‘tents’ to huts which cannot protect their guests or inhabitants. We have thus a tacit contrast between huts and fortified cities,”
ii. 4). These are to become like David, the bravest hero of Israel (cf. 1 Sam. xvii. 34 sqq.. 2 Sam. xvii. 8). The strong ones, designated as the house, i.e. the household or family of David, are to be like Elohim, i.e. not angels, but God, the Deity, 7.2. a superhuman being (cf. Ps. viii. 6), yea, like the angel of Jehovah, who goes before Israel (Dm35?), or the revealer of the invisible God, who is essentially the equal of Jehovah (see at ch. i. 8). The point of comparison lies in the power and strength, not in moral resemblance to God, as Kliefoth supposes, who takes Hlohim as equivalent to Jehovah, and identifies it with the angel of Jehovah, as some of the earlier commentators have done, and places the graduation of Elohim into the angel of Jehovah in the appearance of God in human form, in which case, however, DMB? has no meaning. This shows rather that the “angel of Jehovah” is simply referred to here in connection with his appearance in the history of Israel, when he went at the head of Israel and smote the Egyptians and all the enemies of Israel (Ex. xxiii. 20 sqq.; Josh. v. 13 sqq.). This is evident from the antithesis in ver. 9. Whilst Jehovah endows the inhabitants of Jerusalem with supernatural strength, He will seek to destroy all the nations which attack Jerusalem. Biqqésh, followed by an infinitive with Lamed, to strive after anything, as in ch. vi. 7. OY xia applied to the advance of the enemy against a city (=P ney, Isa. vii. 1).
Vers. 10-14. But the Lord will do still more than this for His people. He will renew it by pouring out His spirit of grace upon it, so that it will come to the knowledge of the guilt it has incurred by the rejection of the Saviour, and will bitterly repent of its sin. Ver. 10. “ And I will pour out upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they will look upon me, whom they have pierced, and will mourn over him like the mourning over an only one, and will grieve bitterly over him, as one grieves bitterly over the first-born.” This new promise is simply attached to the previous verse by 1 consec. (*A22V). Through this mode of attachment such connections as that suggested by Kliefoth, “But such glory can only be enjoyed by rebellious Israel when it is converted, and acknowledges and bewails Him whom it has rejected,” are precluded, as at variance with the text. There is not a word in the text about conversion as the condition on which the glory set before them in vers. 3-9 was to be obtained; on the contrary, conversion is represented as one fruit of the outpouring of the spirit of prayer upon the nation; and this outpouring of the Spirit is introduced by *A35¥1, which corresponds to P38 in ver. 9, as a new feature in the salvation, to be added to the promise of the destruction of the nations which fight against Jerusalem. ‘The fact that only the inhabitants of Jerusalem are named, and not those of Judah also, is explained correctly by the commentators from the custom of regarding the capital as the representative of the whole nation. And it follows eo ipso from this, that in ver. 8 also the expression “inhabitants of Jerusalem” is simply an individualizing epithet for the whole of the covenant nation. But just as in ver. 8 the house of David is mentioned emphatically along with these as the princely family and representative of the ruling class, so is it also in ver. 10, for the purpose of expressing the thought that the same salvation is to be enjoyed by the whole nation, in all its ranks, from the first to the last. The outpouring of the Spirit points back to Joel ill. 1 sqq., except that there the Spirit of Jehovah generally is spoken of, whereas here it is simply the spirit of grace and of supplication. Chén does not mean “prayer,” nor emotion, or goodness, or love (Hitzig, Ewald), but simply grace or favour; and here, as in ch. iv. 7, the grace of God; not indeed in its objectivity, but as a principle at work in the human mind. The spirit of grace is the spirit which produces in the mind of man the experience of the grace of God. But this experience begets in the soul of sinful man the knowledge of sin and guilt, and prayer for the forgiveness of sin, ¢.e. supplication; and this awakens sorrow and repentance. ‘8 10°27, they look upon me. //ibbit, used of bodily sight as well as spiritual (cf. Num. xxi. 9). The suffix in DN (to me) refers to the speaker. This is Jehovah, according to ver. 1, the creator of the heaven and the earth. 177 WANS, not “Him whom they pierced,” but simply “whom they pierced.” MS, that is to say, is not governed by Aiblita as a second object, but simply refers to DN, to me, “whom they pierced.” “WKN is chosen here, as in Jer. xxxviil. 9, in the place of the simple WS, to mark "WS more clearly as an accusative, since the simple WW might also be rendered “ whopierced (me):” cf. Ges. § 123, 2, Not. 1. Dégar does not mean to ridicule, or scoff at, but only to pierce, thrust through, and to slay by any kind a death whatever (cf. Lam. iv. 9). And the context shows that here it signifies to put to death. With reference to the explanation proposed by Calvin, “ whom they have harassed with insults,” Hitzig has very properly observed: “If it were nothing more than this, wherefore such lamentation over him, which, according to the use of 75D, with >y governing the person, and from the similes employed, is to be regarded as a lamentation for the dead?” It is true that we have not to think of a slaying of Jehovah, the creator of the heaven and the earth, but simply of the slaying of the Maleach Jehovah, who, being of the same essence with Jehovah, became man in the person of Jesus Christ. As Zechariah repeatedly represents the coming of the Messiah as a coming of Jehovah in His Maleach to His people, he could, according to this view, also describe the slaying of the Maleach as the slaying of Jehovah. And Israel having come to the knowledgé of its sin, will bitterly bewail this on ey does not mean thereat, 7.e. at the crime, but is used personally, over him whom they have pierced. Thus the transition from the first person (Os) to the third (2Y) points to the fact that the person slain, although essentially one with Jehovah, is personally distinct from the Supreme God. The Mndcutanion for the only son (ydchid: cf. Amos viil. 10) and for the first-born is the deepest and bitterest death-wail. The inf. abs. hdmer, which is used in the place of the finite verb, signifies making bitter, to which mispéd is to be supplied from the previous sentence (cf. OIA TDD, Jer. vi. 26).
The historical fulniment of this prophecy commenced with the crucifixion of the Son of God, who had come in the flesh. The words P71 WANN by 30°37 are quoted in the Gospel of John (xix. 87), according to the Greek rendering dyovtar eis ov é&exévtnoay, which probably emanated not fru the LXX., but from Aquila, or Theodotion, or Symmachus, as having been fulfilled in Christ, by the fact that a soldier pierced His side with a lance as He was hanging upon the cross (vid. John xix. 34). If we compare this quotation with the fact mentioned in ver. 36, that they did not break any of His bones,
‘there can be no doubt that John quotes this passage with distinct allusion to this special circumstance; only we must not infer from this, that the evangelist regarded the meaning of the prophecy as exhausted by this allusion. The piercing with the spear is simply looked upon by him as the climax of all the mortal sufferings of Christ; and even with Zechariah the piercing is simply an individualizing expression for putting to death, the instrument used and the kind of death being of very subordinate importance. This is evident from a comparison of our verse with ch. xi. 7, where the sword is mentioned as the instrument employed, whereas dégar points rather to a spear. What we have observed at p. 337 respecting the fulfilment of ch. ix. 9 by the entry of Christ into Jerusalem, also applies to this special fulfilment, viz. that the so to speak literal fulfilment in the outward circumstances only served to make the internal concatenation of the prophecy with its historical realization so clear, that even unbelievers could not successfully deny it. Luke (xxii. 48) indicates the commencement of the fulfilment of the looking at the slain one by these words: “ And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts.” (For the smiting of the breasts, comp. Isa. xxxii. 12, DW by 72D.) “The crowds, who had just before been crying out, Crucify him, here smite upon their breasts, being overpowered with the proofs of the superhuman exaltation of Jesus, and lament over the crucified one, and over their own guilt” (Hengst.). The true and full commencement of the fulfilment, however, shows itself in the success which attended the preaching of Peter on the first day of Pentecost,—namely, in the fact that three thousand were pricked in their heart with penitential sorrow on account of the crucifixion of their Saviour, and were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins (Acts il. 87-41), and in the further results which followed the preaching of the apostles for the conversion of Israel (Acts ili—v.). The fulfilment has continued with less striking results through the whole period of the Christian church, in conversions from among the Jews; and it will not terminate till the remnant of Israel shall turn as a people to Jesus the Messiah, whom its fathers crucified. On the other hand, those who continue obstinately in unbelief will see Him at last when He returns in the clouds of heaven, and shriek with despair (Rev. i. 7; Matt. xxiv. 30).
‘ In vers. 11-14 the magnitude and universality of the mourning are still further depicted. Ver. 11. “In that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be great, like the mourning of Hadad-rimmon in the valley of Megiddgo. Ver. 12. And the land will mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of Dawid apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart. Ver. 13. The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of the Shimeite apart, and their wives apart. Ver. 14. All the rest of the families, every family apart, and their wives apart.” In ver. 11, the depth and bitterness of the pain on account of the slain Messiah are depicted by comparing it to the mourning of Hadad-rimmon. Jerome says with regard to this: “ Adadremmon is a city near Jerusalem, which was formerly called by this name, but is now called Maximianopolis, in the field of Mageddon, where the good king Josiah was wounded by Pharaoh Necho.” This statement of Jerome is confirmed by the fact that the ancient Canaanitish or Hebrew name of the city has been preserved in Rimuni, a small village threequarters of an hour to the south of Lejun (Legio= Megiddo: see at Josh. xii. 21; and V. de Velde, Reise, i. p. 267). The mourning of Hadad-rimmon is therefore the mourning for the calamity which befel Israel at Hadad-rimmon in the death of the good king Josiah, who was mortally wounded in the valley Megiddo, according to 2 Chron. xxxv. 22 sqq., so that he very soon gave up the ghost. The death of this most pious of all the kings of Judah was bewailed by the people, especially the righteous members of the nation, so bitterly, that not only did the prophet Jeremiah compose an elegy on his death, but other singers, both male and female, bewailed him in dirges, which were placed in a collection of elegiac songs, and preserved in Israel till long after the captivity (2 Chron. xxxv. 25). Zechariah compares the lamentation for the putting of the Messiah to death to this great national mourning. All the other explanations that have been given of these words are so arbitrary, as hardly to be worthy of notice. This applies, for example, to the idea mentioned by the Chald., that the reference is to the death of the wicked Ahab, and also to Hitzio’s hypothesis, that Hadad-rimmon was one name of the god Adonis. For, apart from the fact that it is only from this passage that Movers has inferred that there ever was an idol of that name, a prophet of Jehovah could not possibly have compared the great lamentation of.the Israelites over the death of the Messiah to the lamentation over the death of Ahab the ungodly king of Israel, or to the mourning for a Syrian idol. But the mourning will not be confined to Jerusalem; the land (hé’érets), i.e. the whole nation, will also mourn. This universality of the lamentation is individualized in vers. 12-14, and so depicted as to show that all the families and households of the nation mourn, and not the men only, but also the women. ‘To this end the prophet mentions four distinct leading and secondary families, and then adds in conclusion, “all the rest of the families, with their wives.” Of the several families named, two can be determined with certainty,— namely, the family of the house of David, ¢.e. the posterity of king David, and the family of the house of Levi, i.e. the posterity of the patriarch Levi. But about the other two families there is a difference of opinion. The rabbinical writers suppose that Nathan is the well known prophet. of that name, and the family of Shimei the tribe of Simeon, which is said, according to the rabbinical fiction, to have furnished teachers to the nation.’ But the latter opinion is overthrown, apart from any other reason, by the fact that the patronymic of Simeon is not written ‘Yow, but 290", in Josh. xxi. 4, 1 Chron. xxvii. 16. Still less can the Benjamite Shimei, ai cursed David (2 Sam. xvi. 5 sqq-), be intended. spovin nna is the name given in Num. iii. 21 to the family of the son of Gershon and the grandson of Levi (Num. ili. 17 sqq.). This is the family intended here, and in harmony with this Nathan is not the prophet of that name, but the son of David, from whom Zerubbabel was descended (Luke iii. 27, 31). Luther adopted this explanation: “ Four families,” he says, “are enumerated, two from the royal line, under the names of David and Nathan, l Jerome gives the Jewish view thus: “‘ In David the regal tribe is included, z.e. Judah. In Nathan the prophetic order is described. Levirefers to the priests, from whom the priesthood sprang. In Simeon the teachers are included, as the companies of masters sprang from that tribe. He says nothing about the other tribes, as they had no special privilege or dignity.”
and two from the priestly line, as Levi and Shimei; after which he embraces all together.” Of two tribes he mentions one leading family and one subordinate branch, to: show that not only are all the families of Israel_in general seized with the same grief, but all the separate branches of those families. Thus the word mishpachdah is used here, as in many other cases, in the wider and more restricted meaning of the leading and the subordinate families.
Chap. xiii. 1-6. The penitential supplication of Israel will lead to a thorough renewal of the nation, since the Lord will open to the penitent the fountain of His grace for the cleansing away of sin and the sanctifying of life. Ver. 1. “ In that day will a fountain be opened to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and uncleanness.” As the Lord Himself pours out the spirit of supplication upon Israel, so does He also provide the means of purification from sin. A fountain is opened, when its stream of water bursts forth from the bosom of the earth (see Isa. xli. 18, xxxv. 6). The water, which flows from the fountain opened by the Lord, is a water of sprinkling, with which sin and uncleanness are removed. The figure is taken partly from the water used for the purification of the Levites at their consecration, which is called NNN 9, sin-water, or water of absolution, in Num. viii. 7, and partly from the sprinkling-water prepared from the sacrificial ashes of the red heifer for purification from the defilement of death, which is called 13) "2, water of uncleanness, 7.e. water which removed uncleanness, in Num. xix. 9. Just as bodily uncleanness is a figure used to denote spiritual uncleanness, the defilement of sin (cf. Ps. li. 9), so is earthly sprinklingwater a symbol of the spiritual water by which sin is removed. By this water we have to understand not only grace in general, but the spiritual sprinkling-water, which is prepared through the sacrificial death of Christ, through the blood that He shed for sin, and which is sprinkled upon us for the cleansing away of sin in the gracious water of baptism. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin (1 John i. 7; compare v. 6).
The house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem represent the whole nation here, as in ch. xii. 10. This cleansing will be followed by a new life in fellowship with God, since the Lord will remove everything that could hinder sanctification. This renewal of lifé and sanctification is described in vers. 2-7. Ver. 2. “And it will come to pass in that day, is the saying of Jehovah of hosts, I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, they shall be remembered no more; and the prophets also and the spirit of uncleanness will I remove out of the land. Ver. 3. And tt will come to pass, if a man prophesies any more, his father and his mother, they that begat him, will say to him, Thou must not live, for thou hast spoken deceit in the name of Jehovah: and his father and his mother, they that begat him, will pierce him through because of his prophesying. Ver. 4. And tt will come to pass on that day, the prophets will be ashamed every one of his vision, at his prophesying, and will no more put on a hairy mantle to le. Ver. 5. And he will say, Lam no prophet, I am a man who cultivates the land; jor aman bought me from my youth. Ver. 6. And if they shall say to him, What scars are these between thy hands? he will say, These were inflicted upon me in the house of my loves.” ‘The new life in righteousness and holiness before God is depicted in an individualizing form as the extermination of idols and false prophets out of the holy land, because idolatry and false prophecy were the two principal forms in which ungodliness manifested itself in Israel. The allusion to idols and false prophets by no means points to the times before the captivity; for even if gross idolatry, and therefore false prophecy, did not spread any more among the Jews after the captivity, such passages as Neh. vi. 10, where lying prophets rise up, and even priests contract marriages with Canaanitish and other heathen wives, from whom children sprang who could not even speak the Jewish language (Ezra ix. 2 sqq.; Neh. xiii. 23), show very clearly that the danger of falling back into gross idolatry was not a very remote one. Moreover, the more refined idolatry of pharisaic self-righteousness and work-holiness took the place of the grosser idolatry, and the prophets generally depict the future under the forms of the past. The cutting off of the names of the idols denotes utter destruction (cf. Hos. ii. 19). The prophets are false prophets, who either uttered the thoughts of their hearts as divine inspiration, or stood under the demoniacal influence of the spirit of darkness. ‘This is evident from the fact that they are associated not only with idols, but with the “spirit of uncleanness.” For this, the opposite of the spirit of grace (ch. xii. 10), is the evil spirit which culminates in Satan, and works in the false prophets as a lying spirit (1 Kings xxii. 21-23; Rev. xvi. 13, 14). The complete extermination of this unclean spirit is depicted thus in vers. 3-6, that not only will Israel no longer tolerate any prophet in the midst of it (ver. 3), but even the prophets themselves will be ashamed of their calling (vers. 4-6). The first case is to be explained from the law in Deut. xiii, 6-11 and xviii. 20, according to which a prophet who leads astray to idolatry, and one who prophesies in his own name or in the name of false gods, are to be put to death. This commandment will be carried out by the parents upon any one who shall prophesy in the future. They will pronounce him worthy of death as speaking lies, and inflict the punishment of death upon him (ddgar, used for putting to death, as in ch. xii. 10). This case, that a man is regarded as a false prophet and punished in consequence, simply because he prophesies, rests upon the assumption that at that time there will be no more prophets, and that God will not raise them up or send them any more. This assumption agrees both with the promise, that when God concludes a new covenant with His people and forgives their sins, no one will teach another any more to know the Lord, but all, both great and small, will know Him, and all will be taught of God (Jer. xxxi. 83, 34; Isa. liv. 18); and also with the teaching of the Scriptures, that the Old Testament prophecy reached to John the Baptist, and attained its completion and its end in Christ (Matt. xi. 13; Luke xvi. 16, cf. Matt. v. 17). At that time will those who have had to do with false prophecy no longer pretend to be prophets, or assume the appearance of prophets, or put on the hairy garment of the ancient prophets, of Elias for example, but rather give themselves out as farm-servants, and declare that the marks of wounds inflicted upon themselves when prophesying in the worship of heathen gods are the scars of wounds which they have received (vers. 4-6). }!2 Wia, to be ashamed on account of (cf. Isa. i. 29), not to desist with shame. The form in&1237 in ver. 4 instead of iN237 (ver. 3) may be explained from the fact that the verbs x"5 and n’5 frequently borrow forms from one another (Ges. §75, Anm. 20-22). On WY N38, see at 2 Kings i. 8. WMD jb, to lie, ie. to give themselves the appearance of prophets, and thereby to deceive the people. The subject to TON) in ver. 5 is MS from ver. 4; and the explanation given by Wie man is not to be taken as an answer to a question asked by another concerning his circumstances, for it has not been preceded by any question, but as a confession made by his own spontaneous impulse, in which he would repudiate his former calling.
The verb 43?7 is not a denom. of 2P, servum facere, servo uti (Maurer, Koehler, and others), for ied does not mean slave, but that which has been acquired, or an acquisition. It isa simple iiphil of gandh in the sense of acquiring, or acquiring by purchase, not of selling. That the statement is an untruthful assertion is evident from ver. 6, the two clauses of which are to be taken as speech and reply, or question and answer. Some one asks the prophet, who has given himself out as a farm-servant, where the stripes (makkoth, strokes, marks of strokes) between his hands have come from, and he replies that he received them in the house of his lovers. ‘’3i1 WW, ds (sc. mrnyas) éemrAnynv: cf. Ges. § 143, 1. The questioner ek the stripes or wounds as marks of wounds inflicted upon fine self, which the person addressed had made when prophesying, as is related of the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings xviii. 28 (see the comm.). The expression “between the hands” can hardly be understood in any other way than as relating to the palms of the hands and their continuation up the arms, since, according to the testimony of ancient writers (Movers, Phdniz. i. p.
68 32), in the self-mutilations connected with the Phrygian, Syrian, and Cappadocian forms of worship, the arms were mostly cut with swords or knives. The meaning of the answer given by the person addressed depends upon the view we take of the word D291», As this word is generally applied to paramours, Hengstenberg retains this meaning here, and gives the following explanation of the passage: namely, that the person addressed confesses that he has received the wounds in the temples of the idols, which he had followed with adulterous love, so that he admits his former folly with the deepest shame. But the context appears rather to indicate that this answer is also nothing more than an evasion, and that he simply pretends that the marks were scars left by the chastisements which he received when a boy in the house of either loving parents or some other loving relations.
The prophecy takes a new turn at ver. 7, and announces the judgment, through which Israel will be refined from the dross still adhering to it, and transformed into the truly holy people of the Lord by the extermination of its spurious and corrupt members. This second half of the prophecy is really an expansion of the first (xii. 1-xili. 6). Whereas the first announces how the Lord will protect Israel and Jerusalem against the pressure of the powers of the world, how He will smite the enemy, and not only endow His people with miraculous power which ensures their victory, but also by pouring out His Spirit of grace, lead it to a knowledge of the guilt it has contracted by putting the Messiah to death, and to repentance and renovation of life; the second half depicts the judgment which will fall upon Jerusalem, to sever the ungodly from the righteous, to exterminate the former out of the land of the Lord, to purify and preserve the latter, and by completing this separation, to perfect His kingdom in glory. This second half is divisible again into two parts, the former of which (ch. xiii. 7-9) gives a summary of the contents, whilst the latter (ch. xiv.) expands it into fuller detail.
Ver. 7. “ Arise, O sword, over my shepherd, and over the man who is my neighbour, is the saying of Jehovah of hosts: smite the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered; and I will bring back my hand over the little ones. Ver. 8. And it will come to pass in all the land, is the saying of Jehovah; two parts therein shall be cut off, shall die, and the third remains therein. Ver. 9. And the third will I bring into the fire, and melt them as silver is melted, and will refine them as gold ts refined: tt will call upon my name, and I will answer tt; I say, It is my people; and it will say, Jehovah my G'od.” The summons addressed to the sword, to awake and smite, is a poetical turn to express the thought that the smiting takes place with or according to the will of God. For a similar personification of the sword, see Jer. xlvii. 6. ‘v9 is the shepherd of Jehovah, since the summons comes from Jehovah. In what sense the person to be smitten is called the shepherd of Jehovah, we may see from the clause ‘Dy Tas-Py, The word n'2Y, which only occurs in the Pentateuch and in Zechariah, who has taken it thence, is only used as a synonym of M& (cf. Lev. xxv. 15) in the concrete sense of the nearest one. And this is the meaning which it has in the passage before us, where the construct state expresses the relation of apposition, as for example in FON wn (Deut. xxxiil. 8; cf. Ewald, § 287, ¢), the man who is my nearest one. The shepherd of Jehovah, whom Jehovah describes as a man who is His next one (neighbour), cannot of course be a bad shepherd, who is displeasing to Jehovah, and destroys the flock, or the foolish shepherd mentioned in ch. xi. 15-17, as Grotius, Umbr., Ebrard, Ewald, Hitzig, and others suppose; for the expression “man who is my nearest one” implies much more than unity or community of vocation, or that he had to feed the flock like Jehovah. No owner of a flock or lord of a flock would call a hired or purchased shepherd his ‘“émith. And so God would not apply this epithet to any godly or ungodly man whom He might have appointed shepherd over a nation. The idea of nearest one (or fellow) involves not only similarity in vocation, but community of physical or spiritual descent, according to which he whom God calls His neighbour cannot be a mere man, but can only be one who participates in the divine nature, or is essentially divine. The shepherd of Jehovah, whom the sword is to smite, is therefore no other than the Messiah, who is also identified with Jehovah in ch. x1. 103 or the good shepherd, who says of Himself, “I and my Father are one” (John x. 80). The masculine form 37 in the summons addressed to the sword, although 279 itself is feminine, may be accounted for from the personification of the sword; compare Gen. iv. 7, where sin (NNN, fem.) is personified as a wild beast, and construed as a masculine. The sword is merely introduced as a weapon used for killing, without there being any intention of defining the mode of death more precisely. The smiting of the shepherd is also mentioned here simply for the purpose of depicting the consequences that would follow with regard to the flock. The thought is therefore merely this: Jehovah will scatter Israel or His nation by smiting the shepherd; that is to say, He will give it up to the misery and destruction to which a flock without a shepherd is exposed. We cannot infer from this that the shepherd himself is to blame; nor does the circumstance that the smiting of the shepherd is represented as the execution of a divine command, necessarily imply that the death of the shepherd proceeds directly from God. According to the biblical view, God also works, and does that which is done by man in accordance with His counsel and will, and even that which is effected through the sin of men. Thus in Isa. liii. 10 the mortal sufferings of the Messiah are described as inflicted upon Him by God, although He had given up His soul to death to bear the sin of the people. In the prophecy before us, the slaying of the shepherd is only referred to so far as it brings a grievous calamity upon Israel; and the fact is passed over, that Israel has brought this calamity upon itself by its ingratitude towards the shepherd (cf. ch. xi. 8, 12). The flock, which will be dispersed in consequence of the slaying of the shepherd, is the covenant nation, ¢@.e. neither the human race nor the Christian church as such, but the flock which the shepherd in ch. xi. 4 sqq. had to feed. At the same time, Jehovah will not entirely withdraw His hand a the scattered flock, but “ bring it back over the small ones.” The phrase oy T IVT, to being back the hand over a person (see at 2 Sam. viil. 3), i.e. make him the object of his active care once more, is used to express the employment of the hand upon a person either for judgment or salvation. It occurs in the latter sense in Isa. i. 25 in relation to the grace which the Lord will manifest towards Jerusalem, by purifying it from its dross; and it is used here in the same sense, as vers. 8, 9 clearly show, according to which the dispersion to be inflicted upon Israel will only be the cause of ruin to the greater portion of the nation, whereas it will bring salvation to the remnant. Vers. 8b and 9 add the real explanation of the bringing back of the hand over the small ones. Oy’ (lit. a participle of "8, which only occurs here) is synonymous with TS or WY (Jer. xiv. 3, xlviii. 4, chethib), the small ones in a figurative sense, the miserable ones, those who are called N30 %3Y in ch. xi. 7. It naturally follows from this, that the. bys are not identical with the whole flock, but simply form a small portion of it, viz. “the poor and righteous in the nation,
who suffer injustice” (Hitzig). “The assertion that the flock is to be scattered, but that God will bring back His hand to the small ones, evidently implies that the small ones are included as one portion of the entire flock, for which God will prepare a different fate from that of the larger whole which is about to be dispersed” (Kliefoth).
On the fulfilment of this verse, we read in Matt. xxvi. 31, 32, and Mark xiv. 27, that the bringing back of the hand of the Lord over the small ones was realized first of all in the case of the apostles. After the institution of the Lord’s Supper, Christ told His disciples that that same night they would all be offended because of Him; for it was written, “I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.” The quotation is made freely from the original text, the address to the sword being resolved into its actual meaning, “TJ will smite.’ The offending of the disciples took place when Jesus was taken prisoner, and they all fled. This flight was a prelude to the dispersion of the flock at the death of the shepherd. But the Lord soon brought back His hand over the disciples. ‘The promise, “ But after my resurrection I will go before you into Galilee,” is a practical exposition of the bringing back of the hand over the small ones, which shows that the expression is to be understood here in a good sense, and that it began to be fulfilled in the gathering together of the disciples by the risen Saviour. This special fulfilment did not indeed exhaust the meaning of the verses before us; but they had a much more general fulfilment in the whole of the nation of Israel, to which we shall afterwards return. This more general sense of the words is placed beyond the reach of doubt by vers. 8 and 9; for ver. 8 depicts the misery which the dispersion of the flock brings upon Israel, and ver. 9 shows how the bringing back of the hand upon the small ones will be realized in the remnant of the nation. The dispersion of the flock will deliver two-thirds of the nation in the whole land to death, so that only one-third will remain alive. yang is not the whole earth, but the whole of the holy land, as in ch. xiv. 9, 10; and Y285, in ch. xii. 12, the land in which the flock, fed by the shepherds of the Lord, i.e. the nation of Israel, dwells. Dw is taken from Deut. xxi. 17, as in 2 Kings ii. 9; it is used there for the double portion inherited by the first-born. That it is used here to signify two-thirds, is evident from the remaining
reprouin, “ The whole of the Jewish nation,” says Hengstenberg, “is introduced here, as an inheritance left by the shepherd who has been put to death, which inheritance is divided into three parts, death claiming the privileges of the first-born, and so receiving two portions, and life one,—a division similar to that which David made in the case of the Moabites (2 Sam. viii. 2).” 393" is added to 373’, to define 122. more precisely, as
signifying not merely a cutting off from the land by transportation (cf. ch. xiv. 2), but a cutting off from life (Koehler). 43, exspirare, is applied both to natural and violent death (for the latter meaning, compare Gen. vii. 21, Josh. xxii. 20). The remaining third is also to be refined through severe afflictions, to purify it from everything of a sinful nature, and make it into a truly holy nation of God. For the figure of melting and refining, compare Isa. i. 25, xlviii. 10, Jer. ix. 6, Mal. iii. 3, Ps. Ixvi. 10. For the expression in ver. 96, compare Isa. Ixv. 24; and for the thought of the whole verse, ch. vill. 8, Hos. ii. 25, Jer. xxiv. 7, xxx. 22. The cutting off of the twothirds of Israel commenced in the Jewish war under Vespasian and ‘Titus, and in the war for the suppression of the rebellion led by the pseudo-Messiah Bar Cochba. It is not to be restricted to these events, however, but was continued in the persecutions of the Jews with fire and sword in the following centuries. The refinement of the remaining third cannot be taken as referring to the sufferings of the Jewish nation during the whole period of its present dispersion, as C. B. Michaelis supposes, nor generally to the tribulations which are necessary in order to enter into the kingdom of God, to the seven conflicts which the true Israel existing in the Christian church has to sustain, first with the two-thirds, and then and more especially with the heathen (ch. xii. 1-9, 14). For whilst Hengstenberg very properly objects to the view of Michaelis, on the ground that in that case the unbelieving portion of Judaism would be regarded as the legitimate and sole continuation of Israel; it may also be argued, in opposition to the exclusive reference in the third to the Christian church, that it is irreconcilable with the perpetuation of the Jews, and the unanimous entrance of all Israel into the kingdom of Christ, as taught by the Apostle Paul. Both views contain elements of truth, which must be combined, as we shall presently show. Chap. xiv. All nations will be gathered together by the Lord against Jerusalem, and will take the city and plunder it, and lead away the half of its inhabitants into captivity (vers. 1, 2). The Lord will then take charge of His people; He will appear upon the Mount of Olives, and by splitting this mountain, prepare a safe way for the rescue of those that remain, and come with all His saints (vers. 8-5) to complete His kingdom. From Jerusalem a stream of salvation and blessing will pour over the whole land (vers. 6-11); the enemies who have come against Jerusalem will be miraculously smitten, and destroy one another (vers. 12-15). The remnant of the nations, however, will turn to the Lord, and come yearly to Jerusalem, to keep the feast of Tabernacles (vers. 16-19); and Jerusalem will become thoroughly holy (vers. 20, 21). From this brief description of the contents, it is perfectly obvious that our chapter contains simply a further expansion of the summary announcement of the judgment upon Israel, and its refinement (xi. 7-9). Vers. 1, 2 show how the flock is dispersed, and for the most part perileey 3; vers. 26-5, how the Lord brings back His hand over the small ones; vers. 6-21, how the Feneeny remnant of the nation is endowed with ee and the kingdom of God completed by the reception of the believers out of the heathen nations. There is no essential difference in the fact that the nation of Israel is the object of the prophecy in ch. xii. 7-9, and Jerusalem in ch. xiv. Jerusalem, as the capital of the kingdom, is the seat of Israel, the nation of God; what happens to it, happens to the people and kingdom of God.
“ Behold, a day cometh for Jehovah, and thy spoil is divided in the midst of thee. Ver. 2. And I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to war; and the city will be taken, and the houses plundered, and the women ravished, and half the city will go out into captivity; but the remnant of the nation will not be cut off out of the city.” A day comes to the Lord, not inasmuch as He brings it to pass, but rather because the day belongs to Him, since He will manifest His glory upon it (cf. Isa. ii. 12). This day will at first bring calamity or destruction upon Israel; but this calamity will furnish occasion to the Lord to display His divine might and glory, by destroying the enemies of Israel and saving His people. In the second hemistich of ver. 1, Jerusalem is addressed. “Thy spoil” is the booty taken by the ' VOL. II. 20 enemy in Jerusalem. The prophet commences directly with the main fact, in a most vivid description, and only gives the explanation afterwards in ver. 2. The Vav consec. attached to ‘ADDN is also a Vav eaplicativum. The Lord gathers all nations together to war against Jerusalem, and gives up the city into their power, that they may conquer it, and let loose all their barbarity upon it, plundering the houses and ravishing the women (cf. Isa. xiii. 16, where the same thing is affirmed of Babylon). Just as in the Chaldzan conquest the people had been obliged to wander into captivity, so will it be now, though not all the people, but only the half of the city. The remaining portion will not be cut off out of the city, z.e. be transported thence, as was the case at that time, when even the remnant of the nation was carried into exile (2 Kings xxv. 22). It is obvious at once from this, that the words do not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, as Theodoret, Jerome, and others have supposed.
This time the Lord will come to the help of His people. Ver. 3. “ And Jehovah will go forth and fight against those nations, as in His day of battle, on the day of slaughter. Ver. 4. And His feet will stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which lies to the east before Jerusalem; and the Mount of Olives will split in the centre from east to west into a very great valley, and half of the mountain will remove to the north, and its (other) half to the south. Ver. 5. And ye will jlee into the valley of my mountains, and the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel, and ye will flee as ye fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. And Jehovah my God will come, all the saints with Thee.” Against those nations which have conquered Jerusalem the Lord will fight "3 O13, as the day, ¢.e. as on the day, of His fighting, to which there is added, for the purpose of strengthening the expression, “on the day of the slaughter.” The meaning is not “ according to the day when He fought in the day of the war,” as Jerome and many others suppose, who refer the words to the conflict between Jehovah and the Egyptians at the Red Sea (Ex. xiv. 14); for there is nothing to support this special allusion. According to the historical accounts in the Old Testament, Jehovah went out more than once to fight for His people (cf. Josh. x. 14, 42, xxill. 3; Judg. iv. 15; 1 Sam. vii. 10; 2 Chron. xx. 15).
The simile is therefore to be taken in a more general sense, as signifying “as He is accustomed to fight in the day of battle and slaughter,” and to be understood as referring to all the wars of the Lord on behalf of His people. In vers. 4 and 5 we have first of all a description of what the Lord will do to save the remnant of His people. He appears upon the Mount of Olives, and as His feet touch the mountain it splits in half, so that a large valley is formed. The splitting of the mountain is the effect of the earthquake under the footsteps of Jehovah, before whom the earth trembles when He touches it (clxexixoel setunde ny. 03 Ps.‘ lxviii..8 5 Nah, 1. 5/ete:). The more precise definition of the situation of the Mount of Olives, viz. “before Jerusalem eastwards,” is not introduced with a geographical purpose—namely, to distinguish it from other mountains upon which olive trees grow—but is connected with the means employed by the Lord for the salvation of His people, for whom He opens a way of escape by splitting the mountain in two. The mountain is split 1° HNN Pn, from the half (7.e. the midst) of it to the east and to the west, 7.é. so that a chasm ensues, which runs from the centre of the mountain both eastwards and westwards; so that the mountain is split latitudinally, one half (as is added to make it still more clear) removing to the south, the other to the north, and a great valley opening between them. Into this valley the half of the nation that is still in Jerusalem will flee. ‘0 8'3 is the accusative of direction (Luther and others render it incorrectly, “‘ before the valley of my mountains”). This valley is not the valley of the Tyropeon, or the valley between Moriah and Zion (Jerome, Drus., Hofm.), but the valley which has been formed by the splitting of the Mount of Olives; and Jehovah calls the two mountains which have been formed through His power out of the Mount of Olives hérat, “my mountains.” Nor is it connected with the valley of Jehoshaphat; for the opinion that the newly-formed valley is merely an extension of the valley of Jehoshaphat has no foundation in the text, and is not in harmony with the direction taken by the new valley— namely, from east to west. The explanatory clause which follows, “for the (newly-formed) valley of the mountains will reach DMN by? shows that the flight of the people into the valley is not to be understood as signifying that the valley will merely furnish the fugitives with a level road for escape, but that they will find a secure place of shelter in the valley. ’Hl’Atsal has been taken by different commentators, after Symm. and Jerome, in an appellative sense, “to very near,” which Koehler interprets as signifying that the valley will reach to the place where the fugitives are. This would be to Jerusalem, for that was where the fugitives were then. But if Zechariah had meant to say this, he could not have spoken more obscurely. Aisa, the form in pause for ’désél, as we may see by comparing 1 Chron. viii. 38 and ix. 44 with 1 Chron. viii. 39 and ix. 43 (cf. Olsh. Gramm. § 91, d), is only met with elsewhere in the form ONY, not merely as a preposition, but also in the name Syma, and is here a proper name, as most of the ancient translators perceived,—namely, a contracted form of OyNT-M, since M2 is frequently omitted from names of places constructed with it (see Ges. Thes. p. 193). This place is to be sought for, according to Mic. i. 11, in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, and according to the passage before us to the east of the Mount of Olives, as Cyril states, though from mere hearsay, Koun S& attn mpds éoyxatuals, Os Oyos, ToD spous KEtpéevn. The fact that Jerome does not mention the place is no proof that it did not exist. A small place not far from Jerusalem, on the other side of the Mount of Olives, might have vanished from the earth long before this father lived. The comparison of the flight to the flight from the earthquake in the time of king Uzziah, to which reference is made in Amos i. 1, is intended to express not merely the swiftness and universality of the flight, but also the cause of the flight,—namely, that they do not merely fly from the enemy, but also for fear of the earthquake which will attend the coming of the Lord. In the last clause of ver. 5 the object of the coming of the Lord is indicated. He has not only gone forth to fight against the enemy in Jerusalem, and deliver His people; but He comes with His holy angels, to perfect His kingdom by means of the judgment, and to glorify Jerusalem. This coming is not materially different from His going out to war (ver. 3); it is not another or a second coming, but simply a visible manifestation. For this coming believers wait, because it brings them redemption (Luke xxi. 28). This joyful waiting is expressed in the address “my God.” The holy ones are the angels (cf. Deut.
xxxill. 2, 8; Dan. vii. 9,10; Matt. xxv. 31), not believers, or believers as well as the angels. In what follows, Zechariah depicts first of all the completion secured by the coming of the Lord (vers. 6-11), and then the judgment upon oe enemy (vers. 12-15), with its fruits and consequences (vers. 16-21). Vers. 6-11. Complete salvation—Ver. 6. “And it will come to pass on that day, there will not be light, the glorious ones will melt away. Ver. 7. And it will be an only day, which will be known to Jehovah, not day nor night: and tt will come to pass, at evening time tt will be light.” The coming of the Lord will produce a change on the earth. The light of the earth will disappear. The - way in which Tis 7. > is to be understood is indicated more precisely by jixap mip’. These words have been interpreted, however, from time immemorial in very different ways. The difference of gender in the combination of the feminine ninp. with the niseuline verb fiXS?, and the rarity with which the two words are met with, have both contributed to produce the keri NB. NP, in ca ninp’ has either been taken as a substantive formation from 1p, or the reading Nip) with Vav cop. has been adopted in the sense of cold, and ji83P (contraction, rigidity) taken to signify ice. The whole clause has then been either regarded as an antithesis to the preceding one, “ It will not be light, but (sc. there will be) cold and ice” (thus Targ., Pesh., Symm., Itala, Luther, and many others); or taken in this sense, “There will not be light, and cold, and ice, z.¢. no alternation of light, cold, and ice will occur” (Ewald, Umbr., Bunsen). But there is intolerable harshness in both these views: in the first, on account of the insertion of 77 without a negation for a purpose of obtaining an antithesis; in the Coe because the combination of tong cold, and ice is illogical and unparalleled in the Sarnia and cannot be justified even by an appeal to Gen. viii. 22, since light is no more equivalent to day and night than cold and ice are to frost and heat, or summer and winter. We must therefore follow Bicousiantene, Hofmann, Koehler, and Kliefoth, who prefer the Ame pNAaP, and fad it PNP, the imperf. kal of NDP. NDP signifies to congeal, or curdle, and is applied in Ex. xv. 8 to ihe heaping up a the waters as it were in solid masses. Np‘, the costly or splendid things, are the stars, according to Job xxxi. 26, where the moon is spoken of as qin “P', walking in splendour. The words therefore describe the passing away or vanishing of the brightness of the shining stars, answering to the prophetic announcement, that on the day of judgment, sun, moon, and stars will lose their brightness or be turned into darkness (Joel iv. 15; Isa. xiii. 10; Ezek. xxxii. 7,8; Matt. xxiv. 29; Rev. vi. 12). In ver. 7 this day is still more clearly described: first, as solitary in its kind; and secondly, as a marvellous day, on which the light dawns at evening time. The four clauses of this verse contain only two thoughts; each so expressed in two clauses that the second explains the first. TON O1, wnus dies, is not equivalent to tempus non longum (Cocceius, Hengst.), nor to “only one day, not two or more” (Koehler), but solitary in its kind, unparalleled by any other, because no second of the kind ever occurs (for the use of ’echad in this sense, compare ver. 9, Ezek. vii. 5, Song of Sol. vi. 9). It is necessary to take the words in this manner on account of the following clause, “it will be known to the Lord;” ze. not “it will be singled out by Jehovah in the series of days as the appropriate one” (Hitzig and Koehler), nor “it stands under the supervision and guidance of the Lord, so that it does not come unexpectedly, or interfere with His plans” (Hengstenberg), for neither of these is expressed in Ji; but simply, it is known to the Lord according to its true nature, and therefore is distinguished above all other days. The following definition, “not day and not night,” does not mean that “it will form a turbid mixture of day and night, in which there will prevail a mongrel condition of mysterious, horrifying twilight and gloom” (Koehler); but it will resemble neither day nor night, because the lights of heaven, which regulate day and night, lose their brightness, and at evening time there comes not darkness, but light. The order of nature is reversed: the day resembles the night, and the evening brings light. At the time when, according to the natural course of events, the dark night should set in, a bright light will dawn. The words do not actually affirm that the alternation of day and night will cease (Jerome, Neumann, Kliefoth); but this may be inferred from a comparison of Rev. xxi. 23 and 25.
Ver. 8. “ And tt will come to pass in that day, that living waters will go out from Jerusalem; by half into the eastern sea, and by half into the western sea: in summer and in winter will wt be. Ver. 9. And Jehovah will be King over all the land; in that day will Jehovah be one, and His name one. Ver. 10. The whole land will turn as the plain from Geba to Rimmon, south of Jerusalem; and this will be high, and dwell in its place, from the gate of Benjamin to the place of the first gate, to the corner gate, and from the tower of Chananeel to the king’s wine-presses. Ver. 11. And men will dwell therein, and there will be no more curse (ban); and Jerusalem will dwell securely.” The living water which issues from Jerusalem, and pours over the land on both sides, flowing both into the eastern or Dead Sea, and into the hinder (i.e. western) or Mediterranean Sea (see at Joel ii. 20), is, according to Joel iii. 18 and Ezek. xlvii. 1-12, a figurative representation of the salvation and blessing which will flow out of Jerusalem, the centre of the kingdom of God, over the holy land, and produce vigorous life on every hand. According to Joel and Ezekiel, the water issues from the temple (see at Joel ii. 18). Zechariah adds, that this will take place in summer and winter, ze. will proceed without interruption throughout the whole year, whereas natural streams dry up in summer time in Palestine. To this blessing there is added the higher spiritual blessing, that Jehovah will be King over all the land, and His name alone will be mentioned and revered. yasnb3 does not mean the whole earth, but, as in vers. 8 and 10, the whole of the land of Canaan or of Israel, which is bounded by the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean. It by no means follows from this, however, that Zechariah is simply speaking of a glorification of Palestine. For Canaan, or the land of Israel, is a type of the kingdom of God in the full extent which it will have on the earth in the last days depicted here. Jehovah’s kingship does not refer to the kingdom of nature, but to the kingdom of grace,—namely, to the perfect realization of the sovereignty of God, for which the old covenant prepared the way; whereas the old Israel continually rebelled against Jehovah’s being King, both by its sin and its idolatry. This rebellion, ie, the apostasy of the nation from its God, is to cease, and the Lord alone will be King and God of the redeemed nation, and be acknowledged by it; His name alone will be mentioned, and not the names of idols as well. The earthly soil of the kingdom of God will then experience a change. The whole land will be levelled into a plain, and Jerusalem will be elevated in consequence; and Jerusalem, when thus exalted, will be restored in its fullest extent. 35° (imperf. kal, not niphal; see Ges. § 67, 5), to change like the plain, i.e. to change so as to become like the plain. 121 is not a plain generally, in which case the article would be used generically, but the plain, so called car’ éfoynv, the plain of the Jordan, or the Ghor (see at Deut.i.1). The definition “from Geba to Rimmon” does not belong to 721y3 (Umbreit, Neum., Klief.), but to PINT o3; for there was no plain between Geba and Rimmon, but only an elevated, hilly country. Geba is the present Jeba, about three hours to the north of Jerusalem (see at Josh. xviii. 24), and was the northern frontier city of the kingdom of Judah (2 Kings xxiii. 8). Rimmon, which is distinguished by the clause “to the south of. Jerusalem” from the Rimmon in Galilee, the present Rummaneh to the north of Nazareth (see at Josh. xix. 13), and from the rock of Rimmon, the present village of Rummon, about fifteen Roman miles to the north of Jerusalem (see Judg. xx. 45), is the Rimmon situated on the border of Edom, which was given up by the tribe of Judah to the Simeonites (Josh. xv. 32, xix. 7), probably on the site of the present ruins of Um er tummanim, four hours to the north of Beersheba (see at Josh. xv. 82). To ‘1 F281 we must supply as the subject Jerusalem, which has been mentioned just before. nix is probably only an outwardly expanded form of 1127 from on, like ONP in Hos. x. 14. The whole land will be lowered, that Jerusalem alone may be high. This is, of course, not to be understood as signifying a physical elevation caused by the depression of the rest of the land; but the description is a figurative one, like the exaltation of the temple mountain above all the mountains in Mic. iv. 1. Jerusalem, as the residence of the God-King, is the centre of the kingdom of God; and in the future this is to tower high above all the earth. The figurative description is attached to the natural situation of Jerusalem, which stood upon a broad mountain ridge, and was surrounded by mountains, which were loftier than the city (see Robinson, Palestine). The exaltation is a figurative representation of the spiritual elevation and glory which it is to receive. Moreover, Jerusalem’ is to dwell on its ancient site (TANA IW, as in ch. xii. 6). The meaning of this is not that the Ecalkation above the surrounding land oF be the only alteration that will take place in its ane (Koehler); but, as a comparison with Jer. xxxi. 38 clearly shows, that the city will be restored or rebuilt in its former extent, and therefore is to be completely recovered from the ruin brought upon it by conquest and plunder (ver. 1). The boundaries of the city that are mentioned here cannot be determined with perfect certainty. The first definitions relate to the extent of the city from east to west. The starting-point (for the use of 12, see Hag. ii. 18) is Benjamin’s gate, in the north wall, through ee the road to Benjamin and thence to Bpiees ran, so that it was no doubt the same as Ephraim’s gate mentioned in 2 Kings xiv. 13 and Neh. viii. 16. The terminus ad quem, on the other hand, is doubtful, viz. “to the place of the first gate, to the corner gate.” According to the grammatical construction, D°323 WYWY is apparently in apposition to ‘Ih ayv Dipa-7y, or a more precise description of the position of the first gate; and Hitzig and Kliefoth have taken the words in this sense. Only we cannot see any reason why the statement “to the place of the first gate” should be introduced at all, if the other statement “to the corner gate” describes the very same terminal point, and that in a clearer manner. We must therefore assume, as the majority of commentators have done, that the two definitions refer to two different terminal points; in other words, that they define the extent both eastwards and westwards from the Benjamin’s gate, which stood near the centre of the north wall. The corner gate (sha‘ar happinnim is no doubt the same as sha'ar happinnah in 2 Kings xiv. 13 and Jer. xxxi. 38) was at the western corner of the north wall. “The first gate” is supposed to be identical with 72¥°7 "YY, the gate of the old (city), in Neh. iii. 6 and xii. 39, ‘and its place is the north-eastern corner of the city. The Beaniiens which follow give the extent of the city from north to south. We must eae 12 before 27D, The tower of Hananeel (Jer. xxxi. 88; Neh. iii. 1, xii. 39) stood at the north-east corner of the city (see at Neh. iiied): The king’s wine-presses were unquestionably in the king’s gardens at the south side of the city (Neh. iii. 15). In the city so glorified the inhabitants dwell (22 in contrast to going out as captives or as fugitives, vers. 2 and 5), and that as a holy nation, for there will be no more any ban in the city. The ban presupposes sin, and is followed by extermination as a judgment (cf. Josh. vi. 18). The city and its inhabitants will therefore be no more exposed to destruction, but will dwell safely, and have no more hostile attacks to fear (cf. Isa. Ixv. 18 sqq. and Rev. xxii. 3).
Vers. 12-15. Punishment of the hostile nations.—Ver. 12. “ And this will be the stroke wherewith Jehovah will snute all the nations which have made war upon Jerusalem: tts flesh will rot while it stands upon ats feet, and its eyes will rot in their sockets, and tts tongue will rot in their mouth. Ver. 18. And it will come to pass in that day, the confusion from Jehovah will be great among them, and they will lay hold of one another's hand, and his hand will rise up against the hand of his neighbour. Ver. 14. And Judah will also fight at Jerusalem, and the riches of all nations will be gathered together round about, gold and silver and clothes in great abundance. Ver. 15. And so will be the stroke of the horse, of the mule, of the camel, and of the ass, and of all the cattle, that shall be in the same tents, like this stroke.’ 'To the description of the salvation there is appended here as the obverse side the execution of the punishment upon the foe, which was only indicated in ver. 3. The nations which made war against Jerusalem shall be destroyed partly by the rotting away of their bodies even while they are alive (ver. 12), partly by mutual destruction (ver. 13), and partly by Judah’s fighting against them (ver. 14). To express the idea of their utter destruction, all the different kinds of plagues and strokes by which nations can be destroyed are grouped together. In the first rank we have two extraordinary strokes inflicted upon them by God. Maggéphah always denotes a plague or punishment sent by God (Ex. ix. 14; Num. xiv. 837; 1 Sam. vi. 4). 97, the inf. abs. héphil in the place of the finite verb: “He (Jehovah) makes its flesh rot while it stands upon its feet,” 7.¢. He causes putrefaction to take place even while the body is alive. The singular suffixes are to be taken distributively: the flesh of every nation or every foe. To strengthen the threat there is added the rotting of the eyes which spied out the nakednesses of the city of God, and of the tongue which blasphemed God and His people (cf. Isa. xxxvii. 6). The other kind of destruction is effected by a panic terror, through which the foes are thrown into confusion, so that they turn their weapons against one another and destroy one another,—an occurrence of which several examples are furnished by the Israelitish history (compare Judg. vii. 22, 1 Sam. xiv. 20, and especially that in 2 Chron. xx. 23, in the reign of Jehoshaphat, to which the description given by our prophet refers), The grasp of the other’s hand is a hostile one in this case, the object being to seize him, and, having lifted his hand, to strike him dead. Ver. 14a is translated by Luther and many others, after the Targum and Vulgate, “Judah will fight against Jerusalem,” on the ground that 2 ons generally signifies “to fight against a person.” But this by no means suits the context here, since those who fight against Jerusalem are “all the heathen” (ver. 2), and nothing is said about any opposition between Jerusalem and Judah. 2 is used here in a local sense, as in Ex. xvii. 8, with pne3, and the thought is this: Not only will Jehovah smite the enemies miraculously with plagues and confusion, but Judah will also take part in the conflict against them, and fight against them in Jerusalem, which they have taken. Judah denotes the whole of the covenant nation, and not merely the inhabitants of the country in distinction from the inhabitants of the capital. Thus will Judah seize as booty the costly possessions of the heathen, and thereby visit the heathen with ample retribution for the plundering of Jerusalem (ver. 2). And the destruction of the enemy will be so complete, that even their beasts of burden, and those used in warfare, and all their cattle, will be destroyed by the same plague as the men; just as in the case of the ban, not only the men, but also their cattle, were put to death (cf. Josh. vii. 24). Moreover, there is hardly any need for the express remark, that this description is only a rhetorically individualizing amplification of the thought that the enemies of the kingdom of God are to be utterly destroyed, —namely, those who do not give up their hostility and turn unto God. For the verses which follow show very clearly that it is only to these that the threat of punishment refers.
Vers. 16-19. Conversion of the heathen.—Ver. 16. “ And it will come to pass, that every remnant of all the nations which came against Jerusalem will go up year by year to worship the King Jehovah of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. Ver.
17. And it will come to pass, that whoever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King Jehovah of hosts, upon them there will be no rain. Ver. 18. And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, then also not upon them; there will be (upon them) the plague with which Jehovah will plague all nations which do not go up to keep the feast of tabernacles. Ver. 19. This will be the sin of Egypt, and the sin of all the nations, which do not go up to keep the feast of tabernacles.” The heathen will not be all destroyed by the judgment; but a portion of them will be converted. This portion is called “the whole remnant of those who marched against Jerusalem” (oy Nia as in ch. xii. 9). It will turn to the worship of the Lord. The construction in ver. 16 is anacolouthic: sninn-Pa, with its further definition, is placed at the head absolutely, whilst the predicate is attached in the form of an apodosis with PY, The entrance of the heathen into the kingdom of God is depicted under the figure of the festal journeys to the sanctuary of Jehovah, which had to be repeated year by year. Of the feasts which they will keep there every year (on "9, see Delitzsch on Isa. Ixvi. 23), the feast of tabernacles is mentioned, not because it occurred in the autumn, and the autumn was the best time for travelling (Theod. Mops., Theodoret, Grot., Ros.), or because it was the greatest feast of rejoicing kept by the Jews, or for any other outward reason, but simply on account of its internal significance, which we must not seek for, however, as Koehler does, in its agrarian importance as a feast of thanksgiving for the termination of the harvest, and of the gathering in of the fruit; but rather in its historical allusion as a feast of thanksgiving for the gracious protection of Israel in its wanderings through the desert, and its introduction into the promised land with its abundance of glorious blessings, whereby it foreshadowed the blessedness to be enjoyed in the kingdom of God (see my bibl. Archdologie, i. p. 414 sqq.). This feast will be kept by the heathen who have come to believe in the living God, to thank the Lord for His grace, that He has brought them out of the wanderings of this life into the blessedness of His kingdom of peace. With this view of the significance of the feast of tabernacles, it is also possible to harmonize the punishment threatened in ver. 17 for neglecting to keep this feast,—namely, that the rain will not be (come)
upon the families of the nations which absent themselves from this feast. For rain is an individualizing expression denoting the blessing of God generally, and is iaentioned here with reference to the fact, that without rain the fruits of the land, on the enjoyment af which our happiness depends, will not flourish. The meaning of the threat is, therefore, that those families which do not come to worship the Lord, will be punished by Him with the withdrawal of the blessings of His grace. The Egyptians are mentioned again, by way of example, as those upon whom the punishment will fall. So far as the construction of this verse is concerned, 182 x01 is added to strengthen noyn Nd, and pep x5 contains the apodosis to the eanditional sande introduced with Os, to which OW37 MN js easily supplied from ver. 17. The positive clause which follows is then appended as an asyndeton: It (the fact that the rain does not come) will be the plague, etc. The prophet mentions Eeypt especially, not because of the fact in natural history, that this land owes its fertility not to the rain, but to the overflowing of the Nile, —a notion which has given rise to the most forced interpretations; but as the nation which showed the greatest hostility to Jehovah and His people in the olden time, and for the purpose of showing that this nation was also to attain to a full participation in the blessings of salvation bestowed upon Israel (cf. Isa. xix. 19 sqq.). In ver. 19 this thought is rounded off by way of conclusion. nt, this, namely the fact that no rain falls, will be the sin of Egypt, ete. MSM, the sin, including its consequences, or in its effects, as in Num. xxxii. 23, ete. Moreover, we must not infer from the way in which this is carried out in vers. 17-19, that at.the time of the completion of the kingdom of God there will still be heathen, who will abstain from the worship of the true God; but the thought is simply this: there will then be no more room for heathenism within the sphere of the kingdom of God. To this there is appended the thought, in vers. 20 and 21, that everything unholy will then be removed from that kingdom.
Ver. 20. “ In that day there will stand upon the bells of the horses, Holy to Jehovah; and the pots in the house of Jehovah will be like the sacrificial bowls before the altar. Ver. 21. And every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to Jehovah of hosts, and all who sacrifice will come and take of them, and boil therein; and there will be no Canaanite any more in the house of Jehovah of hosts in that day.” The meaning of ver. 20a is not exhausted by the explanation given by Michaelis, Ewald, and others, that even the horses will then be consecrated to the Lord. The words im v4? were engraven upon the gold plate on the tiara of the high priest, in the characters used im engravings upon a seal (Ex. xxviii. 36). If, then, these words are (i.e. are to stand) upon the bells of the horses, the meaning is, that the bells of the horses will resemble the head-dress of the high priest in holiness." This does not merely express the ‘fact that the whole of the ceremonial law will be abolished, but also that the distinction between holy and profane will cease, inasmuch as even the most outward things, and things having no connection whatever with worship, will be as holy as those objects formerly were, which were dedicated to the service of Jehovah by a special consecration. In vers. 20b and 21a, the graduated distinction between the things which were more or less holy is brought prominently out. The pots in the sanctuary, which were used for boiling the sacrificial flesh, were regarded as much less holy than the sacrificial bowls in which the blood of the sacrificial animals was received, and out of which it was sprinkled or poured upon the altar. In the future these pots will be just as holy as the sacrificial bowls; and indeed not merely the boiling pots in the temple, but all the boiling pots in Jerusalem and Judah, which have hitherto been only clean and not holy, so that men will use them at pleasure for boiling the sacrificial flesh. In this priestly-levitical drapery the thought is expressed, that in the perfected kingdom of God not only will everything without exception be holy, but all will be equally holy. The distinction between holy and profane can only cease, however, when the sin and moral defilement which first evoked this distinction, and made it necessary that the things intended for the service of God should be set apart, and receive a special consecration, have been entirely removed and wiped away. To remove this distinction, to pre-
1 Tt follows from this passage, that it was an Israelitish custom to hang bells upon the horses and mules as ornaments, and probably also for other purposes, as with us. This custom was avery common one in antiquity (see the proofs which have been so diligently collected in Dougtxi Analecta sacr. p. 296 sqq.).
pare the way for the cleansing away of sin, and to sanctify once more that which sin had desecrated, was the object of the sacred institutions appointed by God. To this end Israel was separated from the nations of the earth; and in order to train it up as a holy nation, and to secure the object described, a law was given to it, in which the distinction between holy and profane ran through all the relations of life. And this goal will be eventually reached by the people of God; and sin with all its consequences be cleansed away by the judgment. In the perfected kingdom of God there will be no more sinners, but only such as are righteous and holy. This is affirmed in the last clause: there will be no Canaanite any more in the house of Jehovah. The Canaanites are mentioned here, not as merchants, as in Zeph. i. 11, Hos. xii. 8 (as Jonathan, Aquila, and others suppose), but as a people laden with sin, and under the curse (Gen. ix. 25; Lev. xviii. 24 sqq.; Deut. vii. 2, ix. 4, etc.), which has been exterminated by the judgment. In this sense, ~ as the expression “iy x implies, the term Canaanite is used to denote the godless members of the covenant nation, who came to the temple with sacrifices, in outward self-righteousness. As iy presupposes that there were Canaanites in the temple of Jehovah in the time of the prophet, the reference cannot be to actual Canaanites, because they were prohibited by the law from entering the temple, but only to Israelites, who were Canaanites in heart. Compare Isa. i. 10, where the princes of Judah are called princes of Sodom (Ezek. xvi. 3, xliv. 9). The “ house of Jehovah” is the temple, as in the preceding verse, and not the church of Jehovah, as in ch. ix. 8, although at the time of the completion of the kingdom of God the distinction between Jerusalem and the temple will have ceased, and the whole of the holy city, yea, the whole of the kingdom of God, will be transformed by the Lord into a holy of holies (see Rev. oo, 27.0)
Thus does our prophecy close with a prospect of the completion of the kingdom of God in glory. All believing commentators are agreed that the final fulfilment of vers. 20 and 21 lies before us in Rev. xxi. 27 and xxii. 15, and that even ch. xii. neither refers to the Chaldean catastrophe nor to the Maccabeean wars, but to the Messianic times, however they may differ from one another in relation to the historical events which the prophecy foretels. Hofmann and Koehler, as well as Ebrard and Kliefoth, start with the assumption, that the prophecy in ch. xii.—xiv. strikes in where the preceding one in ch. ix.-xi. terminates; that is to say, that it commences with the time when Israel was given up to the power of the fourth empire, on account of its rejection of the good shepherd, who appeared in Christ. Now since Hofmann and Koehler understand by Israel only the chosen people of the old covenant, or the Jewish nation, and by Jerusalem the capital of this nation in Palestine, they find this prophecy in ch. xu, that when Jehovah shall eventually bring to pass the punishment of the bad shepherd, 7.e. of the imperial power, with its hostility to God, it will assemble together again in its members the nations of the earth, to make war upon the material Jerusalem and Israel, which has returned again from its dispersion in all the world into the possession of the holy land (Palestine), and will besiege the holy city; but it will there be smitten by Jehovah, and lose its power over Israel. At that time will Jehovah also bring the previous hardening of Israel to an end, open its eyes to its sin against the Saviour it has put to death, and effect its conversion. But they differ in opinion as to ch. xiv. According to Koehler, this chapter refers to a future which is still in the distance—to a siege and conquest of Jerusalem which are to take place after Israel’s conversion, through which the immediate personal appearance of Jehovah will be brought to pass, and all the effects by which that appearance is necessarily accompanied. According to Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, ii. p. 610 sqq.), ch. xiv. 1 sqq. refers to the same occurrence as ch. xil. 2 sqq., with this simple difference, that in ch. xii. the prophet states what that day, in which the whole of the world of nations attacks Jerusalem, will do with the people of God, and in ch. xiv. to what extremity it will be brought. Ebrard and Kliefoth, on the other hand, understand by Jsrael, with its capital Jerusalem, and the house of David (in ch. xii. 1-xiii. 6), rebellious Judaism after the rejection of the Messiah; and by Judah with its princes, Christendom. Hence the prophecy in this section announces what calamities will happen to Israel according to the flesh—that has become rebellious through rejecting the Messiah—from the first coming of Christ onwards, until its ultimate conversion after the fulness of the Gentiles has come
CHAP. XIV. 20, 21. A417 in.’ The section ch. xiii. 7-9 (the smiting of the shepherd) does not refer to the crucifixion of Christ, because this did not lead to the consequences indicated in ver. 8, so far as the whole earth was concerned, but to the “ cutting off of the Messiah” predicted in Dan. ix. 26, the great apostasy which forms the beginning of the end, according to Luke xvii. 25, 2 Thess. ii. 3, 1 Tim. iv. 1, and 2 Tim. iii. 1, and through which Christ in His church is, according to the description in Rey. xiii. 17, so cut off from historical life, that it cannot be anything on earth. Lastly, chap. xiv. treats of the end of the world and the general judgment.
Of these two views, we cannot look upon either as well founded. For, in the first place, the assumption common to the two, and with which they set out, is erroneous and untenable, —namely, that the prophecy in ch. xii. sqq. strikes in where the previous one in ch. ix.—xi. terminated, and therefore that ch. xli.-xiv. is a direct continuation of ch. ix.-xi. This assumption is at variance not only with the relation in which the two prophecies stand to one another, as indicated by the correspondence in their headings, and as unfolded in ch. xii. 1 and 2 (p. 380f., comp. p. 820), but also with the essence of the prophecy, inasmuch as it is not a historical prediction of the future according to its successive development, but simply a spiritual intuition effected by inspiration, in which only the leading features of the form which the kingdom of God would hereafter assume are set forth, and that in figures drawn from the circumstances of the present and the past. Again, the two views can only be carried out by forcing the text. If the prophecy in ch. xii. started with the period when Israel came into the power of the Roman empire after the rejection of the Messiah, it could not
1 Kliefoth accordingly finds the siege of Jerusalem, predicted in ch. xii. 2, fulfilled in the siege of that city by Titus. The besieging nations then drank the reeling-cup; for the subjection of Judah was the last act in the victory of the Roman empire over the Macedonian. Rome was then at the summit of its imperial greatness; and from that time forth it became reeling and weak. This weakening was indeed prepared and effected through the Christian church; but it was just the siege of Jerusalem which transferred the centre of the Christian church from Jerusalem to the Roman empire. The fulfilment of ch. xii. 3 is to be found in the Crusades, the Oriental question, the Haute Finance, and the Emancipation of the Jews. Jerusalem has thus become a burden-stone for all nations, etc.
leap so abruptly to the last days, as Hofmann and Koehler assume, and commence with the description of a victorious conflict on the part of Israel against the nations of the world that were besieging Jerusalem, but would certainly first of all predict, if not the destruction of the Jewish nation by the Romans (which is merely indicated in ch. x1.), at all events the gathering together of the Jews, who had been scattered by the Romans over all the world, into Palestine and Jerusalem, before an attack of the nations of the world upon Israel could possibly be spoken of. Moreover, even the difference between Hofmann and Koehler with regard to the relation between ch. xii. 1-9 and ch. xiv. 1-5 shows that the transference of the whole to the last times cannot be reconciled with the words of these sections. The hypothesis of Koehler, that after the gathering together of Israel out of its dispersion, the nations of the world would make an attack upon Jerusalem in which they would be defeated, and that this conflict would for the first time bring Israel to the recognition of its guilt in putting Christ to death, is at variance with the whole of the prophecy and teaching of both the Old and New Testaments. For, according to these, Israel is not to be gathered together from its dispersion among the nations till it shall return with penitence to Jehovah, whom it has rejected. But Hofmann’s statement as to the relation between the two sections is so brief and obscure, that it is more like a concealment than a clearing up of the difficulties which it contains. Lastly, when Hofmann correctly observes, that “by the Jsraed of the heading in ch. xii. 1 we can only understand the people of God, in contradistinction to the world of nations, which is estranged from God,” this cannot apply to the unbelieving Jews, who have been given into the power of the last empire on account of their rejection of Christ, or Israel according to the flesh, for that Israel is rejected by God. The people of God exists, since the rejection of Christ, only in Christendom, which has been formed out of believing Jews and believing Gentiles, or the church of the New Testament, the stem and kernel of which were that portion of Israel which believingly accepted the Messiah when He appeared, and into whose bosom the believing Gentile peoples were received, Ebrard and Mliefoth are therefore perfectly right in their rejection of the Jewish chiliasm of Hofmann and Koehler; but when they understand by the Israel of the heading belonging to ch, xii—xiv., which we find in ch. xii. 1-9, only the unbelieving carnal Israel, and by that in ch. xiv. the believing Israel which has been converted to Christ, and also introduce into ch. xii. 1-9 an antithesis between Israel and Judah, and then understand by Jerusalem and the house of David in ch. xii. the hardened Jews, and by Judah, Christendom; and, on the other hand, by Jerusalem and Judah in ch. xiv. the Christendom formed of believing Jews and believing Gentiles,—we have already shown at ch. xii. 10 (p. 387) that these distinctions are arbitrarily forced upon the text.
Our prophecy treats in both parts—ch. xii. 1-xiii. 6 and ch. xii. 7-xiv. 21—of Israel, the people of God, and indeed the people of the new covenant, which has grown out of the Israel that believed in Christ, and believers of the heathen nations incorporated into it, and refers not merely to the church of the new covenant in the last times, when all the old Israel will be liberated by the grace of God from the hardening inflicted upon it, and will be received again into the kingdom of God, and form a central point thereof (Vitringa, C. B. Mich., etc.), but to the whole development of the church of Christ from its first beginning till its completion at the second coming of the Lord, as Hengstenberg has in the main discovered and observed. As the Israel of the heading (ch. xii. 1) denotes the people of God in contradistinction to the peoples of the world, the inhabitants of Jerusalem with the house of David, and Judah with its princes, as the representatives of Israel, are typical epithets applied to the representatives and members of the new covenant people, viz. the Christian church; and Jerusalem and Judah, as the inheritance of Israel, are types of the seats and territories of Christendom. 'The development of the new covenant nation, however, in conflict with the heathen world, and through the help of the Lord and His Spirit, until its glorious completion, is predicted in our oracle, not according to its successive historical course, but im such a manner that the first half announces how the church of the Lord victoriously defeats the attacks of the heathen world through the miraculous help of the Lord, and how in consequence of this victory it is increased by the fact that the hardened Israel comes more and more to the acknowledgment of its sin and to belief in the Messiah, whom it has put to death, and is incorporated into the church; whilst the second half, on the other hand, announces how, in consequence of the slaying of the Messiah, there falls upon the covenant nation a judgment through which two-thirds are exterminated, and the remainder is tested and refined by the Lord, so that, although many do indeed fall and perish in the conflicts with the nations of the world, the remnant is preserved, and in the last conflict will be miraculously delivered through the coming of the Lord, who will come with His saints to complete His kingdom in glory by the destruction of the enemies of His kingdom, and by the transformation and renewal of the earth. As the believing penitential look at the pierced One (xii. 10) will not take place for the first time at the ultimate conversion of Israel at the end of the days, but began on the day of Golgotha, and continues through all the centuries of the Christian church, so did the siege of Jerusalem by all nations (ch. xii. 1-9), 2.¢. the attack of the heathen nations upon the church of God, commence even in the days of the apostles (cf. Acts iv. 25 sqq.), and continues through the whole history of the Christian church to the last great conflict which will immediately precede the return of our Lord to judgment. And again, just as the dispersion of the flock after the slaying of the shepherd commenced at the arrest and death of Christ, and the bringing back of the hand of the Lord upon the small ones at the resurrection of Christ, so have they both been repeated in every age of the Christian church, inasmuch as with every fresh and powerful exaltation of antichristian heathenism above the church of Christ, those who are weak in faith flee and are scattered; but as soon as the Lord shows Himself alive in His church again, they let Him gather them together once more. And this will continue, according to the word of the Lordin Matt. xxiv. 10 sqq., till the end of the days, when Satan will go out to deceive the nations in the four quarters of the earth, and to gather together Gog and Magog to battle against the camp of the saints and the holy city; whereupon the Lord from heaven will destroy the enemy, and perfect His kingdom in the heavenly Jerusalem (Rey. xx.—xxii.).
So far as the relation between ch. xii. 2-9 and ch. xiv. 1-5 is concerned, it is evident from the text of both these passages that they do not treat of two different attacks upon the church of God by the imperial power, occurring at different times; but that, whilst ch. xii. depicts the constantly repeated attack in the light of its successful overthrow, ch. xiv. describes the hostile attack according to its partial success and final issue in the destruction of the powers that are hostile to God. This issue takes place, no doubt, only at the end of the course of this world, with the return of Christ to the last judgment; but the fact that Jerusalem is conquered and plundered, and the half of its population led away into captivity, proves indisputably that the siege of Jerusalem predicted in ch. xiv. must not be restricted to the last attack of Antichrist upon the church of the Lord, but that all the hostile attacks of the heathen world upon the city of God are embraced in the one picture of a siege of Jerusalem. In the attack made upon Jerusalem by Gog and Magog, the city is not conquered and plundered, either according to Ezek. xxxvilil. and xxxix., or according to Rev. xx. 7-9; but the enemy is destroyed by the immediate interposition of the Lord, without having got possession of the holy city. But to this ideal summary of the conflicts and victories of the nations of the world there is appended directly the picture of the final destruction of the ungodly power of the world, and the glorification of the kingdom of God; so that in ch. xiv. (from vers. 6 to 21) there is predicted in Old Testament form the completion of the kingdom of God, which the Apostle John saw and described in Rev. xx.-xxii. in New Testament mode under the figure of the heavenly Jerusalem.
AERSON or tHe Propuet.—The circumstances of Malachi’s life are so entirely unknown, that it is a disputed point whether "N71 in the heading (ch. i. 1) is the name of a person, or merely an ideal name given to the prophet who foretels the sending of the messenger of Jehovah (DNPD, ch. i. 1), and whose real name has not been handed down. The LXX. rendered the *INED 2 of the heading by & xeupi ayyérov avrod, and therefore either had or conjectured as their reading iINPD; and the Targumist Jonathan, who adds to "NPD 2 cujus nomen appellatur Esra scriba, has also taken soxbp in an ideal sense, and given the statement that Ezra the scribe is the prophetic author of our book, as a conjecture founded upon the spirit and contents of the prophecy. The notion that Malachi is only an official name is therefore met with in many of the fathers, and has been vigorously defended in the most recent times by Hengstenberg, who follows the lead of Vitringa, whilst Ewald lays it down as an established truth. But the arguments adduced in support of this, especially by Hengstenberg in his Christology, are not conclusive. The circumstance “that the heading does not contain any further personal description, whether the name of his father or the place of his birth,” is not more striking in our book than in the writings of Obadiah and Habakkuk, which also contain only the name of the prophet in the heading, without any further personal descriptions. It is a striking fact, no doubt, that the LXX. and the Targumist have taken the name as an appellative; at the same time, it by no means follows from this “that nothing was known in tradition of any historical person of the name of Malachi,” but simply that nothing certain had been handed down concerning. the circumstances of the prophet’s life. The recollection, however, of the circumstances connected with the personal history of the prophet might easily have become extinct during the period of at least 150 or 200 years which intervened between the lifetime of the prophet and the Alexandrian version of the Old Testament, if his life was not distinguished by any other facts than the prophecies contained in his book. And Jonathan lived, at the earliest, 400 years after Malachi. That all recollection of the person of Malachi was not lost, however, is evident both from the notice in the Talmud to the effect that Malachi was one of the men of the great synagogue, as Haggai and Zechariah had been, and also on the statements made by Ps. Doroth., Epiph., and other fathers, to the effect that he was a Levite of the tribe of Zebulun, and was born in Supha, or Yoda, or Yodipa (see the passages in Koehler, Mal. pp. 10, 11), although all these statements show that nothing certain was known as to the circumstances of his life. But the principal reason for taking the name not as a nomen proprium, but simply as a name adopted by the prophet for this particular prophecy, is to be found, according to Hengstenberg, in the character of the name itself, viz. in the fact that it is not formed from FNP and m —7im, and cannot be explained by angelicus. But neither the one nor the other can be regarded as established. The formation of proper names by adding the termination °> to appellative nouns is by no means unusual, as the long list of examples of words formed in this manner, given by Olshausen (Heb. Gramm. § 218, 6), clearly shows; and the remark that “this formation only serves to denote descent or occupation” (Hengstenberg) is beside the mark, since it does not apply to such names as ‘573, “12!, and others. The interpretation of the name as a eoniheeioe of MOND, messenger of Jehovah, is quite as possible as this douvanen: We he an unquestionable example of a contraction of this kind in ‘28 in 2 Kings Xviii. 2, as compared with 28 in 2 Chron. xxix. 1. And just as the * is there omitted altogether in ‘38, so is the other name of God, ON, omitted in bp in 1 Sam. xxv. 44, which is written bymaba | in 2 Sam. iii. 15. This omission of the name of God is by no means rare. “The Hebrews very often drop the names of God at the end of proper names” (Simonis, p. 11).