is frequently used as a symbol of the judgment of God, which places men in this condition. Thus in Ps. lxxv. 9, for in the hand of the Lord there is a cup, and it foams with wine, it is full of mixture, and he pours out, and even the dregs thereof the wicked of the earth must swallow and drink." The reference here is to the judgments, which God prepares for the heathen world on account of their oppression of his people and his kingdom. See further Is. li. 17, 22, 23. "Awake, awake, O Jerusalem, which hast drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of his fury, thou hast drunk the dregs of the cup of giddiness, and wrung them out. Behold, I take out of thy hand the cup of giddiness, the dregs of the cup of my fury; thou shalt no more drink it again. And I will put it into the hand of them that afflict thee, which have said to thy soul, bow down," &c. When Jerusalem, subsequent to the coming of the good shepherd, in other words, the Church of Christ, is represented here as being a cup of giddiness to all nations round about, that is to the whole surrounding heathen world, this can only mean that their attacks upon Jerusalem will be followed by such judgments from the hand of God, as will deprive them of all their strength. He who presents the cup of giddiness, as the earlier passages prove, can be no other than God himself, whose judgments begin indeed at the house of God, but never continue to press as a "burden" upon it. it. In the description given of the enemies there is a gradation. Here they are called "all nations round about;" in ver. 3, first "all nations," and then, "all the nations of the earth." We are introduced here to a state of things, such as never existed under the Old Testament. It was for the name of Christ that Israel was first hated of all nations. Its earlier conflicts with the heathen world had all been with particular nations. The kingdom of God was first involved in a general conflict with the heathen world, when it put forth world-wide claims, and, not content with defending its own existence, assumed the attitude of a conqueror. According to one of the explanations most generally adopted, the meaning of the second part is that Judah also will be constrained by the enemy, and take part in the siege of Jerusalem. The supporters of this view are obliged to invent

1 This explanation is adopted in the Chaldee paraphrase, and also by Jerome "but Judah also, when Jerusalem is besieged, is taken by the heathen,

historical details, of which there is not only not the slightest indication in the text, but rather the very opposite. Again, nothing is gained by appealing to chap. xiv. 14; for when the verse is correctly rendered, there is no allusion whatever to any conflict between Judah and Jerusalem. The true rendering is this: also over Judah it will come in the siege against Jerusalem. Luther's translation is substantially correct: "it will also affect Judah, when Jerusalem is besieged." The subject to is to be obtained in part from sun, burden, in part also from the first clause. If Jerusalem is made a cup of giddiness, its own severe suffering is presupposed.

.יהיה after מצור We cannot supply

can only apply to a fortress, not to a country (see Deut. xx. 20). Hofmann supposes the country population to have taken refuge in the city. But this is precluded by what follows, where Judah is represented as acting independently of Jerusalem. Judah and Jerusalem are apparently contrasted here, as the inferior and superior portions of the covenant nation;-a similar distinction is made in ver. 8, within Jerusalem itself, between the house of David and the rest of the inhabitants. The type of this distinction lay before the prophet in the relation in which Jerusalem, the civil and religious capital, stood to the rest of Judah, which had formerly looked up to it with wonder and admiration, and still continued to do so (see, for example

and entering into alliance with them, is compelled to besiege its own capital." There are only two ways, in which this explanation has been defended with any plausibility. The first is that of Michaelis, to which Rosenmüller and Ewald subscribe, "but it will also be over Judah (ie., it will lie upon Judah, even Judah will be held or forced) in the siege," &c. The second is the one adopted by Kimchi, Hitzig, Maurer, and others, "but it (the cup of giddiness) will also be upon Judah, when it shall be compelled to come to the siege against Jerusalem," or else, "but even for Judah, Jerusalem is such a cup of giddiness." It is a sufficient reply to both of these, however, that there is not the slightest indication in what follows of any participation on the part of Judah in the siege of Jerusalem; on the contrary Judah is represented as the ally of Jerusalem, by whose victories, obtained through the help of the Lord, Jerusalem is to be delivered.

This argument tells all the more powerfully against the explanation given by Kimchi; for according to this, Judah is visited by severe punishment from God for its forced participation in the siege, whereas there is nothing but salvation announced in the verses which follow. A special objection to the exposition given by Michaelis may be found in the fact, that although his rendering of y is not in itself untenable (see Ezek. xlv. 17; Ps. lvi. 13), it is inadmissible here, on account of the parallelism of Judah and Jerusalem, which precludes the adoption of a different rendering in the one case from that given in the other.

Ps. cxxii. and lxxxvii. 2, "The Lord loveth the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob.") Very little can be said in favour of the idea that this contrast, which we meet with in the first part as well (chap. i. 12, ii. 16), is to be taken with strict literality, especially in the case of Zechariah, the character of whose prophecies is throughout figurative and symbolical. The contrast serves merely to prepare the way for the announcement which follows, that the Lord will first of all deliver the weakest and most helpless portion of the covenant nation, in order that it may be all the more apparent that the rescue is His work.

Ver. 3. "And it will come to pass the same day, I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all nations, all who lift it will be torn in pieces, and all the heathen of the earth are gathered together against it."

The figure of a heavy stone, which causes sprains and dislocations to those who overrate their strength and try to lift it, is so lucid in itself', that there is no reason to suppose, as most commentators have done, that there is a direct allusion to a custom, which Jerome says was very general in Palestine in his day, of lifting heavy stones as a trial of strength. Schmieder observes here with perfect accuracy, "thus did the heathen of the Roman empire attempt to lift the burdensome stone' of the Christian Church, by slaying the witnesses for Christ; but the heathenism of Rome bled to death of the wounds, which this 'burdensome stone' inflicted in return." But when he adds, "it cannot yet be determined with certainty, whether reference is made to the literal siege of a Christian Jerusalem, or whether the figure of a siege is merely the symbol of a hostile attack upon the heart of the Christian life," we must beg leave to differ from him. If the fulfilment commences with the death of the anointed one, Jerusalem can only stand for the centre of the Christian Church. And we are also led to this conclusion by the fact that in chap. xi. the whole of the holy land, and therefore of course the literal Jerusalem, is represented as given up to total desolation. A real conflict between the city of Jerusalem and all the nations of the earth is in itself a very improbable thing. We have evi

1 Damnum non sentiens, ipse magnum damnum iis affert." Marck.
VOL. IV.

E

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."

y 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."

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. But Schultens has shown (animadvv. phil. on Jer. xiii. 21) that is not used there is the sense of prince, but means friend, as in other passages of Jere. miah (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.