Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

This is the typical meaning of the crowning of the high priest Joshua. But another feature is added to this. The crown, which has been placed upon the head of Joshua, to designate him as the type of the Messiah, is to be kept in the temple of the Lord after the performance of this act, as a memorial for those who bring the silver and gold from the exiles in Babel, and ‘37a ino, ae. for the favour or grace of the son of Zephaniah. Chén is not a proper name, or another name for Josiah, but an appellative in the sense of favour, or a fayourable disposition, and refers to the favour which the son of Zephaniah has shown to the emigrants who have come from Babylon, by receiving them hospitably into his house. For a memorial of these men, the crown is to be kept in the temple of Jehovah. The object of this is not merely “to guard it against profanation, and perpetuate the remembrance of the givers” (Kliefoth); but this action has also a symbolical and prophetic meaning, which is given in ver. 15 in the words, “ Strangers will come and build at the temple of the Lord.” Those who have come from the far distant Babylon are types of the distant nations who will help to build the temple of the Lord with their possessions and treasures. This symbolical proceeding therefore furnishes a confirmation of the promise in Hag. ii. 7, that the Lord will fill His temple with the treasures of all nations. By the realization of what is indicated in this symbolical proceeding, Israel will perceive that the speaker has been sent to them by the Lord of hosts; that is to say, not that Zechariah has spoken by the command of God, but that the Lord has sent the angel of Jehovah. For although in what precedes, only the prophet, and not the angel of Jehovah, has appeared as acting and speaking, we must not change the “ sending” into “ speaking” here, or take the féettinla ‘a1 °D DAY in any other sense here than in ch. ii. 13, 15, and iv. 9. We must therefore assume, that just as the words of theprophet pass imperceptibly into words of Jehovah, so here they pass into the words of the angel of Jehovah, w es says concerning himself that Jehovah has sent him. The words conclude with the earnest admonition to the hearers, that they are only to become partakers of the predicted good when they hearken to the voice of their God. The sentence commencing with 77) does not contain any apostopesis; there is no valid ground for such an assumption as this in the simple an- ' nouncement, which shows no trace of excitement; but v’hdyah may be connected with the preceding thought, “ ye will know,” etc., and affirms that they will only discern that the angel of Jehovah has been sent to them when they pay attention to the voice of their God. Now, although the recognition of the sending of the angel of the Lord involves participation in the Messianic salvation, the fact that this recognition is made to depend upon their giving heed to the word of God, by no means implies that the coming of the Messiah, or the participation of the Gentiles in His kingdom, will be bound up with the fidelity of the covenant nation, as Hengstenberg supposes; but the words simply declare that Israel will not come to the knowledge of the Messiah or to His salvation, unless it hearkens to the voice of the Lord. Whoever intentionally closes his eyes, will be unable to see the salvation of God.

The question whether the prophet really carried out the symbolical action enjoined upon him in vers. 10 sqq., externally or not, can neither be answered in the affirmative nor with a decided negative. The statement in ver. 11, that the prophet, who was hardly a goldsmith, was to make the crown, is no more a proof that it was not actually done, than the talmudic notice in Middoth iii., concerning the place where the crown was hung up in the temple, is a proof that it was. For n'’Y in ver. 11 may also express causing to be made; and the talmudic notice referred to does not affirm that this crown was kept in the temple, but simply states that in the porch of the temple there were beams stretching from one wall to the other, and that golden chains were fastened to them, upon which the priestly candidates climbed up and saw crowns; and the verse before us is then quoted, with the formula 7i2832¥ as a confirmation of this.

In reply to a question addressed to the priests and prophets in Jerusalem by the messengers of Bethel, whether the day on

‘which Jerusalem and the temple were reduced to ashes by the Chaldeans is still to be kept as a day of mourning and fasting

(ch. vii. 1-3), the Lord declares to the people through Zechariah, that He does not look upon fasting as a service well-pleasing to Him, but that He desires obedience to His word (vers. 4-7), and that He has only been obliged to scatter Israel among the nations on account of its obstinate resistance to the commandments of righteousness, love, and truth made known to them through the prophets (vers. 8-14), but that now He will turn again to Zion and Jerusalem with great warmth of love, and will bless His people with abundant blessings if they will only perform truth, just judgment, faithfulness, and love one towards another (ch. viii. 1-17). Then will He make the previous fastdays into days of joy and delight to them, and so glorify Himself upon Jerusalem, that many and powerful nations will come to seek and worship the Lord of hosts there (ch. viii. 18-23).

Vers. 1-3 describe the occasion for this instructive and consolatory “ word of God,” which was addressed to Zechariah in the fourth year of Darius, z.e. two years after the building of the temple was resumed, and two years before its completion, and therefore at a time when the building must have been far advanced, and the temple itself was possibly already finished in the rough. Ver. 1. “Jt came to pass in the fourth year of hing Darius, that the word of Jehovah came to Zechariah, on the fourth (day) of the ninth month, mm Kislev.” In this definition of the time we are surprised first of all at the circumstance, that, according to the Masoretic accentuation, and the division of the verses, the statement of the time is torn into two halves, and the notice of the year is placed after", whilst that of the month does not follow till after ‘7277.9; and secondly, at the fact that the introduction of the occurrence which led to this word of God is appended with the imperfect ¢. Vav rel. (vayyishlach), which would then stand in the sense of the pluperfect in opposition to the rule. On these grounds we must give up the Masoretic division of the verses, and connect the notice of the month and day in ver. 16 with ver. 2, so that ver. 1 contains merely the general statement that in the fourth year of king Darius the word of the Lord came to Zechariah. What follows will then be appended thus: On the fourth day of the ninth month, in Kislev, Bethel sent, etc. Thus the more precise definition of the time is only given in connection with the following occurrence, because it was self-evident that the word of God which was addressed to the prophet in consequence of that event, could not have been addressed to him before it occurred. The rendering of the words in ver. 2a is also a disputed point. We adopt the following: Ver. 2. “ Then Bethel sent Sharezer and Regem-melech, and his people, to entreat the face of Jehovah, (ver. 3) to speak to the priests who were at the house of Jehovah of hosts, and to the prophets, thus: Shall I weep, abstaining in the fifth month as I have now done so many years?” As Béth-él may either signify the house of God, or be the name of the town of Bethel, it may be taken either as aceus. loci, or as the subject of the sentence. Against the first explanation, which is very widely spread, viz. “it sent to the house of God, or to Bethel, Sharezer,” etc., or “ they sent to the house of God Sharezer,” etc., it may be argued not only that the prophet, in order to make himself intelligible, ought either to have written ’eél Beth él, or to have placed Beth~él after the object, but also that beth~2l cannot be shown to have been ever applied to the temple of Jehovah, and that it would have been altogether out of place to speak of sending to Bethel, because Jehovah could not be prayed to in Bethel after the captivity. We must therefore take b2th-2l as the subject, and understand it as denoting the population of Bethel, and not as a name given to the church of the Lord, since there are no conclusive passages to support any such use, as béth Y*hovdh only is used for the church of God (see at Hos. viii. 1), and here there could be no inducement to employ so unusual an epithet to denote the nation. A considerable number of the earlier inhabitants of Bethel had already returned with Zerubbabel, according to Ezra ii. 28 and Neh. vii. 82; and, according to Neh. xi. 31, the little town appears to have been soon rebuilt. The inhabitants of this city sent an embassy to Jerusalem, namely Sharezer and Rechem-Melech, and his men. The omission of the nota accus. ns has indeed been adduced as an objection to this interpretation of the names as the object, and the names have been therefore taken as the subject, and regarded as in apposition to Beth-él: “Bethel, namely Sharezer and Rechem, etc., sent;” that is to say, two men are mentioned in connection with Bethel, who are supposed to have acted as leaders of the embassy. But there is something so harsh and inflexible in the assumption of such an apposition as this, that in spite of the omission of the NX we prefer to regard the names as accusatives. The name Sharezer is evidently Assyrian (cf. Isa. xxxvii.

38; Jer. xxxix. 3, 13), so that the man was probably born in Babylonia. The object of sending these men is given first of all in general terms: viz. ‘J5"NS8 nidno, lit. to stroke the face of Jehovah,—an anthropomorphic expression for affectionate entreaty (see at Ps. cxix. 58), and then defined more precisely in ver. 3, where it is stated that they were to inquire of the priests and prophets, ¢.e. through their mediation, to entreat an answer from the Lord, whether the mourning and fasting were to be still kept up in the fifth month. Through the clause as map IW the priests are described as belonging to the house of Jehovah, though not in the sense supposed by Kliefoth, namely, “because they were appointed to serve in His house along with the Leyites, in the place of the first-born, who were the possession of Jehovah” (Num. iii. 41; Deut. x. 8, 9). There is no such allusion here; but the meaning is simply, “ as the persons in the temple, who by virtue of their mediatorial service were able to obtain an answer from Jehovah to a question addressed to Him in prayer.’ The connection with the prophets points to this. The question 12187 is defined by the inf, absol. 1125, as consisting in weeping or lamentation connected with abstinence from food and drink, i.e. with fasting. On this use of the inf. abs., see Ewald, § 280, a; 7135, to abstain (in this connection from meat and drink), is synonymous with ay in ver. 5. OY m2 Mt: “these how many years,” for which we should say, “so many years.” Kamimeh suggests the idea of an incalculably long duration. I, in this and other similar combinations with numerical data, has acquired the force of an adverb: now, already (cf. ch. i. 12, and Ewald, § 302, 0). The subject to 7328 is the population of Bethel, by which the men had been delegated. The question, however, had reference to a subject in which the whole community was interested, and hence the answer from God is addressed to all the people (ver. 5). So far as the circumstances themselves are concerned, we can see from ver. 5 and ch. viii. 19, that during the captivity the Israelites had adopted the custom of commemorating the leading incidents in the Chaldean catastrophe by keeping fast-days in the fifth, seventh, fourth, and tenth months. In the fifth month (Ad), on the tenth day, because, according to Jer. lii. 12, 13, that was the day on which the temple and the city of Jerusalem were destroyed by fire in the nineteenth year VOR AL U of Nebuchadnezzar, though the seventh day of that month is the date given in 2 Kings xxv. 8, 9 (see the comm. in loc.). In the seventh month, according to Jewish tradition, they fasted on the third day, on account of the murder of the governor Gedaliah, and the Judzeans who had been left in the land (2 Kings xxv. 25, 26; Jer. xli. 1 sqq.). In the fourth month (Tammuz) they fasted on the ninth day, on account of the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in the eleventh year of Zedekiah (Jer. xxxix. 2, lii. 6, 7). And lastly, in the tenth month, a fast was kept on the tenth day on account of the commencement of the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar on that day, in the ninth year of Zedekiah (2 Kings xxv. 1 and Jer. xxxix. 1)." The question put by the delegates referred simply to the fasting in the fifth month, in commemoration of the destruction of the temple. And now that the rebuilding of the temple was rapidly approaching completion, it appeared no longer in character to continue to keep this day, especially as the prophets had proclaimed on the part of God, that the restoration of the temple would be a sign that Jehovah had once more restored His favour to the remnant of His people. If this fast-day were given up, the others would probably be also relinquished. The question actually involved the prayer that the Lord would continue permanently to bestow upon His

1 The later Jews kept the 9th Ab as the day when both the first and second temples were destroyed by fire; and in Mishna Taanit iv. 6, five disasters are enumerated, which had fallen upon Israel on that day: viz. (1) the determination of God not to suffer the fathers to enter the promised land; (2 and 3) the destruction of the first and second temples; (4) the conquest of the city of Bether in the time of Bar-Cochba; (5) the destruction of the holy city, which Rashi explains from Mic. iii. 12 and Jer. xxvi. 18, but which others refer to the fact that Turnus Rufus (either Turannius Rufus or T. Annius Rufus: cf. Schottgen, Horw hebr. et talm. ii. 953 sqq., and Jost, Gesch. des Judenthums, ii. 77) ploughed over the foundation of the temple. Also, on the seventeenth of the fourth month (Tammuz), according to Mishna Taan. iv. 6, five disasters are said to have befallen Israel: (1) the breaking of the tables of the law (Ex. xxxii.); (2) the cessation of the daily sacrifice in the first temple from the want of sacrificial lambs (cf. Jer. lii. 6); (8) the breach made in the city walls; (4) the burning of the law by Apostemus; and (5) the setting up of the abomination, 7.e. of an idol, in the temple (Dan. xi. 31, xii. 18). Vid. Lundius, Codex talm. de jejunio, Traj. ad Rhen. 1694, p. 55 sqq.; also in abstract in Mishna ed. Surenhus. ii. pp. 882-3 people the favour which He had restored to them, and not only bring to completion the restoration of the holy place, which was already begun, but accomplish generally the glorification of Israel predicted by the earlier prophets. The answer given by the Lord through Zechariah to the people refers to this, since the priests and prophets could give no information in the matter of their own accord.

The answer from the Lord divides itself into two parts, ch. vil. 4-14 and ch. viii. In the first part He explains what it is that He requires of the people, and why He has been obliged to punish them with exile: in the second He promises them the restoration of His favour and the promised salvation. Hach of these parts is divisible again into two sections, ch. vil. 4-7 and ch. vii. 8—14, ch. viii. 1-17 and ch. viii. 18-23; and each of these sections opens with the formula, “The word of Jehovah (of hosts) came to me (Zechariah), saying.”

Vers. 4-7. The first of these four words of God contains an exposure of what might be unwarrantable in the question and its motives, and open to disapproval. Ver. 4. “And the word of Jehovah of hosts came to me thus, Ver. 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 (month), and that for seventy years, did ye, when fasting, fast to me? Ver. 6. And when ye eat, and when ye drink, is it not ye who eat, and ye who drink? Ver. 7. Does it not concern the words, which Jehovah has preached through the former prophets, when Jerusalem was inhabited and satisfied, and her towns round about her, and the south country and the low land were inhabited?” ‘The. thought of vers. 6 and 7 is the following: It is a matter of indifference to God whether the people fast or not. The true fasting, which is well pleasing to God, consists not in a pharisaical abstinence from eating and drinking, but in the fact that men observe the word of God and live thereby, as the prophets before the captivity had already preached to the people. This overthrew the notion that men could acquire the favour of God by fasting, and left it to the people to decide whether they would any longer observe the previous fastdays; it also showed what God would require of them if they wished to obtain the promised blessings. For the inf. absol., see at Hag.i. 6. The fasting in the seventh month was not the fast on the day of atonement which was prescribed in the law (Lev. xxili.), but, as has been already observed, the fast in commemoration of the murder of Gedaliah. In the form ‘2F'2¥ the suffix is not a substitute for the dative (Ges. § 121, 4), but is to be taken as an accusative, expressive of the fact that the fasting related to God (Ewald, § 315, 6). The suffix is strengthened by ‘28 for the sake of emphasis (Ges. § 121, 3). In ver. 7 the form of the sentence is elliptical. The verb is omitted in the clause DI2I07NS Nida, but not the subject, say ™!, which many commentators supply, after the LXX., the Peshito, and the Vulgate (“Are these not the words which Jehovah announced?”), in which case NX would have to be taken as nota nominativi. The sentence contains an apostopesis, and is to be completed by supplying a verb, either “should ye not do or give heed to the words which,” etc.? or “do ye not know the words?” n3v*, as in ch. i. 11, in the sense of sitting or dwelling; not in a passive sense, “ to be inhabited,” although it might be so expressed. mow is synonymous with NOPY in ch. i. 11. 0%, in the sense indicated at the close of the verse, is construed in the singular masculine, although it refers to a plurality of previous nouns (cf. Ges. § 148, 2). In addition to Jerusalem, the following are mentioned as a periphrasis for the land of Judah: (1) her towns round about; these are the towns belonging to Jerusalem as the capital, towns of the mountains of Judah which were more or less dependent upon her: (2) the two rural districts, which also belonged to the kingdom of Judah, viz. the negeb, the south country (which Koehler erroneously identifies with the mountains of Judah; compare Josh. xv. 21 with xv. 48), and the sh*phélah, or lowland along the coast of the Mediterranean (see at Josh. xv. 33).

Vers. 8-14. The second word of the Lord recals to the recollection of the people the disobedience of the fathers, and its consequences, viz. the judgment of exile, as a warning example. The introduction of the prophet’s name in the heading in ver. 8 does not warrant the strange opinion held by Schmieder and Schlier—namely, that our prophet is here reproducing the words of an earlier Zechariah who lived before the captivity—but. is merely to be attributed to a variation in the form of expression. This divine word was as follows:

Ver. 9. “Thus hath Jehovah of hosts spoken, saying, Execute judgment of truth, and show love and compassion one to another. Ver. 10. And widows and orphans, strangers and destitute ones, oppress not; and meditate not in your heart the injury of every brother. Ver. 11. But they refused to attend, and offered a rebellious shoulder, and hardened their ears that they might not hear. Ver. 12. And they made their heart diamond, that they might not hear the law and the words which Jehovah of hosts sent through His Spirit by means of the former prophet, so that great wrath came from Jehovah of hosts.” 28 13 is to be taken as a preterite here, referring to what Jehovah had caused to be proclaimed to the people before the captivity. The kernel of this announcement consisted in the appeal to the people, to keep the moral precepts of the law, to practise the true love of the neighbour in public life and private intercourse. Mishpat ’emeth, judgment. of truth (cf. Ezek. xviii. 8), is such an administration of justice as simply fixes the eye upon the real circumstances of any dispute, without any personal considerations whatever, and decides them in accordance with truth. For the fact itself, compare Ex. xxii. 20, 21, xxiii. 6-9; Lev. xixei15—-18 5) Deut. x.°18,)19, xxiv: 143 saci. 17; Jer. wai: 5, 6, xxii. 8; Ezek. xviii. 8; Hos. xii. 7, etc. YAS WX NN, the injury of a man who is his brother (as in Gen. ix. 5); not ‘injury one towards another,” which would suppose a transposition of the MS =O ny vx, In vers. 11 and 12 the attitude of the people towards these admonitions of God is described. Ndthan kathéph sorereth: to give or offer a rebellious shoulder, as in Neh. ix. 29. The figure is borrowed from an ox, which will not allow a yoke to be placed upon its neck (cf. Hos. iv. 16). To make the ears heavy (Jikhlid), away from hearing, «.e. so that they do not hear (cf. Isa. vi. 10). To make the heart diamond (shdmir), i.e. as hard as diamond. A stony heart is a heart not susceptible to impressions (cf. Ezek. xi.19). The relative WS before shdlach refers to the twonouns named before, viz. tor ih and d'bhdrim, though we need not on that account take toréh in the general sense of instruction. God also sent the law to the people through the prophets, 7.e. caused them to preach it and impress it upon their hearts. The consequence of this obduracy of the people was, that “there arose great wrath from Jehovah” (cf. ch, i. 2; 2 Kings in. 27).

This wrath is described in vers 13,14. Ver. 13. “ Jt came to pass: as he cried and they did not hear, so will they ery and I shall not hear, said Jehovah of hosts. Ver. 14. And I will scatter them with a whirlwind over all nations, who did not know them, and the land is laid waste behind them, so that no one passes to and fro. And thus they made the choice land a desert.” The form of the address changes in ver. 13. Whereas in the protasis the prophet is still speaking of Jehovah in the third person, in the apodosis he introduces Jehovah as speaking (so will they cry, and I, etc.) and announcing the punishment, which He will inflict upon the rebellious and has already inflicted in their captivity. This address of God is continued in ver. 14 as far as 1021, The opinion, that the address terminates with Dy x, and that YIN) commences the account of the ey ae of the purpose to punish, is not so much at variance with the circumstance, that in that case the last two clauses of ver. 14 would say essentially the same thing, as with the fact that 3 787) cannot, from its very form, be taken as an account of the accomplishment of the divine purpose. The perfect néshammdh in this clause does not preclude our connecting it with the preceding one, but is used to set forth the devastation as a completed fact: the land will be (not become) waste. The infliction of the punishment is expressed in ver. 13 in the form of a divine talio. As they have not hearkened to the word of God, so will God, when they call upon Him, namely in distress (cf. Hos. v. 15), also not hear (cf. Jer. xi. 11), but whirl them like a tempest over the nations. The form DYDS is the first pers. imperf. piel for DIYDN or OWDN, and Aramaic (cf. Ges. § 52, 2, Anm. 2). On the nations whom they do not know, and ahs mill therefore have no pity and compassion upon them, compare Jer. xxii, 28, xvi. 13. Wri 72y9 (cf. ix. 8), that not one goes to and fro in the desolate land; lit. goes away from a place and returns again (cf. Ex. xxxii. 27). In the clause) DY the result of the stiff-necked obstinacy of the fathers is briefly stated: They have made the choice land a desert (erets chemddh, as in Jer. ili, 19 and Ps. evi. 24), so that they have brought upon the land all the calamity which is now bewailed upon the fast-days.

In this chapter we have the second half of the Lord’s answer to the question concerning the fast-days, which promises to the people the restitution of the former relation of grace, and the future glorification of Israel, on the simple condition of their observing the moral precepts of the law. This double promise is contained in two words of God, each of which is divided into a number of separate sayings, containing the separate details of the salvation bestowed by the formula ’S “” 128 73 (thus saith Jehovah of hosts): the first into seven (vers. 2, 3, 4-5, 6, 7, and ch. viii. 9-13, 14-17), the second into three (vers. 19, 20-22, and 23). Jerome observes, with reference to this: “ By the separate words and sentences, in which Israel is promised not only prosperity, but things almost incredible in their magnitude, the prophet declares, ‘Thus saith the Almighty God;’ saying, in other words, Do not imagine that the things which I promise are my own, and so disbelieve me as only a man; they are the promises of God which I unfold.”

Vers. 1-17. Restoration and completion of the covenant relation.—Ver. 1. “ And the word of Jehovah of hosts came, saying, Ver. 2. Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, Iam jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and with great fury Iam jealous for her.’ The promise commences with the declaration of the Lord, that He has resolved to give active expression once more to the warmth of His love to Zion. The perfects are used prophetically of that which God had resolved to do, and was now about to accomplish. For the fact itself, compare ch. 1. 14,15. This warmth of the love of God towards Zion, and of His wrath towards the nations that were hostile to Zion, will manifest itsclf in the facts described in ver. 3: “ Thus saith Jehovah, I return to Zion, and shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem; and Jerusalem will be called city of truth, and the mountain of Jehovah of hosts the holy mountain.” When Jerusalem was given up into the power of its foes, the Lord had forsaken His dwelling-place in the temple. Ezekiel saw the glory of the Lord depart from the temple (ch. ix. 3, x. 4, 18, xi. 22, 23). Now He is about to resume His abode in Jeru- salem once more. The difference between this promise and the similar promise in ch. ii. 14-17, is not that in the latter passage Jehovah’s dwelling in the midst of His people is to be understood in an ideal and absolute sense, whereas here it simply denotes such a dwelling as had taken place before, as Koehler supposes. This is not implied in ‘nav, nor is it in harmony with the statement that Jerusalem is to be called a city of truth, and the temple hill the holy mountain. ‘Jr ’&meth does not mean “city of security,” but city of truth or fidelity, i.e. in which truth and fidelity towards the Lord have their home. The temple mountain will be called the holy mountain, 2.e. will be so, and will be recognised and known as being so, from the fact that Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel, will sanctify it by His dwelling there. Jerusalem did not acquire this character in the period after the captivity, in which, though not defiled by gross idolatry, as in the times before the captivity, it was polluted by other moral abominations no less than it had been before. Jerusalem becomes a faithful city for the first time through the Messiah, and it is through Him that the temple mountain first really becomes the holy mountain. The opinion, that there is nothing in the promises in vers. 3-13 that did not really happen to Israel in the period from Zerubbabel to Christ (IXliefoth, Koehler, etc.), is proved to be incorrect by the very words, both of this verse and also of vers. 6, 7, 8, which follow. How could the simple restoration of the previous covenant relation be described in ver. 6 as something that appeared miraculous and incredible to the nation? There is only so much correctness in the view in question, that the promise does not refer exclusively to the Messianic times, but that feeble commencements of its fulfilment accompanied the completion of the work of building the temple, and the restoration of Jerusalem by Nehemiah. But the saying which follows proves that these commencements do not exhaust the meaning of the words.

Ver. 4. “ Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, Yet will there sit old men and women in the streets of Jerusalem, every one with his staf’ in lis hand, for the multitude of the days of his life. Ver. 5. And the streets of the city will be full of boys and girls playing in their streets.” ong life, to an extreme old age, and a plentiful number of blooming children, were theocratic blessings, which the Lord had already promised in the law to His people, so far as they were faithful to the covenant. Consequently there does not appear to be any Messianic element in this promise. But if we compare this fourth verse with Isa. Ixv. 20, we shall see that extreme old age also belonged to the blessings of the Messianic times. And as Israel had almost always to suffer most grievously from wars and other calamities, which swept off the people at an untimely age, during the time which extended from Zerubbabel to Christ; it must be admitted, notwithstanding the description of the prosperous times which Israel enjoyed under the government of Simon (1 Macc. xiv. 4-15), that this promise also was only fulfilled in a very meagre measure, so far as Jerusalem was concerned, before the coming of Christ.

Ver. 6. “ Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, If it be marvellous in the eyes of the remnant of this nation in those days, will it also be marvellous in my eyes? is the saying of Jehovah of hosts.’ The second clause of this verse is to be taken as a question with a negative answer, 83 for 039, as in 1 Sam. xxii. 7, and the meaning is the following: If this (what is promised in vers. 3-5) should appear marvellous, 7.e. incredible, to the people in those days when it shall arrive, it will not on that account appear marvellous to Jehovah Himself, ze. Jehovah will for all that cause what has been promised actually to occur. This contains an assurance not only of the greatness of the salvation set before them, but also of the certainty of its realization. “ The remnant of the nation,” as in Hag. i. 12-14.

Ver. 7. “ Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, Behold, I save my people out of the land of the rising and out of the land of the setting of the sun. Ver. 8. And I bring them hither, and they will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem, and will be my people, and T shall be their God, in truth and righteousness.” ‘The deliverance of the people of God out of the heathen lands did indeed commence with the return of a body of exiles from Babylon under the guidance of Zerubbabel, but their deliverance out of all the countries of the earth is still in the future. Instead of all countries, the land of the rising (the east) and the land of the setting (the west) are individualized (cf. Ps. 1.1, cx. 3; Isa. lix. 19; Mal. i. 11). This deliverance is first effected through the Messiah. This is indisputably evident from the words, “I bring them to Jerusalem,” by which of course we cannot understand the earthly Jerusalem, since that would not furnish space enough for the Jews scattered throughout all the world, but the open and enlarged Jerusalem mentioned in ch, ii. 8, ze. the Messianic kingdom of God. Then will those who have been gathered together out of all the countries of the earth become in truth God’s nation. Israel was the nation of Jehovah, and Jehovah was also Israel’s God from the time of the establishment of the old covenant at Sinai (Ex. xxiv.). This relation is to be restored in the future, “in truth and righteousness.” This is the new feature by which the future is to be distinguished from the present and the past. The words “in truth and righteousness” belong to the two clauses, “they shall be” and “I will be.” For the fact itself, compare Hos. ii. 21, 22; and for the expression, Isa. xlvili. 1 and 1 Kings iii. 6.

After these promises the prophet admonishes the people to be of good courage, because the Lord will from henceforth bestow His blessing upon them Ver. 9. “ Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, Let your hands be strong, ye that hear in these days these words from the mouth of the prophets, on the day that the foundation of the house of Jehovah of hosts was laid, the temple, that it may be built. Ver. 10. For before those days there were no wages for the men, and no wages of cattle; and whoever went out and in had no peace because of the oppressor: and I drove all men, one against the other.. Ver. 11. But now Iam not as in the former days to the remnant of this people, is the saying of Jehovah of hosts. Ver. 12. But the seed of peace, the vine, shall yield its fruit, and the land shall yield its produce, and the heaven give its dew; and to the remnant of this people will I give all this for an inheritance.” Having the hands strong, is the same as taking good courage for any enterprise (thus in Judg. vii. 11, 2 Sam. ii. 7, and Ezek. xxii. 14). This phrase does not refer specially to their courageous continuation of the building of the temple, but has the more general meaning of taking courage to accomplish what the calling of each required, as vers. 10-13 show. ‘The persons addressed are those who hear the words of the prophets in these days. This suggests a motive for taking courage. Because they hear these words, they are to look forward with comfort to the future, and do what their calling requires. The words of the prophets are the promises which Zechariah announced in vers. 2-8, and his contemporary Haggai in ch. ii. It will not do to take the plural D822 in a general sense, as referring to Zechariah alone. For if there had been no prophet at that time beside Zechariah, he could not have spoken in general terms of prophets. By the defining phrase, who are or who rose up at the time when the foundation of the temple was laid, these prophets are distinguished from the earlier ones before the captivity (ch. vii. 7, 12, i. 4), and their words are thereby limited to what Haggai and Zechariah prophesied from that time downwards. 42 does not stand for Di (Hitzig), but yom is used in the general sense of the time at which anything does occur or has occurred. As a more precise definition of 1b’ Di the word niaan> is added, to show that the time referred to is that in which the laying of the foundation of the temple in the time of Cyrus became an eventful fact through the continuation of the building. In vers. 10 sqq. a reason is assigned for the admonition to work with good courage, by an exhibition of the contrast between the present and the former times. Before those days, sc. when the building of the temple was resumed and continued, a man received no wages for his work, and even the cattle received none, namely, because the labour of man and beast, i.e. agricultural pursuits, yielded no result, or at any rate a most meagre result, by no means corresponding to the labour (cf. Hag. i. 6, 9-11, ii. 16, 19). The feminine suffix attached to 722° refers with inexactness to the nearest word 19733, instead of the more remote 13% (cf. Ewald, § 317, ¢). ‘In addition to this, on going out and coming in, i.e. when pursuing their ordinary avocations, men came everywhere upon enemies or adversaries, and therefore there was an entire absence of civil peace. 87 is not an abstract noun, “ oppression” (L.X X., Chald., Vulg.), but a concrete, “adversary,” oppressor, though not the heathen foe merely, but, as the last clause of ver. 10 shows, the adversaries in their own nation also. In nbviny the 1 is not a simple copula, but the 1 consec. with the compensation wanting, like WIN) in Jude. vi. 9 (cf. Ewald, § 232, h); and nw, to send, used of a hostile nation, is here transferred to personal attacks on the part of individuals. —Vers. 11 sqq. But now the Lord will act differently to His remaining people, and bless it again with a fruitful harvest of the fruits of the field and soil. °D in ver. 12, “for,” after a negative clause, “ but.” nibyin yu, not the seed will be secure (Chald., Pesh.), but the seed of peace, viz. the vine. This is so designated, not because there is a l’rdkhah in the grape (Isa. lxv. 8); but because the vine can only flourish in peaceful times, and not when the land is laid waste by enemies (Koehler). On the words which follow, compare Lev. xxvi. 4 sqq., Ps. Ixvii. 7, Hag. i. 10, ii. 19. “ Future abundance will compensate for the drought and scarcity of the past” (Jerome).

The whole blessing is finally summed up in one expression in ver.13: “ And zt will come to pass, as ye were a curse among the nations, O house of Judah and house of Israel, so will I endow you with salvation, that ye may be a blessing. Fear not, let your hands be strong.” The formula, to be a curse among the nations, is to be interpreted according to Jer. xxiv. 9, xxv. 9, xlii. 18, 2 Kings xxii. 19, as equivalent to being the object of a curse, i.e. so smitten by God as to serve as the object of curses. In harmony with this, the phrase to “become a blessing” is equivalent to being so blessed as to be used as a benedictory formula (cf. Gen. xlvili. 22; Jer. xxix. 22). This promise is made to the remnant of Judah and Israel, and therefore of all the twelve tribes, who are to become partakers of the future salvation in undivided unity (cf. ch. ix. 10, 13, x. 6, xi. 14). Israel is therefore to look forward to the future without alarm.

The ground upon which this promise rests is given in vers. 14 and 15, and it is closed in vers. 16 and 17 by the addition of the condition upon which it is to be fulfilled. Ver. 14. “ For thus saith Jehovah of hosts: As I thought to do evil to you, when your fathers were angry with me, saith Jehovah of hosts, and repented not; Ver. 15. So have I purposed again in these days to do good to Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. Fear ye not. Ver. 16. These are the words that ye are to do: speak truth every one to his neighbour; truth and judgment of peace judge ye in your gates. Ver. 17. And let not one devise the evil of his neighbour, and love not the oath of deceit: for all this, I hate it, is the saying of Jehovah.” As the time of punishment by exile came upon Israel through the decree of God, so is it now a decree of the Lord to show good to Judah. In ‘nt naw the ‘n1Y takes the place of the adverbial idea “ again,” The people have therefore no need to fear, if they are only diligent in practising truth, righteousness, and love to their neighbour. God required the same of the fathers (ch. vil. 9,10). Mishpat shalom is such an administration of justice as tends to promote peace and establish concord between those who are at strife. “In your gates,” where courts of justice were held (cf. Deut. xxl. 19, xxii. 15, etc.). The MS before MpN-Pd in ver. 17 may be accounted for from a kind of attraction, inasmuch as by the insertion of 18 the object “all this” is separated from the verb, to bring it out with emphasis: “ As for all this, it is what I hate.” Compare the similar use of ’éh in Hag. ii. 5, and Ewald, § 277, d.

Vers. 18-23. The last word of God gives, in connection with what precedes, the direct answer to the inquiry concerning the fast-days, and consists of three sayings, vers. 19, 20, and 23, of which the second and third explain the contents of the first more clearly. Ver. 18 is the same as vers. 1 and 7 and ch. iv. 8. Ver. 19. “ Thus saith Jehovah of hosts: The fasting of the fourth, and the fasting of the fifth, and the fusting of the seventh, and the fasting of the tenth (months), will become pleasure and joy to the house of Judah, and good feasts. But truth and peace ye should love.” On the fast-days mentioned, compare the exposition of ch. vil. 3. These fast-days the Lord will turn into days of joy and cheerful feast-days—namely, by bestowing upon them such a fulness of salvation, that Judah will forget to commemorate the former mournful events, and will only have occasion to rejoice in the blessings of grace bestowed upon it by God; though only when the condition mentioned in vers. 16 and 17 has been fulfilled.’

Ver. 20. “Thus saith Jehovah of hosts: Yet will nations come, and inhabitants of many cities. Ver. 21. And the inhabitants of one (city) will go to another, and say, ‘ We will go, go away, to supplicate the face of Jehovah, and to seek Jehovah

1 Luther aptly observes: ‘‘ Keep only what I command, and let fasting alone. Yea, if ye keep my commandments, not only shall such fasts be over and come to an end; but because I will do so much good to Jerusalem, all the affliction, for which ye have chosen and kept such fasting, shall be go forgotten, that ye will be transported with joy when ye think of your fasting, and of the heart’s grief on account of which ye fasted for the time,” ete.

of hosts’ ‘Iwill also go’ Ver. 22. And many peoples and strong nations will come, to seek Jehovah of hosts in Jerusalem, and to supplicate the face of Jehovah.” These verses do not announce a further or second glorification, which God has designed for His people, but simply indicate the nature and magnitude of the salvation appointed for Israel, through which its fast-days will be turned into days of joy. Hitherto Israel had kept days of mourning and fasting on account of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple; but in the future the Lord will so glorify His city and His house, that not only will Israel keep joyful feasts there, but many and strong heathen nations will go to the house of God, to seek and worship the God of hosts. ‘ty is used with emphasis, so that it resembles a sentence: “It will still come to pass, that,” etc. This is how 1&8 in vers. 21 and 23 is to be taken, and not as the introduction to the saying preceded energetically by “y, for which Hitzig is wrong in referring to Mic. vi. 10. For the fact itself, compare Mic. iv. 1 sqq., Isa. il, 2 sqq., Jer. xvi. 19. In ver. 21 the thought is individualized. The inhabitants of one city call upon those of another. Aion n293, “we will go to supplicate,” ete.; and the population of the other city responds to the summons by saying, “I also will go.” YEN min, as in ch. vii. 2.

Ver. 25. “ Thus saith Jehovah of hosts: In those days ten men out of all languages of the nations take hold; they will take hold of the skirt of a Jewish man, saying, We will go with you; for we have heard God is with you.” Not only will the heathen then flow to Jerusalem to seek the God of Israel, but they will crowd together to Israel and Judah to be received into fellowship with them as a nation. Ten men from the heathen nations to one Jewish man: so great will be the pressure of the heathen. Yen is used as an indefinite number, denoting a great and complete multitude, as in Gen. xxxi. 7, Lev. xxvi. 26, Num. xiv. 22, and 1 Sam. i. 8. For the figure, compare Isa. iv. 1. 3p") is aresumption of 3p in the form of an apodosis. The unusual combination D%a0 nist b>, “all the tongues of the nations,” is formed after Isa. Ixvi. 18 (nie ovian, “all nations and tongues,” ze. nations of all languages), and on the basis of Gen. x. 20 and 31. For Dpay 1323, compare Ruth i. 16; and for D2DY DIN, 2 Chron. xv. 9.

The promise, that the Lord would change the fast-days in the future into days of rejoicing and cheerful feasts, if Israel only loved truth and peace (ver. 20), when taken in connection with what is said in ch. vii. 5, 6 concerning fasting, left the decision of the question, whether the fast-days were to be given up or to be still observed, in the hands of the people. We have no historical information as to the course adopted by the inhabitants of Judah in consequence of the divine answer. All that we know is, that even to the present day the Jews observe the four disastrous days as days of national mourning. The talmudic tradition in Rosh-hashana (f. 18, a, b), that the four fast-days were abolished in consequence of the answer of Jehovah, and were not restored again till after the destruction of the second temple, is not only very improbable, but is no doubt erroneous, inasmuch as, although the restoration of the days for commemorating the destruction of Jerusalem and the burning of the temple could easily be explained, on the supposition that the second destruction occurred at the same time as the first, it is not so easy to explain the restoration of the fast-days in commemoration of events for which there was no link of connection whatever in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. In all probability, the matter stands rather thus: that after the receipt of this verbal answer, the people did not venture formally to abolish the fast-days before the appearance of the promised salvation, but let them remain, even if they were not always strictly observed; and that at a later period the Jews, who rejected the Messiah, began again to observe them with greater stringency after the second destruction of Jerusalem, and continue to do so to the present time, not because “the prophecy of the glory intended for Israel (vers. 18-23) is still unfulfilled” (Koehler), but because “blindness in part is happened to Israel,” so that it has not discerned the fulfilment, which commenced with the appearance of Christ upon earth.

The two longer prophecies, which fill up the last part of our book (ch. ix.-xi. and xii.-xiv.), show by their headings, as well as by their contents, and even by their formal arrangement, that they are two corresponding portions of a greater whole. In the headings, the fact that they have both the common character of a threatening prophecy or proclamation of judgment, is indicated by the application of the same epithet, Mass@ d*bhar Y*hévah (burden of the word of Jehovah), whilst the objects, ‘land of Hadrach” (ch. ix. 1) and “ Israel” (ch. xii. 1), point to a contrast, or rather to a conflict between the lands of Hadrach and Israel. This contrast or conflict extends through the contents of both. All the six chapters treat of the war between the heathen world and Israel, though in different ways. In the first oracle (ch. ix.-xi.), the judgment, through which the power of the heathen world over Israel is destroyed and Israel is endowed with strength to overcome all its enemies, forms the fundamental thought and centre of gravity of the prophetic description. In the second (ch. xii.-xiv.), the judgment through which Israel, or Jerusalem and Judah, is sifted in the war with the heathen nations, and translated into the holy nation of the Lord by the extermination of its spurious members, is the leading topic. And lastly, in a formal respect the two oracles resemble one another, in the fact that in the centre of each the announcement suddenly takes a different tone, without any external preparation (ch. xi. 1 and xill. 7), so that it is apparently the commencement of a new prophecy; and it is only by a deeper research into the actual fact, that the connection between the two is brought out, and the relation between the two clearly seen,—namely, that the second section contains a more minute description of the manner in which the events announced in the first section are to be realized. In the threatening word concerning the land of Hadrach, ch. ix. and x. form the first section, ch. xi. the second; in that concerning Israel, the first section extends from ch. xii. 1 to xii. 6, and the second from ch. xiii. 7 to the end of the book,

Whilst the judgment falls upon the land of Hadrach, upon Damascus and Hamath, and upon Pheenicia and Philistia, so that these kingdoms are overthrown and the cities laid waste and the remnant of their inhabitants incorporated into the nation of God (ch. ix. 1-7), Jehovah will protect His people, and cause His King to enter Zion, who will establish a kingdom of peace over the whole earth (vers. 8-10). Those members of the covenant nation who are still in captivity are redeemed, and endowed with victory over the sons of Javan (vers. 11-17), and richly blessed by the Lord their God to overcome all enemies in His strength (ch. x.). The unity of the two chapters, which form the first half of this oracle, is evident from the close substantial connection between the separate sections. The transitions from one complex of thought to the other are so vanishing, that it is a matter of dispute, in the case of ch. x. 1 and 2, for example, whether these verses should be connected with ch. ix., or retained in connection with ch. x. 4 sqq.

Ch. ix. 1-10. JUDGMENT UPON THE LAND oF HADRACH; AND Zion’s Kine or Peace.—Ver. 1. The true interpretation of this section, and, in fact, of the whole prophecy, depends upon the explanation to be given to the heading contained in this verse. The whole verse reads thus: “ Burden of the word of Jehovah over the land of Hadrach, and Damascus is tts resting-place; for Jehovah has an eye upon the men, and upon all the tribes of Israel.” There is a wide divergence of opinion concerning the land of 7777. We need not stop to give any elaborate refutation to the opinion that Hadrach is the name of the Messiah (as some Rabbins suppose), or that it is the name of an unknown Syrian king (Ges., Bleck), or of an Assyrian fire-god, Adar or Asar (Movers), or of a deity of Eastern Aramza (Babylonia), as Hitzig maintained, since there is no trace whatever of the existence of such a king or deity; and even Hitzig himself has relinquished his own conjecture. And the view defended by J. D. Mich. and Rosenmiiller, that

- Hadrach is the name of an ancient city, situated not far from Damascus, is destitute of any tenable basis, since Hengstenberg (Christol. iii. p. 372, transl.) has proved that the historical testimonies adduced in support of this rest upon some confusion with the ancient Arabian city of Drda, Adrda, the biblical Edrei (Deut. i. 4). As the name Hadrach or Chadrach never occurs again, and yet a city which gives its name to a land, and occurs in connection with Damascus, Hamath, Tyre, and Sidon, could not possibly have vanished so completely, that even the earlier Jewish and Christian commentators heard nothing of it, Chadrach can only be a symbolical name formed by the prophet himself (as Jerome maintained, according to a Jewish tradition), from chad, acris, sharp, brave, ready for war (in tender, in the sense of sharp-soft, or strong-tender, after the analogy of the symbolical names, Dumah for Edom, in Isa. xxi. 11; Sheshach for Babylon, in Jer. xxv. 26, li. 41; Ariel for Jerusalem, in Isa. xxix. 1, 2,7. This view can no more be upset by the objection of Koehler, that the interpretation of the name is adisputed point among the commentators, and that it is doubtful why the prophet should have chosen such a symbolical epithet, than by the circumstance that the rabbinical interpretation of the word as a name for the Messiah is evidently false, and has long ago been given up by the Christian commentators. That Hadrach denotes a land or kingdom, is raised above all reach of doubt by the fact that ’erets (the land) is placed before it. But what land? The statement in the following sentence by no means compels us to think of a province of Syria, as Hitzig, Koehler, and others suppose. As the cities and lands which follow are quoted under their ordinary names, it is impossible to imagine any reason for the choice of a symbolical name for another district of Syria bordering upon Damascus and Hamath. The symbolical name rather points to the fact that the land of Hadrach denotes a territory, of which Damascus, Hamath, Tyre, Sidon, and Philistia formed the several parts. And this is favoured by the circumstance that the words, “ Burden of the word of Jehovah upon the land of Hadrach,” form the heading to the oracle, in which the preposition 3 is used as in the expression 2792 Nb”) in Isa. xxi. 13, and is to be explained from the phrase = 2 125 BD i in Isa. ix. 7: The burdensome word falls, descends upon the land of Hadrach. The remark of Koehler in. opposition to this, to the effect that these words are not a heading, but form the commencement of the exposition of the word of Jehovah through the prophet, inasmuch as the following clause is appended with 4, is quite groundless. The clause in Isa. xiv. 28, “In the year that king Ahaz died was this burden,” is also a heading; and the assertion that the 1 before pw is not a} eaplic., but an actual 1 conjunct., rests upon the assumption that the cities and lands mentioned in the course of this prophecy have not already been all embraced by the expression 7777 /8,—an assumption which has not been sustained by any proofs. On the contrary, the fact that not only is Damascus mentioned as the resting-place of the word of Jehovah, but Hamath and also the capitals of Phoenicia and Philistia are appended, proves the very opposite. This evidently implies that the burden resting upon the land of Hadrach will affect all these cities and lands. The exposition of the burden announced upon the land of Hadrach commences with pweT). This is attached to the heading with Vav, because, so far as the sense is concerned, massa’ is equivalent to “ it presses as a burden.” The exposition, however, is restricted, so far as Damascus and Hamath are concerned, to the simple remark that the burdensome word upon Hadrach will rest upon it, z.e. will settle permanently upon it. (The suffix in inn mht to’ 127 Nw.) It is only with the lands which stood in a closer relation to Judah, viz. Tyre, Sidon, and the provinces of Philistia, that it assumes the form of a specially prophetic description. The contents of the heading are sustained by the thought in the second hemistich: “Jehovah has an eye upon men, and upon all the tribes of Israel.” DTS PY with the gent. obj. signifies an eye upon man, analogous to MPMI “YDS in ver. 12. DIN, as distinguished from “ all the tribes of Israel,” signifies the rest of mankind, ze. the heathen world, as in Tale xxxii. 20, where “Israel” and “men” are posed to one another. The explanatory clause, according to which the burden of Jehovah falls upon the land of Hadrach, and rests upon Damascus, because the eye of Jehovah looks upon mankind and all the tribes of Israel, i.e. His providence stretches over the heathen world as well as over Israel, is quite sufficient in itself to overthrow the assumption of Hofmann and Koehler, that by the land of Hadrach we are to understand the land of Israel. For if the explanatory clause were understood as signifying that the burden, i.e. the judgment, would not only fall upon Hamath as the representative of the human race outside the limits of Israel, but also upon the land of Hadrach as the land of all the tribes of Israel, this view would be precluded not only by the circumstance that in what follows heathen nations alone are mentioned as the objects of the judgment, whereas salvation and peace are proclaimed to Israel, but also by the fact that no ground whatever can be discovered for the application of so mysterious an epithet to the land of Israel. According to Hofmann (Schriftd. ii. 2, p. 604), 7770 OS signifies the whole of the territory of the kingdom of David, which is so called as “the land of Israel, which, though weak in itself, was, through the strength of God, as” sharp as a warrior’s sword.” But if a judgment of destruction, which Hofmann finds in our prophecy, were announced “to all the nations dwelling within the bounds of what was once the Davidic kingdom,” the judgment would fall upon Israel in the same way as upon the heathen nations that are named, since the tribes of Israel formed the kernel of the nations who dwelt in what was once the Davidic kingdom, and Israel would therefore show itself as a sharp-soft people. Hence Koehler has modified this view, and supposes that only the heathen dwelling within the limits of the nation of the twelve tribes are threatened with Jehovah’s judgment,—namely, all the heathen within the land which Jehovah promised to His people on their taking possession of Canaan (Num. xxxiy. 1-12). But apart from the unfounded assumption that Hadrach is the name of a district of Syria on the border of Damascns and Hamath, this loophole is closed by the fact that, according to Num. xxxiy. 1 sqq., Hamath and Damascus are not included in the possession promised to Israel. According to Num. xxxiv. 8, the northern boundary of the land of Israel was to extend to Hamath, 2.e. to the territory of the kingdom of Hamath, and Damascus is very far beyond the eastern boundary of the territory assigned to the Israelites (see the exposition of Num. xxxiv. 1-12), Now, if the land of Hadrach, Damascus, and

Hamath were not within the ideal boundaries of Israel, and if Hamath and Hadrach did not belong to the Israelitish kingdom in the time of David, the other lands or cities mentioned in our oracle cannot be threatened with the judgment on account of their lying within the Mosaic boundaries of the land of Israel, or being subject to the Israelites for a time, but can only come into consideration as enemies of Israel whose might was to be threatened and destroyed by the judgment. Consequently the land of Hadrach must denote a land hostile to the covenant nation or the kingdom of God, and can only be a symbolical epithet descriptive of the Medo-Persian empire, which is called sharp-soft or strong-weak on account of its inwardly divided character, as Hengstenberg and Kliefoth assume. Now, however difficult it may. be satisfactorily to explain the reason why Zechariah chose this symbolical name for the Medo-Persian monarchy, so much is certain, that the choice of a figurative name was much more suitable in the case of the dominant empire of that time, than in that of any small country on the border of Damascus or Hamath. All the cities and lands enumerated after “the land of Hadrach,” as losing their glory at the same time, belonged to the Medo-Persian monarchy. Of these the prophet simply refers to Damascus and Hamath in general terms; and it is only in the case of the Phoenician and Philistian cities that he proceeds toa special description of their fall from their lofty eminence, because they stood nearest to the kingdom of Israel, and represented the might of the kingdom of the world, and its hostility to the kingdom of God, partly in the worldly development of their own might, and partly in their hostility to the covenant nation. The description is an individualizing one throughout, exemplifying general facts by particular cities. This is also evident from the announcement of salvation for Zion in vers. 8-10, from which we may see that the overthrow of the nations hostile to Israel stands in intimate connection with the establishment of the Messianic kingdom; and it is also confirmed by the second half of our chapter, where the conquest of the imperial power by the people of God is set forth in the victories of Judah and Ephraim over the sons of Javan. That the several peoples and cities mentioned by name are simply introduced as representatives of the imperial power, is evident from the distinction made in this verse between (the rest of) mankind and all the tribes of Israel.

Ver. 2. “ And Hamath also, which borders thereon; T'yre and Sidon, because it is very wise. Ver. 8. And Tyre built herself a stronghold, and heaped up silver like dust, and gold like dirt of the streets. Ver. 4. Behold, the Lord will cause it to be taken, and smite its might in the sea, and she will be consumed by fire.” Chdémath is appended to Damascus by v’gam (and also). Tigbol-bah is to be taken as a relative clause; and bah refers to chdmdth, and not to ’erets chadraékh (the land of Hadrach). “ Hamath also,” te. ’Eaupavera on the Orontes, the present Humah (see at Gen. x. 18), which borders on Damascus, z.¢. which has its territory touching the territory of Damascus, sc. will be a resting-place of the burden of Jehovah. The relative clause connects Hamath with Damascus, and separates it from the names which follow. Damascus and Hamath represent Syria. Tyre and Sidon, the two capitals of Phcenicia, are connected again into a pair by the explanatory clause 11237 °3 Tk2. For ahorak M23M is in the singular, it cannot be taken as refer ring to Gian only, because Tyre i is mentioned again in the very next verse as the subject, and the practical diaplay of its wisdom is described. The singular 7230 cannot be taken distributively in this sense, that being wise applies in just the same manner to both the cities (Koehler); for the cases quoted by Gesenius (§ 146, 4) are of a totally different kind, since there the subject is in the plural,.and is construed with a singular verb; but ji7°¥ is subordinate to 1x, “Tyre with Sidon,” Sidon being regarded as an annex of Tyre, answering to the historical relation in which the two cities stood to one another, —namely, that Tyre was indeed originally a colony of Sidon, but that it very soon overshadowed the mother city, and rose to be the capital of all Phcenicia (see the comm. on Isa. xxiii.), so that even in Isaiah and Ezekiel the prophecies concerning Sidon are attached to those concerning Tyre, and its fate appears interwoven with that of Tyre (cf. Isa. xxiii. 4, 12; Ezek. xxviil. 21 sqq.). Hence we find Tyre only spoken of here in vers. 3 and 4. This city showed its wisdom in the fact that it built itself a fortress, and heaped up silver and gold like dust and dirt of the streets. Zechariah has here in his mind the insular Tyre, which was built about three or four stadia from the mainland, and thirty stadia to the north of Palw-tyrus, and which is called D9 Ny in Isa. xxiii. 4, because, although very small in extent, it was surrounded by a wall a hundred and fifty feet high, and was so strong a fortification, that Shalmaneser besieged it for five years without success, and Nebuchadnezzar for thirteen years, and apparently was unable to conquer it (see Delitzsch on Isatah, vol. i. p. 416). This fortification is called mdtsor. Here Tyre had heaped up immense treasures. Chérits is shining gold (Ps. Ixviii. 14, etc.). But the wisdom through which Tyre had acquired such might and such riches (cf. Ezek. xxviii. 4, 5) would be of no help to it. For it was the wisdom of this world (1 Cor. i. 20), which ascribes to itself the glory due to God, and only nourishes the pride out of which it sprang. The Lord will take the city. Horish does not mean to drive from its possession—namely, the population (Hitzig) —for the next two clauses show that it is not the population of Tyre, but the city itself, which is thought of as the object; ner does it mean to “ give as a possession”—namely, their treasures (Calv., Hengst., etc.)—but simply to take possession, to take, to conquer, as in Josh. viil. 7, xvii. 12, Num. xiv. 24 (Maurer, Koehler). And will smite in the sea nen, not “her bulwarks:” for bn, when used of fortifications, neither denotes the city wall nor earthworks, but the moat, including the small outer wall (2 Sam. xx. 15) as distinguished from the true city wall (chomah, Isa. xxvi. 1, Lam. ii. 8), and this does not apply to the insular Tyre; moreover, cannot be taken here in any other sense than in Ezek. xxvii. 4, 5, which Zechariah follows. There it denotes the might which Tyre had acquired through its wisdom, not merely warlike or military power (Koehler), but might consisting in its strong situation and artificial fortification, as well as in the wealth of its resources for defence. This will be smitten in the sea, because Tyre itself stood in the sea. And finally, the city will be destroyed by fire.

Ver. 5. “ Ashkelon shall see it, and fear; Gaza, and tremble greatly; and Ekron, for her hope has been put to shame; and the king will perish out of Gaza, and Ashkelon will not dwell. Ver. 6. The bastard will dwell in Ashdod; and I shall destroy the pride of the Philistines. Ver. 7. And I shall take away his blood out of his mouth, and his abominations from between his teeth; and he will also remain to our God, and will be as a tribe-prince in Judah, and Ekron like the Jebusite.” From the Pheenicians the threat turns against the Philistines. The fall of the mighty Tyre shall fill the Philistian cities with fear and trembling, because all hope of deliverance from the threatening destruction is thereby taken away (cf. Isa. xxiii. 5). S71 is jussive. The effect, which the fall of Tyre will produce upon the Philistian cities, is thus set forth as intended by God. The description is an individualizing one in this instance also. The several features in this effect are so distributed among the different cities, that what is said of each applies to all. They will not only tremble with fear, but will also lose their kingship, and be laid waste. Only four of the Philistian capitals are mentioned, Gath being passed over, as in Amos i. 6, 8, Zeph. ii. 4, and Jer. xxv. 20; and they occur in the same order as in Jeremiah, whose prophecy Zechariah had before his mind. To ™ we must supply 818 from the parallel clause; and to {PY not only N15, but also N71. The reason for the fear is first mentioned in connection with Lkron,—namely, the fact that the hope is put to shame. U*3ii is the hiphil of wia (Ewald, § 122, e), in the ordinary sense of this Aiphil, to be put to shame. 021 with seghol stands for 03212 (Ewald, § 88, d, and 160, d), the object of hope or confidence. Gaza loses its king. Melekh without the article is the king as such, not the particular king reigning at the time of the judgment; and the meaning is, “Gaza will henceforth have no king,” i.e. will utterly perish, answering to the assertion concerning Ashkelon: 2¥n N?, she will not dwell, i.e. will not come to dwell, a poetical expression for be inhabited (see at Joel iii. 20). The reference to a king of Gaza does not point to times before the captivity. The Babylonian and Persian emperors were accustomed to leave to the subjugated nations their princes or kings, if they would only submit as vassals to their superior control. They therefore bore the title of “kings of kings” (Ezek. xxvi. 7; cf. Herod. iti. 15; Stark, Gaza, pp. 229, 230; and Koehler, ad h.1.). In Ashdod will mamzer dwell. This word, the etymology of which is obscure (see at Deut. xxiii. 3, the only other passage in which it occurs), denotes in any case one whose birth has some blemish connected with it; so that he is not an equal by birth with the citizens of a city or the inhabitants of aland. Hengstenberg therefore renders it freely, though not inappropriately, by G'esindel (rabble). The dwelling of the bastard in Ashdod is not at variance with the fact that Ashkelon “does not dwell,” notwithstanding the individualizing character of the description, according to which what is affirmed of one city also applies to the other. For the latter simply states that the city will lose its native citizens, and thus forfeit the character of a city. The dwelling of bastards or rabble in Ashdod expresses the deep degradation of Philistia, which is announced in literal terms in the second hemistich. The pride of the Philistines shall be rooted out, ¢.e. everything shall be taken from them on which as Philistines they based their pride, viz. their power, their fortified cities, and their nationality. “These words embrace the entire contents of the prophecy against the Philistines, affirming of the whole people what had previously been affirmed of the several cities” (Hengstenberg). A new and important feature is added to this in ver. 7. Their religious peculiarity—namely, their idolatry—shall also be taken from them, and their incorporation into the nation of God brought about through this judgment. The description in ver. 7 is founded upon a personification of the Philistian nation. The suffixes of the third pers. sing. and the pronoun Nv in ver. 7a do not refer to the mamzér (Hitzig), but to p*lishttm (the Philistines), the nation being comprehended in the unity of a single person. This person appears as an idolater, who, when keeping a sacrificial feast, has the blood and flesh of the sacrificial animals in his mouth and between his teeth. Dédmim is not human blood, but the blood of sacrifices; and shigqutsim, abominations, are not the idols, but the idolatrous sacrifices, and indeed their flesh. Taking away the food of the idolatrous sacrifices out of their mouth denotes not merely the interruption of the idolatrous sacrificial meals, but the abolition of idolatry generally. He also (the nation of the Philistines regarded as a person) will be left to our God. The gam refers not to the Pheenicians and Syrians mentioned before, of whose being left nothing was said in vers. 1-4, but to the idea of “ Israel” implied in aTOND, our God. Just as in the case of Israel a “remnant” of true confessors of Jehovah is left when the judgment falls upon it, so also will a remnant of the Philistines be left for the God of Israel. The attitude of this remnant towards the people of God is shown in the clauses which follow. He will be like an ’alluph in Judah. This word, which is applied in the earlier books only to the tribe-princes of the Edomites and Horites (Gen. xxxvi. 15, 16; Ex. xv. 15; 1 Chron. i. 51 sqq.), is transferred by Zechariah to the tribe-princes of Judah. It signifies literally not a phylarch, the head of an entire tribe (matteh, dvd), but a chiliarch, the head of an ’eleph, one of the families into which the tribes were divided. The meaning “friend,” which Kliefoth prefers (cf. Mic. vii. 5), is unsuitable here; and the objection, that “all the individuals embraced in ' the collective xin cannot receive the position of tribe-princes in Judah” (Kliefoth), does not apply, because Ni is not an ordinary collective, but the remnant of the Philistines personified asaman. Such aremnant might very well assume the position of a chiliarch of Judah. This statement is completed by the addition “and Ekron,” i.e. the Ekronite “will be like the Jebusite.” The Ekronite is mentioned for the purpose of individualizing in the place of all the Philistines. “ Jebusite” is not an epithet applied to the inhabitants. of Jerusalem, but stands for the former inhabitants of the citadel of Zion, who adopted the religion of Israel after the conquest of this citadel by David, and were incorporated into the nation of the Lord. This is evident from the example of the Jebusite Araunah, who lived in the midst of the covenant nation, according to 2 Sam. xxiv. 16 sqq., 1 Chron. xxi. 15 sqq., as a distinguished man of property, and not only sold his threshing-floor to king David as a site for the future temple, but also offered to present the oxen with which he had been ploughing, as well as the plough itself, for a burnt-offering. On the other hand, Koehler infers, from the conventional mode of expression employed by the subject when speaking to his king, “thy God,” and the corresponding words of David, “my God” instead of our God, that Araunah stood in the attitude of a foreigner towards the God of Israel; but he is wrong in doing so. And there is quite as little ground for the further inference drawn by this scholar from the fact that the servants of Solomon and the Nethinim are reckoned together in Ezra ii. 58 and Neh. vii. 60, in connection with the state-— ment that Solomon had levied bond-slaves for his buildings from the remnants of the Canaanitish population (1 Kings ix. 20), viz. that the Jebusites reappeared in the Nethinim of the later historical books, and that the Nethinim “given by David and the princes” were chiefly Jebusites, according to which “ Ekron’s being like a Jebusite is equivalent to Ekron’s not only meeting with reception into the national fellowship of Israel through circumcision, but being appointed, like the Jebusites, to service in the sanctuary of Jehovah.” On the. contrary, the thought is simply this: The Ekronites will be melted up with the people of God, like the Jebusites with the Judzans. Kliefoth also observes quite correctly, that “there is no doubt that what is specially affirmed of the Philistians is also intended to apply to the land of Chadrach, to Damascus, etc., as indeed an absolute generalization follows expressly in ver. 10.... Just as in what precedes, the catastrophe intended for all these lands and nations is specially described in the case of ‘Tyre alone; so here conversion is specially predicted of the Philistines alone.”

If we inquire now into the historical allusion or fulfilment of this prophecy, it seems most natural to think of the divine judgment, which fell upon Syria, Pheenicia, and Philistia through the march of Alexander the Great from Asia Minor to Egypt. After the battle at Issus in Cilicia, Alexander sent one division of his army under Parmenio to Damascus, to conquer this capital of Coele-Syria. On this expedition Hamath must also have been touched and taken. Alexander himself marched from Cilicia direct to Phoenicia, where Sidon and the other Phoenician cities voluntarily surrendered to him; and only Tyre offered so serious a resistance in its confidence in its own security, that it was not till after a seven months’ siege and very great exertions that he succeeded in taking this fortified city by storm. On his further march the fortified city of Gaza also offered a prolonged resistance, but it too was eventually taken by storm (cf. Arrian, ii. 15 sqq.; Curtius, iv. 12, 13, and 2-4; and Stark, Gaza, p. 237 sqq.). On the basis of these facts, Hengstenberg observes (Christol. iii. p. 369), as others have done before him, that “there can be no doubt that in vers. 1-8 we have before us a description of the expedition of Alexander as clear as it was possible for one to be given, making allowance for the difference between prophecy and history.” But Koehler has already replied to this, that the prophecy in ver. 7 was not fulfilled by the deeds of Alexander, since neither the remnant of the Phcenicians nor the other heathen dwelling in the midst of Israel were converted to Jehovah through the calamities connected with Alexander’s expedition; and on this ground he merely regards the conquests of Alexander as the commencement of the fulfilment, which was then continued throughout the calamities caused by the wars of succession, the conflicts between the Egyptians, Syrians, and Romans, until it was completed by the fact that the heathen tribes within the boundaries of Israel gradually disappeared as separate tribes, and their remnants were received into the community of those who confessed Israel’s God and His anointed. But we must go a step further, and say that the fulfilment has not yet reached its end, but is still going on, and will until the kingdom of Christ shall attain that complete victory over the heathen world which is foretold in vers. 8 sqq.

Vers. 8-10. Whilst the heathen world falls under the judement of destruction, and the remnant of the heathen are converted to the living God, the Lord will protect His house, and cause the King to appear in Jerusalem, who will spread out His kingdom of peace over all the earth. Ver. 8. “J pitch a tent for my house against military power, against those who go to and fro, and no oppressor will pass over them any more; for now have I seen with my eyes. Ver. 9. Exult greatly, O daughter Zion; shout, daughter Jerusalem: behold, thy King will come to thee: just and endowed with salvation is He; lowly and riding upon an ass, and that upon a foal, the she-ass’s son. Ver. 10. And I cut off the chariots out of Ephraim, and the horses out of Jerusalem, and the war-bow will be cut off: and peace will He speak to the nations; and His dominion goes from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth.” Chdndh, to encamp, to pitch a tent. m2, dat. commod. “ for my house,” for the good of my house. The house of Jehovah is not the temple, but Israel as the kingdom of God or church of the Lord, as in Hos. vii. 1, ix. 15, Jer. xi. 7, and even Num. xii. 7, from which we may see that this meaning is not founded upon the temple, but upon the national constitution given to Israel, ze. upon the idea of the house as a family. In the verse before us we cannot think of the temple, for the simple reason that the temple was not a military road for armies on the march either while it was standing, or, as Koehler supposes, when it was in ruins. M28 stands, according to the Masora, for S289 = SS, not however in the sense of without an army, but “on account of (agaist) a hostile troop,” protecting His house from them. But Béttcher, Koehler, and others, propose to follow the LXX. and read 423, military post, after 1 Sam. xiv. 12, which is the rendering given by C. B. Michaelis and Gesenius to F382, But this does not apply to 724, for a post (7230, that which is set up) stands up, and does not lie down. 4331 is more precisely defined by 211 7299, as going ‘through and returning, i.e. as an army marching to and fro (cf. ch. vii. 14). There will come upon them no more (om ey, ad sensum, referring to ‘N'3) ndgés, lit. a bailiff or taskmaster (Ex. iii. 7), then generally any oppressor of the nation. Such oppressors were Egypt, Asshur, Babel, and at the present time the imperial power of Persia. This promise is explained by the last clause: Now have I seen with mine eyes. The object is wanting, but it is implied in the context, viz. the oppression under wien my nation sighs (cf. Ex. ii. 25, iii. 7). “Adtéh (now) refers to the ideal present of the prophecy, really to the time when God interposes with His help; and the perfect ‘M81 is prophetic. God grants help to His people, by causing her King to come to the daughter Zion. To show the magnitude of this salvation, the Lord calls upon the daughter Zion, 7.e. the personified population of Jerusalem as a representative of the nation of Israel, namely the believing members of the covenant nation, to rejoice. Through 7120, ve King, the coming one is jeccnibed as the King appointed i Zion, and promised to the covenant nation. That the Messiah is intended, whose coming is predicted by Isaiah (ix. 5, 6), Micah (v. 1 sqq.), and other prophets, is admitted with very few exceptions by all the Jewish and Christian commentators.’ 42, not only to thee, but also for thy good. He is tsaddiq, righteous, z.e. not one who has right, or the good cause (Hitzig), nor merely one righteous in Snyes answering in all respects to the will of Jehovah (Koehler), but aatrnated with righteousness, and maintaining in His government this first virtue of a ruler (cf. Isa. xi. 1-4; Jer. xxiii. 5, 6, xxxiii. 15, 16, etc.). For He is also YW, ie. not cotwr, salvator, helper (LXX., Vulg., Luth.), since the niphal has not the active or transitive sense of the hiphil (win), 1 See the history of the exposition in Hengstenberg’s Christology.

nor merely the passive cwfdevos, salvatus, delivered from suffering; but the word is used in a more general sense, endowed with ys, salvation, help from God, as in Deut. xxxiii. 29, Ps. xxxili. 16, or furnished with the assistance of God egies for carrying on His government. The next two predicates describe the character of His rule. ‘2 does not mean gentle, mpaiis (LXX. and others) = 129, but lowly, miserable, bowed down, full of suffering. The Fjord denotes “the whole of the lowly, miserable, mtcane condition, as it is elaborately depicted in Isa. iii.” (Eenpetcnbenes) The next clause answers to this, “riding upon an ass, and indeed upon the foal of an ass.” The } before VY by ig epexegetical (1 Sam. xvii. 40), describing the ass as a young animal, not yet ridden, but still running behind the she-asses. The youthfulness of the animal is brought out still more strongly by the expression added to WY, viz. NAN, ze. a foal, such as asses are accustomed to bear (ibn is the plural of the species, as in MIMS Wd, Judg. xiv. 5; pai Vy, Gen. xxxvii. 31, Lev. iv. 23), «“ Riis upon an

* is tipaue! by most of the more modern commentators to be a figurative emblem of the peacefulness of the king, that He wil il establish a government of peace, the ass being rebaued as an animal of peace in contrast with the horse, because on account of its smaller strength, agility, and speed, it is less adapted for riding in the midst of fighting and slaughter than a horse. But, in the first place, this leaves the heightening of the idea of the ass by the expression “the young ass’s foal” quite unexplained. Is the unridden ass’s foal an emblem of peace in a higher degree than the full-grown ass, that has already been ridden? And secondly, it is indeed correct that the ass was only used in war as the exception, not the rule, and when there were no horses to be had (cf. Bochart, Hieroz. i. p- 158, ed. Ros.); and also correct that in the East it is of a nobler breed, and not so despised as it is with us; but it is also a

1 We may see how difficult it is to reconcile the emphasis laid upon the ass’s foal with this explanation of the significance of the ass, from the attempts made by the supporters of it to bring them into harmony. The assertion made by Ebrard, that “"y denotes an ass of noble breed, and nix ya signifies that it is one of the noblest breed, has been already proved by Koehler to be a fancy without foundation; but his own attempt to deduce the following meaning of this riding upon a young ass from the fact that in the East, and more especially among the Israelites, it was only in the earlier times, when they possessed no horses as yet, that distinguished persons rode upon asses (Judg. v. 10, x. 4, xii. 14; 2 Sam. xvii. 23, xix. 27), whereas in the time of David the royal princes and kings kept mules for riding instead of asses (2 Sam. xiii. 29, xviii. 9; 1 Kings i. 83, xxxviii. 44); and from the time of Solomon downwards, when the breeding of horses was introduced, not another instance occurs of a royal | person riding upon an ass, although asses and mules are still constantly used in the East for riding and as beasts of burden; and lastly, that in both the ancient and modern East the ass stands much lower than the horse, whilst in Egypt and other places (Damascus for example), Ghristians and Jews were, and to some extent still are, only allowed to ride upon asses, and not upon horses, for the purpose of putting them below the Mohammedans (for the proofs, see Hengstenberg’s Christology, iil, pp. 404-5). Consequently we must rest satisfied with this explanation, that in accordance with the predicate ‘3? the riding of the King of Zion upon the foal of an ass is an emblem, not of peace, but of lowliness, as the Talmudists themselves interpreted it. “For the ass is not a more peaceful animal than the horse, but a more vicious one” (Kliefoth).—Ver. 10. Just as the coming of the King does not contain within itself a sign of earthly power and exaltation, so will His kingdom not be established by worldly power. The war-chariots and horses, in which the kingdoms of the world seek their strength, will be exterminated by Jehovah out of Ephraim and Jerusalem (cf. Mic. v. 9). And so also will the war-chariots, for which “ the battle-bow ” stands synecdochically. Ephraim denotes the former kingdom of the ten tribes, and Jerusalem is mentioned as the capital in the place of the kingdom of Judah. Under the Messiah will the two kingdoms that were formerly divided be united once more, and through the destruction of their precepts concerning the sacrifices, viz. that the future king is riding in the service of Israel, and therefore comes in consequence of a mission from Jehovah, can be proved to fail, from the fact that he is obliged to collect together the most heterogeneous precepts, of which those in Num. xix. 2, Deut. xxi. 8, and 1 Sam. vi. 7, that for certain expiatory purposes animals were to be selected that had never borne a yoke, have a much more specific meaning than that of simple use in the service of Jehovah.

military power will their nature be also changed, the covenant nation be divested of its political and worldly character, and made into a spiritual nation or kingdom. The rule of this King will also extend far beyond the limits of the earthly Canaan. He will speak peace to the nations,.e. will not command peace through His authoritative word (Hitzig, Koehler, etc.), but bring the contests among the nations to an end (Mic. iv. 3); for dibbér shalom does not mean to command peace, but it either simply denotes such a speaking as has peace for its subject, giving an assurance of peace and friendship, #.e. uttering words of peace (a meaning which is inapplicable here), or signifies to speak peace for the purpose of bringing disputes to an end (Esth. x. 3). But this is done not by authoritative commands, but by His gaining the nations over through the spiritual power of His word, or establishing His spiritual kingdom in the midst of them. It is only as thus interpreted, that the statement concerning the extension of His kingdom harmonizes with the rest. This statement rests upon Ps. Ixxii. 8, “from sea to sea,” as in Amos viii. 12 and Mic. vii. 12, viz. from the sea to the other end of the world where sea begins again. “From the river:” ie. from the Euphrates, which is intended here by naéhdér without the article, as in Mic. vii. 12 and Isa. vii. 20, and is mentioned as the remotest eastern boundary of the land of Israel, according to Gen. xv. 18, Ex. xxiii. 31, as being the terminus a quo, to which the ends of the earth are opposed as the terminus ad quem.

The leading thought in the promise (vers. 8-10) is therefore the following: When the catastrophe shall burst upon the Persian empire, Israel will enjoy the marvellous protection of its God, and the promised King will come for Zion, endowed with righteousness and salvation, but in outward humiliation; and through the extermination of the materials of war out of Israel, as well as by the peaceful settlement of the contests of the nations, He will establish a kingdom of peace, which will extend over all the earth. On the fulfilment of this prophecy, we learn from the gospel history, that when Jesus took His last journey to Jerusalem, He so arranged His entrance into this city, that our prophecy (ver. 9), “Say ye to the daughter Zion, Behold, thy King cometh,” etc., was fulfilled (cf. Matt. xxl. 2 sqq.. Mark xi. 2 sqq., Luke xix. 80 sqq., and John xii.

14 sqq.). The exact agreement between the arrangement made by Jesus on this occasion and our prophecy is especially evident from the account given by Matthew, according to which Jesus ordered not only the ass’s foal (7@Xov, dvdptov), upon which He rode into Jerusalem, to be brought, as Mark, Luke, and John relate, but a she-ass and a foal with her (Matt. xxi. 2 and 7), “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet” (ver. 4), although He could really only ride upon one animal. The she-ass was to follow, to set forth Zechariah’s figurative description with greater completeness. For we see, from the corresponding accounts of the other three evangelists, that Jesus only mounted the ass’s foal. John, even when quoting our prophecy, only mentions the “ sitting on an ass’s colt” (ver. 15), and then adds in ver. 16, that the allusion in this act of Jesus to the Old Testament prophecy was only understood by the disciples after Jesus was glorified. By this mode of entering Jerusalem before His death, Jesus intended to exhibit Himself to the people as the King foretold by the prophets, who, coming in lowliness, would establish His kingdom through suffering and dying, so as to neutralize the carnal expectations of the people as to the worldly character of the Messianic kingdom. The fulfilment, however, which Jesus thereby gave to our prophecy is not to be sought for in this external agreement between His act and the words of the prophet. The act of Jesus was in itself simply an embodiment of the thought lying at the basis of the prophecy,—namely, that the kingdom of the Messiah would unfold itself, through lowliness and suffering, to might and glory; that Jesus, as the promised Messiah, would not conquer the world by the force of arms, and so raise His people to political supremacy, but that He would found His kingdom by suffering and dying,—a kingdom which, though not of this world, would nevertheless overcome the world. The figurative character of the prophetic picture, according to which “riding upon an ass” merely serves to individualize 2, and set forth the lowliness of the true King of Zion under appropriate imagery, has been already pointed out by Calvin’ and Vitringa; and the latter has also

1 Calvin says: ‘‘I have no doubt that the prophet added this clause (viz. ‘riding upon an ass,’ etc.) as an appendix to the word »)y, as much as to say: The King of whom I speak will not be illustrious for His magni- correctly observed, that the prophecy would have been fulfilled in Christ, even if He had not made His entry into Jerusalem in this manner.’ Hengstenberg and Koehler adopt the same view. Nevertheless, this entry of Christ into Jerusalem forms the commencement of the fulfilment of our prophecy, and that not merely inasmuch as Jesus thereby declared Himself to be the promised Messiah and King of Zion, and set forth in a living symbol the true nature of His person and of His kingdom in contrast with the false notions of His friends and foes, but still more in this respect, that the entry into Jerusalem formed the commencement of the establishment of His kingdom, since it brought to maturity the resolution on the part of the Jewish rulers to put Him to death; and His death was necessary to reconcile the sinful world to God, and restore the foundation of peace upon which His kingdom was to be built. With the spread of His kingdom over the earth; treated of in ver. 10, the fulfilment continues till the annihilation of all the ungodly powers, after which all war will cease. But this end can only be reached through severe conflicts and victory. This is the subject of the following section.

Vers. 11-17.—IsRaEL’s REDEMPTION FROM CAPTIVITY, AND VICTORY OVER THE Heratuen.—Ver. 11. “ Thou also, for the sake of thy covenant blood, I release thy captives out of the pit wherein there is no water. Ver. 12. Return to the fortress, ye prisoners of hope. Even to-day I proclaim: Double will I repay to thee.’ This is addressed to the daughter Zion, i.e. to all Israel, consisting of Ephraim and Judah. We not only learn this from the context, since both of them are spoken ficent and splendid state, as earthly princes generally are.” He then gives this explanation of the riding upon the ass: ‘‘ He will not prevail by His great exaltation; nor will He be conspicuous for arms, riches, splendour, the number of his soldiers, or even the royal insignia, which attract the eyes of the people.”

1 Vitringa says, on Isa. lili, 4: ‘In that passage of Zechariah, indeed, according to its spiritual and mystical sense, his meaning would have been evident without this accident of the entry of Christ into Jerusalem; but when God would put all the emphasis of which the words are capable upon the predictions uttered by the prophets, His own providence took care that this accident should also occur, so that no part of the machinery might be wanting nere.”

of before (ver. 10) and afterwards (ver. 13); but it is also obvious from the expression b’dam b*rithékh, since the covenant blood belonged to all Israel of the twelve tribes (Ex. xxiv. 8). ANDI stands at the head absolutely, on account of the emphasis ‘lying upon the AX. But as the following clause, instead of - being directly attached to AN, is so constructed that the pronoun FAN is continued with tind the question arises, to what the D3 is to be taken as referring, or which is the antithesis indicated by 03. The answer may easily be obtained if we only make it clear to ourselves which of the two words, with the second pers. suffix, forms the object of the assertion made in the entire clause. This is not ya", but PVOS:

thou also (=thee)—namely, thy prisoner s—I release. But the emphasis intended by the position in which M73 is placed does not rest upon the prisoners of Israel in contrast with any other prisoners, but in contrast with the Israel in Jerusalem, the daughter Zion, to which the King is coming. Now, although o3 actually belongs to JVDN, it refers primarily to the FS to which it is Stbased; and this only receives its more precise definition afterwards in 7778. And the allusion intended by 5} is simply somewhat obscured by the fact, that before the statement to which it gives emphasis Waa is inserted, in order from the very first to give a firm pledge of the promise to the people, by declaring the motive which induced God to make this fresh aniseeniok of grace to Israel. This motive also acted as a further reason fh placing the pronoun FX at the head absolutely, and shows that AX is to be taken as an address, as for example in Gen. xlix. 8. yada: literally, bens in thy covenant blood, because sprinkled therewith, the process by which Israel was expiated and received into covenant with God (Ex. xxiv. 8). “The covenant blood, which still separates the church and the world from one cenit lal was therefore a certain pledge to the covenant nation of siterines out of all trouble, so long, that is to say, as it did not render the promise nugatory by w iced violating the conditions imposed by God” (Hengstenberg). The new matter introduced by MND} in ver. 11 is therefore the following: The pardon of Israel will not merely consist in the fact that Jehovah will send the promised King to the daughter Zion; but He will also redeem such members of: His nation as shall be still in captivity out of their affliction. The perfect shillachti is prophetic. Delivering them out of a pit without water is a figure denoting their liberation out of the bondage of exile. This is represented with an evident allusion to the history of Joseph in Gen. xxxvii. 22, as lying in a pit wherein there is no water, such as were used as prisons (cf. Jer. xxxvili. 6). Out of such a pit the captive could not escape, and would inevitably perish if he were not drawn out. The opposite of the pit is 82, a place cut off, z.e. fortified, not the steep height, although fortified towns were generally built upon heights. The prisoners are to return where they will be secured against their enemies; compare Ps. xl. 3, where the rock is opposed to the miry pit, as being a place upon which it is possible to stand firmly. “ Prisoners of hope” is an epithet applied to the Israelites, because they possess in their covenant blood a hope of redemption. 0i*"D3, also to-day, i.e. even to-day or still to-day, “notwithstanding all threatening circumstances” (Ewald, Hengstenberg). I repay thee double, i.¢., according to Isa. Ixi. 7, a double measure of glory in the place of the sufferings.

This thought is supported in vers. 13 sqq. by a picture of the glory intended for Israel. Ver. 13. “ Hor Z stretch Judah as my bow, fill it with Ephraim, and stir up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Javan, and make thee like the sword of a hero. Ver. 14. And Jehovah will appear above them, and like the lightning will His arrow go forth; and the Lord Jehovah will blow the trumpets, and will pass along in storms of the south. Ver. 15. Jehovah of hosts will shelter above them, and they will eat and tread down sling-stones, and will drink, make a noise, as af with wine, and become full, like the sacrificial bowls, like the corners of the altar.’ The double recompense which the Lord will make to His people, will consist in the fact that He not only liberates them out of captivity and bondage, and makes them into an independent nation, but that He helps them to victory over the power of the world, so that they will tread it down, i.e. completely subdue it. The first thought is not explained more fully, because it is contained implicite in the promise of return to a strong place; the “ double” only is more distinctly defined, namely, the victory over Javan. The expression, “I stretch,” etc., implies that the Lord will subdue the enemies by Judah and Ephraim, and therefore Israel will carry on this conflict in the power of its God. The figurative description is a bold one. Judah is the extended bow; Ephraim the arrow which God shoots at the foe. Nv is indeed separated from 7:7. by the accents; but the LX X., Targ., Vulg., and others, have taken it more correctly, as in apposition to 777; because with the many meanings that 37 possesses, the expression 737) 773 needs a more precise definition; whereas there is no difficulty in supplying in thought the noun gesheth, which has been mentioned only just before, to the verb smdx (I fill). DANS) is to be understood as signifying the laying of the arrow upon the bow, and not to be explained from 2 Kings ix. 24, “ to fill the hand with the bow.” A bow is filled when it is supplied with the arrow for shooting. We must bear in mind that the matter is divided rhetorically between the parallel members; and the thought is this: Judah and Ephraim are bow and arrow in the hand of Jehovah. ‘n7y, I stir up, not I swing thy children as a lance (Hitzig and Koehler); for if 1719 had this meaning, mn could not be omitted. The sons of Zion are Judah and Ephraim, the undivided Israel, not the Zionites living as slaves in Javan (Hitzig). The sons of Javan are the Greeks, as the world-power, the Greeco-Macedonian monarchy (cf. Dan. viii. 21), against which the Lord will make His people into a hero’s sword. This took place in weak beginnings, even in the wars between the Maccabees and the Seleucid, to which, according to Jerome, the Jews understood our prophecy to refer; but it must not be restricted to this, as the further description in vers. 14, 15 points ta the complete subjugation of the imperial power. Jehovah appears above them, 2.e. coming from heaven as a defence, to fight for them (the sons of Zion), as a mighty man of war (Ps. xxiv. 8). His arrow goes out like the lightning (9 the so-called 5 veritatis; for the fact described, compare Hab. iii. 11). Marching at the head of His people, He gives the signal of battle with a trumpet-blast, and attacks the enemy with terribly devastating violence. The description rests upon the poetical descriptions of the coming of the Lord to judgment, the colours of which are borrowed from the phenomena of a storm (cf. Ps. xviii. and Hab. iii. 8 sqq.). Storms of the south are the most violent storms, as they come from the Arabian desert, which bounds Canaan on the south (Isa. xxi. 1; cf. Hos. xiii. 15). But Jehovah not only fights for His people; He is also a shield to them in battle, covering them against the weapons of the foe. This is affirmed in bmp i” in ver. 15. Hence they are able to destroy their enemies, and, like devouring lions, to eat their flesh and drink their blood. That this figure lies at the foundation of the horrible picture of 2M}, is eiilent from Num. xxiii. 24, which was the passage that Pte ae had in his mind: “ Behold a people like the lioness; it rises up, and like the lion does it lift itself up: it lies not down till it devour the prey; and drink the blood of the slain.” Hence the object to aN is not the possessions of the heathen, but their flesh. yop 38 W132 does not mean, they tread down (subdue) the enemy with sling-stones (LXX.,

Vulg., Grot.); for ‘P ‘228 cannot, when considered grammatically, be taken in an iheteannebish sense, and is cathiet an accus. obj.; but they tread down sling-stones. The sling-stones might be used per synecdochen to signify darts, which the enemy hurls at them, and which they tread down as perfectly harmless (Kliefoth). But the comparison of the Israelites to the stones of a crown, in ver. 16, leads rather to the conclusion that the sling-stones are to be taken as a figure denoting the enemy, who are trampled under the feet like stones (Hitzig, Hengstenberg). Only we cannot speak of eating sling-stones, as Koehler would interpret the words, overlooking 123, and appealing to the parallel member: they will drink, reel as if from wine, which shows, in his opinion, that it is the sling-stones that are to be eaten. But this shows, on the contrary, that just as there no mention is made of what is to be drunk, so here what is to be eaten is not stated. It is true that wine and sacrificial blood point to the blood of the enemy; but wine and blood are drinkable, whereas sling-stones are not edible. The description | of the enemy as sling-stones is to be explained from the figure in 1 Sam. xxv. 29, to hurl away the soul of the enemy. They drunk (se. the blood of the enemy) even to intoxication, making a noise, as if intoxicated with wine (}" 103, an abbreviated comparison; cf. Ewald, § 221, a, and 282, e), and even to overflowing, so that they become full, like the sacrificial bowls in which the blood of the sacrificial animals was caught, and like the corners of the altar, which were sprinkled with the sacrificial blood. Mt are corners, not the horns of the altar.