 10.] FIFTH VISION — THE GOLDEN CANDLESTICK. IOI
Notwithstanding the great difficulties which beset the
rebuilding of the second temple, and the political perplexi
ties in which the Jewish people were involved, that temple
had a glory far higher than that possessed by the temple
erected by Solomon. Its courts were trodden by the long-
expected Messiah, his voice was often heard within its walls.
If that temple was indeed destined to be destroyed by the
hands of the destroyer, and its candlestick to be carried away
by the Romans among the spoils of its holy places, the light
of the symbolical candlestick was extinguished only in order
that the light from the true candlestick (whose lamps were
fed and supplied by the oil from the two olive trees of Jewish
and Gentile Christianity) might shine forth the more brightly
among the nations. Even in the days of its political insigni
ficance, one might almost say of its non-existence as a nation,
Israel was ever the " priestly nation," the " royal people " in
the loftiest sense of that term. While art and philosophy and
literature came from the Greeks, and the Romans tamed the
spirit of fierce nations by their laws, as they had subdued
them by their arms, the Jews, who before Christ came were as
lights shining amid the spiritual darkness of the world, have
through the religion of Christ (which was first preached to
the Jews and then by Jews to the nations) proved themselves
to be the real priests of the world.

CHAPTER IV.

THE SIXTH VISION— THE FLYING ROLL AND THE
WOMAN IN THE EPHAH.

CHAPTER IV.

Vision of the flying roll, 105 — The curse, 105 — Its dimensions, 105 — Meaning of
its size, 106 — Opinion of Hitzig, Pressel, etc., 106 — Supposed reference to the
porch of the temple of Solomon, 107 — The dimensions those of the Holy Place
of the tabernacle, 107 — Significance of this fact, 107 — The measure of the
sanctuary, 107 — Connections of the fourth, fifth, and sixth visions, 107, 120 —
The whole land, 108 — Thieves and perjurers, 109 — Jews transformed into a com
mercial people, 109 — The sins of commerce, 109 — The cleansing of the land,
no — Punishments for sin, no — The ephah appearing to the prophet, in — The
talent-weight, not a leaden cover of the ephah, III — Objections to that view,
112 — The woman sitting in the ephah, 112 — "Wickedness" and her instru
ments, 113 — " This is their eye," 113 — Different views, 114 — Ewald's render
ing, 114 — Objections to his translation, 114 — Real meaning of the phrase, 115
— The woman and the talent-weight, 115 — Her punishment by the angel, 116 —
Her rescue from destruction, 117 — The stork- winged women, 117 — Their signi
ficance, 117 — Pressel's view, 118 — The land of Shinar and the land of Israel,
118 — Christ as the Purifier of his people, 119 — General import of the vision, 120.

CHAPTER IV.
THE SIXTH VISION — THE FLYING ROLL AND THE WOMAN
IN THE EPHAH.
The vision of the flying roll and that of the woman in the
ephah are so closely connected, as to form properly but one
vision, though some scholars have regarded them as being
two. The arguments adduced on behalf of the latter opinion
do not, however, appear to us satisfactory. The two visions
together form a striking picture of the result of sin, and the
end of transgression.
A roll was first beheld by the prophet flying in the air. It
was of strange and unnatural dimensions. On it were in
scribed the awful curses denounced against transgressors. It
is probable, as Pressel thinks, that the curses referred to
were those pronounced by Moses (Deut. xxviii. 15, ff), and
afterwards alluded to in the singular as " the curse " (Deut.
xxx. 1), although the word rendered "the curse" in the
passage of the law and in the writing of the prophet are not
identical. The opinion of Pressel, however, is not capable of
any proof. If correct, the roll seen by the prophet was the roll
of the law.
The dimensions of the roll, which was seen* as expanded and
not rolled together, appeared to the prophet to be twenty cubits
long and ten cubits broad. Hitzig considers that it was so
large because it was represented as containing the whole sum
of the Divine curses.1 Something more than enormous size
1 He remarks the dimensions given are more suitable to its having been seen
rather in the form of a book than in that of a roll, and suggests that it may have
been seen as written on papyrus with leaves, though the latter are not mentioned.

106 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. v. 1-7.
(Kohler) seems to be intimated by the special dimensions
given. Pressel (after Marck) thinks that the roll was thus
represented as bearing in its outlines the appearance of the
Holy Land, the proportions in length and breadth being
identical, though the roll had those proportions in a reduced
size. Still more fanciful is the idea of Jerome that these
numbers indicate the age at which our Lord commenced his
-public ministry, i.e. thirty years or 2"+ to. The dimen
sions assigned to the roll are those of the porch of the temple
of Solomon (1 Kings vi. 3), and the Jewish expositor Kimchi
and others have considered that there is a reference here to
that place. For the porch of that temple, as Hengstenberg
observes, was the outer part of the temple proper, and was
the place where God was supposed to enter into intercourse
with his people, even as Solomon judged the people of Israel
in the hall of his palace (1 Kings vii. 6). Hence before that
porch, in the outer court of the priests, stood the altar of
burnt offering, and there " between the porch and the altar,"
priests and people in times of public calamity were wont
together to entreat the mercy of the Lord (Joel ii. 17). Inas
much, therefore, as the roll had the dimensions of that porch,
the judgment pronounced in it was represented as the result of
the theocracy.
Von Hofmann considers that Joshua was represented in the
fourth vision as standing before the Angel of Jahaveh in the
holy of holies. He supposes that the scene of the fifth vision
was laid in the holy place, and that of the present vision in the
porch of the temple. While agreeing with v. Hofmann gene
rally as to the special localities in which the fourth and the fifth
visions were exhibited to the prophet, it appears to us that,
For as Egypt belonged, in the days of Zechariah, to the Persian empire, the
customs of that country were known to strangers. As, however, no mention is
made of the thickness of the book, and as moreover it is represented as flying,
Hitzig concludes that it is more correct to regard it as one leaf, and thus to ex
plain its extraordinary size, and that an actual roll was seen by the prophet.

Ch. v. 1-3.] THE SIXTH VISION— THE FLYING ROLL. 107
if the vision under consideration was to be regarded as seen
in the porch of the temple, some more definite intimation
would have been given than the fact that the dimensions
of the roll were identical with those of the porch of the
temple. As no distinct proof can be adduced that the porch of the
temple had any special symbolical meaning (though its dimen
sions were perhaps borrowed from the Mosaic tabernacle),
it is better to regard the dimensions of the flying roll as refer
ring to the holy place of that tabernacle. The roll is not to be
considered, however, as coming forth from the holy place, and
as, therefore, of the same size, in order to signify that the
curse came from the sanctuary where Jahaveh was enthroned
(Isa. lxvi. 6). It would be strange if the fact that the roll
corresponded in size with the sanctuary were sufficient to
indicate that it came forth from the sanctuary itself. Kliefoth
seems to have assigned the true reason for the roll having
the dimensions of the sanctuary, namely, that the measure
wherewith sin was to be measured was the measure of the
sanctuary, and hence "the curse" commences first at the
house of God (comp. Ezek. ix. 6; and 1 Pet. iv. 17). Men
are not to be judged as to sin by their own measures or
weighed in their own false balances. The measure of the
sanctuary is that by which actions are to be weighed
(1 Sam. ii. 3).
In the fourth vision the cleansing of the priesthood (and of
the people whom they represented) had been set forth. They
had been pardoned and justified by Divine grace. The
golden candlestick of the sanctuary as represented in the 1
fifth vision, once more, therefore, shed forth its bright and I
glorious light. The light of good works had been exhibited
by the people of God, after that the grace of God had been
displayed towards them. The sixth vision represents sin
itself as condemned, and all wicked doers, persisting in their

108 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. v. 3-.
ungodliness, as "cleansed away,"1 and cutoff from the city of
the Lord " (Psalm ci. 8). The transgressors that still ventured
to remain among the people of God should be consumed by
the curse ; against them should the anger of the Lord wax
hot, the curses should lie upon such (Deut. xxix. 20,21), and
sin should not find any more an abiding place among the
congregation of Jahaveh.
The curse is represented as going forth " over the face of
the whole land," or " earth," as it is rendered in our Author
ised Version. The latter meaning has been defended by
several commentators, but it does not appear to be appro
priate here. For as " thejand " is contrasted with the " land
of Shinar " mentioned at the close of the vision, the land of
Israel must bereiexEedtp.3

1 The verb nj?3 is here the niphal. The piel is alike in form. The probable
meaning of the root is to carve out, to hollow, then to be empty, to be pure. Hence
the niphal is used in the sense of to be pure, free from fault, followed by \1p,
Luther has taken it here in this meaning, translating, " for all thieves shall accord
ing to this letter be pronounced pious" (werden fromm gesprochen). That is,
it is a curse upon the land that theft and perjury are regarded no more as crying
evils, nor as deserving of punishment. Similarly. Syr. But this is evidently- not
the meaning. The modern critics rightly render it, shall be cleared or cleansed
away. The verb is used of a city being emptied of its inhabitants, i.e., laid waste
and ruined (Isa. iii. 26). The Arabic verb occurs in this signification in the Xth
conj., as Gesenius notes. The verb here may be employed in the sense of
being rendered solitary, emptied of society, driven out of communion (Fiirst),
or as signifying extirpated (Gesenius). It has probably the signification of
cleansing away, as the Greek Kaffaplfa in Mark vii. 19, as Pusey suggests, or
as iKKadalpu, in 1 Cor. v. 7, as Pressel has given. On the ancient versions,
see crit. comm. The verb is nowhere else used in this signification. Hence
it is strange that Dr. Pusey should remark that Gesenius had missed "the
moral meaning of the Hebrew word " by his translation. Dr. Pusey's references
to I Kings xiv. 10, xxi. 21, Deut. xiii. 6 (verse 5 in E.V.), etc., may mislead
some, inasmuch as the word used in those passages is not identical with that
here found. Those passages, however, illustrate the sense.
2 But it does not follow (as Rosenmiiller thinks) that the prophecy refers to the
captivity in Babylon which had terminated, or that it predicts, as Hengstenberg
seems to imagine, the captivity of the Jews by the Romans. Though "the land "
here most naturally signifies the Holy Land in its geographical sense, and was, no
doubt, so understood by the Jewish colony at Jerusalem, to whom Zechariah first
related these visions, it does not follow that it may not also have a reference to the
Church of Christ (Keil). But the idea that the expulsion of all sinners from the

Ch. v. 3.] SIXTH VISION— THE FLYING ROLL.

109

" The curse " was written on both sides of the flying roll,
and was specially directed against thieves and perjurers. For
the expression " he that sweareth " must be understood as
explained in the following verse of swearing falsely by the
name of Jahaveh, though the approximation here to the
teaching of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. v. 34) is note
worthy. Theft and perjury are the two most notable examples
of open transgression against the commandments of God.
Perjury, or lying in its grossest form, is a sin against the first
table of the law, being a breach of the third commandment.
Theft is a breach of the second table, the violation of the
eighth commandment. These special sins are often wont to
retain their power, and to be more or less indulged in by
many who belong to the congregation of the Lord, even after
the grosser transgressions of the law, such as idolatry and
murder, have in a great measure ceased.
These sins were violations of the law but too common
among the Jews who returned from the Captivity. Their
peculiar position during the long years of banishment from
their own land had driven that people to engage more gene
rally in commercial occupations. They were thus exposed to
peculiar temptations to commit such sins. They had been in
a great measure cured of their propensity to idolatry during
their bitter exile. The desire of preserving their nationality
among the nations had in a great degree led them to maintain
the purity of their faith. After the restoration, however, the
Jews never again became the agricultural nation they had been
before that event. They had been, no doubt, entangled in the
sins peculiar to that course of life in the days of Zechariah,
and hence the special mention made of them in this place.
According to the curse represented in the vision, the thief
was condemned by the one table of the law, which was
Holy Land at the commencement of the millennial era (v. Hofmann) is referred to
finds no support in the language of this prophecy.

1 10 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. v. 3, 4.
written " on this side " of the flying roll, as a transgressor
who ought to be cleansed away, according to it, from the con
gregation. The perjurer was likewise to be cleansed away
according to the solemn curse written on the other side. The
awful results of that curse are strikingly pictured in the words
that follow. The curse itself is represented as brought out
of the Lord's treasures of wrath (Deut. xxxii. 34, 35), and as
lodging for the night in the house of the thief or perjurer, i.e.,
abiding there "until it accomplish that for which it was sent,
its utter destruction" (Pusey).1
God will not endure the practice of immorality in the
midst of those that are his people. The justified must be
sanctified. His people must be righteous. He sits to purify
and to refine the house of Israel. Visibly or invisibly, he
ever separates the chaff from the wheat, and executes judg
ment in the midst of his people. The book of the Proverbs
abundantly proves this. Theft and perjury are sins near of kin
to one another, the one almost invariably producing the other,
and these sins often in this life experience Divine chastisement.
The ungodly may flourish for a season, but soon he is sought
for and can nowhere be found (Ps. xxxvii. 35, 36). That such
crimes should have been special objects of Providential judg
ments among the people who had returned from Babylon is
1 The well-known instance of Glaucus, mentioned by Herodotus (Book vi. 86),
may be given as an example. His name stood once high for integrity, and hence
a Milesian came to him to deposit a sum of money on trust. The deposit was ac
cepted by Glaucus. But when the money was required by the sons of the deposi
tor, who presented the tallies in support of their claim, Glaucus hesitated to
restore it. He consulted the oracle of Delphi whether he might perjure himself
and make a prize of the money. The priestess told him that it was best for the
present to do as he desired, for that death was the common lot of the honest and
dishonest. "Yet Oath hath a son, nameless, handless, footless, but swift he
pursues until he seize and destroy the whole race and house." On hearing this
Glaucus begged to be pardoned for his question, but the priestess replied that it
was as bad to have tempted the god as to have done the deed. Glaucus ultimately
restored the money to its owners. Yet it was noted that his whole family be
came extinct, which was considered as a punishment for having consulted the god
whether he might perjure himself for gain.

Ch. v. 4-7.] THE SIXTH VISION— WOMAN IN THE EPHAH. 1 1 1
highly probable. All such instances of Divine judgments on
earth must be regarded as mere premonitory droppings of the
tempest of wrath which will one day overwhelm the ungodly.
The history of sin is, as Kliefoth notes, by no means
finished when the open sinners have been separated from the
congregation of the holy. That history has a further sequel.
Accordingly, after the interpreting angel had explained the
purport of the flying roll, he left the prophet's side for a
moment ; and thus having by his movements awakened special
attention, he called upon the prophet to observe the new scene
that was now passing before him.1
As the prophet lifted up his eyes, he saw an ephah going
forth, that is, emerging from the mist, and coming clearly
into view. The ephah was a dry measure in common use
among the Hebrews, corresponding very nearly to our bushel,
although there is still much difference of opinion as to its
exact size and capacity. Whatever its precise dimensions
may have been, it was the largest dry measure in ordinary
use, and hence it is mentioned here with a special purpose.
In close conjunction with the ephah, " a talent of lead " is
spoken of in verse 7, or, as it is termed in verse 8, " the stone
of lead," in other words, a leaden weight of the weight of a
talent. The majority of expositors have considered the words-
to signify " a cover of lead" with which the ephah was closed.
But if the ephah had a cover of lead, that cover would scarcely
have been termed " the stone of lead," or " the leaden stone "
(verse 8). The rendering " leaden cover" obscures the real]
significance of the vision. The Hebrew word rendered'
"talent" does, indeed, literally mean "a circle," 2 and the
1 This appears the most natural explanation of the statements in verse 5, though
the idea of Dr. Pusey is quite possible, namely, that the interpreting angel came
forth from the choirs of angels among whom he had retired in the interval. During
the entire of the vision the interpreting angel seems to have been the speaker.
3 See Gen. xiii. 10, xix. 17, 25 ff., where our Authorised Version has 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 ; 1 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. 1 13
the woman in this vision as thus represented. As she sat inj
the ephah, the largest dry measure, she carried in her lap
talent of lead, the largest measure used in the computatior
of money. Both measures were needful in the most ordij
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-j
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 was alluded to,1
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-
1 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

114 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.1
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 6earpov, 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.2
1 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.
2 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).

Ch. v. 6-8.] SIXTH VISION— THE WOMAN IN THE EPHAH. 1 15
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, i2e1_fca.rried)," 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.1
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. 11).
1 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 which 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 therewith 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 mouth to signify not the mouth
of the woman, but that of the ephah upon which the heavy
leaden cover was cast.1 Comp. Gen. xxix. 2 ; Ps. cxll 7, 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.'1, They came rapidly
1 Pressel in order to soften down the apparent harshness of the expression,
arbitrarily translates ' ' into hir bosom'

Ch. v. 9-11.] SIXTH VISION — THE WOMAN IN THE EPHAH. 1 17
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 like 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 (Xev. 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 carry so heavy a
burden (Keil). They rather typify instruments of evil, who
for a time delivered theevil 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

> ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. v. 9-1 1.
the second table, by appropriating as their own that which
/was not theirs. It, therefore, does not seem unlikely that the
two stork- winged women were intended to he. 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. Tj^e 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_Jajid (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-n.] SIXTH VISION — THE WOMAN IN THE EPHAH. 119
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
(1 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

120 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. v. 9-11.
(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 off 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
Dalarne, 124 — Different Views, 125 — The mountains probably Zion and Mount
of 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,
J33_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 — Kbhler'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 the 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. 1-8.
" 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.1 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
1 See Hilgenfeld, "Elxai Libri fragmenta, " p. 158, appended to his edition of
Hermas Pastor, in his Novum Testamentum extra Canon, recept.

Ch. vi. i-8.] SEVENTH VISION — THE FOUR CHARIOTS. 125
that the prophet in speaking of mountains of brass or copper
evidently alluded to the country of Dalarne, in Sweden, which
he thought was destined to be of great importance in " the
latter days."
The chariots were not seen in the vision to go forth from the
mountains, but from a defile between them. The statement
that they went forth " from standing before the Lord of the
whole earth " might simply mean that the chariots went forth
to their various destinations at the bidding of the Lord. For,
as Jahaveh was the Lord of the whole earth, wherever the
chariots stood they in reality stood before him. In the
vision, however, they must be considered as coming forth
from some place where the Divine presence was specially
manifested. Though the mountains are represented as "moun
tains of brass," and therefore in some respects ideal and not
real mountains, yet a distinct geographical idea seems to lie
at the foundation of the symbol (Keil).1
An unsatisfactory attempt has been made to explain the
expression " mountains of brass," by a reference to the
"brazen walls" spoken of by Jeremiah (i. 18), and to consider
them to mean (as Jerome imagined) mountains which could
not be ascended, which were so strong and insurmountable
that they could not be destroyed by any length of time, and
so firm that they could not be shaken. Kliefoth adopts this
view ; but as he considers the mountains to be symbols re
spectively of the world-power and of the kingdom of God,
helays himself open to the objection of Keil, that, if this were
the meaning, the world-power would be represented as being
as strong as the kingdom of God.
It is better to regard the mountains in the vision as referring
1 It is unnatural to explain the mountains to denote the kingdom of the world and
the kingdom of God. The reasons assigned to prove this are insufficient, viz., that
the world-power may be referred to under the symbol of a mountain in chap. iv. 7
(though that is doubtful), and that the kingdom of God is likened to a mountain, or
rather to a stone which became a mountain, in Daniel ii. 35.

126 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. vi. 1-8.
to Mount Zion and the Mount of Olives,, viewed as ideal moun
tains and as the place from whence God's judgments go forth
over the world. The Mount of Olives is spoken of in that
character in Zech. xiv. 4, and Mount Zion is also represented
by the prophets as a place from which the Lord executes his
judgments (Joel iv. 16). Between these two mountains lies
the valley of Jehoshaphat, which the prophet Joel describes as
the place of judgment for the world (Joel iv. 2). The valley
lying between the two mountains was probably (as Keil and
Pusey consider) the place from which the chariots were seen
to go forth. They are represented as going forth from a place
situated between the lands of the north and south, i.e., from
Palestine, and from that place in the holy land where Jahaveh
was wont to display his gracious presence. Jahaveh's fire
was in Zion, his furnace in Jerusalem (Isa. xxxi. 9). From
Jerusalem blessings were to go forth to the nations, and from
it also judgments should proceed. " The powers symbolized
by the four chariots are pictured as closed in on either side
by these mountains, strong as brass, unsurmountable, un-
decaying, in order ' that they should not go forth to other
lands to conquer until the time should come, fixed by the
counsels of God, when the gates should be opened for their
going forth.' The mountains of brass may signify the height
of the Divine wisdom ordering this, and the sublimity of the
power which putteth them in operation ; as the Psalmist says,
' Thy righteousness is like the mountains of God ' (Ps. xxxvi.
6.") (Pusey.)
The four chariots which the prophet saw going forth from
between the two mountains were probably war chariots.
Kimchi thinks that each of them was drawn by four horses,
but of this there is no indication in the passage. The notion
that the chariots were represented as actually carrying forth
the spirit of God with heavy judgments is based upon a
mistaken view of an expression in verse 8. The chariots

Ch. vi. 1-8.] SEVENTH VISION — THE FOUR CHARIOTS. 1 27
are termed by the angel "the four winds of the heavens,"
in other words, they are compared to the winds. God is re
presented in the Psalms as using the winds as his angels or
messengers (Ps. civ. 4, see Delitzsch), and in Isaiah as riding
upon a swift light cloud, driven with speed by the wind, as
he went forth to execute judgment upon the land of Egypt
(Isa. xix. 1). He is also spoken of as riding upon the wings
of the wind (Ps. xviii. 1 1), for the stormy wind, and the east
wind fulfil his directions and perform his will (Ps. xlviii. 8 ;
Ps. cxlviii. 8). The four winds are used by him to scatter a
people (Jer. xlix. 36), and to infuse new life into the slain
(Ezek. xxxvii. 9). We shall see in the sequel that the four
chariots cannot be regarded as actually representing the four
winds themselves (Hitzig, Kohler).
The chariots were drawn by horses of different colours,
red, black, white, and speckled. The steeds of the fourth
chariot in verse 3 have a further descriptive adjective affixed,
which we must provisionally translate by '^strong/' This last
appellation has caused considerable perplexity. In the first
vision, angelic riders are described mounted on steeds of
different colours, two of which (the red and white) re-appear
in the vision of the chariots. The words used for the other
two colours in this vision, as well as the epithet we have re
ferred to, are entirely different from those used in the descrip
tion of the first vision.
Two difficulties must here be noticed. (1) In the explana
tion of the interpreting angel no allusion is made to the first
chariot, which is drawn by the red horses ; and (2), while the
fourth chariot drawn by the speckled steeds is described as
going forth on a special mission, the " strong " horses (re
presented in verse 3 as coupled together with the speckled
steeds) are spoken of in verse 7 as if they belonged to a
different chariot, and as anxious to go forth on a different
mission.

128 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. vi. 1-8.
Hitzig thinks that such difficulties as these (which he as
cribes to the carelessness of the writer) prove that the chariots
simply signify the winds of heaven, and that the colours of the
steeds have no deeper significance. Maurer and Ewald attempt
to remove the difficulties by substituting in verse 7 the " red "
horses in place of the "strong" (which latter adjective has
been rendered in our Authorised Version by " the bay "), and
Maurer suggests that the different word used in verse 7
arose from a blunder of an early copyist. On the other
hand, many scholars, from Bochart downwards, have sup
posed that the adjective at the end of verse 3, rendered by
us provisionally as " strong," is the name of a colour, used
in verse .7 as equivalent to the red colour mentioned in the
former verse. This identification, however, rests on very
doubtful grounds. Moreover, it is a serious difficulty in the
way of this explanation that the same word would then be
used in verse 3 and verse 7 in two totally different significa
tions; in the former as an additional description of the
" speckled " steeds, and in the latter to denote the " red."
Hengstenberg maintains that the word in question can only
mean "strong" or "powerful," and that it is used in that
signification in verse 3, not as applying to the horses of the
fourth chariot as contrasted with those of the other three,
but as an adjective describing all the steeds equally, though
" only formally connected with the fourth." He maintains
further, that in verse 7 the epithet is applied in a peculiar
manner to the horses of the first chariot, as the strong among
the strong. But such an exposition, for grammatical reasons,
(which cannot here be discussed) has been well pronounced
by Kohler " impossible." 1
1 For in the first case, if D^-yDS; in verse 3 were intended to be referred to all
the steeds, the phrase would, as Kohler notes, have been expressed by D^3 D'-SOK-
Secondly, as to Hengstenberg's argument that the article in D^VPSn 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

Ch.vi.6, 7-] SEVENTH VISION — THE FOUR CHARIOTS. 1 29
On the other hand, Hofmann, Kliefoth 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 nf ii"r""!j the one characterised
as " speckkd^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." In 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 asasking a furtherper-
mission afterwards to traverse the whole world. The perfect
tenses used in verses 6 and 7are 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'SDN
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 fieTd~fox 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). ; Nor can Kliefoth's ex-
1 Kliefoth's interpretation does not appear more successful. He thinks the
Babylonian empire was indicated by the colour "red" on account of its san-

Ch. vi. 6, 7.] SEVENTH VISION— THE FOUR CHARIOTS. 13 I
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.1 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, who, 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 decided 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. lVhite 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. 1 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. \^

132 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.1
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" (inverses 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
1 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 Antlochus Epiphanes. Hence
those commentators think that the kingdom of the Seleucidae 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 Seleucida? 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 of v. 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 ; blacky
to represent mourning, in consequence of sore judgments
like those detailed in the Revelation ; white 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 :
(1) 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 very
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 %\<up6?, 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

I36 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.1
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
I 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
1 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, 11, 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
wljich 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 war-chariots driven by the winds, and
sweeping forth on their wild career from the pass in the mountains.

Ch.vi. 7, 8.] 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. 1). 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.1
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 observed 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 gpr-nnd war-r-harint, 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. 1).
But the imagery of Zechariah is by no means identical with that in the Revelation.
For it is evident, though the prophet saw the four 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 behindtherm." 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 ugonjthe 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 sense 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
wrath 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

I40 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 1
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) are 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

I42 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. 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, 147 — 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, 151 — 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. 10, u.
The construction of the Hebrew is so peculiar 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 Christology,
vol. iii., note on verse 14, p. 360, English transl.). He thinks
that verse 1 1 tends rather to show that this was 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 not actually performed, but as

Ch. vi. 10, ii.] THE CROWNING OF THE HIGH PRIEST. 147
an act which, like 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). l
It has been disputed whether the prophet was to make a
crown, 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 that 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
1 On the changes in the proper names of the persons, see note on page 156.

I48 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, 1 2, 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 royal dignity. The whole

Ch.vi. 12, 13.] THE CROWNING OF THE HIGH PRIEST. 149
transaction was a symbolico-prophetical 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. x 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. 1). 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 ;
1 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.

150 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. 1 ; 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 (1 Kings viii.
27 ; 2 Chron. ii. 5 ; Isa. lxvi. 1). 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 Mil in Gen. iii. 15 ; Isa. liii. 4). The emphatic nature of
the pronoun is recognised by Ewald. While the brow of the

Ch. vi. 13.] THE CROWNING OF THE HIGH PRIEST. 1 5 I
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" (1111), 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 borne (Num.
xxvii. 20; Dan. xi. 21 ; 1 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,1 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
1 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 1 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 offices 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 means
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 " Ids " 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
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 difficulty 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.1 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" (1 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
1 The variations which occur in the names repeated in verse 14 are of no
special significance. Helem (D?n) was not a second name for Heldai (HPn), but
is with far more probability 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 Gaius
in the New Testament) in no wise lose its reward, even in earthly honour and
esteem (Matt. x. 41, 42).

Ch. vi. 15.] THE CROWNING OF THE HIGH 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. 11, 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. i
1 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
ZECHARIAH TO THE PEOPLE.

CHAPTER VII.

The seventh and eighth chapters, 161 — Date of composition, 161 — 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 through
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 — Jerusalem a city of truth, 1 79— Earnestness among the Jews,
180— 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, 182
—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.

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 delivered two years later than the seven visions.
Kliefoth 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.
Hystaspis. The mode in which the date is given is some
what peculiar. 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 ~ plu
perfect signification. But the adoption of the collocation proposed by Keil, would
create a greater difficulty, namely, the use of such a construction (rPSJ'Jl) 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 !Vn 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 » 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. 1-3.] 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 ;
1 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 Chaldseans (Jer. Iii. 6, 7) ;l 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. Iii. 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. xii. 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. 1 ; Jer. Iii. 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
Chaldseans broke into the temple on the seventh day, and
1 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. (1) 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. Iii. 6 ; Lam. iv. 9, 10) ; (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 (D1D1DD1BN) was a Roman governor in Palestine in the 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 the law wherever they
could be found, and forbad its study under the penalty of death.

164 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. vii. 1-3.
profaned 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
Chaldseans set fire to the sacred building, which was entirely
consumed on the tenth (Lightfoot, Opera, ed. Leusden, torn. 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.'1 (5) On that day also
1 Dr. F. Lebrecht has recently published an interesting treatise on this memor
able event, "Bether. Die fragliche Stadt im Hadrianisch. jiidischen Kriege. Ein
I700jahriges Missverstandniss." (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 Veter, a contraction for Castra Vetera, the name given to the Roman
fortified camp erected in the plain of Jezreel, not far from Sephoris. He maintains
that Bar-Kozeba was the real name of the great Jewish chieftain, and that he was
so named from the city Kozeba, in Judaea ; that Bar-Kokhab (or Bar-Cochab, as
it is generally written) was a symbolical appellation, 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, "the Son of
a Lie," as popularly believed, and stated even by such authorities as Milman and
Ewald. Dr. Lebrecht maintains that that story was invented afterwards by the
enemies of that chieftain. But 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 effect, even though his claim to that title is not put forward on the
coins struck by him. Some of the coins supposed \o 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. der Jiidischen Munzen, and Madden (F. W.), Jewish Coinage,
pp. 205-210.

Ch.vii.i-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.1
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. The 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
1 The name usually given in the Talmud is Turnus Rufus. He was not the
Terentius Rufus mentioned in Josephus, Bell. Jud. vii. 2, § I, who, after the con
quest of Jerusalem by Titus, completed the work of desolation. Jost (Gesch. des
Judenthums, ii. 77, ff.) gives the name as above, and also Milman, Hist, of the
Jews, vol. iii. p. 377, 4th ed.

166 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,1 Regemmelek, and their men, sent a deputation to
Jerusalem with two special objects in view ; first, to intreat the
favour 3 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.3 Bethel is never used to signify the temple of
God, but must 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
1 See note on p. 168.
2 The phrase '3 \J3 n?n seems properly to signify to stroke the face ( = mulcere
faciem), hence to intreat favour. It is used of intreating the favour of the rich with
gifts in Job xi. 19 ; Prov. xix. 6 ; Ps. xiv. 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," HliT JV3, or ETON JV3, but
never 7&? 71*3. 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 the "house of God " to denote the
family of God, the people of the Jews ; but this is contrary to usage.

Ch. vii. 1-3.] THE DEPUTATION FROM BETHEL. 167
Regem-melek, to be the names of deputies sent by the
Jews living 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.3
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
(~T\Vt), 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. xvii. 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 (Der Text der Biicher Samuelis untersucht), 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 sensum.

1 68 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.1 They sent to inquire of the priests, as persons
1 Sarezer, or Sharezer, was the name of one of the sons of S ennacherib, 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 king." See Schrader, Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Test., p. 206. The name of Nergal- Sharezer occurs
as that of one of the princes of Nebuchadnezzar in Jer. xxxix. 3, 1 3. Baer in his
critical editions of Isaiah (Leipzig, 1872), and of the Minor Prophets (1878), has
on the authority of MSS., edited ij> (Sarezer) in place of 'B> (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" (1 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. n ; 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 Haggad 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 ! " 1
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-melek.
Rab-mag is probably equivalent to the Assyr. rubu-'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.
1 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, II ; 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.

170 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. vii. 3.
siege of Jerusalem by the Chaldaeans. 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 1 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 TPIE PEOPLE. 171
"then came the word of Jahaveh of hosts unto me," or its
equivalent (chaps, vii. 4, vii. 8, viii. 1, 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,,

172 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 he 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.1
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
1 It has been doubted whether the "flX which precedes D^-QTn 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 DDflXT^ occurs, is regarded by Ewald as a proof
that the suffixes attached to W and pt? 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 Kautzsch regards Hag. ii. 17 and Dan. ix. 13 as proofs of the
usage. Bottcher, Lehrb. § 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' Worterbuch by Miihlau and Volck,
and also the note communicated by Fleischer in Bottcher, § 5 14, see also our note
on chap. viii. 17.

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?" (1 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." 1 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. ; HetyrjXd, 1 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
1 Owing to the adjective which follows J"QB" in this verse (verse 7), and is con
nected by the conjunction " and," we must render the participle here intransitively.
If, however, we were to regard the phrase mWl 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 accidentally, misrepresented Kohler, who does not propose to supply
nDpt^l from chap. i. II. 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."1 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.3 " 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-
1 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, ff. in E.V.), xxiii. 6-9; Lev. xix. 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." l
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 11 (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).3 They made their hearts hard as a
diamond, so they could not hear the law in which Jahaveh's
1 In the phrase VPIX K"K JIIT) (chap. vii. 10) the B>*K is to be regarded as in the
genitive, just as the YUti 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. E"K
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 bbser Gesinnung gegen ihn Zeugniss (K"K Dl?"!), das denke sein
Nachster nimmer, das denket ihr alle, deren Jeder ihm der Nachste, nimmer,
Keiner des Andern Unheil, Ps. xxv. 4, xii. 8. " Pressel defends the translation
of the LXX., as if t^N could be nominative, Kal Kaxtav Ikoo-tos tov dSeX0oO airov p.T]
/wri<ri.KaKdTii> h. t. \. But this is surely incorrect. Drake, in the Speaker's
Commentary, suggests as the translation, "Ye shall not each one meditate upon
his brother's sin in your hearts, i.e., keep it in remembrance." But this translation
is too artificial and does not suit the context.
* One slow of speech is also called heavy of tongue (Exod. iv. 10). The eyes
are likewise said to be heavy (Gen. xlviii. 10) as through age.

176 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. vii. 13, 14.
commands were written, 1 nor the words which J ahaveh of
hosts sent through his Spirit by the instrumentality of the
former prophets (comp. Neh. ix. 30).
The result of such hardness of heart was as had been
foretold by the prophets. As Jahaveh's professing people
would not hearken to the voice of the Lord their God, and
did not walk in his ways, there was great wrath against them
from the Lord of hosts. When, therefore, in their distress
and difficulties they cried unto the Lord, he would not hear
their cry. The Lord's solemn resolution to abandon them to
the fruit of their own ways is here expressed {verses 1 3 and 14).
" So they shall cry' and I will not hear them, said Jahaveh of
hosts," the perfect tense here again referring to the past as
in verse 8, " for I will toss them over- all the nations which
they knew not, 3 and the land shall be desolate after them, so
that there shall be no one passing through or returning," that
is, no one passing to and fro therein, or no one of them going
to and fro in the land.3
We have rendered the perfect in the last clause by the

1 Hitzig translates here " the doctrine and the words," referring both to the
teaching of the prophets. But it is more natural to regard rthe law and its com
mands as being referred to under the first expression (minil).
2 So the Hebrews were wont to designate barbarous people (see Deut. xxviii. 33).
To what critics can Chambers refer, when he says in his note on this passage, " I
prefer the rendering whom they know not of the E.V., following the LXX., to the
other who know not than, adopted by most critics after the Vulgate " ? But the
Vulg. is : " et dispersi eos per omnia regna quae nesciunt."
3 The preposition |P has here a negative force. The identical phrase which
occurs here is also found, together with the same preposition, in chap. ix. 8. The
meaning is that there would be no one going to and fro in the land, The context
alone can decide the object for which the persons are regarded as going to and fro.
The expression seems here to be used of the people of the land travelling up and
down in their country, and so in Ezek. xxxv. 7, where the Lord threatens to cut
off from Mount Seir St^l 131?. It cannot then mean going to and fro to plunder,
as Fiirst suggests in his Wbrterbuch. The sense of the phrase is more defined, but
still not defined with any precision, in Zech. ix. 8. See our remarks on that pas
sage. In Exod. xxxii. 27, it is used ( •13-ltJ') -1131? ) in the command to the Levites
to go right through the camp of Israel and slay all those they should meet in their
path.

Ch. viii. 1-3.] ADDRESSES OF ZECHARIAH TO THE PEOPLE. 1 77
future (" shall be desolate "), viewing it as the perfect of pro
testation and assurance (Ges. § 126, 4), almost the prophetic
perfect, used to indicate the certainty of the accomplishment
of the denunciation. The wasting of the land is viewed
by Jahaveh in his denunciation as already an accomplished
fact, so clearly did he foresee the sin of the people and its
fatal consequences. Umbreit and Ewald regard the words of
Jahaveh as closing with " nations which they knew not," in
which case the clause should be rendered " and the land was
waste after them," that is, it would express the historical result
of the Divine threatening. This latter was evidently the view
taken by the punctuators, and hence they placed the leading
disjunctive (athnach) in the verse at the end of the clause in
question. The words with which the seventh chapter closes, "and
they made the pleasant land (Jer. iii. 19 ; Ps. cvi. 24 ; comp.
Ezek. xxvi. 12) a desolation," are to be regarded as a remark
of the prophet himself. The verb, however, may be viewed
as the indeterminate 3rd pers. plural, in which case the
sense would be almost equivalent to "so the pleasant land
was made desolate " (so Maurer, Ewald, etc.) ; or the person
of the verb may be regarded as chosen with special refer
ence to the disobedient Israelites, or Jews, " so they made the
land a desolation," thus intimating that the ruin of their
cities and country was to be directly ascribed to the sin and
folly of the people themselves (Hitzig, Kohler, Pusey, etc.).
The second portion of the Lord's reply is given in the
eighth chapter, and is divided by the superscriptions, which
occur in the first and eighteenth verses, into two portions of
unequal length (verses 1-17 and verses 18-23).
In accordance with the gracious statement which occurs in
the first chapter, the Lord describes his zeal for Zion, and his
anger against her foes (comp. chap. i. 14, 15). The promises
set forth are announced as the very words of Jahaveh, be-
N

178 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. viii. 2, 3.
cause, according to Jerome, had they been declared on the
prophet's own authority, they might have been considered too
good to be believed. This reason, however, can scarcely be
considered satisfactory.
After a general statement of Jahaveh's zeal for his people,
and of his anger against their adversaries, the prophet was
commissioned to give an assurance of the Lord's return to
Zion, and of his determination to dwell in her midst (verse 3).
When Jerusalem was to be given up into the hands of her
enemies, the glory of the Lord was seen by the prophet
Ezekiel gradually withdrawing itself from the temple in
which it was wont to be manifested, until it utterly departed
therefrom. (Ezek. viii. 3, 4, ix. 3, x. 4, 18, 19, xi. 22, 23.)
The perfect tenses in verses 2 and 3 are best considered as
simple presents (as Ewald and Pressel regard them).1 The
jealousy and zeal of Jahaveh on behalf of his people (n>),
and his anger against their enemies, are regarded as facts
actually in existence, as the manifest allusion to the earlier
chapter (i. 14, 15) proves. The gracious return of Jahaveh to
his people and his sojourn in their midst were facts actually
accomplished, even though the temple building was not yet
completed. If the Lord had abandoned Jerusalem in anger
when she was delivered into the hand of her foes, the
mercies already vouchsafed to the restored exiles, and the
providential interferences whereby the rebuilding of the
temple was enabled to be carried on without let or hindrance,
as well as the fact that prophets had been raised up among
the people, were all so many clear proofs of the return of
Jahaveh to his people.
Though Keil is inclined to view this passage as a promise
of Messianic days, no evidence can be adduced in support
1 Keil considers them as prophetic perfects used with reference to the far distant
future, while Kohler regards them as having a reference to events near at hand.
Both scholars, though they explain the verbs differently, render them as presents.

Ch. viii. 3.] ADDRESSES OF ZECHARIAH TO THE PEOPLE. 1 79
of this opinion. The promise of the dwelling of Jahaveh
with his people, in chap. ii. 14-17 (E.V. chap. ii. 10, 11),
may, by reason of the context in which it occurs, be sup
posed to have some such reference. But there is nothing
here to require us thus to explain this passage. Its con
nexion with chap. i. 16 seems to us clearly to show that the
dwelling of Jahaveh with his people signifies nothing more or
less than the restitution of his favour and good will towards
Israel, who for their sin had been cast out of his sight.
The blessings spoken of as destined to be the consequence
of this gracious restitution of God's favour are distinctly
viewed as conditional. This is implied by the very context
in which such promises occur. They are preceded by a
solemn declaration respecting the cause of Jerusalem's former
ills, and followed immediately by a solemn exhortation
(verses 16, 17) to avoid such sins for the future. The closing
section (verse 20-23), which speaks of the calling of the
Gentiles, reaches to Messianic days, which are ever viewed as
closely connected with the days of the restoration. But the
words of the prophecy in general do not justify us in con
sidering it to refer to days still future. Though it is true
that the New Testament speaks of a future conversion of
Israel, which will be accompanied with great blessings to
the world, the result of such an event is not that depicted
in this place.
In predicting that Jerusalem w0Uld become " a city of
truth " (verse 3), something more indeed is meant than that
the city was to be an abiding, a secure city (Kohler). The
expression rather signifies, as Pressel has explained it, a city
in which the truth is to be found ; Jerusalem would be a
holy mountain, because Jahaveh would again make it his
dwelling. The perfect tense is found in this clause, " is
called " or " shall be called," as well as in the clauses pre
ceding, because the promise had already begun to be

180 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch.viii.3.
fulfilled, even from the very day when Jahaveh returned
in mercy to the people, and the first band of Jewish exiles
trod again the streets of Jerusalem. (Comp. Isa. i. 26.) The
very opposite of the picture here presented is drawn in Nah.
iii. 1, where Nineveh is described as full of lies and robbery.
Jerusalem was often described by the prophets as having
been once, in days before the exile, a city of truth and
righteousness (comp. Isa. i. 21, etc.), and its people as destined
again to become (Zeph. iii. 13, etc.) a people of truth. Those
who from such expressions seek to paint visions of millennial
glories should remember how Hezekiah spoke of " peace and
truth " existing in his days (Isa. xxxix. 8), and also that the
false prophets used the expression " peace of truth " for
"abiding peace" (Jer. xiv. 13). Jerusalem was regarded as a
city of truth while she adhered to the law of her God ; and
the temple mountain was the mountain of holiness as long as
earnest worshippers trod its courts, and as long as those courts
were not profaned by the feet of the hostile stranger
(Joel iv. 17 ; E. V. iii. 17). It ought not to be forgotten that
Jahaveh was said to dwell in the sanctuary (Exod. xxv. 8,
xxix. 45 ; Deut. xii. 1 1), and the tabernacle was styled his
dwelling-place (Ps. Ixxiv. 7), as was also Zion itself (Ps.
lxxxvi. 3 ; E. V verse 2).
There was unquestionably an earnest spirit abroad among
the Jewish people in the days of the prophet ; and though
those days of revival were succeeded by days of religious
declension, the prophecy of Zechariah must be regarded as
having been fulfilled when even the laws concerning Sabbath
observance were rigidly carried out under the governorship of
Nehemiah (Neh. xiii.).
We agree with Kohler, Kliefoth and others, in maintaining
every promise contained in the seventh and eighth chapters
has been fulfilled in the period which elapsed between the
days of Zerubbabel and Christ. It has always seemed to us

Ch.viii. 4.] ADDRESSES OF ZECHARIAH TO THE PEOPLE. l8l
to be making sport of the prophecies to seek in all cases, in
which an absolutely literal fulfilment cannot be pointed out, to
apply such prophecies to some future, that keeps gradually re
ceding from us. Many of the prophecies which are still viewed
by the latter-day expositors as unfulfilled have long ago
been accomplished. But the ideal of the prophet has some
times not been attained through the sin of man, or, perhaps,
the blessing bestowed from on high has not been perma
nently granted, owing to that very same cause, a possibility
more or less distinctly kept in view in the prophecies them
selves. As the blessings of old age and a healthy and numerous
offspring were blessings specially promised to the Israelites on
their entrance into Canaan (Deut. iv. 40, v. 16, 30, verses 16,
33 in the E. V. ; xi. 9, xxxii. 47, etc.), similar blessings were
promised to those who had been brought out of the land of
their captivity. Old men and women should again sit in
the streets of Jerusalem, each of them through very age lean
ing on their staves, while the streets should be full of boys
and girls playing in the sight of their aged grandparents.
That in the promise of blessings which are admittedly future,
old age is also mentioned as one of the characteristics of
a better era (Is. lxv. 20), does not in the least justify
those who would refer the promises before us to days still
future. The actual fulfilment of these very promises has been
beautifully recorded as one of the results of the victories of
the Maccabee period. " Then did they till their ground in
peace, and the earth gave her increase, and the trees of the
field their fruit. The ancient men sat in all the streets, com
muning together of good things, and the young men put on
glorious and warlike apparel. ... He (Simon) made peace
in the land, and Israel rejoiced with great joy. For every
man sat under his vine and his fig-tree, and there was none to
fray them" (1 Mace. xiv. 8, 9, 11, 12). One portion of the

1 82 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. viii. 4-6.
picture, and that not the least beautiful, is, indeed, not given
by the martial historian of that warlike period which closed
in such peace and quiet. It, however, was not wanting —
namely, the boys and girls playing in the streets of Jerusalem.
Pressel has well observed that the fact of such a prediction
as this being vouchsafed by the Lord for the encouragement
of the Jewish people proves how lamentable must have been
the position in which the Jewish exiles found themselves on
their return from captivity.
According to the ordinary interpretation, the second clause
in verse 6 is to be taken interrogatively. " Thus says Jaha
veh of hosts, If it be wonderful in the eyes of the remnant
of this people (those that would remain in the days when the
promise would be fulfilled, comp. Hag. i. 12, 14), in those days
(not, in these days), shall it be also wonderful in my eyes ? is
the utterance of Jahaveh of hosts." The sentence would thus
be equivalent in meaning to, " is anything too hard for the
Lord ? " (Gen. xviii. 14). This translation is very possible
(compare 1 Sam. xxii. 7) ; but it is objected to by Hitzig and
Kohler. Kimchi also seems to prefer the opinion which re
gards the passage as not being interrogative, for he remarks,
" But the wise man [rather, the scholar] R. Abraham Aben
Ezra takes it as it stands, and to mean, ' I will do a wonderful
thing in those days, of which I never did the like.' " (McCaul's
Transl. of Kimchi, p. 76.) Hitzig, not very dissimilarly " if it
shall appear impossible to the remnant, etc., it will also appear
impossible to me." That is, if in the day when the promise
shall be accomplished, it still appears impossible to you,
Jahaveh will also regard it as impossible." Very similarly
Kohler, though he objects to the word being rendered as
" impossible," and prefers to take it in its usual sense of
"wonderful," "extraordinary," "unique." Jahaveh promised to
deal wonderfully with his people in the days to which reference
is made. Neumann paraphrases the passage : " Wonderful

Ch. viii. 6-8.] ADDRESSES OF ZECHARIAH TO THE PEOPLE. 183
is my counsel, says Jahaveh, not only in the sense of human
shortsightedness, because the remnant of Israel should ac
complish so hard a work as to build the temple of God, but
also (M) in my own eyes. My ways are wonderful, and higher
than men's ways. The Victorious Hero who accomplishes his
blessed work on earth is wonderful (Isa. ix. 6), wonderful is
the name of his glory (Judg. xiii. 18), he does wonders (Exod.
xv. 11)."
To these glorious promises the Lord added a further one
respecting the complete recovery of his people from the
various lands into which they had been scattered. Blessings
were to be bestowed not merely on those who had already
returned to their own land, but also on the people in general,
whose further recovery is here promised (verses 7, 8): The
participle (which is the form used in the original in verse 6)
has, properly speaking, no reference to time. It is, however,
most commonly employed in reference to present time, though
it can be used of the future. Its use here, especially after
such an expression as lo ! behold ! (PUH), seems rather to
designate something which is regarded at the moment of
speaking as actually in progress, and unconditioned as it is
here by any other words in the sentence, it seems to indicate
that the blessing, which was promised indeed in greater
measure in the future, was one the bestowal of which
had even then begun. " Lo, I am about to save," " am
saving," as it were already — the proof of which was afforded
by the numerous exiles who had already returned — "my
people from the land of the rising (i.e., of' the sun, the east,
Ps. 1. 1, cxiii. 3, etc.) and from the land of the entrance of
the sun (into its rest, i.e., the west, Ps. 1. 1 ; Deut. xi. 30 ;
comp. Ps. xix. 6), and I will bring them back, and they shall
dwell in the midst of Jerusalem, and they shall be to me
for a people, and I will be a God to them, in truth and in
righteousness."

1 84 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. viii. 8, 9.
The promise that all Israel shall dwell in Jerusalem is
peculiar. But the allusion is evidently to Jerusalem, not
so much the actual residence of all the people, but as the
place where Israel should worship Jahaveh. Jerusalem itself,
however, was described by the prophet (chap. ii. 8) as a
city which would be like a collection of villages, because
of the multitude of people which would be in her midst.
Such prophetic statements as that which occurs here (chap.
viii. 8) are not, of course, to be taken as literal.
The Lord promised still further that he would be the God
of his people " in truth and righteousness," and that they
should also be his people. In other words, the Lord promised
that he would deal truly and righteously with them, but
that he required in return from them righteousness and truth.
If the continuance of God's dwelling with his people was to
be looked for, Israel must walk righteously before him.
Comp. Hos. ii. 21, 22, verses 19, 20 E. V, and 1 Kings
iii. 6, where David is described as having thus walked before
God "in truth and righteousness," as also the condemna
tion of the Jews and Israelites in Isa. xlviii. 1, because they
made mention of the God of Israel "not in truth nor in
righteousness." Inasmuch as Zechariah had been commissioned to announce
such great blessings to the people, he was further directed
to call their attention to the fact that an improvement had
already taken place in their condition from the very day
in which they had set themselves earnestly to fulfil the com
mands of the Lord. The contemplation of that to which
they had already attained might serve to stir them up to
still greater zeal and activity in obeying the directions of
their God. " Thus saith Jahaveh of hosts, let your hands be
strong (comp. verse 13 ; Judg. vii. 11 ; 2 Sam. xvi. 21 ; Isa.
xxxv. 3, 4, etc.), ye who hear in these days these words from
the mouth of the prophets (evidently Haggai and Zechariah)

Ch. viii. 9, 10.] ADDRESSES OF ZECHARIAH TO THE PEOPLE. 185
who1 were (i.e. came forward as prophets) in the day (at the
period, in which) the house of Jahaveh of hosts was founded,
the temple, in order that it should be built " (see crit. comm.).
The latter words are added in order to mark off more dis
tinctly the second period at which the Jews set to work on
the temple (Hag. ii. 14 ; Ezra v. 1,2) from the earlier period
(Ezra iii. 10), in which, indeed, the foundations of the temple
were laid, but not in order that it should be built. For the
disturbances of that time, and the want of earnestness in the
people, hindered the work from being continued as it ought.
Previously to those days, that is, before the people had begun
resolutely to set themselves to begin and continue the building
of the temple, the circumstances of the Jewish colony were
indeed desperate. Men were unable to obtain wages for their
work, nor did the oxen get their hire for their toil, that is, the
full supply of provender they needed in order to recompense
them for their labour (Hag. i. 11 ; Isa. xxx. 24 ; 2 Chron. xv. 7.)
There was no peace for the person that went out, or for him
that came in, that is, no quiet for all who had to go about their
various business, on account of the oppressor ; while strife
and contention prevailed among the restored exiles themselves.
Over and above the difficulties which were created by reason
of the hostility of the border nations and of those Gentiles

1 The relative cannot refer to " the words " spoken. The reference of the relative
is obscure in the rendering of the Vulgate " qui auditis in his diebus sermones istos
per os prophetarum in die qui fundata est domus Domini," etc. Ewald, who was
somewhat inclined (Proph. der A. B. vol. iii.) to substitute " these" for " those" in
verse 6, has maintained in his Hist, of Israel (Engl, transl. vol. v. p. 102, foot
note) that Zechariah alludes here to a number of prophets who uttered lofty anti
cipations of this kind after the foundation of the temple. There are no grounds,
however, for such a conjecture. The accentuators clearly referred the relative to
"the prophets." As allusion is made to the recommencement of work on the
temple building, which was powerfully aided by the prophets Haggai and Zecha
riah, no others being referred to in Ezra v. or elsewhere, and as that period was
marked by the coming forward of those prophets, there is no need to read, with the
LXX, DVD (d(/> ijs ii/i^pas), instead of DV3, as urged by Hitzig, and approved
by Ewald.

1 86 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. viii. 10-12.
who dwelt in the land (Ezra iv.), Hitzig observes that the ex
pedition of Cambyses to Egypt occurred during this period,
and, though it is not referred to in the book of Ezra, the
march of the Persian troops through the land southwards
must have caused no little affliction to the colonists under
their distressing circumstances.
The prophet was, however, commissioned to announce from
the mouth of the Lord, that this state of things would be
entirely altered. A marked improvement had already begun
(see Hag. ii. 15-19). So long as the house of the Lord had
been permitted through the indolence of the people to lie
waste, a curse had rested upon the land. That curse was
now removed. " For the seed of peace," x the vine, would
give its fruit, and the earth her produce, and the heavens
their dew, for all these blessings would Jahaveh make the
remnant of his people to possess in the land to which he had
restored them. (See Hag. i. 9-11, ii. 15-19; and comp.
Lev. xxvi. 4, ff. ; Deut. xxxiii. 28 ; Ps. lxvii. 7, E.V. verse 6.)
1 The phrase is very peculiar, QlP&'n 1HJ *3- The word Dl?^ "peace" cannot
be regarded as the predicate, for the article cannot thus be used, Ges. § no, 3.
The Authorised Version, therefore, is incorrect : ' ' the seed shall be prosperous. "
The ancient versions consider that the substantive verb is omitted, and view 01?fc5Tl
as the genitive. Thus the Vulgate, sed semen pacts erit ; more paraphrastically
the Targum, D?E' W Nl?"lf, the seed shall be perfect, and Syriac, quoad sensum,
]y>\ „~, joou lixi 1 ^w5>!c ^le scm"nS sho-M l>e i-n peace. But the omission
of the 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 DI7BTI ITlt is viewed
as in apposition to the following noun. Hitzig considers the vine so termed be
cause the vine is the plant of pi-osperity (Gew'achs des Heiles), because there is
in the grape a blessing, rD"J3 ( = DW, Isa. xxxvi. 16; comp. Isa. lxv. 8). The
vine is mentioned among the blessings of Judah (Gen. xlix. n). The objection
that the vine is not sown is not to be urged. The vine is one of those trees which
have 13 11T1T "lt?N nD (Gen. i. 11.) Umbreit, Rosenmiiller, Maurer, etc., adopt
the view of the versions, but it is beset with difficulties. The translation
of the LXX., &XX ij 8«£m dp-qvipi possibly indicates a different reading in place of
int, either nK"]K, as Kohler, or better, as Schleusner, 1T)JK used metaphorically.

Ch.viii. 12, 13.] ADDRESSES OF ZECHARIAH TO THE PEOPLE. 1 87
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.
lxv. 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.1
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
1 Consequently the LXX. translators have not given the true meaning, Kal earai
6v Tpo-wov 9jT€ iv KaTapa iv tols iBveaiv 6 oIkos 'loOSa Kal olKOs'lo-parjh, otfrws diacwcoj
ifytas Kal io-ecrOe iv eiXoyia. The expression to be a blessing is no doubt used in that
sense in Ezek. xxxiv. 26 ; Gen. xii. 2.

1 88 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 name of Jahaveh, which led

Ch.viii. 14-17.] ADDRESSES OF ZECHARIAH TO THE PEOPLE. 189
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 parties, while all
corrupt judgments increase dissension and strife.1 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."2
1 Kimchi remarks on this: "If ye judge righteousness, there will be peace
between the parties in the lawsuit, according as our rabbies 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). 'AH the people,'
even he that is condemned in judgment. And our rabbies, of blessed memory,
have interpreted D1?SJ> DSEJ'DI [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 riX in '131 "IB>K !"6x"'?3"nX in verse 17 need not be regarded as a
sign of the nominative as Rosenmiiller and others think. The words are better

190 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. lxi. 2, 3, 7,
lxv. 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. 191
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,1
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 additional 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
1 Kohler refers to the Rosh-ha-shanah, fol. 18, a.b., and to M. Briick, Pharis.
Volksitten and Ritualien, p. 47, ff.

192 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. viii. 20-23.
be 1 (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 3 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 1 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 ity 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 15J>N
which follows is used to introduce the direct speech, like the Greek Sri, as in
1 Sam. xv. 20 (Ges., § 155, I e, Ewald, § 338 b). He renders, "yes, still will
peoples come," referring for the position of IV in the beginning of the sentence to
Micah vi. 10, which is scarcely a case in point. The IS^X is, however, better
rendered here as the conjunction that. So Ewald, § 336 a, and Fiirst in his
Worterbuch. 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' Worterbuch by Miihlau and
Volck, Leipz., 1878. The rendering above has the support of Maurer, Ewald,
Keil, etc. The Vulg. has "usquequo (reading 11?) 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. 193
hold, out of all the languages of the nations, even take hold l
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. xiv. 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-
1 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 that 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, 1 1 of N13 and np7. 0

194 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch.viii. 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. lxvi. 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 (1 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 Jew," which strange view of

Ch.viii. 23.] ADDRESSES OF ZECHARIAH TO THE PEOPLE. 195
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, Phoenicia, 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. 1, 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
the Sons of 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 Haggai,
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. 36, 37), 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, Mess. 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 earlier 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. 18 ; 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 (1 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 Law 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 ; 1 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

202 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. 1, 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. x
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
1 See Miihlau's confirmation of Hitzig's view, that a king of Massa is there
meant, in his treatise De Proverb, qua dicuntur Aguri et Lemuelis origine atqui
indole. Leipzig, 1869.

Ch. ix. i.] THE PREPARATION OF THE LAND. 203
only in this passage, and was for a long time a crux commen-
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 Hadrach, Hauran being a district south of Damascus
(Olshausen, Gr. § 216 d, p. 41 1), 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. "1
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
1 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
Sifre on Deut. i. 1, on the name 3Ht '"J.

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. 772 in the eponymy of
Assur-bel-uzur, governor of Calah, of an " expedition to Had
rach" (Ha-ta-ri-ka).1 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.2 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, 1 5. 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
Saua, throughout its whole extent, the district of Karanim, the
city of Hatarika"3 (Hadrach). In another fragment of the
war in Palestine mention is made of " the city of Hatarika, as
1 Smith's Assyrian Canon, p. 63. In Schrader's Keil-inschriften u. das alte Test.
the lists of Rawlinson are given with the Assyrian text and translation, in the former
of which we find the Assyrian ana mat Ha-ta-ri-ka (pp. 324, 325).
2 Smith's Assyrian Canon, p. 63, also pp. 46-47. The name of the governor
is transliterated Nabu-ukin-nisi by Rawlinson and Schrader (Schrader, p. 327).
* See transl. by Rev. J. M. Rodwell in Records of the Past, vol. v. p. 46.

206 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. i,
for the land of Saua."1 Moreover, Sir H. Rawlinson says that
" in the catalogue of Syrian cities, tributary to Nineveh (of
which we have several copies in a more or less perfect state,
and varying from each other, both in arrangement and extent),
there are three names, which are uniformly grouped together
and which we read Manatsuah, Magida [Megiddo], and Du'ar
[Dor]. As these names are associated with those of Samaria,
Damascus, Arpad, Hamath, Carchemish, Hadrach, Zobah,
there can be no doubt of the position of the cities." 8
The resting-place of the oracle was to be the city of
Damascus, that is, as the sequel of the prophecy shows, the
judgments of God mentioned therein were to commence at
that city. The pronoun his or its (verse i, rendered "thereof"
in the Engl. Vers.) must refer to the oracle. This is clear,
whether the expression " his rest "3 be understood, in a good
sense, to indicate the conversion of the people of that city or
1 Records of the Past, vol. v. p. 51-
2 Sir H. Rawlinson in the Athenaum for Aug. 22, 1 863, quoted by Dr. Pusey
in his Minor Prophets, p. 550. Sir H. Rawlinson says in a note, also quoted by
Pusey : " From the position on the lists I should be inclined to identify it
(Hadrach) with Horus or Edessa, which was certainly a very ancient capital
(being the Kedesh of the Egyptian records), and which would not otherwise be
represented in the Assyrian inscriptions. " M. Adolf Neubauer in his Geographic
du Talmud, pp. 297-8, says that Cyrill of Alexandria places Hadrach between
Hamath and Damascus, and notes that Ptolemy knows of a locality Adarin in
the environs. In a note M. Neubauer observes that the Karaite lexicographer
David ben Abraham, of the loth century (comp. Pinsker, Likkute Kadmonioth,
p. 117 of the text, and Neubauer's Notice of Hebrew Lexicography, Journ. As.
1 861, t. ii. p. 465, ff.) also places Hadrach at Damascus. He notes too a statement
made in the MS. Oxford Bodl. Opp. Add. fol. 25, that there was at Damascus a
fine mosque called Mesdjed el-Khadra, which had given the name to that city (see
crit. comm. ), Hadrach, according to this lexicographer, was a suburb of Damascus.
3 The original word translated "rest" is indeed "commonly used of quiet
peaceful resting, especially as given by God to Israel" (Pusey). But it seems
scarcely possible to regard the prophet "purposely to have chosen a word of large
meaning, which should at once express (as he had before ITJn, Zech vi. 8) that the
word of God should fall heavily on Damascus and yet be its resting-place" (Pusey) ;
or to hold that there is any reference whatever to the fact that " Damascus on the
conversion of S. Paul became the first resting-place of the word of God, the first-
fruits of the Gentiles whom the Apostle of the Gentiles gathered from east to
west throughout the world " (Pusey) . See also our remarks on Zech. vi. 8.

Ch. ix. I.] THE PREPARATION OF THE LAND. 207
neighbourhood (as the Targum seems to think), a fact which
would scarcely be spoken of in such an enigmatical manner ;
or whether the descent of the oracle, " its rest," be used in the
signification of the lighting down of God's wrath and anger,
as in Jer. xlix. 38, where in allusion to his judgment impend
ing over Elam, God says : " I will set my throne in Elam."1
The words that follow assign the ground why Damascus and
the land of Hadrach were thus to be visited with judgment.
But in the translation of the second clause there is a con
siderable variety of rendering. Passing over the conjectural
emendations proposed by Fliigge, Michaelis, and others, which
have been rejected by later scholars, as destitute of all
authority, we note that, so far as translation is concerned,
the easiest rendering of the passage and that most in accord
ance with the Hebrew accentuation, is that which occurs in our
Authorised Version, " When," or " for," " the eyes of man, as of
all (or, "and of all") the tribes of Israel, shall be toward the
Lord." This supposes an antithesis to be drawn between man
in general and the tribes of Israel in particular, i.e., between
Jews and Gentiles (comp. Jer. xxxii. 30). The passage thus
translated has been supposed to speak of the conversion both
of Jews and Gentiles (Pusey). But such a signification is op
posed to the context. Von Hofmann's translation, " Jahaveh
is the fountain of Adam, i.e., of humanity, and of all the tribes
of Israel," deserves no more than mention. The other trans
lation, supported by the LXX., the Syr., and the Targ., is
adopted with slight variations by Rosenmiiller, Ewald, Hitzig,
Hengstenberg, and Kohler : " For to Jahaveh is an eye (that
is, Jahaveh has an eye) overman and all the tribes of Israel,"
1 Umbreit regards the expression " Damascus is his resting-place " to be ironical,
referring the suffix his to Jahaveh, as much as to say, the Lord's resting-place was
once Jerusalem (Isa. xi. 10), now it will be Damascus because it is so beautiful,
the thought, however, being conveyed beneath the words that the Lord will dwell
there indeed to punish the people of that place. But this opinion is scarcely ten
able.

208 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. I.
i.e., Jahaveh sees what man is doing, both the Gentiles and
also his people Israel ; he sees the pride and idolatry of the
Gentiles and their crimes against his people, and hence the
sentence of judgment pronounced against the Gentiles in
the oracle, which is a denunciation of wrath, though no
doubt intermingled with prophecies of the future repentance
of the Gentiles and of their reception into the number of
the people of God. But while immediate judgments were
threatened against the Gentiles, gracious promises are made
to the members of the family of Israel.
This translation has the advantage of coinciding with the
context in which the passage occurs, and it can be justified, as
far as its meaning is concerned, by a reference to other pas
sages, such as Jer. xxxii. 19, where the Lord is described as
" great in counsel and mighty in work, for thine eyes are open
upon all the ways of the sons of men ; to give every one
according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his
doings." The construction is, however, decidedly harsh, as
even Hitzig confesses, though instances may be cited of similar
genitives of the object (see crit. comm.).
It is, however, possible, by a slight modification of the ren
dering given in our Authorised Version, to avoid the difficulties
by which that translation is surrounded, and to bring the
whole passage into harmony with the prophecy which follows.
Thus Kliefoth translates, " For to Jahaveh is (that is, belongs)
the eye of man (i.e., all men), as of all the tribes of Israel,"
which he thus explains : all men will have to look to Jahaveh,
just as Israel does, and so also will Hadrach and Damascus
have to look to him, and to expect judgment as well as mercy
from the word of his mouth. Or it might be even more simply
rendered : " For to Jahaveh will the eye of man be directed,
and that of all the tribes of Israel," i.e., when the fulfilment of
the oracle takes place upon Hadrach and Damascus, and the
wrath of God descends upon those cities and districts, the eyes

Ch. ix. I, 2.] THE PREPARATION OF THE LAND.

209

of the nations as well as those of the people of Israel will
look towards Jahaveh, and marvel at the wonders of judgment
which will then be performed in their sight in accordance with
the solemn warnings of the prophet. This latter appears to
be the more easy interpretation.
Thus the prophecy need not be regarded as predicting the
conversion of the several Gentile nations referred to, still less
as setting forth the conversion of all Israel at the end of the
Messianic dispensation, as Chamberlain has asserted. Such
prophecies would be out of place in this context. It merely
states that, when the judgments threatened would be executed,
both Jews and Gentiles would observe that such visitations
came from the hand of God. The Jewish captives in Babylon
and the Israelite captives by the rivers of the Medes took the
deepest interest in all the events connected with Nebuchad
nezzar's attack on Judah and with his siege of Jerusalem, and
at one period many of them regarded that struggle with hope
ful anticipations. Nor can it be doubted that, wherever Jews
or Israelites were settled throughout the vast extent of the
Persian empire, they must also have listened with awe and
wonder (as well as the nations in whose midst they were
settled) to the story of the triumphant progress of Alexander
the Great as he swept aside one by one all the various obstacles
placed in his path, and proceeded from conquest to conquest,
along the sea coast of Syria and through the various cities of
the Holy Land. Bound by all the ties of patriotism and reli
gion to the land and city of their forefathers, even though they
had not chosen to return thither themselves, the dispersed
Israelites must have heard with awe how the holy city had
been preserved among the troubles of that period, while the
proud cities of Syria, Phoenicia, and the Philistines, experienced
the powerful lighting down of the conqueror's arm.
The clause, " and even Hamath shall border on it," is not
to be regarded as independent, but as closely connected r

2IO ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 2-4.
with " and Damascus shall be its dwelling-place." The pro
noun " it " probably refers to Damascus. The meaning of
the clause is thought by some to be, that Hamath, being
near Damascus in place, and like that city in character,
should also share in the judgment denounced against that
district (Pusey). As, however, the verse speaks further of
Tyre and Sidon, it is more natural to regard the words, " the
oracle of the word of the Lord upon," to be understood
before each of the cities specially mentioned. In the latter
verse the clause must be rendered, " and even upon Hamath
which borders upon it," that is, whose boundaries are near
to those of Damascus. Or, we might mentally supply after
each the words, " shall be the rest or dwelling-place thereof,"
which would come to the same thing.1
The phrase has been understood by the Targum, Kimchi,
and others, to indicate that the various places mentioned by
the prophet should be ultimately " included among the cities
of Judah, and should be in the faith of Israel " (Kimchi). But
the lighting down of the oracle upon (comp. Isa. ix. 7, 8)
Hamath and Damascus must necessarily be understood as
similar to the descent of the prophecy upon Tyre and Sidon,
etc. In the latter case a descent of wrath and not of mercy
is referred to, and such, therefore, must be understood when
Hamath and Damascus are spoken of.
Having mentioned the Syrian cities over which the threat
ened storm was to burst, the prophet next speaks of Tyre and
Sidon. These cities, for the phrase seems to be used distri-
butively of both (see Ges. Gr., § 146, 4), were in their own
esteem, and in that of others, "very wise." Their wisdom
was seen in the riches they had heaped up for many years,
and in the case of Tyre, in the powerful fortifications by
1 Schegg translates " Hamath also lies in its borders," that is, forms a portion of
that land upon which the burden of the Divine judgments should spread itself.
Compare Vulg. " Onus verbi Domini in terra Hadrach, et Damasci requiei ejus."

Ch. ix. 3, 4-1 THE PREPARATION OF THE LAND. 211
which that great merchant city sought to secure her wealth.
"And Tyre built for herself a fortress,1 and heaped up
silver as the dust, and gold as the mire of the streets." Tyre,
though a colony of Sidon, had far surpassed the mother city
in riches and power, and in order to be doubly secure, the
Tyrians had constructed a city and fortress on the small
island which was opposite to the city on the mainland. Both
were strongly fortified. But the prophet announced the in
sufficiency of all such human wisdom. " Behold the Lord
will take possession of her (or will dispossess her, drive her
out of her possessions — the word is capable of various trans
lations), and will smite her might (i.e., her military power,
or her bulwark, bastion) in the sea." The latter clause may
refer to the maritime power of the Phoenicians (Hezel), or
may be understood to refer to the island fortress of Tyre in
which the chief strength of the city consisted (Kohler).2 The
ultimate fate of the island city was summed up by the prophet
in one expression, " and she shall be burned with fire."
If the reference of a prophecy can be judged of by the
event, there can be no doubt whatever to what period this
prophecy must refer. The judgments denounced against
Damascus, Hadrach and Hamath, are expressed in such
general terms that several events which occurred at very
different periods might be adduced as fulfilments of the
prophecy. But the prophecies referring to Tyre were not
accomplished until the capture and destruction of that city
by Alexander the Great. Tyre was unsuccessfully attacked
during the supremacy of the Assyrian power, by Shalmanezer.
1 The paranomasia in the original may be somewhat imitated in our language
by translating, " Tyre built for herself a tower," though it must be remembered
that the Hebrew word has a much wider signification than the English " tower."
s See for Ewald's translation, and the objections to it, our crit. comm. His
rendering also of the noun in the second clause of PIJ*rj as her riches is doubt
ful, because it is questionable whether the word occurs in that signification, and
because the phrase to strike riches would be a strange one, and would scarcely be
used in the sense of casting riches into the sea.

212 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 3, 4.
It was again besieged for many years by Nebuchadnezzar,
and it is still a matter of doubt whether it was actually taken
by that monarch. It is indeed highly probable that Nebu
chadnezzar, though he failed in his attack on the island for
tress, was so far successful as to gain possession of the city on
the mainland, which was possibly denuded of all that was
valuable, and that the Tyrians after the loss of the city on
the mainland made peace with the Chaldsean monarch on
favourable terms. But it is certain that if Tyre was captured
at all by Nebuchadnezzar, it was not then burned with fire,
her sea-girt fortress was not destroyed, nor her naval power
ruined. Though she may have lost her independence, she
did not lose the important position she occupied as the
greatest commercial and naval city in the world, and the
naval power of the Phoenicians proved in the Persian period
of the greatest possible importance to that empire.
The case was very different when Alexander the Great,
having completely shattered the might of Persia in the
decisive battle of Issus, marched with his victorious army
into Syria. Alexander directed the main division of his
army against Phoenicia, while he dispatched Parmenio with
a strong detachment to operate against Damascus. Damas
cus, where Darius had deposited his riches, opened its gates
to that general, who overran all the land of Hadrach, and
must also necessarily have occupied Hamath, which probably
ubmitted without a struggle. Sidon surrendered without
making any resistance, but Tyre, after a vain attempt at
negotiation, ventured to resist. Proudly confident in the
strength of their island fortress, the Tyrians mocked the
attempts of Alexander to reduce their city. Every engine
of war suited for defence had been stored up in their bul
warks, and every device which their skilful engineers could
suggest was had recourse to, and for a time with marked
success. " Ye despise this land-army through ^confidence in

Ch. ix. 3-5.] THE PREPARATION OF THE LAND. 213
the place that ye dwell in is an island, but I will show you
that ye dwell on a continent" was the language of Alexander.
(Q. Curtius, De Rebus Gest. Alex. Magn. iv. 2). The shallow
channel between the mainland and the island was at last
bridged over by a huge dam of earth erected after repeated
failures, and the city which had stood a five years' siege
from the Assyrians, a thirteen years' siege from the Chal-
dsans, was taken after a short siege of seven months by
Alexander. Ten thousand of its brave defenders were either
massacred or crucified, the rest were sold into slavery, none
escaped save those who were concealed by the Sidonians in
the ships. Q. Curtius adds distinctly (iv. 4) that " Alexander
having slain all, save those who fled to the temples, ordered
the houses to be set on fire."
The city of Tyre was afterwards repeopled by fresh settlers,
and recovered some of its prosperity. During the reigns of the
Seleucidian monarchs it rose again to considerable importance.
But the prophecy of Zechariah had been fulfilled to the letter.
The city lost its insular position ; for the mole of Alexander
was never removed, and covered over and strengthened by
deposits of sand and other matter, it remains even to this
day, a monument of the execution of the Divine wrath upon
the proud, luxurious, and idolatrous city.
But mention is made not only of the judgments which fell
upon the cities of Phoenicia and on those of northern Syria,
but also of the calamities which at the same time befel the
cities of Philistia. " Let Ashkelon see it, and she will fear,
and Gaza, and she will tremble (writhe in an agony of terror);
and Ekron, for her hope (expectation) shall be put to shame,
and a king shall perish from Gaza, and Ashkelon shall not
remain," or " be inhabited." 1
1 The meaning of the phrase 3£>ri N? is uncertain. It may signify "shall 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.1 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 pB> is there used.
Zech. 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 Ewald.
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 done (in his Notes on the Restoration and Conversion 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 (1 Mace. x. 86), and is spoken
of afterwards as being friendly disposed to the Jewish patriots (1 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. xl vii. 7
is not sufficient to prove that Ashkelon was originally a maritime city.
1 Four of the five cities of the Philistines are mentioned here. Gath 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, 5-1 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 (Herod., viii. 67). He, too,
speaks of Damasithmys the Calyndian king (viii. 87), and of
Queen Artemisia (vii. 99). Other writers give similar in
stances. Xenophon mentions the wife of Syennesis the king of
the Cilicians (Anab., 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. Jud., 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.1 Hegesias seems to refer to Betis, or
Batis, whom Dionysius himself styles only a leader (r/yeficov,)
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
((ftpovpap-xo?) of the fortress (Antiq., xi. 8, § 3). But as
Kohler observes, the evidence of Josephus on this point does
not appear of importance against the testimony of Hegesias,
as the Jewish historian has entirely altered the name of that
commander, and changed it to Babymeses. Arrian (Exped.
Alex., ii. 25), however, speaks of Batis as a eunuch, but "he
describes the position and conduct of Batis in such a manner
that one sees that Batis had assumed in Gaza a relatively
1 Hegesias, in a fragment preserved by Dionysius of Halicarnassus in his De comp.
verb. cap. 18 (Opera, Oxon. 1704). He was a contemporary of Alexander.

2l6 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 5, 6.
very independent position ; he names him not only as the
ruler of the city of Gaza (Kparojv t?)? Ta^aicav 7ro\£w?), but
also says concerning him, that he did not give heed to
Alexander (ov 'Kpoa-el-^ev 'AXe^avh'pq)), but had hired Arabian
mercenaries in order to make resistance " (Kohler, note p. 30).
Hengstenberg's opinion, that at Gaza there may have been
"a native king in existence at the same time" as Batis,
cannot be maintained in the face of these statements of
Arrian. But even if Batis were a eunuch, it is not at all
impossible, that in order to secure the stronghold of Gaza
at this important juncture, the Persian king may have de
throned the native king of Gaza, and given his authority and
title to a confidential commander, in order the better to
secure his fidelity to Persian interests. The evidence is
tolerably strong in support of the idea that the commandant
of Gaza bore the title of king. Alexander was not likely to
permit the retention of such a title, as he aimed at the
creation of a thoroughly compact empire, and his policy was
in such respects the reverse of that of the Persian monarch.
It is scarcely fair for Bleek, in his article on the age of this
special prophecy, to pass over the evidence adduced to show
that the commandant of Gaza bore the royal title, while he
argues from the fact that this passage speaks of a " king "
in Gaza, that the composition of the prophecy must be
ascribed to a date previous to the Assyrian conquest of the
territory of the Philistines.
The prophet further threatens that a mixed race, a people of
ignoble birth, or, as Hengstenberg not unsuitably renders it,
" a rabble," should dwell in the city of Ashdod, another of .
the famed cities of the Philistines. The word thus trans
lated, or paraphrased, occurs also in Deut. xxiii. 3 (A.V.
verse 2), and is rendered there by the LXX., Syr., Targ., and
Vulg., by " a bastard," while those ancient versions render it
here by " a foreigner." Fiirst denies the propriety of the

Ch. ix. 6, 7.] THE PREPARATION OF THE LAND. 217
variation in translation, which is, however, approved by
Gesenius. The word is used in Zechariah merely as a term
of reproach. It signifies properly one of mixed or ignoble
birth, but not necessarily one illegitimately born.1 Thus
it is suitably used to denote a mixed race, half Jew half
Philistine (comp. Neh. xiii. 23, 24). It would appear that
the Philistines were wont to pride themselves upon their
nationality, their prowess, and their independence. Their
pride would be humbled by Gaza's being deprived of any
ruler bearing the name of king, by the city of Ashkelon
being removed from its ancient place, and by Ashdod being
inhabited by a mixed and bastard population.
We cannot point out any special fulfilment of this portion
of the prophecy in connection with the Macedonian conquest.
It seems to have been partially fulfilled at an earlier period ;
though it is possible that in consequence of the Greek con
quest the population of Ashdod became even more mixed
than before. For it must not be forgotten that the breaking
up of petty nationalities and the fusion of different peoples,
was one of the very points which Alexander specially
encouraged, while Oriental conquerors, such as the Assyrians,
Babylonians, and Medo-Persians, did not, except on specia
occasions, seek to interfere in such matters with the nations
subject to their authority.
In the next verse (verse 7) the prophet gives again expres
sion to an idea which more or less pervades the earlier and
later chapters of this book, and which we must regard as
a striking though undesigned evidence of the unity of its
authorship. That idea is the ultimate incorporation of the
Gentiles into the people of Israel. The prophet states that
the national downfall and final humiliation of the Philistines
would be overruled to the good of the remnant of that
people. When the lofty looks of the Philistines should be
1 See our crit. comm.

2l8 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 6, 7.
humbled, and their haughtiness brought down (Isa. ii. 11),
blessings would be vouchsafed even to them. The prophet
speaks of nothing less than a general, though it might be a
gradual, conversion of the Philistines to Jahaveh. Such a
prediction, as Kohler well observes (note on p. 45), " is
unheard of in the writings of the pre-exilian prophets, for
the Philistines dwelt in a portion of the land which had been
promised to Israel (comp. Num. xxxiv. 4-6; Josh. xv. 45, ff.),
and belonged, therefore, to the peoples whose extermination
or expulsion had been decreed (comp. Exod. xxxiv. II, ff . ;
Josh. xiii. 1-6)."
Now, however, the word of Divine promise towards that
people was : " 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 he will be as a prince in Judah, and
Ekron as a Jebusite." The person referred to in the expres
sions, "his blood," "his abominations," and in the emphatic
" he " which occurs in the clause following, can hardly be, as
Hitzig imagines, " the bastard," spoken of in the earlier part
of the preceding verse, though that view is grammatically
admissible ; it. must rather be the Philistines mentioned in
the second clause of that verse, and personified as an indi
vidual. The Philistines are not to be considered as likened to
a wild beast from whose teeth the prey is torn away (Neu
mann), nor does the word blood refer to the human blood
which was shed by the Philistines at different times. The word
" abominations " used in the parallel clause shows that the
prophet refers rather to the blood of their idolatrous sacrifices,
which was to be taken away from between their teeth ; not as
indicating that desperate means and overwhelming judgments
were needed to loosen the firm grasp with which they held to
their idolatrous practices (Hengstenberg), but rather because
the worshippers were wont to feed upon a portion of the sacri
fices offered up to their idols (Hitzig, Maurer, Umbreit), which

Ch. ix. 7.] THE PREPARATION OF THE LAND.

¦19

they often ate with the blood ; and that hence, as a preliminary
requirement to their incorporation into the people of God, all
such unclean food must be taken away from between their
teeth. The broken-down remnant of the once far-famed Philis
tines would be joined to the God of Israel, whom the prophet
styles " our God," and in such a manner that this " remnant "
would enjoy the same privileges and rights as the chiefest
nobles among the chosen people. " He will be as a prince
in Judah and Ekron as the Jebusite."1
Some understand the Jebusites to be here referred to.
They were so powerful as to be able to maintain their
stronghold in the centre of Jerusalem until that fortress
was reduced by the military skill or artifice of Joab in the
time of David. It has been objected that the prophet could
scarcely have referred to that fact, inasmuch as the occu
pation of Jerusalem by the Jebusites was always regarded
as a thorn in the side of Judah, while Zechariah evidently
does not mean to predict that the Philistines would be a
similar occasion of vexation to the Jewish people. Hence
the Jebusite has been regarded by Rosenmiiller, Gesenius,
etc., as a name of Jerusalem, because the Gentilic noun is
so used in Josh. xv. 8, or more clearly in Josh, xviii. 28.
The passage would then predict that the condition of the
people of Ekron would be equivalent to that of the people of
Jerusalem ; in other words, that the Jews and the Philistines
would have equal privileges.
It is best perhaps to understand by " the Jebusite " the
remnant of the Canaanitish tribes who in the time of David and
Solomon became incorporated with the congregation of Israel
(comp. 1 Kings ix. 20, 21), and, having embraced the religion
of Jahaveh, helped to swell the numbers of the " Nethinim,"
of whom frequent mention is made in Ezra and Nehemiah.
These Nethinim originally consisted of the Gibeonites
On the word 5]1?S, here translated prince, see our crit. comm.

220 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 7.
(Josh, ix.), but after the massacre by Saul of that people
(2 Sam. xxi. 1), the ranks of the Nethinim were filled up by
converts from among the heathen (Neh. x. 28, 29 ; Ezra
viii. 20). Kohler draws attention to the fact that the children
of Solomon's servants were reckoned among the Nethinim
(Ezra ii. 58 ; Neh. vii. 60), the servants of Solomon referred
to having been themselves individuals of Canaanitish extrac
tion, or belonging to other Gentile peoples who were forced
to do work by Solomon (1 Kings ix. 20). J
No mention is made of any considerable conversion of the
Philistines to the Israelitish religion having occurred at the
time of the Greek conquest of the Holy Land and the regions
around. The Philistines, however, were no doubt gradually
absorbed into the Jewish population. This absorption had
begun already in the time of Nehemiah, but even in the days
of the Maccabees the Philistines are spoken of as manifesting
their national hostility to the Jewish nation (1 Mace. iii. 41),
and a temple of Dagon at Ashdod, which belonged to the
Philistines, was utterly destroyed by Jonathan (1 Mace. x. 83,
84). After that time, however, the name of Philistine, as the
designation of a separate people, disappears from the page
of history, probably, because they were no longer generally
distinguished from the Jewish race, or from the Greek settlers
living in those districts. The name however of Philistia,
which was originally used as the designation of the country
of the Philistines, and which appears in the Assyrian inscrip
tions as Pilastav or Palastav, became afterwards the name
of the entire land TlaXaunlvi), or Palestine, and is so termed
by Herodotus and Josephus.
1 Hengstenberg seems to be mistaken in adducing the case of Araunah the
Jebusite (2 Sam. xxiv. and 1 Chron. xxi. ) as a proof that the Jebusites in general
adopted the Jewish religion in the days of David. It is very doubtful whether the
Jebusites or the other remnants of the Canaanitish tribes did in general really
conform to the worship of Jahaveh. It is more probable that these people for the
most part continued, openly at some times and secretly at others, to retain down to
a very late period their heathenish customs. Comp. Ezra ix. 1, 2.

Ch. ix. 8.] THE PREPARATION OF THE LAND. 221
While heavy judgments, resulting in the case of the Philis
tines in ultimate benefit to that people, were thus announced
by the prophet as destined to fall upon the north and south
of the Holy Land, Zechariah assures the Jewish people
(verse 8) that the Lord would camp around his house, which
had been newly restored and dedicated, " because of the army."
The difference of opinion as to the meaning of this word or
phrase is of little importance as regards the general drift of
the prophecy. Whether the corrected text of the Masorites
be adopted with our Authorised Version, or the translation of
Ewald be preferred, " I encamp around my house as a wall,"
or the rendering of jBottcher and von Ortenberg, 'ii encamp
myself (with my band of angels) in my house as an entire
garrison," or whether we adopt any other of the special
renderings which have been proposed, the general sense of
the passage is the same. It contains a promise that in some
way or other protection would be afforded by the Lord to his
house and people at a special time of danger and distress.
Nor is it of much importance what sense may be assigned
to the expression " my house," whether the national temple at
Jerusalem be supposed to be alluded to, or the Jewish people
themselves.1 The phrase " because of him that passeth to and
fro '' occurs only four times in the Old Testament writings.
It is found twice in Zechariah (chap. vii. 14 and ix. 8),
which fact, as the expression is so unusual, has justly been
1 The plural pronoun in the following clause " no oppressor shall pass through
them any more " has been cited as a proof that the Jewish people is signified by
"my house." The pronoun might, however, be explained as a simple, and not
uncommon, inaccuracy of expression. But if the words "my house" refer to
the temple, the temple at once suggests the people for whose sake that house
itself existed. This is Kohler's view. He considers that the New Testament
use of the expression " house of God " to signify the assembly of God's people
is not found in the Old Testament. But that seems to be the natural meaning of
Num. xii. 7, even if the passages in Hosea viii. I and Ps. lxix. 10 (especially the
latter) must be considered doubtful. The passage in Zech. ix. 8 is not sufficiently
clear to lead to any decided conclusion. But if the material temple be meant,
which is the more natural view, the clause which follows, rendered by Kohler

222 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 8.
noticed as an indication of the common authorship of the first
and second portions of the book. The phrase occurs also in
Exod. xxxii. 27 and Ezek. xxxv. 7. These passages, however,
scarcely justify the sense here assigned J to the words by
Pusey, " because of him that passeth by and of him that
returneth," as if the words contained a prediction of "Alex
ander who passed by with his army on his way to Egypt, and
returned, having founded Alexandria." Though such an event
may be included in the general terms of the prophecy, the
expressions made use of are far too indefinite to be regarded
as a distinct prediction of that event.
The clause that follows is of peculiar significance. It is
rendered in our Authorised Version, " and no oppressor shall
pass through them any more ; for now have I seen with mine
eyes." The word translated "oppressor" properly means a
" taskmaster," who compels slaves to perform their appointed
tasks. It is used of the taskmasters who oppressed the Israel
ites in Egypt (Exod. iii. 7 ; v. 6, 10, 13), and is met with in
the book of Job in the same signification (Job iii. 18), as well
as in the sense of a cattle-driver (Job xxxix. 7). In the
meaning of taskmaster, the term is used by Isaiah (ix. 3,
xiv. 4) to designate the oppressors of the Israelitish people.
It is once used in a good sense, namely, in this very prophecy
(Zech. x. 4).
The meaning of the passage seems to be that, whatever
might be the peculiar trials and troubles which the people of
" that no one shall go to and fro over it," might be regarded as giving an indica
tion as to the date at which the prophecy was composed. For that clause might
fairly be interpreted to mean that no one would pass to and fro over the temple,
as if it were a common road, and no one could do so, unless the temple had been
destroyed and laid in ruins. The prophecy would thus appear to have been
written in post-exilian times after the temple had actually undergone that de
gradation. Kohler would also derive an argument in favour of the traditional view
of the authorship of the prophecy from the usage of the expression "my house" in
the signification of the temple. The basis on which the argument rests is, how
ever, too slender to permit much weight to be attached to it.
1 See our note on chap. vii. 14.

Ch. ix. 8.] THE PREPARATION OF THE LAND. 223
Israel might have to undergo in the land to which they were
so graciously restored, they would not again be reduced to
the position of slaves, as had been the case under their Baby
lonian and Persian masters. Amid the troubles attendant on
the Grecian war of conquest which should roll over the land,
the prophet predicts that the Jewish nation would preserve
some kind of independence, however precarious, until the great
event should occur which was so wistfully looked forward to,
namely, the Advent of the Messiah. The prophecy does not
promise a day of cessation from all oppression or trouble.
Nor is it unnatural, when the strict meaning of the word
" oppression " is borne in mind, to regard the passage itself,
with Hengstenberg, as affording an indication that at the time
the prophecy was composed the people were actually suffering
under, or had been but lately redeemed from, an oppression
similar in some respects to that which their forefathers had
endured in the land of Egypt. This language would be more
likely to have been used by a prophet who lived in or after
the days of exile than by one who lived at an earlier period.
The expression " for now have I seen with my eyes," has
been explained as referring to the eyes of the Lord described
as running to and fro throughout the whole earth (iv. 10).
It is, however, more naturally understood to be a remi
niscence of the words of Jahaveh in Exod. iii. 7, " I have
seen, I have seen the oppression of my people." The phrase
ology is in accordance with the common language of the
Pentateuch, which represents the Lord as descending from
heaven in order himself to witness the sin he had determined
to punish (comp. Gen. xviii. 21), and to behold the oppression
wherewith his people were troubled and oppressed (Exod. iii.
7, 8). Hengstenberg's remark is true : " in the estimation of
timid, despairing men, men of little faith, God only sees, when
in his providence he actively interferes." The language is,
of course, an accommodation to ordinary methods of human

224 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 8.
thought and action. Hengstenberg thinks that the word
" now " " refers not so much to the time at which the prophecy
itself was delivered, as to the period of fulfilment when the
Lord should encamp around his house." But this latter
supposition is unnecessary. The prophet seems rather to
comfort his people with the thought that the Lord had beheld
the oppression under which they were then suffering, and that
his gracious resolve was that that oppression should terminate,
and that similar troubles would not again be experienced until
Zion's promised king should have indeed come.
With respect to the special fulfilment of this prediction of
Zechariah in the days of Alexander the Great, the remarkable
statements of Josephus must be borne in mind. That his
torian states that Alexander, at the commencement of his
campaign against Phoenicia, sent to the Jewish high priest,
demanding aid from the Jews and the payment to him of the
tribute which used to be paid to the Persian monarch. The
high priest declined, however, to break the oath of fealty
which he had sworn to Darius, and accordingly refused to
obey the mandates of the Macedonian monarch. In conse
quence of that refusal, Alexander threatened to inflict a severe
chastisement on Jerusalem, when he should have captured the
fortress of Tyre. When Tyre, therefore, fell into his hands, and
the Philistine strongholds were reduced, Alexander marched
against Jerusalem with the design of executing his threat of
vengeance against that city and the Jewish people. Josephus
relates that on this occasion the high priest J addua, encouraged
by God in a dream, caused the gates of the city to be crowned
with garlands, and went forth to meet the conqueror, followed
by the people all attired in white robes, the priests at the
head of the procession clad in their linen garments, while the
high priest himself was robed in his gorgeous dress of purple
and gold, and wore on his head the mitre with the golden
plate on which was inscribed the name of God. The Phce-

Ch. ix. 8.] THE PREPARATION OF THE LAND. 225
nicians and Chaldaeans in the train of Alexander expected to
be permitted to share in the rich plunder of the city. Alex
ander, however, as soon as he beheld the strange procession,
advanced alone towards the high priest, adored the name
of God, and first saluted the pontiff. When asked by Par-
menio how it was that he, who was worshipped by all, should
himself adore the high priest of the Jews, he replied, " I did
not worship him, but God with whose high-priesthood he has
been honoured. For him I saw in sleep in this dress when
I was in Dium in Macedonia. And as I was considering
with myself how I would conquer Asia, he exhorted me
not to delay, but to cross over boldly, for that he himself
would lead my army, and would give over to me the empire
of the Persians. Therefore, since I have seen no one else in
such a dress, having now beheld him, and having remem
bered the appearance in sleep, and the exhortation, I consider
that having made my expedition under Divine guidance, I
will conquer Darius, and overturn the power of the Persians,
and succeed in all things which I have in my mind." Having
said this, Alexander took the priest by the right hand, and
proceeded to Jerusalem and to the temple, where he sacrificed
to God ; and where, after having bestowed rewards on the
priests, he was shown by them the book of the prophet Daniel
and the prophecy there contained of the overthrow of the
Persian monarchy by the Grecian power (Antiq. Jud., xi. 8,
§§ 4, 5)-
The historical truth of this statement of Josephus, which
agrees with the Talmudic traditions, need not here be ex
amined into. It is partly supported by the fact that the
high priest Jaddua was probably, according to Neh. xii. 11,12,
high priest when Alexander invaded Judaea. The story is
neither so incredible as some have endeavoured to prove, nor
so certain as others would wish to make it appear. x It is very
1 See Smith's Biblical Diet, article on Jaddua, and Lord Arthur Hervey,
Q

226 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 8.
probable, as Dean Stanley has remarked, that Alexander paid
homage to Jahaveh as God of the Jews, as he had before
worshipped the god of the Tyrians. But the fact is certain,
whatever was its immediate cause, that the Jewish temple was
protected by Alexander, and that the Jewish people received
remarkable tokens of favour at the hands of the conquerors.
The Jews were marvellously preserved during the terrible con
test which overturned the Persian empire. Notwithstanding
the number of armies that passed to and fro through their land,
not only during the period of Alexander's rule, but also during
the stormy times of his successors, when Judaea was so often
overrun with armies, the Jews were preserved from utter de
struction. They were not reduced to the condition of slaves,
as they had been in the days of the Babylonian and Persian
empires, but amid all the confusion necessarily arising from
the change of empire they often preserved a position of semi-
independence, and sometimes of complete independence.
Their temple was not destroyed when the Persian empire was
overthrown, and though for a brief period in later days Anti-
ochus Epiphanes was permitted to desecrate the holy edifice,
yet even in that dark period the temple was not completely
desolated or destroyed as it had been by the Chaldaeans. As
Kliefoth remarks, neither Antiochus Epiphanes nor any other
of the Grecian monarchs were able to reduce the Jewish
people to a state of slavery.
When all the varied statements of the prophecy are borne
in mind, especially those relating to the absorption of the
Philistines into the nation of Israel, together with those just
considered, Kohler seems correct in his view that the prophecy
does not merely delineate the events connected with the tri
umphal progress of Alexander, but predicts the general events
On the Genealogies of our Lord, pp. 101, 107, etc. On the story of Josephus
in general see Milman's History of the Jews (4th edit.), vol. i. p. 446, and the
authorities referred to by him, and Stanley's Jewish Church, vol. iii. (2nd edit.),
pp. 238-40.

Ch. ix. 8.] THE PREPARATION OF THE LAND. 227
which followed the Greek conquest of Palestine, inclusive of
the various wars which occurred in the latter days of the
Grecian supremacy up to the time when the Roman power
overshadowed that of Greece.
Before passing on to consider the great Messianic passage
in verse 9 and following, it may be convenient here to pause
in order to review the other expositions of the prophecy which
have been propounded by able scholars of the modern critical
school. Bleek views the prophecy of chap.ix. as a prediction complete
in itself, and not connected with that in chap. x. He considers
it an evident fact that the prophecy was composed in or about
the latter part of the reign of Uzziah. It ought to be observed
that although a considerable difference of opinion prevails
among the critics of the modern school as to the connexion
of this prophecy with the next and following chapters, those
critics generally agree in considering that this portion belongs
to the date assigned by Bleek, or to the time of Ahaz. Their
arguments in favour of the pre-exilian composition of the
prophecy mainly rest upon the assumed fact (see Bleek's
Einleitung) that this oracle speaks of several cities and king
doms as independent, which did not possess any independence
at the period of the Jewish return from exile.
Thus Hadrach and Damascus lost their independence whe
Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria, overthrew the kingdom of
Syria in the beginning of the reign of Ahaz, king of Judah.
Hamath was also subdued by the Assyrians during the reign
of Hezekiah. The references to Tyre and Sidon are not
generally considered to afford any clear indication of the early
date of the prophecy. On the contrary, the special references
to Tyre are, as we have shown, decidedly in favour of its post-
exilian composition. It is, however, asserted that the manner
in which the Philistines are spoken of necessarily implies the
independence of that people, which independence was lost

228 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 1-8.
long before the restoration from the Babylonish captivity.
The mention made of Greece in verse 13, which shall be
discussed by and by, and which has been much relied on
by those who uphold the post-exilian composition of the
prophecy, is explained by Bleek and others by a reference
to Joel iv. 6, as arising from the fact that many of the Israelite
captives of earlier days may have been sold to the Greeks by
the Phoenician slave-merchants.
The force of Bleek's argument with regard to Hadrach is
considerably weakened by the fact that this scholar's conjec
ture must now be abandoned, namely, that Hadrach was the
name of a king of Syria whose memory was still fresh in
the prophet's day, though it has since entirely faded from his
tory. For the Assyrian inscriptions have shown (see p. 205)
that Hadrach was the name of a district not far from Da
mascus. It must also be noted that long after the period
when Damascus and Hamath had ceased to be independent
kingdoms, and had become part and parcel of the Assyrian
empire, Jeremiah prophesied against those cities, and that his
prophecies were fulfilled in the destruction which befel them
when Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon overran their terri
tories (Jer. xlix. 23-27). If, therefore, a prophet who lived in
the days of the Babylonian supremacy could utter such pre
dictions against Damascus and Hamath, couched in language
which, if it had not been explained by other history, might '
incline us to suppose that those kingdoms were independent,
why should it be thought so strange that a prophet living in
the days of the Persian supremacy should threaten the same
cities in general terms with disasters which were to fall upon
them when the Medo-Persian empire should be overthrown
by the might of Greece ? It cannot appear strange that a
prophet whose predictions had for the most part the object of
stirring up the Jewish people to make use of the liberty they
possessed and to return to their own land, should speak of the

Ch. ix. 1-8.] THE PREPARATION OF THE LAND. 229
disaster impending over the heathen inhabitants of those cities
which were comprehended within the limits originally assigned
to the people of Israel (see p. 201). Damascus and Hamath
could not have been an object of terror to Judah in the days
when Jeremiah uttered his denunciations against them. And
if the mention of Damascus and Hamath is not considered a
valid argument against the genuineness of the special prophe
cies of Jeremiah, although those cities could no longer be
regarded as independent foes of Judah, how can that fact be
fairly made the basis of an argument against the genuineness
of Zechariah ? It is, moreover, highly probable that the
inhabitants of those historic cities and districts were strongly
opposed to the restoration of the Jewish exiles to their full
rights in the land to which they had returned, and that they
assisted " the adversaries of Judah and Jerusalem " in their
efforts to hinder and retard the progress of the restored
Jewish colony. And it is very possible that was the reason
why the prophet was commissioned to reveal the judgments
of God which should ultimately fall upon those cities.
The mention of the Philistines in this prophecy ought not
to be regarded as presenting any serious difficulty in the way
of its composition after the exile. Jeremiah (chap. xxv. 20 ;
xlvii. 1-7) and Ezekiel (chap. xxv. 15-17) likewise denounced
judgments against the Philistines. That people were not
backward to exhibit their determined hostility against the
Jews when the latter returned from Babylon. The inhabitants
of Ashdod were among the enemies of the Jews who were
wroth when Nehemiah began to rebuild the walls of Jeru
salem, and they joined in a conspiracy to go up against
Jerusalem at that time and fight against it (Neh. iv. 7, 8), not
withstanding that Nehemiah had begun that work under the
express sanction of the great king of Persia. Still later, in
the Maccabean period, the Philistines actively displayed their
hostility against the Jewish people (1 Mace. iii. 41), notwith-

230 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 1-8.
standing that their power had been broken long before by the
conquests of Alexander. They appear to have been finally
crushed by the victories of Jonathan (i Mace. x. 84, 89).
Hence the mention of the Philistines cannot be considered
as any proof of the pre-exilian date of this prophecy. The
argument drawn from the mention of a "king of Gaza" is
of more importance, but is not, for the reasons already assigned
(see p. 215), conclusive.
If this prophecy be supposed to have been written in the
reign of Uzziah or in the early part of that of Ahaz, the
prophecies against the Syrians and Philistines might indeed
be regarded as natural. For the memory of the successful
wars of Jeroboam II. against Syria, and his conquest of
Damascus and Hamath, were then fresh (2 Kings xiv. 25, 28)
in the minds of the people. Still later, in the reign of Ahaz,
Syria was a formidable enemy to Judah. Uzziah, several
decades earlier, carried on a successful warfare against the
Philistines (2 Chron. xxvi. 6, 7). But the prediction of the
conversion of the Philistines to the faith of Israel, and of their
incorporation with the people of the covenant, with a share in
all the rights and privileges belonging to such a position, must
be viewed as most extraordinary, if assigned to such an era,
nor was the prophecy then accomplished. We cannot ac
cept the middle view propounded by Pressel, who considers
that the prophecy speaks of Hezekiah's victories over the
Philistines (2 Kings xviii. 8), and suggests that those victories
somewhat weakened the attachment of the Philistines to their
national idolatry. Nor can we regard his suggestion as
felicitous that the " bastard," or " ignoble one," of verse 6
was probably the Jewish governor appointed by Hezekiah over
the city of Ashdod, and that he was so termed with an " iron
ical allusion to the fact of circumcision, which was looked
upon as dishonourable in the eyes of the Philistines." These
predictions of Zechariah were really accomplished at a later

Ch. ix. 1-8.] THE PREPARATION OF THE LAND. 23 1
period, and not even Bleek, Maurer, or Ewald, have ven
tured to point out any definite fulfilment at any pre-exilian
period. Hitzig's view is most improbable, namely, that the
campaigns of Uzziah against the Philistines, and the cities
built by him in the district of Ashdod, form " the historical
basis of the prophecy contained in these verses."
The prediction concerning the preservation of the temple
Pressel regards as accomplished by the preservation of the
city of Jerusalem during the campaigns of Tiglath-Pilezer
and Shalmanezer, the latter of whom subdued Samaria.
Josephus, on the authority of Menander, mentions a partially
successful attack of Shalmanezer on Tyre (Antiq. Jud., ix.
14, § 2), when Elulseus was king of that city. But Elulseus is
probably to be identified with Luliah king of Sidon, of "Sidon
the greater and Sidon the lesser," over whom Sennacherib in
his inscription boasts that he obtained decisive victories. 1 It
is somewhat uncertain whether Sennacherib actually took
Tyre; for the language of the inscription is consistent with
the idea that Menander may have been quite correct in stating
that the Tyrians were not utterly subdued. The conquests of
Sennacherib cannot, however, be regarded as the fulfilment of
this prophecy ; although that conqueror did indeed overrun
Phoenicia and made the kings of the Philistines his vassals.
Ashkelon was permitted to remain a vassal kingdom, though
it received at the hands of Sennacherib another king, while
the kings of Ashdod and Gaza were treated with peculiar
favour by the Assyrian monarch. So far were the prophecies
here recorded from being fulfilled on that occasion.
Perhaps even more unsatisfactory is the view defended by
Maurer, namely, that the prophet alludes to the immunity
experienced by Jerusalem during the irruption of Rezin king
of Syria, and Pekah king of Israel, into the territories of Judah
1 See the translation of this inscription by H. F. Talbot, F.R. S., in Records of
the Past, vol. i. p. 37, ff.

232 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 1-8.
(2 Kings xvi. 5), as well as during the wars with the Philis
tines which occurred during that period (2 Chron. xxviii. 18).
The denunciations against Tyre might indeed be viewed as
naturally arising out of the sale of the Israelite captives at
that period by the Phoenician merchants into foreign lands,
alluded to by the prophet Joel (iii. 4-6), though the predic
tions as to Tyre's downfall can scarcely be considered as
accomplished either by the victories of Sennacherib or by the
later successes of Nebuchadnezzar. But if the prophecy be
considered to have been composed before the exile, at the
date assigned by Maurer, it would be indeed strange and un
accountable that no notice whatever is taken by the prophet
of the far more important enemies of Judah at that period,
to wit, the Ammonites (2 Chron. xxvi. 8, xxvii. 5), the Edom-
ites (Amos i. n-15), the Moabites (Amos ii. 1-3), and even
the Arabians and others (2 Chron. xxvi. 7).
Thus on a review on the one hand of the objections adduced
against the post-exilian date of the prophecy (so far as yet
considered), and of the attempts made to explain the prophecy
as really belonging to the time previous to the exile, it appears
more probable that the prophecy was a prediction of the
events connected with the overthrow by the Greek power of
the Persian supremacy in Palestine and the neighbouring
districts. As when at an earlier era the Lord saw the oppression of
Israel in Egypt and sent Moses into that country to deliver
his people out of " the furnace of iron," so the prophet, who
acted as an ambassador from the Most High, after having
called attention to the fact that Jahaveh himself beheld the
affliction of his people in the land to which he had graciously
restored them, bursts forth into an exclamation of joy, and
bids the people of the Lord rejoice because of the approach
ing advent of their long-expected king : " Rejoice greatly,
daughter of Zion, shout, daughter of Jerusalem, Behold thy

Ch. ix. 9-10.] THE COMING OF THE KING. 233
king shall come to thee, Righteous and Saved is he, afflicted
and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, a foal of she-asses."
Philistia might well tremble when the news of Tyre's downfall
should be spread abroad in her cities, because the downfall of
that great city was the sure precursor of the fall of her own
cities, and of the ruin of her national pride. On the other
hand Zion ought to rejoice with trembling, for the noise of
that mighty overthrow was one of the loud signals given by
Providence to the world at large, and to the people of the
covenant in particular, of the near approach of him who was
first to be king of Israel and afterwards king of the world.
In discussing the ninth and tenth verses of this chapter it
is satisfactory that we have to deal with a passage now almost
universally regarded by modern critics as Messianic. There
is no doubt much real divergence of opinion underneath this
apparent agreement. But the agreement of modern critics is
satisfactory as far as it goes. Maurer, Rosenmiiller, Hitzig,
and Ewald are as decided in their views on this point as
Hengstenberg, Kliefoth, Kohler, and Keil. All the attempts
which have been made to apply this prophecy to Zerubbabel,
or Nehemiah, have broken down before the clear and definite
expression " thy king." For neither Zerubbabel nor Nehemiah
ever possessed the royal dignity. That Judas Maccabeus was
the hero referred to is an opinion which for the same reason
has found no defenders in modern times. The view of For-
berg that the entrance of Uzziah into Jerusalem after his
victories over the Philistines is depicted is a most desperate
attempt to get rid of the true meaning of the passage, and has
been well declared by Hitzig to be untenable. It is therefore
all the more incomprehensible that an evangelical scholar like
Pressel, while admitting that the Messiah is mainly the person
in view, should yet maintain that the entry of Hezekiah into
Jerusalem on the day of his coronation is the event primarily
referred to. No such entry is recorded, and it is very unlikely

234 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 9-10.
that Hezekiah would have preferred to use an ass on such an
occasion. The whole tone of the passage is against such an
interpretation, especially the statements made in verse 10 in
reference to the vast extent of the kingdom to be ruled over by
the king of Zion.
The coming deliverer is described as " righteous," or "just,"
a title well befitting him " who did no sin, neither was guile
found in his mouth" (1 Pet. ii. 22). The word which follows
is rendered in our Authorised Version " having salvation," on
the authority of the ancient versions, such as the LXX., Targ,
Syr., and Vulg., who render it " saviour." But it is correctly
translated by Calvin and the modern critics by "saved."
The expression in the prophet's own day would recall to the
remembrance of his contemporaries the language of the second
Psalm, where the Messiah is represented as saved and delivered
in spite of all the combinations made against him, and destined
to be one day securely seated upon his royal throne. If the
king- of Israel was "saved," his people must be "saved" like
wise. His deliverance or salvation was a sure sign of the
deliverance of his people, which was to be effected by his
means. The Christian commentator cannot but think (as he
ponders over such expressions in the light of Christ's history)
that they contain a prediction of the deliverance granted to
the Lord's Christ after his days of shame and suffering. He
trusted in Jahaveh that he would deliver him (Ps. xxii. 8), and
though he was not delivered from death on the cross, he was
delivered in very deed from the hand of the great destroyer.
God raised him from the dead, "having loosed the pains of
death because it was not possible that he should be holden of
it" (Acts ii. 23, 24). "Saved" by the almighty power of the
Father (Eph. i. 19-23), and declared to be the Son of God
with power by the resurrection from the dead (Rom. i. 4),
having previously become obedient unto death, even the death
of the cross (Phil. ii. 8), he was made perfect as a Redeemer

Ch. ix. 9.] THE COMING OF THE KING. 235
and Mediator, and became the author of eternal salvation unto
all them that obey him (Heb. v. 9).
It was strange, however, that he to whom the prophets
pointed as " the Hope of Israel " should be further character
ised as "afflicted." This is the most natural signification of
the word, if explained according to its grammatical form,
and in accordance with the usage in all other places (see crit.
comm.). It is the meaning given to the term by the Vulgate,
and defended by Ibn Ezra, Calvin, and among the modern
scholars by Hengstenberg, Tholuck, Kliefoth, and Kohler.
The extraordinary fact that a king, who was to be rendered
remarkable by some deliverance vouchsafed to him, was also
described as " afflicted " or " poor," naturally led the Greek
translators (LXX.), the Targumist, the majority of Jewish
commentators, and many critics of modern days (as Maurer,
Hitzig, and Ewald), to adopt the translation " lowly " or
" meek," which translation is that given by the Evangelists ;
though, as the Evangelists simply quoted the text from the
LXX., little stress can be fairly laid upon this circumstance.
Those who feel themselves constrained to recognise in the
great prophecy of the afflicted " servant of the Lord " in Isaiah
(Hi. 13-liii.) a vivid description of the sufferings and death of
Jesus Christ of Nazareth, cannot regard it as strange that
Zechariah should have been led to describe the Messiah as
"afflicted," and the Sufferer as the King. It is likely that
neither the prophet nor his hearers had any conception of the
manner in which the prophecy would be accomplished, and
that they understood the expression either as denoting "meek"
and " lowly," which meaning the word undoubtedly can bear,
or " afflicted," as pointing out the various trials which should
precede the Messiah's final victory. The prediction of
Caiaphas (John xii. 49-52) is not the only instance in which
words uttered under some special inspiration had a deeper
signification than the speaker originally designed.

236 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 9.
The animal here mentioned as that on which the Messiah was
to ride was an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. The phrase
does not signify that two distinct animals should be used by
the Messiah ; the second expression is simply equivalent in
meaning to the word in the first member of the verse, and indi
cates more precisely the sense which it bore. The ass to be
ridden by the Messiah was to be a young animal still accustomed
to keep near the she-asses in the pasturage (comp. Matt. xxi. 2).
Riding on an ass has been considered by many to be
mentioned as a proof of the lowliness and poverty of the
coming Messiah. On the other hand, it has been maintained
that according to Eastern usage the riding on an ass is no
mark whatever of poverty or humility, for the ass was often
ridden by personages of high rank (comp. Judg. v. 9, 10, x. 4,
xii. 14 ; 2 Sam. xvii. 23, xix. 27, or verse 26 in the English
Bible).1 Hengstenberg is of opinion that the practice of nobles
and kings riding on asses prevailed only in early times, before
the use of the horse became common in Israel, and that when
the kingly government was introduced mules were first used,
and at a later period horses only. He maintains that after
the time of Solomon no king or great personage is spoken of
as riding upon an ass. This latter fact may be only accidental,
although the prophet Jeremiah speaks of kings sitting in
chariots and riding upon horses as something peculiarly be
fitting their royal dignity, at least on state occasions (Jer. xvii.
25). But even that would be insufficient to prove that the fact
of a king riding upon an ass was in itself a marked sign of
lowliness or humility. The riding upon an ass is mentioned
because that animal was in days of peace used for common
1 The use of the horse was originally forbidden in the law (Deut. xvii. 16), inas
much as to obtain a supply of horses communication must have been kept up with
Egypt, which was contrary to the Divine intention (Deut. xxviii. 68 ; Exod. xiii. 17;
Deut. xiv. 3), and intercourse with Egypt brought ruin upon the people in later
days (Jer. ii. 36). See Herxheimer on Deut. xvii. 16 (Der Pentateuch, 3te Aufl.,
Leipzig, 1865).

Ch. ix. 9.] THE COMING OF THE KING. 237
and ordinary purposes, though it was not used in later times
for purposes of state or for the requirements of war (comp.
chap. x. 5). It cannot, however, be proved that the riding on
an ass clearly symbolized peace, any more than that it
symbolized humiliation. It indicated, however, an absence of
pomp and worldly display.
The ass to be ridden is expressly mentioned as one on
which man had not yet sat, which by reason of its tender age
was permitted to remain near its mother (on the plural, see crit.
comm.). In connection with this point Kohler calls attention
to the direction of the Mosaic law, that all animals devoted
to the service of the Lord were to be animals which had not
previously been used in the service of man (Num. xix. 2 ;
Deut. xxi. 3 ; 1 Sam. vi. 7 ; Mark xi. 2 ; Luke xix. 30). The
riding of the Messiah upon such an animal indicates, according
to his view, that the Messiah was employed peculiarly in the
service of Jahaveh, was one who came to fulfil the promises of
peace made by Jahaveh to his covenant people. The animal
on which the Messiah was to ride, was by its very unostenta
tious character to bring prominently into view that feature of
"the Servant of Jahaveh," so beautifully described by Isaiah :
" He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard
in the streets." That feature so remarkably characterised the
whole work of Jesus of Nazareth, that the evangelist called
the special attention of his readers thereto, as a striking fulfil
ment of the prophecy of Isaiah (Matt. xii. 15-20).
Although, therefore, the riding on the ass cannot be re
garded as necessarily a mark of humiliation or lowliness, yet
there seems to be a comparison drawn in the passage, pecu
liarly suited to the age at which the prophecy was composed,
between the mode in which the long expected king of Israel
was to come to his people, and the pomp and splendour of the
approaches of the Persian monarchs. The poor Jewish exiles
who returned to their land were dejected and cast down as

238 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 9.
they thought of the condition in which they still found them
selves as servants to the proud kings of Persia, the yoke of
whose bondage still galled their necks (Neh. ix. 36, 37). The
words of Zechariah were well fitted to arouse their flagging
energies, and to lift them out of their despair. For the pro
phet predicted that the whole land once promised to Abraham,
from farthest north to south, was destined after some days of
trial to belong to their God, and therefore to his people ; and
the prophet was further commissioned to announce the ad
vent of the promised Messiah, which was to occur in a manner
widely different indeed from the progresses of those mighty
monarchs, of whom they had seen and heard so much ; and
that the coming of the Messiah was to bring about those
blessed results to the people of the covenant which are after
wards more fully described.
It does not surprise us that the Jewish commentators of
early days, while generally agreeing among themselves that
this prophecy was Messianic, should have found peculiar diffi
culties in the description given of the Messiah himself. Their
difficulties arose from the views they held of the Messiah as a
great and mighty conqueror. They could not contemplate the
very common-place and ordinary way in which the king of
Israel is here described as approaching his royal city. They,
therefore, sought to reconcile this description with other pro
phecies either by exalting the dignity of the animal on which
the Messiah was to ride, or, in later days, by devising the ex
pedient of supposing that two Messiahs were spoken of in the
prophets — the Messiah ben David, or the great and victorious
Messiah, and the Messiah ben Joseph, or the Messiah who was
to suffer, and ultimately to be slain, on behalf of his people.
Lightfoot relates the raillery of King Sapor, a Persian
monarch of later days (B.C. 240), who in his pride thus ad
dressed the Jewish Rabbi Samuel: "Ye say that your Messiah
will come upon an ass. I will send him a noble horse." To

Ch. ix. 9.] THE COMING OF THE KING. 239
which speech the Rabbi with equal pride rejoined: "You
have not a horse of an hundred colours, like his ass." On this
rejoinder Lightfoot makes the pithy remark, " in the deepest
humility of the Messiah they dream of pride even in his
ass" (Horce Heb. Matt. xxi. 5. Comp. Wiinsche, Die Leiden
des Mess i as, p. 60).
It is not necessary to do more than refer to the striking
fulfilment of this prophecy in the lowly but triumphant entry
of Jesus into Jerusalem, sitting on the ass's colt. He entered
Jerusalem amid the enthusiastic greetings on the one hand of
the Galilean pilgrims who had gone forth from that city to
meet him as he was nearing its walls, and on the other amid
the rapt enthusiasm of his own disciples, coupled with that of
other pilgrims bound to the Holy City, who had at Bethany
become acquainted with the miracle of the raising of Lazarus
from the dead. That entry, so well described by Canon
Farrar (in his Life of Christ) was a marvellous exhibition of
the fulfilment of prophecy. Yet the view of Vitringa and
Hengstenberg seems to be correct, that, though the prophecy
of Zechariah thus received a literal accomplishment, that
triumphal procession was not, in the main, the fact which the
prophecy was designed to depict. The prophecy would have
been as truly and really fulfilled if the triumphal procession
of Palm Sunday had never taken place. That single incident
in the life of our Lord is not the point which the prophet had
in view. It was rather the whole of the Saviour's life, the
entire series of events connected with Christ's first advent,
which was presented in one striking picture. The actual en
trance of Christ into Jerusalem in the manner described in the
Old Testament prophet was an express declaration that this
passage was indeed Messianic in the fullest sense, and was ful
filled in his person and work. It was " a symbolical action, the
object and design of which was to assert his royal dignity, and
to set forth in a living picture the true nature of his person and

240 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 9-10.
kingdom in opposition to the false notions of both friends and
foes" (Hengstenberg). The act of our blessed Lord, there
fore, has been regarded by some as an act of real irony.
The shouts of the multitude testified to the fact that on that
occasion the Jewish people recognised the lowly rider as "the
King of Israel." Their Messianic hopes no doubt soon faded
away, when the prophet of Nazareth did not act as they in their
ignorance supposed the Messiah should have done. No one
except our Lord appears on that occasion to have thought of
the close connection between the acts performed before the
eyes of the people and the predictions of Zechariah. " These
things understood not his disciples at the first, but when Jesus
was glorified, then remembered they that those things were
written of him, and they had done those things unto him "
(John xii. 16).
The great result of the advent of the Messiah is stated in
the verse following : " And I 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 to the ends of the earth."
The reign of the Messiah was to result in a universal spread
of peace. But that result was to be brought about in a very
singular manner. The Lord would first destroy among his
own people the chariots, the horses, and the weapons used in
war. Instead of the Messiah arming the people whom he was
to deliver with those weapons of war needful for a contest with
their foes, this second Joshua, who should ultimately put his
people in full possession of their land, and give them rest for
ever, was not to call upon an "armed" people "prepared for
war" to pass on before him "unto battle" against the enemy
(comp. Josh. iv. 12, 13). Not thus was the Messiah to procure
rest for his people. On the contrary, he would first break the
bow and cut in sunder the spear of Ephraim and Jerusalem,
burn their chariots and cut off the horses (Ps. xlvi. 9) of his

Ch. ix. 9, 10.] THE COMING OF THE KING. 241
own people, and then speak peace to the nations against whom
he might most justly have carried on an exterminating war.
Hengstenberg and Kliefoth, following here the interpreta
tion of Theodoret and Eusebius, have considered Zechariah
to announce that an end would be put to the independence of
the Jewish people. But it is unnatural and harsh to suppose,
as Hengstenberg does, following those early interpreters,
that the passage contains a prophecy of the final destruction
of Jewish independence by the Roman power. The expres
sion " I will cut off" must be regarded as an imitation of
Mic. v. 9-13, where it occurs no less than five times in
succession. It must certainly mean a forcible taking away
of all the means of warfare. It cannot simply indicate that
all such weapons should be laid aside as no longer neces
sary, which is the idea presented in Mic. iv. 3 ; Isa. ii. 4.
The expression is used by the prophet himself in verse 9, of
the cutting off of the pride of the Philistines ; and the cutting
off of the chariots, horses, and bows of battle, from Ephraim
and Jerusalem must be regarded as something similar in its
character. But Kliefoth is right in supposing that the prophet
predicts something which would be a blessing, even though
brought about by compulsion, and not an event such as that
of the destruction of Jewish independence by the might of
Rome, which was nothing else than the heaviest judgment
that ever befel the Jewish nation. The advent of the Messiah,
unaccompanied though it should be by earthly pomp and dis
play, was to be a blessing to Israel, for whose sake the Messiah
primarily came, though the kingdom which he should set up
should not be of this world (John xviii. 36). The removal from
their midst of the weapons of war by him who was their king,
was to be the very means of extending the power and influence
of the people of Israel. The loss of their political independence
(an event not, however, directly predicted, as Kliefoth imagines,1
1 Kliefoth's own idea is rather fanciful, namely, that the passage teaches that the
R

242 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. r [Ch. ix. 9, 10.
but one which would naturally follow from the people being
rendered incapable of a warlike struggle), was to be im
mediately succeeded by an era of peace. The loss of their
independence at the time of our Lord's advent would have
been a gain to the Jewish people, had they only known the
day of their visitation (Luke xix. 44). The Jews would in that
case for a time have remained subject to the Roman empire,
but they would soon have become the moral and spiritual con
querors of that empire. The fearful ruin which was the result
of their struggle for political independence would have been
avoided. ;But the continued unbelief of the Jewish nation,
even after the descent of the Holy Spirit, when pardon and
forgiveness was so freely offered to them, notwithstanding their
previous rejection of Christ and his -claims, turned what would
have been a blessing into a curse. They would not have their
King to reign over them, they rejected him who was "meek
and lowly in heart " as unworthy of their acceptance, they re
fused to takeliis yoke upon them, and to learn of him (Matt.
xi. 28-30). Hence the advent of Messiah, which was designed
to have been a national blessing, became a national curse.
The blessing was indeed not altogether lost ; it was obtained
by the faithful remnant, the " election," but ¦" the rest " were
blinded (Rom. xi. 7). False notions respecting the Messiah
prevented them from accepting the true Messiah, and their
desire for national freedom, pomp and power, hindered their
obtaining the spiritual liberty, glory and conquest which would
otherwise more largely have fallen to them as a nation.
The mention made of Ephraim and Jerusalem in this place
is regarded by 'many scholars as affording distinct evidence
that the writer of the prophecy lived at some period before
the Babylonish captivity, when the kingdoms of Israel on the
Messiah instead of ruling over Israel after the " flesh " shall rule over an Israel after
the " spirit," and that the latter is the true Israel here referred to, which would
be a spiritual people of God living in all quarters of the world.

Ch. ix. 10.] THE COMING OF THE KING. 243
one hand, and of Judah on the other, were independent
nations, if not actually at war with one another. It has,
indeed, been remarked that these two kingdoms are not only
prophesied of as destined to be ruled over by their coming
king, but actually alluded to in the next verse as forming to
gether one body. But this exposition of verse 1 1 is by no
means so certain as to justify our founding upon it any
definite argument.1
A more satisfactory answer can be afforded. In the earlier
. portion of Zechariah, admittedly written after the exile, dis
tinct mention is made of both the house of Judah and the
house of Israel as alike sharers of the Divine curse, and as
alike destined to be partakers of a blessing in Messianic times
(chap. viii. 13). A passage strikingly parallel to this occurs in
chap. x. 6. It need not consequently occasion surprise if men
tion is made in other places of those two portions of the one
covenant people. Distinct and separate mention is made of
both in the prophecies of Ezekiel which belong to the period
of the exile (Ezek. xxxvii. 1 5-28). The twelve tribes were
generally thought of as forming one great whole, even in N. T.
Scripture. Thus our Lord promised to his twelve apostles
that " in the regeneration " they should sit on twelve thrones
judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. xix. 28 ; Luke
xxii. 30). St. Paul speaks in his oration before Agrippa of
the twelve tribes as instantly serving God day and night (Acts
xxvi. 7). St. James addresses his epistle to the twelve tribes
which were in the dispersion (James i. 1) ; and St. John in the Re
velation mentions the names of the twelve tribes in the vision
of the sealed multitude (Rev. vii.), while in his description of
the holy city he notes that the names of the twelve tribes of
1 See our remarks on p. 250, and crit. comm. Kohler's idea is that the pro
noun of the second pers. sing. fern. ( P)K ) and the fem. suffixes (in '^D'1"!? and ^TPS )
are used because the collective body of the people is referred to. The use of the
-feminine might, 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. 10.
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
1 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. 1, 2.

Ch. ix. 10.] 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. ^6), 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
Jews 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 fairly be adduced as a

Ch. ix. 10.] 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),1 or compose their
quarrels and disputes (as Rosenmiiller, etc. ; comp. Mic. iv. 3).
The phrase "to speak peace " (017$ ~^n.) 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 "tit 'H2'TT, 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. lxxxv. 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. Hi. 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 "131 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 ~)21 in Ps. Ixxxvii. 3 ; Deut. vi. 7), or "let
me speak peace in thee " (as Hupfeld, i.e., 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. 1
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. lxxii. 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. 1 1, 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 terminus a quo, the point whence
the kingdom begins, the ends of the earth are the terminus
ad quern, the limits to which it extends.
The suffix in W) t (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 (1B1?).

Ch. ix. 10, u.] 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." x 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.2
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 RX D| 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,-VDN) were the
children of the captivity (JTPJn *J3, Ezra vi. 16), the sale of whom by the Phoeni
cians to the Greeks he considers alluded to in verse 13. Maurer rightly condemns
this interpretation as exceedingly arbitrary. The fem. 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. n.
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. u, 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. lxi. 3, 4).
They should lift up their eyes unto the hills whence their
help should come (Ps. cxxi. 1). 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. lxi. 7).\
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. "
1 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. lxi. 7 ; Job xiii. 10.
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 Davidie 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, § 113, 1 ; 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.1
1 Bleek (Studien u. Kritiken) 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

254 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 (ft* signifying the Ionians 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. 1 3, as nations
who traded with Tyre, and brought slaves and vessels of copper
into her markets {comp. Isa. lxvi. 19). He maintains that these
allusions to Greece, as well as the other references to Chittim
(DMpI)), in the Old Test, (see Num. xxiv. 24; Isa. xxiii.
1, 12 ; Jer. ii. 10 ; Ezek. xxvii. 6),'Coupled with the facts that
David's body-guard was composed of Cretan and Philistine
mercenaries (VHSrY) ''.H'jpffi 2 Sam. viii. 18),1 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 Damascus 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 ?
1 See Ewald's Hist, of Israel, vol. i. (Martineau's transl. , p, 246).

Ch. ix. 13, 14.] THE COMING OF THE KING. 255
the north and the Philistines 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, Augustine) 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 ieven 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. 1 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 ; x 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. 1). 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. lxxvii. 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 (1 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.
ii- 34)-2
1 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. lxviii. 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. lxviii. 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 representative 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 (1 Sam. xii. II) 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 1 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 Notes on the Restoration of Israel, appeared during the Crimean war.
S

258 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHBCIES. [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
(compare, though not exactly alike, Deut. xxxii. 42 ; 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 ; but 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, 11, 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
1 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 whence
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. 1 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 xii. 20, 21, or verses 28,
29 in E. V.) Sling stones were no contemptible instruments
of warfare (comp. 2 Chron. xxvi. 14, 15 ; 1 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,1 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
1 fl'lDD'OriD is the part, hithpoel (Ges. § 67, 8), from the root DM in the sense
of trembling, vibrating, hence gleaming, glittering. The 'idea of rising up given
by Hengstenberg is scarcely suitable to stones. Miihlau and Volck have adopted
this explanation from Kohler. Fiirst's explanation is very similar. The LXX.
have SlStc \I801 Hyiot KvklovTai iirl yijs aiiTov, because holy stones are thrown upon
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 *)M"*J3X to mean "holy stones"; but "IM is also
used for the diadem of a king (2 Sam. i. 10 ; 2 Kings xi. 12). Gesenius in Ties.
would also render "lifting themselves up in his land," i.e., rising up. The form
of the verb is reflective, not passive, and therefore can scarcely mean as Pusey,
" a consecrated diadem, raised aloft so that all can see."

Ch. ix. 15-17.] THE COMING OF THE KING. 26 1
the prophecy refers : " For how great is his beauty, and how
great is his goodness." l 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 Kdhler 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. xiv. 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" 3-lt2"7lJ
FTIN-IX in Hos. a. ii ; Exod. ii. 2, where 3113 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 6ti et ti dyaObv avrou, Kal d tl Kakbv abrov, o-itos veavlcrKOis, Kal oho?
eiywSicJfaw eh wapdivovs. 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 Zech. 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 Egypt, 291 — Explanation of mention of Egypt,
291, note, 292 — The land of Gilead and Lebanon, 293 — Solution of difficulty, 293
— Difficulties connected with verse II, 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
fertility 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 days 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 cthe 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 the prophets who pre-

Ch. a. 2.] THE WAR OF THE SONS OF ZION. 267
ceded him, to urge the people not to seek for such temporal
blessings, which were, indeed, in themselves necessary, by
having recourse to the enchantments which their fathers had
too often employed in such cases. The passage in Jer. xiv. 22,
"Are there any among the vanities of the Gentiles that
can cause rain ? or can the heavens give showers ?" seems to
have been in Zechariah's mind as he penned the first verse
of this chapter. It was natural for the prophet in connexion
therewith to think of the teraphim, the diviners (comp. Ezek.
xiii. 6, 7, 9) and their dreams. This mention made of the
diviners and the teraphim has been considered by Bleek and
others to be a proof that the prophecy is of a date pre
vious to the exile, for such superstitions were rife previously
to that event, and the exile itself was a punishment for such
transgressions (2 Kings xxiii. 24; Hos. iii. 4). It is, how
ever, more probable that the prophet refers to the transgres
sions of former days. No distinct reference is here made to
idolatry as a sin common among the people of the prophet's
own time. The belief in diviners and in teraphim, a belief
which existed even in Israel's purest days, though always
opposed by the prophets, was one of those beliefs which
probably lingered long among the people, just as similar
superstitions have frequently prevailed among Christian
nationalities. Recent investigations have, at least, made it
probable that traces of the old idolatrous practices exist to
the present day among the fellaheen of Palestine.1 It can
not, therefore, be thought strange that a prophet of the
Restoration should casually refer to the vanity of all such
superstitions. Considerable uncertainty still prevails with respect to the
teraphim. They have often been thought to have been
1 See M. Clermont-Ganneau's article on "The Arabs of Palestine," reprinted
from Macmillan'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.1
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 (1 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
heads 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.2
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 ; 1 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.3
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.4 The imperfect which is

1 See Delitzsch on Genesis. (4te Ausg.), p. 455, where the analogy is pointed out,
and also Rodiger in Gesenius' Thesawus.
2 See Chwolson, Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus, vol. ii., in his Excursus on
human sacrifices of the late period, and on the oracular human heads, pp. 142-155.
3 See Chwolson, as before.
4 So the LXX. rdi iviirvia ^svSi) i\d\ovv, Hitzig, Ewald, Hengstenberg, etc.
Others refer it to the diviners, and so the Vulg. The omission of the article has
been considered to bean objection to the former view. But " dreams " may be

Ch. a. 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,1 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 K1BT1 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.
ITlOTn may also be considered as the adverbial accusative, Ges. § 118,3, "As
to dreams, they (the diviners) speak vanity." On the expression )10n3* ?3n com
pare the parallel in Job xxi. 34, and on the subject matter see Jer. vi. 14.
1 The LXX. have i^tipdvdrjirav, they were dried up, which is also the rendering of
Symmachus. But Field notes that the Complutensian, with two MSS. and Syro-
Hex. read itfipd-qtsav, which Schleusner approves ; Theod. has airijpav.

270 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. *.. 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 "x seems to
intimate the total cessation of royalty among the people, and
not 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
1 Comp. Num. xxvii. 17 ; I Kings xxii. 17 ; Jer. xxiii. 4 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 5, 8, 23,
xxxvii. 24. Comp. also the N. T. application of the expression in Matt. ix. 36.

Ch.x. 3,4.] THE WAR OF THE SONS OF ZION. 271
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 poorer 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
(Neh. 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,1
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 construction 'S"?l? Hpfi which
is used of visiting in judgment, that is, of punishing and chastising, and
ST1X IpS, which is used in a good sense of visiting in mercy.

272 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. J 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, Negtis, 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 lx. 17.
None of these passages are at all conclusive, as the idea
1 Kliefoth is scarcely correct in considering that the passage speaks of the filll
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 lllT1 SWO" ?3, 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 usus loquendi. 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 usus loquendi.

Ch. A. 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. 1) 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

274 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. *. 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 (1 Kings xxii.
21, 22). Numerous other instances could be cited. The
phrase is simply used in the sense of proceed from (comp.
Mic. v. 1), 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. xii. 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. 1 Kohler, in support of the same reference of
the pronoun, notes that the 3rd pers. sing, suffix (^£30)
stands in this passage in such close proximity to the suffix
of the 3rd pers. used in the previous verse (VTin), 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 suffix 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 " (WrT) at the close of the verse refers to " the
1 Compare the use of |D, though the passage be precative, in Gen. xlix. 24, 25.

Ch. x. 4, 5.] THE WAR OF THE SONS OF ZION. 275
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 pile-mele
body." x 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 (The National Restoration
and Conversion of the Twelve 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. *. 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 1 Mace. iii. 39,
iv. 7, 31, vi. 30, 35, ix. 4, 11, x. 73, 77, 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," a scil. in their own homes
1 The reason of this uncertainty of translation is that the verbal form which
occurs here, D^fintptn, may be explained in two ways. First as an irregular
hiphil from 3B", for D^B'tri (Hos. 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"jrj, and )'i). In this case the copyist had probably the similar form
D^riU'E'ri. in his mind. See Ges. Lehrg., p. 464, Olshausen, § 225 e. This is the

Ch. a. 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."1 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 3-1B', which is the opinion
adopted by the Vulg., Targ., and Syr., and supported by Ewald, § 196 b, note, as
well as in his remarks on this passage in his Proph. d. A. B. Both views are
equally admissible ; see BSttcher's Lehrb., § 466, 4 ; Kalisch, § lxvii. 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 Herzog's Real-encyclopddie. Hitzig prefers
to read QTjhtJ'ri " I will bring them back," which he thinks more suited to the
context. 1 This is one of the instances often cited as a case in which the jussive is used

278 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. a. 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. lxxviii. 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." x 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.3 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 Hebrew Tenses, § 58. Kbhler explains
the jussive as used here rather in reference to the purpose of Jahaveh himself,
1 This last clause of the verse has been explained by Kbhler, 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
•13T 1D3 •II3")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 I"!"?. 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.,
§ 35° i-
2 The allusion contained in the verb plt^ 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. 18 and Delitzsch on
Is. v. 26 ; also Virgil Georg. iv. 54. It has been suggested 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. J
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, e.gr., the German pst. The Greeks
too, when calling a companion, make a sound like hissing, ps, ps.
1 See our remarks on p. 243-245 in connection with the statements of chap. ix. 10.

28o 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 1 2,000, 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
1 The totals, as given by Michaelis, whose statement has been followed by
Fritzsche in the Kurzgef. exeg. Handbuch zu den Apocryphen, are incorrect ; the
correct sums are those above, given by Bertheau in his Comm. on Ezra and
Nehemiah.

Ch. x. 8.] THE WAR OF THE SONS OF ZION. 28 1
of Rabbi Salorno 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 pf 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. Jud. 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 (jivpidSes
aireipoi, Kal apiQp,& yvaxrdrjvcu p,r\ Bvvdp,evai). 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,1 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. 2
1 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 history and philology, and of the
lessons to be learned from a careful study of such departments. Such theories
are injurious, because they are often readily embraced by a portion of the unlearned
mass of the public, and they frequently cause others to entertain an undeserved
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.

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. a. 8.
exiles were arranged in many cases net 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 Russia1. (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 was 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

1 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 Flarkavy in his Catalog, and Dr. H. L. Strack in his
tract, Firkowitsch und sane Entdeckungen : ein Grabstein den hebr. Grabschriften
der Krim, 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 Firkowitsch. These scholars seem, however, to have gone too far. Chwolson,
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. xxxii. 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 them, and be witnesses to

Ch. x. 9, 10.] THE WAR OF THE SONS OF ZION. 287
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. a. 8-io.
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 the downfall of the Church

Ch. x. 10.] THE WAR OF THE SONS OF ZION. 289
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

29O 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. 1 ; 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 (1 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. 10-12.] THE WAR OF THE SONS OF ZION. 291
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 drying 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. 11, 12, 15, 16, xxvii. 1, 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. 1, 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.1
1 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 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. x. 10-12.
It is not unlikely, as Kohler 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 (1 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. xii. 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 Ewald) 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 t " Nor can we consider that the mode of explaining the difficulty is
satisfactory, which is resorted to by Wriinsche and Keil, namely, to explain Egypt
as spoken of typically as the land of bondage in the first passage (Hos. 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. a. 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."1 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
contestable " 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 ; 1 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 Kimchi on Hosea, quoted by Wiinsche, Der Prophet Hosea iibersetzt und
erkldrt. Leipzig : Weigel, 1868.

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 Y
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.
1 Lange considers that the Messiah 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 Great Servant of Jahaveh, what is represented as done by Jahaveh himself may
be considered as done by him who performs all Jahaveh's good will and pleasure.

Ch. x. 10-12.] 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.1 The word iTX* 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
( Wogend, 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
mu, rendered " affliction " or " trouble," he conceives there
is a play upon the name of Egypt ("Tto); and by "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 D*2 with the article, &2. 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"2 ("TIN*) is almost exclusively used of the Nile.
1 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
DJH "1X3, per angustam (angustias) maris ; "IX 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. 10-121
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. Ii. 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 with 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 — 1'he 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 modern
critics, 343, ff.— The fulfilment, 345— The wicked shepherd, 346—" Idol shep
herd," an erroneous translation, 346, note — The instruments 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.1 No doubt parallel pas-
1 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. Hofmann 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-exilian 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 Testament times. The use of the
expression the mighty ( D"V"7B ) 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 Kliefoth 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 affecting
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 prophecy 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.1 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, though 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, like the first, in great 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 destruction 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." — McCaul's transl. of Kimchi, note on p. 119.

304 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch.xi.i-8.
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. n). 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 to perform through his

Ch. xi. 1-8.] 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. 1-8.
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. Iii. 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 " (pNH), among whom the
flock had been located, and under whose power the sheep
were placed ; " and behold I will deliver over mankind
(DINiTTIN), each into the hand of his neighbour, and into
the hand of his king (both nouns are used distributively),1
and they shall break down (i.e. lay waste) the earth, and I will
not deliver out of their hand." The breaking up of the peace
and quiet of the nations, on account of their oppression of the
people of the covenant, is the fact here alluded to, as it was that
taught in the first vision which Zechariah had seen, probably
many years before. God would punish the nations for their
cruelty towards his own people, by permitting civil wars to
break out in the several lands which belonged to them.
On the other hand, a different meaning has been assigned
to the whole passage. " The inhabitants of the land " have
been understood, as abstractly considered is quite possible, in
the sense of the people of the land of Palestine. The particle
" for " (O) may refer to the command to feed the flock
(which occurs in verse 4), or may be considered as assigning
the reason why the nation was given over into the hand of
the destroyers. But there are serious objections to this view,
the more it is considered in detail. The expression " the in
habitants of the land " can scarcely be understood to signify
only the rulers of the people, and cannot on the other hand
be regarded as identical with " the flock of slaughter," for, as
Keil observes, in such a case " feed " might be regarded as an
equivalent to " prepare for slaughter."
The devastation of the land depicted in the opening verses
was no uncommon event in the various struggles of which
Palestine was the theatre. But inasmuch as they into whose
1 The word 13 ?D, lit "his king," is evidently to be understood distributively,
just as the term -liiin, "his neighbour," which precedes it. It can scarcely be
understood in this connexion to refer to a king of the earth or the world, common
to all, such as the Roman emperor, according to Hengstenberg's explanation.

308 ZECHARIAH 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. lxxx. 2, verse 1 in E. V., lxxvii. 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).1
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 OVi 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 (tW)J); 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
judgments 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. 31 1
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, and 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 (1) 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 rather 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 I.,
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 210 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 which 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,

3 H 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. He thinks, 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. 3 1 5
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 literal 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,1
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.1
1 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, as 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,
when 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 Judasa, 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.

3 IS 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. lxxvii. 6. But the explanation is too artificial. Thenius,
however, has adopted this view.1 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 (D^D1" rTT), 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^ ttHn 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 by 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. 23,
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
1 In his commentary on Die Biicher der Konige, contained in the Kurzgefasstes
exeg. Handbuch zum A.T., 2 Kings xv. 13.

320 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. 8.
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.1
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 on its side, but in our opinion it must be rejected for the
reasons assigned above.

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,1 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-
1 The imperfects with strong vav, or vav conversive, 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. 1, 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.9,10.] 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-n.] 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 uncle
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. 11), 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 1 1, 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 PROPHECIES. [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). l 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 (1 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 1 Sam. i. 12 with ace. of person, Job xxxix. 1 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
1 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 TIN as the
noun niX with suffix (my sign) instead of the demonstrative pronoun with suff.
(me). T1K might indeed be taken in either sense. In the passages which Hitzig
refers to (Ezek. iv. 3 and Isa. vii. 1 1 ) a special sign is distinctly spoken of. But
there is no indication of such here. Hence we must 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 the 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. ii. 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.1
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." 3 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. 11).
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 '
(1 Kings xviii. 21) ; so he bids them at last to choose openly,
whose they would be, to whom they would give their service ;
1 Drummond, in his Jewish 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
Fritzsche's Libri Apocryphi Vet. Test. Gratce (Leipzig,) 1871. See crit. comm.
2 This demand of the shepherd cannot be supposed to be addressed to the three
shepherds of verse 8 (Jahn), or to the rulers of the 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.1
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
1 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.

33° 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 ("IX'*) from which the participial noun
which is here used ("l^i1') is derived, signifies to form, 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, xii. 25, xiv. 9; Jer.
xviii. 2-6, xix. 1 ; 1 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. xiv. 7, 18 ; Ps. xciv. 20).1 The
LXX. and Symmachus translate the word here by "foundry','
or " furnace f 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. 1, 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. xii. 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. 1, 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.1 Kliefoth'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 under 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
1 I regret to observe, however, that Hengstenberg's view 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, ori 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 the potter." The people in

Ch. xi. 13.] THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND PUS 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 different
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 PROPHECIES. [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,1 as a prophecy of Jeremiah, it
1 An ingenious theory has lately been propounded by Bohl (Forschungen nach
tiner Volksbibel zur Zdt Jesu: 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-testamentlichen Citate im Neuen 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 Matt, xxvii. 10, xaSa
o-vvira^iv p.01 Kbptos were taken from Jeremiah, in which prophet they were contained
in the Volksbibel. He supposes that the entire passage 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, Beza, 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 (Job
xiii. 7). No satisfactory demonstration has been yet ad
duced to show that the evangelist referred to any prophecy
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, as
being partly based on his predictions.1
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? sectse mihi Hebra^us obtulit Jeremiae apocry-
phum in quo hsec (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 Zptou (Zaxapiov) occurred
in the original text of the evangelist, which an early copyist mistook for TpTov
(lepepiov), 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.-xi. 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 a priori 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 evangelist, 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 MSS. 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 Tryphone,
v.. xiv. , ascribing through a slip of memory Zech. xii. 10 to Hosea, though in other
places, Dial. 121, and Apol. i. 52> ne 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 occurring 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 are 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 evidence.

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. 1, 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 Judsa. 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.1 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 Aboth : " Moses received the Law 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
(iTVfFlS V? VPPTl make a hedge for the law." The meaning of the last sentence
is, impose such additional restrictions as to make men keep at a safe distance from
the forbidden ground. See the Rev. Charles Taylor's critical edition of the Sayings
of the Jewish Fathers, comprising Pirqe Aboth and Pereq R. Meir, in Hebrew and
English, with critical and illustrative Notes (Cambridge, 1877).

34° 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 the price of his betrayal.

Ch. xi. 13.] THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND PUS REJECTION. 341
For, as in the prophecy the payment of those thirty 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 of 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 distinctly 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 Israelitish 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 ? " (1 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. 1), 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. '
1 The phrase in verse 17 is ?yS>p ^- The word ?vK is used as an adjec
tive to describe idols as vain and useless. So in Lev. xix. 4, and xxvi. 1 ;
Ps. xcvi. 5, etc. It is often used in the prophets as an equivalent for idols, as Isa.
ii. 20, xix. 1, etc. Fiirst in his IVbrterb. considers idol tobe the original meaning,

Ch.xi.15-17.] THE EVIL SHEPHERD AND HIS DOOM. 347
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 vain, 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, 7*?X _,KB"I, and the K'ri
reads the word in Jer. xiv. 14, instead of >1?S, 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 S cripture, much less here. The LXX. have in verse
15, irot/xiiv dwetpos, but in verse 17, they read the sentence in the plural, & oi
7roi/i.alvovTes ('ITO Ta p-draia, KaTa\e\oiir6Tes ra irpbfiaTa, 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 J^X.l) derelinquens." The Syr. and the Targ, render
alike in both places, the former by " foolish shepherd," the latter XSJ'SP NDJ")S,
"foolish ruler." On the form of 'IT) 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. 1, ff ;
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. lxxvi. 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 afterwards to fall beneath the vengeance of
the Most High.1
It follows from what has- been already said that the evil
shepherd spoken of in the prophecy cannot be supposed to be
1 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 Ewald, 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, though the land of Israel is the only
country spoken of in the prophecy,

Ch. xi. 15-17.I 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 foolish 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

350 zechariah and his prophecies. rch.xi. 15-17.
Father'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 Caesar" (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 " x as in our A. V) he would not
1 IWn 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 which is driven out, the scattered. LXX. rightly t6 iaKopino--
p.ivov, Vulg. dispersum, similarly the Syr. Hitzig proposes to alter the punctuation
and read "II'Sl] i.q. "U??)in, 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.

Ch. xi. 15-17.] THE EVIL SHEPHERD AND HIS DOOM. 351
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.1 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 he that the shepherd would destroy the hoofs of the sheep by driving them
over rough and hard roads. But the other view is preferable.

352 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. 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 ! 1 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).
1 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 XI.

THE TRIALS AND VICTORY OF ISRAEL— THE GREAT
MOURNING.

A A

CHAPTER XI.

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, 358 — 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, 383
— Rival explanations, 384 — The Sent identified with the Sender, 386 — 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. — Difficulties 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," a 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
1 Both chapters begin with niiT' "QT NtJ>D, but in chap. ix. I those words
are followed by f"lKD, in chap. xii. by 7&OEJ" 70. As SEW does not necessarily sig
nify a prophecy of woe and disaster (see p. 202), it is better to translate the
'IW'ho nere "concerning Israel, "not "against Israel." The expression that follows,
iTllVDX? is in apposition, and is found as a superscription in Ps. ex. I ; 2 Sam.
xxiii. 1 ; 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 IK'S in the title of Cant. i. 1, which
nowhere else in that book occurs in the uncontracted form and which has con
sequently been regarded as a proof that that superscription was added by 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. 1, v. Ortenberg also views as an addition by a later editor after
the analogy of this passage. But the peculiar construction used in Malachi,
7K152>I|S 7X, is against such a view, and moreover the name Israel occurs in
Mai. i. 5, as also Jacob in contrast with Esau in Mai. i. 2. Other critics, as Bleek
(Studien tt. Krit., 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 " Judah " 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).1 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.2 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 Kbhler.
3 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 mould, 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. 1 ; Ps.
xxxiii. 15). The prophet seems to have have had in his
mind, Isaiah xiii. 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. 1..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 as
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 was 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 (1 Pet. ii, 9, 10),

35§ ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. I.
being the very commonwealth of Israel (Eph. ii. £2, 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 an 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, (1) 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. 1-8.
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,
bs concerned in the martyrdom of one of the prophets of
Jahaveh.

Ch. xii. 2.] THE TRIALS AND VICTORY OF ISRAEL. 361
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." x 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 (lxxv. 8, E.V
verse 9). In all these passages a cup is mentioned, while in
the passage of Zechariah a bowl 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 effect 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
1 The LXX., Vulg., Calvin, Hesselberg, and Schegg understand by f)D 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 bowl or basin is ' here the only suitable translation. The word is
used in both significations ; as a threshold in Ezek. xl. 8 and Judg. xix. 27, as a
basin in the mention made of the blood of the paschal lamb, Exod. xii. 22, as also
2 Sam. xvii. 28 ; 1 Kings vii. 50, etc.

362 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. 2.
correct translation, which is rather, "and also over Judah
shall be (the reeling) in the siege against Jerusalem ;" for the
ellipsis can scarcely be supplied by considering the word
" bowl," in the expression " bowl of reeling," to be the subject
of the substantive verb. If the prophet meant to have ex
pressed such an idea, he would, as Rosenmiiller has observed,
have used some such phrase as "shall be poured out upon
Judah." The subject of the verb can, however, easily be sup
plied from the governed genitive (as Lange has done), espe
cially as that word expresses the main point of the passage.
This view of Lange is not substantially different from that
of Keil, who remarks that the phrase to be upon is used in
the signification of to happen, to occur, to come upon one. Keil
thinks that the subject of the verb is best regarded as taken
from the former sentence, "that which comes upon Jerusalem
will also come upon Judah in the siege against Jerusalem."
Ewald renders, " also over Judah will it come with the siege,"
i.e., Judah also shall be compelled to advance to the siege
against Jerusalem. This translation is open to grave excep
tions, though it has been adopted by a large number of
eminent critics.1 Knobel supposes Jahaveh to be the subject
1 Ewald's rendering is substantially the same as that of Rosenmiiller, " it will also
be upon Judah, " that is, it will be incumbent on Judah to be " in the siege against
Jerusalem." This is the sense which is given in the loose paraphrase of the Targum,
and the mode in which Jerome explains his rendering ' ' sed et Juda erit in obsidione
contra Jerusalem" (Vulg.). The same interpretation is given by Kimchi, Drusius,
and by perhaps the majority of the scholars of his day, followed by Hitzig, Maurer,
Bertheau, and other critics of the modern school. It is unsatisfactory to appeal to
the meaning of 71? in 2 Sam. xviii. II ; Ezek. xiv. 17 ; Ps. lvi. 13 (E.V. verse 12).
For in such a case we should expect the verb to be followed by ni*rj? or Oft?!!?
(Kohler, Keil). Geiger (Urschrift, pp. 57, 58) thinks that this passage refers to the
struggle which took place in late post-exilian days against the nobles in Jerusalem
who were often upheld by foreign power, and that the prophet predicts a union of
Judah and Joseph against the careless shepherds, or the house of David and the Levi-
tical and priestly families. Geiger considers the 70 to be a later correction designed
to conceal the statement of this hostile feeling which existed in the days of the pro
phet. This idea is based entirely on conjecture and is opposed to the context. Keil
and Kohler have perhaps rightly objected to the view which considers that ?V~\ S]D
must be supplied as the subject of the subst. verb here, and have noticed that in

Ch. xii. 2.] THE TRIALS AND VICTORY OF ISRAEL. 363
of the verb " will be," and that the phrase " to be over '' is
used in the meaning of protecting. But, in the first case, the
examples Knobel has referred to are cases where the pre
position is used with other verbs, and not with the verb sub
stantive, and the sudden change of person in the verse cannot
be justified by appealing to a comparison of verses 6 and 9.
with verses 7 and 8, or with chap. xiv. 2, 3. We would gladly
adopt the translation of Knobel, if it could be sustained on
critical grounds, but the arguments adduced in its favour
appear to us insufficient. Pusey thinks that " the burden
of the Lord" is "the only natural subject," but that phrase
is too remote from the verb to admit of its being regarded as
the " natural subject."
The general sense of the passage is, however, plain. Judah
was to experience the same fate as Jerusalem. It has been
supposed by some that the prophet predicts that the people
of Judah should be found arrayed among the hostile forces
marshalled against Jerusalem, that they should be forced to
assume such a position by reason of the enemies round about,
but that after a certain time the people of Judah would be
able to break away from the ranks of the hostile army, and
would ultimately assist the beleaguered citizens of Jerusalem.
This interpretation finds no real support in the language of
this passage, or of that in chap. xiv. 14. It is not correct to,
speak of any contrast being drawn here between Judah and
Jerusalem. Verses 5 and 6 are totally opposed to such an,
idea, and the very use of the particle (DJ1) in verse 2, as Keil,,
has observed, denotes the reverse of a contrast between two
parties.such a case the construction with 7 would have been used, in place of the first
ho. But no such difficulty lies in the way of Lange's opinion, namely, to supply
the subject of that verb from the genitive (7lTl), as above. Kbhler prefers to
supply "IIVO siege, but, as Keil has observed, though the siege of a city or a
fortress (Deut. xx. 20) may be spoken of, that expression cannot be well used of a
land or country.

364 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. 3.
It has been supposed that in the expression found in
verse 3, "in that day I will make Jerusalem a stone of
burden to all the peoples," a reference is made to a cus
tom, alluded to by St. Jerome, as existing in the cities of
Palestine even as late as his own day. According to that
custom, round heavy stones used to be placed in villages,
towns and castles, in order that the young men might test
their strength by lifting them up, some raising them as high
as their knees, others elevating them above their heads.
Jerome mentions that he himself saw a very heavy globe
of brass made use of at Athens for a similar purpose. The
stone, however, of which the prophet speaks was not such
a rounded stone, but one with sharp edges by which those
who sought to raise it were lacerated. Keil, therefore, is
is more correct in considering that the figure is taken from
the operations connected with building. In vain should all
the nations round about seek to fit the stone of Jerusalem
into any of the political structures which they might seek to
erect. All their efforts to raise that burdensome stone would
prove injurious to themselves.1
So far from the people of Judah being represented in our
passage as compelled to bear arms against Jerusalem, which
we regard as a simple invention of the commentators, the
very reverse is rather to be concluded from the verse that
follows (verse 4) — "In that day, 'tis the declaration, or utter
ance, of Jahaveh, I will smite every horse (among the cavalry
of the attacking nations) with terror, and his rider with
madness, and upon the house of Judah I will open mine eyes,
and every horse of the peoples I will smite with blindness."
That is, the Lord would cause the utmost confusion among
1 We may indeed refer to such passages as Dan. ii. 45 ; Isa. xxviii. 16 ; Ps.
cxviii. 22 ; but we must remember that, with the exception of the passage in the
Psalms, there is really no connexion between any of those passages and that in
Zech. xii. 3, save that in all of them mention is made of " a stone."

Ch. xii. 4-7.] THE TRIALS AND VICTORY OF ISRAEL. 365
the enemies of his people by sending upon them the madness,
blindness, and terror, once threatened against Israel for their
sin (Deut. xxviii. 28), which sore judgments were now to
be turned against their adversaries (Deut. xxx. 7; Isa. li. 22,
23). The terrified horses of the cavalry of the foe are
represented as unable any longer to be guided by bit and
bridle. The riders in their madness are described as unable
to manage their steeds, while the steeds themselves are
portrayed as struck with blindness, and, therefore, unable to
escape from the dangers around them. While the enemies of
Israel are represented in such straits, at the very moment
when they imagined that they had gained the victory, and
while, instead of chasing their foes in headlong flight, they
themselves are described as rushing upon utter destruction
(comp. 2 Kings vi. 17-19), Jahaveh would open his eyes in
mercy and love upon his people the house of Judah (1 Kings
viii. 29 ; Neh. i. 6 ; Ps. xxxii. 8 ; Jer. xxiv. 6 ; Ezek. xx. 7).
There would be no confusion or disunion in the ranks of
Israel, or any desire on the part of the people of Judah to
abandon Jerusalem to her fate in order that the rest of the
people might escape. Nay, "the princes of Judah shall say
in their hearts, the inhabitants of Jerusalem are a strength to
me in Jahaveh of hosts their God," i.e., who is their God and
ours also. By reason of this very union, which the prophet
contrasts with the disunion created by Divine Providence in
the ranks of the foe, Jahaveh would in that day make the
princes of Judah " as a pan of fire among faggots, and as a
torch of fire in a sheaf, and they should devour upon the right
and upon the left all the nations (peoples) round about, and
(as a consequence thereof) Jerusalem shall dwell upon her
base (place) in Jerusalem."
The translation of verse 7 according to the received Hebrew
text is clear — " And Jahaveh will first save the tents of Ju
dah." But there is another reading, which is that of only a few

366 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. 7.
MSS., but is supported by the authority of the LXX., Vulg.
and Syr., namely, " and Jahaveh will save the tents of Judah
as in former days."
If the ordinary Hebrew text be adopted, the passage
states that the people of Judah should be first delivered,
and that afterwards deliverance would be vouchsafed to the
beleaguered inhabitants of Jerusalem. There may be in this
case a designed antithesis in the use of the word " tents "
in reference to Judah, as contrasted with the splendid build
ings of the capital1 (Hengstenberg). As far as this in
dividual passage is concerned, the words might signify the
tents in which the people were to dwell when, under pressure
from the forces of the enemy besieging Jerusalem, they
should be forced to encamp outside the walls of the capital.
This is the view taken by Kohler and others. It is not, how
ever, borne out by the context.
If the reading of the text indicated by the ancient ver
sions be preferred, the passage would simply affirm that the
deliverance to be vouchsafed to the people of Judah would
be similar to that which God had given before to their fore
fathers. The deliverance was to be like that vouchsafed to
them when the Lord brought them forth out of Egypt, or like
some of the mighty deliverances wrought in the days of the
Judges. In this case a distinction is supposed to exist between
the people of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, though
the contrast is not so decided as in the former translation.
1 Ezek. xxxviii. II, referred to by Hengstenberg, is not a parallel passage. No
mention is made there of " tents," nor is any contrast drawn between the city and
the country. The expression " tents " is often used as a synonym for " houses " or
buildings of any kind. This occurs chiefly in poetry, and sometimes in prose
(Jer. iv. 20, xxx. 18; Job xxi. 28; Ps. lxxviii. 55, Ixxxiv. 10; I Kings viii. 66,
etc.). There is no ground for the notion of Calvin, which Hengstenberg refers
to with approbation, that by "tents" the prophet really means huts. If mean
and low habitations are supposed to be signified by "huts," in opposition to
buildings of a finer and nobler kind, the word tents would not convey such an im
pression. It might refer to the " tents " of the Jews if viewed as combatants.

Ch. xii. 7.] THE TRIALS AND VICTORY OF ISRAEL. 367
According to either rendering the passage indicates that
the deliverance of the people of Judah would precede that of
Jerusalem. This was to occur in order that all vainglorious
boasting on the part of the inhabitants of the capital might
be rendered impossible. According to the second reading,
however, taken in connexion with verse 6, the meaning would
most distinctly be that the deliverance of the nation in general
would not be brought about by the sturdy resistance of the
capital city, conducted to a successful issue by the natural
leaders of the people. That deliverance would be achieved,
as in former days, in the times of the Judges, by means of
deliverers raised up from among those who were of less note
and position in the land. This meaning might indeed be
deduced from either translation ; for in most of the cases where
such deliverers were raised up, the tribes to which they
severally belonged were usually the first participators in the
deliverance. The close of the verse is, however, more in
harmony with that reading by which a distinct allusion is
made to the mercies granted to the nation in former days.
For the reason assigned why salvation should first com
mence at the tents of Judah is expressly stated to be " in
order that the glory (JT1N3.r)) of the house of David, and the
glory (JTINan) of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, may not mag
nify itself over (the glory of) Judah." The reference is to
martial glory like that which Barak x would have obtained in
greater measure, had he gone forth alone to the battle at
the bidding of the prophetess Deborah. The very mode in
which the victory here prophesied should be obtained, and
the deliverance be achieved, would prove that the victory was
the Lord's. But there is no reason whatever to conclude
from the passage that the deliverance promised would be
wrought without human instrumentality or human weapons,
1 See Judges iv. 9, iniNSri- Compare, too, the same word used of martial
glory, Isa. *. 12, xx. 5, and perhaps Ps. lxxxix. 18.

368 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. 8,
as Dr. Pusey seems to think. Compare the notable expres
sion used by David with regard to his contest with Goliath,
although in that combat both human instrumentality and
human weapons were duly made use of (i Sam. xvii. 47).
The victory spoken of by Zechariah would be no less the
Lord's even if human agency were used in gaining it.
The deliverance manifested first to the people of Judah
was to be likewise shared by the' inhabitants of Jerusalem.
" In that day," said the prophet, " Jahaveh will defend the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, 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." A deliverer, or
deliverers, would be raised up from among the people of
Judah, but not from the chiefs of the people nor from the
royal family of David. In this deliverance, which should
come from an unexpected quarter, the inhabitants of Jeru
salem would also share. Courage would be infused into
their breasts by reason of the conviction that the Lord was
with them; the tottering and the feeble would go forth boldly,
as David did to the combat with Goliath ; and the house
of David, those in authority, whether actually members of
that regal family or persons occupying a sirnilar position,
would be filled with Divine enthusiasm, and would be as
God, acting in his spirit and for his cause, even as the Angel
of Jahaveh, the great representative of his person and power,
which great angel would go before them and act invisibly
as their leader and guide.1
The prophecy, so far as has been as yet commented on, is
1 Elohim is regarded by von Hofmann here as meaning other supernatural beings
(Schriftb. i. 76). Comp. Ps. viii. 6, xcvii. 7; I Sam. xxviii. 13 ; Exod. xv. 11.
In this case there would be a climax in the passage. Compare the expression in
2 Sam. xiv. 17. But the last clause, "as the angel of Jahaveh," is perhaps better
regarded as explanatory of the preceding, as we have taken it above. On the
Angel of Jahaveh as a leader, see Exod. xxiii. 20-23 > Josh. v. 13-15. But 1 Sam.
xxix. 9 is not a case in point. The expression there is "as an angel of God,"
not " as the Angel of Jahaveh."

Ch. xii. 3.] THE TRIALS AND VICTORY OF ISRAEL. 369
a prediction of what actually occurred in the glorious days of
Israel's revival under the Maccabee chieftains. Our con
viction on this point is so strong, that if we felt compelled to
dissent from the traditional view with respect to the author
ship of the book, we should unhesitatingly adopt, not the view
at present fashionable among scholars, led by the authority of
such critics as Bleek, Hitzig and Ewald, but that maintained
by Geiger and Bottcher, the latter an authority not inferior to
Ewald in grammatical questions, and as acute a critic, namely,
that so far from the book, whether considered as to its earlier
visions or its later predictions, having been composed in pre-
exilian times, the language of both parts bears strong traces of
a later era. In fact, if the date of the book were to be deter
mined by clear references to facts of history, it would have to
be assigned to a period not earlier than the time of the Mac
cabees. The events predicted in this chapter are not exactly the
same as those mentioned in the prophecy contained in chap
ters ix. and x. Some events mentioned there are not noticed
here, and vice versa.
The prophecy does not speak of all nations being gathered
together against Jerusalem, but merely announces that those
nations or peoples that were round about Jerusalem should
gather themselves together against her. It is strange that
Kliefoth should have made an important point of all nations
being gathered together against Jerusalem. "All the
peoples " of verse 3 are to be identified with "all the nations
around." There is no reason whatever to consider the pas
sage as predicting that all the nations of the earth are to
be gathered against Jerusalem. Moreover such a gathering
would be an impossibility. The expression (in verse 3) the
earth, or the land (Y~)N), proves nothing, as that word is used
more frequently in the narrower than in the wider signification.
It is notorious that Jerusalem was indeed made a bowl of
B B

370 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. 3-6.
reeling, or a burdensome stone, to the various nations, which,
in the period between the restoration from the captivity and the
coming of our Lord, sought to attack that city, or to destroy
the Jewish religion. Idumseans, Philistines, Arabians, Am
monites, Moabites, Tyrians, Syrians and Greeks made various
attempts against the Jewish people and against Jerusalem.
They were sometimes successful for a short time, but never
for any lengthened period. Their attempts were always
foiled, often with great loss to themselves, sometimes to their
utter ruin. These facts are well known to every student of
the history of that time, and do not require to be specially
recapitulated. If it be insisted on that the prophecy even
speaks of Jews as forming part of those foes who should be
siege the holy city, — though we maintain that this cannot be
fairly concluded from the words of the prophet, — the fact
might be recalled to remembrance that during this period many
Jews actually did engage in arms against their people and city.
There were Jewish traitors, as Menelaus for instance, whose
evil actions are narrated in 2 Mace. iv. and v., and others,
who, for private ends and advancement, sought at that terrible
crisis to procure the ruin of their country and of their faith.
The result of the attempt to Hellenise the Jews and to
subvert their religion, in the early days of Antiochus
Epiphanes, was at first so considerable that for a time it
seeemd likely to be successful. But the eyes of the Lord
were over his people, and his ears were open to their cry.
The want of common wisdom displayed by their heathen foes
was remarkable ; and the victories gained by small and poorly
equipped bands of foot-soldiers over well-appointed armies,
strongly supported by a numerous cavalry, formed a most
noteworthy feature of this remarkable struggle. Deliverance
was vouchsafed through the instrumentality of the Maccabee
heroes, who were raised up from among the people, and did
not themselves belong to the nobles or princes of Jerusalem.

Ch.xii. 6, 7.] THE TRIALS AND VICTORY OF ISRAEL. 37 1
Grotius has well observed in reference to this prophecy that
the deliverance of Jerusalem and of the cities of Judaea did
not come from Jerusalem, but was effected by means of the
Maccabees from Modin.
The Maccabee heroes, however, well understood the impor
tance of the city of Jerusalem as the centre of the national
religion, and were not content with procuring their own safety
or aggrandisement. They rescued Jerusalem and its inhabi
tants by force from the hands of the spoiler. They went
forth to each of their battle-fields, fully recognising that they
had no power or strength of their own, but that their hope
and trust was in the Lord of hosts. Their courage was
daunted by no dangers, they were fearless before the greatest
number of their foes. Though occasionally unsuccessful,
they fought and conquered. As a pan of fire can easily
ignite and destroy any number of faggots among which it
is placed, so their enemies were but fuel for them ; as a
blazing torch in a bundle of corn rapidly consumes the
sheaf, so did the Jewish heroes devour their enemies on every
side (comp. Num. xiv. 9 ; Obad. 18). The desecrated city
of Jerusalem was reconsecrated, the defiled- temple purified
and sanctified anew. The power of faith achieved the victory.
By it they " escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness
were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the
armies of the aliens " (Heb. xi. 34).
The Jewish nation was delivered in such a manner that no
occasion of boasting, nor any special martial glory was afforded
to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. They were the rescued, not
the rescuers. "The house of David," conspicuous as it was
at the period of the return from Babylon, in the person of
Zerubbabel, the prince of the house of David, and the Head of
the Captivity, obtained no new honours in the remarkable
struggles of the Maccabean era. After the death of Zerub
babel, the house of David seems to have contented itself with

372 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. 7, 8.
a mere titular dignity for ages, and ultimately fell into
political insignificance. It lost even that titular position as
one of the consequences of the mighty struggles which estab
lished the supremacy of the Asmonaean princes.1
This is a remarkable fact when viewed in connexion with
the prophecy of Zechariah. For the prophet evidently con-
1 The following is the list as given by Herzfeld of the Davidic princes, who either
exercised some real authority, or held a titular rank in the eyes of the Jewish people,
down to the establishment of the Asmona:ans. The authorities for the list are the
Breviarium of the pseudo-Philo and the Seder-olam-zutta, which, though really
apocryphal and unhistoric in many of their statements — the list of the latter is
especially defective — yet, so far as the names given are concerned (as Herzfeld
has ably shown in his Excursus Ueber die Abkbmmlinge Davids in und nach
dem Exil), have drawn from historical sources. The numbers placed after the
respective names are those of the years during which each prince exercised
his authority. Those given in the first three cases are plainly legendary. The
names as given in the Breviarium are : — Serubabel, 58; Resa Mysciollam (KB""!
07tJ>D), 66, I Chron. iii. 19; Joannes ben Resa, 53. Herzfeld shows that this
latter was .probably the brother of the former, Resa being a title, not a proper
name. He was probably identical with Hananiah the son of Zerubbabel,
1 Chron. iii. 19. There seems here to be a gap, which Herzfeld would supply
from the other source with the names of Meshesabel, Berechja and Meshullam.
Then follow in the Breviarium, Judas, the first with the surname Hyrkanus,
14 years; Josephus I., 7 years; Abner Semei, 11 ; Elyh Matathias, 12; Asar
("lETt) Maat, 11; Nagid (TJ3) Artaxat, 10 (possibly the same as 'Rayyal,
Luke iii. 25); Agai Helly, 8; Maslot Na,um, 7 [these last two names are sus
piciously like those in Luke iii. 25] ; Amos Syrach, 14 ; Matathias Siloa, 10 ;
Josephus the younger, 60 ; and Jannasus, the second with the surname Hyrkanus,
16. Josephus the younger is mentioned in Jewish history as honoured by Ptolemy.
He seems to have been identical with the Joseph ben Tobiah mentioned by Josephus
(Antiq. xii. 4, § 2). The dignity of "prince " did not always descend from father to
son, as is proved, as Herzfeld remarks, by the fact that it is impossible for princes
to have followed one another in direct descent at such short periods as those
assigned in the list from Josephus I. to Amos Syrach. The history of Hyrkanus,
notes Herzfeld, as given by Josephus (Antiq. xii. 4, § 6), cannot be understood
until it is observed that he was the son of a prince who sought to attain
unto the same dignity as his father had before him. Josephus calls him simply
Hyrkanus, but he must also have had a Hebrew name. His attempt to raise
up the Davidic throne was opposed by Simon the Just, and was consequently un
successful. According to the Breviarium he was prince from 196 to 180, or from
179 to 162. From the Restoration down to the times of the Maccabees a descen
dant of the Davidic family held a kind of chieftainship ; he was termed variously
WWi, aWl, ~IK>, and T'JJ, which variety of title, Herzfeld thinks, points to a
fluctuating authority. After the hopes of the Davidic family were finally crushed
by the elevation of the Maccabee princes to the throne, some of the heads of that

Ch. xii. 7, 8.] THE TRIALS AND VICTORY OF ISRAEL.

373

siders the family or house of David as of special interest
and speaks of it as such in the close of this particular
prophecy. For although that family was destined to play a
very subordinate part in the deliverance here predicted, the
prophet regards it as one which would possess peculiar im-
family appear to have migrated to Babylon, and their chief was known there as
the Prince of the Captivity. Makrizi speaks of an emigration to Babylon by a
Jewish party about 300 years after the restoration of the second temple. See
Herzfeld's Geschichte des Volkes Israels (1847-1857), vol. i. pp. 257-8, 378-387 ;
vol. ii. 194, 396. Milman, in his History of the Jeivs, vol. ii. p. 483, ff, also
observes that the Prince of the Captivity in Babylon was descended from the house
of David.
It ought to be noted here that the writer of the Breviarium was of course not
Philo, nor is the Breviarium to be found in the best editions of his works. It is,
however, in the edition of J. Annius, and has been separately reprinted. It is
described in Fabricii Bibl. Grceca, Hamb., m.d.ccviii., vol. iii. lib. iv. 4, § 2, 44.
Fabricius notes that the author speaks of having brought down his third book,
"usque ad Agrippam tertium Judaaorum regem, quern ait auctor nugivendulus
regnasse annis xxx. usque ad hunc ultimum annum eetatis mese decrepitse."
Fabricius says further : " Hoc breviarium Philoni a Johanne Annio Viterbiensi
suppositum, editum et commentario illustratum cum ceteris ejus commentis saape
prodiit post editionem primam Romanam, anno 1498, fol. Vide Hanckium libro
laudato, p. 90 et 96 seq. Tantum addam in prtesenti, quod R. Azarias in Meor
Enayim, c. xxxii., idem breviarium Pseudo-Philonis, sive ut ipse Hebraice vocat,
Jedidazi Alexandrini, sed hinc inde interpolatum retulit Hebraice, e quo latine
conversum exhibet Guil. Henricus Vorstius in Commentario ad Chronologiam Da-
vidis Ganz, p. 308-312. Neque aliud puto.esse scriptum, quam hoc. Pseudo-Phi
lonis breviarium, quod in catalogo Bibl. Bodleiana? memoratur inter Philonis scripta
liber de genealogia Christi latine cum commentario Joh. Annii, Paris. 1612." Mr.
Thomas V. Keenan, B. A., Assist. Librarian of Trinity College, Dublin, has kindly
furnished me with the title page of Annius' work, which reads: " Berosi Chaldaji
sacerdotis reliquorumque consimilis argumenti autorum, de antiquitate Italiae ac
totius orbis. Cum F. Joan. Annij Viterbensis Theologi commentatione, et auxesi,
ac verborum reriimque memorabihum indice plenissimo". 2 torn. Lugd. 1554—5.
size 16°. He adds the following extract from the Breviarium as given by Annius,
first volume, p. 416: — "Regnavit hie primus Herodes Ascalonita tyranico prin-
cipatu, annis triginta uno, & legitimo sex. Et filius ejus Archelaus, annis novem.
Herodes autem Tetrarcha, annis vigintiquatuor : cuius vigesimoprimo anno Legatus
a nostris Iudjeis ab Alexadria missus adolescens eram. Sequutus est hunc Agrippa
priscus, annis septem. Agrippa iunior, annis septem & viginti. Et Agrippinus,
qui & Agrippa vltimus, annis triginta, vsq; ad hunc vltimum annum aetatis
mea? decrepitae," and adds that Bnmet (Manuel du Libraire) says that this is a new
edition, of a work first published, under a somewhat different title, at Rome, in
1498. Brunet says it has gone through numerous editions, but he discredits the
authority of Annius, whom he charges with interpolating wholesale in his extracts.
He does not mention the Paris ed. of 1612, referred to by Fabricius..

374 - ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. 7, 8.
portance in the period succeeding that special deliverance.
The writer would scarcely have spoken so much of the
family of David had he lived in the Maccabean era, when the
glory of the house of David was completely eclipsed, and when
no position in the Jewish state was conceded to them, inas
much as they had borne no conspicuous part in the religious
revival of that day. If such allusions are to be considered
as affording an indication of the date of the composition
of the prophecy, then the prediction must be considered
as composed at a time when the house of David occupied
a prominent position, such as it possessed in the days of
Zerubbabel. It is, however, remarkable that, imbued as the
prophet was with the sense of the coming glory of the house
of David (as is plain from verse 8), he should yet distinctly
refer to a future national deliverance in which the leaders
should be persons belonging to Judah, but neither inhabitants
of Jerusalem nor members of the house of David.
The name of Judah after the return from captivity was, as
we have seen, the general name given to all the returned
exiles, whether they belonged to the tribe of Judah or to the
remnants of the other ten tribes. No valid objection, there
fore, can be made to this reference of the prophecy on the
ground of the Maccabean chieftains having been members of
a priestly family, and, therefore, appertaining to the tribe of
Levi. They were leaders and princes of Judah, in the sense
in which the expression is used in verse 5. "The ten tribes "
is indeed in many respects a most unfortunate designation.
At the disruption of the kingdoms the tribe of Levi natu
rally cast in its lot with the kingdom of Judah. Jeroboam
created a special priesthood of his own for his new kingdom
(1 Kings xii. 31, 32, xiii. 33), and forasmuch as he disestab
lished the Levitical priesthood throughout his dominions, and
took away their landed property (2 Chron. xi. 14), the Levites,
whose adhesion to the new order of things might justly have

Ch. xii. 4-8.] THE TRIALS AND VICTORY OF ISRAEL. 375
been suspected, were driven to migrate in a body to Judah and
Jerusalem (2 Chron. xi. 13, 14, xiii. 9-1 1), together with many
other persons belonging to the other tribes (2 Chron. xi. 16).
Graetz has argued that these disestablished and disendowed
Levites formed the greater part of " the poor " and pious
men, the Ebionites of the Old Testament, so often alluded to
in the Psalms.1 Though we do not agree with the theory of
Graetz, it is certain that the Levites and the families of the
other tribes who then migrated to Judah became so com
mingled with the tribe of Judah that all alike were known by
the name of " Jews."
We may here pause to review the other interpretations
which have been assigned to this prophecy, so far as it has
been yet considered. Hengstenberg views the whole as a
history of the Christian Church from the commencement
of the period after the resurrection of Christ. The Church
he considers as having been from its very beginning "the
legitimate continuation of Israel." One might very well
understand such expressions as occur in verses 4 and 5 to
refer to the struggle against Christianity in its early days, in
which the nations of the earth took part. But it is not
satisfactory to explain the names Judah and Jerusalem as
contrasted with one another to signify "the inferior and
superior portions of the covenant nation ; " and still less so to
consider " the house of David " in verse 7 as signifying the
royal family " as continued in the princes and potentates in
the kingdom of God who become partakers of the Spirit."
For the same expressions in verse 10 are explained to denote
"the members of the covenant nation," and must there
signify those who had been in rebellion against God. Nor
can we see according to this interpretation any meaning in
the special statements of verse 7.
1 Graetz, Monalschrift des Judenthums for 1869, Die Ebioniten des alten Testa
ments.

376 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. 2-8.
Kliefoth thinks that the prophecy commences with the
period of Christ's rejection by the Jewish nation, spoken of
in chap, xi., and that it reaches forward to a time still future
when Israel as a nation shall turn in repentance to their
long rejected king. The national conversion of Israel is, he
thinks, clearly set forth in chap. xii. 10, ff. By Jerusalem and
its inhabitants, and by the house of David, he considers
" Israel after the flesh " to be meant, against whom the
"burden" is announced in the first verse. Inasmuch as
"Judah" is contrasted with Jerusalem, and the salvation of
Judah is represented in verse 7 as earlier than that of the
people of Israel, Kliefoth holds that the Christian Church is
called by the name of "Judah" because it originated with
the Jewish nation, though it was afterwards mainly com
posed of Gentile adherents. Just as a political and religious
schism had taken place in the days of Rehoboam, and two
rival kingdoms were set up, the one with a false worship, the
other with a true one, so was it to be in the days of the Messiah.
There would be a separation between the " Israel after the
flesh " and the " Israel after the spirit," a schism of a darker
and more terrible kind than that which rent in twain the
kingdom of the twelve tribes. Starting from this general
conception, Kliefoth explains the declaration (verse 2) that
Jerusalem was to be made a bowl of reeling to all the peoples
as referring to the siege of Jerusalem under Titus. The state
ment in the subsequent verse, where Jerusalem is spoken of
as a burdensome stone to all peoples, he regards as fulfilled in
the course of ages by the various crusades and the different
political movements which affected Jerusalem and the Jewish
nation. The prophecy of verse 2, which speaks of Judah as
experiencing a similar fate, he regards as fulfilled in the
troubles which about the same period fell upon the Christians,
commencing with their flight to Pella during the temporary
lull in the siege of Jerusalem. In all dangers God pro-

Ch. xii. 2-8.] THE TRIALS AND VICTORY OF ISRAEL. 377
mised to defend his Church, even in days of persecution ; he
would be with her amid all the blindness and madness of the
nations (verses 4, ff). Kliefoth understands by " the princes
of Judah" (inverse 5) — which clause he renders "the friends,"
or " familiars of Judah " (a possible translation, to which no
philological objection can be made) — as those from among
the Gentiles who should attach themselves to believing Judah,
that is, the Christian Church. Such are spoken of in the
verse in question (according to his exposition) as expressing
their belief that the preservation of Israel was due to God's
special providence, and as anticipating the day when that na
tion should form part of the Church of Christ. Verse 6 would
then depict the victories of the Cross in various lands, while at
the same time, in spite of all its trials, the city of Jerusalem
was to exist on its own base. By the tents of Judah in
verse 7, Kliefoth considers the Christians scattered throughout
the world to be meant, and the prophet predicts that salvation
should be bestowed first on the Gentiles, in order that the
Jews might be prevented from boasting. The remainder of
the prophecy, according to Kliefoth, refers to the future
national conversion of the Jewish nation. In describing that
event he observes that no special glory is spoken of as be
longing to Israel. The terms used in verse 8 of " the feeble
one" being as David, and the house of David as God, etc.,
Kliefoth explains by reference to the expressions employed in
1 Pet. ii. 9, " Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a
peculiar nation" (comp. Rev. v. 10, and Matt. xi. n). All
that is denoted by such expressions in this prophecy is, in his
view, that the kingly honours and the likeness to God which
are granted to all believers shall be at last granted to con
verted Israel. The expressions are fully justified when used
with regard to the conversion of Israel. The conversion of
any people is a blessing and a gain for Christendom ; much
more will be the conversion of Israel.

37^ ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. 2-8.
Such is the exposition of the prophecy given by Kliefoth,
traced upon the lines drawn by Ebrard. It is ingenious, but
far too artificial. It rests mainly for its support upon the
opposition, supposed to exist in the prophecy, between Jeru
salem and its inhabitants on the one hand, and Judah on the.
other ; and upon Kliefoth's interpretation of chap. xi. 14, ff.,
which we cannot regard as correct. The stress which Klie
foth lays upon the contrast throughout between Judah and
the inhabitants of Jerusalem is the weak point in his ex
position. No such opposition can be proved. Judah is not
contrasted with Jerusalem as a hostile power, although it is
mentioned apart. In verse 7 there is a contrast so far drawn
between them that the salvation spoken of is predicted as
first granted to Judah and then to Jerusalem. In the pro
phets the Jewish kingdom and people are often mentioned as
"Judah and Jerusalem " (Isa. ii. 1, iii. 1, v. 3, etc.). Both are
named as component parts of one whole, not as parts radi
cally and distinctly differing from one another, as required by
Kliefoth's exposition.
Those scholars who ascribe this prophecy to a pre-exilian
author have considerable difficulty in assigning a date to its
composition. Maurer thinks that it was written between the
time of the death of Josiah (xii. 11) and the capture of Jeru
salem by the Chaldseans. Chap. xii. to xiii. 6, was, according
to him, probably written in the fourth year of the reign of
Jehoiakim, when the prophet expected that the enemy would
be driven from the gates of Jerusalem ; the latter prophecy,
xiii. 7 — xiv. 21, after the battle of Carchemish, when darker
fears intruded themselves into his mind. Hitzig's views are not
very different, though it is somewhat difficult to comprehend
his ideas respecting the details. Both scholars seem to regard
the prophecies at the close of this book as expressing hopes
of fortunate days, some of which were not fulfilled at all, and
others very inadequately. No substantial reasons are assigned

Ch. xii. 2-8] THE TRIALS AND VICTORY OF , ISRAEL. 379
for these opinions, and they may be here passed over. The
views of these critics on the great passage, xii. 10, will,
however, be noticed in due course.
Nor can we regard the interpretations of those expositors as
correct, who, like v. Hofmann, consider the events prophesied
in these latter chapters of Zechariah to belong to the last
stage of the world's history, and to stand in close con
nexion with the second coming of the Son of man. The ob
jections to this mode of explaining chaps, xiii. and xiv. will
be considered in our remarks on those chapters. It would
be strange indeed for the prophecy to pass on immediately
from events connected with the rejection of the Messiah
in chap. xi. to the time of the end. It would not indeed
surprise us to find events connected with the second coming
of the Messiah spoken of as if connected in time with the
first advent, and especially such as might be viewed as the
results' of that advent. But it would be strange to find
depicted on the prophetic page a detailed description of
events immediately connected with the second advent, while
all the great events which were to occur in the intervening
time are passed over in silence. A priori objections, however,
such as this are not necessarily conclusive.
According to v. Hofmann, the siege of Jerusalem spoken
of in chap. xii. is the same as that more fully related in chap.
xiv. But in chap. xiv. Jerusalem is described as actually cap
tured, while in chap. xii. it is described as delivered. The
tribulation mentioned in the early part of chap. xii. is fol
lowed (not necessarily immediately) by a national conversion ;
the tribulation of chap. xiv. has far different results. The
tribulation mentioned in chap. xii. precedes the death of the
Messiah, for whom the great mourning is described as taking
place, and whose mysterious sufferings, brought' about " by
the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God " (Acts
ii. 23), are spoken of as followed by a terrible time of trial

380 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. 2-9.
experienced on the part of those who rejected him (chap.
xiii. 7~9). But this latter tribulation must not be confounded
with that mentioned in the former part.
That the early part of the prophecy must be considered as
fulfilled in the days of the Maccabean revival has been already
sufficiently pointed out. The prophecy seems to be as
definite as is consistent with the purposes for which prophecy
was afforded. Prophecy was never intended, as Chambers
has well observed, to be simple history written in advance.
But after speaking of the deliverance to be accorded in those
days of distress, the prophet makes a rapid transition to
Messianic days. This transition occurs at the eighth verse.
There the prophet announces that — when that deliverance
should take place, which would be in such a way that the
glory of the capital would not be superior to that of the
inhabitants of the towns and villages in the land — the man
who was ready to totter and fall should be as David the great
hero of old ; and the house of David, though it would have
borne but a small part in the deliverance of that period,
should be as God, as the Angel of the Lord who led forth the
people of Israel out of Egypt.
Too little attention has generally been paid to the expres
sion made use of in verse 9, "and it shall come to pass in that
day that I will seek to destroy all nations who come against
Jerusalem." This passage is not an absolute promise of the
utter destruction of the nations. For the phrase which here
occurs, and which is. often used in prose and poetry, does not
necessarily denote that that which is sought for is ultimately
obtained. It is often used of unsuccessful seeking, as well as
of that seeking which has a successful issue. a It is, only used
1 The reader who may desire to collate passages in which the same words as
those in the text occur, or in which the same construction, the infinitive with ?, is
used after the verb to seek (K*p3 ), may refer among other passages to Exod. ii. 15 ;
Deut. xiii. 11 (E.V. verse 10); I Sam. xi. 2, 20, xix. 2, xxiii. 10, 15, xxiv. 3
(E. V. verse 2) ; 2 Sam. v. 16, xx. 19 ; 1 Kings xi. 22, 40 ; Esth. vi. 2, vii. 7 ;

Ch. xii. g.] THE TRIALS AND VICTORY OF ISRAEL. 38 1
twice of God, here and in Exod. iv. 24, where it is said, " God
sought to slay Moses," i.e., manifested clearly and distinctly his
intention to kill him, if Moses had persisted in neglecting
the appointed rite of circumcision. All, therefore, that this
passage in Zechariah states is that Jahaveh would clearly
manifest his design to destroy all the nations which should
come against Jerusalem at the era referred to. It was, there
fore, quite possible that such a gracious design or determina
tion of God on behalf of his people might be thwarted by
their continuance in sin, or by their ingratitude for the de
liverance vouchsafed to them. The promise was thus similar
to that made respecting the destruction of the Canaanitish
nations, which was but imperfectly accomplished, owing to
the national apostasies of the Israelites (Josh, xxiii. 5, with
verses 12, 13 ; Jud. i. 28, ii. 2, 3, 20-23). That which hin
dered the Israelites in the days of the Maccabees from
obtaining the full victory over their foes, and maintaining the
independence which they partially attained at the end of that
glorious epoch, was their sin against Jahaveh, which was the
cause of their ultimately losing what had been obtained by
means of the noble efforts of the Maccabees. By the victories
then vouchsafed to them, God manifested his gracious design
of destroying their foes. National sins and general irreligion
prevented the full attainment of the blessing. The remark
able phrase which occurs in the ninth verse does not seem to
have been used without a distinct object and design. No such
ambiguous phraseology is made use of when the final victory
over the nations is predicted in the closing chapter of the book.
The transition from an announcement of a temporal de
liverance of Israel to that of the great deliverance which the
Messiah should effect (depicted from verse 10 to the end of
the chapter) is in accordance with the general usage of the
Ps. xxxvii. 32, xl. 15 (E.V. 14). Compare the similar phrases in the New Testa
ment, Matt. ii. 13 ; Luke xiii. 24, xvii. 33 ; John vii. 25, viii. 37, etc.

382 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. 10-14.
prophets. When Isaiah prophesied the near rescue of Judah
from the confederacy formed against her in his days by
Israel and Syria, he was led onward to speak of Immanuel,
the Child of the Virgin (Isa. vii. 8, 14-16), in such a way as
if he expected the birth of the Messiah to take place in those
troublous times. When at a later date he was led to predict
the destruction of the Assyrian power, he again gave utter
ance to a prediction of the Child that was to be born, of the
Son that was to be given to the people of God (Isa. viii.
and ix. 1-7). And when in the distance he heard the noise
of the hosts of the Assyrian army mustering for the in
vasion of his country, he was led first to foretell the ap
proaching fall of that mighty empire, which commenced with
the failure of Sennacherib's attempt against Jerusalem, and
after depicting in the most vivid manner the march of the
Assyrian army upon the holy city, and the rebuke which it
should there receive from the God of Israel, he announces in
almost the same breath, that " a Rod should come forth out
of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch should spring up from its
roots " (Isaiah x., xi. 1), who should introduce a grand period of
victory and bring in the reign of universal peace. Thus, too,
when the return from the captivity in Babylon is depicted,
the hope of even better things to come is vividly set forth,
and in speaking of the joy of the returning exiles, the prophet
introduces the great prophecy of "the Servant of Jahaveh"
(Isa. li. — liii.). A large portion of the Messianic predictions
might be adduced in illustration of this principle, and the
prophecy before us is, as we think, a striking instance of the
same. The special Messianic prediction in this prophecy of Zech
ariah is that contained in the 10th verse, "And I will pour
out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitant of
Jerusalem the spirit of grace and of supplication, and they
shall look to me whom they have pierced, and they shall

Ch. xii. 10.] THE GREAT MOURNING. 383
mourn for him, as the lamentation for an only son, and they
shall make a bitter mourning (or weeping) for him, as one is
bitter (in grief) for the firstborn." The special construction
used (perfect with vav conv.) shows that a new point is
touched upon by the prophet — the conversion of the people
is the result of a gracious outpouring of the Spirit of God.
There is an allusion no doubt to the prophecy of Joel (chap.
iii. 1, ff, in the E. V. ii. 28, ff.), though similar predictions are
found elsewhere, as in Ezek. xxxix. 29 ; Isa. xliv. 3, comp.
Ezek. xxxvi. 26, 27. J The spirit of grace is that which pro
duces grace in the heart, the result of which is that earnest
supplications are made for pardon and forgiveness. We
need not translate the first word by love, as Ewald, nor render
it as Hitzig by emotion, or, as v. Hofmann, by groaning.
No examples can be adduced in favour of any of these trans
lations, though the word often occurs in Scripture. The
ordinary translation "grace" or "favour" is correct.2 The
outpouring of God's Spirit alone renders a people gracious
or acceptable in God's sight, and that altered condition is first
evidenced by the spirit of prayer which is evoked.
Jerusalem and its inhabitants are mentioned alone in our
text, not as though the blessing of the gracious outpouring of
1 The phrase found in Zech. xii. 10 and in Ezek. xxxix. 29 is H-l") ,f)?3CJ'.
In Isaiah the expression-is TJI-n p-¥$S.
2 There is no reason whatever to depart from the general meaning in which \T\
is used, i.e., favour, grace. The spirit is called the spirit of grace, because it
causes such grace, that is, draws forth the Divine grace or favour (Maurer, Kbhler).
Compare the similar expressions in Isa. xi. 2, xxix. 10 ; Deut. xxxiv. 9 ; Eph.
i. 17. It is not so termed here, as Hitzig thinks, because it is itself a gift of grace,
though that is true, because the connexion of 111") with D*313nn as indicating the
working of that spirit, would be harsh, which fact caused Hitzig to understand JPl
to mean emotion or compassion (Hitzig gives Ruhrung in his Comm. and Erbarmung
in his Transl. of the Prophets). The latter is the rendering of Gesenius in the
Thes. In many editions of his Lex. Man. he followed De Wette and Winer in
rendering supplication, considering the word as a synonym of the following Tl.
Miihlau and Volck adopt the ordinary rendering of grace, as Kbhler. On the
connection of Pill with the two genitives, Kbhler compares Isa. xxxiii. 6, and on
the paronomasia, Nah. ii. II; Zeph. i. 1 5 ; Ezek. xxiii. 33.

384 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. 10.
the Spirit was to be confined to them, but because Jerusalem
is used as a designation for the whole people, and is pointed
out as the place where the penitential sorrow was first to be
manifested. The mourning which was to be caused in conse
quence of the effusion of the Spirit is spoken of as a mourning
in which the whole land was to share. The house of David
seems to be specified as a designation of the rulers of the
people, the house of David being always thought of by the
prophets as the lawful rulers of the nation.
There has been no little dispute about the words, "they
shall look unto me whom they have pierced." The subject
of the first verb is admitted by all commentators to be the
inhabitants of Jerusalem and the house of David. The
attempts to make out that the subject of the second verb in
the sentence is " the heathen," spoken of in the early part of
the prophecy as attacking Jerusalem, must be characterised
as failures. Ewald maintains that the mourning pictured by
the prophet is a mourning over the Jews fallen in the
defence of their city as martyrs for their country and faith ;
those slain in the battle-field he considers to be those
pierced by the heathen. Ewald's reputation as a critic renders
it necessary to consider any suggestions put forth on his
authority, but the exposition does great violence to the lan
guage of the passage. His interpretation agrees substantially
with that of the Jewish commentators.
The difficulty of the passage lies in the expression, " they
shall look unto me whom they have pierced." This reading
is certainly correct. It has the support of all of the ancient
versions, and of the great majority of the MSS., embracing
all the better ones. It is easy to understand how the reading
" they shall look unto him," arose as a correction of the former
reading. Some of the MSS. have the reading "unto him"
as a marginal reading (Hp), and, as frequently happens in
the case of such readings, that in the margin has, in many

Ch. xii. 10.] TPIE GREAT MOURNING. 385
MSS., crept into the text. The assertion of Martini, made
with the bitterness of the professed controversialist, is unfair ;
namely, that this alteration occurred " through the perfidy of
some modern Jews." The difficulty the Jews found in the
original reading was quite natural, and need not be ascribed
to any attempt to deprave the testimony given by the text
to the divinity of the Messiah. The same difficulty was
felt by Ewald, who has thus expressed his views : " The
first person here is indeed entirely unsuitable ; it is at
variance with the connexion with the following 'and they
shall mourn for him,' and introduces the absurdity into
the Old Testament, that one would weep bitterly for Jahve
(Jahaveh) — for to Jahve alone can one refer the statement —
as over one dead, as over a dead person who could never
return again. The idea is rather that one martyr would
not fall in vain, but would one day be lamented by univer
sal love ; which language then can be transferred to a much
higher martyr, John xix. 37 ; Apoc. i. 7."
This difficulty is not really' solved by an assertion of the
twofold nature in Christ, or, in other words, by any attempt
to use the passage as a direct proof of our Lord's divinity.
The question is, what sense could have been put upon the
passage by those persons who were primarily addressed by
the prophet ? That the passage may have a deeper significa
tion than they put upon it is true, but the passage must have
been understood in some way or other by those to whom the
words were originally addressed. No previous mention is
made in it of the double nature of the Messiah, and such a
thought would not have suggested itself to the pious Jew of
the days of Zechariah. He could not possibly have explained
the passage of putting Jahaveh to death, as he was taught by
all the prophets the spiritual character of the God whom he
worshipped. Nor can we think that the Angel of Jahaveh is here
C C

386 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. 10.
spoken of, as Hengstenberg, Kliefoth, Wiinsche, and others
have supposed. The mention of the piercing of the Angel
of Jahaveh would have been almost as great a difficulty to
the prophet's hearers, as to speak of the death of Jahaveh
himself. " The passage is most easily explained," as Hitzig
has remarked, from " the identification of the Sender with the
sent, of Jahaveh with the prophet." This is the view sub
stantially held by E. Meier, Kohler, Kahnis, and Umbreit. The
passage refers to the previous allegory of the good shepherd,
identified in the former chapter with Jahaveh as his messenger
and representative, and similarly here identified with his Lord.
As St. John did not hesitate, when he quoted the passage
in reference to our Lord's crucifixion, to change the first
person into the third (John xix. 37), so the Jewish expositors,
with equal good faith, have appended their marginal note.
In adopting this interpretation, we do not in the slightest
degree deny that, in the highest and deepest sense, this
passage, as well as that in chap, xi., may find its full signifi
cance in the mysterious union of the human and the
Divine in the person of Christ. That doctrine cannot, how
ever, be proved from such texts, and no such idea could
possibly have arisen in the minds of the Jews who first
listened to its solemn words. The progressive character of
Divine revelation on such mysterious points is too often
lightly passed over by the dogmatist.
The prediction when delivered must have been considered
to refer to a national mourning over some one who stood in
an intimate connexion with Jahaveh, and whose rejection and
death was to be bitterly bewailed by the people of Israel.
Such would have been the meaning conveyed by the passage
to the Jews of the time of Zechariah. Assuming that the
prophecy proceeded from the same author as that of the
previous chapter, — and there are no sufficient grounds on which
to deny it, — the rejection of the representative of Jahaveh,

Ch. xii. 10.] THE GREAT MOURNING. 387
(namely, the good shepherd, whose rejection is there spoken of
as followed by a terrible punishment), and the national mourn
ing described as taking place for one who should be, in some
mysterious manner, " pierced " by the nation when acting
in the capacity of the representative of Jahaveh, must
both have been considered by the hearers of the prophet to
refer to one and the same event.
The explanation of Ewald would never have suggested
itself to the minds of the Jews of that day. That scholar
admits that the passage refers to some highly esteemed and
well-loved person. He is even disposed to consider that some
remarkable martyr to truth and religion is referred to, whose
death had not met with due recognition. He appears,
indeed, to have nearly planted his feet within the threshold
of the temple of truth, when he says that one might be
tempted almost to think of the great martyr of Isa. liii., if it
were not that it is impossible for one to be referred to, who is
not elsewhere mentioned in the prophecy. Ewald's difficulty
is entirely caused by his arbitrary severance of this prophecy
from that which precedes it. When once it is perceived that
the two prophecies traverse in many points over the same
ground, the difficulty disappears. The good shepherd of chap.
xi., so shamefully treated for his tender care, is to be identi
fied with the great martyr portrayed in the pages of Isaiah as
" the Servant of Jahaveh," and both must be identified with
the Pierced one of the twelfth chapter of Zechariah.
We agree with Keil in considering that the rejection and
consequent crucifixion of our Lord is the event which the
prophecy has in view. The quotation of the passage by St.
John (xix. 37), in the form " they shall look on him whom
they pierced," and his special application of it to the incident
of the soldier piercing the side of the Redeemer after he
was already dead, is not to be understood as if that fact,
and that only, was predicted by the seer. The incident itself

388 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. 10.
was rather an illustration and example of what is here re
ferred to, than the point specially had in view in the prophecy.
The piercing of Christ's side with the lance was regarded by
St. John as the final act of indignity done to our Lord, as in
fact the summing up of the rejection and death here darkly
predicted. No stress must be laid upon the mention made
of the piercing as with a spear ; for Zechariah, in chap. xiii. 7,
uses language, which, if its literal signification be insisted on,
would imply death by the sword. The remarks made on
chap. ix. 9 are fully applicable in the interpretation of this
passage. The prophecy would lose much of its importance,
as Hengstenberg has observed, if it were supposed to refer
only to a single fact in the history of our Lord's humiliation,
namely, to the act performed by the Gentile soldier. It is
rather to be regarded as a general prediction of the death of
our Lord, which was brought about by the Jewish people. The
literalists widely err when they lay stress upon such assumed
literal fulfilments. They might be hard pressed, if stress
were laid on the other side on those various points which
were not fulfilled in the letter, though accomplished accord
ing to the spirit.
The national mourning spoken of in the chapter was
primarily fulfilled when the people, who beheld the death
of Jesus on the cross and the signs that followed, smote
their breasts in grief,1 and returned mourning to Jerusalem
(Luke xxiii. 48). The crowds, who but a short time before
had cried out " crucify him," then smote their breasts, over
powered by the proofs of the superhuman dignity of Jesus,
and mourned for the Dead and for their own sin (Hengsten
berg). The contrition expressed by thousands of penitent
Jews on the occasion of Peter's sermon on the Day of Pente-
1 Hengstenberg notes that mention is made in Isa. xxxii. 12, of lamenting by
smiting the breast in language similar to that of Zechariah, and we may also re
call to mind the lamentation of the women recorded in Luke xxiii. 27, ff.

Ch. xii. 10.] THE GREAT MOURNING. 389
cost was another fulfilment of the text. Thousands of Jews
were then pricked (pierced) in their heart (Karevvjrjaav rfj
KapSla). These were fulfilments of the prophecy, as were the
further results of apostolic preaching recorded in Acts iii. — v.,
etc. And, as Keil justly notes, the prophecy has been ac
complished again and again in the Christian Church when
conversions have taken place from Judaism, and will have its
final accomplishment in the day in which the remnant of
Israel shall return to the Lord their God.
Wiinsche * has pointed out that the teaching of the Syna
gogue with respect to the two Messiahs, Messiah ben Joseph
and Messiah ben David, was originally derived from this
passage. The Messiah ben Joseph, or Messiah ben Ephraim,
was considered to be one destined to be born in poverty, and
acquainted with ills, who was to lose his life fighting for his
people in the great contest against Gog and Magog. The
Messiah ben David, on the other hand, was regarded as the
great Messiah who was to be the final conqueror, and to erect
a kingdom over which he was to reign for ever. The doctrine
of the two natures in the Messiah was unknown to the Syna
gogue, or, if known, set aside as impossible. That doctrine
could alone reconcile in all their fulness the teachings of the
double set of prophecies, which speak, on the one hand, of a
glorious, and, on the other, of a suffering Messiah. The
doctrine of the two Messiahs seems to have sprung up after
the Christian era, in order to explain in some way the pro
phecies adduced by Christians in proof of the Messiahship
of our Lord. Wiinsche cites two passages which exhibit the
connexion of this opinion with this passage in Zechariah.
The Jerusalem Gemara (composed between A.D. 230 and 290)
notes, in reference to this very text, that there were among
1 rWfflrj ^/ID*, oder Die Leiden des Messias in ihrer Ueberdnstimmung mit der
Lehre des Alten Testaments und den Anspriichen der Rabbiaen, etc. Dargestellt von
Dr. Aug. Wiinsche. Leipz. 1870.

39° ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. 10.
the Rabbis two opinions, "one says that which they (the
people) mourn is the Messiah ; and the other, that which
they mourn is evil desire (original sin)." In the Babylonian
Gemara (composed later, between A.D. 365 and the close of
the fifth century) a fuller statement occurs in reply to the
question : " What is the cause of this mourning ? In this
R. Dosa and the other Rabbis differ. The one said it was
for Messiah ben Joseph, who is to be slain ; and the other said
it was for evil desire (original sin), which is to be slain. Let
there be peace to whoever says that it is for Messiah ben
Joseph, who is to be slain, verily, for it is written ' and they
shall look to him whom they have pierced.'" (Tractat Succa,
fol. 52, col. 1, quoted in Wiinsche, p. 64.) Rabbi Salomo ben
Yizhak (Rashi) states in his commentary, that " the Rabbis
explained this passage with reference to Messiah ben Joseph,
whom they shall slay." x David Kimchi explains the words
" whom they have pierced," by " because they have pierced."
He objects to the Messianic interpretation, because the Messiah
must be supposed to be "spoken of unconnectedly, without
any previous mention at all." The interpretation he gives is
not unlike that which has been defended by Ewald, namely,
that in the war with their enemies the people of the Jews
will be astonished if even so much as one man should fall
among their ranks, and will look upon such a calamity as
the beginning of a defeat, as when the men of Ai smote only
thirty-six men of Israel. Hence they should look up to God
for help, even in the smallest reverses. Such a view scarcely
needs to be controverted, so opposed is it to the whole tenor
of the passage. Nor will the Hebrew bear such a rendering
(see crit. comm.).2
1 He states that this was his own view in the words quoted by Wiinsche
ITK>D -|ta bv t6tt TiniS1? -|K>3K »K. " The place cannot be explained otherwise
than as referring to King Messiah." Wiinsche, p. 53. McCaul says that Rashi ex
plained it otherwise in his commentary on the Bible (Transl. of Kimchi, p. 161).
* Bohl, in his Alt-testamentlichen Citate im Neuen Testament, p. ill, notes that

Ch. xii. io, ii.] THE GREAT MOURNING. 39 1
Wiinsche has proved, by a considerable induction of pas
sages from the non-controversial writings of the Jews, that the
Synagogue in ancient times had a distinct idea of a suffering
and an atoning Messiah. The belief that Messiah's sufferings
were to be voluntary, and that his death in some way or other
was to be an atonement for sin, pervades the early Jewish writ
ings. It is natural enough that the modern Synagogue should
have changed its views on these points, but it is not fair that
attempts should be made to silence or misrepresent on such
points the testimony of the older Jewish authorities. It is
natural that Drummond in his recent work on The Jewish
Messiah (p. 359) should, from his theological standpoint,
exhibit a desire to defend the thesis he so confidently puts
forward, namely, that "although the Jews were not without-
the general notion that the afflictions of the pious atoned for the
sins of the community, they had no expectation of a suffering
and atoning Messiah." That opinion is, however, at variance
with the passages cited in his own work, as well as with the
more numerous passages adduced by Wiinsche.
The prophet in verse 1 1 compares the penitential mourning
which was to take place in Jerusalem, with the mourning of
Hadad-rimmon in the valley of Megiddo. It has been a
question of much dispute what was the special mourning
referred to. The translation of the LXX., " as the mourning
of a pomegranate- orchard cut down in a plain," has arisen from
a blunder. The Targumist supposes that two mournings are
the Targum Jerushalmi, of which Lagarde has given some fragments in his edition
of the Reuchlin Codex of the Prophets, sees here a piercing of the Messiah. It
gives the following interesting paraphrase of Zech. xii. 10. " I will cause to dwell
upon the house of David, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of prophecy
and of true prayer, and consequently Messiah the son of Ephraim will go forth
to make war with Gog ; and Gog will slay him before the gate of Jerusalem ; and
they will look unto me and pray to me, because the Gentiles have pierced the
Messiah, the son of Ephraim, and will mourn over him, as a father and mother
mourn over an only son, and will be grieved for him, as they are grieved over a
firstborn. "

392 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. ii.
referred to ; the one the lamentation for Ahab, who was
slain in battle at Jezreel, as they say, " by Hadad-rimmon
the son of Tab-rimmon," identifying Hadad-rimmon with
Benhadad;1 and the other, the great mourning for Josiah,
who was slain in battle fighting against Pharaoh Necho in
the valley of Megiddo. Hitzig formerly suggested that the
reference might be to some mourning for Ahaziah, king of
Judah, who was wounded by Jehu when the latter rebelled
against Joram, and who fled to Megiddo (2 Kings ix. 27),
and died there. This suggestion has been long since with
drawn by its author ; but it still deserves mention as an
llustration of what fanciful interpretations are sometimes
resorted to, when the simple sense of the passage is passed
over. The opinion defended by him in his commentary,
which has been adopted by some other scholars, is that
there is a reference in the mourning of Hadad-rimmon to the
mourning for Adonis, whose orgies seem to have had their
origin in Phoenicia. This interpretation has been finally
disposed of in the masterly article of Prof, Count von
Baudissin.2 Hitzig's idea was too far-fetched to obtain the
1 LXX. tis Kowerbs powvos iv iredty iKKOTTop.ivov, omitting 1*711, and regarding
1130 as a part. pass, of the Aram. Til to cut down (v. Baudissin), or, as Schleus
ner suggested, reading injp. The Syr. simply translates : "Like to the mourn
ing of the son of Amon [josiah] in the valley of Megiddo." The Targ. is :
' ' In that day shall the mourning in Jerusalem be greater than the mourning
for Ahab the son of Omri, whom Hadadrimmon the son of Tabrimmon killed,
and than the mourning for Josiah the son of Amon, whom Pharaoh the lame killed
in the valley of Megiddo." The Targ. evidently connected the appellation 1D3.
or rbi (Necho) with "133, as in D'^3"l_ H33, lame in the feet, 2 Sam. iv. 4. Com
pare 1 Kings xv. 18, where Tab-rimmon is given as the name of a Syrian king ;
also Sayce's rendering of the name of Benhadad in the Assyrian inscription as
Rimmon-hidri (or Benhadad), the name reversed. Grotius long ago thought this
view probable.
2 Hitzig has maintained that Hadad was the name of the Sun god of the Syrians
and Rimmon that of a Syrian god united here with the former, the two names
standing in apposition. The compound he regards as a Syrian epithet of Adonis,
who was slain by a boar, and part of whose cultus consisted in a lamentation at a
certain season. He considers the lamentation for Tammuz mentioned by Ezek.
viii.(i4), to be a trace of the Adonis-worship. Thus here, he thinks the lamenta-

Ch. xii. n.] THE GREAT MOURNING.

393

approval of Ewald and his school. Pressel considers that
the mourning to which reference is made was the wailing of
the mother of Sisera over her son, the great chieftain of the
Canaanites, who was slain by Jael after his defeat by Barak
not far from Megiddo (Judg. v. 19). The recollection of this
mourning was, Pressel thinks, kept alive among the people of
Israel by the song of Deborah. The notion is novel and
ingenious, but lacks all probability.1
It is now generally admitted that the mourning was that
over the pious king Josiah. It is impossible to imagine
that the prophet would compare the great penitential mourn
ing over Israel's ill-treatment of the representative of
Jahaveh to the mourning over an idolatrous king, or to the
wailing of idolaters in their rites, or to the lament of a
tion predicted is compared to the lamentation over Adonis. The conjecture is in
some respects ingenious. It has not, however, been adopted by Ewald or von
Ortenberg, though approved of by Movers, Merx, and Wellhausen (Gotting. gelehrt.
Anzdgen, 1877), and regarded with favour by other scholars. The opinion may
be considered as finally disproved by v. Baudissin, who thinks that Schrader was
correct in explaining |1*3"J as identical with JD1?1, thunderer, the 0 being dropped
as in ^3 for 70%, and the D doubled as a compensation. But Friedr. Delitzsch
(Chaldaische Genesis, p. 269) has since shown that the appellation Ramanu or
Rammanu means "exalted," and Schrader himself has lately adopted that view.
The correct mode of writing the compound is probably |lDV"nn, Hadar-Ram-
mon or JDITin, Hadar-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, Kdlinschriften, p. 101). 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 Glorious 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 zur Semitischen Religionsgeschichte, Heft. i. Leipzig, 1876.
1 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 first 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. n.
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 Ledshiln, 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.1
1 Lieut. Conder has informed me that Maximianopolis is placed by the Bordeaux
Pilgrim ten Roman miles from Jezreel in the direction of Caesarea, and was iden
tified by Vandevelde with Rummaneh. See Conder'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" (/ID) by
"dying" (compare Gen. xxxv. 18), as Ewald, Bertheau, and
v. Baudissin have suggested, although Thenius (Comm. iiber die
Kb'nige) 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 " may be
explained as " the mourning over Hadad-rimmon," i.e., over
the national calamity which took place there. J
1 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 (Kara MivSyv tt6\iv, Antiq. x. 5, § 1). This Baudissin seems to regard as
an error of writing (pJD for |H2D). 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 ( 71130 ) on the confines of Egypt, well known to the
classical writers, and not far from Pelusium (Jer. xliv. 1, 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
(?N*"|JD) 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

396 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 (1 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. 11-14.] 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 any
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. 1 2." (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.1
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
1 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 I32K' (a tribeN in Judg. xviii. 19, 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. Judceos, 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 sons1
(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 c'the Simeon-
ite" (Num. xxv. 14) would have been used.2 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
1 In connexion with the opinion that Nathan was the son of David, it is
worthy 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. Zdtschrift, i860, p. 640, ff.
2 The patronymic from J°1M?B> (Simeon) is ''JjJOtS'ri Num. xxv. 14 ; Josh. xxi. 4 ;
while that from WOK* (Shimei) is ''Otp&tl, Num. ii. 21, as in this passage of
Zechariah. That WDB>n nnBB>D is equivalent to WpBTrlTa CD is plain from
the similar constructions in Num. xxvi. 5> 6".

400 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [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, ff). 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 such fulfilments possible, it

Ch. xii. 13.] THE GREAT MOURNING. 401
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 31. 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 (1 Chron. iii. 19), who bore such
an important part in the restoration from the exile. In
1 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 ZECHARIAH 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, unless the composition of the

Ch. xii. 12-14.] THE GREAT MOURNING. 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
(1 Pet. i. 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.1 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

1 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 Judsea
ordered them to be brought before him, fearing that they might be disposed to
rebel against the Romans. They were the grandchildren of St. Jude, the "brother"
of our Lord. They showed the emperor their hands, homy with manual labour,
and having thus convinced him that they were poor innocent countrymen, they were
permitted to depart in peace to their homes.

Ch.xii. 12-14.] THE GREAT MOURNING. 405
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 — Hengsten
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 tran
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."1 By "the house of
1 The LXX. evidently read Dipt? for TlpD rendering iras t6ttos, thereby
confusing the meaning of the passage. The last words of the verse they trans
late eis tt)V jxeTaKbn\o-iv (al. exx. p-eTo'iK-qciv) Kal els rbv x^P1"^" fah exx- pavri.o-p.bv).
Possibly, as Schleusner suggests, the former rendering was derived from the
original meaning of the verb NIDII, 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 (iTtt). 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 sin-water (T\)M£ir\ *D), 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 "
(JTn ''Qb), or as "a sin-offering" (Nfl JimT], Num. xix.
9, ff.). In Ezekiel the water is spoken of as sprinkled upon

is favoured by the reading p.eTolKt\o-iv . Their translation of H13 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 words following TH Ny? (to the house of David). Aquila
renders Kal els tt)v p,eTaKlvt\<nv Kal els rbv fiavTi.ap.bv. Either the word ixeraKlvqais
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 p.eTadvr]<n.s
is Aquila's translation of HTJ.

Ch. xiii. i.] TPIE REACTION AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS. 411
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. xii. 18, "I will open (JlTlSNi 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 ; 1 John i. 7).1
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 lv. I the grace of Jahaveh is viewed under a different aspect
from that in this chapter of Zechariah. No reference to sacramental 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.

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 PROPHECIES. [Ch. 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, l 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 der 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 Statement for 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, 1).
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

416 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 manifested 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 (1 Kings xxii.
21-23). Our Lord has described the departure of that
"unclean spirit" (irvevp,a a/cdOaprov) 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." a
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 rdle 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.
1-10). 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-
1 Rabbi Salomo ben Yizhak or Rashi conceives that by " the unclean spirit " is
meant the inclination to sin which is common to man. But, as Rosenmiiller ob
serves, the mention made of this spirit along with " false prophets " proves that
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. 1, 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 (Jer. 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 deliverance 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. 1), 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
Jesaiam, 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 ftie 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 (1 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 dress 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 II., 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 dare 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 son" — (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. 1 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 would 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. I— 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. x
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
1 flip is a very common Hebrew verb, and is used in the signification of to
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 ITJpP, 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.
nrpil, which is identical in meaning with Hnj. Comp. Ewald, § 122, c. But,
as Kbhler 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 nWJD >r>:3i?X HWi$ n& "for a man made me a pos
sessor (of land?) from my youth." The LXX. have 6Vt &.v8pairos iyivvqai p.e
iK vebrrjTbs p.ov, which Schleusner explains as "begat me as such," i.e., as a
husbandman. This is, however, questionable. Aquila Ira^i /xe, Symm. ip.ipwi
He, Theod. ?Sei£ e p.e. The Syr., connecting the verb with Hip, render, "and a
man stirred up my zeal from my youth. " The Vulg. 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,1 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 wounded 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 sympathy 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 wounds 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
1 In defence of this translation Rosenmiiller has cited the expression ITDrnn J'3
in Prov. xxvi. 13, which means "in the midst of the streets," as expressed in
Prov. xxii. 13, mim 11113.

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 fresh 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, II, 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. 1, in cases of mourn
ing for the dead, which were employed in later times by the
Israelites (Jer. xvi. 6, xii. 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 ("OH^D) 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-

43° ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiii. 6.
pletely that his wounds had anything whatever to do with
any religious 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 caedit violenta lacertos
Sanguineque effuso spargit inulta deam,
Statque latus praefixa veru, stat saucia pectus,
Et canit eventus, quos dea magna monet.
I. Eleg. 6, 47-50.
Similar self-lacerations are spoken of in 1 Kings xviii. 28
in close connexion with the priests of Baal when they acted
as prophets (liOl/T). 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" (XiYTFJI) ls 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 Schegg 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 the 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 was 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 rnighty 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 fatal 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 the use of irony. We are

Ch. xiii. 7.] TPIE 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 more clearly defined
by the words " the man who is my fellow." The word ren
dered " my fellow " QlVQJf) 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.1
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. 1 ; Isa. xl. 11; Ps.
lxxx. 2, or verse 1 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 of untruths to
1 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. II, 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 after 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. io, 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

43 8 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.1
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
2 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 Y~lttr\ 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 arguments do not rest so much on the textual criticism of Zech
ariah as on his views of other prophecies of Scripture, they may be the more ex
cusably passed over by us as beyond the main purpose of our present work.

Ch. xiii. 7.] 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
1 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. xiv. 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. II, 12. The sword, being a common weapon of warfare and
instrument 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 Ammon (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" (D^^i) 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 DHI^S (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 who 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.1 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 Kbhler regard the sheep so termed as identical
with the whole flock spoken of as scattered, or consider that they 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 under the similitude of sheep in
Zechariah.

Ch.xiii.7,8.] THE REACTION AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS. 441
treating the word here as an equivalent to "ityX, which occurs
in the Hebrew text in Jer. xiv. 3, xlviii. 4, where the margin
has the adjective "V,y2», which is found in Jer. xlix. 20, 1. 45 ;
Ps. cxix. 141. Bottcher's opinion must be regarded1 as cor
rect, namely, that the phrase means the suffering, the humble,
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 (1 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
few, 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 (1 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. 3 1 ; 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 were 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. xiii. 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
itself 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 were 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. 7-9-] THE REACTION AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS. 445
all Judaea, 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 (1 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

446 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. — " A day 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, ft"., 472, 519 — Dean Stanley
on the Mount of Olives, 467 — The phenomena attending the coming of Jahaveh,
468, ff., 478, ff. — The imagery of the prophets, 469 — The 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, andnote 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, andnote, — 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, 488 — 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 — The 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, 5'4 — 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, 520 — 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 " (y avvTeXeia rod alwvos, 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." l
The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews makes use of a
1 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 (Pleb. 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 to wait
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 (ttjv olicovp,ivt]v tt)v p,eKXovcrav) 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 " (tWa/iet? p,eWovTo<; alavos), and of the death of
the Messiah as having taken place " in the end of the world "
(em avvreXeia, t&v aiwvcov, chap. ix. 26), although a very
similar phrase is also made use of by our Lord to indicate
the great end of the world (Matt. xiii. 39, 40, 49).
The reason why the Messianic dispensation should have
been so termed is plain. The "end of all things" (1 Pet. iv. 7)
was intimately connected with the advent of the Messiah.
But " the end of the world," in the fullest sense of that term,
was not " immediately " to follow either the revelation of the
Messiah to his people, or the judgment which was to fall upon
them for rejecting him (Luke xxi. 9). It was not granted to
the prophets of Israel to understand the full history of the
latter dispensation, and much that was actually revealed to
them concerning it was veiled under the symbols of the dis
pensation with which they were acquainted. Even in Christian
days, the apostles, though permitted to hold converse with the
Lord, were left in ignorance as to the period when their Lord
would assume to himself the kingdom. They, therefore,
naturally expected that great event to occur in their own
days, and the prophets of Israel similarly imagined that the
coming of Messiah, the great event to which they looked for
ward, was at hand long before "the fulness of the time had
come " (Gal. iy. 4).
In our Lord's great discourse of "the last things," the
events connected with the destruction of Jerusalem of which
he speaks, and which was a type of the dissolution of all

Ch.xiv. I.] " THE LAST THINGS " AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 45 I
things, and of the destruction of the world itself, are so inter
laced by Divine wisdom that it is hard to separate the one
from the other, the near and the distant horizons often ap
pearing to intermingle. So also the prophets of Israel and
Judah, whether those of the restoration or those who lived
at or before the exile, considered that the destruction of
Jerusalem, revealed to them as destined to occur in the day
of the Lord, was to be closely connected with "the end
of all things," which latter event they but darkly com
prehended. J. P. Lange has justly observed that the sketches of " the
last things " given by the various prophets are similar in their
outlines, though the details exhibit considerable diversity.
Thus he notes that Ezekiel speaks of a destruction of Jeru
salem (chap, xxxiii.), the judgment upon the nations (chaps.
xxxv., xxxvi.), the national restoration of Israel, and the days
of blessing in store for that people (chap, xxxvi., xxxvii.).
After those events, though not necessarily as succeeding
them in time, Ezekiel predicts an invasion of Gog and
Magog (chaps, xxxviii., xxxix.), and the building of the
mystical temple (chaps, xl.-xlvii.). This last event Lange,
indeed, considers to be identical with the transformation of
the world. In consequence, however, of the vision of "the
living water " with which it closes, we are more disposed to
regard that great prophecy, not as a picture of a day still
future, but of the day of grace now present, but which is
destined to be yet more glorious. Daniel similarly predicts
the death of the Messiah, and the destruction of the holy city
which was to follow (chap. ix. 24-27), the judgment of the
nations (chaps, xi.-xii. 1), the resurrection, and the commence
ment of the time of the end (chap. xii. 2, 3). Our Lord's
discourse on the Mount of Olives treats also of these several
points, the destruction of Jerusalem, the judgment on the
nations (Matt. xxiv. 7, ff), the time of trouble (akin to that

4S2 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. I.
mentioned in Dan. xii. i), and lastly Christ's second advent in
glory. In the chapter of Zechariah upon the discussion of which
we are now entering, the judgment on Jerusalem, spoken
of in the preceding chapter (xiii. 8, 9), is presented to the
prophet's view, under a different aspect. The closing words
of Dan. ix. 26, 27, are related to the prophecy of Dan. xii. 1,
in a somewhat similar manner to that in which Zech. xiii. 8, 9,
is related to Zech. xiv. 1, ff. If the prophecy be considered
as a whole, it is impossible to regard it as a prediction of the
taking of Jerusalem in the days of the Maccabees, even if
we were to suppose that the events subsequently related
extend to the early days of the Christian dispensation. This
view has been put forth, indeed, with certain diversities of
opinion in detail, by Calvin, Grotius, Venema, etc. It is
impossible, however, to explain the chapter satisfactorily
according to this interpretation. On the other hand, those
scholars who, like Hitzig, Knobel, Maurer and Ewald, assign
the composition of the prophecy to a pre-exilian writer,
consider it to be a prediction of the destruction of the city
by Nebuchadnezzar. It is in vain to seek to overthrow
this view by simply arguing that the events which then took
place did not correspond to those here spoken of, for the
reply would be that the prophet was no doubt mistaken in his
hopes, and that the deliverance he announced never actually
occurred. But all the prophets who predicted an overthrow
of the holy city spoke of such an event as a judgment from
God ; and when they speak of mercy being ultimately vouch
safed to the people of Israel, they predict a day of previous
repentance on their part. But if this chapter be viewed as a
prophecy separate from that of chap, xii., no mention what
ever is made of any repentance on the part of the people ;
and, as Kohler has well observed, such a prediction as this of
Zech. xiv., addressed to Judah in the last decennium before

Ch.xiv.i.] " THE LAST THINGS " AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 453
the destruction of Jerusalem, could have only exerted a ruin
ous influence ; for instead of keeping before the minds of a
corrupt people their sin and the punishment threatened by
God in consequence of sin, from which only true repentance
and conversion could save them, the prophet does not here
speak of sin and judgment, repentance or conversion, but he
speaks of the threatened catastrophe as indeed a heavy trial,
but one during which Jahaveh would appear, to make an
end of his people's woes, and to execute a terrible judgment
upon their enemies.
Considerable difficulties, too, lie in the way of those who
regard the prophecy, with Cyrill and Theodoret among the
Fathers, and Marck, Henderson and others among later
expositors, as a direct prophecy of the destruction of Jeru
salem by the Romans under Titus. That event is indeed
included under the terms of the prophecy. But though it
was revealed to the prophet that a destruction of Jerusalem
would follow in the wake of the crime of rejecting the
Messiah, it was not given to him to comprehend the details
of that judgment. The idea presented in this chapter is that
of a people purified in the furnace of affliction, and of a
remnant towards which, when humbled, Jahaveh would turn
his hand, and for whom a refuge would be provided — of a
day of blessing following a day of trial, and an ultimate
triumph of Divine holiness and of Divine grace. In other
words, we view the prophecy as referring to the great national
disaster with which the Jewish dispensation would close, that
judgment, however, being regarded as immediately preceding
the time of the end. The prophecy, too, is conceived in the
spirit of the old dispensation, according to which Jerusalem
was viewed as the religious centre of the world. Thus the
prophet dreams of the future glory of the city of Jerusalem,
and of living waters proceeding forth from that city, a pro
phecy which has been fulfilled in a spiritual manner by the

454 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch.xiv.i.
living waters of the gospel of Christ, which have issued forth
from Jerusalem for the healing of the nations. In other
words, the chapter appears to be an ideal description of " the
last things," i.e., of the close of the Jewish, and of the bringing
in and ultimate success of the new dispensation, which was to
culminate in the diffusion of the religion of Jahaveh through
out the world, and to include that day of glory in which,
when " the fulness of the Gentiles " shall have come in, all
Israel shall be saved. We are not inclined to agree with
those who, disregarding altogether the natural connexion of
this prophecy with that at the close of chap, xiii., look upon
this chapter as containing a prophecy of future events to be
literally accomplished at some epoch in the world's history.
The prophecy cannot, as will be seen in the course of our
discussion, be regarded as one designed to be literally ful
filled. It abounds with ideal descriptions of great realities.
But we do not agree with those who view Jerusalem as simply
meaning the Church of Christ. All through the prophecy
the actual Jerusalem is thought of, though by means of the
destruction of that city salvation is ultimately to be brought
to the race of Israel. The woes of Jerusalem are regarded in
the light of this prophecy as the means by which at last a
fairer and nobler Jerusalem is to be established.
In Zech. xiv., as in the earlier prophets, and in our Lord's
discourse, the destruction of the city, the judgment on the
victorious nations, the deliverance of the vanquished, the
shaking of the earth, the appearance of the Lord for his
people, with its blessed results, are all successively delineated.
At Jerusalem the final punishment is inflicted on Israel, at
Jerusalem Israel is finally saved. The regeneration of the
world (Matt. xix. 28) begins at that city, living waters go
forth therefrom ; the very nations are vanquished only to be
blessed, and the feast of tabernacles as a feast of joy and
thanksgiving is kept by all in the renovated Jerusalem. "The

Ch.xiv.i.] "THE LAST THINGS " AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 455
last things " are thus suitably depicted by a priest-prophet
of the old dispensation, and at the close of his book he very
beautifully brings all nations up to the temple and leaves
them there.
Ewald, von Ortenberg and others, think that this conclud
ing chapter ought to be regarded as forming an independent
prophecy.1 On the other hand, Bleek, Kohler, Keil and
others, view it as a continuation of the preceding chapter,
and as giving a further account of the judgment on Israel
and the purification of the people so concisely related at the
close of that chapter. We agree in the main with this view.
We cannot agree with Kohler in considering that the events
recorded in this chapter are to be regarded as future and
as taking place after the national conversion of Israel, on
the ground that the restoration of Israel to God's favour is
alluded to in the closing verse of chap. xiii. The prophets
frequently speak generally of the final results of an event,
and afterwards proceed to give further details. Any attempt
to regard all the statements of the prophets as necessarily
succeeding one another in chronological order would reduce
many of their prophecies to a mass of confusion.
The expression in the first verse, " behold, a day is coming
for Jahaveh," 3 intimates that the day so referred to would be
1 Hitzig maintains also that this chapter forms a separate prediction, though
as he admits that the thirteenth chapter has exerted some influence on the
fourteenth, it is hard to see bow the prophecy can be regarded as independent.
Hitzig (with Hengstenberg and others) regards it as connected with chap. xii. 9,
and as giving an account of the overthrow of the confederacy of the nations
against Jerusalem alluded to in that chapter. But see our explanation of that
chapter, and more especially of verse 9, on p. 380
2 The phrase Hin^ N3 Dl» is equivalent to niS3X ITHT^ UV in Isa. ii. 12.
The day of the destruction of Babylon is termed by the prophet Isaiah ill IT1 QV>
(chap. xiii. 6and9). The construction with ?, instead of the construct statefoUowed
by a genitive, is chosen in order to mark the indefinite character of the day referred
to by the prophet, and ought to be rendered, not "the day," but "a day." It is
used generally in cases where the first noun has to be marked as definite, and,
therefore, requires the article, which cannot (unless in exceptional cases) be attached

456 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES: [Ch. xiv. 1-3.
a day which would belong to Jahaveh, and in which he would
be glorified by the wondrous exhibition of his majesty and
power, but not necessarily meaning that the day of wrath
would be brought about by his power. Verse 3 seems de
cisive on this point. The rendering of our A. V. " behold the
day of the Lord cometh " is objectionable, because it implies
that the day of which the prophet speaks must needs be
" the great day of the Lord."
The day predicted is further described in the third verse as
one in which Jahaveh will go forth and fight with the nations
gathered together against his people, although those nations
are spoken of in verse 1 as gathered together by him to exe
cute judgment against Jerusalem. The expressions made use
of do not prove that the great day of God is signified. For
in the book of Micah (chap. i. 3, ff.) Jahaveh is described
as "going forth out of his place," and descending from
heaven to punish the sins committed in Samaria and Jeru
salem by the men of Israel and the people of Judah (comp.
Isa. xxvi. 21). Frequent mention is made in the Sacred
Writings of the Lord fighting in behalf of his people against
the nations. Thus he fought for Israel at the Red Sea
(Exod. xiv. 14), in the great battle at Gibeon (Josh. x. 14),
and in all the victorious conflicts of Joshua (Josh. x. 42,
xxiii. 3). He it was who really chased their enemies before
them, and subdued them under their feet (Judges iv. 14, 15, 23 ;
1 Sam. vii. 10 ; Ps. xlvii. 4, E. V. verse 3). This is the uni
form language of the Psalms, and even of the later writers
(2 Chron. xx. 15, 17). Hence Jahaveh is called "a man of
war " (Exod. xv. 3), and mention is made of his sword, his
to the noun in the const, case, or when the first noun is to be marked as indefinite,
that is, as wanting the article, which could have been used if necessary. PH1V Dl'
might mean either "a day" or "the day of Jahaveh, " for the proper name is
definite in itself, while Din*? D1* is purposely indefinite, so far as the object of the
writer is concerned. See Ges. § 115,2.

Ch.xiv. 1-3.] " THE LAST THINGS" AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 457
arrows and his spear (Deut. xxxii. 40, 42 ; Isa. xxvii. 1,
xxxiv. 5, 6; Hab. iii. 11). Thus the expression "as in a
day of his fighting, * in a day of war " (verse 3), may be
viewed as a general expression (Kohler, Keil, Pressel, etc.),
or regarded as having special reference to the deliverance
from Egypt (Targ., Jerome, Corn, a Lapide, Hengst, Ewald),
which, having been the first great national deliverance, as
well as the greatest, is spoken of as the deliverance par
excellence, as Hengstenberg remarks. Comp. Isa. xi. 11.
Jerusalem is not mentioned by name in the first verse,
though clearly indicated by the use of the pronoun ("thy
spoil "). Zechariah speaks of Jerusalem as already captured
by the foe and utterly subjugated, before Jahaveh interferes
for the deliverance of his people. For the " day of Jahaveh "
was to be a day of judgment, exercised in the first case
against those who were his people ; judgment being ever
represented, even in the Old Testament writings, as com
mencing at the house of God (1 Pet. iv. 17; Amos iii. 2 ;
Ezek. ix. 6). It was afterwards to be a day of executing
vengeance upon their enemies. As a day of judgment for
all it is strikingly depicted in Isa. ii. 11-19. In the chapter
before us the sin of Israel is represented as causing Jehovah to
wait in stillness (comp. Isa. xxx. 17, 18) until a fit time had
come to deliver them, when the honour of the victory would
be ascribed to him alone (comp. Jud. vii. 2 ; Deut. viii. 17, 18).
The overthrow of Jerusalem is described by Zechariah as
so complete, that the enemy is able in perfect security to
divide the booty obtained from its plunder in the very heart
1 The expression IDrfort D?, the day of his fighting, may be well compared
with that in Ezek. xxxix. 13, HSSH Of, a day of my being glorified. A day in
which Jahaveh goes forth to fight must needs be a day in which his glory is
revealed. It may be well to notice here that Dl* in prophecies of the future is
used for time in general, (as &pa in the N.T.), and may indicate a longer or
shorter period, as may be required by the events spoken of in the particular
prophecy.

45 8 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 1-3.
of the city itself.1 The plunder of a captured city, as Jerome
remarks, is generally divided in a different place from that
in which it has been gathered. Hence the fact of the enemy
being able to divide the spoil in the midst of Jerusalem points
out the completeness of the victory, and the security felt by
the conquerors.
The second verse more fully explains the enigmatical state
ment of the first. Hence the construction with which it
begins (the perfect with the vav consecutive, \T13DiO)- The
gathering of the nations by Jahaveh, mentioned here, can
scarcely be regarded, as Kohler thinks, as similar to the
gathering together by Jahaveh of Pharaoh andhis army to
pursue after Israel, in order that those enemies of Israel might
be overwhelmed in the Red Sea (Exod. xiv. 4, 17). For in
that case the Egyptians were permitted merely to terrify the
people of God for a short period, while marching on to their
own destruction ; they were unable to hurt the Israelites
after whom they pursued. But the gathering of the nations
depicted by Zechariah was not a case in which the Lord
gathered together his enemies, or permitted them to be
gathered, in order that they might meet the doom prepared
for them. These nations were, on the contrary, gathered
together by Jahaveh, that, as man is generally punished by
man, they might be the instruments in the hands of Jahaveh
of punishing the "sinful nation, a nation laden with iniquity"
(Isa. i. 4) ; although after having thus been made, like Assyria
and Babylon, the means of executing Jahaveh's righteous ven
geance, they, for their own sin, would fall beneath the divine
displeasure, while the remnant of Israel purified by trials was
1 It is clear that "thy spoil" cannot signify the spoil which Jerusalem had
obtained from her foes. The Targum, indeed, takes this view of the passage :
" Behold a day is about to come from before the Lord, and the house of Israel
shall divide the substance of the peoples in thy midst, O Jerusalem." Schlier
seems to have adopted this view in his first edition, but he has rightly corrected
it in his second.

Ch.xiv. 1-3.] "THE LAST THINGS" AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 459
to be mightily delivered in the due time. The gathering of
the nations (the Medes and Persians) by Jahaveh against
Babylon, which was predicted by Isaiah (chap. xiii. 3-5), is a
more suitable parallel. Israel is not to be thought of as a
nation already converted to God at the commencement of the
era here so graphically described, as Kohler imagines, but as
a nation which needed a heavy chastisement, and upon which
the day of Jahaveh would descend in vengeance, even though
that judgment would at last be turned into mercy. On
the other hand it is to be noted, that there is not a single
word in this chapter concerning Israel's national conversion.
That event is implied, not expressed. Thus the picture pre
sented is not like that portrayed in Revelation xx., where the
nations are represented as indeed permitted to encompass the
camp of the saints and the beloved city, but not to overcome
them, for fire descends from God out of heaven and devours
their adversaries (Rev. xx. 8, 9). On the contrary, in Zech
ariah, the adversaries are described as being completely suc
cessful in their attempt — they take the city, they violate the
women who are found therein, they divide the spoil in security,
they lead forth as captives the half of the people that re
mained over and above (after the thousands conceived to have
perished in the siege), and they drag the captives away into
exile.1 The victory of the enemies is complete and decisive,
and is used by them with the utmost cruelty, before Jahaveh
1 Reinke translates "go forth with the captives," or "go forth as prisoners, " ex
plaining the 3 in the phrase iY?M2 KX'' as used pleonasticallyaftera verb of motion.
He translates' thus, because he thinks that nj\i, as a fem. participial noun, can
only mean captives and not captivity. But TvAl is no doubt a fem. from TQl a cap
tive ; as a fem. noun it is used first in an abstract signification, captivity, and after
wards as a collective term for the captives themselves. See Ewald, Lehrb. § 166 a.
The collective signification is therefore to be regarded as the derived, not as the pri
mary meaning. So Miihlau and Volck in their edition of Gesenius' Lexicon. Gesenius
himself in his earlier editions, as well as in his Thesaurus, and Fiirst have assigned
the reverse order. At any rate the usus loquendi proves that the word is used as
an abstract. But see on the relation of collective and abstract nouns, Bottcher,
Lehrb., § 643, |3, and § 644.

460 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 1-3.
comes forth for the deliverance of his people. The violation
of the women is specially mentioned as showing the rage
and lust of the adversaries ; such brutality is alluded to as
forming one of the most cruel but most ordinary accompani
ments of the sack of cities by enraged enemies (Isa. xiii. 16 ;
Amos vii. 17). Though a remnant is delivered, who are not
cut off from the city, yet not a word is said concerning the
rescue of the captives represented as having fallen into the
hands of the foe. These points must all be borne in mind.
It is impossible to regard this description as a narrative of
actual events, or to conceive that all the nations of the world
are to be literally gathered together against Jerusalem. We
might indeed interpret that phrase, as used elsewhere, to
denote simply the nations round about the Holy Land. But
even if this difficulty were thus obviated, many of the other
statements can only be explained as meant in a figurative
signification. The prophecy has been understood by some of the Church
Fathers, as Eusebius, Cyrill, and Thedoret, to refer directly
to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. The
objection preferred against this interpretation is of little force,
namely, that the prophet according to it passes (in ver. 3)
without any intimation from speaking of the literal Zion to
the mystical Zion. For in both places the literal Jerusalem
may, even on this interpretation, be signified ; the Jerusalem
for whose benefit Jahaveh is represented as going forth to
war, being most clearly the godly remnant who adhered to
the truth of God, and who are not cut off from the city.
In chap. xiii. 9, the prophet announced that a third part of
the people in the entire land would be preserved. In this
chapter he speaks of half of those shut up inside the city
as ultimately forming the remnant to be saved. Verse 14
also speaks of a remnant of Judah, part of which must be
conceived as outside the walls of the city. There is nothing

Ch.xiv.i-3.] "THE LAST THINGS" AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGPIT. 461
contradictory, therefore, in the two statements ; for while the
whole nation is spoken of in the first, that part of the people
only which is represented as shut up inside the city is referred
to in the other. That portion, no doubt, in some sense
formed the kernel of the nation, but it cannot with any pro
priety be regarded as the whole. Though the tribulation of
the nation culminates in the capture of the city, the language
used of the whole nation in the one case could not be
suitably used in reference to that part shut up inside Jeru
salem. "The half" spoken of ver. 2, is the half of the
remnant which remains ; the numbers who were slain are
not brought into the computation. Half of the wretched
remnant of the survivors is represented as dragged out of the
city into slavery. The remaining half, not cut off by Divine
vengeance from the city, is to be conceived as collected
together into one miserable mass, in expectation of a similar
fate, when the earthquake occurs which fills them indeed
with alarm, but affords them ultimately a means of escape from
the city.
Jerusalem, in this prophecy does not merely signify the
city itself, but the holy city as the centre of the national life
and of the national religion. The attack on Jerusalem and
the sorrows of the city represent the sufferings of the Jewish
people in general which followed their rejection of the Mes
siah. We, therefore, cannot (with Keil), consider the state
ment that the remnant would not be cut off from the city, as
in itself decisive against the reference of the prophecy to the
capture of Jerusalem by Titus, the culminating sorrow of the
great Jewish war. The statement of Zechariah seems no
doubt to indicate that there would be some contrast between
the capture of Jerusalem which he predicted and the taking
of that city by the Babylonians. In the latter case the entire
remnant "that were left in the city" after the horrors ot
the siege were carried into captivity (2 Kings xxv. 1 1), and

462 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 1-3.
"the remnant" left in the land, who might have prospered
had they obeyed the commands of Jahaveh, were on account
of disobedience to God's commands cut off from the city of
the living God, and from his gracious protection, by the,
denunciations uttered by Jeremiah, which were so terribly
fulfilled (Jer. xliii. 15-18, xliv. 12-14).
For the expression "shall not be cut off from the city"
appears to have a deeper reference than is generally under
stood. It must not be forgotten that the siege which the
prophet speaks of is regarded by him as a judgment from
the Almighty. Many of the people must be considered
as falling in the siege itself, while the half of the survivors
at its close are described as going forth into captivity. All
these are thought of as cut off as evil-doers from the city of
the Lord, which they polluted by their sins, God's sanctuary
having been made a den of robbers instead of a place of
prayer. The captives are conceived as cast forth out of the
sight of God's presence into a dry and thirsty land where no
water is (Ps. lxiii. 2). Though in one sense the people of
Jahaveh, they were no longer reckoned as such (Hos. i. 9),
they were cut off from Israel. The Pentateuch is full of
such expressions as " that soul shall be cut off from Israel "
(^"Wn WnTl ttfStin nm^l, Exod. xii. 15) ; or, " that soul shall
be cut off from the assembly of Israel " (hmtP DI^Q, Exod.
xii. 19); or, "from his people" (iT^D, the noun ttfBJ being
fem., Lev. vii. 20, 21); or even, "cut off from my presence,
I am the Lord " (or, " from before me, *JB ?D, 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 Jerusalem1 (Ps. ci. 8)
1 See Delitzsch and Perowne on 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
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 whereby 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 were 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. 1), "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" (NIP)
1 The LXX have here incorrectly rendered Kal Tapard^erai iv Tots fdveo-iv

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. xiii. 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 (NjP) 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. xiii. 24),
was no longer a place in which Jahaveh could appear. The
hill of God (Ps. lxviii. 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
iKelvois, "shall fight in those nations." This translation was one of the reasons why
Theodoret and Cyriil considered the prophecy to refer to the destruction of Jeru
salem by the Romans. Theodoret expressly remarks, irapara^erai Si oi>/c 'lovSatwv
inrepp.axoiv dXKa Kar' iKelvoiv arpar-qyUv. The phrase 3 DrDJ generally means to
fight against, whether against a people or an individual, as in Exod. i. 10,
2 Chron. xxxv. 22 (bis) ; or against a city, Jud. ix. 45, 1 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., Kal'Yobo'as irapard^eTai. iv TepotwaAiJ/x, and so the Syr.,
not as the Vulg., "sed et Juda pugnabit adversus Jerusalem." See our remarks
on that passage.
H H

466 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 1-4.
of his people, as standing on the hill opposite to Jerusalem,
namely, on the mount of Olives. From thence he would
first of all provide a place of safety for the remnant of his
people, and from thence he would afterwards bring low the
pride of their cruel foes.
No mention is made in this prophecy of any personal
appearance of Jahaveh in glory to be seen by all those
assembled at Jerusalem. This has too often been assumed
as a fact ; but the incidents related by the prophet are
opposed to this idea. Such an appearance is inconsistent
with the mention afterwards made of the pestilence which
consumes the nations, and of the battle renewed at or in
Jerusalem, in consequence of the new courage inspired into
the heart of the men of Judah (verse 14) by reason of the
return of him who of old was the captain of his army
(Josh. v. 14). The advent of Jahaveh was to be a real
coming, but not such an appearance in glory as would strike
terror at once into the foe. He would come in other guise,
but not less truly, to bring redemption to his people, and to
lead them like a flock by his own hand, and not by that of
another ; and as the God that doeth wonders and yet hideth
himself (Isa. xiv. 15), he would appear as the God of Israel,
the Saviour, with his mighty arm to redeem his people the
sons of Jacob and Joseph (Ps. lxxvii. 14-20).
The thought, then, of the passage seems to be : Jahaveh
would appear not in Jerusalem, conceived as profaned by the
feet of the uncircumcised, but on that mountain which had in
itself no claim to be regarded as holy, but rather the reverse.
The false and unreal sanctity would vanish, Jerusalem once
holy would be regarded as unholy, while the mount formerly
so unholy and unclean, where temples had been erected by
Solomon to the false gods of the heathen, would be the very
spot where Jahaveh would choose to reveal himself. The
glory of Jahaveh, which for a time was not to be manifested

Ch.xiv.4-] "THE LAST THINGS" AS SEEN IN 0. T. LIGHT. 467
in the once holy city, is depicted as standing on the mountain
on the east of the city, namely, on the Mount of Olives (Ezek.
xi. 23).
" The lasting glory of the Mount of Olives," writes Dean
Stanley, and his words may perhaps suitably be introduced
here, " belongs not to the Old Dispensation but to the New.
Its very barrenness of interest in earlier times sets forth the
abundance of those associations which it derives from the
closing scenes of the sacred history. Nothing, perhaps,
brings before us more strikingly the contrast of Jewish and
Christian feeling, the abrupt and inharmonious termination
of the Jewish dispensation [spoken of by Zechariah in this
prophecy] — if we exclude the culminating point of the Gos
pel history — than to contrast the blank which Olivet presents
to the Jewish pilgrims of the middle ages, only dignified by
the sacrifice of ' the red heifer ' ; and the vision too great for
words, which it offers to the Christian traveller of all times,
as the most detailed and the most authentic abiding-place of
Jesus Christ. By one of those strange coincidences, whether
accidental or borrowed, which occasionally appear in the
Rabbinical writings, it is said in the Midrash, [in the Midrash
Tehillim, as a saying of Rabbi Jannai, cited by Lightfoot,
Cent. Chorograph. Matt, pram., cap. xl., Opera, torn, ii., p. 201]
that the Shechinah, or Presence of God, after having finally
retired from Jerusalem, ' dwelt ' three years and a half on the
Mount of Olives, to see whether the Jewish people would or
would not repent, calling, ' Return to me, O my sons, and I
will return to you ' ; ' Seek ye the Lord while He may be
found, call upon Him while He is near ' ; and when all was
in vain returned to its own place. Whether or not this story
has a direct allusion to the ministrations of Christ, it is a
true expression of his relation respectively to Jerusalem and
to Olivet. It is useless to seek for traces of his presence in
the streets of the since ten times captured city. It is im-

468 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 4.
possible not to find them in the free space of the Mount of
Olives."1 The Mount of Olives had often been a source of evil to
Jerusalem. From its heights the enemy was often wont to
count the towers (Isa. xxxiii. 18) of the city, in order to
devise a plan of levelling them with the dust. But the point
of danger was to be the place whence help should come.
That mountain was also the most serious impediment in
the way of a rapid escape out of Jerusalem. It had been a
hindrance in David's path when he fled from the face of his
rebellious son (2 Sam. xv. 30). But the descent of Jahaveh
on that mountain would make it to be no longer a hin
drance, but would convert the very obstacle itself into a way
of escape.
When Jahaveh came down on Mount Sinai to announce his
law to Israel, his appearance was accompanied with an earth
quake, "the mount quaked greatly" (Exod. xix. 18). When
David describes poetically the manifestations of Jahaveh to
deliver his poor hunted soul from the hand of Saul, he too
speaks of lightnings, thunderings, and a mighty earthquake
whereby even the foundations of the earth were disclosed, as
suitable accompaniments of the Lord's appearance for his
rescue (Ps. xviii. 8, 16 ; E.V. verses 7, 15). When the story
of Elijah's meeting with God on Mount Horeb is related,
mention is made of the same accompaniment of a great
and strong wind that rent the mountains, of an earthquake,
and of flashes of fire, preceding the still small voice of God
(1 Kings xix. 11, 12). Deborah, in her triumphal song, refers
to the earthquake on Mount Sinai, whereby the earth trem
bled and the mountains were melted (Jud. v. 4, 5). When
the Psalmist bursts forth in praises of the appearance of God
in the sanctuary where the ark of the covenant was placed,
he too recalls to mind the wondrous phenomena of nature
1 Stanley's " Sinai, and Palestine," p. 189.

Ch.xiv.4.] "THE LAST THINGS" AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 469
which attended the manifestation of the glory of the Most
High in other days (Ps. lxviii.). And when amid the
gathering gloom of a day of affliction, which he perceived
rapidly approaching, Habakkuk thinks of God's past de
liverances of his people, that prophet ' recounts not merely
the deliverance at the Red Sea, but again speaks of the
glorious manifestation at Sinai with its accompanying earth
quake (Hab. iii. 6, 10). When Nahum describes Jahaveh's
going forth to judgment against Nineveh, he too remembers
the mighty acts of the Lord, and speaks of mountains
quaking, rocks rent, hills melting, and the earth itself being
burned (Nah. i. 5, 6). The mighty earthquake which took
place at the crucifixion of our Lord, whereby the rocks were
rent and the graves opened (Matt, xxvii. 51, 52), and the
similar phenomena manifested at his Resurrection (Matt.
xxviii. 2) may also be noticed here.
In accordance, therefore, with the Old Test, representations,
and with the imagery used by psalmists and prophets,
Zechariah, when describing Jahaveh's coming forth for the
salvation of his people, " to still the enemy and the avenger "
(Ps. viii. 3, E. V. verse 2), speaks of the Mount of Olives as
split to its very centre by an earthquake, beneath the feet
of the Mighty One of Jacob.1 Nor can it be forgotten that
when Isaiah speaks of an earlier siege of Jerusalem, which
he designates as Ariel (which probably means the " Altar of
God," Jerusalem being under the Levitical dispensation the
1 The notion of Hitzig that the mountain is represented as splitting asunder
from the weight of God is an idea utterly at variance with all the representations
of the prophets of Israel. Grotius, referring the whole prophecy to the attack on
Jerusalem in the days of the Maccabees, strangely explains the fourth verse as
having reference to the feet of Bacchides, one of the most skilful generals of
Antiochus Epiphanes. He remarks that the person referred to is often to be
gathered from the sense of the passage ; but his notion has been justly rejected
by all other expositors. The connexion of verse 4 with the preceding verse
renders it almost impossible to refer the pronoun to any other than Jahaveh
himself.

47° ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 4.
only lawful place for sacrifice), the prophet depicts both the
deep humiliation of that city and its wonderful deliverance,
the might of the king of Assyria being shattered before its
walls ; and describes the holy city as destined to be visited
by thunder and earthquake and by a great storm and tempest
and the flame of a devouring fire (Isa. xxix. 6). For as
Haggai speaks of an earthquake accompanying the shaking
of the nations (Hag. ii. 6, 7), so Ezekiel represents the de
struction of Gog as brought about in a similar way (Ezek.
xxxviii. 19-22). Such language is too often made use of by
the prophets in a figurative signification to be regarded as
necessarily, or even probably, literal.
The name Mount of Olives is mentioned only here in the
Old Test, writings. The hill is elsewhere called " the ascent
of the Olives" (2 Sam. xv. 30), where our A. V. incorrectly
renders it " the ascent of Mount Olivet," though it indicates
by the use of italics that the word " mount " is not in the
original. It is called "the mountain" in Neh. viii. 15, where
it is spoken of as abounding with olives, oleasters, myrtles,
palm trees, and other kind of trees. In 1 Kings xi. 7 it is
noticed as " the hill that is before Jerusalem ;" in 2 Kings
xxiii. 13 as " the mount of corruption" (see note 2 on p. 473),
and in Ezek. xi. 23 as " the hill" or " mountain which is on the
east side of the city." The term used here, " the mountain of
the olives," is not to be regarded as a proper name, but as an
appellation by which that hill was distinguished from others
as specially noted for its olive trees. Hence the description
of its locality given in Ezekiel is also added here, namely,
" which is before Jerusalem on the east." Kohler considers
the expression to suggest the thought that as the rising sun,
when seen from Jerusalem, first appeared over the Mount of
Olives, so deliverance should come from thence, and the Sun
of Righteousness there arise with healing in his beams (Mai.
iv. 2), to chase away the darkness resting over Jerusalem. He

Ch.xiv.4.] "THE LAST THINGS" AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 47 1
observes that the glory of the Lord is represented in the
prophet Ezekiel as coming from the way of the east to
Jerusalem, and deliverance as arising from that quarter
(chap, xliii. 2, xliv. 1, 2).
However that may be, the passage seems distinctly to
indicate that what might have been expected to prove
the great obstacle in the way of an escape from Jerusalem,
should become the very means whereby "the remnant"
should be delivered out of the hands of their oppressors.
The mountain which stood in their path should be removed.
It should be split by the earthquake in twain, from its very
centre,1 into two equal parts. As the waters of the Red Sea
had been divided, and that sea in the path of Israel proved a
means of refuge instead of a place of destruction, so Divine
power would create a valley through the very midst of the
Mount of Olives, so that the mountain would prove not
indeed a place of refuge, but a road to a place of security.
For the chasm in the mountain was to be formed so as to
be opposite to Jerusalem on the east, and to afford a safe and
wide valley with lofty and precipitous sides. The one part of
the mountain was to move towards the north, and the other
towards the south, and there would be a very great valley
between them. The rocky heights on both sides of the
valley are termed "mountains," and inasmuch as they were
formed specially by Jahaveh, the valley is not only spoken
of generally as " a valley of mountains," but also as " the
valley of my mountains."2 The idea of Jerome and the
1 rVniO "from its middle." Compare Joshua x. 23, "in the middle of the
heavens (D^DE^n *Sri3)," or Psalm cii. 24 (verse 25 E. V.), "in the midst of my
days. "
2 The omission of the article in Dv-irr,,|! ought to be noticed. The article could
not grammatically be used with the other expressions 'HrrX',3, but it must be
understood, for the genitive is defined by the suffix and the noun governing it in
the construct state cannot have the article. See Ges. § no, 2. The valley thus
referred to is, of course, to be regarded as identical with ' ' the valley of my moun
tains. " " The valley of my mountains " has been understood by Jerome, Drusius,

472 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 4, 5.
Church Fathers that the mountain was to be twice divided,
first lengthways from north to south, and then again in its
breadth from east to west, is not supported by the language
of the prophecy.
The valley is not to be viewed, as Schegg, Ewald, and
others regard it, as the place of refuge for the people of God
while God's judgments are being executed on the heathen.
It is to be viewed rather as an open road into which the
people flee in terror with some hope of attaining a place of
refuge. Schegg asks why a miracle should be wrought to
accomplish such an object? Why should the fugitives not
rather be represented as fleeing by the way towards the
south, where no mountain would stand in their road ? But
he has forgotten, with Reinke and others, the sharp declivities
of Zion which exist on the southern side. Hengstenberg
is no doubt correct when he says that "it is very obvious
that the whole account is figurative, and that the fundamental
idea, the rescue of believers and the destruction of their
enemies is clothed in drapery borrowed from the local cir
cumstances of Jerusalem."
The idea that our Lord will appear at his second advent
on the Mount of Olives is founded on this passage and that
in Joel iv. 2. Neither passage, when understood in con-
Venema, and later by von Hofmann, to mean the valley of the Tyropoeon, between
Moriah and Zion, which, terminating at the Mount of Olives, might be supposed
to lead into the valley opened by the earthquake, and to be the road whereby the
fugitives would seek to gain an entrance to that valley. But " my m6untains " can
not well designate Zion and Moriah. Only one mountain, as Kohler justly observes,
is spoken of in the Old Test, as the mount chosen by God, and that is either desig
nated distinctly as Moriah, on which the temple stood (2 Chron. iii. 1), or as Mount
Zion, which more often signifies the entire of the heights on which Jerusalem was
1 built, including therefore Moriah, which was the special temple mountain (Ps. xlviii.
2, 3, 12, E.V. verses 1, 2, n ; Ps. lxviii. 16, 17, E.V. 15, 16 ; Isa. Iv. 7). These
two mountains are never contrasted with one another, in the Old Testament. In
later times such a contrast is spoken of, and Moriah is termed by Josephus " the
Mount of the Lord." The expression " my mountains " is found in the prophets
as a general designation of all the mountains of Israel (Isaiah lxv. 9 ; Ezek.
xxxviii. 21).

Ch xiv. 5.] « TIIE LAST THINGS " AS SEEN IN 0 T LIGHT. 473
nexion with its context, gives the slightest support to the tra
ditional view, and our Lord's own statement, in Luke xvii. 24,
is rather opposed to the idea. It need scarcely be remarked
that the words of the angels, recorded in Acts i. 10, 11, give
also no countenance to this supposition.
The remnant that escape of Israel, and are not cut off in
the iniquity of the nation, are represented as fleeing into the
valley providentially opened by the gracious interference of
the Most High. "And ye shall flee," writes the prophet,
" to the valley of my mountains, for a valley of mountains
(a mountain-valley, shut in by mountains on both sides) shall
extend very near, and ye shall flee as ye fled from before the
earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah ; and Ja
haveh my God shall come, all the holy ones with thee ! " The
translation, " into the valley," given by Kohler and others, is
more natural than that advocated by Maurer and Hitzig,
"ye shall flee through the valley of my mountains," although
2 Sam. ii. 29 ; Job xxii. 14, etc., are instances in which the
accusative of place is used in that signification.1 In a later
part of the prophecy the fugitives are represented as taking
heart, and returning again to the battle (verse 14). The
picture presented here is scarcely that given by Ewald that
the refugees are described as flying into the valley " to the
feet of the Almighty, and as under his protection." If such
were the meaning a fuller description would have been
afforded.3 *
1 The translation given by Luther, " vor solchem Thai," on account of (lit.
before) such a valley, adopted by J. D. Michaelis and Schmieder, does not afford
a good sense when taken in connexion with the context, and would require, as
Kohler observes, TrNT^PP.
2 Hitzig considers that the writer refers to the opening of the Mount of Olives
during the earthquake in the days of Uzziah, and thinks that the three summits of
the Mount of Olives probably date from that lime. He considers, too, that the name
given to that mountain in 2 Kings xxiii. 13, namely " the Mount of Corruption,"
or " of destruction," (jVntJ'D) refers to some volcanic action whereby some deso
lation was wrought. Jer. li. 25 is in his opinion another illustration of this fact.

474 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 5.
The reason why the fugitives in their terror should flee
in that direction is given in the next clause, whatever may
be regarded as its correct meaning. That clause has been
variously understood. Some translate it "for a mountain-
valley shall extend to Azal," which is supposed to be a place
near to Jerusalem, or a part of Jerusalem itself, close to the
spot where the, remnant who were "not cut off from the
city " are conceived as collected together. Azal is by others
regarded as a place on the slopes of the Mount of Olives
farthest off from Jerusalem ; and lastly the clause can be
rendered, "for a valley of mountains shall extend hard-by,"
or " very near."
Whatever view of the word in question be adopted, the
verse clearly states that the opening of the valley through
the Mount of Olives is the cause of the flight, as that valley
presents an opportunity of escape to the terrified " rem
nant." Their terror is not, however, caused by any dread
lest they as well as their foes should be swallowed up in the
chasm caused by the earthquake (Hengstenberg). For while
the passage does not speak of the enemies being swallowed
up in the chasm, it was evidently the intention of the prophet
to depict the fugitives from Jerusalem as actually rushing
into it. Nor need we suppose that the enemies are repre
sented as merely passive (Hengstenberg). Blind rage might
lead them to pursue into the very valley those who were flee
ing before them, as the Egyptians pursued after the Israelites
even into the bed of the Red Sea. But this is not stated, nor
does it agree with what is described at the end of the chapter.
For the foe there is represented as ultimately destroyed first
by pestilence as the sword of Jahaveh, and secondly in war
by the sword of the Lord's people. Zechariah merely
But in 2 Kings the reference is rather to the desolation brought about by idolatry,
and in Jeremiah to the desolations caused by Babylon in the world. In neither
place does any reference whatever seem to be made to volcanic action.

Ch.xiv.4, 5.] " THE LAST THINGS " AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 475
says that the terror occasioned by the earthquake, for an
earthquake is plainly supposed to take place, and that
caused probably by reason of the cruelty of the foe, should
compel the remnant to flee out of Jerusalem into the valley
provided for them, as the Jews had fled before the earth
quake in the days of Uzziah. Jerusalem in this passage is
represented as a place of danger whence the remnant would
gladly seek to escape. And not till they reach a place of
safety, and are secure as Noah in the ark, or Lot in Zoar,
are the judgments of God to descend like an overwhelming
flood upon their oppressors. The escape of the remnant out
of the city is, therefore, a certain presage of the ruin of their
enemies (Gen. xix. 22).
The reading of the Oriental Jews in the fourth verse, in
place of "And ye shall flee (D-FIM1)) to the valley of my
mountains," is "and the valley of my mountains shall
be stopped up (O-nDJI)." This reading is found in four MSS.,
the Targum, LXX., Symm., Syr.-Hex. (but not the Syr.), and
several of the Jewish commentators. It does not, however,
afford a good sense, as it can scarcely mean, as Kimchi has
explained it, "that after the cleaving open of the Mount of
Olives it will be shut again, an hour or hours, a day or days
after, and thus the miracle will be so much the greater, that
it should be shut after splitting open ; for in common earth
quakes, by which the earth is split open, it does not close
again." The valley thus miraculously opened was to extend very
"near" or "hard by" the place in Jerusalem where we may
suppose the remnant that had hitherto escaped were col
lected. The word which we render as a preposition has
generally been understood as a proper name. It is so ren
dered not only by the LXX. and Targ., but by many recent
critics, as Gesenius (both in his Thesaurus and in his Lexicon),
Maurer, Umbreit, Ewald, Hengstenberg, etc. Ewald con-

476 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 5.
siders Azal to be a place at the western end of the moun
tain on which the temple stood, a sense which would suit the
passage remarkably well. This opinion, however, is purely
conjectural. Others think that there was a place called Azal
on the other side of the Mount of Olives farthest off from
Jerusalem. No such place is known to have existed.
Cyrill, who is the only Church Father who mentions it,
does so from hearsay. He states that it was a village
lying at the remotest part of the mountain. His words are :
/ccofir) Be avrrj 7rpo? ea^OTtai?, to? X070?, rov opovs /ceifievrj.
Jerome would certainly have mentioned such a village, in his
commentary on this passage, had he been acquainted with it ;
but, on the contrary, he has deliberately rejected the opinion
that the word is a proper name, though it cannot be denied
that that would be the easiest interpretation. Dr. Pusey has
suggested that a village of the name of Azal may have been
among those destroyed in the Roman war after the revolt of
Bar Kokhab. For in that war, Dion Cassius states (Ixix. 14)
that no less than nine hundred and eighty-five very well
known villages were destroyed. Hengstenberg, Reinke,
Kliefoth, and Keil, regarding the noun as a proper name,
have considered it identical with Beth-haezel (^UNH JT2)
in Micah i. 11, the Beth prefixed to such names being fre
quently dropped. But it is very doubtful whether the place
referred to by Micah was nigh to Jerusalem, the passage of
that prophet being in itself obscure.1
1 Lieut Claude R. Conder, R.E., who has achieved so much in the recent ex
plorations of Palestine, has informed me that Azal is a place not known, but that
M. Clermont-Ganneau has suggested that it may be the present Wady Asvil or
Yasul, an affluent of the Kedron. Lieut. Conder notes, however, that the names are
not very similar, and no ruin exists to which the name applies. The LXX. have
expressed the word by Ta<r<S5, or more correctly, as in the cod. Alex, and other MSS.
'AcraijX, the capitals A and A having no doubt been confused. The latter is the
reading of the Syr. -Hex., Aq. 'Act A, Theod. 'ko-rjk. The Syr. translates " for the
valley of the mountains shall extend K \nl). to narrcnaness" that is "to
a narrow place" Symm. irpbs rb irapaKelp-evov. The Vulg. translates "quoniani

Ch.xiv. s.] " THE LAST THINGS " AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 477
The earthquake which occurred in the reign of Uzziah is
not mentioned in the historical books. The account given of
it by Josephus (Antiq. ix. 10, § 4) cannot be considered as
historical. According to him, this earthquake occurred at
the time that Uzziah went into the temple of the Lord to
offer incense (2 Chron. xxvi. 16-21), and at the very time
when the priests were trying to prevent the king from com
mitting such a daring violation of the law of Moses. The
words of Josephus are, " in the meanwhile a great earthquake
conjungetur vallis montium usque ad proximum," which is explained by Jerome,
"quia vallis ilia montis Oliveti . . . usque ad Templi. montem qui
sanctus est, suam voraginem trahet . . . et quoniam vorago ilia . . .
tendetur usque ad Asael, h. e. usque ad Domum Dei." Tremellius and Junius
translate, " turn fugientes vallem montium quum [Deus veniens] pertinget vallem
montium, ad (montem contendetis quem) elegit," the words in parentheses being
supplied. Cocceius, adopting a similar translation, considers the reference to be
to the refuge which God had selected. Similarly the marg. rend, of our E. V,
' ' when he shall touch the valley of the mountains to the place he separated. " The
verb ?XX might, if no other translation were possible, be so explained (compare the
proper name -HT1?^ in I Chron. xxxiv. 8, and the construction be justified by an
appeal to 1? *ri'f3'Or]"7N in I Chron. xv. 12. But that translation rests on the
mistaken view that the people were to flee from the valley formed by the earth
quake, instead of into that very valley, which is the simple meaning of the
passage. The second clause, also, cannot refer to Jahaveh. Other scholars, as
J. D. Michaelis, Hezel, Theiner, have considered ?SX to be used, in the sense of
the Arabic equivalent, of the roots or foot of the mountain, but as the valley was to
run right through the mountain, the clause would have no definite meaning. ?VX
is the pausal form of ?VX, which is generally used in the construct state ?VK •
the latter form is once found in the absolute state, and as a proper name in Micah
i. II, referred to above. The word in the construct state is often used as a prepo
sition, denoting beside, near, at. Comp. 7JH const., Ezek. xviii. 18, Koh. v. 7,
from ?)i absol., Lev. v. 21 ; Isa. lxi. 8. See Ewald § 213 b, Olshausen § 167 b.
That the form which occurs here is the pausal form is shown from 1 Chron.
viii. 38, where in the same verse the word is in the common and in the pausal form.
The word occurs there as the proper name of a man (see Olshausen § 91 d). But
it deserves notice that the ordinary form is found unchanged in pause in most
editions in 1 Chron. ix. 44, and the peculiarity is noticed in the Hebrew footnote on
that passage. Nouns in the accusative are often used in Hebrew as prepositions,
and the word here may be well regarded as such. This was probably the view
taken by the Syr., Vulg. and Symm., and it is that of Venema, who translates "ad
apud, ad vicinum," as well as defended by Kohler, whose opinion is approved by
Miihlau and Volck in their edition of Gesenius' Wbrterb. Similarly G. L. Bauer,
" bis auf den Gmnd." See on the versions our crit. comm.

478 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch xiv. 5.
shook the land, and, the temple being split asunder, the bright
light of the sun shone forth and fell upon the face of the king,
so that immediately the leprosy attacked him. But before
the city, at the place called Eroge, the half of the mountain
was broken which was towards the west (scarcely as Whiston,
" the western half of the mountain " x ), and having rolled for
four stadia, it came to a stand at the eastern part of the
mountain, so that both the roads were blocked up and the
royal gardens." This narrative bears the impress of being
the echo of a legend founded on this passage of Zechariah
rather than a fact of history.
The earthquake is, however, referred to in the book of
Amos, and must have been of no ordinary violence (Amos
i. 1). Earthquakes were very common in Palestine ; con
sequently the one alluded to by the prophet must have been
of a peculiarly terrific character, in order to have become an
epoch from which events were reckoned. The allusion in this
chapter to that earthquake cannot be considered as any proof
that the writer must have been a contemporary of the pro
phet Amos. For the very fact of such an earthquake having
been distinctly mentioned by Amos, and no earthquake of
such a character being mentioned in any of the historical
books, makes it easy to comprehend why it should have been
referred to by a post- exilian writer, acquainted, as Zechariah
undoubtedly was, with the writings of the earlier prophets.
Inasmuch as the prophets and psalmists of Israel represent
the coming of Jahaveh, for any purpose whatever, as accom-
1 The words are icpb oi rijs irb\eois irpbs ttj KaXovfiivri 'JZpuiyij, tou Spovs
dirop'payrjvai rb i}p.io~v tou Kara ttjv dvo-LV, k.t.X. Dr. Rahmer, in Graetz' Monat-
schrift des Judenlhums for 1870, considers that 'Hpiby-q in Josephus is probably
nothing more than a transposition of 'liTK'l L. de Dieu proposed to read
aepiiryq, explaining that as equivalent to K*J ~\VtP, but kptiyq seems to be the
correct reading. It is probable, as Rahmer points out in his article, that the legend
in Josephus was really founded upon the passage in Zechariah, and that the story
of the road being blocked up arose from Josephus having adopted the reading of
the Oriental Jews in this passage of Zechariah.

Ch. xiv. 5.] " THE LAST THINGS " AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 479
panied with such natural phenomena, Zechariah, after having
lightly touched upon the terror which should drive the people
into the valley, exclaims, as in an ecstasy of joy, "And Jaha
veh my God comes," and then addressing God, whom he knew
to be his God, adds, "all the holy ones with thee!" * The
angels are always conceived as present in times of peril,
and in days of judgment (Ps. xxxiv. 8, E. V. verse 7), for
they stand ready to do God service, and to execute his ven
geance. If the latter was a duty of the saints on earth (Ps.
cxlix. 5, 6), much more did it appertain to the holy watchers
in heaven (Dan. iv. 17). It is to be observed that the coming
of Jahaveh is described as occurring after the mention of his
feet having stood on the Mount of Olives. This may intimate
that though God should guide and direct all things so as
to secure the safety of his people, and the destruction of his
enemies, his actual presence should not be perceived by friend
or foe. His "coming" spoken of in this passage (verse 5)
seems to be identical with his " going forth to fight with the
nations" (verse 3). It is a going forth to judgment in a day
of his wrath. Though the holy ones or angels are men
tioned, that is in itself no proof that the second advent is
here spoken of, the accompaniments of which will be very
different from those here related. Angels are said to have
been present at the giving of the Law, though they were
1 T\lp!) here is the pausal form 0f ^120, second masc. , not the second fem.,
Ewald § 247 c; Ges. § 105 ; Kalisch § 33, 18. It has been considered as a fem.,
and referred to Jerusalem, by Kimchi, Ibn Ezra, etc. Drusius, though he
explains the pronoun as referring to Jahaveh, adds, " Scholia Ebraica pronomen
referant ad lerosolymam, et ita hunc locum explicant, 0 lerosolyma, tunc veniat
Dominus, Deus meus, et omnes ipsius sancti tecum erunt, h.e., stabant a partibustuis.
Valde placet animo meo ista explicatio." Still worse is the rendering of Cocceius,
" O tu, cum qua sunt omnes sancti." The expression " all the holy ones " is con
sidered by Marck to mean the saints, while Vitringa, in his comm. on Apoc. xv. 3,
thinks that both angels and saints are signified, which is, perhaps, more in ac
cordance with the analogy of Dan. vii. 9, 10 ; Matt. xvi. 27, xxv. 31 ; 2 Thess. i. 7 ;
Rev. xix. 14. That which is to occur in the great day of days occurs also in the
other days of the manifestation of Jahaveh to judge his foes and to deliver his people.

480 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 5.
not actually seen b)>- the people of Israel (Deut. xxxiii. 2 ;
Ps. lxviii. 18, E.V. 16).
When a day of Jahaveh's coming to execute judgment is
spoken of, that day is generally characterised as a day of
darkness, in which there should be no light. Thus when the
destruction of Babylon is predicted by Isaiah, and the pro
phet speaks of that land being laid waste, among the features
of that day of vengeance, he notices that " the stars of heaven
and the constellations "thereof (lit, its Orions, or giants) shall
not give their light, the sun shall be darkened in his going
forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine" (Isa.
xiii. 9, 10). Still more terrible is the picture, when the same
prophet is describing God's wrath against Edom. In that
case all the host of heaven is spoken of as dissolved, and the
heavens as rolled together like a mighty scroll, and all their
stars as falling towards the earth like leaves from the vine or
fig tree (Isa. xxxiv. 4). Nature is represented as clothed in
darkness, which is the garb of wrath, in every day of Jaha
veh's wrath ; as on the other hand it is represented as rejoicing
in a day when Jahaveh exhibits mercy and love to his people
(see p. 488). Such figures are no doubt also made use of when
the great day of the wrath of the Lamb is spoken of (Matt.
xxiv. 29 ; Rev. vi. 12-17). But we have no warrant whatever,
in defiance of the plain words of the Old Test, prophets, to
consider their descriptions of temporal judgments sent on par
ticular nations as having reference to that great day of the Lord.
This imagery is common to the other prophets. It is used
by Joel when describing the gloom, cast over the face of
nature by a terrible plague of locusts to be sent upon the
land of Israel, wherewith the land should be visited in a day
of Jahaveh's wrath (Joel ii. 2, 10, see verse 25). That prophet
also uses the same imagery in his description of the great
final day of wrath, which he, like the other prophets of Israel,
views in the light of the old dispensation (Joel iii. 4, E. V.

Ch.xiv.6.] " THE LAST THINGS " AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 48 1
ii. 31, and iv. 15, 16, E. V. iii. 15, 16). Ezekiel uses very similar
language in his prophetical lament over the king of Egypt
and his downfall : " and when I will put thee out, I will cover
the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark. I will cover
the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light :
all the bright lights of heaven (all lights of the light in
heaven) will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon
thy land, saith the Lord God " (Ezek. xxxii. 7, 8 ; comp. also
Zeph. i. 15, etc.)
The same picture is presented by Zechariah : "And it shall
be in that day that there shall be no light, precious things
(or, the lights) shall be contracted." That is, the glories of
heaven shall disappear. That which is now precious shall
cease to be so in the day of wrath referred to.1 Such
1 The consonants of the text, as in all cases where a k'ri note occurs, are to be con
sidered as unpointed. The words must either be read actively, J-lXSp* flTlp*, or
passively, as Gesenius in Thes., J-lNfij?'1. riTliJ?. Comp. with respect to the irregu
larity of construction similar irregularities, Gen. xv. 17, iVPl ntD?yi, and Isa. xxi. 2,
Y"l|n !"IK>J3 lYltri. These irregularities cannot all be explained on the principle
stated in Ges. Gr. § 147, rem. 2. Compare on similar irregularities with pronominal
suffixes, Ges. Lehrg. § 139, 2, p. 731. The verb is used of the waters being contracted
or gathered into heaps (Exod. xv. 8), and of sitting with the feet gathered up under
one (Zeph. i. 12 ; comp. Jer. xlviii. 11); and in hiphil of the curdling of milk. The
adj. used here commonly signifies precious, and is often used of stones, of life (Prov.
vi. 26), of the death of saints (Ps. cxxvi. 15), and of men. It is used also of the
resplendent moon walking in the heavens, or, as our A. V. has it, the moon
walking in brightness (Job xxxi. 26). The phrase has been explained by Gesenius,
von Hofmann, Kohler, etc., "the splendid (stars) contract their splendour," that
is, wane and disappear. The feminine is employed because the adjective is used
in a neuter signification. Compare for the absence of the article in such
poetical expressions, Hab. iii. II; Isa. xiii. 10. We might also render generally
" splendid (things) will be contracted," which would afford the same meaning, the
stars being mainly thought of, though not exclusively. The translation given by
Hengstenberg is, "the precious will become mean," but his explanation does not
substantially differ from our rendering. L. de Dieu explains the precious things to
mean the heavens, sun, moon and stars, etc, and notes that all these will be dissolved
at the end of time (2 Pet. iii. 10-12), and being dissolved will flow together and
coalesce as it were into one mass. See note in Hengst. Christ, vol. iv. p. 130, Eng.
transl. The question is asked in the Gemara (Pesachim, fol. 50, col. 1), what is the
meaning of Zech. xiv. 6 ? and the answer is, " This is the light which is precious
in this world, and ""-ISp common (of no value) in the world to come." Such is the
I I

482 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 6, 7.
seems to be the meaning of the Hebrew text. It presents,
however, several peculiarities. The expression used for the
lights of heaven occurs nowhere else in that signification.
The verb is masculine, although its nominative, which pre
cedes, is feminine. These difficulties, however, are not by any
means conclusive against the reading of the text. But the k'ri
reading gives a very different sense to the passage, and one
by no means as intelligible : " there will no light, cold and ice."
This reading has been adopted by Hitzig with a slight modi
fication, and he renders "there will be no light, only cold and
ice." He explains the latter as thought of on account of the
utter absence, of the light of the sun, which the prophet con
templates as characterising this day.1 Similar is the view of
Maurer, who considers the passage depicts the horrors of
that day. This is also the view of the Targum — -" there will
be nothing that day but privation and coagulation " (scil. of
the light) — and that of the other versions (see our foot-note).3
explanation of VSp, which is connected with KQp, and is explained by 7p light, not
heavy. So Buxtorf, Chald. and Talm. Lex. s.v., and Levy, Chald. Worterbuch.
1 The reading of the text according to the k'ri is flKBpl ^Tlp*. The second
noun is nowhere else met with. According to this ni"lp? is to be understood as
equivalent to T\T\p, after the analogy of the k'ri on Prov. xvii. 27, where, instead
of n-1"l""lp1, which is found in the text, the marg. has 'T1p\ JTHp would be an
extensive plural (orig. of Hip, adj. cold), like TW72V, gleanings, D'3B, the coun
tenance. Bottcher (Ncue Aehrenlese) would prefer the sing, form fl-lTp,
which, though it does not occur, yet suits better with the other singular nouns, and
has analogies for it, such as n-THp, darkness. The form would also harmonise
with the late date of the book. As the adoption of a root "lp'=Tlp is doubtful,
Rosenmiiller, Hitzig, Ewald, etc., would read simply nTlpl. The letters and , are
with difficulty distinguished in MSS. ; 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 Kal firxv Kal irdyos, and Symm.
dWa \jjvxos Kal irdyos. So Syr., and Vulg. sed frigus etgelu. 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 necessary to supply in the second clause the substantive verb without
the negative which occurs in the first. The rendering of Ewald, Umbreit, etc.,
avoids these difficulties. See above.
2 Kimchi's words are "the light shall neither be flVipJ. precious, nor JlXSp.
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 " (TIN), 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 Minister,
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 "I1X TVTP H7, as such a connection would be
grossly ungrammatical, but rather as genitives governed by "I1X, " there shall not
be light of preciousness (lux pretiositatum — Vatablus) nor of thickness (lit., coagu
lated light)."

484 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, arid because at the evening of the
day to which Zechariah refers, when the darkness of night
might have been expected, light appears. It is, 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
dispensation seems to us to be signified by the " day of Ja
haveh," that dispensation which in some respects may be
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
of the Lord has risen, even upon Jerusalem with all her

486 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 7.
trials (Isa. Ix. 1), 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 beautiful.
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. 5).
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 passage is one which was not
intended to be understood in a literal signification.

Ch.xiv.S.] "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. Iii. 1).
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. 1). 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. 1 1),
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. xii. 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. 1, 2,
lv. 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

Ch. xiv. 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 (YTNH 7D), 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 Ploly 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. 1, " 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,

49° 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 imaginary.
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 the change in
the configuration of the whole land. "All the land will
change itself," or, " be changed, x (so as to become) as the
1 The form here found, DID? , has been considered by Gesenius as a Chaldee

Ch. xiv. 9,io.] "THE LAST THINGS" AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 491
Arabah." T 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.2 Kliefoth 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 3D* 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 1"!?. Bottcher, Lehrb. § 1147 (vol. ii. p. 519 note), maintains
this latter view. He observes that the imperfect of this form is distinguished from
3D* in meaning, and is clearly used as a reflexive, while 30* 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."
1 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. 1), 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 n3~il?3_, without the article, and this reading is adopted
by Baer in his critical edition of the Minor Prophets (Leipzig, 1878), 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 does
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. [Ch. xiv. 10.
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,1 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
boundary 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 ; 1 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,2 and as firmly dwelling upon that
1 See the article Arabah in Smith's Biblical Dictionary, and the description
given of its lower portion, but not of that exclusively, in Prof. E. Palmer's Desert
of the Exodus.
2 np^T may be regarded as from a verb DK*I=D-1"1, from whence DK"!, the
buffalo, and HD-ISO a proper name (Gen. xxii. 24). So Gesenius and Fiirst. Or
it may be considered with Hitzig, Olshausen, Gr. § 233 d, Bottcher, § 1 147 C. b,
as a lengthened form of HD") from D-D. Compare E>K"1 for KH (2 Sam. xii.
1, 4), DNpT for Dp, (Hos. x. 14, etc.), Ges. § 72, rem. 1. Fiirst, in his Worterb.,
considers '"I here to be a proper name, " Jerusalem and Ramah (which he supposes
to have been a town of importance in the time of Zechariah) shall be fruitful as the

Ch.xiv. 10.] " THE LAST THINGS " AS SEEN IN 0. T. LIGHT. 493
which was under it, — that is, on the ground on which it was
built. The passage in Jer. xxxi. 38, 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. 1), 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, lx. 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. 10.
the God of Israel, " the God of the whole earth shall he be
called " (Isa. liv. 5). The mountains of Judeea 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 was
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. 1352 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 after the Restoration. In

Ch.xiv. io.] "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-exilian 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. 1; 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 rtittf? 1%p, 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
1 So also Thenius in the Anhang on Das vorexilische Jerusalem und dessen
Tempel, appended to the first edition of the Commentary on the Book of the Kings,
in the Kurzgef. exeg. Handb. zum. A.T.

496 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch.xiv. 10, n.
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
(Neh. 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. 1352 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. u. 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 11) 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 DTH, from which the word trans
lated " curse," or " bann," is derived, seems to signify " to cut
off," " to sunder " (see Miihlau and Volck's edit, of Gesenius'

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.
lxv. 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. n, 12.
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
1 As the word D^Dl? is used here, instead of D'U as in verse 2, Lange main
tains that the nations are thought of as made subject to the new 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 D'lJ in verse 18. 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 (TT3SQ) 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 (1 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).1 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 cause2 their flesh to consume away, their very eyes
would melt away in their sockets, and their tongues rot in
their mouths (verse 12).3 Their tongues were to be punished
even an allusion to them, unless it be that the " remnant " fly 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.
1 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.
2 The inf. abs. pDH is the explanation of DNtl, 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 " (ilDIPID) 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.1 Such " confusions " are
spoken of as actually occurring along with pestilences (1 Sam.
v. 9), and as caused by God in war (1 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 ; 1 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."3
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 (1 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
(1 Sam. v. 9), and it is depicted as " a deadly confusion," lit. "a confusion of death"
(verse n). 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 TVO 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, and even here the
verb might be translated actively. It is better, perhaps, to render the preposition
71? 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,l4.] "THE LAST THINGS " AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 501
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.1
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. 1
(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, 0 Juda, ciba-
beris in Jerusalem." This rendering of the niphal is against the usus loquendi.
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 Judaea, 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 camels, 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. 16.
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.1 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
pear 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* ^2!??" 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 "pD must be regarded as in the absolute state, and it refers to Jahaveh, as
the Targum has rightly viewed it. Jahaveh is spoken of " as a great king over all
the earth," as well as " the great king." The words 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,
Miinster, Dathe, and Kliefoth, though some of these commen-
1 The phrase which occurs in this place is thus to be explained : ^12
(comp. of JD and '"l) is used in the sense of "as often as," in which it fre
quently occurs. HJE'3 D3K' 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 K'lrQ BHn
"month by month," and "|J1 ItJHrB BH.n ^ID " as often as month (joins) to
its month, and as often as Sabbath (joins) to its Sabbath " (Isa. lxvi. 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. 1, 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. 17, 1 8.] "THE LAST TP1INGS " AS SEEN IN 0. 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 (DtMi"T). 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. 1 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 have 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 l (to Jerusalem), there
1 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. 18, 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.
1 Inverse 17, instead of the phrase " and the rain shall not be upon them,"
the LXX. have Kal oStoi iKelvois irpoo-reSrio-ovTai, "and these shall be opposed to
those," reading perhaps, as Kbhler has suggested, DK'SJ -1W Cn11?!? n?K1
where the Vulg., as well as the Greek versions of Aq., Symm. and Theod., support
the reading of the Hebrew. In verse 18 the LXX., followed, of course, by the
Arab., read Kal iirl tovtois iarai i\ irruiais, thus omitting the third SO and con
necting the DrPPJ? with the following sentence. Similarly the Syr., which has
(2jj even, also, in place of the SO. 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 SO, while four omit SOI altogether. The
difficulty of the present text is not that we have to supply after D/T?l? SOI the
two latter words of the phrase occurring in the previous verse, DrT1?!? SOI
DKOn HW, which is quite natural, but that one feels the want of somesuch
word as TINT, this, before the substantive verb, as in verse 19. The Targ.
paraphrases, " the Nile will not increase (pB\ lit. ascend) for them." Vulg. has
"nee super eos erit (evidently imber is to be supplied) sed erit ruina, etc. " Hitzig's
translation is ingenious, but SOI 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 interrogatively, though he rightly
considers it harsh.

Ch.xiv.i8,i9.]"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 lived in pre-
exilian times when political differences existed between that
country and Judah. The politics 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 Marck 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.1
The view of Kohler is peculiar. He considers the prophet
to refer to an objection which some one might in mockery
1 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.

5IO ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch.xiv.i 8, 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.1
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 JINZOn, 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 very 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 the 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?¥D, though it
only occurs in this passage, as the signification of the root is clear, and another word
formed from it (npVD) is used in the sense of cymbals, so called from their sound.
Yet the LXX. render it by xaA"^, Vulg. frenum, bit or bridle, and so Syr. ; while
Aquila and Theod. give it $v8bs, depth, regarding it as identical with HPVP,
Zech. i. 8. Symm. has irepliraros o-boKios, shady going, either connecting it, as Aq.
and Theod., with the word in Zech. i. 8, or with ?V. shade. These latter render
ings give no sense. Jerome notes, "quod cum ab Hebrseo qusererem quid
significaret, ait mihi non debere nos legere mesuloth sed mesaloth, quod signi-
ficat phaleras equorum, et 01 natum bellicum. The Targ. according to the Lond.
Polygl. has'D 113-113, the coverings of the horses, but de Lagarde edits 'D mrO,
more distinctly the saddle. All these translations, as well as that of Luther, which
is derived from the Targ., namely, Riistung, ti-apfings or armour, are destitute of
any foundation. Schegg incorrectly supposes that the ornaments upon the bridles
are alluded to.

512 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 20,21.
looked upon with disfavour in the Pentateuch, are stated
by Zechariah as destined "in that day" to be ornamented
with the holy inscription, formerly reserved for the forehead
of the high priest. The horse, so often employed for pur
poses of war and luxury, was to be consecrated to the service
of Jahaveh ; that which was used for the most profane
services was to become most holy. The same thought is
expressed under other symbols in Jer. xxxi. 40, where "the
whole valley (formerly full) of the dead bodies and of ashes,
and all the fields, unto the brook of Kedron," are predicted
as becoming " holiness to Jahaveh."
The Jewish commentators (Rashi, Kimchi, Ibn Ezra)
have widely mistaken the import of this passage in Zecha
riah. They were, as Hengstenberg and Reinke have re
marked, led away from the natural interpretation by a clear
perception of the fact that such an interpretation involved
the admission of an abrogation of the ceremonial law.
Some Christian critics, as Grotius, have, however, adopted
their view of the passage. Kimchi's explanation will suffice
as an example of such interpretations. He considers the
text to signify that the bells of the horses were to be
rendered holy to the Lord by being transformed into pots
for the temple service. Kimchi notes that the horses were
explained by some expositors to be those which perished
in the plague (verse 1 5), so that their bells must be supposed
to stand (a part for the whole) for the entire of the trap
pings (which is the view of Grotius). Other interpreters
understood them to be the horses of the pilgrims who are
to go up year by year to keep the feast of tabernacles.
Such an explanation, however, is not in harmony with the
following clauses, which show that the meaning of the pro
phet is that everything should be holy, and all ceremonial
distinctions as regards external sanctity should be abolished
for ever.

Ch. xiv. 20, 2i.] "THE LAST THINGS " AS SEEN IN 0. T. LIGHT. 513
Marck and others understand the passage differently.
They explain its statements by the circumstance that things
were often marked with the names of idols. Curtius
(iii. 3) speaks of the chariot of Jupiter (or Ormuzd) among
the Persians as having on it figures of the gods ; and,
moreover, it was the custom among the Persians to write
on the bells of their horses the names of their gods. Ac
cording to this view, the sense of the passage would be
that the day would come when the nations would consecrate
all those things to Jahaveh which before were consecrated
to their idols. This explanation, though not so unnatural
as that given by Kimchi, does not harmonise with the
conclusion of the verse, where the very pots in the house
of Jahaveh are spoken of as becoming as holy as the bowls
before the altar.1
The pots in the temple, alluded to by Zechariah, were no
doubt those in which the flesh of the sacrifices was cooked
for the priests and the laity to eat (1 Sam. ii. 14 ; 2 Chron.
xxxv. 15), which were therefore employed not only for sacred
but for ordinary culinary purposes. Such pots were to be
come, in the time spoken of by the prophet, as holy as the
bowls before the altar (Zech. ix. 15), from which the blood
of the sacrifices was sprinkled upon the altar of burnt offer
ings (Num. iv. 14).
But the priest-prophet announces even more than this; not
merely should all the pots in the Lord's house be considered
as holy as the bowls before the altar, but even " every pot
in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness to Jahaveh of
1 Dr. Pusey has suggested that perhaps the comparison made here between the
bells of the horses and the plate on the high 'priest's forehead was suggested by
" the bells on the high priest's dress; not the lamina only on his forehead, but
bells (not as his, which were part of his sacred dress), bells altogether secular,
should be inscribed with the self-same title, whereby he himself was dedicated
to God." The fact that a different word (J1DIJS) is used when the bells on
the robe of the high priest are spoken of does not exclude this view. See Exod.
xxviii. 33, xxxix. 25, 26.
L L

5 H ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 20, 21.
hosts, and all those who sacrifice shall come and take of
them (the prep, in DHO is partitive, i.e., shall take one or
more of them as required), and shall cook therein," to wit, the
flesh required by the numerous persons who should partake
of the sacrifices (comp. 2 Chron. xxix. 34), for all the utensils
of the Lord's people should be holy. In other words, the
difference between holy and profane should cease to exist by
everything becoming holy, nothing common or unclean (comp.
Acts x. 15, 28) ; and the beautiful thought expressed in dif
ferent words by Ezekiel, should be realized, namely, that the
whole mountain on which the new temple should stand would
become a holy of holies (Ezek. xliii. 12, xiv. 3, comp. Isa. iv. 3).
The Jewish interpretation of this passage, as given by
Kimchi, is "that the pots in the Lord's house shall be like the
bowls, that is, as many in number, for the sacrifices shall be
so many." Such is also the rendering of the Targum, " the
pots in the house of the sanctuary of the Lord shall be as
numerous as the bowls before the altar." But this interpreta
tion is manifestly incorrect. For the pots used for cooking
the flesh of the sacrifices were always far more numerous
than the bowls on the altar, used only for sprinkling the
blood. The relative holiness of the several vessels, and
nothing else, is the point of comparison. Having thus
glossed over the chief difficulty, Kimchi could easily in
terpret verse 21 to mean that the pots should be increased
on account of the multitude of the sacrificers, and hence
that the Gentiles should use the pots found in Jerusalem and
Judah in order to boil the sacrifices of the peace-offerings.
There does no doubt seem to be a reference made to the
vast number of persons who should bring their sacrifices to
the temple, but the real meaning of the entire passage is
that everything alike should be holy, and that all such dis
tinctions as profane, holy, and most holy should completely
cease in the era to which the prophet alludes.

Ch.xiv. 21.] " THE LAST THINGS " AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 5 1 5
The last clause of the verse, " and there will be no Ca
naanite any longer in the house of Jahaveh of hosts in that
day," presents no difficulty. The Canaanite has indeed been
understood to signify a merchant. For the Phoenicians were
remarkable as traders, and as such showed no respect to the
religious principles of the Jews (Neh. xiii. 16, 20). Grotius,
Hitzig, Maurer, etc., take this view, following Aquila and the
Vulgate. Thus also the Targ, " and there will not be any
longer one plying merchandize in the house of the sanctuary."
The word has this signification in Job xl. 30; Prov. xxxi. 24;
etc. The merchants referred to were those who sold pots for
the use of the temple, and also the cattle required for the sacri
fices. Such traders our Lord drove on two several occasions
out of the temple (John ii. 14-16 ; Matt. xxi. 12, 13). Kim
chi considers that the clause signifies that those who would
devote their property to holy uses would be so many that
a merchant would not be needed to sell such things to the
pilgrims. The objection to this interpretation of the word
is that there is no direct proof of the existence of a temple
market in the days of Zechariah, though it is probable that
such did exist; and, moreover, there is no evidence to show
that such a trader was looked down upon with contempt.
The latter is, however, not improbable. Others (Drusius, von
Hofmann) think that the word means literally Canaahites,
specially the Gibeonites and Nethinim, who were employed
about the lowest services in the temple. Kliefoth adopts this
view, and considers the prophet to say that there would be
no persons condemned to perform only such menial work,
but that on the contrary all the nations of the earth should
enjoy full communion with Israel, and equal participation in
God and his service. It has been objected to this view that
whatever their original status, the Nethinim were actually in
high favour in the days of the Restoration, as is plain from
the allusion in chap. ix. 7. Hence the majority, perhaps,

5l6 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch.xiv. 21.
of commentators, among whom may be mentioned Cyrill
and Theodoret, Luther and Calvin, Venema, Hengsten
berg, Ewald, and Kohler, take the name "Canaanite" as a
symbolical appellation of open and notorious sinners, under
God's curse, and devoted to destruction by the Divine decree,
as were the Canaanites of old (comp. Ezek. xliv. 9 ; Rev.
xxi. 27). It is possible, with Pressel, to combine the first
and last interpretations, and to regard the passage as de
scribing the exclusion from the sanctuary of Jahaveh of
those who traffic in holy things, and of the ungodly and pro
fane. Bunsen, who advocates the former view, considers that
the point of reference is to the greed of the merchant-
retailers, the hucksters who trafficked in such merchandize.
That greed was just as likely to have been exhibited in
those days as at a later period. Indeed, such a spirit was
then abroad, as is evident from Neh. xiii. 16, 20, though that
passage is not in all respects a parallel. Traffic in matters
connected with the worship of God was, according to this
idea, considered unworthy of the golden age described by
Zechariah. There would be no longer any need for the sale
of pots specially designed for sacred purposes when every
one might use with acceptance his own household vessels for
the service of the temple. The objection made by Bunsen to
the word "Canaanite" being regarded as an equivalent to "the
unclean" and "unholy," namely, that no instance can be
cited elsewhere of such a meaning, loses its force when we
remember the frequent reference made by Zechariah to the
ancient enemies of Israel, as Egypt and the Egyptians,
whose mention in the near context may have suggested the
Canaanites to the mind of the prophet.
It may be well at the close of our general survey of this re
markable prediction of Zechariah to give a sketch of what
we believe to be its true interpretation, though our views have
not been obscurely intimated throughout the discussion of

Ch.xiv.i-2i.] "THE LAST THINGS" AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 517
the various portions, as well as indicated by the title prefixed
to this chapter.
The day of the Lord is, as has been already seen, not
to be regarded as a natural day, but as a period of time of
an indefinite length. Such a " day " may embrace a period
of a longer or shorter duration, according as may be required
by the nature of the prophecy. In this prophecy the period
must necessarily include years, as one of the chief character
istics of the streams of living waters is that they should con
tinue to flow not only during the winter rains, but also during
the parching heat of summer. A period consisting of sum
mers and winters is, therefore, expressly included under the
expression " in that day."
Again, the very means whereby the Lord is said to destroy
the adversaries tend to prove the " day " to be a lengthened
period. For the adversaries against whom Jahaveh goes forth
to fight are not represented as swallowed up by a mighty earth
quake, but as destroyed in three different ways, by pestilence,
by internecine conflicts excited by a heaven-sent " confusion,"
and by the sword of the people of Judah. Moreover, " in that
day " the conquered nations go up cheerfully to Jerusalem to
worship Jahaveh as their King and God, and do so "year by
year," which fact again shows that a lengthened period is in
cluded, during which Jahaveh is said to execute his judgments
upon those nations, who, notwithstanding the universal know
ledge of God, prove themselves to be unthankful and unholy
by refusing to go up to the feast of tabernacles in Jerusalem.
The chapter as a whole is to be regarded as a history of
that great " day," during which, as in that period described
by our Lord in his prophecy of " the last things," wars, pes
tilences, and tumults occur. It is " a day of Jahaveh," for
during its course the pride of man will be humbled, and
the Lord alone exalted (Isa. ii. 17). The "day " commences
with a terrible judgment executed on Israel by the Gentile

5l8 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 1-21.
nations, but closes with a glorious manifestation of God's
love to his chosen people.
The chapter throughout speaks of the city of Jerusalem
and of the literal Israel and Judah. Jerusalem must not be
regarded as signifying in one verse the actual city, and in
another the Church of Christ. But that city is viewed ideally
throughout the chapter, and almost identified with the Jewish
nation. The sorrows inflicted on her are represented under
the picture of a siege and ultimate capture. The siege of
Jerusalem by the Romans is not directly prophesied, though
it was one of the greatest sorrows which were contemplated
in the prophecy, — the solemn winding-up in judgment of
the old dispensation. The prophet describes the city which
was by name and profession holy (Isa. Ixiv. 10) as given up
to be trodden under foot by the Gentile nations, because of
its profanity and because of the sin depicted in the pre
vious chapter. Terrible as was the judgment inflicted by the
Divine anger, the Jewish nation was not to be cast out of
the sight of Jahaveh, as was the case in the great Babylonian
captivity (Jer. xv. 1). There would be some of that nation
who would be in many respects unaffected by the cata
strophe; " the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from
the city." For Zechariah views the " cutting off from the
city," not in its political but in its religious aspect, as a cutting
off out of the sight of the Lord's presence (see p. 462). This
is a truth often strangely forgotten by those who view the
Jews as under a special curse, which renders them less
open to the influences of the gospel than other nations. The
blessings purchased by Christ, and the grace procured through
the work of the Redeemer, are as freely offered to the Jews
as to any other people, and were largely accepted by numbers
of that nation at the beginning of the Christian era. If the
apostle speaks of a portion of the Jewish nation as blinded
(Rom. xi. 7), he uses the same, if not a stronger expression, o

Ch.xiv. 1-21.] "THE LAST THINGS" AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 519
the Gentile world (2 Cor. iv. 4). Moreover, Israel as a nation,
though represented by the apostle as given over in part to
blindness, is according to him only to remain in that state
until the fulness of the Gentiles is come in, when " all Israel
is to be saved " (Rom. xi. 25, 26).
Meantime, while Jerusalem's day of judgment proceeds,
a refuge is provided for " the remnant according to the elec
tion of grace," even for those who should not perish in the
iniquity of the city. We may recall to mind how, ere the
great day of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans,
the Jewish Christians were enabled by Divine Providence to
escape to Pella in the mountains. That escape out of Jeru
salem was deemed worthy of special mention by our Lord in
his great discourse of the last things, and may well be here
alluded to, though we do not think that it is distinctly pre
dicted in this prophecy of Zechariah. The event was, how
ever, a remarkable illustration of the truth set forth by the
Old Testament prophet.
Ecclesiastical history relates how special blessings were
granted to believing Israelites in the early days of Chris
tianity. For a considerable period all the great missionaries
to the nations were men of that race. Ways and means
of escape have again and again been opened for Jewish
believers, amid the heavy sorrows which have fallen upon
that unhappy people. God's favour has been often as clearly
manifested to the believing " remnant," as if they had been
living in their holy city during some of the glorious days of
the theocracy. Jewish Christians have not been "cut off from
the city."
That verse 4 cannot be viewed as a literal prediction has
already been pointed out. Regarded in an ideal signification,
it conveys much precious truth. In the days of our Lord, when
ungodliness reigned in Jerusalem, the Mount of Olives was
specially honoured by his sacred presence. There in the open

520 ZECHARIAH. AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 1-21.
air Christ taught his disciples without interruption from scoff
ing priests or mocking Pharisees. The Mount of Corruption
was transformed by his teaching into a mount of blessing.
On that mount he wept over the fatal obstinacy of Jerusalem,
and pointed out the way of escape to his followers from the
wrath impending over the city. Thus there was an actual
manifestation of Jahaveh on that mountain, and the glory of
Christ, " the glory of the only begotten son of the Father,
full of grace and truth " (John i. 14) was exhibited in very
deed when he ascended from the heights of Olivet to his
Father in heaven. In an ideal but most true sense, as the feet
of Jahaveh really stood in that day on the Mount of Olives,
so Christ may be regarded as guiding and directing his people
from that mountain in the various difficulties of their path,
and in the struggles which they have had to undergo for his
name's sake (Acts i. 8-12 ; Mark xvi. 20). The great national
earthquake which removed the impediment of the continued
existence , of the " temple made with hands," and which
assisted the Church to gain the mastery over the nations, was
announced by Christ on that mountain (Matt xxiv. 3), and
his words of cheer and love spoken on that sacred spot
have consoled, strengthened, and comforted many a one of
the house of Israel.
That Zechariah should have contemplated the glorious
coming of Jahaveh in the midst of the sorrow which he fore
saw would overwhelm his people and his city, is quite in
accordance with the progressive nature of Divine revelation.
Nor need it surprise us, since a similar blending together of
Christ's coming to destroy Jerusalem, and his coming to judge
the world, occurs in the great discourse of our Lord to which
reference has been so often made.
The character of the Messianic dispensation until almost
the period of its close is remarkably characterised as a period
neither of perfect day nor of total night or darkness. As we

Ch. xiv.1-21.] " THE LAST THINGS " AS SEEN IN O. T. LIGHT. 5 2 1
have sufficiently explained the verses alluded to (verses 6, 7),
it is only necessary to refer to our remarks (see p. 485). That
the Messianic dispensation will close in light and glory, and
not in darkness, is predicted by St. Paul in the Epistle to the
Romans (xi. 2-12). This cheering truth, which is here also
presented, has been sadly obscured by the fantastical views
so often held regarding the apostasy of the latter times and
the rule of Antichrist. For, as Mede well remarks, as " The
Jews expected Christ to come when he did come, and yet
knew him not when he was come ; because they had fancied
the manner and quality of his coming like some temporal
monarch, with armed power, to subdue the earth before him :
So the Christians, God's second Israel, looked (expected that)
the coming of Antichrist should be at that time when he came
indeed, and yet they knew him not when he was come ; be
cause they had fancied his coming as of some barbarous Ty
rant, who should with armed power not only persecute and de
stroy the Church of Christ, but almost the world ; that is, they
looked for such an Antichrist as the Jews looked for a Christ"1
Jerusalem, though viewed in the commencement of the
chapter as a city suffering under a Divine judgment, is in
verse 8 considered in relation to the nations of the earth as
a city from which, at the appearing of Jahaveh, rivers of
blessing would flow forth to the world at large. We need
not expatiate on the well-known truth that the gospel of
Christ was first published in Jerusalem, and from thence
has gone forth to the world. The first publication of that
gospel in all its fulness was on the day of Pentecost. Then
those streams began to flow which, however diverted hither
and thither in their course, have been perennial. The change
described as taking place with respect to the physical
position of the country of Judah, and the predicted restora
tion of the city of Jerusalem, both set forth under material
1 Mede's Works, p. 647; Book iii. chap. ix. of his Apostasy of the Latter Times.

522 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 1-21.
figures the truth that, important as has been the part which
Jerusalem and the Jewish people have already played in the
past in the enlightenment of the nations of the world, still
more important will be the role to be assumed by Israel when
the fulness of the Gentiles shall have come in, and when the
reception of the Jews into the Church of Christ shall be as
life from the dead to the world (Rom. xi. 12).
The warfare of Jahaveh with the nations is depicted in this
prophecy as long, and as carried on in various ways. It is
not merely by fire and sword that Jahaveh is to plead with
the nations, as represented in Isaiah (lxvi. 16). Zechariah
regards the warfare of Jahaveh as waged by pestilences and
divers troubles, nation rising against nation, and perplexity of
various kinds, as delineated in our Lord's discourse (Mark
xiii. 8, ff. ; Luke xxi. 10, 11). The day of Jahaveh is a period
of mercy and judgment combined, but one during which, how
ever, mercy prevails over judgment (James ii. 13), and the
light proves stronger than the darkness. Sin has been per
mitted to act as the means of punishing sin, and nations have
been punished by nations. The picture of the future has
been drawn from the history of God's past dealings with
Israel ; and the glorious result will be, not a great victory
of the kingdom of darkness even for a season ; — but after
a time, it may be, of stubborn conflict with evil, in which
God's people shall receive greater courage for the battle as
the hour of earth's redemption approaches, " The kingdoms
of this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and
his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever" (Rev. xi. 15).
T(3 Ka6rjjj,ivu> im rem Opovov Kal t<3 apvua
rj svXoyta k<xi r) Tipr) Kal rj 86£a Kal to Kpa.TO's
eh tovs aluivas twv almvusv.

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. 1, or be directly deducible from the
context, as in Deut. xvi. 1 ; 1 Sam. xx. 5. But as Bnn 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 ®Xf$, 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. 16. 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. 1, vi. 14. p is used not merely of a son, but also
of a grandson. Compare, besides the present text, 2 Kings xix. 14
with 20. See Introduction § 1.
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. I^i?. HSi?. 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, 1, rem. 1 ; 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 15
and in chap. vii. 12, 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. pIDXl. Perf. with vav conv. (observe the tone, Ges. § 49, 3),
used as a command without any imperative preceding, some such
word as "go" being understood in this case; so 2 Sam. xiv. 10.
Comp. Ges. § 126, 6, rem. 1 ; Driver § 119, /3 ; Ewald § 342, bandc.
"Jahaveh of hosts." The LXX. in this verse renders the first
by wavTOKp&rwp, the other two by tS>v Bwapewv.
3-1K>N1.,. That T may return unto you, or, and I will return to
you, as LXX., Vulg., but the force of the \ is better rendered by
that expressing a purpose ; see Ewald, § 235, b. The cohortative
form would have been expected here, naWNl. ¦ comp. Jer. xxxi.
18; Mai. iii. 7 ; Neh. vi. 2, 7, 10. Bottcher thinks that the nT is

Ch.i.3-5-] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 527
dropped before words beginning with N ; the verb is followed here
by B3,w. But this is scarcely the cause. See Bottcher § 957, g;
D(??& Script, def. forDnvK; an inaccurate expression, as gram
matically it would refer to the fathers, to whom Zechariah was not
sent. Lange has suggested that the use of the expression was
occasioned by the fact that Zechariah, as a young man compared with
the remnant of the former generation, might have considered them
to represent as such the generation of the fathers. The pronoun is
here used, though the noun to which it refers was not yet mentioned.
Comp. Isa. ix. 21.
4. DS'^woi. The form to be read in the text, according to
Gesenius, is 'y^-P, a very rare nominal formation, which occurs
also in Lam. iii. 63, Dnj^D, " their song." The form of the k'ri
is ???!£. Hitzig and Fiirst maintain that we ought to read the
text B?YYl?» from rbty with the prep. IP. The plural of that
word has elsewhere the fem. form. Several nouns have, however,
a double plural. This latter is perhaps the preferable view, and
is adopted by Kohler and Keil. If the text be read as Gesenius
proposed, we must supply the preposition p from the noun pre
ceding. The reading of the Oriental Jews was tDvvBBp-l, and
though the Babylonian Codex has the Western reading, it adds the
other as an emendation, with the note "this is the correct read
ing." See Baer's edition of the Minor Prophets, Leipzig, 1878.
Baer observes that as the Masora follows the Western pointing, this
word is omitted in the list of those beginning with OOl.
The words of Zechariah so closely resemble those of Jer. xxv. 5,
that they are, perhaps, best regarded as a free quotation from that
prophet. Jerome notices the calls to repentance made by Isaiah
(xxxi. 6, lv. 7), Hosea (xiv. 2), Joel (ii. 12), and Jeremiah (iii. 12,
xviii. 11, xxiv. 4, 5, xxv. 45), and their unsuccessful issue. Comp.
Jer. xxv. 3-8 ; 2 Kings xvii. 13.
5, Drrrrw. 'X shortened form of n'N; comp. ID and n$<?, where.
With suffixes it includes the sense of the substantive verb, as H3>N
" where art thou ? " (Gen. iii. 9), 1'« " where is he ? " (Exod. ii. 20 ;
Job. xiv. 10, xx, 7 ; 2 Kings xix. 13 ; Micah vii. 10, D'N "where
are they?" Isa. xix. 12; Nah. iii. 7. The lengthened form seems
used for emphasis.
Jerome, Cyrill, and Luther consider that false prophets are here
referred to, as in Jer. xxxvii. 19. But, as Rosenmiiller observes, the

528 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. i. 5-7.
article shows that the same prophets are referred to who were before
mentioned. The Targum takes the second question as a reply of the people
to the question of the prophet, " Your fathers where are they ? and
if you say, The prophets, do they live for ever ? " So several of the
Jewish comm., followed by Venema, Burger, etc. But in this case the
perfect, or D^O, would have been expected rather than the imperfect.
The idea of the passage seems to be : Your fathers suffered the
penalty denounced against them, and are gone. So are the prophets
also, but their words have been fulfilled after their decease, and
therefore you do well to recall their words to mind, and to ponder
over their fulfilment as a warning to yourselves.
6. And they turned. Not " they were converted." There was a
change, but the change is not said to have been deeper than that
they were led to acknowledge that the judgments threatened were
really executed upon them. (Hitzig.) Syr., " Your fathers remem
bered and considered with themselves."
1£, originally affirmative, then restrictive, only, yet, however, as
limiting what was said before (Ewald § 105 d), It is closely con
nected with I, 13, 13 £. See Bottcher Lehrb. § 520. 131, used of
threatenings, as Ezek. xii. 28; Jer.xxxix. 16. 'pn. Here not statutes,
ordinances, but divinely appointed decrees (Ps. ii. 7 ; Zeph. ii. 2).
iWi 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. "D*l is revelation in general (chap. xi. 11), though taken in
with the eye ; ntn, and |W"l, though properly referring to visions, are
also used of a revelation communicated through the ear. See p. 5.
!33tp. 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. -p. 247): (1) \0^i Nisan
(called in Pent. ^DNri, Abib), April, Neh. ii. 1; Esth. iii. 7;
Ni-Sa-an-nu. (2) 1*N, 'Iyyar (not Biblical, Talmudic), Ai-ru, May,
Heb. 1!, Ziv, 1 Kings vi. 37. (3) )VP, SivanySi-va.-nu, June, Esth.
viii. 9. (4) T-1BPI Tammuz (not Biblical as the name of a month,
Talmudic), Du-vu-zu, July. (5) 3N, Ab, A-bu (not Biblical,

Ch. i. 8.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 529
Talmudic), August. (6) W.8, 'Elul, U-lu-lu, Neh. vi. 15, September.
(7) nW, Tishri, Tas'-ri-tu (not Biblical, Talmudic), October. Hebrew
once D^psn irjjf, " in the month of ever-flowing streams," Ethanim,
i Kings viii. 2. (8) \\f HIP, Marchesvan, originally called ^B, .5a/,
1 Kings vi. 38 (Joseph. Antiq. i. 3, § 3), A-ra-ah (i.q. nij) sam-na (njbf),
z'.i?., the eighth month, November. (9) 1705, Kislev, Neh. i. 1 ;
Zech. vii. 1, Ki-si-li-vu, December. (10) 1"I3P, 7>foM, Ti-bi-tuv,
Esth. ii. id, January. (11) DSf, £<»£«/, or Shebat, Sa-ba-tu, Zechi. 7;
1 Mace. xvi. 14, February. (12) "n$, .<4*for, Ad-da-ru, Esth. iii. 7,
March, and TJ'?'!, the intercalary month, Ar-hu ma-ak-ru sa Addaru
(i.e., the month after the Addar). The English equivalents are only
of course approximately true as the months were lunar.
8. TVK") without a formal object, the whole vision being in fact
the object. It scarcely means, as Umbreit, Kohler and Pressel,
suppose, "I was in the peculiar condition of a seer," or Hip, as Samuel,
the father of Old Test, prophets, is called. The run introduces
the special details of the vision.
n?vi"l, acc. 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 M- It might be rendered "in the night," but is scarcely
equivalent to " this day," in which case it would have been ntn TV'On.
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 (1 Sam. iii.), Solomon (1 Kings iii. 5), Job (iv. 12, ff), Paul
(Acts xvi. 9), etc.
1»1? Sim, might refer either to the man, " and he was standing
between the myrtle trees," in which case the suffix in VinKI
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,
" and it 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. Kal oSros eio-njKei ava. peo-ov twv (alia ex-
emp. twv Svo) opeoiv (as if reading 0*~i.nn f3) t&v /carao-KiW (n?¥D3 "IK'S)
seem to have arisen from a confusion of the first with the seventh
vision in chap. vi. i, ff., 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 twv pvp<nve<i>va>v,
the myrtle groves. Syr., " and standing between shady trees."
n'jxpa. 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 n?¥D:i with daghesh in the f, 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, Wil ion IT?,
is correct, for 2»11 means that B has daghesh, which fact distin
guishes this word from rPISp? (Ps. cvii. 24). Hence its plural
occurs with the script, plena in chap. x. 1 1. The Vulg. has inprofundo ;
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. lxix. 3), rather than shade, or shady place, in which case it
should be written with the daghesh in the ?. Fiirst treats '"yVp or
n>ivp as put for nWp and considers the word to signify a tent (com
paring n|D; Ps. xviii. 1 2) represented as the dwelling place of God in
heaven and symbolised by the earthly tabernacle (Rev. xi. T9, 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 n?VP3, in the shady roof (yea. Schatten-Dach),z>., under
cover of the shade of the surroundings of the tabernacle in which God
was supposed to dwell. He maintains that npyon 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, LXX. ava. pLo-ov tow opiwv twv

Ch.i. 8.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 531
KaTao-KLwv, reading for D\Biqn either DHpn, or t^Tinn, as Rosen
miiller and Schleusner, or perhaps Dn-np, which the LXX. translate
in Isa. xiv. 2 by op?/.
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. 11, § 3; Bell. Jud. 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 Asmonaean 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. lxiii. 1, 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 Cp*1^, and the disagreement between 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 1, p. 20, Delitzsch's interesting paper on " Die Talmud und
die Farben" in the number of Nord u. Siidior May 1878 ought to
be mentioned.
It is not clear what precise colour is designated by ^p^. Rashi
and Kimchi confess that they do not know what colour is meant.
The word occurs in a slightly different form, C'p-'n^, 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 <^P (Gen. xlix. 11), a kind
of noble vine, so called from the colour of the grapes.
The root P"IB>, to be pale red, is to be connected with the Arabic
fH .i» to shine, which is used in the derived sense of becoming
red. With the letters transposed there is j&£>, from whence
the common adjective yiJol applied to both men and horses.1
1 plE* to card, to comb, is quite a different root. Pressel is decidedly wrong
in seeking to connect the noun p~\}& with the root in the sense of combing,
carding, as if it meant the finely striped ana 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 <3Uj** as an equivalent for the Hebrew p'W,
the vine, which is a mere transcription of the Hebrew, but Abu'l-
walid speaks of JjA^-wJIfor as it is in Neubauer's edition sj^sj)) as
the name of a most noble species of vine which grows in Syria.
The ancient versions do not cast much light on the matter. The
Targum has Vtyp., according to the London Polyglott, of whose
meaning Buxtorf is uncertain, but which Bochart renders red.
The Ethfopic for red is 'fctffh: kayeh. Levy writes fDJP. or ]VT}p.,
which latter is the reading of de Lagarde, and which Levy
considers to be probably the Greek kiwoxoutiis, dark maned.
The LXX. have Kal \tyapdi ko.1 ttoikIXoi, speckled and piebald,
though some MSS. omit the first epithet. Aq. gdvOoi, Vulg.
varii. The Syr. has j.^m.^, which, as it is used for the
Hebrew N-17D 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 irvppbs for </rapds,
which reading Jerome mentions (see Ges. Thes.). 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^DK DH13 by jii *$
variegated, sorrel, where the LXX. have ttolkiXol vjapoi, the Arab.,
perhaps, reading trvppol, which Jerome says was the reading of some
copies, though not now found in any MSS. The D*¥DKn of verse 7
is similarly rendered. Aquila in the latter passage has mippoi.
Kohler translates D^plb by fire-coloured or fiery-red, comparing
the Chald. and Talm. p"ife> or P*iD to paint, to rouge, of women,
with transposition of letters 1PD, whence &1P.V, 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 the word in our text, when referring
to horses, as Signifying fine-haired, 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 PT is to be explained as scarlet,
corresponding to the colour of fire. He considers that the n~P
was so called from its colour, and compares &£,, the red, or blood-
coloured anemone (Lane). See Delitzsch's remarks on Isa. v. Comp-
J^£i of a cloth stained with, a red colour. The fem. iT-JL&
is used, as Lane notes, as a substantive foxfire. 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^po's,
in defiance of all philological considerations. The order, moreover,
here is (1) the D'OIK, red, rendered by the LXX. mippoi; (2) the D'piB',
LXX. v\/apol Kal ttolkIXoi; (3) the Q'33?, white, LXX. AeuKot. In chap.
vi. the order is (1) the red, as here, expressed by the same words in
Hebrew and LXX. ; (2) the ^~)W, 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 E^3, speckled, also not mentioned
here, unless we arbitrarily consider that, though mentioned fourth, these
horses are to be identified with the D^P"12* mentioned second'm this place.
These B^3 have a further epithet, that of D'VDN, on which see p. 128, ff.
and note. The LXX. render the two terms in chap. vi. 3 itoikIXoi \j/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 Wra ins Wit vja «$3, Gen. xiii. n, and here, n^N non DD.
See Ges. § 121, 1, 2 ; Kalisch § 78, 4. Ewald regards the HDH at
the end of the verse as peculiarly emphatic, Ewald § 297 b. The

534 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch.i. 11-13.
n»n is omitted in the first clause of the verse. Observe, too, the
same usage in chap. iv. 4, and chap. iv. 5. np expresses the inquiry
after the kind, quality, or sort, 'P after persons, Ewald §3250:.
" The angel that talked with me." LXX. 6 XaXwv iv ipoi Jer.
qui loquebatur in me. See our remarks on p. 1 2. Syr. ^.a ,^Aiaio;.
Dr. P. Zingerle says the same expression is found in the Apoca
lypse of Paul, translated by him in Heidenheim's Vierteljahrsschrift,
iv. 1, p. 140, ff., see specially p. 145. Ewald considers that the force
of the 3 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 3, the phrase 3 "'3V, to do work with, through any one, i.e.
to force him to work. Exod. i. 14; Ewald § 217,/ 3.
n. TX0\ n?E>\ Compare nj^-1 T\^f\ chap. vii. 7, and nvpp\
n^-l, 1 Chron. iv. 40, also Jud. xviii. 7, where the people of Laish
are described as nt?3? niPV, after the custom of the Sidonians
np'3-1 t3pe\ Some regard the expression here as a hendiadys for
dwelling tranquilly, but 3G5" 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 n.
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.
1 2. nnDjn "iK>K. On the full form of the ending see Ges.
§ 44, 2, rem. 4. "1E?N is the accusative governed by the verb, as in
Isa. lxvi. 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 I3in is in apposition to "INTO!-!, as is indicated by the
accents, and is not to be connected with the words following.
D'OID Dnm. Comp. 1 Kings xii. 7. Rashi thinks that Zechariah did
not hear the reply of God to the angel, but understood its import
from what the angel said to him.

Ch. i. i4, I5-] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 535
D'PriJ. The 0 is marked with raphe as in Isa. lvii. 18. This is
noted in the Masora. The noun occurs without daghesh in Hos.
xi. 8, ^p-ITO. It is not an adjective, as rendered in our A. V, " com
fortable words," but a substantive in apposition to Dnai. Compare
njPI \W>, Ps. exx. 2, 3. It is a piel verbal form, hence there is a
daghesh implicitum in the n. The doubling" of the third radical
might be defended (see Ewald § 155 c), 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 D'DE', heaven,
or in time as D^IW, youth, but also in thought, as BWi, mercy,
D'»™, consolation, E'Dimn, id., D^unn, supplication, Zech. xii. 10.
See Bottcher § 689.
14- KT. Proclaim, cry aloud. Comp. Isa. xl. 6, Iviii. 1 ; Jonah
i. 2. VlSOp. Used of the zeal of love, as Joel ii. 18 ; Num. xxv. n, 13.
The perfect is best regarded here as an inchoative, as Josh.
ii. 18, 13 W£l"pin "by which you are letting us down." See Ges.
§ 126, 3 ; Ewald § 135, b ; Driver § 10 ; Kalisch § 93, 3. The perf.
is to be distinguished from the participle which is used in the next
verse (ISP). 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 love and desire to assist, hence the verb is used of zeal,
indignation (e.g., of the zeal of Phineas, and of Elijah, Num. xxv. 11,
13; 1 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 3 against, as Gen. xxx. 1, 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 ;
1 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. On the const, of the participle see note on
verse 14. DIKES'. 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 § 1021, 2. Vulg. gentes opulentas. LXX. «rt to. Wv-q to.
avveirLTi6ejji.eva, against the nations who devise plots, possibly reading
DWJri, as Schleusner has suggested, which is followed by the Syr.
and Arab.
1E?K. Because, as Gen. xxx. 18, xxxi. 49; 1 Kings xv. 5; Ges.
§ 155, 1, e; Ewald § 353, a ; Kalisch § 107, 3,
EBB. See note 1 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.
VSrb nil?. Compare the meaning of nin? in Jer. xliv. 1 1, and
rrn^p? -1-in;, 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 njn?
in the one sentence corresponds with t3J?0 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 of
destroying altogether the people of God, comparing Isa. xlvii. 6.
16. The building of the temple had begun, but it was not at
that time far advanced. 'rots'. This is regarded by Driver (Hebrew
Tenses, § 14, a) as a prophetic perfect, " I will return," and so Bottcher
§ 947> / Similarly LXX. iirto-Tpetyi*. 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.
H1p, which occurs in the received text, must be pointed 1JPT or
nip,. The word is found also in 1 Kings vii. 23 ; Jer. xxxi. 39, but
the k'ri has in all these places 1p or 1p, 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 measuring line which was used sometimes
for the purpose of destruction (2 Kings xxi. 13 ; Isa. xxxiv. n), and
also for building up, as here, and in Job xxxviii. 5, is figuratively
used in reference to creation.
ri3-rti3\ The daghesh in the 3 is daghesh forte conj., though
not to be strongly pronounced. Ewald § 91, d; Ges. § 20, 2, a;
Kalisch § 5, 6.
17. njS-lSfl is for nrviap, the nun being doubled instead of the
usual insertion of the »- Compare rurvlDri j6, Ezek. xiii. 19 ;
HSPTII?, Micah iL_ 12 ; Ewald § 196, c; Kalisch § Ixv. 23, under flS.
But Baer edits nj^isn, without yod and with the nun with raphe, on
the authority of MSS. and ancient editions, referring to Michlol, 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 l^P?*,
" shall be filled f the LXX. 8taXu^o-ovrat, Vulg. affluent. The Syr.
000-^001107 -H
jArH^ _ic jAii',^D _oVZubj V\---»v-i " henceforth cities shall be deprived
of all good"
On? 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 ??>, ?X or ?. As it is active here, it is better to regard it as piel,
in the sense of to comfort.
ina 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 words obtS'llO Titf "iru
are very like those in Isa. xiv. 1, 7fcOG5"3 Til? "iro.
The threefold occurrence of "IW 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
daeans, reminding the people thereby, that the restoration, in the
dawn whereof they lived, had been promised two centuries before ''
(Pusey).
CHAPTER II.
1. 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

53§ ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch.ii.2-8.
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. Bnn is there
taken in the sense of architect.
4. "Vinn?. LXX. tov 6£vvai avTa eis ^etpas avrwv to. Tecrrrapa
KtpaTa, reading, perhaps, Tinn?, or, as Schleusner thinks, simply ex
pressing what they regarded to be the sense of the passage, inasmuch
as they erroneously took the 1"I1T? following, not as the infinitive
from HT1, but as the plural of 1*, and to sharpen them in their hands may
be equivalent to stir them up to activity. The LXX. further inserted
the numeral after JlHIpTlK, 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., DOS Tinr6} 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. 'Ul tS"X '20. The Syr. has strangely
r 0 0 7 -*> > y
rendered " who have dispersed Judah " by >aj,;j J], jj^i . , oiioaa r]
oia*; " as the mouth of a man who does not lift up his head."
8. f?n} that one, a strong demonstrative, contracted for nj^n,
masculine here and in Jud. vi. 30, but feminine 2 Kings iv. 25. It
is compounded of ?n, afterwards used in its contracted form as the
article, and HI. Gesen. § 54, rem. 2 ; Ewald § 103, d, and 183, b;
Olsh. § 101, e; Kalisch § xx. 1. Dins. See note 2, p. 35. Plural
of extension (Bottcher § 694), used almost as an adverb (Gesen.
100, 2 ; Kalisch § 70, 3). LXX. /caTa/cap7ro)s, abundantly, Symm.
arei^iWaJS, Theod. eis irAa-ros.
Aristeas' letter to Philocrates, which is referred to by Josephus,
Antiq. Jud. 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 critical edition of the text of

Ch. ii. 9-11.] 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 fitr Wissenschaftliche 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 Beschreibung des hero-
dianischen Tempels im Tract. Middoth und bei Flavius Josephus, pub
lished in Jahres-bericht des Rabb. Seminars fur das orthod. Judenthum
for 5637 (1876-1877), Berlin. He comments on the fragment extant
containing Hecatasus' description of the Jews. Hecataeus 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 Hecataeus 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. 'in '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 ; 1 Kings xiii.
30), or expressive of the distressing condition of those addressed, as
even in Isa. Iv. r, and here. It is often used as Woe ! vae ! But it
cannot be rendered thus in this passage. See Bottcher's Proben, p. 148.
t^lQ may mean to scatter, as in Ps. lxviii. 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. Hi. It can scarcely be rendered
otherwise when followed by 3. In the sense of scattering it is con
strued with ?, as in Ezek. xvii. LXX., incorrectly, o-wafa>.
n. '3 3 r)3t5>l'. The first word in this phrase might be regarded
as a synonym of n3, as in Jer. xlvi. 19. The context, however, shows
that '3 H3 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. 3K" is here construed with the accusative, as in

540 • ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ii. Ii, 12.
Ps. xxii. 4 (E. V. verse 3) ; 2 Sam. vi. 2, etc., in the sense " thou that
dwell est with the inhabitants of Babylon."
'D?Dn. The LXX. give a paraphrase : eis 2wi>v avao-u>£eo-8e ot
KaroiKovvre; Ovyaripa BajSuXGvos, "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. " After 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 XI n 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 Ewald, 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 ins 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. lxviii. 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. 54 1
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 103 "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
D»"i?D J-lpn, " the correction of the scribes." The eighteen are : —
Gen. xviii. 22, Num. xi. 15, Num. xii. 12, Num. xii. 13, 1 Sam.
iii. 13, 2 Sam. xvi. 12, 1 Kings xii. 16, and the parallel passage
2 Chron. x. 16, Ezek. viii. 17, Hab. i. 12, Mai. i. 13, Zech. ii. 12,
Jer. ii. n, 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. 1352 Sam. xvi. 1 2 ;
Hos. iv. 7 ; Job xxxii. 3 ; Lam. iii. 20 ; 1 Kings xii. 16 ; 2 Chron.
x. 16 ; and Gen. xviii. 22, and adding 2 Sam. xx. 1 ; 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 (Urschrift, 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 W
" my eye," instead of W, " his eye," as in the received text. Several
MSS. have the reading W. 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
mindj 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 Habakkuk, p. 206, ff. The word H33
is not to be regarded with Gesenius in Thes. as for n33?; 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. pupa, indicating a doll, daughter of the eye. See Miihlau
and Volck's edition of Gesenius' Wbrterb., and Fleischer's additions
to Levy's Chald. Wbrterb., ersterBand, p. 419.
14. 'jn. On the form of the imperative, see Ges. § 67, rem. 2 ;
Kalisch § lxii. 3, a ; Bottcher § 497, 10. 'rUDBM, perf. with vav conv.,
after the participle N3; in the sense of the future, just as the I'm in
the preceding verse after spB. Driver § 113, 1 ; Ges. § 126, 6, d.
13. 11731. The LXX. incorrectly, but quoad sensum, Kal Kara-
tf>evi;ovTai eOvrj iroWa iirl tov Kvpiov, and similarly in Jer. 1. 5 (LXX.
xxvii. 5), where the same phrase occurs in the Hebrew. Comp.
Isa. lvi. 3, xiv. 1.
,fi23EJ'l. LXX. Kal KaTao-K-qvoio-ovrriv iv picria o~ov.
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 nans ho.
1 7. Dn is not to be regarded as an apoc. imp. piel from nDn; but
as an onomatopoetic interjection used to enjoin silence. Arab.
c -
transposed, <Us. This interjection has however been treated as a
verbal form, and a plural formed from it -lSH, Neh. viii. n, as well as
an imperfect, Num. xiii. 30 ; Ewald § 101, d, and § 106, a. Comp.
the verbal root nB>n, to be silent. LXX. ev\a/3eio-9<a. 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."
TIM niphal from TW. 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 phrase is used of the temple in Ps.
lxviii. 6 (verse 5 E. V.) Comp. verse 36 (E.V. 35), and Ps. xxvi. 8 1

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, De Inferis, § 402, ff, p. 209. The LXX.
translate here e'k j/e<peA.£v dyiwv airov.
The following allusion is made to this prophecy, in connexion with
that in Isa. xi., in the third book of the Sibylline Oracles, lines 785-
795> Part of which book was probably composed by a Jew about
B.C. 160. We quote from Friedlieb's Oracula Sibyllina, with crit.
commentary and a German transl. (Leipzig, 1852).
ev<ppdv6rjTi, Kop-q, Kal dydXXeo ' aol yap coWev
£v<ppoo~vvr)v auJvos, os ovpavbv iKTicre Kal yrjv.
T&v 0-01 o olKrjrrei * aol 8' €o~o~eTai aOdvaTOV <£cus.
Ev oe X.vkoi T€ Kal apves iv ovpeaiv ap.ju.i-y' eSovTai
\6pTOv, 7rap8aAies t' ipicpoK a/xa fioo-KrjcrovTat. "
ApKTOi o~vv ixorr^oii vop,aSes av\io~6fjO~ovTai. *
crapKO/Sopos Te \iwv ay(ypov <j>dyeTai iirl rpdrvrj'S,
<i)S /8ovs ' Kal 7rai8es pdka vvprioi iv Secrpolmv
a£ovcri • irrjpbv yap iirl %8ovl Orjpa ironjo-et.
Kal {3pc<f>£eo-rn 8pa/coi'T£S apa crcptm Koipfjo-ovTat,
kovk a.8i.Krj0~ovcri ' xeiP YV ®e°S eo~o~eT iir avTov'S.
" Rejoice, O virgin, and be glad, for everlasting gladness hath he
given to thee, who made heaven and earth. For in thee he will
dwell, immortal light shall be to thee. Wolves and lambs shall to
gether eat grass on the mountains, and leopards shall feed together
with kids ; bears shall herd grazing with calves ; and the flesh-eating
lion will eat straw at the manger as an ox, and very young children
shall lead them in bonds, for he will make the wild beast tame on
the earth. And dragons shall lie down with infants, and not hurt
them. For the hand of God will be upon them."

CHAPTER III.
1. The Adversary. So we render on account of the article. See?
p. 40. So LXX. Kal 6 Sia/JoXos, and also in verses 2, 4, where Aquila
has 6 avTiKeipevos, with Symm. and Theod. in verse 2. Satan occurs
without the article as a proper name in 1 Chron. xxi. 1 ; Ps. cix. 6,
in which latter passage mention is made of his standing at the right
side of the accused. The Targ. renders Satan in verse t by nxtsn
and in verse 2 by NPH-, both meaning "the Sinner."

544 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iii. i-,.
nai?. Participle used of continued action. On the phrase " stand
before," see p. 46. Comp. Num. xxii. 22. VQv?. Note the in
finitive with suffix from a form IP?*, the a being attentuated to i.
Ges. § 61, 1, rem. ; Kalisch § xxxix. 1.
2. On the word rebuke, see the passages referred to p. 53. On
the Rabbinical story concerning Joshua, see note 2, p. 51. When
the same words are repeated and preceded by ) as here, ("iWV-TM')
the conjunction is best expressed by " yea." Comp. Ps. xxvii. 14,
np.l - n:lp ; Job vi. 29, after the k'ri, OB'l - -OtS/.
Tmn, who delights in. The participle denotes a present and
yet a habitual action, is delighting in, or is choosing. Drake supposes
that this is addressed ironically to Satan, and says this " seems
requisite to satisfy the parallelism of the Heb. text ; " but in this he
is mistaken. 3. On the Targum see note 1, p. 51. ^3? n'n. On the con
struction see Ges. § 134, 2, c; Ewald § 168, d. ; Kalisch § 100, 8.
DWV D'-m. Accusative. See Ges. § 1 18, 3; Kalisch § 86, 4, ,:.
The adjective K1S only occurs in this and the next verse, but the noun
n^S is of more frequent occurrence, and is used of human excre
ments (Isa. xxxvi. 12; 2 Kings xviii. 27). Note its use in Isa. xxxviii. 8,
as well as in Isa. iv. 4, and in Prov. xxx. 12 (not xxx. 9 as referred
to on p. 50). The same word is not used in Isa. Ixiv. 5. It is im
possible, therefore, to consider clothing worn and soiled with age to
be intended.
4. "Before him." See p. 61, note. ^r-.V On const, of inf.
absol. here see Ges. § 131,4, a; Ewald § 351, c; Kalisch §97, 3.
When thus used for the finite verb, the infinitive is to be rendered by
the tense of the verb which it follows, and is used to express the
contemporaneousness of the acts. The LXX. consider it as spoken
to the angel attendants, and render accordingly, Kal eVSvo-are airbv
iro8fjprj, "and clothe him with robes flowing down to the feet" Not
so the Syriac. On the nwno, see p. 61.
6. *ll>Jl imp. hiphil from 1W with — on account of the guttural.
See Ges. § 72, rem. 7 ; Kalisch § 65, 6 ; Ewald § 232, c.
7. That the apodosis is to be regarded as commencing with thou
shalt also judge, etc., is clear from the emphatic nnN before P"U?.
The change of tenses indeed commences with ^X$i\, but the
perf. is there construed with the vav. conv. (note the tone), and thus
is to be regarded as subordinated to the preceding imperfect. The

Ch. iii. 7,8.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 545
DJ, Oi (also, also) is used before the two imperfects to show that
they form the apodosis of the sentence.
The verb PI was originally |-11, from which form the niphal part.
'1*IJ and imp. kal pT (Gen. vi. 3) occur. Derivatives from this form
are also found, as \n, according to the k'ri in Job xix. 29, pip and P"1*.
The two forms are, however, found in the Hebrew Scriptures with a
decided difference in signification, )H being intrans., P"i transitive.
See the Lexicons, and Bottcher § 1141, 1143, 3 ; also, on the phrase
here, the remarks on p. 65.
D'3?nD. Gesenius explains this word as a participle hiphil from
*pn; of a Chaldee form, for the ordinary participle would have been
D,3vl». Hitzig's objection to this view is noted on p. 66. The
latter participle actually occurs in chap. v. 10, and in eight other
places. See Fiirst's Concord., under "P'. On the other hand, the
sing. ^lIP is found several times. The plural here would rather come
from a form K^p, as &'??qp would be the plural from the other form.
In the former case, too, the prep. \Q would have been used instead
of P3. See Bottcher, De Inferis, §§ 447, 448, though in his Lehrbuch
he has returned to Gesenius' view, §§ 315, 12; 1013, b ; 1095, 1.
Olshausen also defends the view given above; see § 258, a, p. 580,
§ 208, b, p. 391. The LXX. have regarded the word as a participle,
reading dvao-Tp<:(/>op.<n/ous, and so Vulg. ambulantes and the Syriac.
8. &U"M3B>. The force of $i is to add emphasis to the imperative.
The gaya or metheg under the t5> in Theile's edition is incorrect,
and has been omitted by Baer in his edition of the Minor Prophets.
See his article on " Die Metheg-Setzung," § 39, foot note, in Merx's
Archiv. " Those that sit before thee." See p. 68.
riaiD 'BOX. See the remarks on p. 69, ff. LXX. TtpaTao-Koiroi, well
explained by the gloss quoted by Schleusner as o-rjpuwriKoi, 0-up.y80A.t-
ko'i, but regarded by Cyrill, quoted by Field in his edition of Origen' s
Hexapla, as meaning men desirous of seeing signs and wonders :
T£paroo-K07roi)s ye firjv avTovs 6vopd£,ei, TOvrecrTiv ad o-qpela t,ryrovVTa%
bpav, Kal twv TepaTwv ifpieptvovs • <pvrru yap 7ra>s aei toiovtoj' eari to
tS>v 'IouSaiW Wvoi. Symm. 6avpao-ToL 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, «9'3 pn1? n3S|p? pn.B") pi.3-13, 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 nD¥ '131? 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 LXX. render nDX by avaTokr], both here and in chap. vi. 12,
which word they use sometimes in the sense of a shoot, as Ezek. xvi. 7,
xvii. 10. Vulg. oriens; Arab. f}}f^' the east; Syr. Lju? sunrise,
the Divine 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 npy is equivalent
to La^o., the shining or splendour of the sun. To this phrase of
O 0 7 -* 0 "*
Zechariah Simeon alludes when he calls the Messiah }ico> _ic> }**jj
the rising coming from on high, Luke i. 78. The Dean further
notes that in Isa. iv. 2 '" HDX is rendered by the LXX. imXdpij/ei
00 -a -n
6 Oe.6% Syr. Lpo » ou*j>, but Vulg. germen Domini. From these
places in the Syriac translation of the prophets the phrase is used,

Ch. iii. 8-iv. 2.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 547
" 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 DJJ'i? ni>3B'; clearly not to be
taken as seven pair of eyes. See chap. iv. 10. Comp. tyl^n tj6tj»
three teeth, 1 Sam. ii. 13, and E.'M? C'tr six wings, Isa. vi. 2. See
Ges. § 88, 2, rem. ; Kalisch § 77, 4; Ewald § 180, a. pi? 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. l8ov iyib opvo-o-m /368pov,
" behold I will dig a trench," possibly reading nrjB, an opening, as
Schleusner, or perhaps rather nnB, a pit, which translation has been
explained by Jerome and Cyrill as containing a reference to the
wounds of Christ. Aquila, 8iay\v<pa> dvoiyji.aTa avrr)<i. Symm.,
yXvxf/ta yap Trjv yXvpr/v avTOv. Targ. Niirmn '2| ^8 Nl, " behold I
will reveal its (the stone's) visions," the meaning of which is obscure.
'fiB>p-l; perf. with vav conv., used as a prophetic perfect after the
participle preceding. Comp. note on chap. ii. 14.

CHAPTER IV.
1. See note 1, p. 81. Til?.'!, see note on HM, 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 IQN'l, "and he said." Ewald
explains this reading as an Aramaism for 10X1, in his Lehrhtch, § 45,
d, but in this he seems to be mistaken.
Instead of ™}\, " and its bowl," some MSS. have n^Jl., " 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 n?|
occurs in the next verse. Perhaps the form which occurs here is for
nn^jl (comp. Eccl. xii. 6) ; see Delitzsch on Ps. xxvii. 5, foot-note,
and Bottcher, § 734, b. The Vulgate translates it by " lampas ejus."
ni?3Bl nS?3B>. There has been much discussion among scholars

54-8 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 ; 1
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 1 Chron. xx. 6, where it is
said of a giant at Gath that his fingers and his toes were 'U1 CSt!>l W®,
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
B>B1 WW 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 1 Chron. xx. 6,
the same fact is stated in slightly different words, Wl V® 1TI1?3¥K1
1?31N1 D'1B>J?, " 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 flint? before fi'lYlTJ
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, niDB'l n5?3K>) which emendation has
also been made in our A.V., and is approved by Henderson. The

Ch.iv.3-7d CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 549
Vulg. only expresses one seven (et septem infusoria lucernis). 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 HlpSlD by eVapvorpt'Ses, vessels for pour
ing in the oil. The Syr. translates that word by iicoa " mouths."
4. jIn. The LXX. have Kvpie, not however necessarily reading
'31 X. Aq. and Symm. have KvpU jxov.
5. 1?S non HO. On the construction, see Ges. § 121, 2; Ewald
§297, b; Kalisch §78, 5.
6. ?TO HP, The LXX. have ovk iv Swdpa peydXy, which is simply
a free translation.
7. 71131 11. On the use of the article before the adjective and
not before the noun, see Ewald § 293, a; Ges.§ in, 2, a; Kalisch
§ lxxxiii. 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 36, hence our mistake. The passage occurs also
in Arachin, 6, a. The citation is also given in Bacher, Agada der
babylonischen Amoraer, Budapest, 1878, p. 44.
The Targ. is NT?q 733-llt D1J5 KfiB>9P Krjto^D '»11 K3'B>q m K»
: snn^p 733 t3i7t5».'\ PPlpi'P nw TDN1 srwp rv W1 Klt^'P? "What
art thou esteemed, O Rome, foolish kingdom, before Zerubbabel?
shall it not be as a valley? and he will reveal the Messiah,
whose name was spoken of from ancient times, and he shall rule
over all the kingdoms." The Lond. Polyglott omits the name
"Rome." The same interpretation is given in Bereshith Rabba on
Gen. xxviii. 10, in connexion with this passage, "that mountain is
the Messiah, and he has this name, because he is exalted above
the Patriarchs." — Schottgen, De Messia, p. 100 (from Raymondus
Martini). Such an interpretation is however opposed to the context,
though Henderson explains the passage very similarly.
11B"P7. The LXX. have tov KaTop8S>o-ai, regarding, perhaps, the
Hebrew noun, as Schleusner conjectures, as a sort of infinitive.
And he shall bring forth. The LXX. is almost unintelligible, and
it is evident that they did not understand the meaning of the passage,

550 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch.iv.o, 10.
Kal iioio-ai tov XiOov ttjs KXr/povojiias (Schleusner suggests that they read
nOTT. for HE'SOl, Aq. has tov irpwreuovTa) IcroTrjTa ^apiTOS x°-PLTa avTrjs.
In the second part they seem to have connected niNtSTl in some way
with nits'. Aquila makes the same mistake, translating it e^iowei
-* 7 7 o * 7 0 0 0 ~* 7
^aptTos, andsimilarly the Syriac JioA/'jjo jZ.a»a»> JA»a*> ha]n\ ioajo
"and he brought forth the most excellent stone of equality and mercy,"
and even the Vulg., "et educet lapidem primarium, et exasquabit
gratiam gratise ejus."
nB»Kin J3K1. The top-stone. |3Nn is not to be viewed as in the
const, state, as even Kalisch (§ lxxxiii. 13) regards it; HB'Xin is
rather to be taken, with Kohler, as standing in apposition to pNl,
and is to be considered as a fem. formation from t?KT. The ending
is marked with raphe to prevent its being taken for the suffix 1t>
and is, as Kohler notes, an instance which proves that when the
fact of the raphe is specially noted by the Masorites, the 17 is not
always to be considered simply as the softened fem. suffix, as Ewald
thinks (§ 21,/, 3 ; § 247, d), for it must here be the fem. termina
tion, since the word has the article, and the tone is on the ultimate.
See Bottcher § 418, 2, foot note.
niNBTi is not the subject of the verb substantive understood, but
the ace. of nearer definition, with shoutings. Ewald § 204, a ; Ges.
§ 118, 3 ; Kalisch § 86, 4, c.
10. 13 for T3 from M3 as np for ID, Isa. xliv. 18. See Ges.
§ 72, rem. 8 ; Kalisch § lxv. 23. J11313P fem. used as a neuter, as
frequently. Compare the singular in Num. xxii. 18. For a similar
interrogation comp. Isa. xliv. 10.
1N11 inDB'l. One compound notion is expressed by the two
verbs, so that the first is almost equivalent to an adverb (see Ges.
§ 142, 3, a; Kalisch §104, 1). These perfects can scarcely in this
connection be rendered as prophetic, as our A.V., " for they shall
rejoice and shall see, etc." There is a contrast, as Pusey remarks,
drawn between the first and second part of the verse, and hence the
verbs which express that contrast are placed first.
7'131 J3Kn. Compare note on ch. v. 8. The second word stands
in apposition to the first, " the stone, the tin " (see Ges. § no, 2, c).
It can scarcely be, as Ewald maintains (referring to chap. iii. 9, and
comparing Job. xix. 24), a stone into which lead is molten. Compare
31-{n nhhl?!, " the wreaths, the gold," for " the wreaths of gold" (Exod.

Ch. iv. ii, 12.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 55 I
xxxix. 17) It corresponds, as Philippi notes (Wesen u. Ur sprung
d. Status Const, p. 37), exactly with the Arabic ^^M\ l^oJI "the
image, the gold," for the golden image. So also 2 Kings xvi. 14.
ncTi?ii natpri. LXX. tov XCOov tov Kao-a-i.Tipi.vov, Symm. tov Ke^wpio--
pevov, Vulg. lapidem stanneum.
The Targ. understands the subject of the verbs 'H W to be the
persons alluded to as despising the day of small things in the begin
ning of the verse. It renders n?X ll?3B> by !';?«? P?3i: NMBJ, " seven
rows (of stones) as these." The Targum translates the clause at the
end of the verse by a very loose and inaccurate paraphrase, " the
works of the sons of men in all the earth are revealed before the
Lord." Vulg., " Quis enim despexit dies parvos ? (LXX. 810Y1 t«
i£ov8a/a>o-ev eis rjpepas pLKpds;) et laetabuntur, et videbunt lapidem
stanneum in manu Zorobabel. Septem ipsi oculi sunt Domini qui
discurrunt in universam terram."
12. 'flBTtp. The & is without daghesh on account of the daghesh
which immediately follows. Comp. the preceding '3p"ip (verse n).
See Baer's edition. The original form of the numeral in Hebrew
seems to have been 0!53P', hence ^\W with daghesh forte, then OIP/P
with irregular daghesh lene, in later times pronounced E'SSW, but
not so written (Wright's Arab. Gramm., vol. i. p. 288, 2nd edit.).
Olshausen, however, takes a different view, § 81, a.
\?3.B> from rraB>; pi. Dv^Bj, where the ~ preserves the 0 sound ; the
construct vl.B' for '.?3K> is simply to make the daghesh more audible.
See Ges. § 10, 2, rem. Comp. Bottcher § 367, c. There is no neces
sity, as Bottcher notes in the same place (footnote 2), to assume, with
Fiirst, a special form l"i?3B> on account of a supposed difference
of meaning; 73B> seems (see Miihlau and Volck's Gesenius' Wbr
terb?) to have the meaning of to hang down. The verb is used in
the fifth conj. in Arabic of the heavens hanging down, beginning to
rain, hence Jy3B> in the sense of a stream. Comp. the fact that the
reservoir of rain in the heavens is termed in Ps. lxv. 10 (E.V. verse
9), "the brook of God" (^'"J^? ijB), on which passage see Delitzsch,
Hupfeld and Perowne ; the latter scholars cite the Arabic proverb
regarding the rain mentioned by Schultens, namely, "when the river
of God comes, the river Isa (in Bagdad) ceases." From the same
idea of hanging down comes the meaning of ears of corn, and here
the points of the olive twigs. Blayney is wrong in translating this

552 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. iv. 13, 14.
word " orderers," which is simply an invented meaning, and in
supposing that two beings in human shape were seen by the
prophet. nnjjO.X masc, and probably from a masc. sing. "H?3V, as Gesenius
has given it in his Thesaurus, for masculine nouns indicating tools,
or utensils, have generally plurals in HI—. It might also come from
a fem. form rri$3¥, which Fiirst prefers. See however Bottcher
§ 7 1 6, 5 . It is not to be rendered presses, as Hengstenberg. The word
is onomatopoetic, from the rushing, gurgling sound, and is clearly
connected with p13V, a waterfall. The doubling in the latter case cor
responds to the fl which is inserted in 1H3V (see Bottcher § 300 b).
The LXX. have pv£a)Trjpes, noses, beaks. So Syr. Vulg. rostra.
Lange strangely imagines that "i is compounded of J-?, a thorn, and
P~!fo, 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 1'3 simply signifies by means 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 foiih 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 tb 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 inX'fl properly signi
fies oil for burning in the lamps. But this distinction between the oil
for anointing and the oil for burning, insisted on by Kliefoth, does

Ch.iv.14-v.3-] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 553
not really exist, as Keil has shown. For IPt? 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
fl!t |J3E\ The same expression is used of the anointing oil, Exod.
xxx. 24. The latter is termed nriB'pi |pB> (Exod. xxix. 7, xxxi. 11,
etc.), while the oil for burning is llNp? \W (Exod. xxv. 6, xxxv. 8).
The oil for burning is never called "'fJV', 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.). iny? is the oil viewed as the
sap of the olive, the natural product of the country, while IP^/ is
more particularly the oil considered as prepared for use. LXX.
01 8vo viol Tr)s irio-rrjTOS, Aq. a-TiXirvoTTjTO^, Symm. iXalov.
pN!-73 J11&05?. The article is omitted before piK because it is
in the construct state.
CHAPTER V.
1. The LXX. have SpeVavov, a sickle, taking ST?2.p as i.q. ??P.
The other Greek versions render correctly, Aq. and Theod., 8«/>#epa,
Symm. Kecf>aXi<s, or, according to another reading, dXr/jxa.
2. 10X3 D'1B>I?; 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. n?Kfi. LXX. correctly r) apd. Symm., in plural, ot op/cot. Aq.
&>cravTws. pKl"?3. See remarks on p. 108.
n.jp — n:JP; on this side a7id on that (Exod. xxxii. 15 ; Num. xxii. 24;
Ezek. xlvii. 7). This is evidently the meaning, as appears from the
close connexion of l-jp with 11D3. Kohler regards the construction
of nj?3 as a const, praegnans (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. 1 ; Deut. ix. 12. npj
is of course a prophetic perfect. There is no doubt that !?» might
mean hence, but the reduplication of it evidently implies a contrast.
It does indeed occur twice in Exod. xi. 1, 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 1.103,
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.
ni03. In the first place where this word occurs in the verse, the
LXX. read eras 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 eras OavaTov. They probably read n-lD7.
Comp. the rendering of ID? by the LXX. in Isa. liii. 8.
npT3. See note on p. 108. The LXX. render it iK8iKrj6r)&erai.
f> o I
Symm. Slktjv 8d>aei. Syr Lj 1, shall be justified. The Targ. 'p?, shall
be struck, seems, with the LXX. and Vulg. judicabitur, to have con
sidered lp3 to mean the same as !??.
4. mriSStl is the perf. prophetic, and 1K3-1, the perf. with vav
conversive ; pashta being a postpositive has to be repeated over the
real tone syllable.
n.J?. 3rd pers. sing. perf. kal from P? or y>., for 13?, which
is the reading of one MS. See Ewald § 38, b, y, § 173,/; Ges. § 73, 2,
rem. 1 ; Kalisch § xxxviii. 1 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 ITlT (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?31. 3rd pers. fem. with suff. for -11^3, see Ges. § 75,
rem. 19. The perfects are to be viewed as instances of the proph.
perfect. On the subject matter, comp. 1 Kings xviii. 38.
5. Targ. P?N |?J1 JO \t0!, " 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. avrq r) doLKLa avTZv, as if reading WlJ?for &3'5?. 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, 7rpos toBto airo(3Xiirovo-i.
Other commentators, as Rosenmiiller, explain " this is their appear
ance," comparing Lev. xiii. 55 ; Num. xi. 7. See p. 114, ff. Duhm
(Die Theologie der Propheten, p. 317) has an extraordinary idea, that
PJ? is to be here taken in the sense of " spirit, angel," the woman
being regarded as the personification of sin.
The Targum paraphrases the rest of the chapter thus : " And he
said, These are the peoples (K'OOl?, de Lagarde) who received and
gave false measures, and he said, Lo ! they are manifested before all

Ch.v.6,7.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 555
the dwellers on the earth. (7) And behold swift peoples shall carry
them away with speed, and other peoples shall come and shall dwell
in their place, because they received and gave false measures. (8)
And he said, On account of this they were condemned and were
brought away into exile, because they received and gave false
measures, and other peoples came, and they dwelt in their room.
(9) And I lifted up mine eyes, and behold two lands were
seen," $3 pT'10 PJ313, 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 who talked
with me, Whither are they removing the people who received and
gave false measures? (n) 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 (Lehrbuch, § 174, c, ft) seems to consider 13? 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, b. But 133 is used as a fem. 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 D'133, used for that which is valuable (1 Chron. xxii.
14, xxix. 7), and the fem. form 11133, for that which is common or
comparatively valueless, e.g. of bread, Judg. viii. 5 (see Bottcher
§ 712, y, and 719, 7).
nNBO. Participle fem. niphal (Ewald § 240, d). It might, as far
as form is concerned, be perf. niphal 3rd pers. sing. fem. (1 Chron.
xiv. 2; Ewald § 194, b). 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 IKBO from the preceding sentence, or a corresponding
HK^J. Rashi's rendering is better, 'U1 nns 1B»N riKtl 111? 'n'Ki.
The nxt points out the woman (Sei/criKras) as the nil 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 nstl as
an adverb, " and there ! " But the fem. riNT is not elsewhere so used,
though nT often occurs in that signification. The LXX. have Kal
ISov ywr) pia. UN 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 1?B»1. LXX. Kal eppiijiev avTrjv, but Theod. has iavrrjv, 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 |3N wheel, in place of 13$?,
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 |3K is also used,
as here, in other places in the signification of "a weight;" so Deut.
xxv. 13; Prov. xvi. n ; comp. 2 Sam. xiv. 26.
The explanation "upon the mouth of the ephah" (see p. 116)
can be defended by comparing such expressions as TK?n 'S, Gen.
xxix. 2 ; ?1Kf '3, ps. cxli. 7.
9. ™|>f)1 for l^'B/fl!, which is the reading of many MSS., see
Ges. § 74, rem. 4 ; Ewald § 198, b. D1',D333) masculine for fem.
See next verse also. One of Baer's MSS. has |1'B333. See Ges.
§ 121, 6, rem. 1 ; Ges. Lehrg. p. 731 ; Kalisch § 77, 21, 2.
10. 101; masc. for fem. Comp. Cant. vi. 8 ; Ezek. xiii. 20 ;
Ruth i. 8 ; Ges. §32, rem. 7. Two MSS. read 131.
11. 1? for !?, as Exod. ix. 18; Lev. xiii. 4; Ewald § 247, d.
Comp. Ges. § 58, rem. 1.
13-111.. Perf. hophal from p3. The clause is to be regarded as
hypothetical or conditional. Ewald § 357 ; Ges, § 155, 4, a.
^P^n, 3rd pers. fem. sing. perf. from D-13; a strong Chaldaism, see
Ewald § 131, d; Bottcher § 907, 4, 8. Comp. n3D; Ezek. xii. 9. Note
the double forms of hiphil and hophal in this verb. Ewald remarks
that we might read nn'Jl.l, but he observes that it is not necessary
(Proph. d. A. B. vol. iii. p. 204). See Kalisch § lxvii. 3, c, and also
on the form, Ewald § 115, d; Ges. § 72, rem. 9.
nrU30, With shortening of the 0 into u. See Ges. § 27, rem. 1 ;
Bottcher § 491, rj.

Ch. vi. 1-8.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 55/
CHAPTER VI.
1. ni33ip. In this form instead of 013310 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 ;
Mic. v. 9. Comp. for such a change the instances given by Ewald
§ 212, d, y, near end.
3. 'N D'113 'D. LXX. liriroi ttoikiXoi vjapoi Symm. and Theod.
have for the third adjective ireAiSvoi, livid, Aquila for the second
KapTepoi. The Syr. omits the second adjective. Targ. have
pjppp Pl'V? 'D, horses spotted and ash-coloured; in verse 6 it also
renders D'113 by pn'SB, and in verse 7 it renders D'XDKl by PJOQp.
The LXX. translate D'^ON in verse 7 by ot xj/apoL Aq. irvppoi.
Symm. o-weo-cpiypevoL. Theod. uT\vpoi.
5. Compare Jer. xlix. 36, and Rev. vii. 1. 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 1NXJ perf. in the two instances
in which it occurs in this verse into ¦INy.1 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'SDKn
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
p'os=)«ien (Isa. lxiii. 1), after the LXX. and Syr. See p. 128.
1B'p3'l. LXX. Kal iirijiXtTrov tov TropeveaOai, Other copies Kal itfjTovv,
Kal iirifiXeirov tov it.
8. Tit? pl?Pl, i.e., the interpreting angel. pW 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, *0$!) 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. 'X £1^3-1. The perf. with vav conv. is used here
imperatively after nip?. The LXX., explaining the names in some
fashion as symbolical, render the verse : Xdj3e to. iK ttjs alxpaXia-
0"ias irapa. twv apyovTWv, Kal irapa. twv xpijo-tp.rai' ai-njs, Kal irapa. twv eVe-
yvaiKOTwv avT-qv. 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 § 112,1), T)m\ as the sense is clear; the con
struction is continued by the simple perf. with vav QK31, USed in
a future signification. Bottcher, § 974 B., seems to regard the
second also as the vav conv. In verse n 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 !"?. The LXX. and Syr. read the
singular instead of the plural 1K3 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
icrown." 12. The Targ. renders, " behold the man, Messiah will be his
name.'' LXX. dvaToXrj, as in chap. iii. 1. Syr. and Vulg. as there.
See note on that passage. On the phrase ITinriDI, 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. Ill' 73M ns 1331.
13. Nmi. See remarks on p. 150, and note on verse 15. The
LXX. omit '' 'rrriN 133' Kill. Compare the omission' of the Syr.
in verse 12. The Targ., according to the Lond. Polyglott, has
31 J13, high priest, but de Lagarde reads B»DB>D pi3; a ministering
priest. "Between them both'' See p. 153. "He shall be a priest
upon his throne, etc!' The LXX. have Kal eWat Upds iK Sefiaiv
avrov, Kal fiovXrj dprjviKr) lorai dva, piaov apcpoTepwv.
14. Syr. reads here Heldai (see note 1, p. 156). The Syr. omits
jn, and translates, " and for Josiah, the son of Zephaniah," as in
verse 10. The Targ regards in as a proper name.
Note the plural nnDl?ll with a singular verb, as the plural has a
singular meaning, as in Job. xxxi. 36. Comp. Ges. § 146, 2, with

Ch.vi.l4-vii.2.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 559
§108, 2. See also Ewald § 317, a. The Targ. translates, "and
praise shall be to Helem, etc."
The LXX., explaining the names as in verse 10, translate : 6 8e o-re'-
cjtavos eo-rat tois viropevovcri ko.1 Tots ^p?;crtp,ots afirfjs Kal rots iireyvoi-
o-koo-lv avrrjv Kat ets ^aptra vtov 5o<povtov, Kal ets \j/aXpbv iv otKra
Kvpiov. But Aq. and Theod. : T<3 'EA.ep. Kal T<5 TraySt'a Kat tu> 'I8ea.
Symm. t<3 bpwvri ivvirvia (reading EQn?) Kal t& T. ko.1 t<3 'I. Jerome
notes : " Hebraei Ananiam, Azariam, et Misael, de captivitati veni-
entes aurum et argentum in munera templi, et coronas pontificis ac
ducis attulisse commemorant ; et quem supra non dixerat Hen, id
est, gratiam, Danielem venisse cum munere, et idcirco Helem posi-
tum pro Holdai, ut ex interpretatione nominis quod dicitur somnium,
ostendatur in captivitate positum Danielem, et tres pueros, regalis
somnii mysteria cognovisse."
15. 3 133 maybe either rendered here, "build in the temple of
Jahaveh, or "build on," i.e., "be employed about the building of
the Temple." See Neh. iv. 4, 11. The temple spoken of here and
in verse 13 can only be the spiritual temple. Comp. Ps. Ixxxvii. 5.
See Tholuck, Die Proph. u. ihre Weiss, pp. 187, ff.

CHAPTER VII.
1. On the peculiarities of diction see p. 162 and pp. 166-7.
2. rWl. See note on p. 162. Bottcher regards the impf. with
vav conv. as being used here as a pluperf. (§ 979, 4).
7S HO, The LXX. render : Kat i^airiaTeiXev ets T5ai8r)X ^apaaap
Kal 'Apy3eo-eep 6 /?ao"tA.et>s Kat ot avSpes avTov i^iXdo-aoSai tov Kvpwv.
It is hard to conjecture how MTI could have been transformed
into Kat 'Ap/Jeo-eep, and the translation as a whole is unintelligible.
The Syr. translates, " and he sent to Bethel Sharozor and Rabmag,
and the king sent and his great men to pray, etc." It is difficult to
comprehend whom the translator meant by " the king." The word
of course is part of the compound proper name. The Arab, vers., con
trary to its usual custom, agrees with the Syr. and not with the LXX.
(see note 3 on p. 166). The LXX., Syr., and Targ., regard ?K HO as
the accusative of place (see Ewald § 300, b ; Gesen. § 118, 1). There
is no need to suppose that they read ?N ri'33, which is the reading
of two MSS. On the phrase to stroke the face, see note 2, p. 166.

560 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. vii. 3-7.
3. 10K7. The word, though used at the commencement of
the verse, is repeated in the middle on account of the number of
words intervening. Compare the double occurrence of 1DK1Y1 in
2 Sam. xiv. 4. So also verses 4 and 5.
1131, inf. absol. niphal. The Targ. explains this of abstaining
from pleasures. This form of the inf. absol. occurs also in Num.
xv. 31 (1131), 1 Sam. xxvii. 1 (0.?pi), and in other passages. See
Bottcher § 988, 2, b ; Ges. § 51, 2, rem. 1. On the construction see
Ewald § 280, a; Ges. § 131, 4, a; Kalisch § 97, 5. The niphal
being in this verb always reflexive, there is nothing peculiar in
the verb having no object, as Pressel seems to think. Aq. to
a.<pmpio-jjLevov. The LXX., not understanding the construction, took
T(3 n as a noun with the article, and reading, perhaps, 13 K3 in place
of 13381, render absurdly do-eXrjXvOev coSe iv T<5 pirjvl ™ Triji/rrTw to
ayCao-fxa. Some copies, Field notes, add rj vrjo-Tevo-oi, which seems like
a correction. The Targ. renders N'Tj3p?-l, " and to the scribes " in
place of "to the prophets."
Shall I weep 1 See note 1, p. 169.
D'OB' 1D3 It. For how many years ! The idea of " how many
years ?" cannot be otherwise expressed. ID (see Ewald § 330, a)
is used as an exclamation of wonder. So Gesenius in Thes. "jam,
0 quot sunt anni ! and in the last edition of his Worterbuch, "o wie
viele Jahre schon ! " Comp. Ps. cxix. 84, and the opposite in
Isa. ii. 22. The LXX. render here r\8rj 'iKava. err].
5. ':n0V, scrip, def., comp. 'JlV?!?!, Num. xx. 5. See on the con
struction, p. 171. On the repetition of the pronoun after the suffix,
compare Gen. xxvii. 34; Num. xiv. 32; Ps. ix. 7 ; Prov. xxii. 19. See
Ges. § 121, 3 ; Ewald §311, a. In confirmation of Ewald's view, as
pointed out in p. 171, comp. Job xxxi. 18, xl. 22 ; Isa. xliv. 21, lxv. 5.
11BD1, inf. abs. See note on 1131, verse 3. 111. LXX. Kat
ISov. 6. D'73X1. On the article, see Ewald § 206, a ; Ges. § 109, rem.
in the beginning.
7. D'1311TiK. See note 1, p. 172. The expression !_'?, "by
the hand of," had become so common in the signification of " by
means of," that it is here used though preceded by Kip, to call.
Comp. Hag. i. 1. ri3E". Comp. chap. i. 11. See note on p. 173.
3B" is used in the masc. singular as a predicate to the nouns which
precede, though the noun immediately preceding is feminine. This

Ch.vii.7-vUi.3-] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 561
is a rare construction. See Ewald § 339, c ; Ges. § 148, 2. Comp.
Prov. xxvii. 9.
8. See note 1 on p. 174.
9. See p. 174.
10. 13. If the copula be omitted before 13, the " widow and
orphan" are considered as forming one class, and the "stranger and
the poor " as forming another class of persons, sins against whom are
peculiarly hateful (Kohler). The sense is slightly different if the
reading lil be adopted, which is found in many MSS. and editions,
and is expressed by the LXX., Targ. and Vulg. The Syr. paraphrases
he words, " and to the poor and him that turns himself to me."
'NB»Knin. See note 1, p. 175.
11. In the translation of the Vulg., " et averterunt scapulam
recedentem," " averterunt " is to be regarded as a mistake of the
copyists for "verterunt," which latter rendering Jerome gives in his
Commentary. See Schegg.
12. The LXX. translate, quoad sensum, TDK>} by dirudrj, referring
to Kapoiav.
13. The Syr. has " because I called," instead of " as he called."
14. ElJ?:pX!:. This is the ist pers. sing. imp. piel, from 1J?D. The
K, according to Aramaic usage, has the long vowel instead of the
usual half-vowel, ~ or 77. Comp. Ges. § 23, 3, rem. 2, and see
Ges. § 52, 2, rem. 2; Ewald § 235, b ; Bottcher § 427, 3, g, § 1056,
vol. ii. p. 370 ; Kalisch § xvi. 4, d. On the chateph pathach under
the second radical, see Ges. § 10, 2, rem. ; Kalisch § lix. 9. David
Kimchi mentions that his father, Joseph Kimchi, considered the form
to be kal, instead of D1^P^ ; while Fiirst in his Concord, regards it as
a niphal; but the verb is intransitive both in kal and niphal (see
Kalisch, Gr., vol ii. p. 203, footnote.) Fiirst has, however, correctly
regarded it as a piel in his Worterbuch. llDn "IN is a reminis
cence from Jer. iii. 19, which fact explains the omission of the article.

CHAPTER VIII.
2. '3 lX3p '3p. Comp. note on chap. i. 2.
3. On the rendering of the perfects, see p. 178. Instead ol
rendering them both as presents, "/ return to Zion, and I dwell,
etc.," it is perhaps better, inasmuch as the second perfect is the perf.
O O

562 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. viii. 3-9.
with vav conv. (note the tone), to regard the first as a present-
perfect and the second as a present. The perf. with vav conv.
denotes here the definite act which is considered as the result of the
action described by the perfect preceding (see Driver § 115, Obs.).
The first perfect need not be regarded as a prophetic perfect. The
Syr. renders TOB> by " I am comforted in Zion."
riDKl VI?. The article probably qualifies N, and not the
preceding noun. The article is used before the abstract noun (see
Gesen. § 109, 3, rem. 1, c; Kalisch § 83, 11). The Syr. translates
it by " the holy city."
4. B"X. "Each one" (comp. Ezek. viii. 11; Gesen. § 124, 2,
rem. 1 ; Kalisch § 82* 9). " On account of the multitude of his days"
i.e., his old age (Job xxxii. 7). The Targ. wrongly, " and the good
works of each shall protect him from the multitude of days," or
"from the troubles of old age."
5. The verb in this verse does not agree with its nom. in gender,
as nnm, though feminine, is a feminine used in a neuter signification.
Comp. Ezek. xxiv. 10; Ps. x. 8, xi. 4, etc. See Ges. § 146, 3 ; Jer.
xxx. 19, Bottcher § 936, a. The Targ., after the analogy of 2 Sam.
vi. 5, has rendered D'pn'B'D by PlSB/p, "praising," scil. God. But
this meaning does not suit so well here.
6. N?S' '3. On the '3 at the beginning of the sentence, see
Ewald § 362, a. Oi for D3n, comp. 1 Sam. xxii. 7 ; see Ges.
§ 153, 1. The Targ. misrepresents the meaning of N7S' in this pas
sage, " as my fear was had in honour ( wDl. Ip^Pl 13) in the eyes of
the residue of this people in these days, so (pip'?. 'Pip. *|K) before
me they will be honoured."
7. Comp. on the subject matter Isa. xliii. 5.
8. "I will bring them back and they shall dwell " (comp. Isa.
lvi. 7). The LXX. render 133B1 by Kat KaTao-K^iwra.
" Twill be to them a God." Comp. Jer. xxx. 22 ; Ezek. xxxvii. 27.
9. D»i?DB'l. Note the vocative with article. See Ges. § 109, 3,
rem. 2.
TB*K. See note p. 185. The prophets here referred to were of
course different from " the former prophets," i.e., those before the
days of exile, mentioned in chap. vii. 7, 12, chap. i. 4. Hitzig, indeed,
regards the word 73'!! (the temple) in the close of the verse as a
gloss. Though the plural is used (D'K^l, the prophets), it is not
necessary to suppose that other prophets besides Haggai and Zech-

Ch. viii. 9-i4- ] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 563
ariah are referred to. The Vulg. omits 1B-X in its translation,
" qui auditis in his diebus sermones istos per os prophetarum in die
qua fundata est domus Domini, etc." Hitzig observes that the LXX.
appear from their translation, dtp' ov raKo8o>ijTat, to have read "13310
10. The suffix in n|3'N( which expresses the predicate, agrees
with the genitive 10131, instead of the governing noun. See
Ewald § 3 1 7 c, who classes this case with the examples in 1 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 13B» is properly speaking of no
gender, and that the masc. !'!3 was used on account of t:iNl im
mediately preceding.
TS1. Not " the affliction," as the A. V., after LXX., Targ., and
Vulg., but rather with the Syr., "the oppressor."
n?B^!, 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 X. Compare K*!.3T^!, 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 T$, but perhaps rather, with Keil,
" I drove each against the other," or, " / let loose, etc.," comp. Prov.
vi. 14, 19, xvi. 28.
11. '11 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. 21 may be cited, where the
pl.l'B' is indirectly called 1?!J., " a seed."
14. 'non3. Our A. V., following the LXX. Kat oi penvorjo-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
, -» 7
N? for emphasis. The Syr. has, according to Lond. Polygl., Auaoijo
" and I turned back," but Lee's edition prefixes the negative particle.

564 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. viii. 15-23.
15. TiOOT T13B'; "I have again purposed" (see Ges. § 142, 3^;
Kalisch § 103, 2 ; Ewald § 285 b). The full form 'nDDT, instead of
'ilbt (Jer. iv. 28), may be an indication of a late date. See Bott
cher § I II 8, I a. The LXX. have ovrras irapaTCTaypai Kal Siavevorj-
pm, perhaps reading TI3BTI.
16. See note 1, p. 189.
17. See note 2, p. 189.
19. The LXX. insert after D'OID Kal eitppavOrjo-eo-Oe. See also on
the verse the remarks on p. 191.
20. 'U1 TB*N 11?. See note 1 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 13? is separated from T2*N by the dis
junctive yethibh.
21. UN '3K1'. LXX. KaroiKOiWes 7reVre 7roAets.
"]1?1 1373. See on the construction note 2, p. 192.
13?K. See Ges. § 128, 1 ; Kalisch § 94, 11.
22. Q'OIVl? D'13l. LXX Wvrj iroXXd. They render Dltt? also by
7roAv in Gen. xviii. 18.
23. See note on p. 193. 16W. That. 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 will 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 ~X> npB* (Num. xiii. 2,
ff.), 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 !

Ch. ix. i.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 565

CHAPTER IX.
Stahelin 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.
1. NB>D. See remarks on p. 202. The LXX. have Xrjpfi.a, an
oracle (see Schleusner), which the Itala always renders by assumptio.
So here, chap. xii. 1, and also in Jer. xxiii. 33, ff. ; Nah. i. 1 ; Hab. i. 1;
Mai. i. 1 ; Lam. ii. 14. Aquila, app,a, a weight, a burden. The LXX.
elsewhere render it opao-ts (Isa. xiii. 1) ; opap.a (Isa. xxi. 1), and
prjpa (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. 1 it translates it by
" vision." On Hadrach, see p. 202, ff. The catalogue of Syrian cities referred
to on p. 206 is also given by Schrader in his lately published work
on Keilinschriften und Geschichtsforschung. 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. 119-123.
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, Keilinschriften
11. 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^U ( Arab.-Heb. ' KlSn^K 13DO), the green
mosque,and hence it has no connexion with inn.
'131 pB>Dll. The Targum paraphrases, " and Damascus shall be
turned to be of the land of the house of the Shekinah," and so the
clause respecting Hamath in verse 2. lini3D. The LXX. render
here Ovo-Ca airrov. 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 nrpp.
The Syr. has similarly oixojoo- Aquil. has Kat iv Aapao-K<a dvdVavo-ts
airov (see pp. 206, 207).
" For to Jahaveh will be the eye of man, etc" LXX. correctly,
quoad sensum, 816V1 Kvptos i<popa dvOpdnrovs k.t.X. Syr. j.jip2.X>. ^>_^2o
l*o |«i .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 (TW£) 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 OTtf instead of OIK, in which
case the phrase DlK pi? 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.
n , though he confesses the construction is hard.
2. 131 nD!"D31. LXX. Kat iv 'Hpa.0 iv rots optots a&Tfjs, Typo's
Kal 2. They seem simply to have translated quoad sensum. 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, Kat-ye 'Hp.a0 bpioOerrjo-erai iv airrj. Symm.,
Kat hi m.pa.6 Trj opopovtrrj, Kal Tvpra Kat Sidoji't.
4. For '31K many MSS. read nil', which Henderson would adopt.
n3B>!1|. Owing to the diversity of meanings of the verb ET 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
drive away, as well as to possess, but also to impoverish. Hence
Ewald's translation, " the Lord will impoverish her." !?'! or ?n;
means the ditch of the fortress, or its bastion, as Is. xxvi. 1 ; Lam.
ii. 8. If the word be taken from ?!D 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.
8wap.1v avrrjs.
5. On verses 5-8, comp. the very similar passage in Zeph. ii. 4-7.
K1B. So Baer on authority of MSS. for Nil, impf. apoc. or jussive
of INI. On the form and the tone milra, see Ges. § 75, rem. 3, b ;
Kalisch § lxvii. 15, 3 ; 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 K!B and K"}'fl, so also in Ps. xl. 4, Iii. 8 ; Isa.
xii. 5. 'Vf)\. Ewald regards this as a jussive for ^nril., the verb
>11 being one of those which do not readily change the 't into —,
Ewald § 224, b, at end, but Bottcher (IV. 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 13N1. followed by 3B>ri &6l. The imp. kal. of
this verb is considered by Gesenius to have two forms, >inj and
^m Fiirst in his Wbrterb. regards <"n' as a hiphil, though with
the signification of kal. In his Concord, he follows the opinion of
Gesenius. K"3in from K13, Ewald § 122, e ; Olshausen § 255,
i. p. 566 ; Kalisch § lxvii. A, 3, 4. Gesenius in the Thes. takes it as
a hiphil of E>3'. The meaning would be the same. npsp for
103P from I33P (for 0330, stem t333), expectation, hope, pathach
shortened into seghol like yV£$ for TTP3N, see Ges. § 27, rem. 2, a ;
Ewald § 88, d, § 160, d; 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 iirl tq> irapairTwpaTi airijs,
as if they read nspip, but perhaps they intended to give merely the
sense of the passage. 3BT1 i6. See note on p. 213.
Mr. Chamberlain maintains that this prophecy of Zechariah was
not fulfilled 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 (1 Mace. x. 86), and were afterwards friendly to the
Jews (1 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. TT.PP. Seep. 216. The word only occurs in this passage and
in Deut. xxiii. 3 (E.V. verse 2). It is most probably derived from
Tt», unused in Hebrew, but equivalent to '.SJZ 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 TT Dl?p, " 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 eV -n-dpvijs, Vulg., de scorto natus, and so the other versions.
LXX. here dXXoyevets ; Aq., Symm., and Theod., pap^r/p. Vulg.,
"et sedebit separator in Azoto." See Ges. Thes., 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'l is used in both significations) " who shall be
left among them, even they shall be joined to the people of our
God." niin'3 ^K3. The term tfb$ 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 *!?$, a thousand, and
means the head of a thousand, yCXidpyrj%, not fyvXdpyryi. The word
is also used in the signification of friend, which does not suit here,
See Delitzsch, Genesis, ^te Ausg, on chap, xxxvi. p. 439, and Kohler.
v. Ortenberg proposes unnecessarily to change 1^8 into *!?**. And
Ekron as the Jebusite. See p. 219. The Syr. renders, "and Ekron
shall be as Hebron." The Targ., " and Ekron shall be filled with
the house (family) of Israel as Jerusalem."

Ch. ix. 8,9-] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 569
8. TV3? is "on behalf oi my house" (comp. the prep, in Ps.
cxxi. 1). n3-VD is intended by the Masorites to be regarded as
equivalent to N3tfp (which is the reading of some MSS.) or K3X jp,
not " without an army," but " against " or " on account of an army."
Bottcher (IV. Aehrenlese) unnecessarily proposes to read '"13-vp (1 Sam.
xiv. 12) a garrison, considering the phrase to mean : " I encamp
myself (with my host of angels) in my house as an entire garrison,"
i.e., like a regular garrison. Very similarly Blayney and Newcome :
" I will encamp about my house (with) an army." The fem. n3-vp
is only found in 1 Sam. xiv. 1 2, elsewhere in that chapter the mascu
line noun 3-VD is used. Wellhausen would, in 1 Sam. xiv. 1 2, on the
authority of the LXX. (who read in that verse, as in all the other
verses in that chapter, Meo-o-a/3), change the feminine into the mascu
line form, which is used throughout that narrative. But Bottcher
(whom Thenius in his second edition follows) regards the fem. form as
there expressly chosen for grammatical reasons, because the meaning
is: "then called the men (from many points) of the whole garrison,"
the meaning of whole being expressed by the fem. form. See Boucher's
N. Aehrenlese on Gen. xxxviii. 18, 25, and his Lehrb., § 642, /?. The
LXX. have here dvdcrrrjpa toS prj 8iairope.veo-9ai ; Symm., koiXvwv
o-Tparetas trapdyovTO's ; Vulg., " ex his qui militant mihi ';" Syr., "and
I will cause a commander (]Zca*o) to encamp about my house. ' The
Targum paraphrases the whole passage, " and I will make the
Shekinah of my glory to dwell in the house of my sanctuary, and
the strength of my arm of power shall be like a wall of fire
encircling it." (n^ *1P_P, de Lagarde ; l^> *|p-1», Lond. Polygl.)
&W3. The LXX. render the word here, and in chap. x. 4, by
efeAawrav, and Aquila, in chap, x., by dcrirpdo-o-mv. So Vulg. in both
places exactor. See pp. 222 and 272.
On the land Palastav of the Assyrian inscriptions, see Schrader
Keilinschrift u. das A. T, p. 25, and his Keilinschriften u. Geschichts-
forschung, p. 123.
9. '^'1, milra. The imperative is here accented, contrary to
rule, on the ultimate; so 'IW, chap. xiii. 7. So n-11? nw in the first
sentence of Jud. v. 12, while the second two imperatives are regular,
n.-ll? 'l-W. So Isa. li. 9 (see Delitzsch) and '11*, Isa. xxi. 2. See
Bottcher § 1134; Ewald § 228, d; Ges. § 72, rem. 2; Kalisch §lxv. 15.
Win. LXX., incorrectly, Kfjpvo-ae. Some copies have dAaXa^ov.

570 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 9.
Justin Martyr combines both, dXdXa^ov, Krjpvo-o-e, in Dial, cum Try-
phone, 53, but in Apol. i. 35, he has only Kypvo-o-e.
On account of v being preceded by N13' it is better to regard
it with Kohler as put for ip.?N (1 Sam. ix. 12 ; 2 Chron. xxviii. 9;
Job xxxiii. 22). Others, as Keil, take it as a dat. comm., "for thine
advantage." 1?E13. LXX. o-d>t,wv, actively. So Syr. and Vulg., which is in
correct. The participle niphal of this verb occurs only as a passive.
The reflexive sense which the niphal often has will not help us here
(see p. 234). '31?. LXX. -rrpav<s, and similarly Targ. and Syr.
Theod. iiraKovmv, but the Vulg. has pauper. Symm. 7TTra^os. The
latter is correct. The word '3? is properly a passive of the form
7'Pp (Ges. § 84, 5) for "3.1?, hence its proper meaning is afflicted.
1^1?, on the other hand, is active, lowly, meek. The distinction be
tween the two has not always been observed, but is correctly given in
the last edition of Gesenius' Wbrterb. by Miihlau and Volck. The
k'ri has often O^iO,, the afflicted, in cases where the k'thibh has E'13Jj(
the lo7uly. This is the explanation given by the Sohar on Num. fol.
85, col. 332, "poor and riding upon an ass." So on Deut. fol. 117,
col. 465, " the Messiah ben Joseph is poor and rides upon an ass;"
and Bereshith Rabba cap. 75, fol. 74, col. 2, etc. See Schottgen, De
Messia, p. 42, and Wiinsche, Leiden des Messias, pp. 50, 70, 71, 100, 105.
ni3hs."|3. Compare the similar expressions ni'IS. TBS (Jud. xiv. 5),
D'-Tl? yo'-p (Gen. xxxvii. 31). The plural is the plural of kind, 'K"t3
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, ttuIXos j/e'os. Aq., Symm., and Theod.,
more literally, iraiAos vlbs ovd&wv, 7rraXos dws 6Va8os, or irraXos vlbs ovov.
As regards the quotation of this verse in the New Test., in Matt.
xxi. 5, the curare ttj OvyaTpl %iwv with which it is introduced is gene
rally thought to be taken from Isa. lxii. 1 1, where those words are
found in the LXX. The quotation in St. John xii. 15 is introduced
with the words, pr) (poj3ov, which are not found in either the LXX. or
Heb. Owing to the words taken from Isaiah, some MSS. in Matthew
add rjo-aiov after irpofprp-ov, while others add ^a^apiov. Bohl has some
ingenious remarks in defence of his theory that the Greek of St.
Matthew is a translation of the Palestinian Volksbibel made from the
LXX., which we cannot do more than refer to. They are not, in
our opinion, at all convincing.

Ch.ix. io-i2.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 571
10. See p. 240, ff. Instead of aai-'i-njjni., as in the usual text,
where the tone syllable of the perf. with vav conv. is lost by the
makkeph, Baer edits ^1311. with darga. The Syr. renders the verb
in the 3rd pers. " and he will cut off, etc." 'I? 0*bz> 1311. See
p. 247, and note. LXX. render Kat irXiJtfos Kat etp?^ ig iQvwv.
Schleusner conjectures that they read 131 or 31, which is very doubt
ful. Aquila, Kat XaXiyo-et dpfjvrjv rots e'6Veo-i. '131 WDl. LXX. Kat
Karap^et voarciiv eras OaXdo-cnji Kal irorap,S>v 8ieK/3oXas yijs, reading Q.'P
for D;P. See p. 248.
11. T1N"D3 has been diversely explained : first " as regards thee,"
as contrasted with the heathen. Such a contrast scarcely exists here,
though mention is made of peace being proclaimed to the nations,
who are only spoken of in order to point out the wide extent of
the Messiah's kingdom. Oi may be regarded as placed first for
emphasis, and fl$ expressed in order to strengthen the suffixes
either in "|1V13 D13 or TTDX, in accordance with Ewald § 308, a,
§ 309, b, ;§ 352, b ; but in the former case it would imply that the
covenant referred to is contrasted with some other covenant, or the
prisoners of Israel contrasted with other prisoners of a different
nation. Yet neither of these can be thought of. Maurer would
connect Oi with the verb 'nipB*, "I will even send forth thy
captives," in which case £>X would be regarded as used absolutely.
This is the view adopted by Kohler. See note on p. 243. 03 some
times refers not to the word which immediately follows, but to a word
more remote in the sentence. See instances in Gesenius' Wbrterb.,
and Ges. § 151, 3. It is quite possible to suppose, with Hengsten
berg, that IjlK'DJ stands for "even thou," as Dl'l D3 in verse 12, and
the reference would then be to the miserable state of Zion, but not
necessarily as contrasted with a former state.
'J?n^B» 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 suffixes
in the inflexion of the regular verb, and often occurs in Jeremiah and
Ezekiel, as 'Jp^n 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.
I2. '131 131B>. LXX. KaQrj0-£0-6c iv oxvpoipaai Se'o-p.tot ttjs avvaywyrjs

572 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. ix. 12, 13.
(connecting llpl with UpO in the sense of gathering together, comp.
Gen. i. 10, and the niphal of the verb in Jer. iii. 17), Kat mnX p,tas
i^aepas TrapoiKecrias o"ov 8tirXa dvTaTroSrao-ra <roi. Kohler conjectures
that they read '131 13B>p 1-13D DI'Tlini., but perhaps they in
tended merely to give an interpretation of the passage. The Syr.
> o 7 0 -* > 7 07 0* 7-* 70-* -*
,oo\ Jjj ^.^a <_*yZ Jcoj r*i i^Nxo )Aanio» j^aa>] jim»»o 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 "
(N3i?T4Bi> piSDpi KJI'PS), " captives imprisoned " <=V eXm'8t (Rom.
viii. 21). !T¥3 is a aira£ Xey. properly meaning "steepness."
Comp. 111*3, chap. xi. 2, and ni-l¥3 iptl, 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 113
(verse 11), or "pit," the flat lands of Babylon. Ewald suitably
renders it by " the dry land." See also p. 251.
n^P. Bottcher would render impersonally, " one announces,"
comparing Isa. xvii. 5, xxi. n. 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 2-1 from Dl'l, and connect it
with 13B'0, treating T3D DIM as a parenthetical sentence : " I will
even — to-day I declare it— render double to thee." See p. 252.
13. '131 Ton '3. Perf. as future. See p. 252, note 2. IB/p
at the end of the sentence is to be viewed as in apposition to
" Judah," not as an accusative governed by the following '0N?P, as
Hengstenberg. No doubt the punctuators have placed a zaqeph
qaton over 1111', but no other accentuation was possible; and
ncp is separated from 'IN^D by the disjunctive yethibh. The con
struction of the first sentence would otherwise be too harsh. ntfp
must, however, be supplied as the object of TINtD ¦ one member of a
sentence is often thus supplied from another. To suppose, as Hitzig
does, an ellipsis of 'l'3, and to regard it as equivalent to the phrase
in 2 Kings ix. 24, Exod. xxviii. 17, is too harsh. Our translation
is that of Ewald, Maurer, Kohler, and Keil. The phrase nB»p N^p

Ch. ix. 13-15.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 573
is only used here. The explanation of Gesenius, in his Thes. p. 788,
after Schultens, as if the phrase were put for nB/j?! •q'll1? N;>p, 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." 'JYOBl. The LXX. paraphrastically, Kat i^Xa^o-ra o-e, " 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 Egypt, )1' '370, " 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. Ill' '31X. The LXX. render K^ptos travTOKpdrmp, as if it were
niN3X 111'. Syr. jZey/to \Jx> " Lord of lords." |D'D D3 1711.
LXX. iropeverai. iv o-aXra dVeiXiys aiiTov, perhaps reading, as Kohler
suggests, 10'X (=inp'X) instead of IP'S. Syr. " he will go forth in a
whirlwind to the south," taking Tl as the accusative of place.
15. 173X1 and IE'331. Perfects as futures in lively narration.
On this verse see p. 258 and p. 259 note, also p. 260.
131 1B031. LXX. Kat Kara^rao-ODO-tv avTovs, k.t.X., "and they shall
overwhelm them with sling-stones." Syr. " and they shall subdue the
Stones with a sling." '131 101 llBl. LXX. Kai eWoi/Tat ariroiis (Ls
otvov, omitting 101. Some copies (see Field's Hexapla) add t6
atp,a airSiv. The Syr. seems to have regarded 101 as a noun,
0 7 7 0 1. > 1
rendering (pcu, ^.j ^QX> voAhjo "and they shall drink confusion
as wine." '131 '03 1K701. The LXX. have Kat ttX^o-owi ras </>taXas
ras 6vo-Lao-rqpiov, omitting thus 1*1J3. This translation perhaps
manifests a desire to tone down the strong figures of the passage,
which is exhibited even by the Vulg. in its rendering, " et devorabunt,
et sufficient lapidibus funds (regarding l?7p '33K as an instrumental
accusative) ; et bibentes inebriabuntur quasi a vino, et replebuntur
ut phialse, et quasi cornua altaris." More especially is this tendency
observable in the Targum, which renders : " The Lord of hosts shall
pity them, and they shall rule the peoples, and they shall slay them,
and shall consume the remnant of them just as those who cast
stones with a sling, and they shall spoil their riches (!in'D33), and
they shall be satisfied with them, ((1130 J-H?3^'.l.), as those who drink
wine, and their soul shall be full of delights (J'pUSjH) as a bowl
is full of meal and oil (nB/p-1 Jl^-ID, but de Lagarde has ri?D), 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" (Nn3ip 7113 70 intpi).
!!M03. "As (if it were) wine;" see Ewald § 282, e, § 221, a.
16. 101? JSS3. " His people as a flock." 10J? is not to be regarded
as the genitive governed by |K¥3, but as the accusative of the object.
See on this verse, note on p. 260.
17. On no as an interjection of wonder, see Ewald § 330, a.
See on this verse the note on p. 261. Luther renders, "then what
have they yet good above others, and what have they yet beautiful
above others ? Corn that produces youths, and wine that produces
maidens." But this translation is indefensible. LXX. Kat otvos eira-
Sta£wi' ets irap6evovs, "and wine smelling fragrantly to the virgins."
The translation of the stem 3-13 (or, as Schleusner assumes 333)
given by Buxtorf (Lex. Heb.), "shall make the virgins eloquent,"
cannot be justified.
CHAPTER. X.
1 . '» nj?3. The LXX. render nj>3 Ka6' Zpav, and explain '0, which
means the latter rain, by irpinpov Kal oi//ljji.ov.
D'T'tn ,1B»J? 111'. The LXX. render Kvptos eVoiV* <pavTao-tas, "the
Lord made the appearances," i.e., as Vossius (ap. Schleusner), the signs
of coming rain, 'n are "the lightnings," but the Targum renders the
word by I'fjll, "the winds," i.e., those which accompany the thunder-
storm, and the Syr. | m . m- " the drops."
DB>3"1DD, rain 0f heavy-shower, torrents of rain. Compare the
reverse expression 100 DB»3, Job xxxvii. 6, and also IBimpi.K Dan.
xii. 2, tl.'n O'P, ps. xl. 3. The Targ. does not express Om ; the
Syr. renders "the early rain," LXX. vo-ov x&p*pw6v. Orb. One
would have expected 037, which is the reading of several MSS.
and the Syr., but this is no doubt an emendation.
B»N7. See Ges. § 124, 2, rem. 1 ; Kalisch § 82, 9.
2. D'BlBn. See p. 267. LXX. ot d?rocp0€yyo'p.evoi suppl. dvSpt-
avTes or etKdVes. Syr. ^.0^1 the learned, the skilled. Targ. here
X'ppS 107s, the worshippers of images. See on this verse p. 268
and note 4 there. PN. The Targ. renders D3JK, violence, oppression.
~§$ -lip. The tone in '1 is thrown back on account of the great
distinctive closely following.
15?1 t'K '3. LXX. 8toVt ovk i)v tao-ts, reading N&l for 1W1. Aq.,

Ch.x. 3-7-] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 575
Symm. and Theod. Troipr)v. Targ. " because there is no king," see p.
270. The Targ. similarly renders D'l?liT?l? in v. 3, "against the kings."
3. See note on p. 271.
4. 13DD. The Syr. takes this throughout the verse as a plural.
On the verse, see p. 272. 13 B, corner-stone, tower, prince, chief.
Compare Jud. xx. 2 ; 1 Sam. xiv. 38 ; Isa. xix. 13. The Targ.
renders 1'3?P, ¦•<¦ his king." The LXX., whose translation here
affords little sense, give it as a verb, Kal air aiTov eVe/3Xe^e. They
render 11' 13DD, Kat air avTov era£e. Cappellus conjectures that they
read TWJ from nn, but this is very doubtful. Targ. n'D'E'p l'3.p,
" from his Messiah." The translation by the LXX. of '0 riB»p is also
strange, to£ov iv 6vp<S, reading according to Cappellus ipip. The
Targ. renders this expression l'31p *flpB, the strength of his war," the
archers being the most important part of an army. 'U1 NS» 13DD.
The Targ. renders K113 '11D31S 73 J13in'. I'jp, "by him shall all
his rulers be magnified together ; " Syr. " and from them shall all
their princes proceed together." See pp. 273 ff.
5. 'D3 D'D13 '33 -I'll. The subject of the verb, is Judah, referred
to in verse 3 (comp. verse 7). D'pB is the participle kal, and the
form is generally viewed as indicating an intransitive signification
(comp. vj? D'pip, 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, e, § 1132, 9, /; Ewald § 151, b ; Olshausen § 164, d;
Gesen. § 72, rem. 1. On the other hand, Kalisch regards such
forms as intransitive (§ lxv. 1, 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 nix-in 0'P|,
and riot as here, Tl 0'P3. The rendering of the Vulg., " concul-
cantes lutum viarum in pradio," 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 nTi13B'in see note on p. 276. TB^3. "As if" Comp.
Isa. xxix. 8 ; Job x. 19. On the perfect D'nrano, expressing the
contingent occurrence, see Driver § 18.
7. D'lBK-1'11. Compare verse 5. On the const, with a plural verb

576 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. *. 7-xi. 2.
see Ges. § 146, 1; Kalisch § 77, 6. LXX., Kat eowT-at <Ls paxnral
tov "Etppaip. J" 103. See chap. ix. 15. 7,3}. See note 1 on p. 277.
8. IplB'S. LXX. o~qp.ai.vw Aq., Symm. and Theod. o-upifa>. On
the form of the verb, see Driver § 49 ; Ges. § 128, 1. See note 2
on p. 278. '131 1311. Targum incorrectly, 1139.' tll'.^V TDK '1 XD3 ftip.n,
" and they shall be multiplied as it is was said of them they should
be multiplied." See note 1, p. 278.
9. Seep. 285. '131 vni. LXX., iKOpiij/ovo-i to. Tewa avruiv, and
so Syr.
10. See on this verse p. 287, and pp. 290, ff. Orb N¥D' K71.
Comp. Josh. xvii. 16. The verb is used impersonally, or some such
word as Elpp is understood. LXX., Kat oi pr] iiroXeitpOy ii airSiv
ouoe ets.
11. See pp. 294, ff. 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. '131 11X D'3,
07 -* 7 7 O O 9 O y 7 ¦»>
LXX., iv OaXdcrcrrj crTcvfj. Syr. jv-w~» yaouo jj-Aoj jV.-~> j^iijo
)12£ . " 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
(PP3) shall be done to them, and great acts (pT133:-l), as have been
done to their fathers when they passed through the sea (de Lagarde
reads N0'3 |11131?D3, the Lond. Polygl. omits the first word), and
they shall see the punishment ('D n-13in-lB3) of their enemies, as then
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" ('"$.;). The LXX. render TIN; 'D by
To. /Sd6rj irorapwv.
UK'S. LXX., 'Ao-o-upiW ¦ 'AXXos * /3rjpaTL£6vro>v ; perhaps this
latter rendering is that of Aquila, but see Field's Hexapla.
12. The LXX., instead of HiTO, have iv Kvpuo 6e<j> airuv.
CHAPTER XI.
2. K'113, cypress. On the rendering of the Syr., see Ges. Thes.
See p. 300 and note there. 7B3 '3. Observe the use of the perfect
after '3, for the event though future was deemed certain. See
Driver § 14, /?.

Ch. xi. 2-5.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 577
11X31 1J?'. "The inaccessible forest" On the use of the article
before the adjective alone, see Ges. § in, 2, a ; Kalisch § lxxxiii.
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 l'V31 probably arose from a wish to correct this
unevenness. l'¥3 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. n771. The —. is to keep the consonants
more apart and distinct (Bottcher § 205, e).
4. 13111-|«X. Seep. 305. Comp. Ps. xliv. 23 (E.V. 22). The Syr. in
this verse and in verse 7, renders the expression by " the lean sheep."
5. TDK' jl'13Dl. The verb is used distributively, hence singular.
So also in the next sentence 71»n' N7. IBtyNl, shortened for
TB>J?K1. in short lively diction. See Ewald § 73, b, § 235, b; Ols
hausen § 78, a ; Kalisch § iii. 4 ; Ges. § 23, 2, b ; Bottcher § 428, 4.
¦IDE'S). N7l:. "And they do not feel themselves guilty'' Comp. Jer.
ii. 3, 1. 6, 7 ; Hos. v. 15. Dl'l?!. It is strange that here we have
the masc. suffix, though the feminine precedes and follows. Some
MSS. have the fem., but this is evidently a correction, just as some
MSS. have the masc. suffix instead of |n'3p in the beginning of
the verse, and Or\bo instead of P'7y at the close. The change
seems best explained, with Kohler, by supposing that the prophet for
the moment thought of the people symbolised by the sheep, though
he immediately afterwards continued his allegory. The "shepherds"
are rightly explained by the Targum as the rulers. Schrader notes
on this, in his Keilinschriften und das A.T, that " shepherd " occurs
in the Assyrian inscriptions in the sense of " prince." Thus the
"true shepherd " is one of the epithets assumed by Sargon, and ri'u
(-1171) is used frequently as an attribute of gods and kings, as well as
the abstract word ri'ut (n-15?l), government. Comp. the Homeric
7rotp:eVes Xawv. Kimchi [strangely regards the plural in this passage
as the plur. excell. referring to God, as Ps. cxlix. 2 ; Job. xxxv. 10 ;
and McCaul seems to approve of this exposition, which, however,
Would only introduce confusion into the passage.
]1'75?. This reading is the one mentioned by the Masora. The read
ing Dl'7l? found in some MSS. is a correction. See Baer's edition.
P P

578 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. 6.
6. '131 K'VDD. " J am delivering 'over." The participle here may
be best rendered as a present, that is as a present indicating an
action which continues for a considerable time. The breaking up of
the peace of the nations seems to be referred to (see p. 307). On
the expression, compare 2 Sam. iii. 8. 'Kl'ns inn31. Syr., wrongly,
"and they shall divide the land." '1 1'3 B"X. On this expression
see Ewald § 301, b\ Ges. § 124, 2, rem. 1 ; Kalisch § 82, 9. See
also on this verse, note on p. 307.
7. )KX1 "3J? p7. The LXX. translate ets ttjv Xavaavirqv, reading
pK H'3I?337. Burger, after Fliigge, proposes to read JNX1 "31?337,
explaining it, "les marchands ou courtiers du troupeau." The Vulg.,
propter hoc (namely, that which was stated in verses 5, 6), 0 pauperes
gregis, and the Syr., " on account of the congregation of the sheepf take
the p? erroneously as a preposition. The Masora parva says that
p7 is feminine, i.e., stands for p?. So in our A-.V., but this is
arbitrary. Kimchi translates, "in truth," "truly," which meaning
the word never elsewhere bears, and so Dathe, Rosenmiiller, and
others, with the margin of the E.V. Ewald notes that this particle,
so frequently used by the prophets to denote the consequence of
something mentioned before, is here used in the middle of the sen
tence. The new thought introduced lies, in his opinion, in the ex
pression 'XI "31?, and he consequently thinks that the " therefore "
used in this uncommon manner is more clearly expressed by " yea
verily." The p7 "therefore" can scarcely connect the clause with
the statements of verses 5 and 6 (Hitzig, Hengstenberg), as in that
case it would have stood at the beginning of the verse, nor even with
the Divine command as given in verse 4 (Maurer), but must rather
be connected with the JNXl "31?, as Ewald prefers (§ 353, b). The
latter designation expresses that which is a logical deduction from the
very name just given them, 131in JKX-ns -} 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. ThetNX! "31? 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 explain the expression of the
whole of the people. JNXn in this case does not stand for the

Ch. xi. 7-] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 579
13111 |nx, 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).
ni7pD. Fem. plur. of 7pp, a staff. The stem is not 7pD, as Gesenius
and Fiirst give, but rather 77p, to be in motion. The form is like
pB>P from PPV, or more exactly like yip from JWl. See Dietrich's
edition of Ges. Wbrterb., 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
nbpjp '3.B;, while five MSS. have the fem. m^po 'py'. See Bottcher
§ 650, 1, and § 656.
BJ?3. See note p. 308. LXX., KaXXos, Aq. and Sym. eiirpeirua.
"inK?-!, instead of the ordinary inxp-1. Cases of this punctuation
in the abs. state are rare. See Ewald § 267, b ; Olshausen § 161, a ;
Bottcher § 850, 2. But Kohler prefers to consider the word here as
in the construct state before DID understood. Gesenius also views
the form as the construct state used for closer connexion (Ges.
§ "6, 6).
D'73n. LXX., Aq., and Symm., o-xotWpa, punctuating D731.,
crxoivio-pa being a rope, or a piece of ground measured therewith,
0 7 1 .
an allotment. Syr. }ki~, a rope. D731, 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'ltfV in
chap. iii. 7. ?3n is, however, transitive, whence 3'.73l is properly
" binders," as Gesenius renders it. D'731 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 DM is inter
preted by some to mean " pleasantness ," so the staff D'73l has also
been interpreted to signify "woes," as the plural of abstraction (see
Ewald § 179, a), or, as Ewald there renders it, harmony, unanimity.
This variety of meaning arises from the fact that the verb 73n pr0-

5 So ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. 7, 8.
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.
8. See on this verse, pp. 312-321. in3Xl. "And L cut off."
The verb properly means &<pavit,eiv. Comp. on the meaning ot
the verb, Exod. xxiii. 23 ; 1 Kings xiii. 34 ; 2 Chron. xxxii. 2 1 ;
Ps. lxxxiii. 3. The form of the verb in the first person is seldom
shortened with vav conversive, as here (Ewald § 232, g; Kalisch
§ xlix. 3).
D'l?!! nB»7B' m. This perhaps ought to be translated rather the
three shepherds, than " three of the shepherds " (comp. 1 Sam. xx. 20 ;
Isa. xxx. 26), but the article might be used to qualify the genitive
alone (see Ges. § in, 1, 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 D13 and 0B>B3 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 °3ns in the next verse. Moreover it is, as Keil
has observed, impossible to take the imperfect with vav. conv.
(IXpni) in the sense of a pluperfect, preceded as it is by the
same verbal form (H3N1) ;n this verse, and followed by a similar,
TO'Kl, 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 IXpni by /Japw07?o-eTat, " will
be distressed (or, provoked) against them." See Schleusner.
7n3 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., '3n^-133 nxpT JinnB'BSl 71?, "because
their soul rejected (loathed) my service;" Syr., "and even their
7 7
souls, t-».X\ ^,ai, barked against me ; " LXX., at i/ai^ai aiTtiiv
iirmpvovTO irr ipi (at. ex. iiropevoVTo). Differently Aquila, eWpKao-ev
iv ipoL (Vulg. variavit in me.) Symm., rjKpao-ev iv ipoL
•^3 seems in Chald. and later Heb. to be used in the sense of
to be ripe, properly, to break forth out of the bud, to burst it, to cast
it off, and hence to reject (see Levy's Neuhebr. u. Chald. Wbrterb.

Ch. xi.8-ii.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 581
iiber die Talmudim u. Midraschim). 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, 7l?3, as Geiger has maintained
in his Urschrift, 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 Dy-73p -H3»i
'131, and the LXX. translation, Kat eVarafav avrbv Ke/?Xaap. Kat iQavd-
rracrav au-roV, Kat e/?ao-t'Xei)crei' o.vt aiTov, where KefiXadp. is just a mis
understanding for Dl?'73p, before the people, or rather before people, i.e.,
publicly, as Bottcher as shown. See Thenius' Comm. on the passage.
The word is very variously written in the Greek MSS. See Pusey's
note on p. 509 of his Minor Prophets. Ewald has inserted this
imaginary monarch in his Geschichtstabelle I We have, however,
erred in stating on p. 320 that Ewald's conjecture has been adopted
by no critic of eminence except Dean Stanley, as the same view
has been taken by Fiirst in his Gesch. der 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 inpn and nil??! 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 signification (Gesen.
§ 107, 3, d; comp. Kalisch § 77, 10), The flock is elsewhere referred
to in this verse (D?!*?) and in the preceding (D13, DB>B3_) as mas
culine, because the people symbolised thereby were uppermost in
the mind of the prophet (comp. also verse 5).
mijn IBOVIX IBW. See Ges. § 124, 2, rem. 4; Kalisch § 82, 12.
On the subject matter of the verse, compare Jer. xv. 1, 2, xix. 9 ;
Deut. xxviii. 53.
10. n?«l. "And I broke it" The LXX., who render the
imperfects with vav conv. in this verse as futures, translate here,
airopptyu), I will cast it away (so also in verse 14), as the broken
staff was no doubt cast away.
11. The LXX. render this verse, Kat yvracrovTat ot Xavavatot to.
irpo'^ara to. <pvXao-cr6pevd poi StoVt Xoyos Kvpiov iari. Compare their
rendering of verse 7. '131 p 1J?T1. Compare Jer. xxxii. 8. '3 V!$)
Nil I.IDI'131 Similar expressions occur in a good sense in chap. ii. 13,

532 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xi. n, 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. 323, ff. As to Hitzig's suggestion to take 'fllX
as a noun with suffix, as observed in note p. 326, it may be further
noted that the me after D'lDtJTt could not otherwise be expressed,
'TDK' 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 Gebhardt, of Halle, the editor of the Grcecus Venetus (Leipzig,
1875), is at 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, Delitzsch, Keim, and Hilgenfeld. But see
Schiirer's Neutest. Zeitgeschichte.
12. 17pB"l. The LXX. here, as in other places, render this verb
by LOTT/pi. 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 d'B'X'. On the construction, see Ewald § 287, i; 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 Emunah, pub
lished by Wagenseil in his Tela Ignea. 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 Dv31, which he renders destroyers (after
Dv?np, 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, Zechariah, 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. 1XV1. LXX., Symm., to xu>viVTVPli0V- Itala, conflatorium
(see pp. 330, ff). Aquila, correctly, 6 7rXao~n7s. Vulg., statuarius.
Syr. j].^ A*o, the treasury. Targ., *y31PS, which Buxtorf ren
ders treasurer, and has here that meaning. Levy (Neuheb. u. Chald.
Wbrterb.) maintains that this title means president, being compounded
of IP, with prosthetic N, and 73 i.q.; lord of all, like Katholikos, and
indicates a priestly office which was sometimes distinct from the
treasurer, and sometimes of higher dignity. Riickert and Ewald
(§ 45, d) understand the word here as an Aramaism for ixitf,
treasury. It has also been explained as a mistake for 1X1K (von
Ortenberg), or as another form of that word (Hitzig) ; or as
a secondary form of 1X1N, treasurer, as Gesenius in Thesaurus, etc.
Two MSS. of Kennicott read 1X1K1-7K, while five have 1X1*1 n'3. 7&
See pp. 330, ff.
'131 ip'n 11K. Lit., "the glory of the price" i.e., a glorious or mag
nificent price, spoken ironically (see Ewald § 293, c; comp. Gesenius
§ 106, 1). LXX., Kat 0-Ke'i/fop.at (reading 1K1K instead of TIN) et
SoKipov io-Tiv, ov Tpoirov i8oKipdrr6rjv virep airrav.
lin' 1'3. Drake seems to regard with approbation the conjecture
of Mede (Works, book iv., epist. xxxi.) that St. Matthew read in
place of n'3 the phrase ni3. That phrase occurs in Ezra and Esther,
and, as Mede observes, is literally Kara o-vvTaypa Kvpiov, and, he
thinks, it is rendered freely by the evangelist, Ka0a <rwerafe p-ot Kv'pios.
The conjecture, however, is quite unnecessary. See p. 342.
14. linsi. LXX., tijv KaTao-xto-iv,possession, reading n*rit?n. Other
copies have rijv SiaOrJKrjv (see Field). The noun nins is an abstract,
a denominative from nx, 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. "b\X. LXX, aVetpos. On the adjectival ending 't, see
Ewald § 164, a; Ges. § 86, 2, 5.
16. See on this verse the note on p. 348. n3-X?n. That which
can stand, the healthy. So the LXX., to oXoVX^poy. Vulg., id quod slat.
Other commentators, as mentioned by Kohler, wrongly take the word
to mean standing still from fatigue. TWH. See note on p. 350.

584 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch.xi. 17-xii. 4.
plB' Jl'DlBI. LXX., Kat tovs do-rpayaXovs outoiv eKO-rpe'i/'et.
17. 'l?l '11. The 't is not the suffix, as Ewald takes it, but
rather the termination used often in the const, state in poetry. So'
|K'-xn '3[s?. See Ges. § 90, 3, a ; Ewald § 211, b ; Bottcher § 833, e ;
Kalisch § xxvi. 1, a, and especially Delitzsch's introduction to Ps.
cxiii. See on the phrases in this verse p. 346 and the note there.
B»3'n tTOJ. On the inf. abs. see Ges. § 131, 3, a ; Kalisch § 97, 6.

CHAPTER XII.
1. On the superscription, see chap. xi. 1, and the note on p. 355.
See also on the participles note 1 on p. 356.
2. '33N run, more emphatic than '33n.
75?l-f]D. Compare l^nE! DT3, Isa. li. 17, 22. ipyiP I.'!, wine of
reeling, or staggering, Ps. Ix. 5 (E.V. verse 3). See p. 361, and note
there. LXX., ras irpoOvpa craXtvopeva. Vulg., superliminare crapula.
Syr., " a gate of fear."
'131 1111' 71? D31. The LXX. seek to avoid the difficulty in this verse
by translating, Kat iv Trj 'IouSata ecrrai rrrtpioxr) eirt 'lepovaaX-qp. 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 1 Chron. ix. 33 ; Ezra
iii. 3, but we prefer Lange's view. The Targ. is 11-11.' JV31 t|8\
D^-ll^ K-VX? I'p'JS T3 N»ppy r1Mn.', "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 njlfl for n;.!?, but incorrectly.
3. 1DD1?D J3K. LXX.. Xt0ov KaTairarovpevov, "a stone that is trampled
on. Similarly Syr. The Targ. simply &vpn p« " a stone of offence."
1D1E" D1B». LXX., kpTroltfw ipiral£eTai, reading perhaps Plf.
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.

-n. xi. 5,6.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 583
5. '»-'B7N. See the note on chap. ix. 7. '? 1XDK. The LXX.
render eiipijo-op,€v eauTots tous Ka-rotKOwras "Iepouo-aXrjp,, " we will find
on our side (dat. comm.) the inhabitants of Jerusalem." They thus
take 1XDN from NXD, as if lxps=NXP!!< (first pers. sing, impf.),
rendering it freely in the plural. The reading KXDX occurs in three
MSS., but there is probably no change in its vocalization from the
received text. The Targ. seems to endeavour to combine both the
derivations, that from KXD and that from TP?, and reads ^fb instead
of 'SB"1 '?, which reading is found in two MSS., and is approved of
by Dathe, Gesenius (Thes., s. v.), Bleek, and von Ortenberg. In
this case, the Hebrew text would be translated, "there is strength
for the inhabitants of Jerusalem in Jahaveh " etc., and so the
Targum renders '131 p'jB'-li; pn^ JpTIB n?^, "salvation has been
found for the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the Word of the Lord of
hosts their God." Aquila renders KapTepqcrov poi, reading nxpN, or
considering the form without daghesh as the imp. piel with 1 para-
gogic. One of Baer's MSS. actually reads '^"ixptf. Another MS.
of his reads Y'lXpK, 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 '7 1XDK differently, alter their
vocalization, and by changing the ' into 1 produce 171X 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 71X 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, nxps is properly a noun feminine as IpE'X guilt, n?)!)
unrighteousness, ny]B» Cry, nW security. On the construction, see
Ges. § 106, 1, rem. 2.
?. Dat. comm., "for me" (Kalisch § 86, 9, a ; Ges. § 154, 3, e,
Lehrg. § 195, 4). '7 is here for -137, the singular being used to
indicate that the thought was that of each of the princes of Judah
previously mentioned.
6. 11'33. LXX., is 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 D'Xl? is frequently used in the sense of faggots, as
Gen. xxii. 3, 19; Deut. xxi. 22; Josh. x. 26.

586 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. 6-8.
TOl?, i.q., IPS' properly denotes a loose sheaf not firmly bound to
gether. 173N1. The qadma over the N is the substitute for metheg.
I'll!. Comp. chap. vi. 12, xiv. 10.
7. 13^X13 as opposed to njnqso, Deut. xiii. 10 ; 1 Kings
xvii. 13. Five MSS. read 13B>K133, "as at the first," which is
supported by the LXX., Vulg. and Syr. The original reading might
possibly have been 13^X13, Deut. ix. 18. 7l3n N7. The im
perfect naturally follows $07 as expressing the result. Bottcher
§ 949, d.
8. 11?3 m?V JV. Comp. Ps. iii. 4, 'Ti>3 J3p ll.qi 1P1K1;.
D7B11' 3B1'. Collective, as in previous verse, as is shown by the fol
lowing D13. 7B03!. The tottering, or the weak. Comp. 2 Sam.
ii. 4. LXX., 6 do-0ejw, which is the sense given by the Targ. and
Syr. The Vulg. renders " qui offenderit ex eis."
D113Q7. "Before them," 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 D'17N3 without, however
any MS. authority), as the Angel of Jahaveh before them." This
rendering does not coincide with the Hebrew accentuation, and
would require n»331. 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. u. ihre Weiss.) 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., ras oIkos ®eo£i, 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 expression " sons of God " perhaps
occurs in that sense.

Ch. xii. 9, ia] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 587
9. See remarks on pp. 380, ff., and note on page 380.
D7B-11' 71? D'X31. Compare 71? 173?, Isa. vii. 1. Baer notices that
one MS. (de Rossi, 319) has the note D'Sjpsn K"D, namely, that other
copies have that reading. But Baer observes that this contradicts
the Masora, which says that D'M'srj is only found in Num. xxxi. 42,
and Isa. xxix. 7, 8.
10. '131 TDBBl. Perf. with vav conv. connected with the subst.
verb n'll in the preceding verse. Compare chap. viii. 2, and note
on p. 162. On the phrase, see note 1, on page 383. The writer
continues the narration in the perfect tense.
in. See note 2, p. 383.
'131 '7K 1D'3ll. The reading '7X, " 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 " unto him" 1'7S is doubt
less a correction, as de Rossi has abundantly shown, and a most
natural one, too, on account of the following lvl?. Geiger asserts
(Urschrift, p. 58) that vK is a correction of lvK, 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 Wagensil's Tela Lgnea, pp. 303, 304, arguing against the
Christians quotes the reading '7K. The reading 1'7X 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 '28,
and consider it as a preposition. So Bottcher (Neue 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 b§ only occurs in the book of Job, and there but four times.
The suggestion of von Ortenberg to insert the verb and copula
•l78Bi. after IvN and before I^K ntt is arbitrary. There is no trace
of this 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 (71? 'Pl^jp |W3'.\
'!17$?: l-HBp'.l: •I'pp'ppNl), they shall pray before me because that

588 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xii. 10.
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." 78,
Ev8 may possibly occur in the meaning of mighty, heroes, Job xii.
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 O'Sfl is commonly construed
with 78, and 'i"8 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 1133. But
no such subject was required, as the sense of the passage would
have been clearer without such an addition.
1B»K lis is the object to the transitive verb Upl. The trans
lation given by the LXX. is against the usage of the Hebrew.
They render dvff wv KaToipxqo-avTo " because they insulted ; " Aquila
renders cfbv <£ ef eKeVnjo-av ; Symm. (.jx.tr poo-Qev iire£eKevTr]o-av ; Theo-
dotion alone, Kat eirij3Xeij/ovTai. 7rpos pe ets ov efeKeVn?crav. Arnheim
(in Zunz's Translation of the Bible) translates thus, " sie schauen zu
mir auf (bei Jeglichem) den sie durchbohrt haben," " they look up
to me (with respect to each one) whom they have pierced," no
doubt explaining the passage substantially as Ewald has done (see
p. 384.) Others as Ruckert, Umbreit, Burger, translate, " to me,
him whom they have pierced," to which translation it has been
objected that the Hebrew in such a case would rather have been
'3-11prT!B'8 '78, which Bottcher considers conclusive even against
the reading I7.8. This objection cannot, however, be considered
valid; compare the cases cited in Ges. § 123, 2, footnote. Kohler
adduces also as a suitable example the relative sentence in Jer.
xxxviii. 9, where it is said of Jeremiah 113n"78 -13'7B»l-lB/8 18"
Other cases are Gen. xxxi. 22 ; Isa. xivii. 12. This is the view taken by
the Vulg. " et aspicient ad me quem confixerunt," and by the Syriac.
On the ntf as the sign of accusative before 1^8, see Ewald § 332, a.
Hitzig fancifully considers that the AN is to be regarded as similar

Ch. xii. 10-13.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 589
to the A and O of the Apocalypse (i. 8), thus designating Jahaveh as
the Eternal. Inasmuch, too, as the numerical value of IK is 401,
and the numerical value of 11W (Isaiah) is identically the same,
Hitzig concludes that the murder of Isaiah . is here referred to, who
was, as a prophet, a representative of Jahaveh.
As regards the verb Upl, it is said that one MS. of Kennicott
reads -llpi, which occurs in Hebrew only in the sense of to leap, to
dance. It has been supposed that the translation of the LXX., Kai-rap-
Xqo-avro, implies some such reading, as the Greek word means to
dance in triumph over one. The supposition is not necessary, for as
Schleusner and others have observed, the LXX. may have taken Ipl
to pierce, as figuratively used for insulting; just as 3p3, which has
the same original meaning, is used of cursing, blaspheming. Calvin
took this view of the passage, " metaphorice hie accipitur confixio
pro continua irritatione," and in his Comment, on John he denies its
reference to the literal crucifixion of our Lord. This view has been
adopted by many scholars, as Rosenmiiller, Theiner, Gesenius (in
Thes!), Fiirst in Wbrterb. But Ipl is not used elsewhere in such a
signification, and there is no reason to depart from its simple mean
ing, which is rightly defended by Ewald and Hitzig, as well as by
Hengstenberg, Kohler and Keil. It is also the sense which is, as
we have seen, given by Aq., Symm., Theod., Syr./and the Vulg.
1'7J? 11BD1. Not as Dathe " they shall mourn over it," (ea de
re) i.e. the crime committed, but as is plain from the sequel " over
him " or " for him." Tn'ri. " The only one," an only son, comp.
Amos viii. 10 ; Jer. vi. 26. It is used in Gen. xxii. 2, 16, with the
addition of P. The feminine is used of an only daughter in
Jud. xi. 34. LXX., ras eV dyair-qT&.
inio. Inf. abs. hiphil of HO, to be construed as H3D1 pre
ceding, see Ges. § 131, 4, a; Kalisch § 97, 3. It might be re
garded as intransitive, with Gesenius in the Thesaurus, or, which is
preferable, as transitive with an ellipsis of 1BDD3 with Kohler and
Keil, the latter of whom compares D'1-npn IBpp, Jer. vi. 26, from
the preceding 13D ¦ or, with Hitzig and Fiirst, with an ellipsis of
'333 after Isaiah xxii. 4.
n. See the note on p. 392.
12. 'B>D nilSB'D. On the const, see Ges. § 108, 4; Ewald § 313,
a ; Kalisch § 82, 9.
13. 'yDB'l. See note 2, on p. 399.

590 -ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiii. 1-6.

CHAPTER XIII.
i. See the note on p. 409,
3. 11DN1. Perf. with vav. conv. connected with I'll in the
commencement of the verse which is to be -regarded as the perf.
proph. 1'17' 1DK1 V3K. Comp. 2 Sam. xvi. n. 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 '' 0^3 IpE* 131, comp. Deut.
xviii. 20 ; Jer. xiv. 30.
lllpll. LXX., o-vp.troo'iovo-iv aiT&v, " shall restrain " 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., Kat iKKCvrqaovcnv avrov.
1N3313. Not necessarily, with Hesselberg and Reinke, " in the act
of prophesying," but "on account of his prophesying" or " his having
Prophesied." Comp. the same construction in 2 Chron. xvi. 7,
xxviii. 6.
4. '131 1B»3\ Not as Hengstenberg, "they will desist, with shame,
from their vision in their prophesying," but rather, according to the
usual sense of B'13 when construed with iP, " they will be ashamed
each of his vision, on account of his prophesying."
11X3313 is for 1K3313, as in verse 3 (see Ewald § 238, e; Ges.
§ 74, rem. 2). The form is akin to that of 1"7 (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. npi8 13'5?, as in Gen. iv. 2. '33X, emphatic. The substan
tive verb is implied; see Ges. § 121. 1.
6. 10X1. And he shall say, or one shall say (Ewald § 294, b).
LXX., Kat e'pra. Syr., " and they shall say unto him."
" Between thine hands." See p. 427.
W31 1B»X. Comp. Ges. § 138, 1, rem. 1 and 3, and § 143, 1.
'31XD n'3. LXX., wrongly, iv t<3 oiko> t<3 dyairrjTtS pov.
The Targ. renders the verse : " and he shall say to him, What are
these stripes (Nnrip) which have come upon us ? Are they not on

Ch. xiii. 6, 7.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 591
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- 'HV. On the tone, see note on chap. ix. 9. Compare as
to the subject matter, Isa. Iii. 1, lx. 1. 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. >yi"7J?. LXX., iirl tovs TroLpiva? p.ov, pointing '?!. Hitzig
suggests that 'l?l, " my friend" would be better. 133. 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 ^l.'PD B"8, Deut. xxxiii. 8 ;
1311p DV Ps. cxlviii. 14; " the people near him, the people of his near
ness" (see Delitzsch on that passage). LXX., e^t aVSpa iroXtr-qv
jj.ov. Aq., iirl aVSpa crvptpvXov p.ov. Symm., iirl avSpa toB XaoS pov.
Theod., iirl aVSpa irXrjo-iov avrov. Vulg., super virum coharentem
mihi. Syr., "against the man, my lover (^to^;)."
in. Masculine, although 3^1 is feminine, as the sword is per
sonified and addressed as an individual in the first imperative '1-15?.
Compare Gen. iv. 7, where nxt21 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,
waTa^aTe roiis iroipivas Kat eKo-iracrare to. wpd/3aTa. So the Cod. Vat.
and Sin., but the Cod. Alex, and Compl. have, TrdVafov tov iroipiva •
Kat Biao-KopiricrOrjo-ovTai. ret wpo/3aTa r>}s iroipvrjs.
'131 j'Xiam. The copula is not to be regarded here as simply
combining two independent sentences, but as coupling the imperfect
in the second clause with the imperative in the first, thus indicating
the result. On the phrase " to turn one's hand back," see p. 439.
E'll?)fn"7l?. 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 little, the poor, the humble. The Arabic _^to
is not equivalent to 1'!?X, small, which is y&o (see W. Wright's
Arab. Grammar, vol. i. § 230, rem. a, d, with § 232, rem. c). The
LXX. and Symm. render, iirl tous p.tKpous; some copies, as Cod. Alex.,
im. toiis 7rotp.eVas; other copies, combining both readings, iirl tous
p-iKpovs 7roip,eras. Aquila, e« toiis [Troip.eVas] ySpayets. Theod., e7rt
-no 7 7
tous vewripovs. Syr., } A \-v ^A, "against the overseers." The
Targum renders the verse, "Sword, show thyself (K73n8) against
the king, and against the prince his fellow, who is as he, who is like
him (nb 'Dll n'npl), saith the Lord of hosts ; kill the king, and
the princes shall be scattered, and I will bring back the stroke
of my power ('31133 nnp 3'n81) 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. 3 1, yiypairrai. yap • ira-rafra tov iroiph/a
Kal Ziao-KOpirio-OrjcrovTai to. irpofiaTa Trjs iroipvqs, and similarly in Mark
xiv. 27, save that -rijs iroipv-qs 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 tiJs iroLpvqs 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^-'Q. So Deut. xxi. 17 ; 2 Kings ii. 9 (see Ewald § 269, b).
Lit., a mouth of two, 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). -mis' may possibly refer to death by the sword,
and Wl?.' 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, !>)¦
9. On the idea of melting and purifying, compare Isa. i. 25,
xlviii. 10; Jer. ix. 6 ; Mai. iii. 3 ; Ps. lxvi. 10, etc.
'131 Nip' Kin. The masculine is used because the purified remnant
is treated as one individual. Similarly, though feminine, n'B'pB/l is
construed in the preceding verse with in-1'., 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
DB'3 Kip, comp. Is. lxv. 24, and on the passage in general, see
Hos. ii. 23 ; Jer. xxiv. 7, xxx. 22, etc.
'niDK. 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'nsn. 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'P'.n, Neh. ix. 6, unless in cases where the
article is followed by a letter without daghesh and pointed with
sh'va, neopn, 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 (b),
as it is generally regarded. The metheg is used for a similar reason
in n3X (munach for metheg) Gen. 1. 17. n?8, Ps. cxviii. 25 (see the
critical edition of the Psalms by Baer and Delitzsch). The word
is not to be read bottim, 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. 2-5.
bdtim, the daghesh after heavy metheg serving merely to distinguish
^ns, the participle plural of '-n-13. 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.
il373B'n. The punctuators considered the verb 73B/ as an ob
scene expression, and hence have always substituted 33B>. So
here 133:3B'n, 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 njpl^Fi. The perfect occurs
in Jer. iii. 2, and the imperfect is also found in Is. xiii. 16 (see
Bottcher § 906, a). LXX., p.oXw&JowTai. Schol., Kourao-O-qaovTai.
n7133-XX»1. See note on p. 459.
3. 10n7n DV3. On the meaning of 3, see Ges. § 118, 3. 31p
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. l8p 17113 N'3. Adverbial accusative (see Ewald § 280,^;
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 131 npn;) Great Hamath, Amos
vi. 2 (the absol. state is npp) ; also 7113 1'3, 2 Kings xxv. 9 ; 133 7TI3,
2 Kings xviii. 17 (see Ewald § 287, a). Fiirst regards X'3 as an
absol. state of a noun of that form found only in this passage in the
singular. This is unnecessary. The plural is ni»X3. The transposed
form is met once in the k'thibh, HIX'3, 2 Kings ii. 16, and must
be read niX'3 (Bottcher § 811), for which the k'ri put the usual form.
The LXX. render the phrase here x"°s P*ya o-<po'8pa, a very great
chasm. The form N'3. only occurs here and in verse 5 as the construct
of N'4, the usual form being '3. In Isa. xl. 4, a form 8'$ also occurs.
5. '131 K'3 DnP31. The LXX., Kal ^pax^o-erat r) <pdpay£ rrav
6peW pov. They read here, with the oriental Jews, EnpJJ, the
niphal from EHD. So also Symm. This reading is adopted by the
LXX. throughout the verse, which they render Kat iyKoXX-qOrjo-eTai

Ch. xiv. 5-7] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 595
(pdpayi opeW eras 'Iao-08, Kat ip<ppaxOrjcreTai (here again the LXX.,
with Symm. and Syro-Hex., read Dip}1! instead of DF|p3\) Ka0ras ivl
<ppdyq (DPlpJ for Dnp3) iv Tah -ijpepats (free translation of '3.BO) Tov
crvo-o-uo-pov. The Orientals have not this reading in the two latter
cases. Field gives 'Ao-a^Xas the reading of other copies of the Syro-
Hex. The Syr. and the Vulg. follow the Masoretic punctuation. The
Targum follows the Oriental reading, i.e., reading in the first instance
OT\Oi\. The reading eorum in the Vulg. translation " et fugietis ad
vallem montium eorum," is, as has been noted by Ribera, Schegg,
and others, a simple mistake of a copyist for " meorum," which Jerome
has in his Comment. The Oriental reading seems to have also been
that of Josephus, and hence his description given on pp. 447, 448 of
the stopping up of the valley, so that the roads and pleasure-gardens
of the king were closed up. The same reading was that of R. Salomo
ben Yizhak, Ibn Ezra, etc. See on the passage the note on p. 476.
The Midrash Coheleth, fol. 73, col. 4, observes with regard to the
coming of Jahaveh noted in this verse : " There were many prophets
in Israel whose names are not known ; these will the Lord in the
future bring in the train of Messiah, as it is written, then will the
Lord come, and all the holy ones with thee."
On ?pi? see note on p. 479. In one of the MSS. used by Baer
the note occurs : D3 '3'5?3 1X13 pi lay 1'^lp WX1 D'p'lTD D'1BD3
I'DJ? l'B"ip P1311 \T\i\\ 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 E'BHp
(as in the general text), for the Masora observes that VBHp. only
occurs in Deut. xxxiii. 3, Ps. xxxiv. 10. Kimchi expressly states
that ~W_ is the reading of this passage.
6. |lXBp' Tlllp'. See note on p. 481. LXX., ow eorai <p5s, Kat i/tjx1?
Kat 7rayos eo-rat p,tav fjpipav, connecting it with the first words of the
next verse, and omitting the copula in I'll with which that verse be
gins. TheTarg. is 1^3:-l(qu. '11! ?)'!!? VM K1W3 '1| Xt7 X-lll X31|?3 \1'1,
" and it shall be in that time there will be no light, but cold and frost."
7. See note on pp. 483 ff. The Pesikta Rabba thi in Yalkut
Shimeoni, 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.

59^ 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
Eliezer, 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' " t
8. 'Ipl D'1"7X. LXX., ets Tqv BaXaxrcrav T-qv irpwrqv . . . Kat
tijv 6. Tr)v io-xdrrjv. So also they render the words in Joel ii. 20.
flTTD-l. LXX., iv eapt, 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 'nxi X3DT3, 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 (Xp'onpp) 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
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, 0 daughter of Zion.' Then shall
she say, ' I will rejoice greatly in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful
in my God ' (Isa. lxi. 10)."

Ch. xiv. 10-12.] CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM. 597
10. '131 31D.'- On the form of the verb, see note on p. 490, and
Kalisch § lxii. 3, b. The LXX. consider Jahaveh to be the subject of
this verb, and render, very unintelligibly, kvkXZv irdo-av -rijv yr)v Kal rijv
eprjpov dirb Ta/Je eras 'Pep,p,rav koto, votov 'IepoucraX-ijp,. Similarly the
Syr., " and he shall surround the whole earth as a plain." The Targ. is
'131 X1B»D3 Xl?i8 73 nap?, " 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 1 on p. 491, and on p. Ixxiv.
'131 10811., for npil;. See note 2 on p. 492. The 1"J? verb is treated
as if NT. Comp. nxpl, Hos. x. 14, and so one of Baer's MSS.
npxi\, and Moses the Punctator with Ben Naphtali. The LXX.
take 'l as a proper name, omitting the copula, 'Papa 8e iirl toVov
pevd. The proper name, however, is 101. 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
nnnX3 3'Flpl '3inni:, "and it shall be exalted and inhabited in its
place." '3 WtA. See p. 494. The compound IP? is to be regarded as a
mere strengthening of IP, not, however, as identical with ? IP, with
Gesenius in Thesaurus, 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' Wbrterb. ; Kohler, Comm.
on Haggai, pp. 101, ff ; Ewald § 218, b.
JIE'Xll 1J?B>. Comp. for const, of article, chap. iv. 7. See Ges.
§ 111, 2, a; Ewald § 293, a.
'n 713D1, for 713.PP-1, the IP being probably omitted for euphony.
Many MSS. have the fuller reading.
n. Din. So Baer correctly, instead of ni.ni, as in the usual
text (comp. Ewald § 146, b, footnote 2, p. 379)- Another read
ing 3ini is found in some MSS. The Targ. is said to have had
that reading, but this cannot be fairly deduced from its rendering,
115? 'IT XT. &6pp, "there will no slaying any more." On the expres
sion, see pp. 497 ff.
12. PPl. Inf. absol. of PpO. See note 2, p. 499- ^V
Third pers. pi. niphal of PPO, instead of ™'p»n, with the dropping
of the inserted '7, and the omission of the daghesh in the P. Comp.
n^-xn, kal intrans., Jer xix. 3. See Ewald § 1 97, a \ Kalisch § lxii. 2, c.

59^ ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. [Ch. xiv. 12-20.
1-71? 101? X111. "As he is standing upon his feet." The sentence
is a dependent one, indicating the position during which the plague
falls upon the man (see Ewald § 341, a).
13. ''"nDHD. "A confusion from Jahaveh" LXX., aco-rao-is, and
o 7
so Symm. and Aquila. Similarly Syr., |Z.oioZ.
'131 IT in75?l. See note 2 on p. 500. LXX., Kat rrvpirXaK-qo-tTai r)
xdp aiTov irpbs Trjv Xetpa k.t.X. Targ., n'1311 XT Dl? I'l? B^W,
" and his hand shall struggle with the hand of his neighbour." In
stead of T B"X, many MSS. have T3 B»X.
14. ^81.. LXX. point this word actively, Kat onWfei (1581),
and refer it to Judah, " and he shall collect the strength, etc." The
Targ., as in chap. xii. 2, and translate : U3 8»Dp?? |13-in:'.' 11-11? n'31 *18:1
^B>-1T3 X3ip xn|X^ |'p'38, "and even those of the house of Judah
shall the peoples bring by the hand (qu. 113 ?) of violent men, to
wage* war in Jerusalem." The Lond. Polygl. reads, I'P'JS 13. Levy
(Chald. Wbrterb.) reads (tanquam coacti) |'P-13X 13, and renders," vio
lently," " by force." See on the first clause of this verse, note on p. 501.
15. 3-|3. Generally the order is p-3. Comp. Ps. cxxvii. 4 ;
Joel ii. 4 (Kohler). I'l' 'X '31"731. The agreement of the predi
cate with 73 is rare (see Ewald § 317, c). Some MSS. have, how
ever, 1'nn, which seems to be a correction.
16. On '10 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 18? 8?1 has been explained by Ewald
in his Proph. der A. B. vol. ii. p. 63, 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 Schriftbeweis is ingenious, namely, that the text
ought to be read n38|j1. or even n3X71:, pual (comp. Hosea xiii. 5),
" then it (Egypt) will thirst," or be deprived of the necessary rain.
20. ni7XD_71?. See note on p. 511.
nin'7 BHp. The LXX. add n!X3X, as in verse 21.

INDEX OF TEXTS,

ILLUSTRATED AND NOT MERELY REFERRED TO.

OLD TESTAMENT.

Genesis.

iv. 10 .
iv. 16
x. io, n.

xu. is, 19
xix. 6 .

Exodus.

PAGE xix. Il8I36

462464

Nehemiah. PAGE
vii. .... 279, ff.
xiii. 16, 20 . . . 515, 516

vi. 16-18

Job.

Psalms.

• 487

Deuteronomy.

xxii. 8

118
234
vii. 23 .
499
xlvi. 5 (4)
487
xiii. 1-10
4i7
„ 9 •
240
„ 14-16
497
Iii. 10 (8)
8
xviii. 19-22 .
418
lxviii. 27
28
xxviii. 65
292
lxxvi. 10
348
xxxiv. 6
58
xcii. 13, 14
ci. 8
8
462
Judges.
'55
vii. 20
1 Samuel.
5°3
cxxvi. 1-4
V
Proverbs.
193
152
xxx., xxxi.
.
202
iv. 13, 18
152
xiv. 20 .
500
Isaiah.
xvii. 47
. 368
ii. 11-19
457
„ 17 •
5i7
1 Kings.
iv. 3, 4 •
464
xv. 10- 13
. . 318,
Ezra.
3i9» 320
280, ff.
viii. 18 .
xi. 1.
xiv. 8 .
xxvi. 9 .
69
149
3015°3
6oo

INDEX OF TEXTS.

Isaiah.

Daniel.

PAGE

PAGE
xxvi. 20, 21
465
"• 31-35
17, 131
xxviii. 15-18
324
vii. 7, 19, 23
35?
xxix. 1-6
469, ff.
„ 12 .
33
xxx. 30, 31
499
132
,. 25 .
488
ix. 2
22
„ 17. 18
xxxi. 9 .
457 126
Hosea.
xxxvii. 24
301
xi. 5 .
.
292
.. 36
499
xiii. 14 .
• >.
xl. 1, 3, 4
96
xiv. 15 .
466
Joel.
liii.
387,
434. 437
iv. 2, 16 .
126, 472
lix. 19 .
Ixv. 20 .
295 180
Amos.
lxvi. 21 .
92, 180
vii. 14, 15
424, ff.
„ 23 .
507
iii. 2
457
Jeremiah.
486
xviii. 2 .
332, ff
Micah.
xix. 2
li. 25
332. ff-
473
v. 9-1 1 .
Haggai.
241
Ezekiel.
ii-3
.
100
ix. 6 .
457
ii. 7
20, 89
xxxv. 7 •
xiv. 3 .
176
5H
Malachi.
xliii. 1, 2
5H
i. 11
.
94
xlvii. 1-12
487
iii. 1-4 .
45
„ 21,22
188
i. 1
xxx., 355
APOCRYPHA.
1 Esdras.
xiii. 29, 50
2 Esdras.
Tobit.
279
281
"• 4, 5
xiv. 4-9 ,
1 Maccabees.
2 Maccabees.
181
12453i
INDEX OF TEXTS.

60 1

NEW TESTAMENT.

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

Matthew, PAGE 339 109
156
237
449 120 96
454 236 96
xviii. xix. 449
445
333. 335. 342, ff. 583

J- 5
iii. 16,

17

v-43 vi. 38
xi. 48

xvi. 7

xix. 37

Mark.

Luke.

John.

445

437 522
485

54634°
417.437 "5522

486 15535o 155
35o
444
386, ff

i. 6
ii- 39

vm. 21 .
*. 2
xi. 2-12 .
-.7
.. 17. 24
„ 25, 26
xii. 5

Acts.

Romans.

iv. 4
v. 16

«• 13. 17

ii- 5-
,,16
vi. 5
ix. I
„ 26

u. 13

1 Corinthians.

2 Corinthians.

Ephesians.

Hebrews.

James.

1 Peter.

PAGE 170 157

4884l8
521, 522
• 518
¦ 93. 195
519 463

iv. 17

519444

157

45° 77
450 88
450

522

457

602

INDEX OF TEXTS.

n. 19

9 19

1. 20
ii. 17

1 John.

Jude.

Revelation.

PAGE 119

21, 53.ff 119

85 9

Revelation.

vi. i-s .
xi. 2
., 4
.. 13
., 19
xvi. 14 .
xix. 11, 14
xx. .
xxi, 23 .
.. 27 .

PAGE
13. 133. ff
464 93
463 9
417 13
459 40
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., lxii., 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, 2l4,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 Constitutions, xxiv.
Arabah, the, 491.
Ariel, 469.
Aristeas, 36, 538, 539.
Arnheim, xl., passim.
Arrian, Exped. Alex., 215, 216.
Asceticism, Jewish, 423.
Ashdod, bastard or rabble in, 216.
Ashkelon, judgment on, 2I3, 568.
Ass, the riding on an, 236 ; not neces
sarily a sign of humility, 237, ff.
Assyria and Egypt, 291; the king of
Assyria styled king of Babylon, 290.
Assyrian inscriptions, 205, 220, 228 ;
eponyms, 205 ; months, 528.
Assumption of Moses, 53, ff.
Athanasius, Synopsis 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 i c"'- edition otTsalter, 593.

604

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., xiii., passim.
Baumgarten, xiii. ; 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.
Bereshith 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 Bethelites, 167.
Bether, storming of, 164.
Blank in Jewish annals, the, 257-
Blayney, xxvi., xiii., Ixv., 538, 551, 569,
580.
Bleek, xv., xxxviii., xiii., passim.
Blood taken away from the mouth, 218;
of the covenant, 249, 250.
Bochart, 128.
Bohl, Forschungen nach einer Volksbibel,
336 ; Alt. Test. Citate im N. T., 336,
39°. 57°. 592-
Bosanquet, S. R., Prophecies of Zecha
riah, 31, 90.
Bottcher, xliii., Ausf. Lehrbuch, xlvii ,
passim.
Bowl of reeling, 361.
Boys and girls in the streets, 181.
Branch, the, 70, ff, 149, 546.
Brass, mountains of, 123.
Breviarium 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, xii., passim. Analecta Ante-
Nictena, 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, xii., 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 ; w. 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,
5H.
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, xii., 24, 173,
176, 380, 493.
Chariots, vision of the four, 123 ; the
chariots compared to winds, 127; not
to be identified with the winds, 137 ;
the horses in the, 127 (ses horses) ; 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-inschriflen, 285 ; Mittheilung
Zeitschrift D. M. C, 285.
City, see cutting off.
Clarke, Dr. Adam, 541.
Cleansing of the land, no.
Clermont-Ganneau, 267, 414, 476.
Cocceius, 31, 346, 484.

GENERAL INDEX.

605

Colours of the horses used to mark the
three divisions of the riders, 12, 20 ;
supposed to be symbolical by Keil,
14; by Kbhler, 15; by Ewald, etc.,
1 6 ; 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 brass.
Corner gate, the, 495.
Corner 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, Levitical Priests, 20, 92.
Curtius, Quintus, 213,513.
Cutting off from the city, the, 461,8";
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., lxxv.
3i8, 337-
Davison, 011 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., Ixxiv.,
533. 582, 593, 598; Comm. on Haba-
kkuk, 542 ; Psychology, 74 ; Preface
to Curtiss' Levitical Priests, 20 ;
Article on Dekalog, 277 ; Farben-
Studien, 20 : Die Farben, u. d. Tal
mud, 531 ; Comm. iiber Genesis, 21,
22, 175, 268, 278, 568; Comm. iiber
die Psalmen, 28, 248, 540, 584, 591 ;
Comm. iiber Jesaia, 74, 92, 278, 569.
Talmud. Studien, 399. On Psalter of
Solomon, 582.
Delitzsch, Dr. Friedrich, Chald. Gene-
•?"¦> 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 Hebrew Tenses, xlvii. , passim.
Drummond's Jewish Messiah, xlvi.,
55. 328, 391-
Duhm, xiii., 554.
Earnestness among the returned Jews,
180.
Earthquake, on Mount of Olives, 469,
471 ; in reign of Uzziah, 477, ff ;

6c6

GENERAL INDEX.

earthquakes accompaniments of
Divine manifestations, 48, ff.
Ebrard, xxvii., 344, 378, 439.
Egypt, a general place of refuge, 292 ;
mention of in chap, a., 295 ; in
chap, xiv., 507, ff; the temple in,
5°9-
Eichhorn, xxvi., 248.
Ekron as the Jebusite, 218.
Elijah, 423.
Elxai, Libri. fragm., 124.
Ephah, vision of the, m; woman in
the, 112.
Ephraim, gate of, ^94 ; 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 ; Ausf. Lehrb.
passim ; Dichter des A. Bundes, 28 ;
History of Israel, 254, 281, 320,
395. 58i.
Fabricii, Bibl. Grceca, 373.
Farrar's Life of Christ, 239.
Fasting for national calamities, days of,
163, 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 Origen's Hexapla,
xlviii. , passim.
Filthy garments, 48, ff., 544.
Finn's Orphan Colony of Jews 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 ; Handbuch z. d. Apoc, 280, 324.
Fiirst, Julius, xliii. ; Concord, passim ;
Heb. und Chald. Worterbuch, pas
sim ; Kanon des A. T., xvii. , xxiii.,
529 ; Geschichte der bibl. Lit. xxiii.,
581.
Gaius, 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 ;
Lehrgebdude, xlvii., passim; Heb.-
Chald. Worterbuch, xlvi., passim;
Thesaurus, xlvi., passim.
Ghillany, Menschenopfer der alt. He-
brder, 259.
Ghor, the, 491, ff.
Gilead and Lebanon, 293.
Ginsburg, xlvii., Hi.;
Glaucus, story of, no.
Gog and Magog, 389, 391, 451.
Grant's, Neslorians 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,
255. 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,
53°, 545, 546, 559-
Hardness of heart, result of, 176.
Harkary's Catalog, 285.
Hariri, 532.
Havercamp, 531, 539.
Havernick, xxvii., xxx., xliii.
Hecatseus, 539.
Hegesias, 215.
Hegesippus, 404.
He-goats, 270.
Heidenheim, Ascensio Moysis, 57, 534.
Henderson, xliv., passim.
Hengstenberg, xliv., passim.
Herodotus, 36, 39, no, 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-encyclopddie, 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, 5°6-
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, 582 ; Nov. Test. extr. Can.
recept., 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 ; 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, 182, 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 Emunah, 582,
587.
Isidore, xviii.
Israel after the flesh and after the spirit,
376, ff ; the scattering of, 445 ; not
blinded more than tlie Gentiles, 518 ;

6oS

GENERAL INDEX.

a blessing and a curse, 187 ; devour
ing as a lion, 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, 5i6; fighting with
the nations, 456, 464, 517, 522;
appearance on Mount of Olives, 465,
ff, 472, 519 ; phenomena attendant
on, 468, ff, 478, ff; a king, 488 ;
" 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,
56r, 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, ff; Judah fighting at, 500, ff.
Jew, the taking hold of the skirt of a,
194 ; name of Jew applied to all the
tribes, 189, 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, 283 ; 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, 53i,
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, 148, ff ;
see under Zerubbabel.
Josiah, the mourning for, 394, ff.
Jost, Gesch. des Jud., xvii., 165.
Judah, Israel and Jerusalem, 28 ; dif
ferent views, 29-31 ; Kliefoth's inter
pretation, 30 ; Judah and Israel, 40,
187 ; J. the state-horse of Jehovah,
271 ; not opposed to Jerusalem, 362,
364, 378; deliverance first given
to J. and then to Israel, 367 ; and
Israel, the names of, 355. See also
xxx., xxxix., xl.
Judaea, 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 Tremellius.
Justin Martyr, xxiv., 338, 443, 570.
Kalisch, xlvii., passim.
Kahnis, 386.
Karaites of the Crimea, 285.
Kautzsch, xlvii., passim.
Keenan, Thomas V., 373.

GENERAL INDEX.

609

Keil, xxvii., xliv., passim.
Keim, 582.
Kennicott, Hebrew Bible, passim.
Kimchi, Comm. 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.
Kbhler, xviii., xx., xxi., xliv., passim.
Kbster, xxvii., xlvi.
Kuenen, xxxviii, xlvi., 546.
de Lagarde, xlviii. , lvii., 391, 511, 532,
549, 554, 555- 558, 573, 577, 59i-
Lamps, the lighting of the, 87, ff.
"Lane's Arabic English Lexicon, 61, 532,
533-
Land, wasting of the, 177 ; the "land "
or the "world," 307.
Lange, J. P., xliv., passim ; on S.
Matthew, 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 Jud.
Miinzen, 164.
Levy, Dr. J., Chaldaisch. Worterbuch,
passim ; Neuheb. und Chald. Wbrterb. ,
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, 5I°-
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, 583.
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, 15 1 ; predicted as a king,
233! "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 3°5, ff 38i ; his sufferings
vicarious, 391 ; priest and king, 153 ;
counsel of peace between him and Ja
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.
Michael the archangel, 21, 53.
Michaelis, J. D., xxvi., 26, 32, 207,
280, 473, 477, 537, 566, 587, 596.
Michaelis, C.B.,294, 358, 525, 534.
R R

OIO

GENERAL INDEX.

Millennium, supposed references to the,
119, 180, 181, 262.
Milman, History of the Jews, 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, 3 1 7 ; 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 Gesenius' Wor
terbuch ; Miihlau, De Proverb. Agur,
202.
Myrtle-trees in the vision, 8, 10 ; in the
temple, 8.
Naegelsbach, 26.
Nathan, family of, 399. Concord, of R.
Nathan, Hi.
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 du Tal
mud, 206, 565 ; Abu'l-walid, 532.
Neumann, xliv., passim.
Newcome, xliv, Ixv.
Nicephorus, 54.
Night suited for Divine revelations, 5.
Nile, the, 295.
Nbldeke, 594,
Norris, 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. , xii.,
xiv., 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., xiv. ; on
the Psalms, ix., 462, 551.
Pestilences, 499, ff; of the animals, 502.
Philippi, Wesen u. Ursprung 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.
Pirke Aboth, 339.
Pirke Eliezer, 596.
Pit without water, the, 251.
Pool, Matthew, xiv.

GENERAL INDEX.

611

Porch of the temple, 107.
Potter, flinging to the, 329; view of
Hengstenberg, 332 ; of Kliefoth, 333.
Pressel, xiv., 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; (1) 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. , xiv., passim ; Daniel
the Prophet, 1 7, 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.,
xiv., 51, 96, 115, 116, 252, 281, 390,
402, 417, 427, 5", 53i, 534, 555-
557, 568, 595-
RawHnson,Rev.Prof.,^if«,^«j, 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, xiv., passim.
Remnant, half of the, 460 ; not cut off
from the city, 461, ff, 518, ff; bles
sings given to the, 497, 519.

Renan, 21, 482.
Revelation, the riders in the, 13; see
Horses, Colours.
Ribera, 595.
Rider on the red horse, 1 1 .
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, tlie vision of the flying, 105, ff.
Rosenmiiller, xxvi., xiv., passim.
de Rossi, xlvi., passim.
Row's Bampton Lectures, 337.
Rufus, Titus Annius, 165.
Russia, 257.
Riickert, 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, xiv.
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, xiv., passim
Schrader, Keilinschriften d. A.T., xlvi.,
168, 169, 205, 393, 528, 577 ; Keilin
schriften u. Geschichtsforschung, xlvi.,
565, 569-
Schlier, xiv., 174, 313.
Schleusner, Thes. Phil. Crit. sive Lex.
in LXX., etc., xlix., 186, 392, 409,
536, 545, 549. 565, 571, 580, 596.
Schmieder, 174, 361, 473.
Schmidt, see Merx.
Schottgen, De Mcssia, 549, 570, 596.

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.
Shimeites, the, 399.
Shinar, the land of, 118.
Shir ha-shirim Rabba, 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, DeanR. Payne, xlvi. Thesaurus
Syriacus, 546.

Smith, G., Assyrian Canon, 205.
,, W., Biblical Dictionary, xiv.,
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.
Stahelin, xiv., 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-
kowitzsch 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, in.
Talmud, 71, 77, 96, 163, 164, 165,
225, 303, 338, 389. 390, 481, 531,
xvii., xix., xxiii.
Taylor, Rev. C, Pirke Aboth, 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 INDEX.

613

Ten tribes, see under Twelve, invited
to return, xxxix. , 279 ; large numbers
of the members of these tribes among
the exiles who returned, 278, 281 ;
myth of the lost, 281, 284.
Tents of Judah, 366.
Teraphim, 267, ff.
Territories ruled over by David and
Solomon, 201.
Tertullian, 399.
Theiner, xiv., passim.
Thenius, 319, 395, 495, 568, 581.
Theodoret, 47, 204, 453, 460, 465,
5o5-
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 204, 505.
Third part, the, 442.
Thirty shekels, the, 329 ; thirty pieces
of silver given for Christ, 336, ff. ;
34L
Thieves and perjurers, 109.
Tholuck, xlvi., 235. Proph. u. ihre
Weiss., 559, 586.
Tibullus, 430.
Tischendorf, xlvi.
Titus, candlestick on the arch of, 82 ;
war of the Romans under, 453, 460,
461.
Tremellius and Junius, xiv.
Trees, destruction of, spoken by the
prophets, 301 ; used for siege pur
poses, 303 ; spoken of as symbolical,
301.
Turpie, xiv., 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, 288, ff; 344; see under,
Jew, Jews.
Twenty-fourth day of the month, sig
nificance of, 4.
Tyre, siege of, by Nebuchadnezzar, 212;
destruction by Alexander, 212.
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,
39i-
Vine " the seed of peace," the, 186 ;
the golden, 8, 531.
Virgil, 10, 278.
Vossius, 575.
Vitringa, 17, 346, 422.
Volck, 132, 323, see Miihlau and
Volck.
Wagenseil, Tela Ignea Satani, 582,
587-
Water of cleansing, 410 ; the living
waters, 487, ff.
Wellhausen, xxvii., xiii., 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 Grammar,
551, 592-
Wiinsche, Erlauterung der Evangelien,
96, 564, 571 ! Leiden des Messias,
xi., xlvi., 239, 389, 390, 549; Der
Prophet Hosea, 292, 293, 329.

614

GENERAL INDEX.

Xenophon Anabasis, 215
xxxii.

Cyropa^dia,

Yalkut Shimeoni, 564, 595, 596.
Zeal, flaming, 418, ff.
Zechariah's visions not mere poetic
fancy, 6 : first vision, the 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., ff;
date of his earliest predictions, xxii.,
ff; 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 Arnheim.

blitlcl' & Taimer, Tlie Selwooii I'nutlug Worktj, Frume, :unl Loudou.