Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

dently here a comprehensive view of that which appears in history in a long series of events, the victorious course of the militant Church through the many centuries of the world's history, dating from the appearance of the good shepherd. But we have, lastly, a decisive proof that the prophecy does not relate to the literal Jerusalem, in the repetition of the same announcement in the Book of Revelation, where we find, not Jerusalem, but simply the Christian Church, which overcomes first of all heathen Rome, then the ten heathen kings, and last of all that form of heathenism which is revived in Gog and Magog.-In the words, "and there assemble themselves," &c., the prophet again describes the danger in the strongest terms; in order that the deliverance may appear the more wonderful from the contrast, and also that those who believe may not be disheartened.

Ver. 4. "In that day, saith the Lord, I will smite every horse with fear, and their riders with madness, and upon the house of Judah I will open my eyes, and I will smite every horse of the nations with blindness."

"He confirms what he has said a short time before, that, although the whole world should conspire against the Church, yet there is strength enough in God either to thwart all their attacks from afar, or to bring them to nought. And he mentions stupor, folly, and blindness, in order that the faithful may learn that God can destroy or scatter his enemies by secret means. Although, therefore, He does not fight with material swords, or employ the common method of warfare, yet, says the prophet, he is provided with other means of prostrating his foes." Horse and rider are characteristics of the might of the heathen; compare Ex. xv. 1, and Ps. xx. 8, "Some think of chariots, and some of horses, but we will think of the name of the Lord our God." The figure alone is all that we find relating to ordinary warfare here. Chap. ix. 11, sqq., where an actual war is referred to, has much more of a military character. The sword and the bow, arrows, trumpets, blood, &c., are all mentioned there. The meaning of the expression "smite the riders with madness," is brought clearly before us in 2 Kings vi. 18, where the Lord answers the prayer of Elisha by blinding his enemies, so that, instead of taking him, they rush into destruction. The house of Judah does not simply mean Judah itself, as it does in the

foregoing and following verses, where Judah is contrasted with Jerusalem, but appears to embrace the whole of the covenant nation.

Ver. 5. "And the princes' of Judah say in their hearts: the inhabitants of Jerusalem are strength to me in the Lord of Hosts, their God."

[ocr errors]

must be taken as a noun. Any other rendering is grammatically inadmissible, and fails to give an appropriate meaning. Vers. 6 and 7 throw light upon this passage. It is emphatically stated there that God will first of all deliver the weakest and most exposed portion of the covenant nation or Church, represented by the inhabitants of the provinces, as distinguished from the inhabitants of the capital, and will give them the most splendid victory over the common foe, that the former splendour of Jerusalem may not be so increased by the new distinction conferred upon it, as to throw Judah completely into the shade. In the verse before us the way is prepared for this announcement, by the statement that Judah does not entertain the most remote idea of any such good fortune and honour, but waits in calm humility and modesty, looking for deliverance solely from the capital, which is peculiarly favoured by God and enjoys his especial protection. Its own confession of inferiority renders it all the more obvious, that the glory which follows is a work of God, who is strong in the weak, and giveth grace to the humble. Schmieder justly observes that the princes of Judah are "a type of the leaders of those that believe, in every future age, whatever different names or titles they may bear in the course of centuries."

But

is not used

1 The use of the noun in this passage, and also in chap. ix. 7, to denote the princes and leaders of the covenant-nation, is very remarkable. Elsewhere it is merely applied to the hereditary princes of Idumea (Gen. xxxvi. 15, sqq., Ex. xv. 15, 1 Chr. i. 51, sqq.) It is true that many lexicographers bring forward Jer. xiii. 21, in addition to the passages from Zechariah, as an example of the more general use of the word. Schultens has shown (animadvv. phil. on Jer. xiii. 21) that there in the sense of prince, but means friend, as in other passages of Jeremiah (e.g. iii. 4). The peculiar use of this word in the case of Zechariah is an answer to the hypothesis of those who maintain that chap. ix. was composed by a different author from the one before us. It also furnishes a proof that the second part was composed after the captivity, and therefore that it is genuine. The use of the word, in such a sense as this, can only be explained by a study of the language of the earliest written documents, which Zechariah constantly employs.

The use of for

may be explained on the supposition that the princes of Judah speak in the name of the whole nation, just as in chap. vii. 3 the messengers of the people of the covenant enquire, "shall I weep, as I have done ?"

Ver. 6. "In that day will I make the princes of Judah like a pan of fire in the midst of sticks, and like a torch of fire among sheaves, and they devour on the right hand and on the left all the nations round about, and Jerusalem sits still further in her place at Jerusalem."

Jerusalem is personified in the first place as a woman. Notwithstanding all the acquisitions of her enemies, who are desirous of overthrowing her, she still continues to sit where she has hitherto been sitting. In Is. xlvii. 1 an announcement of an opposite character is made respecting Babylon, the representative of the world, "Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground without a throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans."

Ver. 7. "And the Lord will succour the tents of Judah first, that the splendour of the house of David and the splendour of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not exalt itself over Judah."

The tents or huts1 of Judah are contrasted with the splendid buildings of the capital, and probably indicate the defenceless condition of Judah, which made it absolutely dependent upon the assistance of God. There is a parallel passage in Ezek. xxxviii. 11. The clause "that the splendour, &c., do not exalt itself," refers not to the help of God, which was to be afforded to Jerusalem quite as much as to Judah, and in fact through the medium of Judah, but to the expression first, the false renderings of which it serves to preclude. It is not without a sufficient reason that is not repeated before Judah. "The simple mention of the name of Judah shows that Judah possessed no splendour on which it could pride itself."-Burckhardt.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

not "the boast," but the splendour and glory. The reference is simply to the possession of superior advantages, which, however, from the tendency of human nature, might easily lead to self

There is a contrast

1 "By tents, in my opinion, the prophet means huts, which cannot afford any protection to their guests and inhabitants. implied between huts and fortified cities." Calvin.

exaltation, not only over other men, but over God Himself, and an excessive accumulation of which ought therefore to be guarded against. The prophet appears to have had in his mind such an abuse as Jerusalem had formerly made of its superiority to the provinces in this respect. The strong are rescued by the weak, in order that the true equilibrium may be maintained, and, as Jerome says, it may be made apparent that in either case the victory is the Lord's." The "house of David" is the royal family in the kingdom of God, which culminated in Christ, and is continued in the princes and potentates in the kingdom of God, who become partakers of his spirit. In Ps. xlv. 17 the kings of the Messianic kingdom are represented as the Messiah's sons, and therefore as members of the house of David.

Ver. 8. "In that day will the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the stumbling among them in that day will be as David; and the house of David as God, as the angel of the Lord before them.”

The article in

(the stumbling one) divides the inhabitants of Jerusalem into two classes, the weak and the strong. The former are to take the place, which was once occupied by the strongest man among the latter, viz., David their ancestor, the brave hero and king; the latter are to occupy a position which had no existence in the previous economy. This is the prophet's method of expressing, by one particular example, the general idea that at that time the Lord would exalt his own people to a glory of which they had no conception before. The New Testament parallel is Luke vii. 28, "for I say unto you, among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist; but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." To the concluding words, " and the house of David," &c., there is a parallel in Mat. iii. 11, where John the Baptist says, "he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear." He is a weak man (lit. stumbling, then weak generally, cf. 1 Sam. ii. 4) in comparison with the Son of David, who comes after him. Elohim, by which many of the earlier expositors understood "angels" here, denotes divinity in general, as contrasted with human nature (see the comm. on Ps. viii. 5). On the other hand the expression "the angel of the Lord" (not an angel, as many render it), the re

vealer of God, to whom Zechariah frequently attributes both his names and his works, sets before us a distinct form within the sphere of duty. The expression "before them" also leads to the conclusion, that the angel of the Lord is intended; for there is evidently an allusion to the march through the desert, in which not merely an angel, but the angel of the Lord led the way. (Compare vol. i. p. 118, and also the remarks on Micah ii. 13, vol. i., p. 433). A hyperbole, such as we find in 2 Sam. xiv. 17, 20, cannot for a moment be thought of here, for we have the language of a prophet before us now. Moreover, the parallel passages, chap. xi., xii. 10, and xiii. 7, which show that Zechariah expected the angel of the Lord to appear in the Messiah, are opposed to such a conclusion as this. The house of David is not referred to here in the same sense as in ver. 7, but primarily in this its culminating point. It would be strange if Zechariah, when depicting the glory of the house of David under the New Testament, should separate it entirely from Him, in whom the unanimous testimony of the prophets declared that it would reach its highest point. That Zechariah expected the Messiah to spring from the house of David, is evident from chap. ix. 9, 10, iii. 8, and vi. 12, which refer, almost in so many words, to the earlier announcements of the descent of the Messiah from the tribe of David. But the glory of Christ descends to his servants, the leaders of the Church; compare Gal. iv. 14, "ye received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus." This can only be regarded, however, as the reflection of the glory, which, strictly speaking, rests upon Christ alone. The true equality of the house of David with God, and, as it is here stated by way of climax, with the angel of the Lord, could only be effected by such an union of the human nature and the divine, as was really accomplished in Christ. Humanity in itself could never be exalted to such a height as this. That it is not a mere resemblance, which is spoken of here, but a literal equality, is evident from the expression, " as David" in the pre

vious verse.

Ver. 9. "And it shall came to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the heathen, that come against Jerusalem." Many render this "I will seek out, for the purpose of destroying." But the words of chap. vi. 7, in which the parallel is

« ForrigeFortsæt »