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. 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

תפארת

1 "By tents, in my opinion, the prophet means huts, which cannot afford any protection to their guests and inhabitants. There is a contrast 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 a (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

very striking, show that up with must be understood as denoting an effort to attain to something. We have here the conclusion of the first part, in which the victory of Israel over the heathen world is predicted. The second part commences in ver. 10, with an announcement of the restoration of the children of the kingdom. Michaelis observes that "this prediction was evidently not fulfilled in the early part of the New Testament history, for not only had God at that time not destroyed the heathen, who came to destroy Jerusalem, but, on the contrary, by their instrumentality he destroyed Jerusalem itself, along with the Jewish state and Levitical worship." But this remark is founded upon the erroneous idea, that by Jerusalem in this passage we are to understand the literal city of Jerusalem; whereas, according to the previous chapter, this was already destroyed. The first fulfilment of this prophecy on a large scale was the destruction of Rome, as the heathen mistress of the world (see Rev. xvii. 18). The limitation "unless they repent," is of course implied, and this is expressly stated in chap. xiv., where the Messiah's rule of justice and of peace is represented as embracing all the Gentiles to the ends of the earth; (compare chap. ix. 10).

Ver. 10. "And I pour out my spirit upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitant of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and of supplication, and they look upon me, whom they have pierced; and they mourn for him, as the mourning for an only one, and they lament for him, as the lamentation for a first-born."

This verse is connected with Joel ii. 28. "And it shall come to pass afterwards, that I will pour out my spirit," and the connexion is sufficient in itself to show that we have a prophecy before us, which relates to the Messianic era in its fullest extent, from the time of the atoning death of the Messiah onwards. The fulfilment of the primary prophecy took place on the day of Pentecost; and the events of that day had also a prophetical character, and constituted, as it were, a practical renewal of the predictions of Joel. By the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem we are to understand the members of the ancient covenant-nation, those whom Peter addresses in Acts iii. 25 as "sons of the prophets and of the covenant." At first sight it appears strange, that in this pas

sage as well as in chap. xiii. 1 Judah should not be mentioned at all, but merely the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. But this may be explained from the custom, which was prevalent among the earlier writers, of designating the whole nation by the name of its central-point or capital, Jerusalem or Zion. In the first part we frequently find Jerusalem only mentioned by name, although the prophet evidently had the whole nation in his mind. Compare, for example, chap. iii. 2," the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee," and

chap. viii. 8. In other passages, e.g. chap. i. 12, Jerusalem and the cities of Judah are employed to denote the whole.never means "to entreat," as Hofmann would render it. He appeals to Job xix. 17; but the proper rendering of this verse is "I mourn for the sons of my body," in other words, "I mourn for the loss of my children." Ewald's rendering, "a spirit of love and of the wish for love," is also merely an attempt to get rid of a difficulty. is never used for love to God, or even love to brethren, but love towards an inferior, that is grace. With reference to the genitive Hitzig observes, "a spirit of grace and of supplication, of the latter inasmuch as it produces it, of the former inasmuch as the impartation of it is an act of Divine grace;" but he also adds, “at the same time there appears to be something harsh and unparalleled in such a combination of two genitives with entirely opposite meanings. If the spirit of supplication is the spirit which produces supplication, the spirit of grace must also be the spirit, which is the efficient cause of grace, or brings grace in its train. Compare the precisely similar combination in Is. xi. 1, "the spirit of wisdom, of power," &c. From its connection with the supplication, again, the grace referred to here cannot be the grace of God objectively considered,1 but grace regarded as an active principle working within. Wrath and mercy, which have their roots in God, produce a distinctive kind of life in the hearts of men. In Rom. iv. 15, "because the law worketh wrath,” wrath is not exactly the consciousness of wrath, though it is evidently regarded as manifested in the heart of the sinner. With reference to the grace, there is a perfect parallel in Heb. x. 29, "and hath done

1 Maurer, "animus qui gratiam divinam conciliet."