Комментарии к Библии

In this chapter, after the introduction (Zec 1:1), we have, I. An awakening call to a sinful people to repent of their sins and return to God, Zec 1:2-6. II. Great encouragement given to hope for mercy. 1. By the vision of the horses, Zec 1:7-11. 2. By the prayer of the angel for Jerusalem, and the answer to that prayer, Zec 1:12-17. 3. By the vision of the four carpenters that were employed to cut off the four horns with which Judah and Jerusalem were scattered, Zec 1:18-21.

INTRODUCTION

THE name Zechariah means one whom Jehovah remembers: a common name, four others of the same name occurring in the Old Testament. Like Jeremiah and Ezekiel, he was a priest as well as a prophet, which adapts him for the sacerdotal character of some of his prophecies

(Zec 6:13).

He is called "the son of Berechiah the son of Iddo"

(Zec 1:1);

but simply "the son of Iddo" in

Ezr 5:1; 6:14.

Probably his father died when he was young; and hence, as sometimes occurs in Jewish genealogies, he is called "the son of Iddo," his grandfather. Iddo was one of the priests who returned to Zerubbabel and Joshua from Babylon

(Ne 12:4).

Zechariah entered early on his prophetic functions

(Zec 2:4);

only two months later than Haggai, in the second year of Darius' reign, 520 B.C. The design of both prophets was to encourage the people and their religious and civil leaders, Joshua and Zerubbabel, in their work of rebuilding the temple, after the interruption caused by the Samaritans (see

Introduction

to Haggai). Zechariah does so especially by unfolding in detail the glorious future in connection with the present depressed appearance of the theocracy, and its visible symbol, the temple. He must have been very young in leaving Babylonia, where he was born. The Zechariah, son of Barachias, mentioned by our Lord

(Mt 23:35)

as slain between the porch and the altar, must have been the one called the son of Jehoiada in

2Ch 24:21,

who so perished: the same person often had two names; and our Lord, in referring to the Hebrew Bible, of which Second Chronicles is the last book, would naturally mention the last martyr in the Hebrew order of the canon, as He had instanced Abel as the first. Owing to

Mt 27:9 quoting Zec 11:12, 13

as the words of Jeremiah, MEDE doubts the authenticity of the ninth through the fourteenth chapters, and ascribes them to Jeremiah: he thinks that these chapters were not found till after the return from the captivity, and being approved by Zechariah, were added to his prophecies, as Agur's Proverbs were added to those of Solomon. All the oldest authorities, except two manuscripts of the old Italian or Pre-Vulgate version, read Jeremiah in

Mt 27:9.

The quotation there is not to the letter copied from Zechariah,

Jer 18:1, 2; 32:6-12,

may also have been in the mind of Matthew, and perhaps in the mind of Zechariah, whence the former mentions Jeremiah. HENGSTENBERG similarly thinks that Matthew names Jeremiah, rather than Zechariah, to turn attention to the fact that Zechariah's prophecy is but a reiteration of the fearful oracle in

Jer 18:1-19:15,

to be fulfilled in the destruction of the Jewish nation. Jeremiah had already, by the image of a potter's vessel, portrayed their ruin in Nebuchadnezzar's invasion; and as Zechariah virtually repeats this threat, to be inflicted again under Messiah for the nation's rejection of Him, Matthew, virtually, by mentioning Jeremiah, implies that the "field of blood"

[Mt 27:8, 9],

now bought by "the reward of iniquity"

[Ac 1:18]

in the valley of Hinnom, was long ago a scene of prophetic doom in which awful disaster had been symbolically predicted: that the present purchase of that field with the traitor's price renewed the prophecy and revived the curse--a curse pronounced of old by Jeremiah, and once fulfilled in the Babylonian siege--a curse reiterated by Zechariah, and again to be verified in the Roman desolation. LIGHTFOOT (referring to B. BATHRA and KIMCHI) less probably thinks the third division of Scripture, the prophets, began with Jeremiah, and that the whole body of prophets is thus quoted by the name "Jeremiah." The mention of "Ephraim" and "Israel" in these chapters as distinct from Judah, does not prove that the prophecy was written while the ten tribes existed as a separate kingdom. It rather implies that hereafter not only Judah, but the ten tribes also, shall be restored, the earnest of which was given in the numbers out of the ten tribes who returned with their brethren the Jews from captivity under Cyrus. There is nothing in these characters to imply that a king reigned in Judah at that time. The editor of the Hebrew canon joined these chapters to Zechariah, not to Jeremiah; the Septuagint, three hundred years B.C., confirms this.

The prophecy consists of four parts: (1) Introductory,

Zec 1:1-6.

(2) Symbolical,

Zec 1:7,

to the end of the sixth chapter, containing nine visions; all these were vouchsafed in one night, and are of a symbolical character. (3) Didactic, the seventh and eighth chapters containing an answer to a query of the Beth-elites concerning a certain feast. And (4) Prophetic, the ninth chapter to the end. These six last chapters predict Alexander's expedition along the west coast of Palestine to Egypt; God's protection of the Jews, both at that time and under the Maccabees; the advent, sufferings, and reign of Messiah; the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome, and dissolution of the Jews' polity; their conversion and restoration; the overthrow of the wicked confederacy which assailed them in Canaan; and the Gentiles' joining in their holy worship [HENDERSON]. The difference in style between the former and the latter chapters is due to the difference of subject; the first six chapters being of a symbolical and peculiar character, while the poetical style of the concluding chapters is adapted admirably to the subjects treated. The titles

(Zec 9:1; 12:1)

accord with the prophetic matter which follows; nor is it necessary for unity of authorship that the introductory formulas occurring in the first eight chapters should occur in the last six. The non-reference in the last six chapters to the completion of the temple and the Jews' restoration after the captivity is just what we should expect, if, as seems likely, these chapters were written long after the completion of the temple and the restoration of the Jews' polity after the captivity, in circumstances different from those which engaged the prophet when he wrote the earlier chapters.

The style varies with the subject: at one time conversational, at another poetical. His symbols are enigmatical and are therefore accompanied with explanations. His prose is like that of Ezekiel--diffuse, uniform, and repetitious. The rhythm is somewhat unequal, and the parallelisms are not altogether symmetrical. Still, there is found often much of the elevation met with in the earlier prophets, and a general congruity between the style and the subjects. Graphic vividness is his peculiar merit. Chaldæisms occur occasionally. Another special characteristic of Zechariah is his introduction of spiritual beings into his prophetic scenes.

Introduction to Zechariah

Zechariah entered into his prophetic function two months after Haggai's first prophecy. He was still a youth, when God called him Zechariah 2:4, and so, since in the second year of Darius Hystaspis 18 years had elapsed from the first of Cyrus, he must have been brought in infancy from Babylon. His father Berechiah probably died young, since, in Ezra, the prophet is called after his grandfather, "Zechariah the son of Iddo" Ezra 5:1; Ezra 6:14. He succeeded his grandfather in the office of "the priests, the chief of the fathers," (of which there were twelve) in the days of Joiakim, the son of Joshua, the High priest Nehemiah 12:10, Nehemiah 12:12, Nehemiah 12:16. Since then, while he prophesied together with Haggai, Joshua was still high priest, and it is Joshua whom he sees in his vision in that same year Zechariah 3:1, he must have entered into his prophetic function before he succeeded to that other dignity. Yet neither is there any reason to think that he ever laid it aside, since we do not hear of any prophet, called by God, who did abandon it. Rather, like Jeremiah, he exercised both; called to the priesthood by the birth given to him by God, called to the prophetic function by divine inspiration.

Like Jeremiah, Zechariah was called in early youth to the prophetic function. The same designation, by which Jeremiah at first excused himself as unfit for the office, is given to Zechariah, "youth." The term does not indeed mark any definite age; for Joseph, when he was so designated by the chief butler Genesis 41:12, was 28 ; Benjamin and Absalom had sons of their own . They were probably so called as terms of affection, the one by his brother Judah Genesis 43:8; Genesis 44:22, Genesis 44:30, Genesis 44:33, the other by David his father 2 Samuel 18:5, 2 Samuel 18:12, 2 Samuel 18:29, 2 Samuel 18:32. But his grandfather Iddo was still in the discharge of his office. The length of his ministry is equally unknown. Two years after his first entrance upon it Zechariah 7:1, when Haggai's function was closed, he was bidden to answer from God those who enquired whether, now that they were freed from the captivity, they should keep the national fasts which they had instituted on occasion of some of the mournful events which had ushered it in. His remaining prophecies bear no date. The belief, that he lived and prophesied to old age, may have a true foundation, though unknown to us. We only know that he survived the high priest, Joshua, since his own accession to his office of head of the priests, in his division, was in the days of Joiakim, the son of Joshua.

Zechariah's book opens with a very simple, touching call to those returned from the captivity, linking himself with the former prophets, but contrasting the transitoriness of all human things, those who prophesied and those to whom they prophesied, with the abidingness of the Word of God. It consists of four parts, differing in outward character, yet with a remarkable unity of purpose and end. All begin with a foreground subsequent to the captivity; all reach on to a further end; the first two to the coming of our Lord; the third from the deliverance of the house then built, during the invasion of Alexander, and from the victories of the Maccabees, to the rejection of the true Shepherd and the curse upon the false; the last, which is connected with the third by its title, reaches from a future repentance for the death of Christ to the final conversion of the Jews and Gentiles.

The outward difference, that the first prophecy is in visions; the second prophecy is a response to an enquiry made of him; the last two visions, in free delivery, obviously did not depend upon the prophet. The occasion also of the first two bodies of prophecy involved that they were written in prose. For the imagery was borne on the prophet's mind in visions. The function of the prophet was only to record them and the explanations given to him of parts of them, which could only be done in prose. So far, he was like the apostles, who enquired of our Lord (when in the flesh) as to the meaning of His parables. There is, as in the later chapters, an abundance of imagery; and it may have pleased God to adapt the form of His revelation to the imaginative mind of the young prophet who was to receive it. But the visions are, as the name implies, pictures which the prophet sees, and which he describes.

Even a rationalist writer saw this. : "Every vision must form a picture, and the description of a vision must have the appearance of being read from a picture. It follows from the nature of the description of a vision, that for the most part it cannot be composed in any elevated language. The simplest prose is the best vehicle for a relation (and such is the description of a vision), and elaborate ornament of language were foreign to it. The beauty, greatness, elevation of a vision, as described, must lie in the conception, or in the symmetry, or wondrous boldness in the grouping of the images. Is the whole group, piece by piece, in all its parts, to the most minute shading, faithful and described with the character of truth, the exhibition of the vision in words is perfect."

The four portions were probably of different dates, since they stand in order in the prophet's book, as indeed the second portion is dated two years later than the first . For in the first part God's people are exhorted to come from Babylon Zechariah 2:7, which command, many in the time of Ezra, obeyed, and doubtless individuals subsequently, when a prosperous polity was restored; in the latter part, Babylon is mentioned no more; only in one place, in the imagery of earlier prophets, the future gathering of God's people is symbolized under the previous deliverance from West and East, Egypt and Assyria (Zechariah 10:10, compare Isaiah 11:11, Isaiah 11:16; Hosea 11:11).

But they agree in this, that the foreground is no longer, as in the former prophets, deliverance from Babylon. In the first part, the reference to the vision of the four empires in Daniel removes the promise of the Deliverer to the fourth empire. For the series of visions having closed with the vision of the four chariots, there follows at once the symbolic act of placing the crown or crowns on the head of the high priest and the promise of the Messiah, Who should be king and priest Zechariah 6:10-13. In the later part the enemies spoken of are in one place the Greeks Zechariah 9:13, subsequent to the protection of the temple under Alexander ; in another, they are the final gathering of all nations against Jerusalem Zechariah 12:2-3, Zechariah 12:9; Zechariah 14:2-3, Zechariah 14:14, Zechariah 14:16, which Joel also places at the end of all things Joel 3:2, after the outpouring of the Spirit, as it was poured out on the day of Pentecost.

In both parts alike, there is no mention of any king or of any earthly ruler; in both, the ruler to come is the Messias. In both, the division of the two kingdoms is gone. The house of Israel and house of Judah are united, not divided ; they had been distinct wholes, now they are in interests as one. Zechariah promises a future to both collectively, as did Jeremiah Jer 23:6; Jeremiah 50:20 long after the captivity of Israel, and Ezekiel promised that they should both again be one in the hand of God Ezekiel 37:16-19. The "brotherhood between Judah and Israel" still existed, after they had weighed the thirty pieces of silver for the Good Shepherd. The captivity, in God's Providence, ended at once the kingdom of Israel and the religious schism, the object of which was to maintain the kingdom.

Even before the captivity, "divers of Asher and Manasseh and Zebulun humbled themselves, and came to Jerusalem" 2 Chronicles 30:11, to the Passover of Hezekiah; nay, "a great multitude of the people from Ephraim and Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun" 2 Chronicles 30:18, who had neglected or despised the first invitation 2 Chronicles 30:10, came subsequently. In the great passover of Josiah, we hear of "all Judah and Israel that were present" 2 Chronicles 35:18. The edict of Cyrus related to the "people of the Lord God of heaven, and was published throughout all his kingdom" Ezra 1:1-2, which included "the cities of the Medes" 2 Kings 17:6, where Israel had been removed. The sacred history is confined to Jerusalem, whence the Gospel was to go forth; yet, even "the sons of Bethel" Ezra 2:2, Ezra 2:28, the center of the rival, idolatrous worship, which was "among the mountains of Ephraim," were among those of the people of Israel who returned with Zerubbabel. It is inconceivable that, as the material prosperity of Palestine returned, even many of the ten tribes should not have returned to their country.

But place was no condition of the unity of the Church. Those who returned recognized the religious oneness of all the twelve tribes, wherever dispersed. At the dedication of the house of God, they Ezra 6:17 "offered a sin-offering for all Israel, twelve he-goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel." At that passover were present, not only "the children of Israel which had come again out of the captivity," but, "all such as had separated themselves unto them from the defilements of the people of the land, to seek the Lord God of Israel" Ezra 6:21, i. e., Israelites, who had been defiled by the heathen idolatries. The "house of David" is mentioned; for of his seed according to the flesh Messiah was to be born, but it is his "house," not any earthly ruler in it.

In both parts alike, Zechariah connects his prophecies with the former prophets, the fulfillment of whose warnings he impressed upon his people in his opening exhortation to them Zechariah 1:4-6, and in his answer to the question about keeping the fasts Zechariah 7:7-14 which related to the destruction of the city and temple. In the first part, the title "the Branch" Zechariah 3:8; Zechariah 6:12 is used as a proper name, recalling the title of the Messiah in Isaiah and Jeremiah, "the Branch of the Lord" Isaiah 4:2, "a righteous Branch" Jeremiah 23:5, "a Branch of righteousness" Jeremiah 33:15, whom God would raise up to David. The prophecy of the mutual exhortation of peoples and cities to worship at Jerusalem (Zechariah 8:20-22, compare Micah 4:1-2; Isaiah 2:3) is an echo of those of Isaiah and Micah, prolonging them. The prophecy of the four chariots , the symbol of those world-empires, would be unintelligible without the visions in Daniel which it presupposes.

The union of the offices of priest and king in the Messiah is a renewal of the promise through David (Zechariah 6:13, coll. Psalm 110:1-7). In the last chapters, the continuousness of the prophet's diction admits still more of this interweaving of the former prophecies, and these alike from the earlier and later prophets. The censure of Tyre for its boast of its wisdom is a renewal of that of Ezekiel (Zechariah 9:2, and Ezekiel 28:3); the prophecy against the Philistine cities, of that of Zephaniah Zechariah 9:5; Zephaniah 2:4; the remarkable prediction that, when the king should come to Zion, chariots and horses, not of the enemy but of Judah should be cut off, is renewed from Micah Zechariah 9:10; Micah 5:10; the extent of his peaceful kingdom is from a psalm of Solomon Psalm 72:8; the loosing of the exile from the pit, and God's rendering double unto them, are in Isaiah Zechariah 9:12; Isaiah 51:14; Isaiah 61:7. The description of the sifting, in which, two parts having been cut off; even the remaining third should be anew tried and cleansed, is condensed from Ezekiel, so that, "shall be cut off, shall expire," correspond to the natural and violent deaths, by famine and by the sword, spoken of in Ezekiel . The words , "I have said, it is My people, and it will say, the Lord my God," are almost verbally from Hosea, "I say to not-my-people, thou art My people, and it will say, my God;" only omitting the allusion to the significant name of the prophet's son. : "The first part of Zechariah 14:10, "the whole land shall be turned as a plain from Gebah to Rimmon, and Jerusalem shall be exalted," reminds of Isaiah and Ezekiel; the latter part, "it shall be inhabited in her place from the tower of Hananeel to the king's winepresses, and men shall dwell in it and there shall be no more utter desolation, but Jerusalem shall dwell securely," reminds of Jeremiah, "The city shall be built to the Lord from the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner; it shall not be plucked up nor thrown down any more" Jeremiah 31:38, Jeremiah 31:40.

The words, "and every one that is left of all the nations shall go up to worship the king, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles" Zechariah 14:16, reminds of Isaiah, "From new-moon to his newmoon, and from sabbath to his sabbath shall all flesh come to worship before Me, saith the Lord" Isaiah 66:23. Zechariah 14:17-19 are an expansion of Isaiah 60:12; Isaiah 5:20 expresses the thought of Ezekiel 43:13 : the prophecy Zechariah 14:21, "there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord forever," refers back to Ezekiel" Ezekiel 44:9. The symbolizing of the Gospel by the life-giving waters which should flow forth from Jerusalem, originally in Joel 3:18, is a miniature of the full picture in Ezekiel Zechariah 14:8; Ezekiel 47:1-13. The promise, "I will cut off the names of the idols from the land and they shall be no more remembered" Zechariah 13:2; Hosea 2:17, in part verbally agrees with that of Hosea, "And I will remove "the names of the" Baalim "from" her mouth, "and they shall be no more remembered" by their names;" only, since the Baal-worship was destroyed by the captivity, the more general name of "idols" is substituted.

Equally, in descriptions not prophetic, the symbolizing of the wicked by the title of the goats, "I punished the goats" Zechariah 10:3; Ezekiel 34:17, is renewed from Ezekiel; "I judge between flock and flock, between the rams and the he-goats." The description of the shepherds who destroyed their flocks retains from Jeremiah the characteristic expression, "and hold themselves not guilty." The minuteness of the enumeration of their neglects and cruelties is the same (amid differences of the words whereby it is expressed): "the perishing shall he not visit, those astray shall he not seek, and the broken shall he not heal; the sound shall he not nurture, and the flesh of the fat shall he eat and their claws he shall split" Zechariah 11:16. In Ezekiel, "Ye eat the fat and clothe you with the wool; the fat ye slay; the flock ye feed not; the diseased have ye not healed; and the broken have ye not bound, and the wandering have ye not sought" Ezekiel 34:3-4. The imagery of Obadiah, that Israel should be a flame amidst grain to consume it, is retained; the name of Edom is dropped, for the prophecy relates to a larger gathering of enemies. Zechariah has, "In that day I will make the governors of Judah like a hearth of fire among wood and like a lamp of fire in a sheaf of corn, and they shall eat on the right hand and on the left all nations round about" Zechariah 12:6 : Obadiah; "The house of Jacob shall be 'fire' and the house of Jacob a 'flame,' and the house of Esau stubble, and it shall kindle on them and shall eat them" Obadiah 1:18. Even so slight an expression as "the pride of Jordan" Zechariah 11:3, as designating the cane-break around it, is unique to Jeremiah Jer 12:5; Jeremiah 49:19; Jeremiah 50:44.

Zechariah is eminently an Evangelic prophet, as much as Isaiah, and equally in both portions.

The use of different words in unlike subjects is a necessary consequence of that unlikeness. In contrast with that pseudo-criticism, which counts up the unlike words in different chapters of a prophet, the different words used by the same modern poet have been counted . A finer perception will see the correspondence of a style, when the rhythm, subject, words, are different. No one familiar with English poetry could doubt that "the Bard," and "the Elegy in a country Churchyard," however different in subject and style and words, were by the same hand, judging alone from the labored selection of the epithets, however different. Yet, there is not one characteristic word or idiom which occurs in both. But the recurrence of the same or like words or idioms, if unusual elsewhere, is a subordinate indication of sameness of authorship.

They are thus enumerated by the writers who have answered the attacks on the authorship of Zechariah.

"Common to both parts are the idioms, from him who goeth and from him who returneth, which do not occur elsewhere ; the whole Jewish people are throughout designated as "the house of Israel and the house of Judah" Zechariah 8:13, or "the house of Judah and the house of Joseph" Zechariah 10:6, or "Judah Israel and Jerusalem" (Zechariah 1:19, (Zechariah 2:2, Hebrew)), or "Ephraim and Jerusalem" Zechariah 9:10, or "Judah and Ephraim" Zechariah 9:13, or "Judah and Israel" Zechariah 11:14. There is in both parts the appeal to future knowledge of God's doings to be obtained by experience Zechariah 2:13; Zechariah 11:11; in both, internal discord is directly attributed to God, whose Providence permits it Zechariah 8:10; Zechariah 11:6; in both the prophet promises God's gifts of the produce of the earth Zechariah 8:12; Zechariah 10:1; in both he bids Jerusalem burst out for joy; in the first, "for lo, God says, I come and will dwell in the midst of thee" (Zechariah 2:1-13 :14, (10, English)); in the second, "behold thy King cometh unto thee" Zechariah 9:9.

The purity of language is alike in both parts of the book. No one Syriasm occurs in the earlier chapters. The prophet, who returned as a child to Judea, formed his language upon that of the older prophets.

In both there is a certain fullness of language, produced by dwelling on the same thought or word; in both, the whole and its parts are, for emphasis, mentioned together . In both parts, as a consequence of this fullness, there occurs the division of the verse into live sections, contrary to the usual rule of Hebrew parallelism.

This rhythm will appear more vividly in instances ;

"And He shall build the temple of the Lord;

And He shall bear majesty;

And he shall sit and rule on his throne;

And he shall be a priest on his throne;

And a counsel of peace shall be between them both.

Introduction to the Book of the Prophet Zechariah

Zechariah, the eleventh of the twelve minor prophets, was son of Berechiah, and grandson of Iddo. He returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel: and began to prophesy in the second year of the reign of Darius, son of Hystaspes, in the year of the world 3484; before Christ, 516; before the vulgar era, 520; in the eighth month of the holy year; and two months after Haggai had begun to prophesy.

These two prophets, with united zeal, encouraged at the same time the people to go on with the work of the temple, which had been discontinued for some years.

The time and place of the birth of Zechariah are unknown. Some will have him to have been born at Babylon, during the captivity; others think he was born at Jerusalem, before the tribes of Judah and Benjamin were carried away. Some maintain that he was a priest; but others affirm that he was no priest. Many say he was the immediate son of Iddo; others believe, with much more reason, that he was son of Berechiah, and grandson of Iddo.

He has been confounded with one Zechariah, the son of Barachiah, who lived in the time of Isaiah; and with Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist; which opinion is plainly incongruous. Lastly, he has been thought to be Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom our Savior mentions, and says he was killed between the temple and the altar; though no such thing is anywhere said of our prophet. A tomb is shown to this day at the foot of the Mount of Olives, which, it is pretended, belongs to the prophet Zechariah. Dorotheus maintains that he was buried in a place called Bethariah, one hundred and fifty furlongs from Jerusalem.

Zechariah is the longest and the most obscure of all the twelve minor prophets. His style is interrupted, and without connection. His prophecies concerning the Messiah are more particular and express than those of the other prophets. Some modern critics, as Mede and Hammond, have been of opinion that the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters of this prophet were written by Jeremiah; because in Matthew, Matthew 27:9, Matthew 27:10, under the name of Jeremiah, we find quoted Zechariah; (Zechariah 11:12); and as the aforesaid chapters make but one continued discourse, they concluded from thence that all three belonged to Jeremiah. But it is much more natural to suppose that, by some unlucky mistake, the name of Jeremiah has slipped into the text of St. Matthew instead of that of Zechariah.

The prophet Zechariah exactly foretold the siege of Babylon by Darius, son of Hystaspes. This prince laid siege to that rebellious city at the beginning of the fifth year of his reign, and reduced it at the end of twenty months. The prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah had foretold this calamity, and had admonished the Jews, that inhabited there to make their escape when they perceived the time draw nigh. Isaiah says to them, "Go ye forth to Babylon, flee from the Chaldeans; with a voice of singing declare ye, tell this, utter it even to the end of the earth; say ye, The Lord hath redeemed his servant Jacob." And Jeremiah says, "Remove out of the midst of Babylon, and go forth out of the land of the Chaldeans, and be as the he-goats before the flocks." And elsewhere, "Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and deliver every man his soul; be not cut off in her iniquity: for this is the time of the Lord's vengeance, He will render unto her a recompense." Lastly, Zechariah, a little before the time of her fall, writes thus to the Jews that were still in this city: "Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north, saith the Lord; for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of heaven, saith the Lord. Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon. For thus saith the Lord of hosts, after the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you, for he that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of his eye. For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants; and ye shall know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me." It is probable that the Jews took advantage of these admonitions, and returned from Babylon into their country; or, at least, withdrew into a place of more security till the city was taken. We do not hear, either from the history or the prophecies, that they suffered any thing by this siege, or that Darius, son of Hystaspes, bore them any grudge for the revolt of Babylon; which seems to indicate that they had no part in it.

The Mohammedans do not distinguish between the prophet Zechariah, and Zachariah the father of John the Baptist. Some of them make him to be descended from David; and others, from Levi. By an anachronism that is still more insupportable, these confound Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, with Mary or Miriam, the sister of Moses, which they derive even from the Koran itself.

The author of Tarik Montekhib relates that, when Jesus Christ was born of the virgin the prophet Zechariah could not believe that a child could be born without a father; and that, declaring his sentiments upon this point, the Jews entertained a suspicion of him, and obliged him to betake himself to flight. He withdrew; and hid himself in a hollow oak, which the Jews sawed in two.

Such is the ignorance of the Mussulmans as regards the history both of the Old and New Testaments.

The prophet earnestly exhorts the people to repentance, that they may escape such punishments as had been inflicted on their fathers, Zechariah 1:1-6. The vision of the horses, with the signification, Zechariah 1:7-11. The angel of the Lord successfully intercedes in behalf of Jerusalem, Zechariah 1:12-17. The vision of the four horns, and of the four carpenters, Zechariah 1:18-21.

Zechariah 1In thus chapter God promises the continuance of his favor to those who are returned from the captivity; so that upon the removal of his judgments, the fasts they had observed during the captivity may now be converted to so many occasions of rejoicing. He likewise promises in due time a general restoration of his people, and the enlargement of the Church by the accession of the Gentiles, vv. 1-20. The conclusion of the chapter intimates farther that the Jews, after their restoration, will be instrumental in converting many other nations, Zechariah 8:21-23. Compare Romans 11:15, Romans 11:16.

INTRODUCTION TO ZECHARIAH

This book is in the Hebrew copies called "the Book of Zechariah"; in the Vulgate Latin version, "the Prophecy of Zechariah"; and, in the Syriac and Arabic versions, the Prophecy of the Prophet Zechariah. His name, according to Jerom, signifies "the memory of the Lord": but, according to Hillerus (a), "the Lord remembers": either us, or his covenant; his promises of grace, and concerning the Messiah, of which there are many in this book. The writer of this prophecy could not be, as some have imagined, Zacharias the father of John the Baptist; since there must be some hundreds of years difference between them; nor the Zacharias, the son of Barachias, slain between the temple and the altar, our Lord speaks of in Matthew 23:35 for though their names agree, yet it does not appear that this prophet was slain by the Jews; indeed the Jewish Targumist, on Lamentations 2:20, speaks of a Zechariah, the son of Iddo, a high priest, slain in the temple; but it could not be this Zechariah, since he was no high priest; Joshua was high priest in his time; nor could he be slain in such a place, seeing the temple and altar were not yet built; nor was this prophet Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, slain in the court of the Lord's house, 2 Chronicles 24:20 for, as their names do not agree, so neither their office, he being a high priest, this a prophet; nor the times in which they lived, Zechariah the son of Jehoiada lived in the times of Joash king of Judah, two or three hundred years before this; but this was one of the captivity of Babylon, and who came up from thence with Zerubbabel, Nehemiah 12:16 and was contemporary with the Prophet Haggai; so that the time of his prophecy was after the Babylonish captivity, and was delivered to the Jews that were returned from thence; and the design of it is to stir them up to build the temple, and restore the pure worship of God; and to encourage their faith and hope in the expectation of the Messiah; for the book consists of various visions and prophecies relating to him, and to the times of the Gospel; and the visions are, as some Jewish writers (b) observe, very obscure, and like the visions of Daniel, and difficult of interpretation. There are several passages cited out of this book in the New Testament, as Zechariah 8:16 in Ephesians 4:25, Zechariah 9:9 in Matthew 21:5 in Matthew 27:9 in John 19:37 in Matthew 26:31 which abundantly confirm the authenticity of it. This prophet seems to have lived and died in Jerusalem; and, according to Pseudo-Epiphanius (c), was buried near Haggai the prophet; and with which agree the Cippi Hebraici (d), which inform us that Haggai was buried in a cave in the downward slope of the mount of Olives; and at the bottom of that mount was a large statue called the hand of Absalom, near to which was the grave of Zechariah the prophet, in a cave shut up, and over it a beautiful monument of one stone: and Monsieur Thevenot (e) tells us, that now is shown, near the sepulchres of Absalom and Jehoshaphat, on the descent of the mount of Olives, the sepulchre of the Prophet Zacharias.---It is cut in a diamond point upon the rock, with many pillars about it. Sozomen (f) the historian, indeed, makes mention of Caphar Zechariah, a village on the borders of Eleutheropolis, a city in Palestine, where it is pretended the body of this prophet was found in the times of Theodosius, to which no credit is to be given; nor is there any dependence to be had on the former accounts.

(a) Onomastic. Sacr. p. 508, 957, 958. (b) Aben Ezra & Jarchi in loc. & R. Abendana in Miclol Yophi in loc. & Kimchi in ver. 8. (c) De Prophet. Vita & Interitu, c. 21. (d) P. 29. Ed. Hottinger. (e) Travels, par. 1. B. 2. ch. 37. p. 184. (f) Hist. Eccles. l. 9. c. 17.

INTRODUCTION TO Zechariah 1

In this chapter, after the account of the prophet, and the time of the prophecy by him, are an exhortation of the people of the Jews to repentance; the vision of a rider upon a red horse, and the intercession of the angel of the Lord for Jerusalem; and another vision of the enemies of the Jews, and of their deliverers. In Zechariah 1:1 is the general inscription of the book; in which an account is given of the time of its writing, and of the writer of it: then follows the exhortation to repentance, enforced from the wrath of God, which came upon their fathers for not hearkening to the Lord, and turning from their evil ways; and from the advantage that would be received thereby, the Lord would return to them; and from the certain accomplishment of the divine word; for, though both their fathers and prophets died, the word of the Lord had its sure effect, Zechariah 1:2 and next the vision of the rider on the red horse is presented; the year, month, day, and night, in which it was seen, are mentioned, Zechariah 1:7 and the rider is described by his form, a man; by the horse he rode upon, a red one; by the place he stood in among the myrtle trees in the bottom; and by his attendants behind, red horses, speckled and white, Zechariah 1:8. The interpretation of which last is given to the prophet by the angel, by the man among the myrtle trees, and by the answer of them to the angel of the Lord themselves, Zechariah 1:9. After which the angel is represented as making intercession for Jerusalem, who is answered by good and comfortable words, Zechariah 1:12 upon which the prophet is bid to publish the jealousy of the Lord for Jerusalem; his displeasure at the heathens for afflicting them; his promise to return to the Jews, that the temple and city of Jerusalem should be rebuilt, and other cities of Judea, which should enjoy great prosperity, Zechariah 1:14 and the chapter is concluded with a vision of four horns, signifying the enemies of Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem; and of four carpenters that should destroy them, Zechariah 1:18.

ZECHARIAH

Zechariah.

BY

THE REV. W. H. LOWE, M.A.

INTRODUCTION

TO

ZECHARIAH

CHAPTERS 1-8

I. The Prophet.—He describes himself as “Zeehariah, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo,” which can only mean—(LXX., Jerome, and Cyril are in error)—that he was the grandson of the latter. But in Ezra 5:1; Ezra 6:14, he is called “the son of Iddo.” Similarly, Laban, the grandson of Nahor, is called his son (Genesis 29:5); and Jehu is in 2Kings 9:14 called “the son of Jehoshaphat, the son of Nimshi,” while in Haggai 2:20 he is styled simply “the son of Nimshi.” The supposition, therefore, that the words “son of Berechiah” (Zechariah 1:1) are an interpolation borrowed from Isaiah 8:2, where “Zechariah, the son of Jeberechiah,” is mentioned, is superfluous. The conjecture, too, that the Book of Zechariah is made up of the writings of three distinct prophets—Zechariah son of Iddo, Zechariah son of Jeberechiah, and Uriah, fellow-witness of the latter (Isaiah 8:2)—though ingenious, is but based on the erroneous idea that Zechariah 9-14 cannot be of post-exilian authorship. In Ezra 5:1-2, Zechariah is mentioned as prophesying, in conjunction with Haggai, during the time of Jeshua, the son of Josedech (the high priest). A certain Iddo is reckoned as among the heads of priests (and Levites) who came up with Zerubbabel (Nehemiah 12:1-4); and again, a Zechariah is spoken of as the lineal representative of Iddo, and one of the heads of the priestly houses in the days of Joiakim, the successor of Jeshua (Nehemiah 12:12-16). It may be not unreasonably assumed that this is Zechariah the Prophet, and that this Iddo is his grandfather. From these materials we may fairly deduce that (1) Zechariah was a young man when he entered upon his office; (2) that his father died early, and was, perhaps, never head of his house, which would account for his being passed over by Ezra; (3) that Zechariah, like Jeremiah and Ezekiel, was a priest as well as a prophet. The first of these deductions is sufficient to dispose of the fables of Epiphanius, Dorotheus, and Hesychius (see Köhler, Einleitung; Wright, Introduction), that Zechariah was an old man at the time of the return from the captivity, and that he had already foretold to Shealtiel the birth of Zerubbabel, and to Cyrus his victory over Crœsus, &c. The second of these fables is also contradicted by the fact that Zerubbabel was not the actual son of Shealtiel, but of his brother Pedaiah (1Chronicles 3:19). Shealtiel seems to have died without male issue, and Pedaiah to have taken his deceased brother’s wife in accordance with Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Zerubbabel, or Sheshbazzar, seems to have been the son of this Levirate marriage.

The name Zechariah is compounded of the stem zâchôr, “to remember,” and Yâh, the first half of the Holy Name (see Notes on Exodus 15:2; Exodus 17:16; Psalms 68), and probably means “Yah remembers.” Some, however, take it as meaning “who remembers Yah.” (Comp. Μνησίβεος and Τιμόθεος.) Jerome explains it as Μνήμη Κυρίου, memoria Domini; Hesychius as Μνήμη Τψἰστου, “Memory of the Highest,” or Νικητἠς λεόντος, “Lion-conqueror;” Marck as “hero of Yah.” The last two are impossible. The name has probably no reference whatever to the contents of the prophecies.

II.Occasion of the Prophecies.—The genuineness of Zechariah 1-8 has never been called in question, and they are undoubtedly to be referred to the time of the re-building of the Temple (see Introduction to Haggai). The date and authorship of Zechariah 9-14 must be discussed separately.

III.Contents of Chapters 1-8—These chapters consist of three distinct prophetic utterances: viz., (1) Zechariah 1:1-6; (2) Zechariah 1:7—Zechariah 6:15; (3) Zechariah 7, 8.

-1Zechariah 1:1-6.—A declaration of the prophet’s mission, and an earnest exhortation to the people to turn unto the Lord, that He might turn unto them, together with a warning not to fall into that error of neglect of God’s word which had proved so fatal to their fathers.

-2Zechariah 1:7—Zechariah 6:15.—A series of seven visions, with two appendices, Zechariah 2:6-13; Zechariah 6:9-15. Some commentators have maintained that these visions were not, even subjectively, seen by the prophet; but that he deliberately sets forth his experience under the similitude of dreams, as Bunyan does in the Pilgrim’s Progress. But it seems to us, from the prophet’s words, to be imperative to regard these visions as subjectively, though perhaps not objectively, visible to him, just as one would naturally so regard the visions of Amos (Amos 7-9).

First Vision (Zechariah 1:7-17).—The horsemen among the myrtles. This vision was intended to convey to the prophet the truth that, though as yet there may be little sign of God’s “overthrowing the kingdoms” (Haggai 2:22), yet He, with His all watchful eye, was scanning the horizon, and preparing to fulfil His word.

Second Vision (Zechariah 1:18-21).—The four horses and four workmen indicate that God would continue to remove the hostility of the Persians, even as He had already broken the power of the Assyrians, Egyptians, and Babylonians.

Third Vision (Zechariah 2:1-5).—The man with the measuring line. The enlargement and perfect security of the people of God. An appendix (Zechariah 2:6-13) prophetic of the ingathering of the nations in the days of BRANCH, the Messiah.

Fourth Vision (Zechariah 3)—Joshua, the high priest, arraigned before the angel of the Lord. The forgiveness of the sins of the priesthood, and of the people, whose representative he was.

Fifth Vision (Zechariah 4).—The candlestick with the two olive-trees. The diffusion of God’s grace by means of His two channels—the priesthood and civil power. It contains a promise (Haggai 2:9) that Zerubbabel’s hands should finish the building of the Temple.

Sixth Vision (Zechariah 5:1-11.)—The flying roll, and the woman in the ephah, denoting the curse on sinners, and the banishment of sin.

Seventh Vision (Zechariah 6:1-8).—The four chariots. God’s judgments on the nations. An appendix (Zechariah 6:9-15), the crowning of Joshua, which foreshadows the two-fold office of BRANCH, as king and priest. A probable lacuna in the text.

(3) Zechariah 7, 8—The inquiry concerning the fasts. The prophet’s rebuke of the people for their formalism. The answer to their inquiry, in the form of a promise that their fasts should be turned into feasts.

CHAPTERS 9-14.

Mede (who died in 1638) was the first to doubt the genuineness of this second part of the book. He was led to do so on observing that in Matthew 27:9, a passage, which is certainly a quotation from Zechariah 11:12-13, is ascribed to Jeremiah. On further investigation, he conceived that he found internal evidence in support of his theory: that these chapters were of an earlier date than the age of Zechariah. Since that time the question has been continually discussed by scholars of many nations, with such inconsistent results that chapters 9-14 have been ascribed to various times, ranging between 772 B.C. (Hitzig) and 330 (Böttcher).

We need not here attach any weight to the supposed external authority of St. Matthew in the matter. (See the New Testament Commentary, in loc.) But the question of internal evidence—first, with regard to style, secondly, with respect to historical standpoint—demands careful investigation. At the same time the reader will do well to bear in mind Pusey’s weighty remark: “It is obvious that there must be some mistake either in the tests applied, or in their application, which admits of a variation of at least 450 years.”

Seeing that the preponderance of authority appeared to be subversive of the view that the latter chapters were of as late a date as the age of Zechariah, we came to the special study of the subject with a certain inclination to accept the hypothesis that this portion is of pre-exilian origin. But we have since felt compelled to abandon this theory. We now proceed to put before the reader the process of reasoning which has led us to our present conclusions. We shall print the arguments of the impugners of the integrity of the book in italics, and give our answer to each objection.

I. Arguments against the genuineness of Zechariah 9-14 : (A) from style, (B) from the historical standpoint.

A. DIFFERENCE OF STYLE BETWEEN Zechariah 1-8, 9-14.

1Zec 1:7 to Zec 6:8 consists almost entirely of visions, while in Zechariah 9-14. there are none.

Ans. When the prophet saw visions, he related them; when he did not see any, he could not do so. There is no reason in the nature of things why God should not at one time reveal His will to a prophet in visions, and at another by other means. Thus, as a fact, Amos has only visions in the second part, and none in the first; and so, too, Isaiah and Ezekiel related visions when they saw them, but at other times they delivered their oracles in a different manner. Moreover, Zechariah 7, 8 do not consist of visions, and the genuineness of these chapters has not been called in question.

2.The angel-interpreter and Satan disappear from Zechariah 9-14.

Ans. And so they do from Zechariah 7, 8, simply because they were actors, the one in the whole series of visions, and the other in one portion of it.

3.The seven eyes, as a symbol of God’s Providence, disappear from Zechariah 9-14.

Ans. True; but a writer is not compelled to use continually a certain symbol, because he happens to have done so on a former occasion. Moreover, a very similar expression, “for now have I seen it with mine eyes,” is actually used in Zechariah 9:8. (Comp. Zechariah 9:5.)

4.Exact dates are given many times in the former chapters, but none in the latter.

Ans. Similarly, we find dates prefixed to other visions, such as Isaiah 6:1; Ezekiel 1:1-3; Ezekiel 8:1-2; Ezekiel 40:1-2; and dates are frequently found in the prophets, where answers are recorded as given by Divine command to inquiries addressed to them.

5.In Zechariah 1-8 introductory formulas constantly occur, which are not found in the concluding six chapters.

Ans. So, too, Hosea uses introductory formulas in the first five chapters of his book, which are wanting in the last nine chapters; and yet no doubt is entertained of the integrity of that book.

6 a. The style of Zechariah 1-8 is utterly different to that of Zechariah 9-14.

Ans. So is that of Hosea 1-3 different to that of Zechariah 4-14; and the style of Ezekiel 4, 5 is totally different to that of Zechariah 6, 7, or of Zech. 27, 28

b. The style of the first eight chapters is prosaic, feeble, poor, while that of the remaining six is poetic, weighty, concise, glowing (Rosenmüller).

Böttcher, on the other hand, says: “In comparison with the lifeless language of these chapters (9-14), as to which we cannot at all understand how any can have removed them into so early pre-exile times, the Psalms attributed to the time of the Maccabees are amazingly fresh.”

Ans. When critics so disagree as to the respective merits of the styles of the two sections, it seems hardly worth while to consider the argument. We will merely remark that neither sweeping statement is correct. When the prophet is describing a vision, or giving an answer to questions propounded, he naturally writes in the language best suited to his purpose, viz., prose. But when he comes to speak of the distant future, he naturally rises to a loftier style of diction; and this is the case even in the earlier chapters, when occasion requires: e.g., Zechariah 2:10-13, Zechariah 6:12-13. (See further, under The Integrity of the whole Book, 7.) Further, the argument from style must be, indeed, very strong to enable us to affirm that this chapter is by one author, and that by another. And even when the evidence appears most forcible to the propounder of the theory, facts may come to light which will prove it to be utterly fallacious. Thus an acute German has found reasons why the Laws of Plato should not be Plato’s, and yet Jowett (Translations of Plato’s Dialogues, vol. iv. 1) has shown them to be undoubtedly genuine by four sets of facts: (1) from twenty citations of them by Aristotle, who must have been intimate with Plato for some seventeen years; (2) by the allusion of Isocrates, writing two or three years after the composition of the Laws:

(3) by the references of the comic poet Alexis, a younger contemporary of Plato; (4) by the unanimous voice of later antiquity.

B. THE HISTORICAL STANDPOINT.—Those who impugn the integrity of the Book of Zechariah on historical grounds may be divided into two classes. (1) Those who ascribe Zechariah 9-14 to one author, and (2) those who attribute Zechariah 9-11 to one author, and Zechariah 12-14 to another; or who imagine that they discover the traces of three different pens in Zechariah 9-14. We will discuss the integrity of Zechariah 9-14 further on. At present we will content ourselves with disposing of the difference with regard to historical standpoint which has been urged in the two sections 1-8 and 9-14 generally. The particular passages in which such a difference has been urged we shall discuss in our Notes on those passages, viz., Zechariah 9:1-17; Zechariah 10:2-12; Zechariah 11:1-3; Zechariah 11:14; Zechariah 12:1-9; Zechariah 12:11; Zechariah 14:5; Zechariah 14:1-21.

1 a. In Zechariah 9-14 the historical standpoint is entirely changed. In Zechariah 1-8 the prophet is continually mentioning the rebuilding of the Temple, and the re-inhabiting of Jerusalem; but in Zechariah 9-14 he is occupied with quite different matters.

Ans. This is true, for the latter chapters were (we have good reason for supposing) written many years after the former, when the rebuilding of the Temple was a fait accompli, and when those abuses of the Temple-service, which so vexed the righteous spirit of Malachi, had not yet crept in. It would not, we suppose, be imagined strange if a Parisian, writing in 1871, spoke much of the siege of Paris, while, when writing in 1881, he said nothing whatever about that event, but was engrossed with the affairs of Tunis, and the possibility of eventual collision with other Powers. The case of Zechariah is still stronger, for not ten, but probably some forty years, intervened between the delivery of the prophecies of Zechariah 1-8, and those of Zechariah 9-14.

b. In the former chapters he mentions his contemporaries, such as Joshua and Zerubbabel, but not so in the latter portion.

Ans. In the former chapters he was chiefly occupied in contemporary events; in the latter he speaks of a more distant future, which none of his contemporaries would live to see. This difference of subject-matter accounts, also, for the occurrence of such expressions as “in that day,” “the people round about,” in the latter chapters, which are not found in the former.

2Zechariah 9:1-8 is so like to Amos 1 and Amos 2:1-6, &c., that it seems impossible that two prophecies so similar should have been uttered at periods so wide apart.

Ans. There is this much of resemblance between the two passages: viz., that in both Damascus, Tyre, Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Ekron are threatened. But here the similarity ceases, and the great dissimilarity becomes apparent. (α) In Amos, Edom, Ammon, and Moab are included, but not so in Zechariah. And this is most natural, for, while in the time of Uzziah these were still powerful nations, on the return from the captivity they were so weak, that when in the time of Nehemiah “Sanballat and Tobiah, and the Arabians and the Ammonites and the Ashdodites” all conspire to hinder the Jews from rebuilding the Wall of Jerusalem, it was found sufficient to repel them that half of the returned exiles should stand to arms, while the other half went on with the work of building. (β) Amos expressly states that Aram-Damascus should be carried away to Kir, while there is no such intimation in Zechariah 9. (γ) The style of the two passages is not similar. That of Amos 1:1 to Amos 2:6 is of a marked character, but we find no echo of that style in Zechariah 9:1-8. (δ) In Amos 2:4-6, Judah and Israel are threatened equally with the other nations, and looked on equally with the other people there mentioned as separate governments. But in Zechariah 9:8 God’s “house” is promised special protection (see further in our Notes), and in Haggai 2:13 “Judah” and “Ephraim” are used as parallel terms.

Thus we see that the arguments in favour of the preexilian authorship of these chapters, whether urged on the score of style or of historical reference, fall to the ground. On the other hand, there is, we will show, strong internal testimony to the truth of the opposite opinion.

II. Internal Evidence in Favour of the Post-exilian Origin of Zechariah 9-14. 1. The writer of Zechariah 9-14 shows such a familiarity with the writings of the later prophets as appears to some reconcilable only with the supposition that he wrote at a date posterior to them: e.g., the Deutero-Isaiah.[25] Compare

[25] See Introduction to Isaiah. Should the so-called Deutero Isaiah (chaps. 40—end) be eventually shown to be by the same author as Isaiah 1-39, our argument would not be injured, since the references to the other prophets mentioned afterwards are in themselves sufficient. Further, most critics who regard Zechariah 9-14 as pre-exilian, consider Isaiah 40—end as contemporaneous with the later prophets.

Compare

Zechariah 9:12 (a) with Isaiah 42:7; Isaiah 49:9; Isaiah 61:1.

Zechariah 9:12 (b) with Isaiah 61:7.

Zechariah 10:10 with Isaiah 49:19-20.

Zechariah 11:15-16 with Isaiah 56:11.

Zechariah 2:1 with Isaiah 51:13.

Zechariah 12:2 with Isaiah 51:22-23.

Zechariah 13:9 with Isaiah 48:10.

Zechariah 14:16 with Isaiah 60:6-9; Isaiah 66:23.

Zechariah 14:17 with Isaiah 60:12.

Zephaniah. Compare Zechariah 9:5-6 with Zephaniah 2:4-5.

Jeremiah, Compare

Zechariah 9:12 with Jeremiah 16:18.

Zechariah 11:3 with Jeremiah 25:34-36.

Zechariah 11:3 with Jeremiah 12:5, Jeremiah 49:19, Jeremiah 50:44.

Zechariah 11:5 with Jeremiah 2:3; Jeremiah 50:7.

Zechariah 11:6 with Jer. 26:29-33.

Zechariah 13:9 with Jeremiah 30:22.

(Comp. also with these Zechariah 8:8, and Hosea 2:23.)

(The only passages in which “The pride of Jordan” occurs.)

Zechariah 14:7 with Jeremiah 30:7-8.

Zechariah 14:10 with Jeremiah 31:38-40

Zechariah 14:20-21 with Jeremiah 31:40.

Obadiah. Compare

Zechariah 12:6 with Obadiah 1:18.

Zechariah 14:9 with Obadiah 1:9.

Ezekiel. Compare

Zechariah 9:2-4 with Ezekiel 28:1-23.

Zechariah 10:2 with Ezekiel 34:5; Ezekiel 34:8.

Zechariah 10:3 with Ezekiel 34:12; Ezekiel 34:17; Ezekiel 34:20; Ezekiel 34:22; Ezekiel 34:31.

Zechariah 11 with Ezekiel 34 especially Zechariah 11:4-5; Zechariah 11:16 with Ezekiel 34:3-4, and Ezekiel 34:9 with Ezekiel 34:16.

Zechariah 11:7; Zechariah 11:14 with Ezekiel 37:16-22.

Zechariah 12:10 with Ezekiel 39:29.

Zechariah 13:1-2 with Ezekiel 36:25; Ezekiel 37:23.

Zechariah 13:8-9 with Ezekiel 5:2; Ezekiel 5:12; Ezekiel 11:20.

Zechariah 14:2 (Zechariah 12:2-9) with Ezekiel 38:14-18.

Zechariah 14:4 with Ezekiel 38:19-20.

Zechariah 14:8 with Ezekiel 47:1.

Zechariah 14:13 with Ezekiel 38:21.

Zechariah 14:14 with Ezekiel 39:10.

Zechariah 14:21 with Ezekiel 44:9.

Haggai. Compare

Zechariah 14:13 with Haggai 2:21-22.

Similarly Zechariah, in Zechariah 1-8, exhibits the same familiarity with the later prophetic books which we have shown to be a characteristic of Zechariah 9-14.

Compare, for example:

Zechariah 2:6 with Isaiah 48:20, or with Isaiah 52:11 and Jeremiah 51:6; Jeremiah 51:9.

Zechariah 2:9; Zechariah 2:11, and Zechariah 4:9, with Ezekiel 6:7; Ezekiel 6:10; Ezekiel 39:10, &c

Zechariah 3:8; Zechariah 6:12, with Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15 (Isaiah 4:2).

Zechariah 6:15 with Jeremiah 17:24.

Zechariah 7:5-10 with Isaiah 58:3-7.

Zechariah 7:9 with Ezekiel 18:8 and Jeremiah 7:5-7; Jeremiah 22:3.

Zechariah 7:12 with Ezekiel 11:19.

Zechariah 7:13 with Jeremiah 11:11.

Zechariah 7:14 with Jeremiah 16:13, &c.

Zechariah 8:3 with Jeremiah 31:23.

Zechariah 8:4 with Isaiah 65:20.

Zechariah 8:6 with Jeremiah 32:17; Jeremiah 32:27.

Zechariah 8:7 with Isaiah 43:6.

Zechariah 8:8 with Isaiah 48:1.

This argument seemed so convincing to De Wette that, after having in the first three editions of his Introduction declared for two authors, he felt compelled to change his mind, and in his fourth edition admitted the post-exilian origin of Zechariah 9-14, and even the possibility of their having been written by Zechariah. We are not, however, prepared to regard this argument as conclusive. We own the difficulty that there is in computing the exact weight due to the argument derived from the consideration of parallel passages, and concur with Cheyne’s pertinent remarks on the subject (The Prophecies of Isaiah, vol. 2, p. 210): “The argument from parallel passages is sometimes much overrated. How prone we are to fancy an imitation where there is none, has been strikingly shown by Munro’s parallel between the plays of Shakspeare and Seneca (Journal of Philology, vol. vi., Camb. 1876, pp. 70-72); and even when an imitation on one side or the other must be supposed, how difficult it is to choose between the alternatives! A recent revolution of opinion among patristic students may be a warning to us not to be too premature in deciding such questions. It has been the custom to argue from the occurrence of almost identical sentences in the Octavius of Minucius Felix and the Apologeticum of Tertullian, that Minucius must have written later than the beginning of the third century, on the ground that a brilliant genius like Tertullian’s cannot have been such a servile imitator as the hypothesis of the priority of Minucius would imply. But Adolf Ebert seems to have definitely proved that Tertullian not only made use of Minucius, but did not even understand his author rightly.”

2. In no way can they be so consistently interpreted as by supposing them to have been written after the captivity (as will be seen in our Notes). This is especially the case with regard to the mention of the “sons of Greece” (Zechariah 9:13), which can refer to no event of which we have cognizance before the time of Alexander or of the Maccabees; and with regard to the prophecies contained in Zechariah 12-14, they would be simply untrue if uttered in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.

We conclude, therefore, that the last six chapters are, equally with the first eight, of post-exilian origin.

We come next to the question of—

III. The Integrity of chapters 9-14.—The theory, which Bunsen has called one of the triumphs of modern criticism, that Zechariah 9-11 and Zechariah 12-14 are the work of two different prophets: viz., Zechariah 9-11 that of a contemporary of Isaiah, perhaps Zechariah son of Jeberechiah (Isaiah 8:2), and Zechariah 12-14, possibly that of Urijah son of Shemaiah (Jeremiah 26:20-23), falls to the ground with the establishment of the post-exilian origin of the whole section. Archbishop Newcome, who originated this theory, concluded that Zechariah 9-11 were written much earlier than the time of Jeremiah, and before the captivity of the tribes; but was not so positive as his followers with regard to the pre-exilian authorship of Zechariah 12-14, though he thinks the mention of idols (Zechariah 13:2) to be in favour of that supposition. We must therefore discuss a little more fully what have been termed the grounds for separating Zechariah 12-14 from Zechariah 9-11.

(1) Zechariah 11 has a distinct introductory formula. But since this formula is the same as that of Zechariah 9:1, and that a formula which recurs only in Malachi 1:1, this-argument tends rather in the other direction.

(2) The former chapters speak of Israel and Judah, but the latter do not mention “Israel.” On the contrary, Zechariah 12:1 states that the whole of the following prophecy is concerning “Israel.”

(3) In the former, Syrians, Phœnicians, Philistines, and Greeks are mentioned, but Assyrians and Egyptians described as the most powerful. These chapters belong therefore to early times. We have shown in our Notes that the manner in which the Greeks are here described as enemies of Israel fixes the date of these chapters to the post-exilian period. Egypt and Assyria are spoken of (Zechariah 10:10) as the nations who had carried off the people, and whence they were to be brought back, while in Haggai 2:11 the stereotyped language of former prophets is evidently used in a figurative sense.

(4) The anticipations of the two prophets are different. The first trembles for Ephraim, but for Judah he has no fear. On the contrary, Ephraim and Judah are included equally in the promised protection.

(5) The second prophet does not mention the northern kingdom, but is full of alarm for Judah, and sees the enemy laying siege to Jerusalem. “Ephraim” does not denote “the northern kingdom” in Zechariah 9-11 (see Notes). If Jerusalem was to be besieged at any time after its rebuilding, there is no reason why the same prophet who spoke before in general terms of wars, should not afterwards speak more particularly of a siege. In prophesying concerning a siege of Jerusalem it is only natural that Judah, in which tribe it partly stood, should be especially mentioned. Moreover, as we remarked above, the section is expressly addressed to all “Israel.”

(6) Difference of style: “And it shall come to pass” does not occur in Zechariah 9-11; “in that day,” which occurs so often in Zechariah 12-14, occurs only once in Zechariah 9-11, and “saith the Lord” occurs only twice in Zechariah 9-11. There are also favourite expressions in Zechariah 12-14, such as “all peoples,” “all nations round about,” “family of Egypt,” &c. This is true, but Zechariah 12-14 are admitted by all to be a separate section, delivered probably on a different occasion to the former section, and pointing on the whole to a much further distant future. These facts are quite sufficient to account for such very slight differences of style.

IV. The Integrity of the whole Book.—We now proceed to adduce some arguments to prove that there is sufficient correspondence between Zechariah 1-8, 9-14 to justify us, in default of any positive evidence to the contrary, in regarding the whole book as the work of one prophet.

1.Both portions exhibit, as we have shown, an extensive acquaintance with the writings of the later prophets.

2.They both exhibit also an extensive acquaintance with the earlier books: thus, in Zechariah 1:4-6, Zechariah 7:12, reference is made to “the former prophets” generally:—

Zechariah 2:12 (E. V. 8) recalls the thought, though not the phraseology, of Psalm 17:8.

Zechariah 3:8; Zechariah 6:12, allude to Isaiah 4:2, as well as to Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15.

Zechariah 3:10 is from Micah 4:4.

Zechariah 6:13 evidently refers to Psalm 110:4.

Zechariah 8:8 recalls Hosea 2:21 (E.V. 19).

Zechariah 8:20-22 in substance may be compared with Micah 4:1-2, Isaiah 2:2-3.

And in the second part:—

Zechariah 9:1-8 bears some resemblance to Amos 1:3; Amos 2:6.

Zechariah 9:10 (first half) is borrowed from Micah 5:10, and (second half) from Psalm 72:8.

Zechariah 13:2 is a quotation from Hosea 2:17 or Micah 5:12-13

(comp. Isaiah 2:18; Isaiah 2:20); and Haggai 2:9, from Hosea 2:20 (E.V. 23).

Comp. also Zechariah 9:16 with Isaiah 11:12.

Zechariah 10:12 with Micah 4:5.

Zechariah 10:10-12 with Isaiah 11:15; Isaiah 14:25; Isaiah 10:24-27; Isaiah 30:31, &c.

Zechariah 12:8 with Joel 4:10.

Zechariah 12:10 with Joel 3:1-2.

Zechariah 14:3 with Isaiah 34:1-4.

Zechariah 14:6-7 with Amos 5:18; Amos 5:20, Joel 4 (E.V. 3) Joel 3:15, Isaiah 30:26.

Zechariah 14:8 with Isaiah 11:9; Isaiah 2:3, Micah 4:2.

Zechariah 14:11 with Amos 9:13-15.

Zechariah 14:20 with Isaiah 23:18.

Zechariah 14:21 with Isaiah 4:3; Isaiah 35:8, Joel 4 (E.V. 3) Joel 3:17, &c.

But we cannot lay much stress on this argument, since prophets, belonging as they did in most cases to a school, were in all probability acquainted with the works of their predecessors.

3. In both portions the whole people are similarly styled “the house of Israel, and the house of Judah (Zechariah 8:13); or, “house of Judah, and house of Joseph” (Zechariah 10:6); or “Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem (Zechariah 1:19); or “Judah and Ephraim” (Zechariah 9:13); or “Judah and Israel” (Zechariah 11:14). And in both portions (see the above reference), as was done by Jer. (Jeremiah 23:6; Jeremiah 50:20) and Ezek. (Ezekiel 37:16-19), a future is promised to the re-united Israel-Judah.

4. In both parts (Zechariah 2:9; Zechariah 2:11; Zechariah 11:11) we have the prototype of our Lord’s saying (John 14:29): “And now I have told you before it come to pass, that when it is come to pass ye might believe” (John 13:19; John 16:4). In both (Zechariah 8:10; Zechariah 11:6) internal discord is directly attributed to God’s Providence. In both (Zechariah 8:12; Zechariah 10:1) the prophet promises God’s gifts of the produce of the earth. In both (Zechariah 2:10; Zechariah 9:9) he bids Jerusalem burst out for joy. The only king of Israel mentioned in either portion is the Messiah (Zechariah 6:12-13; Zechariah 9:9).

5. Both portions are written in pure Hebrew, free from Aramaisms. Both (Zechariah 7:14; Zechariah 9:8) contain the expression “passes to and fro,” in the sense of “all inhabitants,” which elsewhere occurs only in Ezekiel 35:7. (But we must be careful not to lay too much stress on this latter argument, since, if more Biblical Hebrew were extant, the expression would probably occur often.)

6. In both parts alike may be observed the habit of dwelling on the same thought or word—e.g., in Zechariah 6:10, Zechariah 6:12-13, Zechariah 8:4-5, Zechariah 8:23; Zechariah 11:7; Zechariah 14:10-11; Zechariah 14:4-5. In both the whole and its parts are, for emphasis, mentioned together—e.g., in Zechariah 5:4; Zechariah 10:4; Zechariah 10:11, we have “every family apart,” and then in Haggai 2:12-13 the specification. And as an outcome of this fulness of diction we find, in each, instances of one fundamental idea expanded into the unusual number of five parallel clauses, e.g.:—

Zechariah 6:13—

“And shall build the temple of the Lord;”

“And He shall bear Majesty;”

“And He shall sit and rule upon His throne;”

“And shall be a priest upon His throne;”

“And a counsel of peace shall be between these twain.”

Zechariah 9:5—

“Ashkelon shall see it, and shall fear;”

“Gaza, and shall tremble exceedingly;”

“And Ekron, and disappointed is her expectation;”

“And perished is a king from Gaza;”

“And Ashkelon shall not be inhabited.”

Zechariah 9:7—

“And I will take away his blood from his mouth;”

“And his abominations from between his teeth;”

“And he too shall be left to our God;”

“And he shall be as a governor in Judah;”

“And Ekron as a Jebusite.”

7. So far from looking upon the difference between the contents of the first eight and of the last six chapters as a sign of difference of authorship, we consider that the high-flown poetic language and imagery and deep prophetic insight of the latter chapters are just such as might have been expected, in his later years, from one who, in his youth, saw and related the mysterious series of visions contained in the former portion. For, as with other gifts of the Spirit, so with the gift of prophecy: we may well suppose that God gives to a man in accordance with that which he hath, and not according to that which he hath not. When, therefore, the seer, who even in his youth was found worthy of such mysterious revelations, had spent many years in communion with God, and meditation on the promises revealed by “the former prophets”—the deep things of God—it seems only in accordance with our experience of the workings of Divine Providence that he should, in after life, become the recipient of the stupendous revelations contained in the concluding chapters.

Thus the internal evidence of the two portions has been shown to be on the whole in favour of the integrity of the Book of Zechariah. It remains only to state that there is no external evidence (except that which originally led to a doubt on the subject) to the contrary. (1) In the Jewish Canon Zechariah is the eleventh in the book called “the twelve.” The books of the Hebrew Scriptures have usually in MSS.[26] no headings; but after each of the prophets, whether major or minor, three lines are usually, according to rule,[27] left empty, and then the next prophet is written. Thus between Haggai and Zechariah three lines ought to be left, just as between Jeremiah and Ezekiel. But between Zechariah 8, 9[28] there is but an “open section” (pārāshāh pethūchāh), like that between Zechariah 7, 8, denoting merely that the matter which follows is not so closely connected with what precedes, as would have been denoted by there being only a “closed section” (pārāshāh sethūmāh) left between: as, for instance, between Zechariah 9:8-9. Thus the very manner in which the book is written, when the laws on the subject are observed, points—from a negative, if not from a positive, point of view—to there being no doubt in the opinion of the Synagogue as to its integrity. (2) Neither in Rabbinical or Patristic writings, nor in the ancient versions, is there any trace known to us of a doubt having, in early times, been entertained on the subject. On the contrary, Zechariah 11:1 is distinctly ascribed to “Zechariah son of Iddo” (Talmud Babli, Yoma 39a). While, on the other hand, Rabbi Akivah, in a remarkable piece of exegesis (Talmud Babli, Maccoth 24b), identifies Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah with the author of Zechariah 8:4, although he is perfectly aware that Zechariah prophesied during the time of the Second Temple. At the same time it must be observed that the so-called “external evidence of the Jewish Canon” has, by previous writers, been much too strongly stated; for it must not be forgotten that the fact that a passage occurs in a book ascribed to a certain prophet is not looked on by the Jews as absolute proof that it was pronounced by him (Talmud Babli, Baba Bathra 14b). Thus Rabbi Simon, of the third and fourth centuries (Vayyikrā Rabbah, xv. 2), ascribes Isaiah 8:19-20, to Beeri (father of Amos), and says these verses were not written in a separate book, because there was not enough to constitute one. Again, in Maccoth 24b the verse Micah 3:12 is ascribed, without remark, to Urijah the priest, the co-witness with Zechariah son of Jeberechiah (Isaiah 8:2). Whatever people may think of the critical value of these rabbinical statements, they are most significant as pointing to an acknowledged tradition of the Synagogue with regard to the manner of putting together the canonical books. If, therefore, it should be thought that Zechariah 11:1-3; Zechariah 13:7-9 have no apparent connection with the context in the places in which they stand, it would be quite admissible to suppose them to be fragments, say of Ezekiel and Jeremiah respectively, which had not been included in those books, and which were now inserted in the prophecies of Zechariah to prevent their becoming lost. With regard to the Minor Prophets in particular, Rabbi Shelomoh Yitzchaki (or Rashi, the great Jewish traditionalist of the eleventh century) says, in his commentary on Talmud Babli, Baba Bathra 15a: “As for the Twelve, since their prophecies were short, the prophets did not themselves write each his own book. But, when Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi came, and said that the spirit of prophecy was on the point of ceasing (for they were the last of the prophets), they arose and wrote down their own prophecies, and combined therewith short prophecies, and made them into one large book, in order that they should not be lost on account of their brevity.” By which he means that they took the nine other “Minor Prophets,” as we call them, and combined them with their own prophecies into one book. His words leave room also for the theory which we have propounded above, that small fragments of prophecies, which had not yet been embodied in the prophetic writings, may have been included in the “Minor Prophets.” Such is the tradition. It need not be taken as implying that Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were actual contemporaries (indeed it appears probable—see Introduction to Malachi—that Malachi prophesied some fifty years after the time of Zechariah’s latest productions), but merely that the prophets of the postexilian period formed their own prophecies and the smaller works of earlier prophets into one book. This tradition is in itself probable, and in so far as concerns the late redaction of even the older books of “the Twelve,” is corroborated by the following minute piece of internal evidence. The Massóreth tells us that with the exception of the passage Song of Solomon 4:4 (on the date of which see Introduction), the name David is written fully (i.e., with a yod between the v and the d) only in three passages of Kings, one of Ezekiel, and throughout the Minor Prophets (viz., in Hosea, Amos, and Zechariah, in which only it occurs). Thus the spelling of the name David, even in the early books, Hosea and Amos, agrees with the tradition that they were edited, so to speak, at a late date.

[26] In the Cambridge MS. of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, marked Add. 465. a scribe of the latter half of the fourteenth century has supplied running titles to the various books, according to the Jewish divisions. At the end of this MS. there is, for the purpose, as is expressly stated, of ready reference in controversy with Christians, a table of the Christian divisions of the books, in a hand not later than the early part of the fourteenth century; and a later scribe still has adopted the ordinary Christian divisions, and added them to the MS. throughout.

[27] Tūr and Shūlchān ‘Ārūc, Yorch Dē’āh, § 283.

[28] These remarks will apply equally to the case of Isaiah 39, 40.

The voice of antiquity is thus unanimous in accepting the last six chapters, without question, as the work of Zechariah, the contemporary of Haggai, equally with the first eight.

In conclusion: seeing that external evidence has nothing to say against the integrity of the book, and that internal evidence (from style and contents) is rather in favour of it than otherwise, we conclude that the whole book called “Zechariah” is probably by Zechariah, grandson of Iddo.

V. Probable Date of Zechariah 9-14.—Prophets, we hold, are by Divine inspiration enabled to foretell events. Therefore it is not necessary to suppose that these chapters were written after the events to which we suppose them to refer. But, on the other hand, prophets (except with regard to the Messianic times, which were ever present in anticipation) cannot be supposed to speak of things which are not more or less pointed to by “the signs of the times” (Matthew 16:3). If they did so, they could not expect to command an audience; for why should people be expected to listen to what could have no interest for them? Accordingly, in fixing the date of these prophecies, we have two guides: it must not be so late that Zechariah could not be still alive, nor so early that the Jews could have as yet had no occasion to fear the Greeks. Supposing Zechariah to have been about twenty-one years of age in the second year of Darius (520), he would have been little over fifty soon after the battle of Marathon (490), nor much over sixty when the Persians sustained their great naval defeat at Salamis (480). It will be easily perceived how, on hearing of the victories of the Greeks over their Persian protectors, the Jews would begin to tremble lest the Greeks, confounding them with the Phœnicians—whose fleets had been requisitioned by the Persians for the subjugation of the rebellious Ionians—should wreak their vengeance on the Holy Land as well as the seaboard. At this time, then—about 489 or 479 B.C.—it seems to us probable that Zechariah was commissioned to encourage his nation with promises of God’s continued protection, and with hopes for the time to come.

VI. Contents of Zechariah 9-14.

Zechariah 9, 10. Doom of adjacent nations. The struggles, but eventual triumph and security, of Israel. The coming of the King (Zechariah 9:9, sqq.).

Zechariah 11. [Zechariah 13:7-9(?)]. The storm threatens the shepherds. Rejection of the Good Shepherd. Doom of the foolish shepherd.

Zechariah 12:1-9. Struggles of Israel with the nations.

Zechariah 13:1-4. Zeal against prophets in general.

Zechariah 12:10-14. Mourning over Him whom they pierced.

Zechariah 13:5-6. General disclaiming of prophetic powers.

[Zechariah 13:7-9 (?)].

Zechariah 14 “The last things,” as seen in the light of the old dispensation.

Zec 1:1-17.

INTRODUCTORY EXHORTATION TO REPENTANCE. THE VISIONS. The man among the myrtles: Comforting explanation by the angel, an encouragement to the Jews to build the city and temple: The four horns and four artificers.

1. See

Introduction.

2. God fulfilled His threats against your fathers; beware, then, lest by disregarding His voice by me, as they did in the case of former prophets, ye suffer like them. The special object Zechariah aims at is that they should awake from their selfish negligence to obey God's command to rebuild His temple

(Hag 1:4-8).

sore displeased--Hebrew, "displeased with a displeasure," that is, vehemently, with no common displeasure, exhibited in the destruction of the Jews' city and in their captivity.

In the eighth month - o. The date joins on Zechariah's prophecy to those of Haggai. Two months before, "in the sixth month" Haggai 1:1, had Haggai, conjointly with Zechariah Ezr 5:1-2, exhorted Zerubbabel and the people to resume the intermitted building of the temple. These had used such diligence, notwithstanding the partial discouragement of the Persian Government, that God gave them "in the seventh month" Ezra 5:3-5, the magnificent promise of the later glory of the temple through the coming of Christ Haggai 2:1-9. Still, as Haggai too warned them, the conversion was not complete. So Zechariah in the eighth, as Haggai in the ninth Haggai 2:10-14 month, urges upon them the necessity of thorough and inward repentance, as the condition of partaking of those promises.

Osorius: "Thrice in the course of one saying, he mentions the most holy name of God; partly to instruct in the knowledge of Three Persons in one Nature, partly to confirm their minds more strongly in the hope of the salvation to come."