it is already partially fulfilled. That the house of David was also affected by this movement has been convincingly proved by Schmieder from Acts i. 14, "these all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication-(the supplication here, the grace in chap. iv. 33)-with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brethren," in connexion with which it is important to observe that the guilt was national, and even those who had previously believed on Jesus felt that they were involved in it. The only passage in the New Testament, in which this prophecy is actually quoted, is John xix. 37, "and again another scripture saith, they shall look on him whom they pierced." On the connexion between this quotation and the prophecy itself, the following remarks are needful. (1). The only point in which the citation differs from the original is in the change of the first person into the third. In Zechariah the Messiah himself is represented as speaking; in the gospel, John speaks of him. There is no ground for inferring from this, as Bleek has done, that the Apostle, who has not employed the Septuagint on this occasion, but translates direct from the Hebrew, had another reading before him, especially when we observe that Matthew does precisely the same thing in the case of Zech. xi. 13, which is quoted by him in chap. xxvii. 9. The desire to secure greater perspicuity is a sufficient explanation. If John had not read

upon me," in the gospel, he could not have been so confident that the prophecy referred to Christ, as not this passage alone, but also Rev. i. 7, evidently prove that he was. (2). Although Vitringa (obss. ii. 9, p. 172) and Michaelis have taken great trouble to maintain the opposite, it is obvious that the words are quoted by John in immediate connexion with the piercing by the lance, and not with reference to the crucifixion of Christ generally. In vers. 31-33 he relates that the legs of Christ were not broken, like those of the others; and in ver. 34 mentions the piercing of his side. He then proceeds in ver. 36 to cite a passage from the Old Testament in explanation of the first fact; and in ver. 37 brings forward another in connexion with the second. At the same time it by no means follows that John merely refers to the prophecy in connexion with this particular circumstance, or that he regarded it as entirely restricted to this, but only that he looked upon this as actually a fulfil

ment of the prediction ;-and with perfect justice, inasmuch as the piercing with a spear, in common with the entire crucifixion, is represented in Acts ii. 23 as a work of the Jews, not indeed from a material, but from a spiritual point of view. That John is very far from restricting the prophecies to the particular circumstances, in connexion with which they are quoted by him, is obvious from chap. xviii. 9. The prophecy before us would evidently lose much of its meaning and importance, if the verb 727 were to be understood as relating simply to the one fact of the piercing with a spear. It is rather to be regarded as depicting the whole of the sufferings with which the death of the Messiah was attended. That the death itself is the essential point, and not the instrument employed or the manner of the death, is evident from chap. xiii. 7, where a sword is mentioned, whereas points rather to a spear. Lücke has very correctly 727 observed, "at the time when John composed his gospel, a considerable number had already been gathered out of the hostile Jewish world, of such as looked to the crucified One for their salvation. In this sense the ovovтai (they shall look) had been fulfilled." In addition to this distinct quotation there are two other passages, in which there is evidently an intentional allusion to the one before us. The first is Matt. xxiv. 30, "And then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." The other is Rev. i. 7, "Behold he cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him." These passages contain a kind of sacred parody of the prophecy in Zechariah. They show that side by side with the salutary contrition, the godly sorrow, of which Zechariah speaks, there is another kind, viz., the Judas-contrition of despair; that by the side of the voluntary look, directed to the crucified One, there is another, an involuntary look, which even unbelief cannot escape. The fearful meaning involved in this allusion will be learned by every one. It shows, moreover, that the prophecy was referred to Christ, by both the Lord himself and his apostles.

HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION.

1. AMONG THE JEWS.

A valuable collection of materials has been made by Frischmuth and Salemann; by the former in his dissertatio de Messia confixo (thes. theol. phil. i. p. 1042 sqq.); by the latter in his Jehovah transfossus (ibid. p. 1054 sqq.). Even before the coming of Christ it was natural that the Jews should mistake the true meaning of the prophecy; for it not only pointed to a suffering and dying Messiah, like Is. liii., but to a suffering and dying Messiah, connected with God by a mysterious unity of essence, a mystery which could not be fully comprehended till the Son of God appeared in the flesh. Among the Jews after the time of Christ, the difficulty of interpreting the passage necessarily increased; for not only did they want the light of fulfilment, like those of an earlier age, but they were driven into a corner by Christian controversialists, who took it as the basis of their arguments. How little ground we have for expecting impartiality under these circumstances, is evident from the candid confession made by Abarbanel, that the chief object which he had in view in his exposition was to remove the stumbling block, laid by Christians in the way of his people, when they interpreted the prophecy as relating to the crucified One. The history of the interpretation of this passage among the Jews is little more, therefore, than an account of the principal methods employed by them in the distortion of prophecy,-methods which led to such contradictory results, as to furnish a powerful argument against their correctness.

1. Some sought to get rid of the difficulty by giving to 727 the figurative meaning "to pierce," in other words, “to grieve.” According to the exposition, the verse depicts the contrition of the Jews on account of the sins committed by them against the Lord. This view was adopted by the translators of the Septuagint, who rendered the clause, επιβλέψονται πρὸς μὲ, ἀνθ' ὧν κατωρχήσαντο. Jerome and many others suppose that the translators mistook and examples of similar

for

for דָקָרוּ רָקָדוּ

transpositions are no doubt to be found. Lud. Cappellus and others suggest the probability of their having found in their MSS.; but this is very unlikely, as there is nothing else to favour such a reading. Others, including Cocceius and Buxtorf, think that, as they did not know how to get over the difficulty, they substituted by mere conjecture. We should not mention the fact, that the blind prejudice shown by Voss (de translat. LXX. interprett. p. 20 and 77) in favour of the Septuagint, has led him to maintain that ȧve' ŵv кaтwрxńσavto is a later corruption, were it not that Ewald has given expression to the same opinion (commentar. in Apoc. p. 93). The only explanation that can be given of this is the wish to get rid of an important argument for the genuineness of the Book of Revelation, namely the remarkable agreement between John xix. 37, and Rev. i. 7 in the rendering of the words quoted from this passage, an agreement which cannot be set aside by merely referring to a similar coincidence in the use of the word ÈKKEVTeîv by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, since in their case the one quoted from the other and their agreement is entirely restricted to the use of the word EKKEVтeîv.-Very few have hit upon the true explanation, namely that the translators read but thought the literal meaning of the verb unsuitable, and therefore understood it figuratively, "to pierce," in the sense of "to vex." Lampe, among the earlier commentators, has adopted this explanation (Comm. on John part. 3, p. 633). The conjecture is changed into a certainty, if we merely look at the other examples of a similar mode of procedure on the part of the translators in the very same section. The most remarkable is chap. xiii. 3, where we find another instance of transposition in connexion with the same verb In this case also the meaning 727:

to pierce seemed to them inappropriate, since they could not imagine that parents would be so cruel as to kill their own son, and probably also because, like many of the later commentators, they imagined that the same individual was alluded to in vers. 5 and 6. If so he could not be regarded as killed. In this case they render the verb ovμπodíčew, to bind the feet together, whereas in every other instance they translate it ἀποκεντεῖν, ἐκκεντεῖν,

κατακεντεῖν, οι τιτρώσκειν. —We have another example in chap. xii. 8. They were startled to find it stated there, that the house of David should be as God. Hence they translated, ὡς οἶκος θεοῦ ; whilst Jonathan on the other hand endeavoured to remove the ground of offence by giving to the meaning of prince. So much may perhaps he conceded to the supporters of the other hypotheses, that the translators were led to select the verb κаторxéομaι, to express the idea of contempt and wickedness, by the recollection of the word they probably regarded as allied to 7

רקד

which

We have no hesitation in giving the same explanation of the Chaldee version, the words of which have been so often misinterpreted, and of which, so far as we are aware, the only correct explanation that has ever been given is that of Lampe

וְיִבְעוּן מִן קָדָמַי עַל דִי ut supra). The passage is rendered)

bubun

The translation usually given of this is, "orabunt coram me, quoniam translati fuerunt" (compare Lightfoot on John xix. 37). The meaning of the paraphrast is supposed to have been, that the Jews would turn to the Lord, with bitter lamentation on account of their captivity. But the objection to this is, that nothing can be pointed out in the text, which could give rise to such a translation. The difficulty, however, is removed, if we understand by as meaning to wander about in a moral sense, to rove about so as to lose sight of the Lord; compare vagatio, lusus; ambulator, otiosus spectator (see Buxtorf s. v.).—This explanation has been given up by the modern Jews, who all agree in translating 727 literally. But it has found supporters in the Christian Church; and we will now enquire whether it is admissible. It must certainly constitute a grave objection, that in every other case is used in a literal sense, never figuratively, and that we have an example in this very section in chap. xiii. 3, a passage, which is the more important on account of the close relation in which it stands to the verse before us: they had wickedly pierced the good shepherd, but now they pierce the false prophet righteously. But the words which follow are a sufficient disproof of the