רקר thought intended by the prophet. The cause, which has led to this conclusion, has been the erroneous assumption, that the false prophet mentioned here must be one of those, whose actions are described in the following verse. There is an allusion in to chap. xii. 10, where the same verb is employed. (Compare the remarks on that passage).—In the laws of Moses respecting the false prophets, two classes are mentioned, those who utter false prophecies in the name or by the authority of the true God, pretending to be His servants and messengers, and those who prophesy in the name of strange gods, and derive their inspiration from them. In the verse before us the prophet introduces one of the former; in vers. 5 and 6 one of the latter. Ver. 4. "And it cometh to pass in that day, the prophets will desist, with shame, from their vision in their prophesying, and they will no more put on the hairy mantle to lie." Upon the prophets themselves, the deceivers, who are least open to good impressions,-the great revolution will have such an influence, that they will give up their occupation with shame. The hairy garment was the dress of the true prophets, and was imitated by the false ones, to impose upon the common people, in whose estimation the dress makes the man (compare Is. xx. 2; 2 Kings i. 8; Rev. xi. 3). According to the general idea the prophets wore this kind of clothing as ascetics; and Vitringa (on Isaiah) has very strenuously defended this view. But as the hairy garment is on other occasions always peculiar to mourners, as the prophets themselves not infrequently order it to be worn as a sign of sorrow for sin and for the judgments of God, which are either threatened or have already fallen, it is a more natural conclusion, that in their own case also it had the same meaning, that it was a sermo propheticus realis, a symbol of the prophet's grief for the sins of his nation, and the consequent judgments of God; and this supposition is confirmed by the fact, that we have no indication that any of the prophets of the Old Testament led a strictly ascetic life. The expression "to lie" may either mean that they dressed in this way to give themselves out as true prophets and the better to impose upon the people, or that they did it to gain credence to their lying prophecies. The former is the more probable on account of the following verse, where the false prophets, who have hitherto pre tended to be true, are described as candidly confessing that they are no prophets at all. Strange to say, it has been maintained by Ewald and even by Schmieder, that the prophet foretels the overthrow of the whole existing order of prophets, and that, in fact, the words of vers. 2-4 betray the author's opinion, that the prophets, as a whole, were false. (Hitzig). This is just as rash as the conclusion, to which some have come, that the rejection of sacrifice is announced in Is. i. and lxvi. In every one of the three verses we have a distinct sign, which serves to mark the prophet as a false one; in ver. 2 the association of the unclean spirit along with the notice of the prophet; in ver. 3 his speaking lies; and in ver. 4 his deceiving. If the prophet had disputed the claims of the prophets, he would by so doing have denied his own existence. It is evident, however, from chap. vii. 3, 7, and 12, that he held the true prophets in very great esteem. This is also apparent from the fact that his announcements universally rest upon the predictions of the earlier prophets. A future revival of prophecy is expressly predicted by Malachi, the last of the old line, in chap. iii. 1. Ver. 5. "And he saith, I am no prophet, I am a husbandFor a man has sold me from my youth." man. The false prophets were, for the most part, of humble rank. The leading motives, by which they were actuated, were idleness, which made them dislike to work for their living, and ambition, which led them to push themselves into the more respectable order of teachers of the people. This is evident from many passages; among others from Is. ix. 13, 14, where the honourable man is described as the head of the nation, the false prophet, on the contrary, as the tail, the representative of the common people.-At the time referred to, however, better principles will so thoroughly have gained the upper hand, that they will prefer to pass for what they are, even though they may be nothing more than common husbandmen, rather than for what they once wished to be considered. The prophet depicts a scene between a man, who has formerly been a false prophet, and some one who asks him what he is. At first he is ashamed to answer, and tries to hide the fact that he has been a false prophet; but a second question forces from him the humiliating acknowledgment (ver. 6). This dramatic character of the whole ואמר account is a sufficient explanation of the double use of (in this verse and ver. 6), without any further or more precise description of the persons speaking. In a drama the persons are known from their speeches and actions. has been rendered in very different ways. But this would never have been the case, if the translators had kept to the ordinary sense of the Hiphil. means to acquire, possess: Hiphil, to cause to acquire or possess, then, to give anything into a person's possession. The words "from my youth" are intended to avert the suspicion, that the husbandman of to-day was formerly a prophet. If he were not an independent farmer, but a farmlabourer in another man's service, he would apparently have been prevented by outward circumstances from ever acting as a prophet, however much he might have desired it. Undoubtedly, if he wanted entirely to escape suspicion, he might have adopted some better method, than beginning with the declaration, "I am no prophet." But his fear, lest he should be discovered, so completely overcame him, that he spoke without reflection, and by his very denial put the enquirer upon the true scent. Ver. 6. "And that man saith to him: what are the wounds then between thy hands? He saith: they have been inflicted upon me in the house of my lovers." מְאַהֲבִים In the opinion of many commentators the late false prophet still continues his lying. Others suppose, that he confesses his shame, and states that the wounds have certainly been inflicted upon him by his parents on account of his prophesying, and as he now sees from true affection. The latter is Jerome's explanation. But neither of these interpretations can be sustained. In both of them is taken in a good sense, whereas, from the nature of the Piel as an intensive form, it is always used to denote impure and sinful love, either carnal or spiritual, and especially that of idols. It occurs in this sense not less than fourteen times; first of all in Hosea; then in Jeremiah and Ezekiel; and these are the only books in which it is found. It is evident that it must have the same meaning here. To the objection adduced by Hitzig, "one single man could not call the idols his lovers," we reply, that there is nothing more objectionable in this, than in the fact that Isaiah calls the Lord his beloved or bridegroom in chap. v. 1, or that Solomon should be called Jedediah (compare my commentary on Solomon's Song). To the further objection that "the prophets are represented in the previous verse, as prophesying in the name of Jehovah, although they prophesy falsely, and not as idolaters,” it is a sufficient reply, that the first kind are noticed there, the second here. Moreover, in the period which Zechariah had more particularly in his mind, the line of demarcation between the two was not clearly defined. Hence we subscribe to the opinions of those, who believe that reference is made here to the wounds commonly inflicted in connexion with idolatrous worship.1 We shall content ourselves at present with proving, that this custom also prevailed in connexion with the forms of idolatrous worship, which existed among the Hebrews. The strongest proof is afforded by 1 Kings xviii. 28, where the priests and prophets of Baal are said to have "cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them." But a proof may also be found in Jer. xvi. 6 and xli. 5; from which we learn, that the heathen custom, which prevailed among the surrounding nations, particularly the Philistines and Moabites, of inflicting wounds upon themselves when any death had occurred or any great calamity had befallen the land (see chap. xlvii. 5 and xlviii. 37), had been adopted by the Hebrews. This custom was not a mere sign of grief, but was intimately related to idolatrous worship and the wounds inflicted in connexion with that worship. This is obvious from Deut. xiv. 1. The Israelites are there forbidden to wound themselves on occasions of mourning, on the express ground that they are the nation of God, which is not to be defiled by idolatrous practices. The connexion becomes still more apparent, when we look more closely into the origin and meaning of the custom of wounding as one of the rites of idolatry. We find the best explanation of this in a passage of Apuleius : 1 The principal passages, quoted as evidence of this custom, which was continued in the East even till modern times, are to be found in both the carlier and later commentaries on 1 Kings xviii. 28, and in Rosenmüller's A. und N. Morgenland iii. p 189 sqq. "Infit vaticinatione clamosa, conficto mendacio, semet ipsum incessere atque criminari, quasi contra fas sanctae religionis designasset aliquid, et insuper justas poenas noxii facinoris ipse suis manibus exposcere. Arrepto denique flagro, quod semiviris illis proprium gestamen est, indidem sese multimodis commulcat ictibus, mira contra plagarum dolores praesumtione munitus. Cerneres prosectu gladiorum ictuque flagrorum solum spurcitie sanguinis effeminati madescere." According to this passage, and another which Calmet has quoted from Clemens Alexandrinus, the custom of inflicting wounds originated in a vague consciousness of guilt and of the necessity for expiation, which manifested itself in such various ways in the ceremonies of idolatrous worship. The worshippers punished their own bodies without mercy, that they might thereby render a species of satisfaction, and secure the favour of the offended deities. Now this consciousness of guilt was excited in a peculiar manner by the death of friends, not merely because their loss was regarded as a punishment, but also because death in general, which comes so near to us in the death of those we love, affects even the rudest minds in such a manner as to excite a suspicion of what it really is, namely the wages of the sin of the human race. And this is also the case with public calamities, inasmuch as they are commonly regarded as judgments from an angry God, or from angry gods. But we are not left without proofs, that this custom of wounding was intimately associated with the rites performed by idolatrous prophets. We find it expressly mentioned in this connexion, in the passage quoted from the Books of Kings (compare ver. 29), whilst the whole narrative furnishes evidence of the intimate association between idolatry and false prophecy. The priests of Baal were also his prophets. There is a very remarkable passage, however, in Tibullus (1. 1, eleg. 1, ver. 43 sqq.), relating to the worship of Cybele: Ipsa bipenne suos caedit violenta lacertos, This close connexion may be traced to the consciousness that |