Chapter II: Part 2

These are the words of the translation in our Bible; but the sense of them I must acknowledge my inability to unravel. Of what Damascus is to be the rest, or what period is intimated by the adverb of time _when_, I am at a loss to discover. The separation of Hadrach and Damascus by the insertion of a comma between them, evidently owes its origin to the supposed necessity for rendering the word מנחתו (or ותחנמ) _the rest thereof_. But if deriving it from נח (or חנ) or נוח (or חונ) does not afford any intelligible sense, we are naturally led to seek another derivation; and we find one in the verb נחת (or תחנ) _to descend_ or _send down_, which without violating grammatical construction affords a meaning not only intelligible, but in perfect unison with the context. The Hemantiv מ prefixed, gives the _thing sent down_, while the suffix ו _his_, evidently refers to _the Lord_ who sends the vision or denunciation. The English construction, of course, requires it should be rendered _his sending down_, that is, the Lord’s denunciation, _against_ Hadrach and Damascus, as well as the other cities which are mentioned afterwards; for ב here rendered _in_, may with more propriety be rendered _against_ or _upon_. The verb נחת (or תחנ) _to send down_, occurs in Joel iii. 11 and elsewhere: but the writer freely acknowledges that he has no authority for the participial noun with the Hemantiv מ prefixed to signify the thing sent down, or the act of sending down, as the sense seems to require here. He therefore rests this construction solely on the ground of its being grammatically admissible, consonant to analogy, and in accordance with the context, as affording a satisfactory meaning. Let those who are not satisfied with such reasons furnish a better solution of the difficulty. In the next place, there is no necessity for rendering כי (or יכ) _when_, which more frequently signifies _for_; and when so rendered, it will be found to connect together the latter and the former part of the verse. For this, we only require to render the dative ל, as it frequently is rendered in Hebrew, as well as Greek and Latin, to denote _possession_; and the verse will run thus. _For the Lord’s is_, or to the Lord belongs, _the eye of man_; to wit, the eye of the Seer, who receives the vision, _and all the tribes of Israel_, whom the vision chiefly concerns. Making the tribes a genitive case, by inserting _of_ before them, is wholly uncalled for by the text.

Verse 2. :וגם חמת תגבל בה צר וצידון כי חכמה מאד

_And Hamath also shall border thereby, Tyrus and Sidon though it be very wise._

תגבל (or לבגת) _to set bounds to_, in the Hiphil, occurs in Exod. xix. 12 & 23.—It here appears to be the Huphal or passive of Hiphil—signifying _to be bounded_, or _to be set bounds to_. It is only necessary to remark, that leaving aside the punctuation, the form of the future tense will be identical in both these voices. The sense as it stands is scarcely intelligible. What is meant by _border thereby_, it is not easy to conceive; but by discarding the points we readily obtain a meaning that is perfectly intelligible. תגבל (or לבגת) may then be rendered in the passive voice, instead of the active, and will signify _to be limited_, or _have bounds set to_; and בה (or הב) _on_ or _to her_, which follows, accords with, and seems to demand its being so rendered. _And Hamath also shall have bounds set to her_; that is, her growing greatness shall be checked.

_Tyre, and also Sidon though she be very wise_, חכמה (or המכח), _wise_, no doubt, means here, _worldly wise_, or very subtle.

Verse 5. :תרא אשקלון ותירא ועזה ותחיל מאד ועקרון כי הוביש מבטה

_Ashkalon shall see and fear, Gaza also, and she shall be very sorrowful, and Ekron for her expectation shall be ashamed._

הוביש (or שיבוה) may be derived either from בוש (or שוב) _to be ashamed_, or from יבש (or שבי) _to dry up_, and whither as a plant for want of moisture. The latter seems preferable here, but it is not very material to the sense.

Verse 6. :וישב ממזר באשדוד והכרתי גאון פלשתים

_A bastard shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines._

ממזר (or רזממ) may be rendered a _stranger_, as well as a _bastard_, αλλογενεις in the Septuagint, which renders the sense more obvious.

_And I will cut off the pride of the Philistines._ These denunciations appear chiefly directed against the Philistines, in whom pride, avarice, and ambition, are specified as the great offences. The delivery of Ashdod into the hands of a stranger is the judgment pronounced against them in this verse, as the last means of their humiliation. But here the tone of the prophecy changes, and instead of further punishments, we find repeated promises of blessings and mercy; _he that is left shall be for our God, and as a Governor in Judah_,—and in the verse following—_He_ (the Messiah being manifestly meant here) _shall speak peace to the Heathen_.—Whence then this change? We are led to seek, and naturally expect to find, some ground for it. And accordingly the next verse unfolds the reason, and explains the occasion of this change in the counsel of Heaven; a change resting not on their own merits, but on Divine Mercy. For such a construction will this verse bear, quite as well as the one usually put upon it; and this construction is far more in unison with the context, than the received one.

Verse 7. :והסרתי דמיו מפיו ושקציו מבין שניו ונשאר גמ-הוא לאלהינו והיה כאלף ביהודה ועקרון כיבוסי

_And I will take away his blood from out of his mouth, and his abominations from between his teeth, and he that is left, even he shall be for our God, and he shall be as a Governor in Judah, and Ekron as a Jebusite._

With scarcely any alteration in the translation, the words, even as they stand, admit of a very different acceptation from that in which they are commonly taken; and instead of being a figurative expression, borrowed from the rescuing its prey from the jaws of a lion; in which sense the Jews take it, as a promise to themselves of deliverance from their enemies; the words more literally taken, will convey the promise of mercy and redemption to the remaining Gentiles: whose sin and pollution are to be taken away, who are to be reclaimed to the worship of the true God, and admitted to a full participation in all the blessings, promised to Israel by the coming of the Messiah.

The Gentiles were esteemed polluted by eating things unclean, which were prohibited to the Jews. Certain animals—things strangled—and the blood in particular were among the forbidden food. The new covenant removed this prohibition, thereby taking away the pollution from between his teeth, as it ceased to be a cause of pollution. The command given to St. Peter, Acts x. 14, to kill and eat, where all manner of food was presented to him, was expressly received by him as a command to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, or to admit them into the Messiah’s kingdom; and this admission was unaccompanied with any such prohibition, nor was it subsequently given.

Eating things sacrificed to idols was another cause of pollution which the New Covenant removed, by taking away the cause in the abolition of idolatry. This literal fulfilment of the words of the prophecy may, however, be figuratively understood, to foreshew the remission of sins through Christ, and the admission of the Heathen nations to the hopes of everlasting life founded on the Gospel.

The only change required in the English version is to read _But_, for _And_, which are expressed alike by the Hebrew ו, and to understand שקציו (or ויצקש) _his abominations_, in the sense most appropriate to it, as alluding to the worship of idols, and we have the sense already expressed, which perfectly harmonizes with the context. Whereas, taken in the other sense, what becomes of the antithesis? Who is _he that is left_, that _shall be for our God_, and _as a chief in Judah_? Surely it cannot be the Jew, who shall be as a Jew. But the next words are decisive, declaring that Ekron and the Jebusite, both Gentiles, are here intended.

_And Ekron as a Jebusite._ This mode of rendering leaves, indeed, the force of these words rather ambiguous; but there can be no intelligible sense put upon the כי (or יכ), but that of _in like manner as_, or, _as well as_; that is, Ekron as well as the Jebusite, shall both be as Governors in Judah.

Verse 8. :וחניתי לביתי מצבה מעבר ומשב ולא יעבר עליהם עוד נגש כי עתה ראיתי בעיני

_And I will encamp about mine house because of the army, because of him that passeth by, and because of him that returneth; and no oppressor shall pass through them any more: for now have I seen with mine eyes._

It is not certain, though probable, from 1 Sam. xxvi. 5-7, that the Jews had entrenched camps; if so, the passage would be clearer by rendering וחניתי (or יתינחו) _I will entrench_ instead of _encamp_; though the sense is sufficiently obvious, as meaning to afford protection against the army, &c. The house of God, to which protection is promised, is his Temple, figuratively denoting true religion purified from idolatry; the great spiritual adversary constantly warring with Israel, and, as we learn from Scripture, frequently prevailing; which is probably the warfare here alluded to. But if taken literally, this passage conveys the promise that the Messiah’s kingdom should put an end to oppression and injustice. The exact import of the expression, _for now have I seen with mine eyes_, is not very evident; but may imply God’s foreseeing the unfitness of the Jews to receive a spiritual Messiah; who, in consequence of their rejection of him, would be given to the Gentiles.

Verse 9. :גילי מאד בת ציון הריעי בת-ירושלם הנה מלכך יבוא לך צדיק ונושע הוא עני ורכב על חמור ועל עיר בן אתנות

_Rejoice greatly, Daughter of Zion, shout, oh Daughter of Jerusalem, behold thy King cometh unto thee; he is just and having salvation, lowly and riding upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass._

There is no ambiguity in the purport of this verse, which is the coming of the Messiah, as all commentators allow; but I can in no wise agree with Lowth and others, that this verse is a rhapsodical digression from the subject of the rest of the chapter, in which the Prophet being wrought up to the highest pitch of enthusiasm, breaks off from the immediate object of his vision to foretel the coming of the Messiah, and then returns back to his former subject. On the contrary, I can see nothing like digression here, but one connected and consistent object throughout; this verse being the keystone of the arch, which binds together those which precede and those which follow it, forming the whole into one united and compact body. Instead of a digression from the subject, I regard this verse as the clue to guide us through the labyrinth, by fixing and determining the subject of all the rest.

_Behold thy King cometh unto thee_: יבוא (or אובי) is really the future tense, literally _shall come_, and changing it to the present, _cometh_, seems unnecessary, if it does not in some degree interfere with the chronological order of the events predicted afterwards.

_Just and having salvation._ This is certainly an ambiguous rendering of נושע (or עשונ) the past participle of the verb ישע (or עשי) to save, which literally signifies _being saved_, and the emphatic הוא (or אוה) _himself_, following it, more strongly marks the sense, as _having obtained salvation himself_.

_Riding on an ass, and a colt, the foal of an ass._ The connective ו _and_, should certainly be rendered here by _even_, or, _to wit_, and not by _and_, which makes it appear that the Messiah was to ride upon two asses.

Verse 11. :גם את בדם בריתך שלחתי אסיריך מבר אין מים בו

_As for thee, by the blood of thy covenant, I have sent forth thy prisoners, from the pit wherein is no water._

That the Messiah is apostrophized in these words, cannot, surely, admit of doubt or dispute; and words more forcible, or more pregnant with meaning, upon the Christian’s view of them, it is not easy to conceive. שלחתי (or יתחלש) _I have sent forth_, is really the perfect tense, though written several centuries before the coming of Christ; but it is not at all unusual in prophetic language to use this tense, which represents as already accomplished, what is determined in the Divine purpose, although the fulfilment be still future.

The writer is well aware of a formidable objection presented by the Hebrew punctuation, against the application of this verse to the Messiah, as the pronoun “thee” את (or תא) is by the pointing made to be of the feminine gender. This is one of many instances in which the punctuation tends to embarrass instead of elucidating the subject of the prophecy—instances which have mainly contributed to the determination of the writer to disregard the points. It remains for those who regard them as of paramount authority, to offer a solution of this and other passages equally clear and satisfactory, and equally consistent throughout. If “thee” be meant to apostrophise the daughter of Zion, what blood—what covenant—what prisoners—what pit, are here alluded to? Upon the view here offered, the event foreshewn is the death of the Messiah, an event wholly at variance with the expectations of the Jews, but here distinctly announced, along with the most striking particulars attendant on that event; such as the frustration of the hopes of temporal advantages expected from his coming—the nature of the spiritual blessings which it was really intended to impart; namely, the remission of sins, and the redemption of the Gentile world from idolatry. Along with these is stated the personal character of the Messiah, and the express manner of his coming; not in glory as expected, but in meekness and humility—the peaceful nature of his kingdom—its boundless extent, destined to embrace all nations—yet in apparent contradiction, his death is intimated, but also his resurrection whereby he becomes “_the first fruits of them that slept_.” These are all clearly intimated in this chapter; and of these, how many have former commentators, with or without the aid of points, been able to make out? At most, only three or four verses, as where he is mentioned as riding into Jerusalem on an ass; and here, according to Blaney, the text requires to be altered, to shew that he was a Saviour, נושע (or עשונ) being saved, being altered into משע (or עשמ) a Saviour; while, according to Lowth, all that here relates to the Messiah is to be regarded as a rhapsodical digression from the subject of the context.

Verse 12. :שובו לבצרון אסירי התקוה גם היום מגיד משנה אשיב לך

_Return to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope, even today do I declare that I will repay you double._

Such is the received translation, nor as it now stands, does the sense appear at all ambiguous, signifying, _Return to your prison-house until the day of your promised liberation arrives_; that is, the day of the Messiah’s coming. There can be no doubt who are meant by the prisoners, but the change of number in the personal pronoun, from plural to singular, makes it not improbable that the latter part of this line is addressed to the Messiah, who was apostrophized in the verse preceding. Upon this view the word אסירי (or יריסא) may be rendered, _my prisoners_, instead of _prisoners of hope_, which is rather obscure; and התקוה (or הוקתה) as the imperative hithpael of the verb קוה (or הוק) to wait. And the sense will then be as given in the text; _Return to the strong hold, my prisoners: wait thou till the day I declare that I will repay thee double._

Verse 13. :כי דרכתי לי יהודה קשת מלאתי אפרים ועררתי בניך ציון על בניך יון ושמתיך כחרב גבור

_When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, Oh Zion! against thy sons, Oh Greece! and made thee as the sword of a mighty man._

Here כי (or יכ), which signifies _for_, is rendered _when_, thus imposing a future signification on the verbs that follow. This has, no doubt, arisen from a supposed allusion to the subsequent wars of Judas Maccabeus. But Ephraim, or the ten tribes, having no share in those wars, militates against that supposition; and it seems more probable that this verse, instead of designating the _time when_ the promised blessing would be conferred upon the Gentiles, here declares the _reason why_ the Messiah could not be sent to them directly and unconditionally; namely, because he was previously promised to Israel. _For I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow Ephraim_; that is, I have chosen Israel as my people, and appointed them my instruments for the overthrow of paganism. And, accordingly, to the house of Israel he came, and was by some of them received; nor until the great body of that people declined the office, were the Gentiles called in to fill up the ranks, and carry on the spiritual warfare; a warfare which was thenceforward carried on by both in conjunction, for the first Christians still were Jews, though blindness came in part over Israel.

Verse 14. :ויהוה עליהם יראה ויצא כברק חצו ואדני יהוה בשופר יתקע והלך בסערות תימן

_And the Lord shall be seen over them, and his arrow shall go forth as the lightning; and the Lord God shall blow the trumpet, and shall go forth with whirlwinds of the South._

This and the following verse evidently contain promises of Divine protection, and of triumphant success; but to whom these promises are given may admit of a question. עליהם (or םהילע) _over them_, may mean the Jews last spoken of, or the Gentiles mentioned before, or it may apply to both. And if the triumph of true religion over Pagan idolatry be the victory here spoken of, as this was obtained by both in conjunction, during the Apostolic age at least, so both must be included in the promises. Nor can any construction, worthy of the subject, or adequate in dignity and importance, be put upon the expression, _the sons of Zion_, and _the sons of Greece_, but that which refers to the religion of each. The triumph of true religion over idolatry was one that affected the whole world, including every country, and extending to every age, and regarding the eternal as well as temporal interests of mankind.

Verse 15. .יהוה צבאות יגן עליהם ואכלו וכבשו אבני קלע ושתו המו כמו יין ומלאו כמזרק כזוית מזבח

_And the Lord of hosts shall defend them; and they shall devour, and subdue with sling stones; and they shall drink and make a noise as through wine; and they shall be filled like bowls, and as the corners of the altar._

To take these expressions in the literal sense, as promising to man the grossest of sensual indulgences, would surely be a strange misconstruction of prophetic language; המו (or ומה) which is rendered, _and make a noise_, is not preceded by the connective ו _and_; it may, therefore, be simply the personal pronoun _they_, being the nominative to the verb _drink_; _they shall drink as of wine_, &c. Who is intended by the pronoun _they_, if at all doubtful here, becomes sufficiently clear in the next verse, where it is repeated in a manner that leaves no ambiguity, at least as far as concerns the Gentiles.

Verse 16. :והושיעם יהוה אלהיהם ביום ההוא כצאן עמו כי אבני נזר מתנוססות על אדמתו

_And the Lord their God shall save them in that day, as the flock of his people, for they shall be as the stones of a crown, lifted up as an ensign upon his land._

Here the pronoun _them_, in evident contradistinction with _his people_, shews that two nations are spoken of; otherwise the passage might be rendered, _the Lord God, shall save as a flock, his people_. But the antithesis marked by the pronoun _them_, is rendered still more obvious, if possible, in the next line. _For the wall of separation is waving_ (or tottering) _over his land_. Such is the literal meaning of the Hebrew, when the words are taken in their primary and ordinary sense. Thus, אבני (or ינבא) in its usual sense means, _stones_, as the stones of a wall; but in a more remote and figurative sense, _precious stones_: נזר (or רזנ) in the primary sense, signifies, _to separate_, or, _separation_; occurring in this sense ten times at least in Numbers, ch. vi.; but in the secondary or more remote sense, _a diadem_, which separates or distinguishes the prince from the people: נסס (or ססנ) in the primary sense means to wave to and fro, as a flag, or as a wall before it is blown down by the wind; but, in a secondary sense it signifies, as some understand it here, to glitter or sparkle, as a diamond, when waved or moved. Thus we see the pains taken to avoid the plain and obvious sense of the passage; but the Hebrew scholar will judge for himself.

The concluding verse, in which the prophet breaks forth into expressions of adoration and praise for the goodness of the Lord, well accords with this view of his bounty being unlimited, and extending to all his creatures alike.

THE RABBI’S EXPOSITION AND REPLY, CHAPTER IX.

As I conclude that the object of the Christian, who thinks he sees in this Prophecy a clear prediction of the coming of Jesus Christ, is to learn in what manner it is expounded by the Jews; it appears to me that the simplest way in which I can reply, will be to lay before him what I conceive to be the proper translation and interpretation. In doing this, it will be unnecessary to offer any further explanation or exposition, beyond what may be given in the form of comment on the translation; while he is at liberty to conclude with regard to those passages, where no comment or explanation is offered, not, assuredly, that I assent to _his_ interpretation, but merely that I acquiesce in the reasons he assigns for my dissent; or that his anticipation of my argument has rendered its repetition superfluous, as is the case in verses 9 and 10. The following is my mode of translating this chapter and expounding it:—

Zechariah, Chapter IX.

Verse 1. _The burden of the word of the Lord on the land of Hadrach, and Damascus, his residence; for to the Lord (will be) the eye of man, and (particularly that) of all the tribes of Israel._

This prophecy is directed against a king named Hadrach, and against Damascus his residence. According to some who have visited Syria, there is to this day, near the desert, a village bearing the name of that king, whose inhabitants assert that formerly a large district about it, that constituted a powerful kingdom, was called by the same name.

_For to the Lord_, saith the prophet, _will be the eye of man_, agreeably to what he further declareth, that the extermination of the wicked will precede the turning to God, the eyes of the residue of man.

Verse 2. _And also (on) Hamath which borders on her; (on) Tyre, and (on) Sidon, though she be very wise._ Verse 3. _And Tyre did build herself a strong hold, and heaped up silver as dust, and gold as mire of the streets._

The burden of the Lord is also touching Hamath, which was bordering on the former; also Tyre, and Sidon, which thought herself very wise; yet her wisdom availed her nothing, as was also foretold by Ezekiel, chap. xxvii. ver. 32.

Verse 4. _Behold the Lord will make her poor, and smite her power in the sea, and she shall be devoured with fire._ Verse 5. _Ashkelon shall see it and fear; Gaza also, and she shall be very sorrowful. Ekron also, for he (God) has made ashamed her expectation: and the king shall perish from Gaza: and Ashkelon shall not remain._ Verse 6. _And a foreigner shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut of the pride of the Philistines._

All the foregoing is known from history to have been already accomplished, through the conquests of Alexander the Macedonian; who also destroyed the fleet of Tyre, and smote her power on the sea. Among others also, it is said, Ekron shall be very sorrowful, since her hope was blasted; Tyre, on which she solely confided, being destroyed.

Verse 7. _And when I shall have taken away his blood out of his mouth, and his abominations from between his teeth; then even he shall remain for our God, and he shall be as a chief in Judah, and Ekron like Jebusi._

Now the prophet continues to predict, what is yet to be accomplished, that after their filth and pollution shall have been taken away, a remnant of them also will be to God; each of whom will not be inferior even to a chief in Judah, and Ekron will be in a manner as holy as Jebusi, which is Jerusalem. See Joshua, chap. xviii. ver. 28.

This, and all that is connected with it, to the end of the following chapter, may refer to a remoter period, to which the mind of the prophet was suddenly transported; or these events may have been intended, immediately after the overthrow of these nations, to have followed under one of the princes of Judah, who was already joined by a part of Ephraim; and the whole of whom would have been gathered under his banners, were not this delayed on account of their having acted contrary to the will of God. For, that the promises of God are conditional, and sometimes delayed, if those to whom they were made, render themselves undeserving of them, appears in many instances. See Zech. chap. viii. ver. 14-16. Jeremiah, chap. xviii. ver. 9-10. Among other instances, may be cited what took place with our ancestors, who went out of Egypt. The land of Canaan promised to Abraham (Genesis, chap. xv. ver. 16.) was again promised to them, even after their having worshipped the calf—Exodus, chap. xxxiii. ver. 1.—yet, for their frequent rebellions, was the fulfilment of this promise finally delayed to another generation. (Numb. chap. xiv. ver. 23.) Nay, it even appears that it would have been retracted, or at least delayed many generations, but for the intercession of Moses. (Exod. chap. xxxii. ver. 10.) And, in like manner, may the fulfilment of these promises, and that of others, which follow, respecting the restoration of Israel, be delayed, in consequence of the wickedness of our people, exciting the displeasure of the Lord.

Verse 8. _And I will encamp about my house (to protect) against an army, against one passing and returning, and no oppressor shall pass over them any more: for now have I seen it with my eyes._

Now have I seen it with mine eyes, means having graciously turned his particular attention to them, as is similarly expressed in Exod. chap. ii. ver. 25.

Ver. 9. _Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion, shout, daughter of Jerusalem, behold thy King shall come unto thee just, and he being saved, humble and riding upon an ass, the foal of an ass._

Ver. 10. _And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall speak peace unto nations; and his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the river to the end of the earth._

Verse 11. _Also thou, by the blood of thy covenant, I have sent away thy prisoners out of the pit, wherein is no water._

By the blood of the covenant, apparently, is meant that related in Exod. chap. xxiv. ver. 8. A pit without water means a land of captivity.

Verse 12. _Return ye to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope, even to-day __(I)__ declare __(THAT)__ I will render double unto thee._

The prisoners are to return and shelter in this strong hold.

Verse 13. _For I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, Oh Zion! against thy sons, Oh Greece! and made thee as the sword of a mighty man._

Judah and Ephraim are represented as warlike instruments in the hand of God, the sword, and the bow which he bends, and fills his hand with; similar to the expression in 2 Kings, chap. ix. ver. 24.

Verse 14. _And the Lord shall be seen over them, and his arrow shall go forth as lightning; and the Lord God shall blow the trumpet, and shall go forth with the whirlwinds of the South._

Verse 15. _The Lord of hosts shall defend them; and they shall devour, and subdue the sling stones; and noisily drink (their blood) as wine; and they shall be filled as a bowl, as the corners of an altar._

The prophet in derision here compares their enemies to sling-stones, contrasted with which in verse 16 that follows, Israel is compared to precious stones; and of whom it was before said that they were the sword in the hand of the Lord, to be filled with the blood of their relentless persecutors. See also Isaiah, chap. xxxiv. ver. 6.

Verse 16. _And the Lord their God will save them, his people as a flock, for as the stones of a crown shall they be glittering upon his land._

Verse 17. _For how great is his goodness, and how great is his beauty! The young men he will make as fruitful as corn, and the maids as wine._

Remarks On The Rabbi’s Exposition.

Were I candidly to express my sentiments, I might say, perhaps, that the Rabbi’s answer had disappointed me, being neither so full nor so forcible as I expected; but if he, as a Jew, be satisfied, it is not for me as a Christian to complain. There are, moreover, certain points of coincidence in our translation, in which the acquiescence of the Rabbi, as a distinguished Hebrew scholar, is truly gratifying; while there are also some points of disagreement, in which I am inclined to relinquish my own in favour of the Rabbi’s translation. I propose briefly to advert to each; but there is one circumstance that first deserves to be noticed, and which, however singular it may appear, might yet have been expected. It is this, that wherever I have ventured to differ from Christian commentators, there I am also at issue with the Rabbi. Now, having formerly stated that our received translation is chiefly founded on the Masoretic punctuation, which is Jewish, a coincidence was naturally to be looked for between the Jew’s exposition, and that which is in a great measure borrowed from it. And accordingly such is the case, the Jew’s exposition differing from that of our own commentators, principally on those points where the latter discover allusions to Christ. These, the Jew, of course, no where finds.

Now, what the Jew no where perceives, and the Christian only here and there, as it were incidentally, I maintain to be wholly and solely the subject of these chapters. This is, at least, a broad and well marked line of distinction: but here I unfortunately stand alone, having Christian as well as Jew opposed to me. Even the Jew allows that the subject of the latter part of this prophecy is the Messiah and his kingdom; but if Christ be the Messiah, as the Christian must admit, then is Christianity his kingdom, and the subject of the prophecy. So much for the state of the question.

The first point of disagreement between us is unconnected with the punctuation, and is one of little importance to the question, beyond what it may derive from the concurrence of my opponents. The Rabbi and Dr. Blaney agree in regarding Hadrach in the first verse, as the name of a prince, instead of a city or state. The Rabbi gives no authority for his opinion, and Dr. Blaney supports his by the conjecture that Rehob, spoken of in 2 Sam. viii. 3, who is by Josephus named Αραος or Αραχος, may be the prince alluded to. Now since the avowed reason for resorting to this supposition is the want of a city of this name, I would venture to suggest, that Aradus bears quite as much resemblance to Hadrach as Αραος does; and to Aradus was annexed a considerable district of country, which was precisely the first conquered by Alexander, when he invaded Syria, as appears by the following citation from Quintus Curtius, lib. 4. cap. 1. “Aradus quoque insula deditur regi. Maritimam tum oram, pleraque longius â mari residentia, rex ejus insulæ Strato possidebat. Quo in fidem accepto, castra movet ad urbem Marathon.” Aradus, like Tyre, was the daughter of Sidon, as stated by Strabo; Εκτισαν αυτην φυγαδες, ὤς φασιν, εκ Σιδόνος. These then, are circumstances which add weight to the supposition that Aradus may be here intended; but still it is no more than conjecture, and as such, _quod valet, valeat_.

In the same verse, the Rabbi’s rendering of מנחתו (or ותחנמ) _his residence_, must, of course, stand or fall with the previous question, Whether Hadrach be the name of a man or a city? If it be that of a prince, whose residence was Damascus, I have only to observe, that no such person appears to have resided there at the time the prophet wrote, and this is the only time that can accord with the Rabbi’s translation.

With regard to the last line of this verse, which the Rabbi renders nearly in the same manner as our commentators, _for to the Lord will be the eye of man_, &c. I can only say, that he does not appear to me to have thrown any new light upon the passage, the sense remaining as vague and obscure as before. But let the reader judge for himself.

In verse 2nd, the Rabbi agreeing with Lowth, renders תגבל (or לבגת) as an active verb, “_which borders on her_,” while Blaney, with me, makes it passive. If, by Hadrach, be intended the district of country extending inland from the town of Aradus, this would lead us directly to Epiphania, which was the lesser Hamath; and this expression might be meant to distinguish it from the greater Hamath, the modern Antioch; but the Rabbi does not acquiesce in this meaning of Hadrach; and, upon the whole, I see no sufficient reason to relinquish my own mode of rendering.

In verse 4th, the Rabbi’s translation, “_Behold the Lord will make her poor_,” I certainly prefer to that of our version, namely, “_shall cast her out_;” but his explanation of the remainder of this verse, “_and smite her power in the sea, and she shall be devoured with fire_,” appears less satisfactory than that of Dr. Blaney, which I have adopted from him. The Rabbi explains the accomplishment of this passage by Alexander’s defeating the fleet of the Tyrians, and burning their city; but such an interpretation is hardly borne out by history; a few occasional skirmishes by sea, and a partial conflagration, after the city was taken, being the utmost that took place. And accordingly this verse has been otherwise explained by Lowth, who understands the “_smiting her power in the sea_,” as referring to the insular situation of new Tyre; but Dr. Blaney, by a mode of rendering fully warranted by the Hebrew text, applies these words to Sidon, where they received their accomplishment in a manner strikingly peculiar. The difference of translation consists in reading—“_For she_ (Sidon) _has built Tyre, a fortress for herself_,” instead of “_For Tyre has built a fortress for herself_;” thus applying the expressions which follow to Sidon, instead of Tyre; which, however, is not thereby excluded from a full participation in the burden of the prophecy, evidently denounced against both. In regard to Sidon, the fulfilment was as follows:—When besieged by Artaxerxes Ochus, some years earlier than the siege of Tyre by Alexander, the Sidonians, lest individuals might be tempted to seek their personal safety by flight, and abandon the defence of the city, burned all their shipping in the first instance; and, when, by the cowardly treachery of their king, the enemy was admitted within their walls; they then set fire to their houses, and consumed their city, their families, their wealth, and themselves; no less than forty thousand perishing in the flames, according to Diod. Sic.: φασὶ δε τοὺς ὔπο τοῦ πυρὸς διαφθαρεντας, συν τοῖς οικετικοῖς σώμασι, γεγονέναι πλεὶους τῶν τετρακισμυρίων. Lib. 16. cap. 45.

In verse 5. The fate of Gaza and its governor, who was dragged round the city by Alexander, in imitation of Achilles, though noticed by Lowth, is disregarded by Blaney, for what reason I know not, since this seems as well intitled to notice as any other literal fulfilment of prophecy.

In verse 7th, the Rabbi’s acquiescence in the meaning of the words, “_when I have taken away his blood out of his mouth and his pollution from between his teeth_;” as signifying, literally, the taking away of sin and pollution, is highly important to the Christian exposition, for it intimates the first and greatest benefit we derive from the coming of the Messiah. That the Rabbi does not so understand it, as alluding to the remission of sins through Christ, is not to be wondered at; but it does seem singular that Lowth and Blaney should have disregarded or misunderstood so remarkable a passage, in the sense of which even the Jew acquiesces, though not in the application. יבוסי (or יסובי), according to the Rabbi, means Jerusalem, that is, “_Ekron shall be as Jerusalem_.” Now the Jebusites were the original inhabitants of Jerusalem, it is true; but why the prophet should here use the word Jebusi for Jerusalem, and here only, is rather unaccountable, and I cannot but prefer the translation I have given.

In verses 8, 9, 10, there is no material disagreement between us either in the translation or the interpretation. Here Jew and Christian agree in applying these verses to the coming of the Messiah. The only question between us is, whether Christ be the Messiah, which the Rabbi, of course, denies.

Verse 11. In the words, “_By the blood of thy covenant_,” &c. it was not to be expected that the Rabbi would see any intimation of a covenant for the redemption of mankind, sealed with the blood of Christ; though we might have looked for it in Dr. Blaney. The application of this and the two preceding verses to Christianity, was so clearly perceived, and so ably expounded by Lowth, that we only wonder he should have confined that view to these three verses, considering them as a digression, when by extending the same principle of interpretation to other parts of the prophecy, he might have found a clue to the solution of many difficulties. The want of this clue obliges Dr. Blaney to come to the same conclusion as the Rabbi, that the remaining part of the prophecy is still unaccomplished; a conclusion which I am compelled most strenuously to oppose. To the Jew, the suspension of the fulfilment of this prophecy would be almost equivalent to that of all others; for the Messiah’s kingdom is alike the subject of all, and if this one be unaccomplished, then must they all be so. To the Jew then, I would say—Is this consonant with the previous ordinations of God in the government of the world, to leave an interval of more than two thousand years, without the fulfilment of prophecy, which is to mankind, the most convincing of all proofs of his Divine superintendance and control over human affairs? To Dr. Blaney, on the other hand, who conceives that “since our Saviour’s appearance on earth, nothing has happened to the Jewish nation in any degree answerable to what is here predicted; no return from captivity, no victories, no successes,” &c.; to him I would say, why may not “_the children of the promise_” be here included as well as “_the children of the flesh?_” The first Christians were Jews, the apostles and disciples were Jews, while the converted Gentiles were no less styled, “_Israelites by adoption_;” and so they are continually called in prophetic language. If then the terms, “_Sons of Zion_” and “_Israel of God_,” be _not less_ applicable to those who received Christ for their Messiah, than to those who rejected him; we cannot surely say with Dr. Blaney, that there have been no return from captivity, no victories, no successes, since the coming of Christ; for it will hardly be maintained that redemption from the bondage of sin is no return from captivity; that the triumph of Christianity over paganism is no victory, and the rapid propagation of the Gospel no success.

In verse 12, “_The strong hold_,” which is evidently the same as the prison-house, called in the preceding verse, “_the pit without water_,” and which the Rabbi allows to be a state of captivity, is here, somewhat abruptly, transformed into a place of shelter and protection.

Verse 15. The Rabbi’s idea, that the prophet here uses the term “_sling-stones_,” in derision, as an appellative for the enemies of Israel, while he applies to themselves, in the next verse, the term “_precious stones_,” appears to me, I must acknowledge, somewhat novel; and as I dispute that translation of the next verse altogether, so I cannot acquiesce in such an explanation of this. With regard to the rendering of המו (or ומה) in the same verse, which I have considered as the personal pronoun, “_they_,” instead of the verb “_to make a noise_”—I believe the Rabbi’s, upon re-considering the passage, to be the more correct translation.

But these verbal differences, however they may interest the Hebrew scholar, are of trivial importance, as regarding the grand question between us, namely, whether the accomplishment of the predictions contained in this chapter, ceases before we arrive at verse 9, which is admitted to announce the coming of the Messiah. Upon this point, then, I plead the general issue. If I succeed in shewing that every part of the prophecy in the following chapters, as well as the present, has been clearly accomplished in the leading events of the history of Christianity, I gain my cause. If I fail to do so, let the verdict go for the Jew.

ZECHARIAH ON THE MESSIAH’S KINGDOM. INTERPRETATION: CHAPTER X.

Two points appeared to be established in the last chapter; one, that the Messiah’s kingdom is the subject of this part of the prophecy, and the other, that that kingdom is a spiritual one; or these points, if not proved, were, at least, shewn to be in perfect accordance with every verse, and every line contained in that chapter.

That the Messiah’s kingdom is the subject, appeared from the express declaration of the 9th verse, “_Behold, thy King cometh_,” &c., and from the exact accordance of every other with this view.

The circumstances that intimated the spiritual nature of that kingdom, and shewed that the prophecy refers to Christianity, were the following:—the denunciations against worldly-mindedness, wherewith the subject is prefaced and introduced; these being immediately followed by, and contrasted with the promise of spiritual blessings from the Messiah’s coming; which were declared to be the remission of sins, and the redemption of the Gentile world from the darkness of idolatry;—next, the personal character of the Messiah, and the express manner of his coming, namely, in meekness and humility;—the peaceful nature of his reign;—the shedding of his blood for the redemption of mankind from the bondage of sin;—the joint instrumentality of Israel in the accomplishment of the great scheme of redemption, but the admission of the Gentiles to a full participation in the blessings which result from it, and the removal of the partition wall, mentioned by St. Paul, (Ephes. ii. 14,) by which they had been previously excluded from them. These are the circumstances that declare the spirituality of the Messiah’s kingdom, and these are clearly intimated in the last chapter.

The present will be found to contain somewhat less variety of incident, with more of exhortations and promises than the preceding. These are more particularly addressed to the house of Judah, but their subsequent extension to “_them of Ephraim_” also, is a circumstance that calls for some explanation, without which it would be difficult to shew the chronological order of the events foretold.

Ephraim, or the ten tribes, had gone into captivity long before the time when the prophecy was uttered, which was that of the building of the second temple; nor have these tribes since returned, (what is become of them, or whether they be now in existence, being wholly unknown,) yet is their return from captivity here distinctly foretold. What, then, are we to understand by this return, or who is intended by “_them of Ephraim_,” is the question?

On the spiritual view, the captivity means the bondage of sin, and especially of idolatry, into which Ephraim had fallen by their apostacy; and their return will mean their return to true religion, whereby they obtain the remission of their sins, and the gift of eternal life. But what is meant by “_them of Ephraim_”? Are we to understand thereby the original ten tribes who revolted with Jeroboam, and whose descendants are not known to be now in existence? or the remnant of those tribes who returned to Jerusalem, (2 Chron. xi. 16,) and who having joined the tribe of Judah have since become mixed and identified with them?

On this latter view the prophecy may already in part have received its fulfilment, as some of this remnant, mixed with the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, in the apostolic age, were probably among the number of our Lord’s disciples, and were thus redeemed from the bondage of sin, and have already shared in the triumphs and blessings of the Gospel. On the former view, supposing, what is not impossible, that these tribes are still in existence, we must look chiefly to the future, as regards them, for the accomplishment of this part of the prophecy. But whichever view we embrace, as to those who constitute now the ten tribes, we must still look to the future, (and this is the point to be attended to,) for the full and perfect fulfilment of the prophecy; for so long as any of the house of Israel remain unredeemed, so long must they be regarded, in the spiritual view, which is the view we embrace, as still remaining in the bondage of sin, and not yet returned from captivity.

This then is the essential point as regards the prophetic chronology, that where events are spoken of, which, like the restoration of Israel, are continuous from age to age, or destined to occupy many centuries in their fulfilment, there the prophetic view must needs accord with the nature of the events, comprising at one glance the commencement, the continuance, and the completion of what is foretold; consequently these events not being limited to particular periods like the ordinary occurrences of history, like the fate of a battle or the fall of a monarchy, cannot be dated with chronological precision, except it be from the time of their commencement. And precisely of this nature are the events which form the subject of the chapter before us.

The first of these in order, as well as importance, is the progress of the Gospel of Christ, or the triumph of Judah, which began with the apostolic age, and has since continued progressive, though with a fluctuating career, and unequal success, up to the present time, when it extends over a large portion of the habitable world; but still without having attained to any thing like the universality announced in prophecy. This then is an event, which being still progressive, is not limitable to a particular period, nor capable of being dated with precision except from its commencement.

Next to this, or to the triumph of Judah, is the promised restoration of Israel, which cannot be deemed complete, while so many of the house of Israel, dispersed over the nations of Christendom, still rest their hopes on the covenant of the Law; a covenant which we as Christians believe to have been annulled at the promulgation of the Gospel; but which from the first offered only temporal rewards, and unlike the covenant of grace, gave no distinct promises of eternal life. That the remaining Israelites will ultimately awaken to a sense of these advantages, we may confidently expect from this promise of restoration, and from the predicted universality of the Messiah’s kingdom. This then is also an event yet imperfectly accomplished, or still in a state of progression, and therefore yet incapable of being dated with precision.

The abolition of Paganism is another, which though nominally effected at the beginning of the fourth century, is yet so far from being complete, that Paganism still prevails over the largest portion of the globe; and consequently this, like the former, is an event which can be dated only from its commencement. Bearing then in mind the nature of these events, and the impossibility of limiting the date of them to definite periods, we may now proceed with the interpretation of the prophecy.

As the last chapter opened with denunciations of divine wrath against worldly-mindedness, which were followed by, and contrasted with the unfolding of the spiritual nature of the Messiah’s kingdom, so the present chapter opens with exhortations to seek for spiritual blessings, and with the promise of their abundant bestowal on those who ask for them.

_Ask ye of the Lord rain in the time of the latter rain; so the Lord causing lightning, shall bring heavy showers, and give to every one grass in the field._

This language is metaphorical, it is true, and so is invariably that which is employed in describing the plenteousness of the Messiah’s kingdom, abounding in corn, wine, and oil, natural plenty signifying abundance in spiritual blessings. Were any one disposed to take such expressions in a strictly literal sense, he would soon find it impossible, for, most of them are mixed metaphors, such as _waters of life_, _trees of righteousness_, _garments of salvation_, of which part at least must be figurative; and the spiritual sense is in fact the most literal of any that can possibly be affixed to them. _Ask ye of the Lord rain_, signifies seek the blessings of righteousness, and they shall be freely given to you. When viewed in this light, we shall readily perceive the connection between this and the next verse, which contrasts the value of true, with the worthlessness and deceitfulness of false religion.

_For the idols have spoken vanity, and the diviners have seen a lie; and told false dreams; they comfort in vain._

That is, the heathen priests and oracles promise blessings which they have no power to bestow, but delude their votaries with false hopes, leading them astray, and leaving them to wander as a flock without a shepherd.

_Therefore they went their way as a flock, they were troubled because there was no shepherd._

A religion like Paganism, which allowed the unrestrained indulgence of the passions, of pride, avarice, and ambition, was well calculated to seduce; and the Jews, in spite of the continual exhortations of their prophets, in spite of the many signal miracles displayed to them, and wrought in their behalf, had frequently relapsed into idolatry. Nor can it be supposed that the outward worship of idols was alone displeasing to God, and that the indulgence of the passions, which was the soul and spirit of idolatry, was disregarded. The spirit was at least as likely as the form of Paganism to be offensive to Heaven; and accordingly it was continually denounced by the prophets, and had been frequently punished by signal acts of judgment. And in this did the Jewish priests and rulers still offend, by their avarice and worldly-mindedness, and thus incur the displeasure of Heaven, as already intimated, and here repeated.

_Mine anger is kindled against the shepherds, and I will punish the goats._

The shepherds are the guardians, the goats the leaders of the flock; but the Jewish shepherds and leaders misled their flock, and as their forefathers, under Jeroboam, had embraced idolatry, and were therefore allowed to be carried away into captivity, so their posterity, seduced by similar passions, rejected the blessings of the Gospel, and were suffered to remain in the bondage of sin. But the house of Judah having remained faithful, to them was the Messiah promised; and given to those who were willing to receive him.

_But the Lord of hosts hath visited his flock, the house of Judah, and made them as his goodly horse in battle. Out of him shall come the corner-stone; out of him, the nail; out of him, the battle bow; out of him every ruler together._

Triumphant career and success are herein promised to Judah, but the Messiah’s kingdom having been already declared to be a peaceful one, we cannot suppose literal warfare to be here intended. The triumph of true religion over Paganism is no doubt the warfare to be understood.