Chapter IV: Part 4

But the time of Israel’s spiritual restoration requires some explanation, being adverted to in this and the following chapter ten times at least, with the definite expression of “_in that day_:” an expression which seems as little to accord with the time required for a whole nation or people to change their faith, as with that which would be requisite for their literal return from all parts of the world to be reunited in one city, as the Jews understand the prophecy. A literal day cannot therefore be understood; nor yet would the difficulty be removed by supposing it to mean a prophetic day, or a Jewish year of twelve months, being three hundred and sixty days; for this period would be alike inadequate to the event in question.

How shall we then understand the expression, “_that day_,” so often recurring in the prophecy? The answer appears to be simply this, that it means _one_ day to _each individual_, but not _the same day_ to _all collectively_. As the earlier Christians did not all embrace Christianity on one day, so neither have we reason to expect that the later Christians will do so. History declares to the contrary, that some of the house of Israel have been continually flowing into the Church of Christ in every succeeding century, from the Apostolic age to the present time. And as some understand the Day of Judgment to be to each individual the day of his death, so to each will the day of his “_Redemption_,” in Scriptural language, be the day of his receiving Christ. St. Paul in the 2 Corinth. vi. 2, says “_Behold now is the accepted time, now is the day of Salvation_,” and in the same light must it be viewed in the passages before us; that is, as one day to each individually, not as the same day to all collectively.

The opening of this chapter closely resembles that of the 9th, and may help to throw light on those parts of it which appeared obscure. Both begin by declaring God’s superintendance and control over human affairs, and both assert his right to the disposal of events on similar grounds: there it was alleged, because all creatures belong to him, _for the Lord’s is the eye of man, and all the tribes of Israel_; and here, because he created all things.

_The burden of the word of the Lord upon Israel, saith the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundations of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him._

There, the burden of the prophecy was laid on the Gentiles, but the admonition meant for the benefit of Israel, to whom it was addressed; here, the burden is upon Israel, but the admonition expressly intended for all nations, “_all the people round about_;” and of such was the new Jerusalem, which is the subject of this chapter, chiefly composed after the overthrow of their idolatry and their conversion to Christianity. This appears to be the spiritual warfare here intended, namely, the successful progress of the Gospel against Paganism.

_Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the nations round about, and upon Judah it shall be in the siege against Jerusalem._

Upon Judah is the burden of the prophecy chiefly imposed, for to Judah was first committed the task of promulgating the Gospel. The Apostles, and also the disciples of our Lord were all Jews, they were the founders of this city. “_A cup of trembling_,” must not be here understood to signify an example by punishment inflicted, but as the Jew renders it, “_a cup of astonishment_,” or confusion to all nations; or, as it is next termed, “_a burden-stone_,” to crush its enemies; and such has been the Gospel of Christ, as the prophecy declares.

_In that day, will I make Jerusalem a burden-stone for all people; all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it._

The people, here spiritually signifies their false religion, which was to be abolished; and Jerusalem is here understood to mean Christianity, or true religion, which was triumphant. Confusion is then denounced against its enemies, while Divine protection and support are promised to the house of Judah, who received Christ.

_In that day, saith the Lord, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness, but I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness._

The blind rage of the heathen and the infatuated frenzy with which they strove to extinguish the light of the Gospel, are here clearly foreshewn; but the spiritual Jerusalem resisted all their efforts. And when the lineal Israelites abandoned their city, its gates were thrown open to the Gentiles, who entered and repeopled it, and became thenceforward “Israelites by adoption.” The new Jerusalem being Christianity, its inhabitants must mean the Christians; and who were they, after the Jews rejected Christianity, but the Gentile converts? Accordingly, they are so styled in the next verse, as contradistinguished from the first Jewish converts, who are called the governors of Judah, being the founders and builders of the spiritual city.

_And the governors of Judah shall say in their hearts, The inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength, in the Lord of hosts their God._

The fitness of the expression, _Inhabitants of Jerusalem_, to symbolize the Gentile converts, further appears in the fact, that the original inhabitants of the city, who were never expelled, were Gentiles. _The governors of Judah_ can signify no other than the apostles and disciples of our Lord, the first teachers of Christianity, or the founders of the new City. These, when the Jews were no longer willing to hear them, turned their attention to the Gentiles, and directed all their efforts to effect their conversion. As the strength of a city lies in its inhabitants, so the hope of strengthening theirs, from that time, rested in gaining over the Gentiles: “_The Governors of Judah say in their hearts, The inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength in the Lord of hosts their God._” Does not this mean in the Lord of hosts _becoming_ their God? That is, in his becoming the God of the Gentiles by their conversion to Christianity?

The extraordinary success of the apostles and disciples, in converting the Gentiles and repeopling the city, is foreshewn in the next verse.

_In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf, and they shall devour all the nations round about on the right hand and on the left, and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem._

If the spiritual Jerusalem be Christianity, it was certainly the Gentiles who repeopled this city, when the Jews deserted it. But still it was not deserted by all the Jews, for the first Christians were Jews, as emphatically expressed in the next verse.

_The Lord shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David, and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah._

The salvation of Judah here spoken of must be salvation through Christ; but if Judah signify the first Jewish converts to Christianity, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem mean those from the gentile nations, who are _the house of David_, here spoken of, and classed with the inhabitants of Jerusalem, as receiving their salvation subsequently to that of Judah? The house of David must surely mean those of the Hebrew nations, who did not at first receive Christ along with the house of Judah, but subsequently; or, the prophecy being still prospective, those who shall hereafter embrace Christianity must be also included. To this the Jew may probably answer: How can a Christian believe that the house of David, the very house from which Christ came, still remains unredeemed? I answer, that we are nowhere assured that all of his own family believed in him; still less the whole house of David, of which they were only a branch. To the fact, whether any of that family be still left among the unredeemed of Israel, let the Jew answer. If not, then where is their expected Messiah to come from? But if there be such, then have these not yet received the salvation which is through Christ; and as far as they are concerned, the words of the prophecy yet remain to be fulfilled, however it may have received its fulfilment in regard to others. When it shall please God to remove the veil which is before their eyes, and to restore the spiritual strength which they have lost, then will the following words be accomplished in them also, as it was to Judah in the apostolic age.

_In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and he that is feeble among them, at that day shall be as David, and the house of David shall be as God, as the Angel of the Lord before them._

The esteem and veneration with which the primitive Christians, and particularly the apostles, would be regarded for their purity and holiness, and for their spiritual strength, notwithstanding that they were designedly chosen from the lowest and most illiterate class of men, is here emphatically foretold. Their consequent success in preaching the gospel is next declared; the nations being destroyed, figuratively signifies their false religion being overthrown.

_And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come up against Jerusalem._

The next verse, which foretels _the pouring out of the Spirit_, so closely resembles the prophecy of Joel, of which St. Peter gave the interpretation on the memorable day of Pentecost; and at the same time, coupled the application with a reproach to the Jews for having crucified Christ (Acts ii.), that the Christian can hardly fail to see that they refer to the same event, though not here restricted to that particular day, as appears from “_the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem_” being mentioned; nor was the gift of the Spirit confined to the day of Pentecost, but continued to all on whom the apostles laid their hands.

_And I will pour out upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look to me for him whom they pierced, and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son; and be in bitterness for him as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn._

The most solemn fast almost universally observed throughout Christendom, in commemoration of Christ’s crucifixion, is manifestly the event which was here foretold, at least four centuries before its fulfilment. The prospect of its receiving a more evident accomplishment at any future period, seems to be rendered hopeless by the enumeration of the different families that follows, all such distinctions being now lost among the present race of Jews.

_And in that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon;_

_And the land shall mourn every family apart, the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;_

_The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Shimei apart, and their wives apart;_

_All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart._

If any thing more be intended by this emphatical repetition of the families mourning apart, beyond the strong expression of the depth of their grief, and the sincerity of their repentance, may it not be to convince the unbelieving Jews of the hopelessness of a more literal fulfilment after the loss of their genealogies?

NOTES TO CHAPTER XII.

Verse 2. :וגם על יהודה יהיה במצור על ירושלם

_When they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem._

Such is the translation in our version, a sense which can in no way be extorted from the words of the text, as every Hebraist must be well aware. The Jew, by inserting the relative _who_, as understood after the word Judah, renders the passage thus,

_And also upon Judah, who shall be in the siege against Jerusalem._

This is certainly no violation of the text, as the relative pronoun is often understood in Hebrew. But still I hold it to be a rule not to insert a relative unless the sense requires it, and I see no such necessity here, as either of the preceding nominatives, namely, _the burden of the prophecy_, or _the cup of trembling_, may govern the verb _shall be_, and thus we have, as I have rendered it, _and also upon Judah it shall be, in the __ siege against Jerusalem_; by which I understand _the burden shall_ be upon Judah also.

Verse 3. :אשים אח ירושלם אבן מעמסה לכל העמים

_I will make Jerusalem a burden stone for all people._

Here the Jew may probably ask, How can Jerusalem, in the spiritual sense, as signifying true religion, become a burden stone, or a cup of confusion to the heathen? I answer, in every way. In the first place, by frustrating, as it did, all their efforts to suppress and extinguish it;—in the next place, by its opposing and outraging all their worldly feelings, condemning their pride, and teaching humility, requiring them to receive their religion from one whom they despised as the most degraded of human beings, a crucified malefactor;—and, lastly, by stultifying all their previous notions, enjoining the restraint and control of the passions, instead of which their religion sanctified their indulgence as an act of devotion. Thus was Christianity, in every way, a cup of confusion, and a stumbling-stone to the heathen nations.

But against the spiritual exposition of the Old and New Jerusalem, as symbolizing the Old and New Covenant, the Jew may, perhaps, further object, that he was never taught to look for a New Covenant, and that he finds no intimation of it in the Prophets. This being a question of fact, rather than of reasoning, we must look to the Scriptures for the answer.

Without enumerating the many intimations of the sacrifices and ceremonies of the Old Covenant, not being _intrinsically_ acceptable to God, but of less estimation than the attributes of moral excellence, we find the following direct declarations of a New Covenant to be established at the Messiah’s coming, who is symbolically styled, _My servant David_. Thus in Isa. lv. 3, we find, _Incline thine ear and come unto me; hear and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David._ Ezekiel also says, chap. xxxiv. 24, _And I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them; I the Lord have spoken it; and I will make with them a covenant of peace_, &c. And again in chap. xxxvii. 26, he says, _Moreover, I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will place them and multiply them, and I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore._ But Jeremiah still more expressly declares the superseding of the Old, and the substitution of the New Covenant; while he describes the latter in terms equivalent to those used by Christ himself, “The kingdom of God is within you.” Thus Jer. xxxi. 31, _Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a New Covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. Not according to the Covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which my Covenant they brake, although I was an husband to them, saith the Lord. But this shall be the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people._

Here we have clear intimation of a new law superseding the old, the spiritual nature of the new being contrasted with the ceremonial of the old, by its being written in the heart; while the stress laid by all upon its everlasting duration, implies that the one preceding it was only meant to be temporary.

Verse 5. :ואמרו אלפי יהודה בלבם אמצה לי ישבי ירושלם ביהוה צבאות אלהיהם

_And the Governors of Judah shall say in their hearts, the inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength in the Lord of hosts their God._

“This text,” says Dr. Blayney, “has been supposed corrupt, and many attempts made to amend it. But without any alteration, it well expresses the sentiments of the men of Judah, concerning the interest they had in the safety of Jerusalem and its inhabitants, on which their own safety and security depended in a great degree,” &c. I fully agree with Dr. Blayney in the literal meaning of the words, which involves no difficulty; but in looking beyond the literal, to the symbolical and spiritual sense, considerable difficulty appears. A different solution from that I have offered at first occurred to me, which is this, that as _Judah_ means the earliest converts to Christianity, these being evidently contrasted with _the inhabitants of Jerusalem_, who were subsequently saved, the latter might mean the yet unconverted Jews. Upon this view, the anxiety of Christians for the conversion of the Jews, would appear to be the subject intimated in the verse before us; and as this idea may occur to others as it did to myself, I think it right to state my reasons for relinquishing it. One objection to this view is, that in verse 10, the _unconverted Jews_, if they be the inhabitants of Jerusalem, would here mourn the crucified Saviour, which would be a complete solecism. Another objection is, that the abolition of idolatry in the next chapter, instead of being represented as opening the way for the admission of the Pagans to Christianity, which it certainly did, would then be represented as opening the way to the conversion of the Jews, which it certainly did not, but rather had a contrary effect, as history declares. And, lastly, upon this view, the corruption of Christianity, leading to the loss of the spiritual Jerusalem, mentioned at the beginning of chap. xiv., instead of being ascribed to the Gentile church, would thus appear to be the work of the Jews, either of those more recently converted to Christianity, or of those still unconverted, both of which would be alike unreasonable. Such are the reasons which led me to reject that view, and adopt the one proposed in the text. With respect to the house of David, as signifying the Jewish converts who embraced Christianity subsequent to the Apostolic age, those objections do not apply.

Verse 10. :והביטו אלי את אשר דקרו

_And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced._

Blayney considers the אלי (or ילא), as simply a preposition, not a compound of אל with the affix pronoun י, the antecedent to אשר (or רשא), being understood, and renders the passage thus, _They shall look towards him whom they pierced._

The Jew argues from the change of person, that our version cannot be right, and he renders it, _They shall look to me concerning him whom they pierced._

In whatever way the passage be rendered, no doubt can remain in the mind of the Christian that Christ, who was pierced, is the person here alluded to; and this is the only point material to the present exposition. That the Jew should admit this, is not to be expected.

THE RABBI’S EXPOSITION, AND THE AUTHOR’S REMARKS. CHAPTER XII.

In the remaining chapters, I shall merely point out those parts in which the construction of the original is, or may be, different from that of the English version, as there seems no occasion to notice those passages where they both agree.

Verse 2. _Behold I will make Jerusalem a cup of confusion unto all the people round about, and also upon Judah, who will be in the siege against Jerusalem._

By this it appears that Judah, namely, those who will be without the city, will likewise be greatly confused at their being compelled by the other nations to take part in the siege, and fight against their brethren.

Verse 10. _And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications; and they shall look unto me __(CONCERNING)__ whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, &c._

The change of person clearly proves, that it is not he who was pierced, to whom they will look; but it must be considered as if it were והביטו על אשר דקרו (or ורקד רשא לע וטיבהו), or אלי על את אשר דקרו (or ורקד רשא תא לע ילא) particles are well known to be frequently omitted or exchanged. This may either allude to those who had been formerly slain for their bold admonitions and warnings; or to those who will hereafter be slain in battle.

They who apply this to the Christian Messiah, have another difficulty to solve, besides the one above mentioned, and that is, to explain how a death is to be lamented, which, as they believe, was indispensable to the salvation of so many myriads of souls. And further, it may be asked, if it was the especial will of God that this should be so accomplished, how could the perpetrators of his death avoid it? And, lastly, what cause had the house of David, comprising the Messiah himself, to supplicate for mercy on account of his death, in which they, being his own family, had surely no share?

Ver. 8. ובית דויד לאלהים (or םיהלאל דיוד תיבו) cannot mean, _and the house of David shall be as God_, but only as a powerful being, _as the Angel of the Lord before them_. The witch of Endor, who saw אלהים (or םיהלא) ascending out of the earth, surely did not mean to say that it was God. And in many other passages we find אלהים (or םיהלא) applied to mortals as well as to God.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

In answer to the difficulties proposed by the Jew, the Christian may say, that he does not mourn the death of Christ, but the sins that required such a sacrifice; and as to the free agency of those who crucified him, he will say, that God’s seeing fit sometimes to employ the wicked in accomplishing his purposes, does not imply that he first makes them wicked for the purpose. When was there ever a time, that none could be found in Israel who were ready to slay the prophets? And as to the difficulty in the text of verse 10, it is one of the Jews’ own creating, as the Christian finds none in receiving it as it stands without even the proposed alteration, an alteration admitted, but not proposed by him. The only remaining objection, which regards the house of David, has been anticipated and answered in the interpretation of verse 7.

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

The progress of the Messiah’s kingdom being regarded as that of Christianity, the next important step after the abolition of Judaism, was that of Paganism, which is evidently the subject of the chapter now before us; but along with this is coupled in the prophetic view another event, no less important, which arose out of, and accompanied the nominal conversion of the Gentile nations. This was the corruption of Christianity by the Pagan converts. For instead of relinquishing their former prejudices and superstitions, they retained, and brought most of them into the bosom of the church; and thereby in a short time totally changed the character of the religion which they professed to embrace.

It is true that this is a point of church history not always very distinctly stated by ecclesiastical historians; who seem more inclined to represent the conversion of Constantine, and the events of the fourth century, as every way favourable to the Christian cause. But the truth is, that precisely in proportion to the church’s advancement in worldly prosperity and power, were its spiritual decline and degradation; in so much that the best historians admit, that from this period are its degeneracy and corruptions most indubitably to be dated. So different is the light under which the same event appears, according as it is viewed with regard to its spiritual or its political import. Which of the two best accords with the spirit of this prophecy, the reader will be at no loss to decide, when he sees that no prosperity is here spoken of, but on the contrary, that the cutting off two-thirds of the inhabitants of the land, or their spiritual death, is the event which is coupled in the prophecy with the admission of the Pagans into the church of Christ. And such was truly the result that followed to the many; namely, the loss of the true spirit of Christianity.

But if the abolition of Paganism be the subject of this chapter, it may be asked, how comes the purification of Israel to be announced in the opening of it? The answer is plain. Adopted Israel may be here understood. To lineal Israel indeed was the prophecy given; and with Israel, idolatry was, and ever had been, the besetting sin; most nearly therefore were the Jews also concerned in its abolition.

Viewed, however, in the more enlarged sense, idolatry comprises the indulgence of every evil propensity; for Paganism, by appointing a presiding Deity over each, had sanctioned the unrestrained gratification of every passion, in making it an act of devotion. Christianity, on the contrary, enjoins the restraint and control of our passions, and thus becomes the natural antidote to the poison of Heathenism: or the fountain of purification from the sin and pollution of idolatry, as the opening of this chapter declares.

_In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness._

That day, as formerly explained, is to every one the day of his conversion to Christianity. The house of David, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, here, as in the last chapter, symbolically represent the later converts to Christianity; as the house of Judah, which was first saved, signify the earlier Christians. The nature of the sin and pollution to be thus washed away, is next declared to be idolatry, and its abolition is foretold.

_And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall be no more remembered; and also I will cause the prophets, and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land._

It may be worthy of remark, that _the names_ only _of the idols_, and not the spirit of idolatry, is here declared to be cut off; and _from the land_, which in prophetic language, commonly means the land of Israel, here, adopted Israel, or Christendom. Now, this nominal abolition took place in the fourth century, from which time both Jews and Gentiles have been prohibited from the open worship of idols. But we have now reached the nineteenth century without seeing the spirit of idolatry really extinct; if then the total abolition, which is yet to come, be here intimated, it must be symbolically foreshewn by the nominal abolition which then took place. _That day_, in regard to the inward and spiritual purification, is to be taken as the day of his regeneration to each individual, not as the same day to all collectively; but regarding the outward and ostensible abolition, this occurred when the pains and penalties of the Theodosian code prohibited the open practice of Pagan rites. The prophetic view may, however, include both.

_And it shall come to pass in that day, when any shall get prophesy, that his father and his mother that begat him shall say, Thou shalt not live, for thou speakest lies in the name of the Lord: and his father and his mother that begat him, shall thrust him through when he prophesieth._

To prophesy, or foretel future events, was the main purport of Pagan rites; no undertaking of any moment being entered upon until the priests and oracles had been previously consulted. This, in a superstitious age, formed a lucrative profession for the soothsayers and diviners, and was successfully practised, till the darkness of Heathenism was dispelled by the light of Christianity, as foretold in the next verse.

_And it shall come to pass in that day, that the prophets shall be ashamed, every one of his vision when he prophesieth; neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive._

The Pagan, as well as the Jewish prophets, appear to have worn a distinct dress; but after Paganism was abolished, those who practised its rites in secret, of course denied and sought to conceal it.

_But he shall say, I am no prophet but a labourer; for a husbandman bought me from my youth._

Slaves and bondmen frequently received a mark in their hands, to shew the master to whom they belonged; and persons attached to the Heathen temples were sometimes marked in a similar manner; the worshippers of Bacchus, for instance, were distinguished by the mark of an ivy leaf. (See Lowth in loco.) This explains the following verse.

_And one shall say unto him, What are these marks in thine hands? Then shall he answer, Those with which I was marked in the house of my friends._

Thus seeking to avoid the suspicion attached to the marks of Paganism, under the pretext of their being the indication of bondage or servitude. But this evasion denotes that the abolition of Paganism was ostensible only, as it was still practised in secret. In reality the advancement of Christianity to the imperial throne, instead of promoting the sincere conversion of the Pagans, only served to complete what had already begun, namely, the corruption of the Christians; whose character and conduct soon totally changed, after the road to the acquisition of wealth and power was opened to them. In the contests for the attainment of these, which soon arose, (witness the Donatist faction,) the majority of Christians in a short time lost sight of the spirit of their religion; while the rancour and cruelty with which different sects persecuted each other, sprang from the same source, or their rivalship in the struggle for worldly power, as Mosheim declares. Such was the spiritual sword which undermined Christianity, and destroyed the life which is in Christ; as next foretold.

_Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is next unto me, saith the Lord of hosts. Smite the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered; and I will turn mine hand against the little ones._

The sword is the symbol of strife and discord, warring against and destroying spiritual life, or the life in Christ; for he is the shepherd who is smitten by the sword, the person of Christ being here figuratively put for his doctrine or religion; the corruption of which is thus foreshewn by the dispersion and slaughter of his flock. The little ones signify the new converts, who are yet weak in their faith and principles; and thence more liable to be misled.

_And it shall come to pass that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts shall be cut off, and die; but the third part shall be left therein._

The history of the fourth century, here prophetically foreshewn, amply testifies, that only the smaller number of Christians, amidst the general corruption, resisted the allurements of avarice and ambition, and retained their purity; these having imbibed the true spirit of Christ’s religion, as next declared.

_And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people; and they shall say, The Lord is my God._

It seems scarcely possible to give a more unequivocal intimation of the spiritual import of the whole, as not alluding to political events, but as regarding the progress of true religion, than is contained in those expressions of the last verse, which declare, that the supplications of the smaller number will be offered up in a manner acceptable to God, who will hear and answer them. The particular period alluded to, is distinctly marked by the nominal abolition of idolatry, and the general corruption of Christianity. The only difficulty, however, if there be any, regards the chronological order of the events; as the prophecy seems to foretel the entire abolition of Paganism, which has certainly not yet taken place; but this difficulty will be in a great measure removed, by supposing the prophetic view to look forward from the partial to the total, from the nominal to the real extinction of idolatry.

With respect to the division of the flock into two parts, it must not be supposed that any distinction of sects is here alluded to, for no one could, more than another, claim the character of purity and holiness. True Christianity must be sought for in the heart, and not in the outward form of worship, or profession of faith.

NOTES TO CHAPTER XIII.

Verse 5. :כי אדם הקנני מנעורי

_For a man taught me to keep cattle from my youth._

Parkhurst, in his Lexicon, remarks upon this passage, as being _strangely_ translated in our version; while Dr. Blayney agrees with him in the translation. _For a man bought me, __(OR OBTAINED POSSESSION OF ME,)__ from my youth._ The Jew, while he acquiesces in the sense of הקנני (or יננקה) signifying _to appropriate_, contends that אדם (or םדא) does not mean merely _a man_, but a _husbandman_, or labourer, and renders it, _For a husbandman I was appropriated from my youth._ But neither the sense nor the grammatical construction thus appearing clear to my apprehension, as the verb is not in the first, but the third person with the suffix י _me_, after it; I propose to reconcile both by rendering the passage thus: _For a husbandman bought or appropriated me from my youth._ But in fact the difference is immaterial, as the sense, in whatever way expressed, is, _For I was a farmer’s servant, and a bondsman from my youth._

Verse 6. :ואמר אלין מה המכות האלה בין ידיך

_What are these wounds in thine hands? &c._

Both Lowth and Blayney agree in regarding these words as an allusion to the custom of the idolatrous priests and prophets, of marking themselves in the hands. Their being challenged as the marks of Paganism, is a sufficient proof of their being so, and I have rendered it accordingly, _marks_ instead of _wounds_. For if, as Blayney states, they were made by cutting and slashing themselves, still the marks, and not the wounds, would remain when healed.

Verse 7. :חרב עורי על רעי ועל גבר עמיתי

_Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, &c._

In supposing these words to have had no direct reference to the death of Christ in their original intention, notwithstanding their appearing from St. John’s Gospel to have been used by him, in forewarning his disciples of what was about to befal him, I offer no new opinion, for Dr. Blayney declares himself fully persuaded that they had not; and what gives weight to this opinion is, that it must have been founded on other grounds than those which have led me to that conclusion. For as Dr. Blayney had not embraced the spiritual view in expounding the prophecy, he could not be led to this inference by the same train of reasoning as myself. The words, גבר עמיתי (or יתימע רבג) he renders, “The man that is next to me,” which is certainly much nearer to the sense of the original than, _The man that is my fellow._

_Two parts shall be cut of, and die._

An awful annunciation! foretelling the spiritual death of two-thirds of the nominal Christian world. The corresponding passages in the Apocalypse predict the same event, and one of them in still stronger terms, for it is said, that “_Every living soul in the sea died._” Literally, this passage cannot be taken, for literally there are no _living souls_ in the sea. The sea means the Gentile nations, or Europe. _The life_ is life in Christ. The loss of that life, or spiritual death is the loss of true Christianity: here extending over the whole sea, or comprising all the Gentile converts; and the period of this death is yet scarcely elapsed, beginning with the dark ages, and continuing to the millenium. What! is Europe then still, or has it so lately been in a state of spiritual death or perdition? Such is the language of prophecy, and its meaning cannot be explained away or evaded. “_Every living soul in the sea dies._” The life in Christ is extinct. True Christianity no longer remains. Will _none_ then be _saved_? This the prophecy no where says. The Gospel teaches that many may be saved who never heard of Christ. Are all Mahommedans, and they execrate the name of Christian, doomed to perish? No Christian will surely maintain this, and still less that all misguided Christians are doomed to perdition. But still the life in Christ is lost. True Christianity no longer prevails. If then, without it, men may be saved, where, it may be asked, is the use of it? I answer, in every way, and every where it is useful. Did true Christianity prevail, the myriads might be saved; the few only would perish. Without it the few only can be saved, the many are left to perish. By Christianity, all are taught to live for the next world; without it, the many will live for this; few are those that will think of another. Christianity not only diffuses peace and happiness on earth, but fits every man for enjoying eternal happiness hereafter. Such is the saving virtue of Christ’s religion, in affording to all the _means_ of attaining to eternal life and eternal happiness. But to return to the age in which we live, or from which we are just emerging. This period is peculiarly the age of infidelity—all Europe bears testimony to the fact. But are they who profess belief, really Christians? Look to conduct, and not profession for the proof. Is this world, or the next, the object of pursuit? If conscience whisper, that we who believe, lack the true spirit; how can we expect it in those who disbelieve? Where then in true Christianity?

As this chapter, according to the Rabbi’s view, remains unfulfilled, so he offers no particular exposition of it, but limits his remarks to a few emendations of the received translation. Of these the only one any way material to the present discussion is that on verse 5, which has been already stated in the note on that verse.

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

The corruption of Christianity, as foretold in the last chapter, is allowed to have been the means that prepared the way for those events which are announced at the opening of the present one. The ambition of the clergy, and the state of ignorance in which they purposely kept their flocks, had completely succeeded, before the end of the sixth century, in subjugating the minds of the people, and in establishing the supremacy of the priesthood in the west of Christendom, while the last of these causes served to facilitate in the east the success of the Mahomedan imposture, which, as well as Papacy, was an offspring of the spurious form of religion then prevailing under the name of Christianity.

These two usurpations under the mask of religion, divided, at the beginning of the seventh century, what had once been the Christian world, between them; one occupying the western half of it, and the other the eastern, according to our mode of expression; but as regards Palestine, where the Prophet wrote, this division is more accurately represented, as expressed in the Prophecy, by northern and southern; the northern half engrossed by the Greek and Latin churches, which being essentially of the same nature, are here taken as one; while Mahomedism usurped the place of Christianity in the countries lying for the most part south of Palestine, as Arabia, Egypt, India, Persia, and others. (See note on this.)

Such are the occurrences foreshewn in the opening of the present chapter; which _now_ does, if it did not previously, declare the capture and pillage of the holy city, or the loss of the spiritual Jerusalem, true religion; this being followed by a portent awfully expressive of the events which succeeded this loss, namely, the cleaving asunder of Mount Olivet; (a symbol for nominal Christianity, Mount Zion signifying true Christianity, Mount Sinai Judaism;) one part of which moves northward, and the other southward, leaving a deep valley between them for the escape of those who are not involved in this spiritual captivity or destruction.

After this follows the intimation of a period of spiritual obscurity, which is declared to be neither day nor night, neither clear day-light, nor utter darkness; but on the evening of that day, light is said to dawn again, and living waters once more to flow out of Jerusalem. At length this is to be succeeded by the restoration of Israel, and the universal establishment of true religion in the new Jerusalem.

While the loss of true religion is clearly foreshewn in the capture of the spiritual Jerusalem, with which this chapter commences; and while the rise of Papacy and Mahomedism is foretold in the cleaving of Mount Olivet; the Christian will readily perceive, in the day of obscurity that follows, the dark ages shadowed forth; and in the dawn of light that breaks forth at the evening time, he will see intimation of the restoration of true religion at the reformation, when living waters again begin to flow out of Jerusalem.

The conclusion of this chapter, and of the Prophecy, declares the final and complete establishment of the Messiah’s kingdom; that happy period for which we are taught to pray in the words, “_Thy kingdom come._” Concerning the nature of this kingdom, the Jew not only differs from the Christian, but Christians also differ from one another. Before I attempt to decide so difficult a question, I shall state the prevailing opinions, and what the prophets have said on the subject.

The Jews expect, at the coming of their Messiah, the establishment of their political, as well as their spiritual supremacy over all the earth. The Christians reject all idea of a political kingdom, but differ in their views of it as a spiritual one. Some understand it to signify the universal establishment of true Christianity on earth, with the full enjoyment of all the blessings which it is calculated to afford; others at this second advent, look for the personal appearance of Christ on earth, to reign with the saints, who will be raised from the dead, to receive the reward of virtue in his kingdom; while many regard his kingdom as signifying a future state of happiness, having no connexion whatever with the earth we now inhabit, but to be enjoyed in an eternal abode, of which they have an indefinite idea as existing somewhere above the firmament.

This last, which is perhaps the most popular notion, seems least consonant to Scripture and prophecy; which distinctly speak of a kingdom _on earth_, as it is understood by the Jews; though not necessarily, as they suppose, a political one. As this is the chief point on which I am at issue with my opponent, I shall presently state the manner in which this city, the New Jerusalem, is spoken of by Isaiah and St. John. But previously I think it right to notice a fallacy in what I take to be the ground on which the popular notion of this kingdom rests; namely, because St. John in the Revelations gives intimation of a resurrection preceding, or accompanying its establishment. Now, we have, as I conceive, no just ground for assuming, in a vision, every other part of which is figurative, that this part alone is to be understood literally. Why, I should ask, may not this resurrection, like the rest, be also symbolical, or signify regeneration to newness of life? which our Saviour expressed by being _born again_; that is, a total change in our nature and habits, such as was produced in his apostles and disciples by the gift of the Holy Spirit. But even admitting the literal resurrection to be here intimated, (and no Christian can doubt the reality of a resurrection,) yet this would not be at all incompatible with a future existence on earth, a light in which it is viewed by many: we shall therefore inquire what the Prophets have said that may throw light on the nature of this kingdom on earth.

Both Isaiah and St. John, in speaking of the New Jerusalem, use the two-fold metaphor of a City and a Woman. In Isaiah liv. 11, et seq. this city is represented as having foundations of sapphire, windows of agate, and gates of carbuncle; and St. John, Rev. xxi. 16, describes it as built entirely of precious stones, having twelve gates, each of one solid pearl, and its streets paved with gold; being, moreover, equal in all its dimensions, that is, as broad as it is long, and as high as it is wide, to wit, twelve thousand furlongs, or fifteen hundred miles. This is surely very unlike a literal city; but this City shortly becomes a Woman, in St. John, and is styled “The Lamb’s Bride;” while Isaiah, using the same change of metaphor, says, “For thy Maker is thy husband.”

If we now look to the context in Isaiah, for the purport of this figurative language, we shall find that he says, chapter liv. 14, “In righteousness shalt thou be established;” and again, chapter lx. 19, “But thou shalt call thy walls salvation, and thy gates praise;” and from chap. lxi. it appears throughout, that this description is intended to portray _the perfection of righteousness, the beauty of holiness_, and the _riches of grace_; these being, as declared, the ornaments destined to adorn the Bride. It is with _a robe of righteousness_, and _a garment of salvation_, that _she will adorn herself_, as Isaiah expresses it, chap. lxi. 10.; while St. John abounds in similar expressions; thus in Rev. xix. 9, speaking of the Bride’s apparel, he says, “For the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints;” and of the City, which nothing impure is permitted to enter, he says, chap. xxi. 23-27, “For the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb was the light thereof.” Thus both, under this highly figurative description, appear to signify no literal city, or political state, but one which is altogether spiritual; that is, the utmost possible degree of purity and holiness, which will constitute this _heaven upon earth_; the New Jerusalem.

This chapter opens with the denunciation of divine wrath about to fall upon mankind on account of the corrupt state of religion. The expression used to foretel this, belongs more peculiarly to the day of judgment, called the _day of the Lord_; but is often employed in prophetically foreshewing particular judgments on the world, as here:

_Behold the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee._

_For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished, and half of __ the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city._

The loss of the holy city, and the spiritual captivity of half its inhabitants, which is the bondage of sin, is the particular calamity here foretold; and this is followed by the punishment of those who were the authors of this evil, the enemies of true religion, who war against Jerusalem.

_Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle._

The nations must signify here, as elsewhere, the Gentiles, or Pagans, whose spiritual hostility against true religion was shewn, as before stated, by their corrupting and paganising Christianity; while the judgment denounced against them consists in God’s permitting the rise of the two great Antichristian usurpations, Papacy and Mahomedism. One, the man of sin, spoken of by St. Paul, (1 Tim. iv. 1, and 2 Thess. ii. 3,) a spiritual tyranny, enslaving the minds of men; and the other, the abomination of desolation, mentioned by Daniel, chap. viii. verses 10-12, and, as he expressly foretold, permitted _by __ reason of transgression_, or as a judgment on the world, its avowed object being the propagation of religion by the sword. The division of the corrupt form of religion then prevailing, into these two Antichristian apostacies, is thus foreshewn.

_And his feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem upon the East, and the Mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the East, and toward the West, and there shall be a great valley, and half of the mountain shall move toward the North, and half of it toward the South._

A mountain, meaning a place of eminence or power, in spiritual language signifies religion; _Mount Sinai_, from which the Mosaic law was delivered, means Judaism, and is contrasted in the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. xii. 18-22, with Christianity, which is there called _Mount Zion_, and _the heavenly Jerusalem_. The Mount of Olives is neither of these, but here symbolical of nominal Christianity, destined to be split asunder; leaving, however, a valley between the two parts for the escape of those not involved in this spiritual destruction; from which may be inferred, that true Christianity would not become utterly extinct.

_And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains, for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee like as ye fled in the days of Uzziah, king of Judah, and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee._

The true Christian is thus admonished to fly, or avoid the prevailing apostacies; while divine favour and protection are promised to those who shun the general corruption. From the establishment of these two Antichristian dominations, a long day of spiritual darkness is declared to follow; which was accomplished in the reign of ignorance and superstition, during the period expressively denominated _the dark ages_. With God a thousand years are but as a day.

_And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear nor dark;_

_But it shall be one day, which shall be known to the Lord, not day nor night, but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light._

In the return of light at the evening time of that long day of obscurity, we see intimation of the revival of true religion at the reformation; which is still more clearly expressed as follows.

_And it shall be in that day that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem, half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea; in summer and in winter it shall be._

The former and the hinder sea, or as Dr. Blayney proposes to render it, the Eastern and the Western Sea, may literally signify the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean; but figuratively the Eastern and Western Gentiles, who will receive the benefit of the spiritual waters. The expression, in summer and in winter it shall be, signifies literally, that they shall neither be dried up by the summer’s heat, nor congealed by the cold of winter; but figuratively must mean, that the purity of religion shall not again be corrupted by the heat of fanaticism on the one hand, nor frozen by the cold of infidelity on the other. The universal prevalence of true religion is then declared. (See note.)

_And the Lord shall be king over all the earth; in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one._

The fulfilment of what now remains of the prophecy appears to be still future, and consequently it does not fall within the limits of our plan to attempt the particular exposition of each part of it; but sufficient, it is hoped, will be found in what is already accomplished, to convince the Christian reader of the general purport of the whole; and to warrant the statement made at the outset, that these six chapters are not, as former commentators have supposed them to be, a collection of unconnected predictions relating to different subjects, but one continued and uninterrupted prophecy, presenting a view of the progress of our religion, from its promulgation to its final establishment in purity and perfection.