Skip to main content

Full text of "Christology of the Old Testament, and a commentary on the messianic predictions"

See other formats 


3564*5 
.6,H5I3 

V.3 



CLARK'S 



FOREIGN 



THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. 



NEW SERIES. 
VOL XIX. 



VOL. IN. 



EDINBURGH : 
T. & T. CLAEK, 38 GEORGE STREET. 



M D C C C L X T V. 



/^>( OF PR/yv^ 

f^^ UEC15197Q 
CHRISTOLOGY ^<l£hl5^ 



THE OLD TESTAMENT, 



COMMENTARY ON THE MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS. 



BY 

E. W. HENGSTENBERG, 

DR. AND PROF. OF TIIEOL. IN BERLIN. 



SECOND EDITION, GREATLY IMPROVED, 



TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN BY 

JAMES MARTIN, B. A. 
VOL. III. 



EDINBURGH : 
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET; 

LONDON : HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN : .JOHN ROBERTSON AND 00. 



31 D C C (; L X I V, 



MITH AND COMPANY, PR1NTBR8, SOCTH ST ANDREW STREET, EDINBURGH. 



NOTICE. 

This Work is copyright in this country by arrangement ivith the Author. 



LIST OF CONTENTS. 



Messianic Predictions in the Prophets. 
The Prophet Ezekiel. 
Preliminary Remarks, 
The Section.— Chap. xi. 14—21, 
The Section. — Chap. xvi. 53 — 63, 
The Section.— Chap. xvii. 22—24, 
Chap. xxi. 25—27, 
The Section.— Chap, xxxiv. 23—31, 
The Section.— Chap, xxxvi. 22—32, 
The Section.— Chap, xxxvii. 22—28, 
The New Temple. — Chap. xl. — xlviii 
The Section.— Chap, xlvii. 1—12, 
Daniel, 

Chap. vii. 13, 14, 
The Seventy Weeks. — Chap. ix. 24' 
Exposition. — " Seventy Weeks," 
" Are cut off," 



-27, 



• Upon thy People, and upon thy Holy City, 

■ To shut in transgression,' 
And to seal up sins," 
And to cover iniquity," 

■ And to bring everlasting righteousness," 
' To seal up Vision and Prophet." . 

And to anoint a Most Holy (or Holy of Holies, 

And thou shalt know and understand," 

From the going forth of the Word," 
' To restore and to build Jerusalem," 

Until an anointed one, a prince," 
' Are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks," . 

• Restored and built is the street, and firmly determin- 

ed ; but in narrow times," 
' And after the sixty-two weeks an anointed one will 

be cut off." 
' And there is not to him," . 
And the city and sanctuary will the people of a 

prince, the coming one, destroy," 
And it will end in the flood," 
And to the end is war ; decree of ruins,' 



Page 



1 
5 

16 

24 

29 

36 

44 

51 

58 

65 

77 

82 

92 

97 

101 

103 

104 

107 

112 

113 

115 

118 

128 

128 

130 

132 

137 

141 

145 
147 

155 
157 
159 



VI 



CONTENTS. 



Page 



" And one week will confirm the covenant to the many 
(or, ' he will confix-m the covenant to the many one 
week')" ...... 

" And the middle of the week will (in the middle of the 
week will he) cause sacrifice and burnt offering 
to cease," ..... 

" And over (the) summit of abominations (comes the) 
destroyer," ..... 

" And indeed until that which is completed and de- 
termined shall pour down upon the ruins," 
Precision of the dates, . . . . . . 

Commencement of the Seventy Weeks, ..... 

Termination of the Seventy Weeks, ..... 

Harmony between the Prophecy and its fulfilment with regard to the in- 
terval between the commencement and termination of the Seventy 
Weeks, .... 

The last week ; and the half-week. 
Modern Non-Messianic Expositors, 
The Prophet Haggai, 

Chap. ii. ver. 6 — 9, 
The Prophet Zechariah 
I.— Chap. i. 1—6, 
II.— Chap. i. 7— vi. 15, 

1. The vision of the Rider under the myrtle trees, chap. i. 7 — 17, 

2. The four horns and the four smiths, chap. i. 18 — 21, 

3. The Angel with the measuring line, chap, ii., 

4. Joshua, the High Priest, before the Angel of the Lox-d, chap, iii., 

5. The candlestick and the two olive trees, chap, iv., 

6. The flying roll, chap. v. 1 — 4, .... 

7. The Ephah and the woman sitting in the midst of it, chap. v. 5 — 11, 

8. The four chariots, chap. vi. 1 — 8, . 

9. The crown on Joshua's head, chap. vi. 9 — 15, 
Chaps, vii. and viii., .... 
Chap. ix. 1—10, ..... 
On the Land of Hadrach, 
Chaps, ix. 11 — X. 12, . 
Chap. X., ...... 



160 



165 

168 

189 
197 
202 
220 



222 
240 
249 
265 
267 
296 
304 
304 
305 
312 
314 
317 
335 
341 
342 
345 
349 
367 
369 
371 
423 
435 



THE PROPHET EZEKIEL. 



PKELIMIMKY EEMAEKS. 

EzEKiEL was a younger contemporary of Jeremiah. He was 
among the first that were carried away captive under Jelioiachin. 
The spot assigned him as a dwelling-place was on the Chaboras, 
and there he made his first appearance as a prophet in the midst 
of the exiles, in the seventh year before the destruction of Jeru- 
salem.^ It was not merely in point of time that Ezekiel stood 
in this relation to Jeremiah. His prophecies are based upon 
those of Jeremiah ; and it was probably this fact which after- 
wards gave rise to the legend that Ezekiel was Jeremiah's 
amanuensis. With such thorough individuality as Ezekiel pos- 
sessed, this dependence must have been entirely voluntary on 
his part. His purpose was evidently to show that his work 
rested upon the same foundation as that of the elder ser- 
vant of God, and to point out the essential unity of the word of 

1 The fifth year after the captivity of Jehoiachin is also called the thirtieth 
in the superscription. This means undoubtedly the thirtieth year of the 
prophet's life. The period of history is also mentioned, and we find ourselves 
involved in hopeless difficulties, as the commentaries of Hdvernick and 
Hitzig have recently shown, if we interpret it as a general statement of 
time. Moreover, it was of peculiar importance in the case of Ezekiel that 
emphasis should be laid upon the thirtieth year. According to the law the 
Levites entered upon the duties of their office in the thirtieth year of their 
age (Num. iv. 23, 30). Now Ezekiel was of priestly descent, and his pro- 
phecies breathe a priestly spirit. He shows himself to be the priest among 
the prophets, especially in the description of the new temf)^ with which the 
book concludes. In his thirtieth year Ezekiel would legally have commenced 
his du-'"" n connection with the outward temple. From this he was now 
far removed ; but at the same period of his life he was called to the service 
of the church, the antitype of the outward sanctuary. There was therefore 
a connection between the year thirty in the case of Ezekiel and the same 
year in that of John the Baptist and of Christ. 

VOL. III. A 



2 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

God, whatever diiferences might exist among the human mes- 
sengers, by whom it was declared. 

Ezekiel's sphere of action was a very important one. On the 
whole he had a better field assigned him than Jeremiah, By 
the providence of God it was just the besb portion of the nation 
which had been carried into exile. If we search for the human 
causes of this, they are to be found most likely in the fact, that 
the ungodly, who despised the predictions of the prophets, were 
ready to make any sacrifice for the purpose of obtaining permis- 
sion to remain in their own country ; whereas those who feared 
God, saw clearly that the destruction of the city was not only 
inevitable, but was the indispensable condition of its restoration, 
and therefore willingly obeyed the first summons, and went 
cheerfully to death, as being the only gate of life. Moreover, 
the conquerors most likely discovered, that the theocratical prin- 
ciple was the mainspring of the nation's existence, and were 
therefore most anxious to carry into exile such as still main- 
tained that principle, from a conviction that, if they were out of 
the way, the nation would inevitably fall to pieces. That this 
was the relation in which the exiles stood to those who were left 
behind, is particularly evident from Jer. xxiv. The former are 
there described as the nursery ground, the hope of the kingdom 
of God. Still the distinction was only a relative one. God had 
to make Ezekiel's forehead like an adamant, harder than flint, 
that he might not fear them, nor be dismayed at their looks ; 
for they were a rebellious house (chap. iii. 9). Many of the un- 
godly had been carried away against their will, and even those 
who feared God dwelt among a people of unclean lips; and 
through the increase of iniquity their love had grown cold. The 
weak were surrounded by many temptations, which threatened 
to destroy the hopes of the kingdom. They had been trans- 
ported all at once to the very heart of the heathen world, and 
the idolatrous spirit of the age pressed upon them with fearful 
force. The long predicted judgment on Judaea was still 
delayed. The kingdom of Zedekiah appeared to be firmly 
established. The Egyptian alliance still kept alive the hope of 
entire restoration. The seducers of the people in Jerusalem 
did not lose sight of the exiles, and even found them ready 
to assist them. Human hopes gained strength on every hand. 



PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 



Soon, it was thought, would the way be opened for a return to 
the native hind ; and the thought was quickly followed by the 
determination to co-operate for that end. But if such a state of 
mind should generally prevail, the design of God, who had sent 
them into the land of the ChaldaBans for their good, would be 
frustrated. As long as they continued to look about for human 
methods of deliverance, they would never be able to tread with 
earnestness the path of God, which led first through repentance. 
To return to the Lord was the task assigned them. When this 
was done the return to their own country would as certainly 
follow, as that country was the Lord's own land. — But even 
those who had kept aloof from such gross transgressions were 
wavering, and needed to be strengthened. There was so much 
that seemed to testify that God had quite forgotten them ; they 
were entirely cut off from the sanctuary, and dwelt in a foreign 
country ; their brethren, who were in possession of the holy land 
and temple, treated them with supercilious contempt, and looked 
upon possession as a positive proof of right. All this had 
brought them very nearly to despair. The Lord, however, now 
began to fulfil the good word which he had spoken to the e.\iles 
through Jeremiah (chap, xxiv.) ; He raised up in their midst 
Ezekiel, a man who lifted up his voice like a trumpet and 
declared to Israel its sins, — whose word fell like a hammer upon 
all the pleasant dreams and projects in which it had indulged, 
and crushed them to powder, — whose entire appearance furnished 
a powerful proof that the Lord was still among his people, — who 
was himself a temple of the Lord, before whom the so-called 
temple at Jerusalem, which was still left standing for a little 
while, sunk into its own nonentity,— a spiritual Samson, who 
gi-asped with his powerful arms the pillars of the temple of 
idolatry and dashed them to the ground, — a strong, gigantic 
nature, fitted for that very reason to contend successfully against 
the Babylonian spirit of the age, which revelled in such things 
as were strong, gigantic, and grotesque,— standing alone, yet 
equal to a hundred pupils from the schools of the prophets. The 
extent of his influence may be gathered from the feet, that the 
elders of the people were accustomed to assemble in his house to 
hear the word of the Lord, as it came through him, — a proof of 
a formal and public recognition of his spiritual rank in the 



4 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

colony, and a refutation of the assertion of such men as Hitzig 
and Eivald, who would make the prophet a mere writer, who 
passed " a quiet, twilight life, in reading and meditating upon 
the law." 

The collection of prophecies is divisible into two parts : those 
before the destruction, (chap, i.— xxxii.), and those after the 
destruction, (chap, xxxiii.— xlviii). The main design of the for- 
mer was to overthrow the foolish illusions of the people, and to 
summon them to repentance as the only road to salvation ; that 
of the latter, on the other hand, was to ward off despair, by 
depicting this salvation before the eyes of the people, in such a 
manner as was most adapted to strike the senses, that they might 
thus be furnished with a powerful antidote to the visible circum- 
stances, which were inducing despair. 

The threats of Ezekiel, with reference to the immediate future, 
contain certain elements of a peculiarly special character ; and 
their fulfilment, under the very eyes of the people, constituted a 
pledge of the subsequent fulfilment of promises, relating to a 
period more remote. We may mention, for example, the predic- 
tion concerning the fate of Zedekiah in chap. xii. 12 sqq., that 
respecting the destruction of the city in chap, xxiv., and the 
announcement of the defeat of the Egyptians and Tyrians by 
Nebuchadnezzar. 

The individual promises, which are scattered throughout the 
book, may be combined together so as to form the following 
picture. As the judicial work of the Lord would not be brought 
to an end, till the last remnant of Judah had been carried into 
captivity, so would his saving work not cease when a portion 
only of the covenant nation had been brought back to the land 
of promise. Not Judah alone but Israel also would be restored ; 
a prediction which was actually fulfilled, as we learn from Acts 
xxvi. 7, Luke ii. 36, and Rev. vii. 4 sqq. During the short 
period of their banishment the Lord would still keep his hand 
stretched out, to guard his rejected people (chap. xi. 16). 
Their deliverance from exile would be followed by still greater 
mercy in the appearance of the Messiah. From the family of 
David, which had been reduced and entirely bereft of its royal 
supremacy, there would come forth, through the miraculous 
interposition of the Lord, an exalted king, in whose sovereignty 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XI. 14 — 21. 5 

and protection the nations of the earth would put their trust 
(chap. xvii. 22 — 24). The Lord himself would become the 
shepherd of his deserted flock, and feed it through his servant 
David (cliap. xxxiv. 23 — 31, xxxvii. 24). The Messiah would 
combine the office of high priest with that of a king, and in the 
exercise of the latter would exalt the righteousness, which former 
rulers had trodden under feet (chap. xxi. 31 — 32). The people 
were to receive the invaluable blessing of the forgiveness of sins 
(chap, xxxvi. 25, xxxvii. 23). The Lord would give them a 
new spirit, would take away their stony heart and give them a 
heart of flesh (chap. xi. 19). By his breath of life he would 
rouse them from spiritual death (chap, xxxvii). The kingdom 
of God would shine forth with a glory before unknown ; as in 
the new temple described in chap. xl. — xlviii. A stream of sal- 
vation issuing from this temple would renovate the world, which 
was dead in sin and wretchedness (chap, xlvii. 1 — 12). The 
Gentiles would be admitted to an equal participation in the fel- 
lowship of the kingdom of God (chap, xlvii. 22 — 23 ; compare 
Rev. vii. 4 sqq.). But it would be from Jerusalem that salvation 
would go forth, and into fellowship with it, that the Gentiles would 
enter (chap. xvi. 53 sqq.). So great would be the fulness of 
salvation, that it would avail even for the greatest depravity, and 
Sodom might find in it the means of restoration {ibid.). The 
kingdom of God would be universally victorious over its enemies : 
this is shown in the prophecy respecting Gog the king of Magog 
(chaps, xxxviii. xxxix.), — a prophecy, which is comprehensive in 
its character, Gog representing all future enemies of the king- 
dom of God ; compare the Commentary on Rev. xx. 8. 



THE SECTION.-CHAP. XI. 14-21. 

This section forms part of a still larger division extending 
from chap. viii. to xi. In the sixth year after the captivity of 
Jehoiachin, which was also the sixth year before the destruction 
of Jerusalem, the elders of the colony were gathered round the 
prophet, waiting for the Lord to send them a message through 



6 MESSIANIC PREDICTIOKS IN THE PROPHETS. 

him. The reason of this desire on their part, and the question 
to which they wished for an answer, may be gathered from the 
prophecy itself, especially from chap. xi. The fact that the 
righteousness of God had not been displayed so quickly as they 
anticipated, in the destruction of Jerusalem, threw them into a 
state of perplexity as to their own treatment ; and this was in- 
creased by the manner in which they were ridiculed by the 
inhabitants of Jerusalem, who prided themselves upon their pos- 
session of the temple. The prophet is carried in spirit to Jeru- 
salem. He has first a vision of the extent and heinousness of 
the people's sins. They are represented as brought into a focus 
within and in front of the temple (see Amos ix. 1),^ and as cen- 
tring in the rulers of the nation, who are introduced in corpore 
— namely, seventy of the elders (an ideal representation of the 
civil authorities founded upon the seventy elders chosen in the 
desert), and twenty-five princes, the leaders of the twenty-four 
classes of priests with the high priest at their head, — all serv- 
ing strange gods and presenting a most striking contrast to 
the rulers of the captives, who were seeking the Lord in his 
servant. The difference between the idea and the reality is 
seen in the contrast, which existed between the name and the 
actions of Jaazaniah, one of the seventy, and probably the lead- 

1 That this representation bears throughout an ideal character, and that 
the whole sin ot the nation is concentrated in the temple as its spiritual 
dwelling place, is evident, from the fact that the civil and ecclesiastical rulers 
of the nation are given up in corpore to idolatry (a state of things for which 
no historical parallel can be found, and which is extremely improbable) — 
from ver. 8, where Ezekiel is described as having to break a hole in the wall, 
before he can get into the room, in which the seventy elders carry on their 
idolatrous rites (a description evidently intended to denote the secrecy with 
which they were performed ; for if it were interpreted literally, the question 
would arise, how did the elders themselves get in?) — from the expression "in 
the dark " (ver. 12), that is not in a public place or public assembly,- — from the 
words "every one in his chamljer," — and lastly, from the phrase " the abo- 
minations which they commit here " (ver. 17), where the abominations are de- 
scribed ideally as committed in the temple, although, strictly speaking, they 
were committed in the land. The seer beholds the idolatry of Judah brought 
together, as it were, into a single focus. Its universality is represented by 
the fact that men and women, elders and priests, are addicted to it. The 
various forms under which the world's religion had forced its way into the 
midst of the people of God, is shown in the fact that Babylonian, Egyptian, and 
Medo-Persian idolatry are found there side by side. The influence of the 
Babylonian religion, which was represented by the statute of Baal, arose from 
the fact that Babylon was the threatening empire, whose deities it was 
desirable to propitiate; that of the Egyptian from the fact that Egypt was 
the natural ally of Judah. 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XI. 14 — 21. 7 

ing man among them. The man whose name is " God per- 
ceives" says to his companions (ver. 12) : "Jehovah sees us 
not, Jehovah has forsaken the land." — The description of the 
sin is followed by that of the .punishment, the certainty and 
extent of the latter being determined by the former. The judg- 
ment fills first of all upon individuals. The prophet says how the 
avenging angels, with the angel of the Lord at their head, are 
sent forth from Jehovah, who is enthroned above the Ark of the 
Covenant, — a sign that the judgment is a theocratical one, — and 
how, having commenced their work with the elders, in the most 
unsparing manner they bring destruction upon all the rest. The 
dress of the angel of the Lord shows him to be the antitype of 
the earthly high-priest, the mediator between God and the 
people. (On the expression clothed in linens, dhd u'laS consult 
Lev. xvi. 4, 23 ; the former verse especially serves to explain 
the plural d*i3, as all the different articles of clothing worn by 
the high-priest are there described as being made of linen.) The 
task of marking the righteous in their foreheads and preserving 
them safe in the midst of the destruction is assigned to him 
alone ; at the same time he is also the leader of the six avenffine: 
angels. In chap. ix. the judgment on men is brought to a close. 
In chap. X. red hot coals are scattered over Jerusalem, and the 
city is burned to the ground. With chap, xi, the scene com- 
pletely changes. The twenty-five " princes of the people" in 
ver. 1 are different from the twenty-five representatives of the 
priesthood in chap, viii, 11, Like the seventy in chap, viii. 
they are ideal representatives of the civil magistrates of the 
people, two for each tribe and a president. The axe is laid at 
the root of the rulers of the nation, and yet the prophet still hears 
them talking presumptuously. " It is not near, to build houses,' 
they say, it is the caldron and we are the flesh" (chap. xi. 3). 
Thus they ridicule the words of the prophets, who had told them 



1 These words may be rendered interrogatively, " is it not near to build 
houses?" (compare Is. ix. 10, were the infatuated inhabitants of Samaria 
say : " the bricks have fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones"), and 
this rendering is favoured by the introduction of the name Beuaiah. The 
thoughts of the men are incorporated iu their own names and those of their 
fathers. It is evident from v. 7 that the words, " it is the cauldron and we 
are the flesh" can only mean, that they expect to keep possession of the 
city. 



8 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

that the only way to the building of the city lay through its 
destruction. What is once destroyed, they reply, is not so easily 
rebuilt ; instead of being taken in by any such mad hopes as 
these, we will keep what we have ; no one, whether man or Gcd, 
shall drive us away from Jerusalem. The city and we are inse- 
parable. The prophet receives instructions to administer verbal 
chastisements to this presumption, and his words are fulfilled 
(in the vision of course, the ideal reality), even before his address 
is concluded. The judgment of God commences ; and Platjah 
the son of Benajah is the first to fall under the stroke of the 
Lord. As in the case of the sin, so now in that of the punish- 
ment, the prophet makes the names descriptive of the facts- 
" God perceives" says : God does not perceive. We have here a 
contrast between the idea and the reality so far as conduct is 
concerned. And in the other case, where " God saves," the Son 
of " God builds," falls and perishes hopelessly, we have, as a 
necessary consequence, a similar contrast in the results. The 
prophet observes this contrast : and sees that Platjah, the 
son of Benajah, is destroyed not merely as an individual, 
but as a type of the whole nation. He is seized with com- 
passion at the sight, and throws himself upon his face exclaim- 
ing, " Ah, Lord God, will thou make a full end of the remnant 
of Israel (chap. xi. 13). Shall the name of Platjah be hence- 
forth a lie ?" 

Our section immediately follows. The Lord replies that he 
will not receive the presumptuous sinners who play the rnaster 
in Jerusalem. Though of Israel they are not Israel, and the 
souls which have long ago been cut off from Israel, must now be 
outwardly cut ofi" as well. Those to whom his intercession, his 
mediatorial ofiice applies, are his brothers the captives ; for they 
alone are children of God. They are the true Israel, though the 
pseudo-Israel in Jerusalem look down upon them with proud 
contempt. The Lord will except them with faithful love. Even 
during their brief sojourn in the land of the heathen he will be 
their sanctuary, and give them the true possession of what the 
others, who hold the shell without the kernel, only fancy that 
they possess. He will then lead them back to their native 
land, bestow upon them the gifts of his spirit, and make them 
his people in the fullest sense of the word. But woe to the hypo- 
critical and rebellious even amono; them ! 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XI. 14, 15. 9 

The prophet now sees the glory of the Lord entirely depart 
from Jerusalem ; for the Lord has finished the only work, which 
he still had to perform there as the covenant God, the work of 
judgment. The vision is at an end, and the prophet relates the 
purport of it to the leading men of the colony. 



Ver. 14. ^' And the tvord of the Lord came to me and said: 
Ver. 15. Thou Son of Man, thy brethren, thy brethren are the 
771671 of this ransom, aiid the lohole house of Israel, the whole, 
they to lohom the i7ihabitants of Jenisalem say : far be ye from 
the Lord ! to us the land is given for a possession." 

The repetition of " thy brethren" brings the notion of brother- 
hood into peculiar prominence, and lays emphasis upon the con- 
trast thus presented to those, who have so decidedly renounced 
the relationship — viz., the pseudo-brethren, in whom the prophet 
still cherishes an interest, as if they were his actual brothers, the 
brethren according to the flesh alone, who have not a common 
father and God with him, and can no more unite with him in 
calling even Abraham father in the true sense, than Ishmael and 
the sons of Keturah could be called the seed of Abraham. There 
is a reference to the Mosaic law of redemption, which was only 
binding upon actual brothers, or the closest relations. The 
brother was the brother's supporter, deliverer, and avenger ; the 
foreigner had no Goel. (See, for example, Lev. xxv. 25 : "if thy 
brother becomes poor and sells any of his possession, his Goel 
comes, who is nearly related to him and redeems ("^nj) what his 
brother has sold)." In ver. 48 again, where the reference is to 
an Israelite, who has become poor, and has been sold to a 
foreigner among the Israelites, we find, " after he is sold, redemp- 
tion (^y?*^) is to be brought to him ; one of his brothers is to 
redeem him (cf. Michaelis i. § 15). The prophet, by interfering 
on behalf of those who were not his true brethren, had done some- 
thing as much out of place, as if an Israelite had taken upon him- 
self to be the Goel of a foreigner. The reference is so unmis- 
takeable, that the word ge-ullah must necessarily be understood 
in the limited sense, even if any other passages could be found 
in which it was used with the more general signification of 
" kindred," which most commentators have given to it here. 



10 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

But this is by no means the case, and even Groel is never applied 
to a relation as such, but only so far as he is a Goel. Thus, for 
example, we find in 1 Kings xvi. 11, "and he smote all the 
house of Baasha — and his Groalim," which Michaelis explains 
thus : " the avengers, that they might not avenge the slaughter 
of their relations." — In Num. v. 8 (where reference is made to 
the case of a person who has injured another, but is unable to 
render him personal compensation), we find the expression, " If 
the man has no Goel, to whom to give the compensation." The 
Goel had not only obligations, but rights, as his brother's vindex 
he had the right hcereditatem ejus sibi vindicandi. The suffix 
is used in connection with the compound notion, thy redemption- 
men — equivalent to the men, whose redemption is both thy duty 
and thy right. — The Lord assures Ezekiel that the brethren 
alone are the whole house of Israel, in opposition to ver. 13, 
where the prophet had just spoken of the inhabitants of Jerusa- 
lem as Israel (cf. chap. ix. 8). hVd (the whole) serves the 
same purpose as the repetition of " thy brethren." It shows 
that the previous col (all) was employed quite seriously, and that 
the word is to be taken in its strictest sense. On V'^'', be far, 
Calvin remarks : " it ought not properly to be rendered as an 
imperative, but the words should be understood thus : as they 
depart to a distance from the sanctuary, the land will remain as 
our inheritance." But the sense is weakened by this explanation. 
The imperative must be rendered with strict literality. The 
hypocrites look upon departure from the country of the Lord, as 
a positive declaration of departure from the Lord himself, and 
on the other hand consider their own residence in the land, as a 
practical demonstration that they are near to Him. From this 
point of view it is that they call out to their brethren, "away 
with you from the Lord, to us the land is given for a possession." 
They are excited v/ith a kind of holy jealousy at the thought, 
that such unholy men might possibly lay claim to have a portion 
and inheritance in the Lord, and consequently .in his country 
also. But in the position, which they thus assume towards their 
brethren, that is, towards the house of Israel, they bear their own 
testimony, that they are not brethren in the true sense of the word, 
and do not belong to the house of Israel. 

Ver. 16. " Therefore say : Thus saith the Lord Jehovah : I 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XI. 16. 11 

have indeed removed them io a distance among the heathen and 
scattered them in the lands, hut I ivill he to them, for a short 
time a sanctuary in the countries whither they have come." 

The word " therefore" refers to the contemptuous hmguage of 
the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The " therefore" in ver, 17 is 
co-ordinate with it. In the present case the antithesis has 
reference to their assertion, as to the distance of the others from 
the Lord himself ; in ver. 17, to their declaration that they were 
excluded from the land of tlie Lord. The very opposite to the 
former is actually the case now, and the opposite to the latter 
will be witnessed very soon. ♦=, which must necessarily be an 
explanatory particle, su})poses a clause to be introduced to this 
effect : " they are right in a certain sense, they do not speak 
entirely without a reason, for I have certainly, (fee." In sub- 
stance it is equivalent to our word " indeed," (I have indeed, &c.) 
But whilst the fact is admitted, the conclusion drawn from it is 
denied. They say : " therefore the Lord is far from them." 
The Lord says : " therefore I am, or become, unto them a 
sanctuary." The outward removal, so far as everything essential 
is concerned, is really the means of approximation. They have 
indeed lost the temple of the Lord, but the Lord himself has 
become their temple. By these words the prophet puts an end 
to the triumph of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, who imagine 
that the possession of the temple is equivalent to the possession 
of God, and alleviates the pain of the captives, who fancy that 
the loss of the temple involves the loss of God. What made 
the temple a sanctuary was the presence of God. Wherever 
this may be, there is the sanctuary ; where it is not, there 
can be no temple but only a heap of wood and stones. This 
announcement is afterwards completed, by the prophet seeing 
the glory of the Lord depart from the temple at Jerusalem. We 
have here the germ, which we find afterwards expanded into a 
tree, with all its branches, twigs, leaves and flowers, in the 
description of the kingdom of God in its new form and glorious 
manifestation, contained in chap. xl. — xlviii. In Isaiah viii. 14, 
the Lord is referred to in the same terms, as the sanctuary of 
Israel. And according to Eev. xxi. 22, in the New Jerusalem 
the Lord God Almighty and the l^amb are the temple of it. 
" If the union of God with his people formed the essence of the 



12 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

sanctuary, the coining of Christ must have borne the same 
relation to the sanctuary as the body to the shadow." The cap- 
tivity, during which, even under the Old Testament, the union 
was maintained independently of its outward representation in 
the temple, prepared the way for the coming of Christ, by which 
the temple was permanently set aside, t^vo is to be taken as a 
particle of time. pauUs'per, for a little while. If the Lord was 
really the sanctuary of the people in their captivity, the proof of 
this would necessarily appear in the fact, that they were soon brought 
back from their exile. Canaan was still the land of the covenant ; 
and the presence of the Lord among His people at a distance from 
that land could only be a temporary thing. It was necessary there- 
fore, to add " for a little while," if what had been declared to be 
even then the case, was to be relied upon as true. The expression, 
" in the countries whither they have come," points to the fact 
that the day will come when the Lord will again be the sanc- 
tuary of the people on their native soil, in the land of promise ; 
and therefore prepares the way for the contents of ver. 17 sqq. 
But in what way did the Lord prove himself to be the sanctuary 
of the people in their captivity ? First of all by sending the 
prophet himself. By giving them a preacher of repentance and 
salvation, and especially one so richly endowed, he furnished 
them at once with a token, that his favour had not been with- 
drawn from the nation. The prophet was in an inferior sense 
what the Saviour was in the highest of all senses, a temple of 
God. For that which made the temple itself into a temple, the 
presence of God, dwelt in him. Again he proved this in many 
other and divers ways ; for example, by the outward protection 
• which he afforded them, — by the alleviation of their sufferings 
(they did not lose their national independence altogether, but 
retained their elders even in their captivity), — by inward conso- 
lations, — by the spirit of grace and supplication, which he 
poured out upon those who could receive it, and which changed 
the stony heart into a heart of flesh, — and by the preparations, 
which he began to make even then, for their subsequent return. 
During the whole period of the captivity his providence was 
engaged in bringing about the requisite circumstances ; every 
event that transpired, such as the elevation of Daniel, the down- 
fall of the Babylonian power and the rise of that of Persia, 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XI. 17, 18. 13 

pointed to this end. How different was the Babylonian exile 
from that of the present day ! In the latter there are no signs 
of the presence of God. The nation can do nothing but cele- 
brate memorial festivals and dream of the future. Between the 
remote past and the remote future there lies an enormous barren 
waste, a whole Sahara. In the former the thoughtful observer 
may discern traces on every hand of the loving care of God, 
even in their deepest depression, and find pledges innumerable 
of their continued election and future glory. 

Ver. 17. " Therefore say : thus saith the Lord Jehovah, and 
I gather you from the nations, and assemble you out of the 
countries, whither ye have been scattered, and I give you the land 
of Israel" 

The Lord Jehovah : a proof that the promise is made by the 
Almighty and True. The words " and I will gather you " are 
intended to show, that this blessing is a continuation and conse- 
quence of the former one. That the promise of restoration was 
not entirely accomplished under Zerubbabel, — since the Canaan 
into which the people entered at that time was not the country 
of the Lord in the full sense of the word, — in other words, that 
the promise contains a Messianic element, is a fact that hardly 
needs to be mentioned after our previous discussions. If the 
prophet apparently promises return to none, but those who were 
then in captivity, and threatens those, who were still in Judeea, 
with destruction, we naturally suppose the contrast to be drawn 
between the two distinct bodies of men, and not to refer to every 
individual. Otherwise, when we find the exiles described in 
ver, 15. as the whole of Israel, we should be forced to the conclu- 
sion that Jeremiah was not " an Israelite indeed. " The sense 
of the passage must be completed from ver. 9, where it is stated 
that even in Jerusalem there were some, who were the objects of 
the protecting care of the Lord, although they could not ward 
off the destruction of the polluted city. 

Ver. 18. "And they come thither, and take away all the 
detestable things thereof, and all the abominations thereof from 
thence." 

Venema says : " They began immediately after their return, 
but did not finish for a long time afterwards, namely, in the 
time of the Maccabees, when they destroyed idolatry on every 



14 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PEOPHETS. 

hand throughout the whole land, and propagated the true reli- 
gion even among the Samaritans and Idumeans." But the Jinish- 
ing was of a peculiar kind. The external removal of the things, 
by which the land of the Lord had been defiled, was only thought 
of by the prophet, so far as it was the result of the unconditional 
surrender of the heart to the Lord. This is evident from the close 
connection between the conduct of the people and the gift of the 
Lord, mentioned in the following verse, from which that conduct 
sprang. That Satan should drive out Satan, or a refined system 
of idolatry (even Jehovah can become an idol) make war upon 
one of a grosser kind, is a matter of no religious importance, and 
therefore does not come within the range of the prophecy, any 
more than a change of fashion in articles of dress. It is also evi- 
dent, therefore, that the outward removal of idols in the period 
immediately following the restoration and in the time of the Mac- 
cabees, is iijcluded in the prophecy, only so far as God himself was 
the principium movens on those occasions. But this can only be 
regarded as a very small beginning. The pi'ophecy, in all that 
is essential, is Messianic. How little ground there is, for apply- 
ing the term " finished" to the periods referred to, may be seen at 
once from the outward condition of the people between the resto- 
ration and the coming of Christ. Their conduct may be gathered 
from their condition. If the idols had all been banished from the 
country along with the idolatrous images, the people would have 
had some ground for chai'ging God with unfaithfulness, in not 
performing his promises. 

Ver. 19. " A7id I give them a heart and a new spirit into 
their inioard parts, and I take aivay the heart of stone out 
of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh." 

The promise of the prophet is founded entirely upon Deut. 
XXX. 1 sqq. This is a pure renovation. The circumstances 
foreseen by Moses have now ai'rived. The people of the Lord 
are in exile, and therefore the words of consolation, which were 
also spoken by his servant, recover their force. . Compare espe- 
cially vers. 5,Q>: " and the Lord thy God bringeth thee into the 
land which thy fathers possessed, and thou possessest it, and he 
doeth thee good, and multiplieth thee above thy fathers. And 
the Lord thy God circumciseth thy heart, and the heart of thy 
seed, that thou love the Lord thy God with all the heart and with 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XI. 19, 20. 15 

all the soul." The circumcision of the heart, and the removal of 
all its impurities — of which outward circumcision was both the 
type and pledge — are here represented as the substitution of a 
heart of flesh for one of stone. The words, " I will give you a 
heart, show that the people will seek the Lord laith one accord, in 
direct contrast to the present state of affairs, in which only a few 
scattered individuals have turned to the Lord. The whole nation 
approaches the Lord like one man. There is a parallel passage 
in Jer. xxxii. 39 : " And I give them one heart and oiie way to 
fear me continually." Zephaniah also says (iii. 9) " they serve 
the Lord with one shoulder." And in Acts iv. 32 we find rov 

Se TiXytOovi To/v it^aTSvaccvTCJV riv ri xap'^iai. xal 'h •kj/i/^^^-;^ pti'a. The 

opinion expressed by several commentators, and among the last 
by Schmieder, that the oneness of the heart represents its upright- 
ness and undivided state, cannot be sustained ; on the contrary 
the standing expression for this is ^^.^ ^V.. The opposite to 
the one heart is described in Is. liii. 6 : "we turned every one 
to his own way." In the natural state there are as many diffe- 
rent dispositions as hearts ; God makes all hearts and dispositions 
one. There can only be " one heart," where there is a " new 
spirit." The old spirit always produces distraction. The heart 
of flesh in contradistinction to the heart of stone (the expressions 
are peculiar to Ezekiel) denotes a tender heart susceptible of im- 
pression from the mercy of God. The fact, that the heart of 
man is only rendered so by the mercy of God, is a proof of its 
natural condition. So far as divine things are concerned, it is by 
nature as hard and unimpressible as a stone ; the word of God 
and the outward dealings of his providence pass over it and leave 
no trace behind. The latter, indeed, may crush it, but not 
break it ; not only do the fragments continue hard, but the 
hardness even increases. The spirit of God alone can produce 
a soft and broken heart. For a parallel in words see chap, xxxvi. 
26 ; for one in sense see Jer. xxxi. 33 (compare the remarks on 
this passage). 

Ver. 20. " That they may loalk in my statutes, and keep mirte 
ordinances, and do them ; and they become my people and I 
become their God." 

This passage is founded upon Lev. xxvi. 3 : "if ye walk in 
my statutes, and keep my commandments and do them (ver. 4), 



16 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

I will give you rain in clue season, &c. — (and after a long list of 
blessings the whole is summed up in ver. 12), I will be your 
God and ye shall be my people ;" see Jer. xxxi. 33. It is through 
the operation of God alone, that the covenant nation becomes a 
covenant nation in its conduct, that the name of God is sancti- 
fied in it, and his will accomplished therein ; and where this has 
once taken place, where the vocation of the covenant-people has 
been fulfilled in this respect, the rest necessarily follows : the 
nation becomes his 'nation in its condition, God is sanctified 
in it and becomes its portion with the whole fulness of his bless- 
ings. 

Ver. 21. " But as for those, loJiose heart lualketh after the heart 
of their detestable things and their abominations, I will recom- 
pense their way upon their own heads, saith thelLord Jehovah." 

In conclusion, those who through their own fault do not receive 
the prerequisite of mercy, the new heart, and therefore do not 
walk in the commandments of God, are expressly excluded from 
the mercy itself Even in the people of the new covenant there 
is still a corrupt substratum ; even among them a new object 
presents itself for the exercise of the justice of God. " Walking 
according to the heart of the idols" is opposed to walking accord- 
ing to the heart of God. Whether the idols have any outward 
existence, or not, does not affect the question. It is enough that 
their essential characteristic, sin, is really there. The idols are 
merely the personification, or objective expression of sin. 



THE SECTION.-CHAP. XVI. 53-83. 

Jerusalem has acted even worse than Samaria and Sodom. 
Called to be the ruling power over the heathen world, she has 
fallen into heathenism herself, and thus has shown base ingrati- 
tude towards the Lord, who had compassion on her misery in 
the time of her youth and so richly adorned her with his gifts. 
As she has inwardly placed herself on a level with Sodom and 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XVI. 53—63. 17 

Samaria, she is also to become their companion in misery, ver. 1 
—52. 

But this is not the end of the ways of God. Jerusalem is not 
left in misery, because of the co^nant made with her in the 
time of her youth ; and Samaria and Sodom are not left in 
misery, because they are even less guilty than Jerusalem, and 
may therefore share with her in the saving mercy of God, which 
must work all in all. Salvation goes forth from Jerusalem, and 
Samaria and Sodom are received into its fellowship. All boast- 
ing cases. There remain to Judah only shame and confusion, 
because, notwithstanding the depth of its fall, the Lord still 
raises it to the height of its destination. 

We have here a picture of the world's history, to which a New 
Testament parallel may be found in Rom. xi. 29 sqq. In this 
passage as in the former the fundamental thought is: av^l- 

(Angl. God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might 
have mercy upon all) Rom. xi. 32. 

Yer. 53. " And I return to their captivity, to the captivity of 
Sodom and her daughters, and to the captivity of Samaria and 
her daughters, and to the captivity of thy captivity in the 
midst of them." 

That ^i3tt' 3r always means to return to captivity, ^ and that 
the term captivity in this particular phrase is a figurative expres- 
sion, denoting misery, I have already proved both in my commen- 
tary on Ps. xiv. 7 and in my Beitriige, vol. ii. p. 104 sqq. Captivity 
or imprisonment, in the strict sense of the word, is not applicable 
here, since the inhabitants of Sodom were not carried away 
captive, but exterminated. We have here a sacred parody, so to 

1 "We might appeal in favour of the transitive meaning of air in Kal 
{reducere,^ restituere) to the Samaritan name of the Messiah, Hashab or 
Hathab, if Gesenius were right in rendering this name conversor (carm. Sa- 
marit. p. 75). But de Sacy (in his notices et extraits, vol. xii. p. 29 and 209) 
has shown that the name more probably denotes the returning one ; and 
Jmjnholl (chron. Samarit. p. 52) supposes that the Messiah was called by this 
name, because he was regarded as the returning Moses, an opinion which 
is favoured by the fact, that the Samaritans, who only recognised the autho- 
rity of the Pentateuch, based their expectation of a Messiah upon Deut. xviii. 
18, where the Lord says to Moses : " A prophet will 1 raise up unto them 
like unto thee;" cf. Barges les Samaritains de Naplouse Par. 55 p. 90. 
Shilofi they did not regard as a name of the Messiah, but applied it to Solo- 
mon, who was hated by them. (Part 1. p. 90. Barges, p. 91). 

VOL. III. ' B 



18 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

speak, on the original passage in Deut. xxx. 3 (cf. Zepb. ii. 7), 
which speaks of the return of the Lord to the captivity of Israel 
alone. In the present case the most notorious sinners in the 
heathen world are placed on a par with Israel. The daughters 
of Sodom are the cities of minor importance, which were punished 
alono- with her. Many commentators have been greatly per- 
plexed by this announcement of the return of the Lord to the 
captivity of Sodom, " because," as the Berleburger Bible cor- 
rectly observes, "the rest of their maxims prevented them from 
giving anything but a forced interpretation to the passage." It 
also says : " if we admit, what some affirm, that there is a 
peculiar restoration even after death, the whole becomes easy, 
and may be interpreted with strict literality, as meaning that 
the inhabitants of Sodom, by virtue of this visitation, will even- 
tually find mercy;" but if we adopt this as correct, we must 
substitute for restoration, which is unscriptural, the continua- 
tion of the institutions of salvation even after death in the case 
of those who have not enjoyed the means of grace in the entire 
fulness upon earth. We cannot for a moment think of the physical 
restoration of the soil, on which these cities formerly stood. For, 
apart from other difficulties, this would not be a genuine return 
of the Lord to the captivity of Sodom, seeing that the substance 
of Sodom is to be found in its inhabitants, who have perished 
and left no trace behind, and who cannot obtain mercy even in 
their descendants. The mercy of the Lord, which is celebrated 
here, could only be manifested by the extension of grace to the 
same daring sinneis, tvho formerly lived in Sodom, either per- 
sonally, or in their descendants. We are jnst as little able to 
subscribe to the opinion expressed by Origen and Jerome among 
the ancients, and last of all, by Hdvernick among the modern 
expositors, that Sodom is used here in a typical sense to repre- 
sent heathenism in general. Undoubtedly, if even Sodom finds 
mercy, it follows that the same mercy will be extended to the 
whole heathen world. From the part we may confidently draw 
conclusions as to the whole, and the correctness of this conclu- 
sion is substantiated by chap, xlvii., where the waters of the Dead 
Sea of the world are represented as being healed by the stream 
from the sanctuary. At the same time the direct and primary 
reference can only be to Sodom itself We are sustained in this 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XVI. 53. 19 

assertion by the relation in which it stands to Samaria and 
Jerusalem, and still more decidedly by the special reference to 
Sodom itself, to its sins and destruction, in vcr. 48 — 50. If 
Sodom is interpreted as meaning the world, the allusion to its 
captivity becomes unintellio;ible, for nothing has hitherto been 
said about the misery of the world. The attempt, which several 
commentators have made, to show that the Ammonites and 
Moabites are intended, is also a m ere loophole to escape from 
the difficulty. For there was no internal connection whatever 
between these nations and Sodom and Gomorrha. Lot, their 
forefather, sojourned in Sodom merely as a foreigner (Gen. xix. 
9, xiii. 12). In the captivity of Sodom and its daughters the 
Moabites had no share. If it be admitted, that the passag-e can 
only relate to the forgiveness of the inhabitants of Sodom and 
the other cities in the valley of the Jordan in a future state, it 
is evident that we have here the Old Testament parallel to 1 Pet. 
iii. 19, iv. 6 ; especially as it is clear from ver. 61 that the salva- 
tion promised to Sodom was to consist in its reception into the 
kingdom of God, and the consequent enjoyment of all the bless- 
ings of that kingdom. One thought is common to all these 
passages— viz., that all judgments, inflicted before the time of 
Christ, ivere merely lirovisional in their character, and could 
not he regarded as a fined decision. In the first : " by which 
also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which 
sometime were disobedient,"'' &c., the primary reference is merely 
to the daring sinners before the tlood, just as in this passage it is 
only to the notorious sinners in Sudom. But the second shows that 
the particular species represent the whole genus, since the dead 
generally are spoken of there: "for this cause was the gospel 
preached to them that are dead ; that they might be judo-ed 
according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the 
spirit. "2 This passage serves so tar to complete the first, that it 

1 The explaiiatiou of .7. Uerkard, wlii(3h has been improved by Bexm\ 
that the preaching referred to was the preaching of Noaii in the spirit of 
(^^hrist, is completely refuted by the word ■z-.-.ivh); ; (c/; ver. 22, where 
■^o^-.uli); is applied to the ascension of Ciirist, just "as here it is applied to the 
descent to hell. 

- Ujjost ; Caro est humanitas terrestris, niortalis et infinnu liorum hoininum, 
qua} judicium dei experta est : spiritus ver« eadeni humanitas eoelestcm in- 
doleni uacta, quaj cxautlato judicio vit* secundum deum compos lit. 



20 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

is expressly stated that the preaching is to salvation, and the 
second again requires to be completed by the first (cf. Glider, 
die Lehre von der Erscheinung Christi unter den Todten (Bern 
53 p. 46 sqq.). We are led indirectly to the same result by the 
words of Christ in Matt. xii. 41, "the men of Nineveh shall 
rise up in the judgment with this generation and shall condemn 
it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold a 
greater than Jonah is here." For if, notwithstanding the deep guilt 
and corruption of the heathen world, it is still declared capable of 
salvation ; the opportunity of attaining it must be put within 
its reach by Him, who desireth not the death of the sinner, but 
rather that he should return and live. Still more to the point, 
however, is Matt. xi. 22 and 24, " it shall be more tolerable for 
the land of Sodom in the judgment than for thee." By the land of 
Sodom we are to understand the same as by Sodom and her daugh- 
ters in the passage before us, namely, the former inhabitants. Their 
condition is first of all regarded as already made known, without 
going beyond what is recorded of them in the Book of Genesis. If 
we merely look at this, Sodom must be in a better position than 
Capernaum at the judgment. For Sodom did not cast away from 
her the full revelation of grace and salvation, (ver. 23.) If this be 
the case, however, it cannot remain so, but before the last decisive 
judgment, the same light of salvation must be offered to Sodom 
as to Capernaum. From the declaration, " if the mighty works, 
which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would 
have continued to this day," the assurance, " I will return to the 
captivity of Sodom and her daughters," immediately follows. 
That even then the words "ye would not," (Matt, xxiii. 37), 
will still hold good of individuals, is evident from the whole 
tenor of Scripture. The express declaration of the prophet him- 
self in chap, xlvii. 11 is sufficient proof that an absolute, and, 
so to speak, a forcible restoration is not for a moment to be 
thought of — It is worthy of notice that Sodom is placed at the 
head. This is evidently to be taken as an intimation that the 
covenant people would be put to the gTeater shame by the fact 
that the heathen world (represented by Sodom), would be the 
first to attain to salvation, and also as a preparation for Kom. 
xi. 25, " I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of 
this mystery, that blindness {itcLpums) in part is happened 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XVI. 54, 55. 21 

to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in," — a pre- 
paration which we need not hesitate to admit in the present 
instance, since the same truth is clearly expressed in the Song 
of Solomon and Isaiah. At the sametime, the announcement 
with reference to the precedence of the heathen world in the 
enjoyment of salvation, is both completed and limited by the 
declaration in ver. 61, that salvation would always come from 
the Jews. — And to the captivity of thy captivity : that is which 
consists in thy captivity, in other words, to thine own captivity. 
ri'3tt> has already occurred twice with a noun immediately 
following it ; and on this occasion we must imagine something 
like an interruption to the train of thought. Judah would not 
conceive it possible that, with regard to captivity, it was to be 
placed on a level with Samaria and Sodom. Jeremiah had 
constantly to contend against the obstinate illusion, that judg- 
ment would be arrested in the midst of its course (compare, for 
example, chap. vii. 4, where they trust in lies, saying, " the 
temple of the Lord are we"). — The expression " in the midst of 
them," denotes fellowship with them in their captivity. 

Ver. 54. " That thou may est hear thine otvn shame, and be 
ashamed of all that thou hast done, in that thou comfortest 
thei^." 

These words are connected with the notice of Judah's cap- 
tivity or misery in the foregoing verse : " I turn to the captivity, 
which thou wilt endure no less than Sodom and Samaria, in order 
that, &c." For, " I will give thee nothing, but the sentence which 
my justice has pronounced shall surely come upon thee" (Berle- 
burger Bible). To hear is the same as to suffer (cf. ver. 52, 
xxxii. 24, 25, 30). She comforts her sisters by the fact that she 
suffers as much as they (cf. chap. xiv. 22, 23). 

Ver. 55. " And thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall 
7'eturn to their former estate, and Samaria and her daughters 
shall return to their former estate, and thou, and thy daughters 
shall return to your former estate." 

The former estate was in general one of prosperity. But the 
new prosperity will be essentially different in its character — namely 
much more exalted and spiritual, than their former condition had 
been. We find a reference to this passage (LXX diroxara'^Tx- 

^rj-TOvrat xa^us ricct^ d-it OLp%'hi) in Acts iii. 21, ov SsT ovfayoM 



22 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

/X6V ^iia-Tdai dxpl -xpovuv xTroKacranrxuiCAjs Travrwv, wv sXaXn^ev o Stof 
Sja aroixaros twv ayiwv ai^Toi) TtpotpriTMv, on which Bengel obsei'ves 
aTTOKara^TTaajj is the restoration of things to their former condi- 
tion. 

Ver. 56. " And icas not Sodom thy sister as a saying in thy 
mouth in the day of thy pride ? " 

As a saying : lit. as a rumour (see the note on Is. liii. 1), so 
that the mouth overflowed with tales of Sodom's fearful sin and 
equally fearful punishment. But when Judah is made like 
Sodom in misery, and Sodom like Judah in its deliverance, the 
disposition to such proud contemptuous treatment of its poorer 
sister will thoroughly pass away. 

Ver. 57. " Before thy wickedness was laid hare, as u-as the 
case in the time of the daughters of Aram, and all that icere 
round about her, as the daughters of the Philistines, loho despised 
thee round about." 

The wickedness of Judah was laid bare by the judgments, of 
which the powers of the world, beginning with Babylon, were 
the instruments. Aram in the east and the Philistines in the 
west (Is, ix. 11) are not quoted as the agents, employed in laying 
the nakedness of Judah bare, the ministers of divine justice,— in 
that case other names would have been selected, — but they stand 
in the same relation to Judah in its misery, as that in which 
Judah itself had formerly stood to Sodom : " they despise thee." 

Ver. 58. '• Thy crimes and thine abominations, ihou hearest 
them, saith the Lord." 

They press heavily upon thee in their consequences, thou 
sufferest the punishment thereof, quite as much as Sodom, whom 
thou didst formerly despise, in suffering the punishment of its 
sins. 

Ver. 59. " For thus saith the Lord Jehovah, and L do ivith 
thee, as thou hast done, who hast despised the oath breaking the 
covenant." 

Ver. 60. " But L remember my covenant with thee in the days 
of thy youth, and establish unto thee an everlasting covenant." 

A similar promise is contained in Lev. xxvi. 42, that after 
visiting them with just punishment, the Lord would remember 
his covenant. 

Ver. 61, " And thou rcmembercst thy ways, and art ashamed, 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XVI. 56 — 62. 23 

when thou receivest thy sisters, who are greater than thou, to 
those who are less than thou art, and I give them to thee for 
daughters, and not out of this covenant." 

The greater and lesser sisters are the greater and lesser con- 
temporaneous nations (cf. ver. 46). The figure is based upon 
the idea, that the human race is a large family, which originated 
in the important doctrine, that the whole race has sprung from 
a single pair. The fact, that sisters generally are spoken of here, 
shews that Sodom and Samaria, in v. 55, are selected as repre- 
sentatives of a numerous class. The heathen nations are first 
spoken of, as daughters of Jerusalem, in the Song of Solomon ; 
see the note on chap. i. 5. The salvation is a common one, but 
it originates with the Jews, and the rest become partakers of it 
only through their mediation. Starck says : " Not only did 
Christ the Saviour of the world spring from the Jewish race, but 
all the apostles and disciples of Christ were Jews ; when there- 
fore they converted Gentiles to the Christian faith, they became 
their spiritual fathers, as Paul says in 1 Cor. iv. 51 : 'I have 
begotten you in Christ.'" The highest honour is conferred upon 
Judah by the fact that she receives all her sisters as daughters ; 
and she is covered with shame at the thought that she has been 
honoured in a way so entirely different from what she really 
deserved. Not out of this covenant, i.e., not because the ful- 
filment of thy covenant duties gave thee any claim to such an 
honour. ViUalpandus says : Sed potius ex vi pacti mei et pro- 
missionis factie Abrahamo ; Piscator : " Not because thou art 
worthy of such an assemblage of nations, on account of thine 
observance of the covenant, but of pure favour." 

Ver. 62. " And I establish my covenant ivith thee, and thou 
learnest that I am the Lord (ver. 63), that thou mayest remem- 
ber and he ashamed and not open thy mouth any more on 
account of thy shame, when I forgive thee all that thou hast 
done." 

The greater the favour shown to the ungrateful, the greater is 
their shame on account of their disgraceful apostasy. 



24 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 



THE SECTION-CHAP. XVII. 22-24. 

This prophecy belongs to the period immediately following 
the last ; for the collection is chronologically arranged, and it 
stands midway between the section chap. viii. — xi., which is 
dated the sixth month of the sixth year, and chap, xx., which 
was written in the fifth month of the seventh year subsequent to 
the captivity of Jehoiachin. It was delivered, therefore, four or 
five years before the destruction of the city. The representation 
of powerful kings and their dominions as lofty trees, full of 
branches and twigs, was a figure peculiarly Babylonian. This is 
evident from Dan. iv. 11, 12, where we find in the account of 
Nebuchadnezzar's dream : " Great was the tree and strong, and 
its height reached to heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of 
all the earth. The leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof 
•much, and in it was meat for all ; the beasts of the field had 
shadow under it, and the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs 
thereof, and all flesh was fed from it." The interpretation 
follows in ver. 22, " thou art the tree, king." There is a re- 
markable agreement between Daniel and Ezekiel xxxi. 3 sqq., 
where Asshur is introduced as a cedar in Lebanon richly covered 
with foliage, whose top reached to the clouds, in whose boughs 
all the fowls of the heaven made their nests, and under whose 
branches the beasts of the field brought forth their young, whilst 
many nations dwelt under its shadow. The prophet makes use 
of the same figure in the passage before us. The family of 
David is a lofty cedar in Lebanon. Nebuchadnezzar breaks off 
the highest branch and takes it to Babylon (the captivity of 
Jehoiachin and the rest of the royal family). He sets an in- 
ferior plant in Jerusalem, a vine — (the investiture of Zedekiah) 
— but no sooner has it taken root than it is pulled up again. The 
Lord now takes a slender twig from the crown of that great cedar, 
and plants in on his holy hill of Zion. It grows to a stately cedar, 
beneath whose shadow all kinds of birds take up their abode. 
The rest of the trees perceive its marvellous growth, and acknow- 
ledge that it is the Lord, by whom all trees are exalted and cast 
down. Matt. xiii. 32 is to be regarded as an explanation of 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XVII, 22 — 24. 25 

this, though the figure is somewhat modified by the Lord, who 
substitutes for the slender twig of the lofty cedar the grain of 
mustard seed, " which indeed is the least of all seeds, but when 
it is grown it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so 
that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof." 
The reason of thia modification is to be discovered in the fact, 
that the purpose of the Lord was merely to depict the progress of 
the new kingdom of God, which began with his appearance in 
the flesh, and from small beginnings attained to a glorious con- 
summation. The mission of the prophet, on the other hand, was to 
console for the loss of former glory, and hence to symbolise not 
merely the low estate, but the course which led to it, and at the 
same time to set this forth as only a transition state, leading from 
their former exaltation to a condition infinitely higher. 

V. 22. " Thus saith tlie Lord Jehovah ; and I tak.efrotii the 
top of the lofty cedar, and set, I break off from its croivn a 
tender twig and plant on a mountain high and exalted." 

'JN (I) stands in direct antithesis to Nebuchadnezzar, w^ho had 
also broken off and planted (vers. 3, 4). He had done it for evil, 
the Lord would do it for good. The former, a weak man, could 
only effect a temporary degradation, by permission of the Lord ; 
but the Lord, the Almighty, would effect a permanent exaltation. 
^':}M only occurs in Ezekiel. That it is a rare and figurative 
expression (probably the ivool of the tree, the curly top) is evi- 
dent, partly from the fact that it is met with no where else, and 
partly also because both here and in ver. 4 it is explained more 
precisely by the top of his twigs. The rendering, top, is de- 
manded by the other passages, e.g. xxxi. 3, " between the clouds 
was his Zammereth," ver. 10, " he sent his Zammereth even to 
the clouds," ver. 14, " they shall not send their Zammereth to the 
clouds," especially if we render Q'nhy. |o, not " between twigs," 
which gives no proper sense, but " between clouds." rinv;, 
clouds, was one of those words, which had gradually lost their 
plural signification. And Ezekiel formed the new plural D^rojr, 
which is only used by him in this sense ; compare chap. xix. 11, 
" high became his growth, higher than the clouds." As the 
tender shoot is taken from the lofty cedar (mentioned in the 
previous verse), the emblem of the stock of David, it cannot de- 



2G MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE rilOPlIETS. 

note the kingdom of God in its Iiumble commencement, but 
must refer to an offshoot of the stock of David ; especially as the 
prophet evidently had before his mind the similar representations 
of earlier prophets, particularly of Jeremiah (see the note on 
chap, xxiii. 5). Hence the cedar in this passage, as well as in 
Daniel, is not the kingdom, but the king ; and this is also appa- 
rent from the contrast presented to the conduct of Nebuchad- 
nezzar in vei". 3, and from the contents of the rest of the chapter, 
which is occupied throughout with the royal family. That the 
tender twig from the lofty cedar, which afterwards grows into a 
tali cedar itself, is no other than the Messiah, who sprang from 
the deeply degraded family of David, cannot for a moment be 
doubted, when we consider the parallel passages in both Ezekiel 
and the other prophets. So much, however, may perhaps be 
admitted, that the prophet was not thinking of the Messiah as 
an individual, but as the person in whom the idea of the stem of 
David was fully realised, and therefore that the prophecy may be 
regarded, as including both the very small step towards its resto- 
ration, which was taken under Zerubbabel in accordance with the 
promise to David, and also in a certain sense everything that 
was done by God, for the re-establishment and maintenance of 
the civil government in Israel (compare the note on Jer. xxxiii). 
The difference is substantially of but little importance. For 
even if the prophet had in view the whole family of David, and 
depicted its progress from a humble commencement to a glorious 
end, he was conscious, when writing, that it was in and through 
the Messiah alone, that this promise was to be literally and' per- 
fectly fulfilled for the family of David itself, and through that 
family for the nation at large. The low condition of the nation 
was closely connected with that of its head, and therefore til 
must be referred to both. Hitzig would restrict the tenderness 
to youthful age, in total di.^regard of the fundamental and 
parallel passages, such as Is. xi. 1, liii. 2. It is hardly an acci- 
dental coincidence that in 2 Sam. iii. 39 "y^ is applied to David 
himself, who was at first tender and feeble in his royal capacity. 
Ezekiel appears to have had this passage before his mind. Even 
in 1 Chr. xxii. 5, xxix. 1, where Solomon is described as "j"^ 
(tender), the reference is not merely to his age (">yj occurs just 
before), but to the weakness which in his case arose undoubt- 



EZEKIEIi, CHAP. XVII. 23. 27 

edly from his youth (cf. 2 Chr. xiii. 7.) The original lowliness 
of the Messiah is seen in the very fact, that the twig is first 
planted upon the high mountain. — We have here simply a ge- 
neral announcement that the spot, in which the twig was planted, 
was a high mountain, and in this announcement an indication 
of its destiny, when once it had grown to be a tree, to rule over 
all the trees of the plain, nx^-n 'yy in ver. 24. — In ver. 23 this 
high mountain is more particularly described. 

Ver. 23. " On the high mountain of Israel will I plant it, and 
it puts forth branches and bears fruit, and becomes a splendid 
cedar, and aU fowls of every wing dwell under it, in the shadow 
of its branches will they dwell." 

The high mountain of Israel is evidently Mount Zion in 
the more comprehensive sense, including Mount Moriah, as 
we may see from chap. xx. 40 : " for on my holy mountain, 
on the high mountain of Israel, there shall all the house 
of Israel, all of them in the land, serve me." The temple 
hill is evidently intended here, for the offering of sacrifices 
is expressly mentioned. The corresponding term holt/ in the 
parallel passage shows how we are to understand the word high 
both there and in the verse before us. It is a height that is 
hidden from the natural eye, for elsewhere the prophet him- 
self speaks simply of a hill of the Lord (chap, xxxiv. 26). But 
the spiritual eye beholds it, although thus hidden, towering high 
above all the mountains of the earth, and even reaching to the 
heavens. In fact the description itself shows, that the holy moun- 
tain is not introduced here merely as a mountain but as the 
seat and centre of the kingdom of (iod, and therefore denotes 
the kingdom itself (see the notes on Is. ii, 2, and Ps. xlviii. 3.) 
The twig is planted in a lofty place, and grows to a tall cedar. 
The glory of the future king is founded upon that of the king- 
dom, over which he rules ; and, on the other hand, so greatly 
does the former increase, that it heightens the glory of the king- 
dom, in return. The fruits denote the blessings enjoyed by all 
the subjects of this king (see Is. xi. 1). The shadow is the 
usual figure employed to represent protection (Ps. xxxvi. 8). 
" All fowls of every wing" are all the nations of the whole earth, 
as we may see from chap. xxxi. G and 12. It is evident from 
chap, xxxix. 4, 17, that this is the proper way to connect the 



28 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

words. The expression is taken from Gen. vii. 14, where birds 
of every kind of wing take refuge in Noah's ark. — The prophet 
has but one design, namely, to remove the difficulty, which would 
necessarily arise from both the existing, and future degradation 
of the family of David, and consequently of the Kingdom of 
God. He holds up, therefore, but one single point, their ulti- 
mate exaltation, and thereby administers consolation to us as 
well, whenever we are filled with trouble at seeing the King- 
dom of God and of Christ in a similar condition. Calvin says : 
" We are taught by this that better hopes are to be cherished 
with regard to the Kingdom of Christ, than our senses would 
lead us to entertain . . . when we see the gospel creeping, 
as it were, upon the ground, let us call to mind this passage. 
. . . . God has so firmly founded the one Kingdom of 
Christ that it is to last as long as the sun and moon endure ; 
but the other kingdoms of the world will vanish with the glory 
thereof, and their pride will be brought down, even though now 
they may overtop the clouds." We have here the essence of 
Daniel's prophecy of the kingdoms of the world. It was not 
within the scope of the prophet, to describe the nature of the 
kingdom more minutely, to show, that is, that it is a spiritual 
kingdom (not indeed in contrast to a real kingdom, but to an 
earthly one). Still this may be inferred from the description 
which he has given. — A kingdom, which is not iy. tou ytoa^xov, 
and which, by the miraculous power of God alone, without 
earthly force, or earthly arms, has been brought along with its ruler 
from weak beginnings to a glorious issue, cannot be a worldly and 
carnal one. God's government of the world, not the rule of earthly 
kings, is the model and type of such a kingdom as this. 

Ver. 24. " And all the trees of the field learn, that 7, the 
Lord, bring down the high tree, and exalt the low tree, make the 
green tree barren, and make the barren tree green. I, the Lord, 
speak and do it." 

The trees of the field, in contradistinction to the cedar on the 
high mountain, on the kingdoms of the world along with their 
kings, whose fall is coincident with the rise of the kingdom of 
God. This mighty change furnishes them with a positive proof, 
that the Lord, whom they have hitherto been accustomed to 
despise in their proud boast of the stability of their fancied 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXI. 25 — 27. 29 

greatness, is the king over all the earth, by whom alone kings 
and nations are exalted and cast down. (The preterites are 
to be taken as aorists, and the sentence is quite a general 
one). At the same time they are not simply left to infer from 
this remarkable exaltation, that it also belongs to the Lord to 
cast down ; but the reference to " the trees of tlie field" shows 
that they themselves will have a striking illustration of the latter 
in the fate which awaits themselves. The elevation of the king- 
dom of God to world-wide supremacy cannot possibly be con- 
ceived of, without the fall of the kingdoms of the world. Their 
kings are thereby deprived of what they value most, their fancied 
self-sufficiency. They become vassals of God and of Ms king, 
— though this is in reality the highest honour, that can pos- 
sibly be conferred upon them. The closing words show that 
what, outwardly considered, appeared to be nothing more than 
the most glorious dream that ever had been dreamed, attained 
to the most complete reality through the person of the promised 
Messiah. It was God who gave the promise, it is by God also 
that the promise is fulfilled. 



CHAP. XXI. 25-27, 



The twenty-first chapter, which forms part of an address 
delivered by the prophet in the fifth month of the seventh year 
from the captivity, that is about five years before the destruction 
of Jerusalem, may properly be described as the prophecy of the 
sword of the Lord. The sword, which is put into the hands of 
the king of Babylon for the punishment of evil-doers, falls first 
upon Jerusalem ; it then reaches the Ammonites, the bitter 
enemies of the Lord and of his people, who are made to learn, 
from their own destruction, that the fate of Jerusalem is not, as 
they imagined, a proof of the weakness, but rather of the omni- 
potence of its God. 

Ver. 25. " And thou pierced tvicked prince of Israel, ivhose 
day comes cd the time of the final transgression ! 

The reigning king, Zedekiah, is addressed ; and the epithet em- 



30 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

ployed shows that the words, which follow in ver. 31, apply pecu- 
liarly to him. We musttherefore supply the usual appeal, ' ' hear the 
word of the Lord," which has been leftout in the intensity of the pro- 
phet's feehngs. The rendering " unholy, cursed" (LXX. /SE/SriXs), 
instead oi pierced, owes its origin no doubt to the fact, that the 
translator cast a side glance at the history, to see whether Zede- 
kiah was actually pierced through. The result was not satis- 
factory ; Zedekiah remained alive, but his sons were slain before 
his eyes, and then his own eyes were put out. But as we find 
the vengeance of God set forth throughout the entire chapter 
under the image of a drawn sword, it is evident that full justice 
is done to "^^n, if it can be shown that the king was in any way the 
object of divine wrath. On the outward form of the punishment 
the word chalal says nothing, any more than there was an actual 
sw^ord in the hands of God : — There is just as little force in an- 
other objection, namely that Zedekiah was not yet pierced. The 
prophet's intention is to strike and terrify by the immediate jux- 
taposition of guilt and punishment. The ungodly man is already 
judged ; the few years' respite allowed him are not taken into 
consideration. To the eye of faith punishment appears as the 
inseparable attendant upon sin. In its view the sinner, who is 
still actually sitting in high places, lies weltering in his blood. — 
The following are our reasons for rejecting the meaning accursed, 
and adopting the rendering " pierced " instead. 1. '""-•n never 
means anything but " pierced through." It is not even used in 
the general sense of " })erished ;'' for a^"; »^hl, pierced thr.ough 
with hunger (Lam. iv. 9), maybe explained on the assumption that 
we have here an example of poetical personification, hunger 
being represented as armed with a sword, and in Is. xxii. 2 it is 
very evident that reference is made to such as fall by the sword 
of pestilence. Least of all can it be rendered profanatus. The 
only passage adduced in support of this meaning, Lev. xxi. 7, 
14, proves nothing. The word is used there in its ordinary sig- 
nification. nS'^n is opposed to " a wife in her virginity " (ver. 
13), and includes as species the widow, the divorced woman, and 
the prostitute. 2. Even if the meaning " profane " were met 
with elsewhere, it would not be admissible here. A sword and 
piercing form the key note of the whole chapter, and recur in 
nearly every verse. Compare, e.g., vers. 3, 9, 10, 11, and espt^- 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXI. 25. 31 

cially ver. 12 : "a sword goeth over my people, over all the 
princes of Israel ; they are given to the sword along with my 
people." See also ver. 14 : " the sword will come tripled, the 
sword of the pierced, o'^ri^Q ; it is the sword of a pierced one, 
of the great one" {3IicJiaelis : "by which not the ])eople only, 
but the King himself, the princes and great men fall"). 3. 
Those who adoj^t the rendering " profane," overlook the connec- 
tion between this verse and ver. 29. According to ver. 19 sqq. 
the sword of the king of Babylon is to cut two ways. First of 
all it turns towards Jerusalem, where the king is slain before 
any of the rest. It then passes over to the Ammonites, ver. 
28 sqq., and we read in ver. 29 : " the sword lays thee upon 
the necks of the wicked, who are pierced through, whose day 
Cometh at the time of the final transgression." This agree- 
ment is the more important, as it is certainly not acciden- 
tal, but the prophet evidently intends that the unity of ex- 
pression shall indicate a unity in the fate which awaits the 
two nations. The fact that the kingdom of Grod does not fall 
when Israel is overthrown, but that it is rather avenged there- 
by, and thus the degradation of Israel beconies a proof of its 
supremacy, is still further shown in the fate of the Ammo- 
nites, who are severely punished fur the crimes tliey have com- 
mitted against Israel, so far as it is the kingdom of God. — 
The general term n''^j, piince, instead of the more special term 
Tf^^, king, is a peculiar favourite with Ezekiel. This cannot 
be merely accidental ; there must be some reason for it. The 
day of the prince is shown by the context to denote the day of 
his fall, the day in which judgment overtakes him. Vi?. V"^-. is 
also found not only in ver. 29, but in chap. xxxv. 5 in the 
prophecy against Edom : " because tliou dost cherish perpetual 
enmity, and hast given up the children of Israel to the power of 
the sword, in the time of their calamity, in the time of the final 
transgression." It is very certain that \^v. cannot be rendered 
" punishment," as it has been by de Wette and Eivald. It never 
means anything but " transgression." The only question that 
can possibly arise is how to interpret Vi?. . The final transgres- 
sion may be the full transgression, the culminating point, when 
the vengeance of God can no longer- be delayed. We may 



32 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

compare Gen. xv. 16, " the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet 
full," which evidently implies that the day will come when it 
will be full, and the people will therefore be ripe for judgment. 
The final transgression, however, may also be the transgression, 
which brings in its train the end of all, the overthrow of the 
nation, just as jS^iXvyfxa. epriixouasajs is the abomination which is 
followed by desolation (see the remarks on Dan. ix. 27). And 
this explanation is favoured by the use of Vi?. in other con- 
nections ; compare especially chap. vii. 2 : " thus saith the Lord 
God unto the land of Israel : an end ! the end comes upon the 
four borders of the land," and ver. 3, " now is the end upon 
thee, and I send my wrath upon thee, and judge thee according 
to thy ways, and recompense to thee all thine abominations." 
But even this explanation involves the idea, that the measure of 
sin may be filled, that there is a culminating point at which it 
forces the avenging justice of God into action, because he could 
not be God if his long-suffering were still further extended ; see 
the remarks on Zech. v. 5 — 11. 

Ver. 26. " Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, removed is the dia- 
de7n, the croicn taken off; this is not this ; the low is made 
high, and the high brought low." 

In the opinion of many (including Ewald and Schmieder) 
np.^VQ is used here for the royal diadem. But the following 
reasons may be adduced in favour of a different view, — namely, 
that it is rather the diadem of the high priest which is intended : 
1. Wherever the word Mknepheth occurs, it always refers to the 
latter. Although originally it may have had a general meaning, 
after the institution of the high-priesthood, it was restricted 
to the head-dress of the high priest, or, what is still more 
probable, the word was coined by Moses with express reference 
to the ornaments worn by the high priest about his head. An 
appeal is made to the term ^^'^^ H'^y, the royal diadem, in Is. 
Ixii. 3. But all that this passage proves is, that the king 
also wore a diadem, — a fact which no one disputes. The pecu- 
liar form of the expression determines the meaning in this case. 
tl'jv or I^H is the general term, and may be applied to diadems 
of every description ; when any particular kind is referred to, 
this is indicated by a second word (vid. Is. Ixii. 3, and Zech. iii. 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXI. 26. 33 

5). But n^.^vp needed no such addition. The meaning is 
sufficiently restricted by the word itself. It is used in the Pen- 
tateuch not less than eleven times to denote the head-dress of 
the high priest, and Ezekiel, the priest, who took such evident 
delight in adopting the phraseology of the Pentateuch, was the 
last person who was likely to make use of the word in a different 
sense from that in which it is there employed. — 2. If the diadem 
belonged to the king, we should have two kinds of royal head- 
dress, the diadem and the crown. This will present no difficulty 
indeed to those who agree with Jalm (Archaologie, ii. 2, p. 225). 
In his opinion it is fully proved, that the kings were in the habit 
of wearing a diadem, as well as a crown. But the fact really 
was, that the diadem and crown were identical. It is no proof 
to the contrary, that the crown is described as golden in Ps. 
xxi. 4. There was a golden plate even in the diadem of 
the high priest. Their identity, on the other hand, may be 
inferred from the fact that we never read of more than one royal 
head-dress, a diadem or a crown ; diadem and crown we never 
find together. Compare 2 Sam. i. 10 : " and I took the diadem, 
^.U, which was on his head ;" 2 Kings ii. 12, " and he brought 
forth the King s son, and put the diadem upon liim" (see also Esther 
viii. 15). Moreover it is evident from Job xxxi. 36, " I would hind 
it as a crown to me," that the form of the crown resembled that of 
a diadem, and not that of a modern crown. This conclusion is 
favoured by the use of the plural n-n^i? in cases in which only one 
crown is referred to ; cf. Job xxxi. 36, and our remarks on Zech. vi. 
11. — 3. The appropriateness of such a combination of the head- 
band and the crown, of the abolition of the high-priestly glory 
along with that of the king,— involving, as it did, the complete 
abrogation of the prerogatives of the covenant-people, — is appa- 
rent from the contrast presented by later prophecies, in which 
the sorrowing people are assured that both these offices will be 
restored together; see Zech, iv. and vi., and Jer. xxxiii. If sal- 
vation was not complete till both were restored; the end, Vi?. 
ver. 25, can only have been reached when both were taken away. 
The glory of the high-priestly office was concentrated in the 
head-dress which was worn by the high-priest himself, whose 
golden head-band bore the inscription " holy to the Lord," and 
in it the people received a pledge, that they possessed a recon- 

VOL. III. ' c 



34 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

ciled and gracious God (Ex. xxviii. 36 — 38). — The only argu- 
ment that can be adduced in favour of referring the word to the 
head-dress of the king, is this : the words addressed to the king 
in ver. 25 require, that what follows should apply exclusively to 
him. But there is no force in this argument. It is very clear 
from the connection with ver. 24, and still more so from the 
parallel passage in ver. 29, where " their day" takes the place of 
' ' his day," that the king is placed in the fore-ground merely as 
the representative of the nation, and that the whole nation is 
threatened in him. If, however, the king is regarded as the 
representative of the nation, the removal of the head-band 
affects him quite as much as that of the crown. The two 
are intimately connected. The crown without the head- 
band is an empty show. The forgiveness of sins, which was 
obtained through the mediation of the high-priest, lay at the 
foundation of all the royal blessings of God. — The infinitives 
stand alone without any other verb, for the sake of emphatic 
brevity, whenever the intention is simply to give prominence to 
the main point; compare chap, xxiii. 30. Nothing is said here 
to indicate luho is to take the things away ; the prophet does 
nothing more than mention the fact of their removal. ^'"^^ 
to raise, lift up, then to take away; Is. Ivii. 14; Dan. viii. 11. 
The words riNT nS nsi (this not this), of which many erroneous 
explanations have been given, are explained by the clause which 
follows: "The low is made high and the high made low," 
in other words, every thing from the least to the greatest, is 
turned upside down, nxi is used for the neuter, and the expres- 
sion denotes a complete inversion of the existing state of things, 
a total revolution, in which nothing remains what it is. The 
conduct of the people had been such as to make the last first ; and 
according to the divine j'iis talionis a similar inversion would ap- 
pear in their subsequent fate. The correctness of this explanation 
is confirmed by the parallel passage. Is. xxiv. 1 sqq., which the 
in-ophet evidently had in his mind at the time, as ver. 27 very 
clearly shows. In ver. 2 of that passage in Isaiah, the same idea, 
the overturning of all existing relations, is individualised thus : 
" And it shall be, as the people, so the priest ; as the servant, so 
the master ; as the maid, so the mistress ; as the buyer, so the 
seller ; as the borrower, so the lender ; as the creditor, so the 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXI. 27. 35 

debtor." — ^)s^ is masculine, with an unaccentuated ^, which 
merely serves to give greater fulness and euphony to the word. 
Ewald, Maurer, and Hitzig, suppose that the pointers were at 
fault, and mistook the feminine for a masculine. But there are 
too many analogous cases in existence to admit of such a suppo- 
sition, and the question is set at rest by the masculine which 
immediately follows. A change of genders we should never look 
for in such a connection as this. 

Ver. 27. " Invert, invert, invert,^ the land will 1, this also 
abides not, until he comes, to luhom 'is the right, to him I give 
it. 

n^i? is a noun derived from the Piel, like "id'ji? ridicule 
(chap. xxii. 4), from o)>.p. ; and hsn; contempt (chap. xxxv. 12), 
from V??^ The prophet has selected this word of his own 
forming, as these analogous derivations show, for the express 
purpose of pointing out the connection between inversion as a 
punishment, and inversion as a crime. The reference to pj? in 
ver. 24, 25, is very conspicuous. They were the first to turn 
things upside down ; now it is God's turn. The triple reitera- 
tion adds force to the declaration. The suffix in n^P'Vi"? may 
be referred either to rixT this, the existing condition of things, 
or to Vl? the land. The latter is favoured by the parallel pas- 
sage in Is. xxiv. 1, "he inverteth the face thereof" (namely, of 
the land), of which F^iYrm^a has given an excellent exposition, 
and one thoroughly applicable to the passage before us. He 
says : " These metaphorical expressions indicate a complete in- 
version of the condition of the state, and a change of such a 
kind, that the lowest becomes highest, and the highest lowest, 
and perfect equality is produced in the circumstances of all, 
whether nobles or paupers, strong or weak, rich or poor, the 
republic itself being overturned and the inhabitants being strip- 
ped of all they possessed." In the phrase "^7 n^ n«TDj the 
word also should be particularly observed. It shows that hni 
(this) refers to the condition consequent upon the inversion 
mentioned immediately before. This also is not to be perma- 

1 The word verkehren would undoubtedly be more correctly and forcibly 
rendered "turn upside down," but so complex an expression hardl3' admits 
of being repeated three times as the text requires ; " overturn," on the other 
hand, does not convey the correct idea. — Tr, 



36 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

nent ; the declaration "this is not this" applies just as much to 
the new condition as to the one whicli preceded it, and thus 
overthrow succeeds to overthrow ; nowhere is there rest, nowhere 
security, everything is fleeting, until the appearance of the great 
restorer and prince of peace. — tae^'p very freipiently denotes the 
right to a thing. If we adopt this meaning hei'c, we can only 
explain it as referring to the right to the head-band and crown, 
which their former possessors had forfeited through their un- 
godliness. We have already proved, however (vol. i., p. 85 
seq.), from the reference to Gen. xlix. 10, and Ps. Ixxii., that 
the word is used here to denote justice in an absolute sense, in 
contradistinction to the wickedness and unrighteousness of those 
who had previously possessed the throne. — There is no ground 
whatever for rendering the suflix in vnn; as a dative. The 
person was so clearly pointed out already, that there was no 
necessity to describe him furtlier. The fundamental passage 
(Ps. Ixxii. 1) requires that the suffix should be referred to the 
right. 



iTIIK SIsOTlON.-ClIAP. XXXIY. :2;]-;)l. 

The prophecy against the wicked shepherds, in chap, xxxiv., 
belongs to the series of revelations, which the jirophet continued 
to receive from the evening of the day before the arrival of the fugi- 
tive, who brought the news of the capture of Jerusalem by the 
(yhaldoans, till his arrival on the following morning (chap, xxxiii. 
•J2). By the spirit of prophecy Ezekiel foresaw his coming, and by 
means of the word of the Lord, which interpreted the act of the 
Lord, he sought to ensure its producing the desired effect upon 
the exiles generally, whose elders had gathered round the pro- 
l)het, with a large company besides, as they usually did when the 
hand of the Lord was upon hhu (cf chap, xxxiii. 11). The 
word oi' the Lord by the prophet was for the most part consola- 
tory, indicating his mercy and grace towards Israel, and his cove- 
nant fidelity ; for his justice was so loudly proclaimed by the 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXXIV. 23 — 31. 37 

event, that a hint was all that was required. In this respect we 
see here a perfect resemblance between Ezekicl and Jeremiah. 
Before the destruction falls, threats predominate in the ad- 
dresses of both these prophets ; but no sooner has it actually 
occurred, than promises take their place. Evil and good 
were equally hidden from the natural man before they actually 
came. From the same want of living faith sprang pride and 
haughtiness before the destruction, and after it despair, — both 
equally pernicious, and both in their turn alike the object of pro- 
phecy, the design of which was everywhere to bring out the 
idea in contradistinction to the existing reality. — We have already 
shown in our notes on Jer. xxiii., that we have there the ground- 
work of the prophecy in chap, xxxiv. It is the prophecy of the 
shepherds of Israel. The wicked shepherds are to be destroyed, 
and the sheep of Israel to be saved by the Lord, who will him- 
self undertake the ofiice of shepherd, and lead them by means 
of his servant David. The tidings of the fulfilment of the first 
part, the punishment of the wicked shepherds, which were 
brought in immediately afterwards, could not but serve as a 
pledge of the fulfilment of the second part, which rested upon 
the same foundation, the covenant faithfulness of the Lord. 



Ver. 23. " And I raise iip one shepherd over them, and he 
feeds them, even my servant David, he loill feed them and he 
will he their shepherd." 

The word 'ncpni is a sufficient disproof of the assertion of 
Hitzig, that Ezekiel expected the bodily resurrection of David, 
inasmuch as he is speaking of the appointment of a new prophet 
(cf ver. 29, Deut. xviii. 15), not of the bringing back of an old 
one, which would have been something so thoroughly abnormal, 
that it would surely have been more definitely explained. Still 
more decisive is the evident allusion in ver. 12, to the original 
promise in 2 Sam. vii. , " When thy days are full and thou liest with 
thy ftithers, I ivill raise up ('no'isni) thy seed after thee, which 
cometh forth from thy body, and will establish thy kingdom." 
Those, who ascribe such singular opinions to particular prophets, 
have no conception of the manner in which all prophecy is linked 
together, as its divine mission necessarily requires. The last 



38 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

link in the prophetic chain, with which Ezekiel throughout is 
closely connected, contains no hint of a bodily resurrection of 
David, it only speaks of a " Son reigning upon his throne." 
Again the fact that Ezekiel's reference to the Messiah consists of 
mere allusions, shows that he has no thought of bringing for- 
ward anything new with regard to his person, and his equivalent 
to an express rehearsal of former and fuller prophecies. The 
peculiar feature in this prophecy is the more distinct announce- 
ment of the Messiah as the good shepherd {cf. Jer. iii. 15, xxiii. 
4). The words of the Lord in John x. 11, "I am the good 
shepherd," allude particularly to the passage before us. With 
regard to the article, Lampe says, " he pointed to those prophecies, 
with which the Pharisees were well acquainted, and in which he 
had been promised under this designation." Compare also 1 
Pet. ii. 25, and Heb. xiii. 25, where allusion is made not only 
to Ezekiel, but to Jer, xxiii. and Zech. xi., between which pro- 
phecies this prediction of Ezekiel forms the connecting link. It 
is very evident from chap, xxxvii. 24, and from the parallel 
passage, Jer. xxiii. 5, 6, where Judah and Israel are classed 
together, that "^nN (one) refers to the former separation of 
Israel and Judah : and it is altogether in vain that John makes 
every exertion to defend the rendering " unicus, singularis" — a 
meaning which the word never has. In substance, no doubt, he 
is right. There was to rise up a most distinguished descendant 
of David {Venema: " one in whom David, Grod's own king and 
representative, would, so to speak, live again"), in the strictest 
sense " one after God's own heart," who would receive back in 
its fullest extent the kingdom of his father. For the loss of 
dominion was threatened as a punishment to the family of 
David, because it was no longer after Grod's own heart, and even 
the most faithful of David's successors had not been so truly 
" after God's heart," that the promise of a future reunion {cf. 1 
Kings xi. 39), could be fulfilled in them. Hence the announce- 
ment of one shepherd involved a declaration of the highest ex- 
cellence, and also of the fact that the grace of God in its richest 
measure would be bestowed upon the nation through him. 
There is a direct reference to this passage in John x. 16, " one 
fold," " one shepherd," where our prophecy is still further ex- 
tended, and Christ is declared to be a shepherd not for Judah 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXXIV. 23 — 25. 39 

and Israel alone, but for the Gentiles also, and the one shepherd 
is just on this account " the good shepherd," (ver. 11.) Hitzigs 
assertion, that ^n^ is used " in contradistinction to several in 
succession," founders on both the parallel passage and the 
original promise, the latter of which takes away all force from 
his argument, that previous to this there is no allusion to the two- 
fold division of Israel. In the relation in which Ezekiel stood 
to Jeremiah, the 23d chapter of the prophecies of the latter must 
be regarded as the context to this passage. — The title given to 
David, " servant of God," relates not merely to his willing 
obedience (Edvernick), but also and still more to his election ; 
see our remarks on Is. xlii. 1. — The rule of David, the type, 
is described as a feeding, with particular reference to his former 
vocation, 2 Sam. vii. 8 ; Ps. Ixxviii. 70, 71 (see the note on this 
passage). niirS indicates the design, nyn its fulfilment. The 
contrast between the two, which was so conspicuous in the conduct 
of previous shepherds, and plunged the nation into such inde- 
scribable misery, is now to cease (compare, in addition to the 
parallel passages already quoted, Jer. xxx. 9 ; xxxiii. 15, 16). 
Our remarks on Jer. xxxiii. 18, with reference to the prelimi- 
nary fulfilment of the prophecy under Zerubbabel and the other 
leaders of the people, are equally applicable here. We may very 
properly interpret the name David as denoting the race of 
David which merely culminated in Christ, so that the fulfilment 
in Christ was not the only one, but was the highest and truest 
fulfilment (see the remarks on Is. Iv. 3 and Hos. iii. 5). 

Ver. 24. " And 7, the Lord, ivill he God to them, and my 
servant David prince in the midst of them, I, the Lord, have 
spoken it." 

The promise to David is to flourish again, his descendant is 
to be the servant of God in so complete a sense, that the former 
painful difference between the direct and indirect government of 
God will altogether cease. 

Ver. 25. " And I conclude with them a covenant of peace, 
and exterminate the ivild beasts out of the land, and they dwell 
safely in the desert and sleep in the ivoods." 

The meaning of this covenant has already been discussed in 
Jer. xxxi. 32. Peace with God, which was to be secured by the 
servant of God, the Prince of Peace (Is. ix. 5), the true Solo- 



40 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

mon (see the note on Gen, xlix. 10), would be followed by peace 
with the creatures of God, which he had hitherto enlisted against 
his rebellious people. The description given by the prophet in 
this and the following passages rests entirely upon Lev. xxvi. 
Compare for example ver. 6 : " And ye dwell safely in your 
land, and ye lie down, and there is none to make you afraid ; 
and I exterminate the evil beasts out of the land, and no terror 
shall penetrate into your land." From this classical passage the 
prophet intentionally borrows the form of his representation, the 
substance of which is, that wherever God is, his gifts and bless- 
ings will be found in all their fulness. He does not announce 
anything new, he merely repeats what the law of God had 
already declared to be necessarily involved in the idea of a cove- 
nant-nation. And whilst it was certain, that his prophecy had 
hitherto been but partially fulfilled in the history of Israel, it 
was just as certain tjiat the complete fulfilment had yet to come ; 
see Hosea, ii. 20. 

Ver. 26. " And I make them and the environs of my Mil a 
blessing, and cause the rain to descend in its season ; they ivill 
he blessed rains." 

The hill is Zion, the holy mountain. It is evident, however, 
from the pronoun " them," that the hill denotes Israel, the people 
of God, of whom it was the spiritual dwelling place. Hence 
the environs of the hill must necessarily be the heathen, who 
are allied with Israel. Compare chap. xvii. 23, where all the 
fowls of the earth are said to gather together under the tree of 
the kingdom of God : — chap. xvi. 61, where Zion receives its 
sisters, the rest of the nations, as daughters ; — chap, xlvii. 8, 
where the water of salvation, which issues from the new temple, 
is described as flowing through the desert and healing the waters 
of the Dead Sea (the emblem of the world), and John iv. 18. 
Hdvernich thinks the introduction of the heathen is out of place 
in such a passage as this, where the glory of Israel alone is 
referred to. But as far back as Gen. xii. salvation for the 
heathen is inseparably connected with salvation for Israel, and 
Israel cannot possibly enjoy complete salvation, without the 
heathen sharing in it. Moreover, the environs of the hill could 
never stand for Israel itself, for, according to the Old Testament 
idea, Israel dwells on Zion (Is. x. 24), not round about it. The 



CZEKIEL, CHAP. XXXIV. 26 29. 41 

word n'ni3»3D (those " round about her") is used in chap. xvi. 
57, to denote the heathen nations around Jerusalem ; compare 
chap. y. 5, 6; Dan. ix. 16 ; Micah v. 6. — A blessing is a stronger 
expression than blessed ; cf. Gen. xii. 2. Israel is to be a living 
blessing. The representation of the blessing as rain, founded, 
as it is, upon the natural peculiarity of Canaan, which made all 
the rest of the natural blessings of God dependent upon the 
rain, is also taken from Lev, xxvi. 4 (compare Deut. xi. 13, 14 ; 
Joel ii. 23). 

Ver. 27. ''And the tree of the field ijields its fruit, and the 
land yields its produce, and they divell safely in their land, and 
they learn that I am the Lord, since I break their yoke and 
deliver them out of the hand of those loho enslave them." 

The clause from " and" to " produce" is taken from Lev. xxvi. 
3 ; the next clause from ver. 5 of the same chapter. And in the 
third clause there is a casual allusion to ver. 13 : "I, the Lord 
your God, w^hich brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, 
out of bondage, and I brake your yoke." As Israel had then a 
positive proof that God was Jehovah, so shall it receive a fresh 
proof, and personal experience of the fact of the still greater 
repetition of that event, — viz. their redemption from the dominion 
of the world, and entire subjection to God and his anointed. In 
this allusion we find an intimation that, to redeem Israel, God 
does not need to become different from what he is, but that 
He, Jehovah, the sole perfect Being, needs only to continue un- 
changeably the same. The construction of laj? with ?, to serve 
in a person, to perform service by means of a person, then to en- 
slave him, is taken from Ex. i. 14. 

Ver. 28. "And they shall no more be for a prey to the heathen, 
neither shall the beasts of the earth devour them, and there is 
none who makes them afraid." 

The heathen can only exercise dominion over the nation of 
the Lord, when through its own fault it has ceased to be a nation 
at all. Now, therefore, their power over Israel is brought to an 
end. The wild beasts, in both a literal and figurative sense, 
are the heathen conquerors ; cf. Is. xxxv. 9, Ivi. 9 ; Ez. xviii. 
10. 

Ver. 29. And I raise up to them a plantation for a name, 



isi^ 



42 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

and they shall no longer be swept away hy hunger in the land, 
and they shall not hear any more the reproach of the heor- 
then." 

yr\? is to be taken in the sense of plantation. There is an 
aUusion to Gren. ii. 8, 9 : " and God planted a garden eastward 
in Eden, and there he placed the man whom he had formed; and 
out of the ground made the Lord Grod to grow every tree that is 
pleasant to the sight a7id good for food." (Observe the hunger 
in the verse before us.) With this passage compare also the 
words of God after the fall (iii. 18, 19) : " thorns and thistles 
shall it bring forth to thee, and thou shalt eat the herb of the 
field. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread." The his- 
tory of the fall is constantly recurring ; the first sin shows both 
the genesis and consequence of every sin. Moses himself directs 
attention to its significance in this respect, when he observes 
that before the destruction of the cities of the plain of Jordan, it 
was well watered everywhere, as the garden of God, i.e., para- 
dise (Gen. xiii, 10). But the prediction contained in the history 
of the fall was more especially realised in Israel. God had 
planted for it a garden in Eden, full of trees pleasant to the 
sight and good for food. He had given it the land flowing 
with milk and honey, together with all the blessings attached to 
its possession. But Israel had listened to the voice of the 
tempter, and its paradise had vanished, though not for ever. 
Once more would God plant it a garden in Eden filled with 
pleasant trees. The existence of such an allusion in the passage 
under review is confirmed by chap, xxxvi. 35 : " this land 
becomes like the garden of Eden ;" and by chap, xlvii. 12 : "and 
on the brook (compare the words of Gen. ii. 10, ' and a stream 
went out of Eden to water the garden' with ver. 1 of the chap- 
ter, ' behold waters issued out from under the threshold of the 
house eastward') there grow on both sides, on its banks, all kinds 
of fruit trees ; their leaves do not wither, and their fruits do not 
cease." There is also a similar allusion in Is. Ix. 21 ; and Ixi. 3: 
" and they shall be called terebinths of righteousness, the plant- 
ing of the Lord for glory ; " but here the righteous themselves are 
described as the trees of the new paradise, whereas in the passage 
before us the plantation is formed for them. Vitringa: "it is 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXXIV. 29 — 31. 43 

to be converted into a paradise of God, to be planted, as it were, 
with cuttings from the plantations of God, which will grow into 
strong and lofty oaks;" compare Joel ii. 3, where the land, 
previous to the judgment, is described as resembling the garden 
of Eden, and then again, after the restoration, a fonntain like a 
fountain of paradise issues from the house of Jehovah and 
waters the valley of the thorn trees (chap. iii. 1 8 ; c/ Zech. xiv. 
8). If, then, this allusion is clearly established, it is also certain, 
that the meaning of this passage goes beyond that of the parallel 
passage in chap, xxxvi. 30 : " and 1 multiply the fruit of the 
tree, and extend the produce of the field, that ye may no longer 
receive the reproach of famine among the heathen" (a passage 
which is sufficient in itself to set aside such explanations as those 
oi Jalin, Rosenmilller, and Eivald), and that, in order to com- 
plete the whole, we must necessarily include the other parallel 
passage in chap, xlvii. 12. The new paradise which the Lord 
would plant for his people, denotes the blessings of divine grace 
in their fullest extent. The blessing of the fruit trees, which 
formed one portion thereof, was also symbolical. The outward 
plantation was a type and shadow of the spiritual fountain, whose 
waters issued from the sanctuary ; just as hunger had previously 
represented a state of general destitution and want. The clause 
" they shall no more bear the reproach of the heathen," shows 
that the correct explanation of ^^) is not that given by De 
Wette " for my glory," but " for a name to them." They become 
the nation of the blessed of the Lord, and thus are delivered 
from the reproach, which rested on them on account of their 
misery, — the heathen regarding this as a positive proof of the 
absurdity of their boast, that they alone were the people of the 
Most High God. There is also an allusion here to Deut. xxvi. 
19, as well as in Zeph. iii. 19, and Jer. xiii. 11. 

Ver. 30. " 'A7id they find, fro^n experience, that I, the Lord 
their God, am with them, and they, my people, the house of Israel, 
saith the Lord Jehovah." 

" The house of Israel " is emphatical here : Israel, the people of 
God and covenant people in the strict and literal sense of the 
word (compare the note on chap. xi. 15). 

Ver. 31. " And ye are my flock, the flock of my pastmr are 



44 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

ye men, I am your Ood, saitli the Lord Jehovah ;" see our re- 
marks on the similar expression in Jer. xxiii. 1. 

The expression " ye men" directs attention to the depth and 
greatness of the divine condescension, and anticipates the objec- 
tion, which incredulity would offer, to the effect that man, who 
has been taken from the earth (adamah), and returns to it again, 
is incapable of so intimate a union with God. 



THE SECTION-CHAP. XXXVI. 22-3:2. 

The whole section, chap, xxxvi. 16 — 38, is included in the 
series of discourses delivered on the day before the intelligence 
arrived of the destruction of Jerusalem. This section is well 
and briefly described by Venema as follows : " He unfolds the 
cause and reason of the rejection and destruction, and also of the 
deliverance and restoration, the former of which may be traced 
to the corruption of the people, whilst the ground of the latter is 
solely the sanctification of the divine name." The former we 
find in the introduction (ver. 17 — 21), the latter in the leading 
portion of the discourse, ver. 22 — 38, of which we omit ver. 33 — 
38, as simply containing a recapitulation. 



Ver. 22. " Therefore say to the house of Israel, thus saith the 
Lord Jehovah, not for your sake do I this, you of the house of 
Israel, hut for my holy Qiame's sake, which ye have profaned 
among the heathen, whither ye have come" 

The holiness of the name of God denotes his incomparable and 
absolute glory (see the note on Ps. xxii. 4 and Kev. iv, 8). The 
fact that both here and in Is. xlviii. 11, the redemption of Israel 
is based upon the honour of God alone, in contradistinction to 
merit of every kind, was on the one hand very humiliating (com- 
pare Deut. ix. 6, " And thou knowest that the Lord does not 
give thee the good land for thy righteouness' sake"), since it 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXXVI. 22 32. 45 

thoroughly annihilated all human claims ; but on the other hand 
it was also very consolatory, for the broken and contrite hearts 
discovered that their salvation did not rest on any human founda- 
tion at all, and could not therefore be disturbed by the sins of 
their nation. At first sight the reason assigned by God for the 
redemption of Israel appears to be a very outward one. He 
seems to have been induced to change his former purpose of de- 
stroying Israel, by a cause entirely apart from himself, namely, the 
contemptuous speeches of the heathen, whose conclusions resulted 
entirely from their inability to discern the deeper grounds of 
what had occurred. But the thought must be distinguished 
from the form in which it is expressed. The latter is popular 
in its character, adapted to render the thought accessible to per- 
sons, whose minds are less disciplined than those of others. The 
conclusion drawn by the heathen was thoroughly well founded. 
That Israel was the people of Jehovah they never for a moment 
doubted ; they were well acquainted with past events, which bore 
witness to the fact, and the tidings of the glorious promises and 
solemn oaths, which they had received from Him, had also reached 
their ears. If, then, all at once he cast this nation entirely off, 
how could they do otherwise than conclude, that there was not 
much ground for the boasted holiness and glory of this God, 
seeing that he had either promised what he could not perform, 
or was unwilling to perform what he had promised — in fact that 
he was exactly hke their own deities, who merely reflected the 
sinful nature of their worshippers ? If the heathen were correct 
in their supposition, that God had cast off his people /or ever (we 
must imagine this as implied in the words, " the people of Jehovah 
are they, and they have gone forth out of their land," ver. 20), 
their conclusion was unanswerable, and the only possible way in 
which God could be justified was by a practical refutation of the 
words " for ever." — This view, — viz., that the words of the heathen 
are noticed only so far as they were founded upon facts, whilst 
the true foundation of the latter was the nature of God himself, — 
is confirmed by a comparison of such passages of the Pentateuch 
as the prophet had before his eyes, e.g., Ex. xxxii. ; Num. xiv. ; 
and Deut. ix.^ The profanation of the name of God refers not 

1 At first sight, indeed, it appears as if even in these passages the deliver- 
ance of Israel vras represented aa a matter of caprice, and by no means 



46 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

to their actions but to their condition. This is evident from 
what precedes. But the prophet intentionally attributes to 
Israel, as an act of its own, all that had resulted from its condition 
and fate, which were so directly at variance with the idea of a 
covenant nation. For the guilt of these reproaches attached to 
them ; their condition was the inevitable and natural consequence 
of their actions, and hence they were justly called upon to hum- 
ble themselves on account of such reproaches. It was not the 
heathen, but they, who had brought down the high and holy 
<jrod into the sphere of sin, impotence, and vanity. 

Ver. 23. " And I sanctify my name, the great one, which has 
been profaned among the heathen, lohich ye have profaned in the 
midst of them, and the heathen learn, that I am Jehovah, saith 
the Lord Jehovah, when I sanctify myself on you hefore your 
eyes." 

dependent upon the divine nature. God speaks as if he was firmly resolved 
to destroy the nation, and afterwards appears to be induced entirely by the 
entreaties of IMoses and such external grounds as the probable ridicule of the 
heathen, to limit his judgments to the actual sinners, and continue to the 
nation the blessings of its election. But on closer consideration it is 
evident, that, for a particular purpose, God brings forward first of all only 
one side of the whole question, namely, what he would do from the very 
necessity of his nature, if there were no covenant or promise in existence. 
This design is very conspicuous in all these passages ; compare Ex. xxxii. 10 ; 
" and now let me alone, and my anger shall burn against them, and I will 
consume them, and make of thee a great nation." There are similar expres- 
sions in Num. xiv. 12, and Deut. ix. 14. The temptation of Israel, as the 
servant of God, is accompanied by the temptation of Moses, the servant of 
God also, as we may perceive from the outward circumstance that he fasts 
forty days — the standing sign of temptation in the Scriptures ; cf. Deut. ix. 9. 
The temptation reaches its culminating point from the simple fact that Israel 
succumbs. This would give to Moses a very plausible pretext, for sacrificing 
the people to his own selfish interests, and establishing himself in their place. 
The leader of the people is to be tempted in all things like the people them- 
selves. For this reason God only manifests one side of his nature, appears 
(without misrepresenting himself) as though he takes the side of his servant's 
self-interest. He leaves it to Mm, to bring the other side of his nature out to 
view. The fact that he does this constitutes his credentials, and the out- 
ward manifestation thereof is the seal which God sets upon them, the light of 
his countenance. In the manner, in which this is done by Moses, we may 
see clearly that he only cares for the reproaches of the heathen, so far as 
they are borne out by the facts of the case. For he distinctly mentions the 
facts in his appeals. Thus for example, in Ex. xxxii. 13, he says : 
" Remember Abraham and Isaac and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou 
hast sworn by thyself, and hast said to them : I will multiply your seed, " 
&c. ; Deut. ix. 27 ; " Remember thy servants Abraham, &c., look not unto 
the stubbornness of his people : nor to their wickedness, nor to their sin ; " 
Num. xiv. 17. " Now 1 beseech thee, let the power of my Lord be great, as 
thou ha.st spoken : Jehovah long-sufiering, " &c. 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXXVI. 23 — 25, 47 

To sanctify is the same as to glorify. The expression " tlie 
great one," which is appended to " my name," assigns the reason. 
God takes care that his name shall receive due honour. The 
manner, in which Grod is sanctified or glorified on the Israelites, 
is explained in what follows. Many prefer the reading " in their 
eyes" to d5*J.'vV in your eyes. The fact, that the former read- 
ing is found in several critical authorities, proves nothing more 
than that there have heen critics before now, who judged accord- 
ing to first appearances. If it is certain that the reproach of the 
heathen rested upon facts, it is not less certain that it was abso- 
lutely necessary that God should vindicate his honour in the fate 
of the Israelites, as well as in that of the heathen. The two are 
classed together in chap. xx. 41, 42, just as they are here. 
" And I will be sanctified in you," says Jehovah in that passage, 
" before the heathen, and ye shall learn that I am Jehovah, when 
I bring you into the land of Israel, into the land, which I lifted 
up my hand to give to you fathers ;" compare ver. 44, " and ye 
shall know that I am Jehovah, when I have wrought with you 
for my name's sake." — " Before your seeing eyes :" thus speaks 
the prophet with reference to the pusillanimity of his nation, 
which looked only at what was visible, and which it was the 
object of all these discourses to point out and condemn. 

Ver. 24. "And I take you from among the heathen, and 
gather you out of all lands, and bring you into your land. 

Ver. 25. And I sprinkle clean water tcpon you, and ye 
become clean fi-om all your impurities ; and from all your filth 
(the idols) loill I cleanse you." 

We have here first of all the groundwork pointed out of 
the sanctification of God in his people, namely, the forgive- 
ness of sins, the taking away, which must precede all giving, 
(compare the notes on Jer. xxxi. 34). It is very evident that 
there is an allusion in this passage to the Mosaic rites of 
purification, especially to the holy water, in which the ashes of 
the red heifer were mixed, and which served as an antidote, first 
to the greatest of all defilements, contact with a corpse, and then 
to defilements in general {vide Num. xix. 17 — 19 : " and for an 
unclean person they take of the ashes of the burnt sin-offering, 
and pour living water upon it in a vessel, and they take hyssop, 
and a clean man dips it in the water, and sprinkles the tent and 



48 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

all the vessels, and the souls (persons) which are there ; and the 
clean man sprinkles upon the unclean man and absolves him ;" 
see also Ps. li. 9^). A plausible explanation of these allusions 
is sometimes given, namely, that the prophet changes the 
material into the spiritual ; but it is more correct to say that 
what was a symbol in the law is employed as a figure by the 
prophet. He does not interpolate, he expounds. A proof of this 
opinion may be found in the fact, that those, who have attempted 
to explain the meaning and design of the laws of purification on 
other grounds, have fallen into great absurdities. Look, for 
example, at the section in Michaelis Mosaisches Eecht relating 
to this subject (Pt. 4, § 207 sqq). That he did not shrink from the 
most far-fetched explanations is evident from § 217, where Moses 
is said to have ordered unclean earthen vessels to be broken, be- 
cause he did not approve of earthenware for cooking utensils, on 
account of its being so brittle and thus involving greater loss. 
The rest is of a piece with this, and yet in spite of his inventive 
faculty Michaelis is obliged to confess that there are many laws 
of uncleanness, for which he can see no object at all, no " social 
advantages." He devotes an entire section (§ 213), to the 
question, " why were there no laws relating to pestilence ? 



1 According to Hdvernick the prophet does not allude to Num. xix., but 
to Num. viii. 7, where the Levites, on the occasion of their consecration, 
are ordered to be sprinkled with the water of sin or of the sin-offering 
ntfjn ♦c. But the fact, that nothing is said here about the manner in 
which the water was to be prepared, points to some subsequent passage, in 
which the proper directions are given, and such a passage we find in Num. xix. 
In ver. 9 it is expressly stated, that the water containing the ashes of the red 
heifer was not merely intended for defilements through contact with a corpse. 
It is spoken of there as an antidote for uncleanness and sins of every kind. 
It was quite in order, that the directions for the preparations of this "water 
should be postponed till an account had been given of the ceremony, to be 
performed in connection with the worst of all defilements, that of contact 
with a corpse, although it had been actually made use of before, and thus 
Bdhr's objection (Symbolik, Part 2, p. 166), falls to the ground. There is 
also a reference to Num. xix. in Ps. li. 9, as the mention of hyssop clearly 
shows (compare Num. xix. 18). There was no other water of sprinkling 
than that prepared with the ashes of the red heifer, the colour of which 
represented sin. Compare Egypt and the Books of Moses (p. 173, transla- 
tion), see also Heb. ix. 13, where the ashes of a heifer are mentioned along 
with the blood of bulls and goats. — Schmieder's remark, that the means of 
purification denoted the Holy Ghost (ver. 27), is by no means correct. 
Sprinkling with water is never referred to in the Scriptures as a symbol of 
renewal, but always denotes the forgiveness of sins ; compare Zech. xiii. 1, 
in which there is also an allusion to Num. xix. 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXXVI. 24, 25. 49 

Ought not such diseases to have been pre-eminently pointed out 
in the law, as cases of Levitical impurity, in order to guard 
against infection ?" If Moses had looked merely at " social 
advantages," he ought certainly to have given greater prominence 
to pestilence and many other infectious diseases, than to diseases, 
which are either not infectious at all, — and which Michaelis has 
been under the necessity of changing for the first time, into 
diseases that were not heard of for thousands of years after Moses 
died, — or which have so little of an infectious character about 
them, that, as in the case of leprosy, ordinary intercourse is 
attended with no danger whatever. Any one may see, that the 
reasons, assigned by him for the omission of pestilence, are quite 
inadmissible. — The support, thus obtained, to the symbolical 
meaning of the laws relating to impurities and purifications, is 
strengthened on closer examination. We find outward defile- 
ments universally placed on a par with such as are spiritual, and 
the means of outward purification with those of a more inward 
character. See, for example, Num. xix. 20, "a man who defiles 
himself, and does not absolve himself, that soul is exterminated 
from the congregation ; for he has defiled the sanctuary of the Lord." 
The unclean man is treated in precisely the same manner as the 
sinner. The sacrifices ofi"ered for him are sin-ofi"erings nsian ; 
the priest makes expiation for him before the Lord (see, for ex- 
ample. Lev. XV. 15). Those, who assume that the object contem- 
plated was simply political, can find no other explanation, than 
that Moses made religion subservient to his own purposes. 
Michaelis asserts this without hesitation (§ 212) : " God, who con- 
descended to become the civil legislator of the Israelites, made 
use of the all-powerful instrumentality of religion." If this 
assertion were correct, nothing else would be needed to prove, 
that Moses was not a divine messenger, — a view which this work 
of Michaelis has done more to propagate, than all that has been 
written by those, who openly, avow it as their belief There is no 
foundation, however, for such an assertion. There is no indica- 
tion whatever of political motives. On the other hand, the 
symbolical character of the whole of the law supports the con- 
clusion, that this part is symbolical also. To excite a living con- 
sciousness of sin and holiness, and of the consequent necessity 
for substitution and expiation, was an object which Moses always 

VOL. III. n 



60 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PKOPHETS. 

kept before him, and to this object the laws of purification were 
also subservient. The consequences of sin, so far as they are 
visible, are intended to produce this consciousness. All the 
ceremonies relating to outward impurities had reference to sin, 
which the people of the Old Testament, to whose care the 
language of symbols had been intrusted, would the more readily 
discern in the typical rite, from the fact that otherwise the action 
performed would have been unnecessary and absurd. We have 
already spoken of this in connection with one of the most promi- 
nent examples of Levitical uncleanness, namely leprosy, in our 
notes on Jer. xxxi. 39. With reference to another, uncleanness 
through contact with corpses, Deyling has correctly observed 
(Obss. iii. p. 70) : " from this they could judge, how great was 
the corruption of such as were unregenerate and sinners in the 
sight of God." Those who were physically dead were the most 
appropriate symbol of such as were " dead in trespasses and 
sins" (Eph. ii. 1, 5 ; Col. ii. 13) ; compare in Heb. ix. 14, where 
sins are described as " dead works." — These remarks will serve 
to show the full meaning of the allusions to legal impurities and 
purifications. There is no arbitrary transfer of the physical to 
the spiritual in this case, but an exposition of a ceremony which 
originally referred to spiritual things. Ezekiel does not promise 
something new, but takes a promise already existing in the law 
and announces its complete fulfilment.^ 

Ver. 26. " And I give you a new heart, and a neiv spirit will 
I put within you, and I take away the heart of stone from 
within you, and give you a heart of flesh (see the note on chap, 
xi. 19). Ver. 27. And I will put my spirit icithin you, and 
cause you to walk in my commandments, and keep my righteous 
judgments and do them {cf chap. xi. 20). Ver. 28. And ye 
dwell in the land, which I gave to you fathers, and become to 
me a people, and I become to you a God" (compare chap. xi. 
20). 

The words " ye become, &c." refer exclusively to their condi- 
tion : they are to be treated as the people of God. 

1 In my Dissertations on the Pentateuch, vol. ii., p. 506 transl., I have already 
criven elaborate proofs, that the ceremonial law is an allegory, intentionally 
clothing in drapery doctrines, which had been held without a symbol previous 
to their being thus clothed. Compare especially p. 509, where the laws of 
purification are treated of, and also my Commentary on Rev. xiv. 4. 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXXVII. 22 — ^28. 51 

Ver. 29. " A7id I redeem you from all your uncleannesses, 
and call the corn and increase it, and suspend no more hunger 
over you." 

The uncleannesses referred to here are the same, as those spoken 
of in ver. 25 ; but according to the parallel passage the redemp- 
tion has reference to their consequences. 

Ver. 30. '' A^id I increase the fruit of the tree and the pro- 
duce of the field, that the reproach of hunger may no more rest 
upon you among the heathen (cf. chap, xxxiv. 27, 29). Ver. 31. 
And ye rememher your ways, the evil ways, and your deeds, 
ivhich are not good, and become disgusted with yourselves on 
account of your sins and your abominations . Ver. 32. Not for 
your sakes do I this, saith the Lord Jehovah, let this he knoicn 
to you, he ashamed of yourselves and hlush for your ways, ye 
house of Israel" 



THE SECTION.-CHAP. XXXVII. 22-28. 

The thirty-seventh chapter also belongs to the series of reve- 
lations, which the prophet received during the night, before the 
arrival of the messenger with tidings of the destruction of Jeru- 
salem, and which had all one common object, — namely to coun- 
teract the faintheartedness and despondency of the people. The 
chapter contains a twofold, yet closely connected, message from 
God. In the first part (ver. 1 — 14) the restoration of the 
Israelites as a covenant nation is announced, in the second the 
re-establishment of their common brotherhood. 

With reference to the first part, the question arises in what 
relation it stands to the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. 
There can hardly be any doubt, that the prophet borrowed his 
imagery from this doctrine, and therefore that it was not only 
well known to him, but was regarded by the nation generally as 
indisputably certain. " Moreover," says Fareau, in his Comment, 
de immortal, p. 109, " it must be borne in mind that their dis- 
courses (viz., those of Isaiah and Ezekiel) were intended for public 
use ; from which it follows that this doctrine of the resurrection 



52 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

was po generally known in that age, that they were able to draw 
from it a very simple, clear, and, in a certain sense, popular 
imagery." The doctrine of the resurrection was current among 
the people of God in the time of Ezekiel. This is evident from Is. 
XXV. 8 and xxvi. 19 (to which passage Ezekiel apparently refers, 
cf. Kilper Jeremias p. 96), and, as is generally admitted, from 
Dan. xii. 2. Hence it cannot possibly be supposed, that there is 
no connection between the description contained in this chapter 
and the doctrine of the resurrection.^ But the supposition 
that there is any direct reference to it in this passage, is pre- 
cluded by the exposition of the symbol in vers. 11 — 14.^ The 
only explanation left, therefore, is that the prophet borrowed his 
imagery from it. Still we must not stop here. It must also be 
added, that the idea, expressed by the imagery, can only be fully 
realised when the event itself occurs, from which the imagery is 
borrowed ; and therefore that the latter is not only taken from the 
event, but points to the event in return. As truly as God is 
God, — this is the idea, — so truly must all death be the pathway 
to life in his kingdom ; and it is on this idea alone that the cer- 
tainty of a glorious resurrection rests, a certainty which the idea 
itself would render indisputable, even if there were no express 
statements to this effect in the Word of God. 



1 Hdvemick denied, that there was any distinct allusion to the doctrine of 
the resurrection, and Oehler has adopted his views (see his V. T. sententia de 
rebus post mortem, p. 45). According to HdvernicJc, the prophet does no- 
thing more in vers. 1 — 10 than treat of a locus communis, the creative power 
of God, which would even suffice to awake the dead. But this view cannot be 
sustained without first denying that an explanation of the symbol in vers. 
1 — 10 is afterwards given in vers. 11 — 14. Yet Hdvemick himself, in his 
notes on chap, xvii., has explicitly shown that it is a very customary thing 
with Ezekiel, as well as Daniel, to give a symbol first and the explanation 
afterwards. Moreover it is expressly stated in ver. 1 1 that the description 
given in vers. 1 — 10 related to particular bones, and that we have, therefore, 
not the general followed by the particular, but the symbol followed by the 
explanation : " these bones are the whole house of Israel." 

2 This opinion has lately been revived by Hitzig. According to his theory 
we have here an announcement of the corporeal resurrection, not of the 
dead generally, as many of the early expositors imagined, but of the slain of 
Israel. But ver. 11 is sufficient of itself to refute such a theory: "these 
bones are the whole house of Israel" (not merely one particular portion 
thereof; compare the expression " my people " in vers. 12 — 13), "behold 
they say our bones are dried, and our hope is lost, we are cast ofi"." The 
words " they say," point to such as were still alive in the ordinary sense 
of the word, and the drying of the bonea is explained as indicative of the 
hopelessness of their condition. 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXXVII. 22 — 28. 53 

Groiius, in his usual shallow style, gives it as his opinion, that 
the prophet is merely speaking of a mors civilis and vita civilis. 
This is a priori inconceivable. The essence and heart of the 
suffering would then be altogether disregarded in the consolation 
administered. The fact, that Israel was no longer a nation, was 
the cause of sorrow to those, who were everywhere the sole objects 
of the prophet's consolation, simply because they saw in this a 
positive proof, that Israel was no longer a covenant-nation and 
God no longer in the midst of it. And we should hardly ex- 
])ect that a prophet, who always lays such emphasis upon the 
inward and spiritual restoration, — the transformation of the 
heart of stone into a heart of flesh, — and merely regards the out- 
ward restoration as an accident and reflection of the inward, 
would so far forget his vacation in this instance, as to assume the 
character of an ordinary patriot. Moreover the very opposite 
may be proved from the section itself. In the explanation of the 
vision in vers. 12 — 14 a twofold distinction is made, so far as 
the restoration is concerned. We have, first^ the restoration to 
Canaan, and, in general, the re-establishment of civil order, the 
outward restitutio in integrum, which is represented by the open- 
ing of the graves, the coming together of the dry bones, and 
their being clothed with flesh and skin. Thus what were bones 
before are changed into corpses, in which as yet there is no 
living spirit. There is. Secondly, the quickening of these 
spiritual corpses by the Spirit of God, for which all that 
had occurred before had merely served as a preparation ; 
whilst, in themselves considered, these preliminary acts had been 
of little moment, and were not proper objects of prophetical 
announcement. This second feature is symbolically represented 
by the impartation of life in its ordinary sense ; and, as the 
nature of the vision required that everything should be brought 
within reach of the senses, the medium, by which this is effected, 
is the breathing of the wind,^ the natural symbol of both the 

1 The author adheres to his opinion that rrnn in ver. 9 means the wind 
and not the spirit. He cannot make up his mind to translate the passage, 
" come thou spirit," instead of " come from the four winds thou wind and 
blow upon the slain." The fact that the word means "spirit," both before 
and afterwards, cannot decide the question, because the spirit is really 
referred to in this passage as well. Hitzig's objection, that such a wind as 
this could never put life into a dead man, has no force whatever, since there 
is no real difference between the wind spoken of and the spirit. 



54 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

lower and higher spirit of life, as was universally admitted 
among all nations and in every language of the ancient world. 
The Saviour breathes upon the disciples, as a sign of the gift of 
the Spirit ; and on the day of Pentecost " suddenly there came 
a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind," Acts ii. 2. 
There is evidently an allusion here to the passage before us, 
which is essentially connected with the event referred to ; see 
also John iii. 8. Ewald is quite correct in his remark that 
" there is the less room to understand the words ' I put my 
spirit within you and ye live,' as meaning something different 
from renewal by the Holy Spirit, from the fact that the prophet 
has so clearly and emphatically spoken of the latter but a short 
time before (chap, xxxvi. 26, 27)." Again, it is evident from 
ver. 14 that the order, in which the outward restoration and the 
quickening by the Spirit are mentioned, merely belongs to the 
form of representation, and serves to indicate their relative 
importance ; for in the passage referred to the order is reversed. 
Hence, from the nature of the life imparted, we may draw our 
conclusions as to the nature of the death. The captivity of the 
people, and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, did not 
constitute death ; they were merely the signs of death, the decom- 
position of the corpse. The body had already become a corpse. 
The vital principle of Israel, as the people of God, was the 
Spirit of God. This spirit still dwelt in individuals ; but the 
attention of the prophet is not directed to individuals now. He 
fixes his eye upon the congregation of the Lord, as a whole.- In 
this nothing but spiritual death presented itself to the view of 
the prophet and his fellow mourners ; and the question put to 
him by the Lord in ver. 3, " Son of man, can these bones live ?" 
coupled with the prophet's answer, " Lord God thou knowest,'' 
indicate the fact, that it was altogether beyond the bounds of 
human probability, that his death should give place to life, be- 
cause that human means would be of no avail, and it was 
impossible for a heart of stone to change itself by its own strength 
into a heart of flesh. Before God promises life, therefore, through 
the mouth of the prophet, the latter has first of all to declare, 
that he knows nothing of this life, that it is beyond the natural 
order of events. From what we have said it is evident, that the 
whole section is Messianic ; that the fulfilment of the promise it 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXXVII. 22, 23. 55 

contains is only to be looked for in Christ, and in the gift of the 
Holy Ghost bestowed through him ; and that this fulfilment is 
still going on, being seen wherever death gives place to life in 
his church, and will go on till its final completion, when death 
is swallowed up in victory. 

The second part commences with a symbolical action. — It 
matters not whether it occurred outwardly, or merely inwardly. 
Most likely, however, the latter, judging from analogy and the 
fact that, with Ezekiel, the inward greatly predominates. The 
prophet, representing the Lord, takes two pieces of wood, — 
sticks not tables, as we may see from Num. xvii. 17 — 18, from 
which the form of this symbolical transaction was derived. On 
the one he writes the name of Judah and his companions, that 
is, of those sections of Israel which had consorted with him, 
— viz. part of Benjamin, Levi, Simeon, and the pious, who had 
come over at different times from the kingdom of the ten tribes 
to the kingdom of Judah. On the other he wrote the name of 
Ephraim, with the rest of those who had associated with this 
ruling tribe, so as to form one kingdom. These two sticks he 
then presses firmly together in his hand, as a symbol of the 
grace of God, which would at some future period eifect a union 
of the kingdoms, that had long ago been divided on account of 
the sins of the people. The explanation in ver. 21 — 28 goes in 
some respects beyong the symbol. It is not restricted to the fact of 
the future union ; but describes the attendant circumstances and 
blessed results, and points to the person of the great king, who 
is to bring this union to pass, and to bestow blessings upon both. 
This is quite natural ; for the fact itself first attains its full 
significance in this connection. The union of the two into one 
national brotherhood could only be set forth, as the result, or as 
a necessary part of a renewal of their whole condition. 

Ver. 22. " And I make them one nation on the mountains of 
Israel, and a king luill he king to them all, and they will he no 
more two nations, neither ivill they he divided into two king- 
doms any more (cf. xxxiv. 23). Ver. 23. And they ivill no 
more defile themselves hy their ahominations and their detestahle 
things, and hy all their transgressions, and I save them out of 
all their dwelling places, wherein they have sinned, and cleanse 
them, and they hecome my people and I hecome their God." 



56 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

Deliverance from the dwelling-place is not effected locally but 
spiritually, by the removal of every trace of sin, first from their 
hearts, and then from their immediate neighbourhood. Thus 
the land is changed by the power of the Lord into another land, 
from a sinful land into a holy one ; just as it had previously been 
changed by the guilt of the people from a holy into a sinful one. 
Ver. 24. ''And my servant David is king over them, and 
there will he one shepherd to them all, and they shall ivallc in 
my righteous judgments y and keep my righteous judgments and 
do them." 

The promise of one king, contained in ver. 22, is here more 
closely defined. It is the great king of the tribe of David ; and 
therefore all the glorious promises, made to David and in him 
to the kingdom of God, are revived again. 

Ver. 25. " And they dwell in the land, ivhich I gave to my 
servant Jacob, wherein your fathers dwelt, and there dwell 
therein they arid their sons and their sons' S07is for ever, and 
David, my servant, is priiice to them for ever." 

That the first d'^ij?'? (for ever) is to be taken in the strict 
sense of the word is evident from the second ; compare the note 
on Jer. xxiii. 3. 

Ver. 26. ''And 1 make loith them a covenant of peace, an 
everlasting covenant will exist with them, and I give them and 
multiply them, and place my sanctuary in the midst of them for 
ever." 

The expression " I give them and multiply them" is correctly 
explained by Venema to mean : daho eos multiplicatos. There 
is an allusion to the promise made to Abraham, Gen. xvii. 6. 
That the prophet does not employ the term " sanctuary" with 
reference to an outward building, as such, but that the presence 
of the Lord in the midst of his people is regarded by him, as 
involving all that is essential to the idea of a sanctuary, is evi- 
dent from chap. xi. 16. 

Ver. 27. "And my tabernacle is over them (see the remarks 
on Ps. Ixviii. 3U), and I become their God and they become my 
people." 

There is an allusion here to Ex. xxv. 8 : '' And they make 
me a sanctuary (mikdash) and I dwell among them ;" com- 
pare Lev. xxvi. 11. This promise, according to the pro- 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXXIII. 24 — 28. 57 

phet's explanation, still points to the future for its complete ful- 
filment ; not till then will God be truly in the midst of his 
people, and the difference between heaven and earth come to 
an end. In the destruction of the temple, therefore, there is no 
ground for hopeless lamentation. The true fulfilment, of which 
the rebuilding of the outward temple was merely the prelude, is 
correctly explained by Vitringa (Observv. i. 4, p. 161), as consist- 
ing in the " dwelling of God in the midst of the people through 
the Son and Holy Spirit." Compare John i. 14, where the ex- 
pression lay-rinoaiM h rnj.Tv represents the Xoyos made flesh as the 
true |3'f^ of God, with evident reference to the same passage 
of Exodus, which the prophet had before his eyes. Compare 
also Kev. xxi. 3, and 1 Cor. iii. 16, vi. 19, where believers are 
called the temple of God because the spirit of Christ dwells in 
them ; and my remarks on the temple as the symbol of the 
kingdom of God in the dissertations on the Pentateuch (vol. ii. 
p. 514, sqq. transl.). 

Ver. 28. "And the heathen perceive, that I Jehovah sanctify 
Israel, since my sanctuary is among them for ever." 

To sanctify means to put an end to the connection, not only 
with sin, but also with the evils to which it leads. In the present 
instance the latter are referred to, as these alone would be likely 
to attract the attention of the heathen. At the same time the 
former is presupposed as an indispensable prerequisite. There 
is an allusion to the promises contained in the Pentateuch, 
with reference to the sanctification of Israel ; compare, for 
example, Lev. xx. 8, xxi. 23, xxii. 31 — 33. Hitherto these had 
been but partially fulfilled, because Israel through its sin had 
failed to sanctify God, and therefore could not be treated as a 
sanctified people. We may see how closely these two were con- 
nected together by referring to Lev. xxii. 32 : " and ye shall not 
profane my holy name, and I will be sanctified in the midst of 
the children of Israel, I, the Lord, who sanctify you." In future, 
however, God himself will take care that the required conditions 
shall not be wanting, through the richer bestowment of the for- 
giveness of sins, and a more abundant outpouring of the Spirit ; 
and therefore the consequences will fully and surely ensue. 



58 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

THE NEW TEMPLE. 
(Chap. xl. — xlviii.) 

Fourteen years after the conquest of Jerusalem and the de- 
struction of the temple, Ezekiel beheld, in a vision, the restora- 
tion and glory of the kingdom of God, set forth under the image 
of the rebuilding of the temple. According to Bottcher (Proben 
alt-testaraenlicher Schrifterklarung, p. 232) the temple of Eze- 
kiel was intended "as an ideal representation of a temple, based 
upon historical grounds, and drawn up partly from memory and 
partly from imagination, which was to serve as a design for the 
rebuilding of the sanctuary, when the people returned from their 
exile." The same view is adopted by Hitzig and Thenius in 
the appendix to the commentary on the books of Kings. 

But very weighty objections may be offered -to so literal an 
interpretation. 

Bottcher himself unconsciously argues against his own theory, 
when he says: "It is not a Phoenician architect, nor a histo- 
rian following historical records, but a priest's son and a pro- 
phet — who represents his design for the temple as seen in a 
vision, and that not for builders or for an architect, but for " the 
whole house of Israel" (chap. xl. 4, xliii. 10 sqq.). 

To give directions for building the temple formed no pa-rt of 
a prophet's vocation. The duties of a prophet had no connection 
whatever with legislation. So far as the time being was con- 
cerned, they adhered strictly to the law of Moses. Their task 
was to bridge over the space, which separated that law from the 
hearts of the people. And with reference to the future, their 
work was simply to prophesy ; whilst there is not a single 
example in the whole range of prophecy of anything analogous to 
the vision of Ezekiel, as it is interpreted by Bottcher. Moreover 
such an interpretation removes this vision entirely away from any 
connection with the general series of Ezekiel's prophecies, subse- 
quent to the destruction of Jerusalem. These prophecies are 
strictly confined to prophetic ground. There is nothing legislative 
or hortatory in their character. Everything from chap, xxxiii. 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XL. — XLVIII. 59 

onwards, centres in one object, — namely, to ward off despair from 
the people of God, by pointing to a future period, richly laden 
with mercy and salvation. And we naturally expect that this 
design, which runs through the whole of the second part, will 
be brought to a climax at the end of the book. 

" The symbolical interpretation is favoured as Hdvernich 
justly observes, by the form employed, — that of a vision, — the 
essential characteristic of which is to set forth ideas in a con- 
crete and tangible shape." In the whole of the Old Testa- 
ment there is not a single vision to be found, in which the form 
and the idea conveyed coincide so completely, as would be the 
case here, if the literal interpretation were correct, and none in 
which there would be so little room for theological exposition. 
Yet the book of Ezekiel is the last book in which we should 
expect to find a vision of such a description ; so impenetrable, 
in general, is the covering of drapery under which the thought 
is concealed. It is of especial importance here to compare the 
vision in chap. viii. — xi., in which the destruction of the city is 
set forth ; since the prophet himself, in chap, xliii. 3, describes the 
present vision as the counterpart of the other. In the latter, 
however, as we have already shown, a literal exposition is inad- 
missible, and a distinction must always be made between the 
thought itself, and the drapery in v/hich it is clothed. 

The preconceived antipathy to a literal exposition, with which 
we approach this section, is confirmed on fiu^ther investigation. 
The whole section exhibits a series of phenomena, which are 
absolutely irreconcilable with such an interpretation. 

The very commencement should suffice to put us on our guard 
against it. It takes us altogether away from the sphere of ordi- 
nary actions. " He set me " — we read in chap. xl. 2 — " upon a 
mountain very high, upon which there was as the building of a 
city towards mid-day." It is very evident that we have here a 
representation of the future glory of the kingdom of God, under 
the figure of an exaltation of the insignificant temple-hill, similar 
to that which we have already found in Isaiah. (3IichaeUs says, 
" such as Isaiah had predicted that Mount Zion would become, 
not physically, but by eminence derived from dignity and the 
glory of the gospel"). In chap. xvii. 22, 23, reference has already 
been made to a high and lofty mountain, in connection with the 



60 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

future glory of the kingdom of God. Zion, which looked very 
high even in Old Testament times, when contemplated with the 
eye of the spirit (Ps. xlviii. 3, 4, Ixviii. 17), will rise in the future 
to an immeasurable height. If any doubt could possibly remain, 
with reference to the ideal character of this particular feature, 
and consequently of the whole picture, it would be removed by 
Rev. xxi, 10, " And he brought me in the Spirit to a mountain 
great and high, and showed me the city, the holy Jerusalem, 
descending out of heaven from God." 

The ideal character of the whole is also confirmed by the dimen- 
sions of the new temple, given in chap. xlii. 15 sqq., where it has 
been found necessary to alter the rods, so expressly mentioned, 
into cubits {Bottcher, Ewald, Hitzig, Thenius), for the purpose 
of getting rid of the ideal interpretation and carrying out the 
literal one. 

The description of the entrance of the glory of the Lord into 
the new temple in chap, xliii. 1 sqq., shows how inadequate the 
literal explanation really is. It is all the less allowable to 
abide by the letter in the present instance, since in that case we 
should be obliged to assume, even on the ground of chap, xi, 
22, 23, that on the occasion of the Chaldean destruction the 
Shechinah departed from the temple in a visible shape ; espe- 
cially as there is an express allusion to this in ver. 4. The simple 
thought is evidently the following, the presence of the Lord in 
the midst of his people will be manifested at a future period with 
a glory unknown before ; and this was perfectly fulfilled in Christ. 
This passage, again, completely refutes the assertion made by 
Dathe, " that the prophet is not giving promises, but directions 
as to the plan on which the new temple is to be built." We have 
here an occurrence, which the Israelites could not in any way 
help to promote, and therefore may use it as a clue, with which 
to discover in all the rest the simple promise, that lies hidden in 
the labyrinth of measurements, which distinguishes the vision. 

The section, chap, xlvii. 1 — 12 is a transparent allegory, and 
the attempts at a literal exposition are so evidently without force, 
that they are utterly unworthy of any close investigation.^ 

The literal explanation founders on the new division of the 
land among the tribes, which is described as being perfectly equal 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XL. XLVIIT, 61 

and altogether regardless of the circumstances of actual life ; and 
also on chap, xlvii, 22, 23, where foreigners are said to be placed 
on the same footing as the children of Israel in relation to this 
division. The thought may easily be discerned through the 
transparent covering : " The difference between Jew and Gentile, 
which existed under the Old Testament, is completely done 
away." (Micliadis.) 

Thus then the literal exposition is inadmissible. At the same 
time it must be confessed that there are serious difficulties in the 
way of the allegorical or symbolical intei'pretation, which was a 
very favourite one in ancient times. It cannot be denied that 
there is a certain amount of truth in Hitzig's words, that " sym- 
bolical exposition can, in certain cases, only be carried out in 
a forced manner and without any proof whatever, in other cases 
not at all ; and Hdvernick ought to have given examples to 
prove the statement made in his commentary, that it is pos- 
sible to carry it out in a manner at once perfect and beautiful." 
Vitringa^ has fully proved, that the author goes far too minutely 
into architectural details, for an allegorical interpretation to be 
maintained throughout, however clear it may be, that in particular 
passages it is absolutely necessary. The measurements, for 
example, which extend to the breadth of the doors and the thick- 
ness of the walls, present an insuperable barrier to such an in- 
terpretation ; — if we admit, that is, that in the department of 
biblical symbols it is never allowable to have recourse to fancies 
and guesses, but that the means of sober interpretation are always 
fully provided. 

We will endeavour, then, to avoid the difficulties to which the 
two methods are exposed. 

The tabernacle and Solomon's temple had both of them a 
symbolical character. They were symbols of the kingdom of 
God in Israel, as I have already shown in my dissertations on the 
Pentateuch, vol. ii. p. 516 sqq. This is evident from the name 
given to the tabernacle : tent of meeting, the place where God 
meets with his people, where he holds communion ; and also from 
Lev. xvi. 16, where all the children of Israel are represented as 
dwelling in spirit with the Lord in his tent, which is regarded 

1 Aanleydinge tot het rechte veretant van den Tempel Ezech. Th. 2, p. 291 
sqq., 302 sqq. 



62 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PEOPHETS. 

therefore as nothing less than an embodiment of the church.^ 
In a whole series of passages in the Psalms, the tabernacle and 
temple are referred to, as the places where believers dwell in 
spirit with the Lord, and therefore as the representation and 
type of the church. Thus, e, g., in Ps. xxiii. 6, " I shall dwell 
in the house of the Lord for ever ;" xxvii. 4 : " one thing have I 
desired of the Lord, that will I seek after, that I may dwell in 
the house of the Lord all the days of my life ; " and Ps. Ixxxiv. 
5, " blessed are they that dwell in thy house."^ The Lord 
expresses the same idea when he says in Matth. xxiii. 38 : " your 
house is left unto you empty." They are left alone in the temple, 
which is deprived of the presence of God. And Paul makes a 
similar comparison when he says in Eph. ii. 19 that believers are 
" the household of God," and in 1 Tim, iii. L5, " the house of 
God, which is the church of the living God," the church of the 
New Testament being here represented as the antitype of the 



1 " And he absolves the sanctuary from the impurities of the children of 
Israel and from their transgressions, all their sins, and this he does to the 
tent of meeting, which dwells with them, in the midst of their impurities." 
Because spiritually considered, all the children of Israel dwell in the sanc- 
tuary, it is defiled by every sin. Balir, who denies that this passage has any 
bearing upon the question in hand, has only attended to the latter half : 
" God (he observes in his work on Solomon's temple, p. 85) dwelt in a tent 
in the midst of the people, but as every Israelite might be more or less Levi- 
tically impure and yet come into contact with the tent, and therefore as this 
might possibly (?) be defiled, it was to be cleansed once a year from their (the 
people's) uncleanness." The fact, however, that transgressions are mentioned, 
and that the expression "all their sins" follows immediately afterwards, is 
sufficient to show that such a view is untenable. 

2 It is hardly conceivable that in the face of these and other similar pas- 
sages, Bdlir (p. 86), should say ; " there is just as little force in the other 
passages ; for they say literally nothing about the main point — viz. that the 
nation, as such, dwelt with Jehovah, and like him dwelt in the temple." 
They do say this most clearly and the more emphatically because the house 
of the Lord generally denotes merely the true temple — namely, the holiest of 
all (the dwelling-place of the Lord), and the holy place (the dwelling-place 
of the people). When Bohr afterwards adds : " no Israelite would ever have 
thought of a pious man or the whole nation, as inhabiting the temple along 
with Jehovah, and living, as it were, under the same roof with him ; such an 
expression would have been looked upon as a species of blasphemy ;" this is 
only so far true, that the Israelites would certainly never have entertained 
the idea of living on an equality with God, the Holy one, who is absolutely 
exalted above all created objects. The members of the congregation dwelt 
with God, not by right, but through grace. He was the householder ; they 
the dependents or guests. Their dwelling with God was but a visit. This 
is expressly stated in Ps. xv. 1, for n"iJ never means to dwell in the ordinary 
sense of the word, but to stay as a guest or stranger. 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XL. — XLVIII. 63 

temple under the Old. Compare 2 Cor. vi. 16, and 1 Cor. iii. 
17 : " if any man defile the temple of God, &c., which temple ye 
are," with Jer. vii. 4, where the unbelieving covenant-nation is 
blamed for assuming to itself the prerogative of the believer, to 
be the temple of the Lord. Israel, then, with the Lord dwelling 
in the midst of it, is the true temple of the Lord. (Ex. xxv. 8). 
The outward temple was only a symbol and shadow of this 
spiritual temple. 

If, then, it is absolutely certain, that the temple was the 
symbol of the kingdom of God in Israel, and a type of the church, 
it must be evident at once, that in a vision, the essential charac- 
teristic of which is to embody ideas in a concrete form, the re- 
storation of the kingdom of God could not possibly be represented 
in a more aj^propriate manner, than under the image of a re- 
stored and glorified temple. 

But it is not merely with reference to the leading idea, that the 
description of the new temple is transparent in its character. In 
a considerable number of details, which we have already noticed, 
such, for example, as the raising of the temple hill, and the 
fountain which issued from the sanctuary, the symbolical mean- 
ing is unmistakeable. 

The analogy of the material temple, in connection with which 
the attempt to spiritualise every minute detail has invariably 
failed, would lead us to expect in this case other particulars, 
which can only be regarded as the filling up of the picture. 
Even Bdlir has gone too far in this respect. In the case of 
Ezekiel, the reason for describing so minutely the details of the 
building, was to give a forcible proof of the j^rophefs firm 
belief in the continued existence of the kingdom of God. So 
long as the church lay prostrate and the sanctuary was in ruins, 
this ideal temple of Ezekiel was to serve as a support to the 
weak f^th of the nation, and take the place of the fallen sanc- 
tuary. 

It was very natural that Ezekiel's temple should correspond in 
many respects to the temple of Solomon, since the latter furnished 
the most appropriate substratum for the purely ideal picture 
drawn by the prophet. 

The temple of Zerubbabel was so far related to that of Ezekiel, 
that the leading idea contained in the description of the latter — 



64 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

viz. the indestructible nature of the kingdom of God, was re- 
alised in the former, so far as it was possible that it should be, 
until the time arrived when the foreshadowing of spiritual things 
by means of the temple, which was an essential characteristic 
of the Old Testament, was rendered obsolete by Christ and 
his church. It is very evident, however, that the connection 
between the temple of Ezekiel and that of Zerubbabel is entirely 
of a spiritual character, and is not to be looked for in material 
details, from the simple fact, as Hdvernick has already observed, 
" that the second temple was not erected according to Ezekiel's 
design, and that the other directions given by him were not 
carried out in any respect whatever." As Ezekiel was invested 
with the authority of a messenger from God, we may infer from 
this, that the ideal character of his vision was fully understood, 
and that the Israelites perceived that it was not with an architect 
that they had to do, but with a prophet, whose mission concerned 
not the hands, but the heart, which he was sent to stir up to faith 
and hope. 

The ideal character of Ezekiel's description being thus firmly 
established, we must acquire the habit of distinguishing gene- 
rally between the prophet's leading thoughts, and the drapery in 
which they are clothed. It has often been brought as a charge 
against the first principles of Christology, that they foster an 
excessive habit of spiritualising. Those who are disposed to 
bring such a charge as this, had better first try their own method 
of literal interpretation on these nine chapters of Ezekiel. They 
will never be able to carry it out, unless they come to the 
extremely doubtful conclusion, that the Christian Church is 
eventually to return to the beggarly elements of Judaism ; and 
this they cannot do if they act conscientiously as expositors, 
since such passages as chap, xlvii. 1 — 12 are decidedly at 
variance with any literal interpretation. It must be conceded 
here, that we have no right to appeal to the letter of the Old 
Testament in support of such theories as the return of the Jews 
to Canaan, a practice which is the more indefensible, as the New 
Testament is altogether silent on the subject of any such return. 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XLVII. 1 — 12. 65 



THE SECTION-CHAP. XLVII. 1-11 

The whole account of the new temple in its leading features 
is of a Messianic character. Its fulfilment under the New Tes- 
tament is constantly going on, and the future alone will witness 
its completion. In the passage before us, which contains one of 
the most remarkable prophecies in the Bible, the Messianic 
elements are brought to a climax. 

The arrangement is very simple. We have first the descrip- 
tion of the water issuing from the sanctuary (vers. 1 — 6), and 
the trees growing upon the banks (ver. 7), and secondly, the 
account of the end to be subserved by the water (vers. 8 — 11) 
and by the trees (ver. 12). 

Ver. 1. "And he led me back to the door of the house ; and 
behold ivaters issued out under the threshold of the house towards 
the east, for the front of the house ivas towards the east, and 
the waters flowed down under the right side of the house to the 
south of the altar." 

Water, which renders barren ground fertile, and yields a 
refreshing draught to the thirsty, is used in the Scriptures to 
represent divine blessings, especially salvation, which had already 
been set forth in paradise in the form of water); cf Gen. xiii. 10. 
The figure is explained in Is. xii. 3 : " with joy shall ye draw 
water out of the wells of salvation" Also in Is. xliv. 3, " I will 
pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry 
ground, I will pour out my spirit upon thy seed and my blessing 
upon thine offspring," where the blessing corresponds to the 
water, and the spirit is mentioned as the chief form in which 
the blessing is conveyed, the groundwork of all salvation to the 
people of God. The root of evil is sin. This must first of all 
be set aside by the Spirit of God. In the book of Revelation 
(chap. xxii. 1), where the idea contained in this passage is 
resumed in the words, " and he showed me a pure river of the 
water of life" i.e., of salvation or blessedness, the nature of the 
water is expressly pointed out. This is not the writer's own 
explanation, however, but is obtained from a combination of ver. 
1 and ver. 9 of the chapter before us, in the latter of which the 

VOL. III. E 



66 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

effect of the water is plainly described as life. Here the water 
appears first as a fountain, it is not till ver. 5 that it assumes 
the form of a stream. In the Revelation, on the other hand, it 
appears at once as a stream. The difference may be explained 
from the fact that John had only to do with the church of 
the last days. The fulness of life or of salvation, which will 
be possessed by the glorified church, is shown by the fact, that 
from the very first it issues forth as a river. Ezekiel carries out 
the intimation given by Joel (iii. 18), "and a fountain issues 
forth from the house of the Lord, and waters the valley of 
Acacias" (the symbol of human want ; and Zechariah again 
alludes to Ezekiel in chap. xiv. 8). It is a question of compara- 
tively trifling importance, whether the figure employed by the 
prophets was occasioned by the fact that there was a stream of 
water constantly flowing in the first temple. (See the remarks of 
Thenius on this subject in the appendix to his commentary on 
the Books of Kings, p. 19). The connection is certainly not a 
very close one. There was no actual fountain in Solomon's 
temple, but the water was conveyed thither by subterraneous 
channels. Thus the natural water was brought to the spot for 
the service of the temple, and was not even conducted within 
the precincts of the actual temple, but only into the fore- 
court. The spiritual water, on the other hand, springs up 
in the temple itself, and flows on till it reaches the desert and 
the Dead Sea.^ — In Ezekiel the water issues forth under the 
threshold of the house towards the east ; according to the Ee- 
velation, the river of water proceeded out of the throne of God 
and of the Lamb. John has here completed the account in Ez. 
xlvii. 1, from chap, xliii. 7. The liouse in Ezekiel means the 
true temple, the holy place, and holy of holies. With reference 
to this we find in chap, xliii. 1 — 7 : "and behold the glory of 
God came from the east, and his voice like the voice of many 
waters, and the earth shone with his glory. . . . And the 
glory of the Lord came into the house through the gate towards 
the east. . . . And behold the house was full of the glory 
of the Lord. And I heard one speak to me out of the house, 

1 Steudel is wrong when he says (TheoL des A. T. p. 491), " according to 
Ez. xlvii. 1 sqq. a fountain sprang up on the eastern side of the temple, 
which furnished it with the requisite supply of water." 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XLVII. 1. 67 

and he said to me: Son of man, (thoii seest) the 
place of my throne and the place of the soles of my feet, where I 
will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever." Tlie 
fact, that the Lord enters with his glory into the sanctuary, 
explains the reason why henceforth the streams of salvation 
issue from it. From the temple now lying in ruins they never 
could issue, because it was never truly the place of God's throne. 
The sanctuary, that is the church, was first made the " habita- 
tion of the throne" of God by Him, in whom " dwelt all the ful- 
ness of the godhead bodily." Henceforth its name became 
" Jehovah is there," clwp. xlviii. 35. And John points to the 
manner in which the announcement of the indwelling of the 
glory of God (in chap, xliii.) was fulfilled in Christ, when he 
speaks of the throne of Go(l and of the Lamb. — The expression 
" for the front of the house was towaids the east," presuj)- 
poses that the water would necessarily flow from the front of 
the house. The words " and the waters flowed down below 
the right side of the house, to the south of the altar," have been 
variously misinterpreted. The fact that the water is described 
as flowing doivn may be explained on the ground that the moral 
elevation of the sanctuary, the place, in which the Lord was en- 
throned, was necessarily represented as an outward fact for the 
purposes of the vision. ^ The right side always means the 
south. The water issued forth from the eastern gate of the 
house, in the strict sense of the term, and flowed helow the 
house, not straight out, but downwards^ and therefore through 
that part of the forecourt, which was under the southern side of 
the house, or through the south-eastern portion of the fore:3om-t. 
The words " to the south of the altar" express the reason, why 
the water could not flow on in a straight line from the gate of the 
house to the outward eastern gate, but necessarily turned towards 
the south. The reason is pui-ely a local one. Immediately in 
front of the eastern gate of the sanctuary stood the altar of burnt- 
offering, and thus prevented the water from taking a direct 
course ; compare chap. xl. 47 : " and the altar was before the 
house," " in the middle of the court, and in front of the stei)S 
leading to the temple." fSkirm.J 

1 According to Thenius, p. 35, the actual building was raised above the 
inner court even in Salomon's temple. 



68 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

Ver. 2. '^ And he led me out by the way at the gate towards 
the north, and led me outside round to the outer gate, which looks 
to the east, and behold water issued forth fi^vm the right side of 
the house." 

The prophet, having seen the water at its source, was now to 
trace its onward course. For this purpose he had to leave the 
temple. As the direction taken by the water was towards the east, 
the proper gate to go out at would have been the eastern gate of 
the forecourt ; but according to chap xliv. 1, 2, the outer gate 
of the sanctuary was kept constantly shut, because the Lord had 
gone in by it, when he made his entrance into the temple. The 
prophet was therefore obliged to take a circuitous route, going 
out at the north gate, and then coming round to the east gate, 
when he was outside the temple wall. And behold waters issued 
forth : nDB has no connection with 'is^ to weep, which might 
suggest the meaning to trickle. Moreover, such a meaning is 
quite unsuitable here, as the water must necessarily have been 
characterised by fulness and life, when it first issued from the 
spring. On the contrary it is allied to "js an oil-bottle ; Fuller 
says noB denotes the copiousness of the stream which issued 
forth like water flowing from a bottle." It is rendered in the 
Septuagint yca.T-c(pipero ; in the Vulgate, redundantes. From 
the right side of the house. The prophet was on the eastern side 
at the east gate. He saw the water flowing away towards the 
east. The southern (? the right) side, therefore, can only be 
the south-eastern, in contrast with the south-western, and also 
with the gate which stood due east ; compare 1 Kings vii. 39, 
where the brazen sea is said to have stood on the right 
side of the house eastward towards the south, in other words, 
" at the eastern end of the temple, but on the south side" 
( MichaelisJ. 

Ver. 3. ^^ And the man loent out toioards the east and had 
the measure in his hand, and he measured a thousand cubits, 
and led me through the water, when it reached up to my ancles. 
Ver. 4. And he measured a second time a thousand cubits, 
and led me through the water, ivhen it went up to my knees. And 
he measured a thousand cubits more, and made me go through, 
and it reached up to my loins. Ver. 5. And he meas2cred a 
thousand more, when it ivas a river, ivhich I could not wade 



EZEKIEL, CHAP- XLVII. 2 — 8. 69 

through^ for the water was too deep, so that one was obliged to 
stvim, a river, which could not be forded." 

We have here a representation of the Messianic salvation 
which, though at first comparatively insignificant, will continue 
to expand with ever increasing fulness and glory. Compare 
chap. xvii. 22, 23, where the Messiah appears as a tender twig, 
which afterwards grows to a large cedar ; and the parables of 
the mustard seed in Matt. xiii. 31, 32, and the leaven in ver. 33, 
where Bengel correctly explains the three measures of meal as 
referring to the threefold division of the human race, alluded to 
in Gen. x. 1, / coidd not cross it (ver. 5) ; judging from the 
analogy of ver. 3, 4, the prophet learned this by actual experi- 
ment, that is, by going in up to his neck (Is. viii. 8). If this 
had not been the case, the farther remark " which cannot be 
forded" would be superfluous. In ver. 6 the prophet is led back 
to the brink of the river. 

Ver. 6. " And he said to me. Son of man, seest thou f And 
he bade me go, and brought me back to the brink of the 
stream." 

The words " seest thou" contain an allusion to the great 
importance of the fact just mentioned, and intimates that it was 
well worth seeing. Compare chap. xl. 4. The Berleburgher 
Bible says : " hast thou seen to what a blessed state the earth 
will be brought by the outflowing of the spirit and the plenteous 
rivers of grace." These words form a conclusion, and also a con- 
necting link with what follows. 

Ver. 7. " When 1 7'eturned, behold on the bank of the 7'iver 
there were very many trees on the one side and on the other." 

The need of salvation is represented as hungering as well as 
thirsting ; and, accordingly, life or salvation is represented here 
under the image of fruit, just as it had been before under that 
of water. Compare Is. Iv. 1, 2, where bread for the hungry is 
mentioned, as well as water for the thirsty. The trees them- 
selves have no particular meaning. Their importance is derived 
exclusively from the fruit they bear. 

Ver. 8. " And he said to me: these waters go forth to the 
east country, andfoio doivn to the heath, and come to the sea ; 
to the sea (come) those that are brought out, and thus the waters 
are healed." 



70 -riESSIANIC PEEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

As n^'^^ frequently occurs in the sense of circle, or district, 
there is no reason whatever for following the Septuagint, in which 
it is rendered Galilee (a district much too far to the north), 
and thus connecting it with Is. viii. 23, where Galilee is men- 
tioned as partaking in an especial manner of the Messianic sal- 
vation. The fact that the heath, that is, the Arabah or Valley 
of the Jordan, is mentioned before the sea, must possess some 
theological importance. For nothing else could possibly have 
induced the prophet to pass by the valley of the Kedron, 
which was so admirably adapted to his purpose and opens 
immediately into the Dead Sea, and to conduct the waters 
by a physically impossible course, — viz. over the heights which 
separate Jerusalem from the low ground on the banks of the 
Jordan. What this theological meaning is we may gather from 
the primary passage in Joel, where the valley of Acacias (Shit- 
tira) corresponds to the Arabah here, and from Is. xxxv. 6, "in 
the desert shall waters break out and streams in the heath,"' 
where the Arabah is parallel to the desert. As the water has 
already been described as taking its course to the east country, 
the portion of the Arabah referred to here can only be the 
southern extremity immediately above the point at which the 
Jordan flows into the Dead Sea. But just at that point the Ara- 
bah assumes the character of a cheerless desert, cf. v. Raumer 
p. 52 : " At the northern extremity of the Dead Sea there is a 
desert, which stretches upwards along the western side of the 
plain of the Jordan to a point above Jericho. — Monro saya that 
the plain along the lower Jordan and Dead Sea from the moun- 
tains of Judah till you go down to Jericho bears the aspect of 
extreme desolation." — Bitter digdXxi (Erdk, 15, 1, p. 552) says: 
" Farther south (from the ford of Helu) to the northern ex- 
tremity of the Dead Sea every trace of vegetation disappears, 
with the exception of a few marine plants ; the undulating- 
ground and clayey soil give place to a perfectly horizontal plain 
intersected by rocky masses of sand and clay." In the Bible the 
desert represents a lost condition, and therefore is an appropriate 
emblem of a world estranged from God and shut out of his king- 
dom. There can hardly be any necessity to provC; that the sea 
referred to is the Dead Sea, and not the Mediterranean. All that 
precedes points to the east, — viz. : ver. 1 and 2, in which the water 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XLVII. 8. 71 

is described as issuing from the eastern side of the temple ; 
ver. 3, where the man, who follows the course of the stream. 
is said to go towards the east ; then the east country, and lastly 
the Arabah in the verse before us. The Dead Sea is also 
called the eastern sea in chap xlvii. 18 '^^i? (compare 
njimp in the present verse). The connection between the sea 
and the Arabah also favours the supposition that the Dead 
Sea is intended, as the sea referred to must have been in the 
neighbourhood of the Arabah (the Dead Sea is expressly 
called the Sea of the Arabah in Deut. iii. 17 and iv. 49 ; see the 
history of Balaam, p. 520 translation) ; its nature must also 
have corresponded to that of the Arabah, or it could not have 
had the same symbolical importance. Lastly, what is said about 
the healing of the waters leads to precisely the same conclusion. 
This presupposes that the water of the sea was naturally in a 
diseased state, a descrii)tion which is applicable to the Dead Sea 
alone ; compare Pliny hist, nat., v. 15. where he says with 
reference to the Jordan : velut invitus Asphaltiten lacum dii^um 
iiatura petit, a quo postremo ehihitur aquasque laudafas ojmittit 
pestilentialibus mixias. There can be no doubt as to the sym- 
bolical significance of the Dead Sea in this passage of Ezekiel. 
The description given by Tacitvs hist. v. c. 6, " lacus immenso 
ambitu, specie maris, sapore corruptior, gravitate odoris accolis 
pestifer, neque vento impellitur neque pisces aut suetas aquis 
volucres pascitur,"' was quoted by earlier commentators in con- 
nection with the words of John. " the whole world lieth in 

1 Compare with this the description given by Ritter, in the first edition of 
his Erdkunde (the second does not enter so much into details) : " This lake is 
unlike any other lake in the world. The outward appearance of this body 
of water and its mathematical dimensions constitute the only reason why it 
is classed along with the rest ; for in its nature it is entirely different. It 
has none of the charms, which render the Alpine lakes, for example, and so 
many others, points of attraction ; it lacks the constant motion, the solvent 
power, and all the other qualities which give such variety to the atmosphere 
of other lakes, and thus impart increased activity not only to the animal and 
vegetable world, but also to man, facilitating reciprocal action in a manner 
unknown elsewhere, and promoting alike the life of nature and the intercourse 
of mankind. The water of this lake is unfit for both man and beast, it nourislies 
neither plants nor animals ; its banks are entirely destitute of verdure, and 
not even a reed is to be found in the lake itself The atmosphere of the lake 
has nothing of the sweetness and coolness, which is generally imparted by 
water, and throughout the whole of the surrounding plain there is not a 
single spot cultivated, or inhabited by peaceable men, whei'e once the whole 
was a garden, like the land of Egypt." 



72 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

wickedness," 1 John v. 19. The Dead Sea was all the better 
fitted to be used as a symbol of the corrupt world, since it was 
in a judgment on the corrupt world that it originated, and with 
the eye of the mind the image of Sodom and Gomorrha could still 
be seen beneath the waves. The words, " to the sea," which are 
repeated, serve to introduce the explanation, that follows, of the 
meaning and design. Hitherto the whole account has been purely 
geographical. The way is prepared for this explanation of the pur- 
port of the symbol by the words, " those that are brought out," 
which point to the higher power, that carries out the whole counsel 
of salvation according to His predetermined plan.^ The spiri- 
tual waters effect in the Dead Sea of the world, what the natural 
waters are incapable of effecting in the so-called Dead Sea, 
(compare Pliny ut supra). In the case of the latter, the healthy 
waters are corrupted by the diseased ; in that of the former, the 
diseased are cured by the healthy ; (cf. 2 Kings ii. 21, 22/ The 
diseased water of the sea of the world indicates the corrupt 
state, into which it has fallen through its apostasy from God, of 
whom it is said in Ps. xxxvi. : " with thee is the fountain of 
life, and in thy light we see light." 

Ver. 9. ^^ And it cometh to pass, every living thing, tvith 
ivliich every place will swarm, whither the double river shall 
come, will live, and there ivill be very many fishes for these 
waters come thither and they are healed, and everything liveth, 
tvhitJier soever the brook cometh." 

The words " and it cometh to pass" direct attention to the 
remarkable change which takes place. The first visible effect 
produced by the fountain from the sanctuary is new life. There 
is an allusion here to the natural character of the Dead Sea, 
which is inimical to life of every kind. " According to the 
testimony of all antiquity," says Robinson, 2 p. 461, and of most 
modern travellers, " there is not a single living thing in the waters 
of the Dead Sea — not even a trace of animal or vegetable life. 
Our own experience, so far as we had an opportunity of observ- 
ing, goes to confirm the truth of this testimony. We perceived 

1 Neumann (die Wasser des Lebens, p. 34) says : " It is not by following 
its natural course, that the brook flows to the sea, it is conducted thither 
fi-om the temple by a superior hand, and under this guidance the waters of 
the sea are healed." 



EZEKIEL, CHAP. XLVII. 9, 10. 73 

no sign of life in the water." It is just the same in the anti- 
type of the Dead Sea, the world. All that bears the name of 
life is really dead, destitute of happiness and salvation. " Living 
beings," which are anything more than walking corpses, are only 
to be found there, after the water from the sanctuary has over- 
come the elements which are destructive of life. The expres- 
sion "will live" shows that the reference here is to "living 
beings," not in the lowest sense, but in the fullest sense of the 
word. The double river means the strong river, just as in Jer. 
1. 21 Merathaim " the double fall," and Judg. iii. 8, Kushan- 
Bishathaim " of the double wickedness," for " of the great wicked- 
ness," Kushan alone being the proper name, and Rishathaim a 
prefix like Evil in Evil-merodach. In a certain sense a double 
ivater has already been spoken of, — viz. the fountain as it first 
issued from the sanctuary, and the addition which it afterwards 
received. It was not till after it had received this increase, that 
it effected the remarkable change in the Dead Sea, which is here 
described. — " And there will be very many fishes." The sea in 
the Scriptures is the symbol of the world. Accordingly men are 
represented by the living creatures in the sea, and especially by 
the fishes ; see my commentary on Rev. viii. 9. In the Dead 
Sea of the world there had hitherto been only dead fishes, which 
are not reckoned as fishes at all, i.e., only carnal and godless 
men. This verse and the following form the basis of Peter's 
miraculous draught of fishes before the resurrection (Luke v.), 
which the Lord explained in the words, " from henceforth thou 
shalt catch men" (ver. 10). The same may be said of Peter's 
miraculous draught after the resurrection (John xxi.), and of the 
parable of the net cast into the sea, in which fish of every kind 
were caught. And they are hurled ; — viz. the waters spoken of 
in ver. 8. And everything lives, &c : "it will not perish like 
those fishes, which are cast into the Dead Sea" (Grotius). 

Ver. 10. " And it comes to pass, fishermen will stand by it 
from Engedi to Eneglaim, they will spread their nets there ; 
their fish luill be of every kind, like the fish of the great sea, 
very many of them." 

The meaning of the ^sA being once established, there can be 
no doubt as to that of the fishermen. If the fishes represent 
men, who are made alive by means of the Messianic salvation, 



74 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

the fishermen must be the heralds of this salvation, who gather 
those that are made alive into the kingdom of God, and intro- 
duce them to the fellowship of the church. The Saviour alludes 
to this passage when he says in Matt. iv. 18, 19, to Peter and 
Andrew: " I will make you fishers of men ;" and in John xxi. 
1 — 14 the apostles appear as fishermen. — The two places named 
are probably classed together, because each of them derived its 
name from a fountain. Engedi was some distance towards the 
south. As the intention is evidently to include a long stripe of 
coast, the opinion of Jerome is a very plausible one, that 
Eneglaim was situated at the northern extremity of the sea, 
near the point at which the Jordan enters it. Neumann is wrong 
in supposing that the nominative to vrr (they will be) is the 
fishermen. He explains the clause thus : " they will be a spread- 
ing of nets, they will devote themselves entirely to this, will do 
nothing else and have nothing else to do, than to spread nets." 
The verb, however, is governed by the places between Engedi 
and Eneglaim, where hitherto no nets had been spread, and which 
are regarded as symbols of the abundance of fish. For ntatrn 
D'Din in chap. xxvi. 5, 14, is decisive in favour of the meaning, 
" place of spreading," and proves that allusion is made to the 
practice of spreading out the nets after the fish has been caught, 
— spreading as distinguished from throwing. nj'oS points 
back to Gen. i. 21, (which had already been alluded to in ver. 9, 
" all the living things, with which it swarmed") : " and God 
created the great dragons and all the living things, which move, 
wherewith the waters swarm according to their kinds." In the 
Dead Sea of the world there comes forth a joyful swarm of those 
who have been made partakers of life from God, just like the 
swarms of ordinary fishes, which filled the natural sea at the first 
creation. 

Ver. 11. ^^ Its sloughs and its pools, they are not healed, they 
are given up to salt." 

Here also we find an allusion to the natural constitution of the 
Dead Sea. The water-mark varies at different seasons of the 
year. As the water falls, pools and salt-marshes appear here 
and there, which have no longer any connection with the 
lake itself Robinson observes (Part 2, p. 459), that the 
Dead Sea must sometimes stand ten or fifteen feet hij^her than 



EZEKIEL, CHAr. XLVII. 11, 12. 75 

it did when he saw it (viz., in May), and that when it is full it 
overflows a salt marsh at its southern extremity of five miles 
broad. Of the pools left by the Dead Sea, Rohinson says (p. 434): 
" The largest and most important of these is situated to the south 
of the spot which bears the name of Birket el-Kulil. This is a 
small bay, a cleft in the western rocks, where the water, when it 
is high, flows into the shallow basin, and then evaporates, leaving- 
only salt behind." In the Dead Sea of the world the pools and 
marshes were also originally exactly like the sea itself, the only 
difterence is that they have shut themselves ofl" from the healing 
waters, which flt)w from the sanctuary an d thus confirm them- 
selves in their original corruption. In substance, the same thought 
is expressed in the words, " there is no peace, saith my God, to 
the wicked," in which Isaiah declares that the wicked are excluded 
from participating in the glorious promises, which he has just 
before described, chap, xlviii. 22, and Ivii. 21 ; compare chap. 
Ixvi. 24, and the threat in Jer. xxx. 23, 24. In Rev. xx. 10, 
the " lake of fire " corresponds to the sloughs and pools mentioned 
here. The salt is not introduced in this passage, as it frequently 
is, as an antiseptic, but as a foe to all fertility, life, and prosperity ; 
thus Pliny says (h. n. L. 31, C. 7): omnis locus, in quo reperitur 
sal, sterilis est, niliilque gignit, compare Deut. xxix. 21 ; Jer. 
xvii. 6 ; Zeph. ii. 9 ; Pw. cvii. 34. We must not imagine the 
water gradually evaporating and leaving salt behind ; but the 
continued power of the salt is contrasted with that deliverance 
from its corrosive influence, which would have been effected by 
the waters from the sanctuary, if they had been allowed to reach 
the pools : the waters remain given up to the salt. We may see 
how far a false habit of literal interpretation may go astray in 
dealing with such passages as this, from the remark of Hitzig : 
" The sloughs are of some use therefore ; for the new theocracy 
also stood in need of salt, material salt." 

Ver. 12. " And hy the river there ivill grow, 07i the bank 
thereof, on this side and on that side, all fruitful trees, their 
leaves luill not ivither and their fruits loill not rot, every month 
they ripen, for their loater cometh from the sanctuary, and their 
fruit serves for food and their leaves for medicine." 

The fact that the trees produce fresh fruit every monr.h, is an 
indication of the uninterrupted enjoyment of the blessings of 



76 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

salvation. On the words " for their water " &c. Hitzig ob- 
serves : " the reason is evident, — namely, because this stream 
flows directly and immediately from the dwelling-place of Him, 
who is the author of all life and fruitfulness." For the heatheti 
world, so grievously diseased, it was especially necessary that 
salvation should be manifested in the form of gratia medicinalis. 
Hence not only are there nutritious fruits but healing leaves. It 
is very evident that nainn (^Sept. uyisia., Eev. xxii. 2, " and the 
leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations") is derived 
from I'll = NS1, to heal ; and the certainty of this is increased 
by the fact that nan, which is closely allied to Ti">, is frequently 
used in the place of ns"!. 



( 77 ) 



DANIEL. 



It is not a mere accident, that in the Hebrew canon Daniel is 
not placed among the 'prophets. He did not fill the office of a 
prophet among his own people like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and 
Ezekiel, but from his youth upwards till he was very old he held 
the highest posts in a heathen state. 

Daniel passed through several political catastrophes. At the 
establishment of the Chaldean empire he was torn from his 
native land. He not only outlived the fall of that empire, but 
was commissioned to announce it as the herald of God ; cf. chap. 
V. And in the new Medo-Persian empire he witnessed the 
transfer of the government from the Medes to the Persians. 

The peculiar circumstances in which Daniel was placed, are 
stamped upon his prophecies. He might be called the politician 
among the prophets. " All the earlier prophets" — says G. Menken, 
das Monarchieenbild Ed. 2, Bremen 41 — " had foretold the uni- 
versal prevalence and dominion of the theocracy at the time of 
the final consummation, but to none of them had it ever been 
revealed so distinctly as to Daniel, through what long intervening 
periods the promise would be drawn out, before the time of ful- 
filment arrived, or how the nation and kingdom of God would 
come into contact with three successive empires like the Chaldfeo- 
Babylonian, before it subdued all the kingdoms of the world and 
filled the earth as the universal theocracy." 

The fulness and distinctness of Daniel's political prophecies, 
and the extensive periods which they embrace, are in themselves 
a proof that the course of Old Testament prophecy is drawing to 
a close. His predictions, like those of Zechariah from another 
point of view, have all the marks of a conclusion about them. 



78 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

In this respect they are essentially different from those of a Je- 
remiah, for example, which only cover a short space of time, and 
have throughout the character of a connecting link. Daniel, on 
the contrary, had to conduct the church through long ages of 
endurance, in which the voice of living prophets would no more 
be heard. 

The especial object of Daniel's prophetic mission was twofold. 
First of all, he was to afford support and comfort to the covenant 
people during a fierce religious persecution, to which they would 
be exposed from a heathen tyrant, Antiochus Epiphanes ; — a 
persecution whose severity would be increased by the fact that it 
occurred at a time when the extraordinary communications from 
God had altogether ceased. This object is effected by the pro- 
phecies in chap. viii. and chaps, x. — xii.. — the most minute and 
literal of all the prophecies in the sacred Scriptures, — in which 
everything shows that they were intended to take the place of that 
direct interposition on the part of God, which was withheld from 
the age referred to. Secondly, Daniel had to revive the faith of his 
nation in Christ and his kingdom, and to warn the people against 
impatience, by impressing deeply upon their minds the words of 
Habakkuk (ii. 3), "though it [the prophecy] tarry, wait for 
it, it will surely come, it will not tarry." For century after 
century the changes in the kingdoms of the world would bring 
nothing but a change of masters to Israel, — the nation which, 
at its very first commencement, had been designated " a king- 
dom of priests," called to universal supremacy on account of its 
inward connection with God. To counteract the offence, which 
this was sure to cause, was one important design of prophecy. 
Let empire follow upon empire, and the world continue for ages 
to triumph and exalt itself; in the end comes Christ, and with 
him the world-wide dominion of the people of God. But let not 
the hope be abused so as to give support to false security. This 
is strongly urged by Daniel, after the example of Isaiah and Jere- 
miah, and in harmony with his immediate successors Zechariah 
and Malachi. The anointed one confirms the covenant with 
many, comes with forgiveness, righteousness, salvation, and 
brings the whole world into subjection to the kingdom of God ; 
but his appearance brings with it at the same time a judgment 
upon those, who do not place themselves in the right attitude 



DANIEL, 79 

towards it. It is followed by a fresh destruction of the city 
and the temple. This announcement is made in chaps ii., vii., 
and ix. 

Chap. ii. and chap. vii. treat of the four monarchies. That 
the announcement contained in these chapters refers to the four 
successive empires, the Chaldean, Medo-Persian, Grecian, and 
Roman, has already been proved in part 1 of the Beitriige 
p. 199 sqq., (Dissertation on Daniel p. 161 sqq. translation), 
and also by] Hdvernick in his commentary, by Reichel in his 
treatise on " die vier Weltreiche Daniels" in the Studien und 
Kritiken p. 48, and by Auherleri, der Prophet Daniel und die 
Otfenbarung Johannis, p. 171 sqq. We hope to be able on a 
future occasion to enter once more upon an investigation of this 
subject. The fourth kingdom is said to be eventually subdi- 
vided into ten kingdoms, — the ten toes of the image in chap, ii. 
and the ten horns in chap. vii. There is a peculiarity in the 
latter prophecy, namely the description of the little horn, which 
rises ap after the ten horns, and, growing up in the midst of the 
horns, throws three of the large ones down. This little horn is 
explained by many commentators, and last of all by Atiherlen, 
p. 40, as referring to an individual, " a king, in whom all the 
world's proud scorn and hatred of God, of the people of God, and 
of the worship of God are concentrated. We must, however, 
adhere to our opinion, that the little horn denotes a new phase 
of the world's enmity against the kingdom of God, and conse- 
quently that, if the ten horns in Daniel are to be understood 
as referring exclusively to kingdoms and not to persons,^ the 
eleventh must be understood as denoting not an individual but a 
power. We must also persist in maintaining that, in other 
parts of the Bible, the antichrist is always introduced as simply 
an ideal person (see the commentary on Rev. ii. 1, p. 109) ; and 
lastly we still adhere to the parallelism of Rev. xx. 7 — 9 (see 
the exposition of that passage). 

The four empires are followed by the kingdom of Christ, In 
chap. ii. the image is described as broken in pieces by the stone, 
which grows to a mountain, and which denotes this kingdom. 

1 Auberlen, p. 197, " The kings represent their kingdoms, as a comparison 
of chap. vii. with ver. 23 clearly shows. 



80 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

la chap, vii., after the overthrow of the little horn, the Son of 
man appears in the clouds of heaven, and dominion over all na- 
tions is given to him. 

In the vision of the ten horns we see very clearly the fragmen- 
tary character of the prophetic insight into the future, the " pro- 
phesying in part" of which the Apostle speaks in 1 Cor. xiii. 9. 
Daniel does not mention, as the book of Kevelation expressly 
does, the conversion to Christianity of the kingdoms, denoted by 
the ten horns, which proceed out of the fourth imperial 
monarchy. In this case the revelation has filled up an impor- 
tant gap. In a manner quite in harmony with the age in which 
it was written, as compared with the period when Daniel wrote.. 
Daniel sees nothing but the final victory ; John describes the 
steps by which it is attained. 

Still there are not wanting, even in Daniel, slight allusions to 
the preliminaries of the final victory. In the passage contained 
in chap. ii. 35, " and the stone, that smote the image, became a 
great mountain and filled the whole earth," there is an intima- 
tion of the fact that the kingdom of Grod and Christ would not 
be established suddenly and in a perfect form, as chap. vii. 13, 
14, might lead us to suppose, but that it would reach the height 
of its glory by slow degrees and from very small beginnings. 
C. B. Michaelis observes : " The kingdom of Christ appears at 
first under the name of a stone, but in its further progress and 
ultimate completion it attains to that of a mountain." He aL'-o 
points out the resemblance to the parables of the grain of, mus- 
tard seed and leaven. 

Another slight allusion may also be seen in chap. ii. 44 : " and 
in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a king- 
dom." The establishment of the kingdom of heaven is men- 
tioned here as occurring during the period of the fourth monarchy, 
not after it ; and it is certainly not an accidental circumstance 
that kings are spoken of in the plural number. C. B. Michaelis 
says : " in the days, or period of these kings, — viz. of the fourth 
monarchy, of whom he had spoken just before, ver. 40 — 43. 
He speaks of kings in the plural, to show that the kingdom of 
Christ, which he is now about to describe, will not rise up in 
such a manner as to abolish all the kingdoms of the world at 



DANIEL. 81 

once, but that it will be first establislied during the existence of 
certain kingdoms, and its onward progress continue during the 
existence of others." 

If, on the one hand, we find in these hints, which are cer- 
tainly very slight, the germs of truths, by which the gap is 
afterwards filled up botli in the Book of Revelation and in 
history ; on the other hand, both history and the Apocalypse 
fully explain how such a gap could possibly occur. They show 
us that the victory of Christ over the ten kings would evidently 
be followed by a reappearance of heathenism, a fact which would 
be impossible unless an evil root had still been left in the midst 
of the ten kins-doms. 

Whilst chap. ii. and vii. are mainly devoted to the second 
coming of Christ, his appearance on the clouds of heaven ; the 
ninth chapter is confined to the first coming, his appearance in 
the flesh, and the events immediately connected with it. His 
anointing with the Holy Ghost, his death, the forgiveness of sins 
procured by him, and the destruction of Jerusalem by a foreign 
prince, a^tttthe leading topics referred to here. 

The marked distinction made in chap. vii. 13, 14, between the 
earthly and heavenly, the human and divine in the nature of the 
Messiah, is a matter of great importance. 

In chap. xii. 2, 3, Daniel gives a very decided testimony to 
the fact of a resurrection. At the same time this hope is not 
distinctly connected with the expectation of a Messiah. On the 
contrary, it is placed in immediate association with the deliver- 
ance effected in the Maccabean period, as C. B. Michaelis ob- 
serves, " because the contemplation of this would tend greatly to 
strengthen the minds of the people in the midst of tribulation." 
Whether the period, which intervened between the conflicts of 
the Maccabean times and the resurrection, should be long or 
short, the comfort to be derived from the resurrection itself 
would be just the same ; and therefore it is as closely connected 
with the earthly deliverance, as if the one followed immediately 
upon the other. The relation, in which the two stand to each 
other in this passage, is just the same as that in which the refer- 
ence to the glory beyond (in Rev. vii. 9 — 17), stands to the pre- 
vious verses, in which the elect are assured of protection in the 
midst of the judgments that were to come upon the earth. — See 

VOL. III. F 



82 MESSIANIC PKEDIUTIONS IN THE PKOPHETS. 

also Rev. xiv, 1 — 5 ; xx. 1 — 6, when the earthly prospects are 
first of all described (in ver. 1 — 3), and immediately afterwards 
(in ver. 4 — 6) the heavenly. 



CHAP. VII. 13-14. 

Ver. 13. " / smo in visions of the night, and behold ivith the 
clouds of heaven came one like a Son of Man, and he came to 
the ancient of days, and they brought him before him. Ver. 
14. And to him was given dominion, and glory, and royalty, 
and all people, nations, and languages served him ; his dominion 
is an everlasting dominion, lohich passeth not aivay, and his 
royalty one which ivill not be destroyed." 

" The introductory words in ver. 13 are very properly fuller 
than those in vers. 11 and 9, which are parallel to those in ver. 
7, since the fifth monarchy is here contrasted with the fourth 
referred to there." Hitzig. We have already observed, that we 
have here a formal statement of what will take place at the end 
of the world, and that the period referred to embraces merely 
the final consummation. We showed, that in the Book of 
Daniel itself there are hints, and even notices of distinct facts 
(chap, ix.), which clearly show that we have not to do with the 
opening period of the Messianic work and kingdom. It is a 
matter of great importance, so far as the interpretation of this 
passage is concerned, that, although the prediction literally relates 
to events which will take place at the end of the world, the 
period immediately following the destruction of the fourth 
kingdom, and especially of the little horn, yet in Matt, xxviii. 
18, " all power is given unto me," in which there is a verbal 
allusion to ver. 14 of this chapter, the Lord himself speaks of 
the prophecy as already /?(?/Z?ed We are led to the same result 
by Matt. xxvi. 64, where the Lord, with evident reference to this 
passage, says to the High Priest, " but I say to yon, from this 
time forth ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand 
of power and coming in the clouds of heaven." Hence the 
coming in the clouds of heaven commenced immediately, and 



DANIEL, CHAP. VII. 13, 14. 83 

had respect primarily not to the kingdoms of the world, but to 
Jerusalem. That we have here merely an allusion to the ter- 
mination of a lengthened period is evident from Rev. xiv. 14 — 
20. The Lord appears in this passage, as in the description 
given by Daniel, seated upon a white cloud, " and I looked and 
behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the 
Son of Man." The account which follows, however, does not 
refer exclusively to the final judgment ; but " all that is effected 
during the entire course of history in a series of judicial acts, 
which are eventually brought to a conclusion by the last judg- 
ment, is here represented as one great harvest, one great vintage 
and winepressiug." At the same time we have in this very pas- 
sage a proof, that it does not contain the entire Christology of 
the prophets — (" not that we should expect to find this when we 
consider the attitude which the prophet himself assumes in rela- 
tion to earlier prophecies) — but merely one particular christolo- 
gical element. The Messiah appears here in the clouds of 
heaven as a Son of Man. This character cannot have been 
acquired in heaven, but must have distinguished him first of all 
when he was on earth. The appearance of Christ in the flesh, 
which is expressly foretold in chap, ix., is here presupposed. 

The Messiah appears in the clouds of heaven. In the symbo- 
lical language of the Bible the clouds represent judgment ; see 
our commentary on Rev. i. 7. In other passages it is always 
the Lord who appears with, or upon the clouds of heaven. It 
is the Lord alone " who maketh the clouds his chariot," Ps. 
civ. 3. " Behold the Lord rideth upon a swift cloud, and 
cometh to Egypt, and the idols of Egypt tremble at his presence, 
and the heart of Egypt melts within it," Is. xix. 1 ; compare 
Ps. xcvii. 2^ xviii. 10 ; Nahum i. 3. None but the Lord of 
nature can appear upon the clouds of heaven. Micliaelis is 
quite correct in saying, " the clouds are characteristic of divine 
majesty." Even the Talmudists^ saw, that coming upon the 
clouds of heaven presents the most striking contrast to the 
Messiah's riding upon an ass, of which Zechariah speaks (ix. 9) ; 
but they were unable to explain the contrast, and changed into 
a conditional alternative what are really successive events. Even 

1 Sanhedrin, fol. 98 . Si boni sunt Israelita;, tunc veniot in nubibus cooli, 
si vero non boni, tunc inequitans asino. 



84 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

Zechariah, after referring to the state of humiliation, proceeds 
in the very next verse to describe the exaltation which ensues, 
the absolute world-wide dominion of the Messiah. — The Messiah 
appears upon the clouds of heaven : he is, therefore, an almighty 
judge, even hefore the dominion is given to him. From this 
it follows, that his coming thus must have a demonstrative signi- 
fication ; it can only be the recognition of an already existing 
fact.i 

" Like a Son of Man." The question arises, how are we to un- 
derstand the particle of comparison, 3 ? According to some the 
tact, that the Messiah is said to have been like a man, necessarily 
leads to the conclusion that, in the opinion of the prophets, he 
would not be possessed of true humanity. They refer to chap, 
viii. 15, and x. 16, where angels are represented as resembling 
the children of men. The Messiah is a purely heavenly being, 
and only becomes " like a Son of Man," because, when the invi- 
sible becomes visible, the incorporeal corporeal, it must assume 
the noblest form. This is the view expressed by Bertholdt and 
von Lengerke. But these expositors have no conception what- 
ever of the link of connection, which runs through prophecy. 
At the time when Daniel prophesied, it had long been received 
as an established fact, that the Messiah would appear as a true 
Son of Man. The Messiah a son of David was one of the first 
principles of Messianic expectation. Compare, for example. Is. 
xi. 1, and Micah v. 1. Moreover in chap, ix., it is expressly 
shown that Daniel was aware of the true humanity of Christ, for 
he speaks of him there in ver. 25 as the Anointed, the Prince, 
and in ver. 26 foretels that he will be cut off. 

According to others, the particle of comparison points out the 
difference between the vision and reality. Thus Calvin says : " he 

1 Calvin says : " It must be maintained, that reference is here made to the 
vianifestation of Christ, for he has been from the beginning the life of men, 
the world was created by him, and hence has been sustained by his energy, 
but to him was given power, tliat we might know that God reigns by his 
hand." From what has been said it follows that the distinction which Gas.'i 
has pointed out between Matt. xxvi. 64 and Dan. vii. 13 is founded upon a 
false interpretation of the latter passage. He says : Danielis Barnasch 
advenit ut imperia magna per deum obtineat, Christus vero h. 1. cernitur ut 
coelesti jam po testate omni ornatus, ille ad senem judicem nubibus advehi- 
tur (?), hie ipse judex est majestatis ad dextram sedens (de utroque Jesu 
Christi nomine, Breslau 1840 p. 113). 



DANIEL, CHAP. VII. 13, 14. 85 

appeared to Daniel as a son of man, who was afterwards really 
and truly a son of man." And Carpzov (de fil. horn. Leipzig 
1679 : " The prefiguration of a thing is different from the thing 
prefigured. It was not a real man that appeared to Daniel in 
this vision, but a certain (p!jivra<JiJ.a. with the likeness of a man, just 
as the beasts which he saw, foreshadowing the four monarchies, 
were not real beasts, but a resemblance of them presented to the 
imagination. He who was actually to exist at a future time, was 
here beheld by the prophet in a vision." Hitzig again says : " It 
was a priori impossible that Daniel should know who it was 
that really came to him, he could only tell in what manner he 
appeared to him." But we cannot see why the character of the 
person seen should be so particularly noticed here, since this 
was always taken for granted, when utterance was given to the 
expectation of the coming one. The particle of comparison 3 
is used, like nioT and other similar terms, in connection with 
visions (for example in Ezek. i.), when it is required to show that 
what is seen bears an ideal character, as in the case of the 
cherubs, and that a symbolical drapery is employed. Where the 
simple reality is witnessed, it is never used. In every other case 
in which there is said to have been a likeness to the children of 
men, the illusion is not to the distinction between the vision and 
reality, but rather to the fact that there was a difference as well 
as a resemblance. Thus in chap. viii. 15, where it is said with 
reference to the angel Gabriel : " then, behold there stood before 
me, one like the appearance of a man ;" chap. x. 16 : " and be- 
hold one like the children of men touched my lips," and Ezek. i. 
26, where the prophet says of Jehovah, who manifested himself 
in human form ; " one to look at like a man." 

By comparing these passages we may arrive at a correct con- 
clusion. The fact that, notwithstanding his true humanity, the 
Messiah is here said to have been like a Son of Man,' shows, 
both here and in Kev. i. 13, and xiv. 14, that there is also 
another point of view in which he is far superior to everything 
human. He is a man and yet not a man, just as the Lord him- 
self in Matt. xxii. 43 denies that the Messiah is the son of David. 
The context favours this view in the present case, and in the 

1 V. Lengerke says it must be admitted that the word includes the subordi- 
nate idea of weakness. 



86 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

passages referred to in the Book of Revelation, where Christ is 
described as " like unto a Son of Man," the context expressly 
refers to his superhuman exaltation. In the case before us the 
3 is evidently associated with his coming on the clouds of heaven. 
And in Rev. xiv. 14, " and I looked and behold a white cloud, 
and upon the cloud one sitting, who was like the Son of a Man." 
Every one feels that the words could not run thus : " I saw a Son 
of Man sitting upon the cloud." For the phrase " all people, 
nations, and languages serve him," compare Ps. Ixxii. 8, and 
Zech. ix. 10. Carpzov has already pointed out the fact, that in 
biblical Chaldee hSd is never used in any other sense than that 
of divine worship : " that nSs is employed in the sacred Scrip- 
tures to denote not political, but religious homage (whether paid 
erroneously to a false deity, or properly to the true God), is evi- 
dent from Dan. iii. 12, 14, 17, 18, 28, and Ezia vii. 19." 
The occurrence of the word in chap. vii. 27, where allusion is 
made to the service to be rendered to " the people of the saints 
of the Most High," cannot be adduced as an objection to this 
explanation. For Christ is the head of the people of the saints of 
the Most High. Compare Is. xlv. 14, where the congregation of 
the Lord is worshipped by the heathen world, because the Lord 
is in the midst of it. This verse furnishes an answer to v. Lengerke's 
opinion, that Daniel differs from the earlier prophets, inasmuch 
as he assigns to the heathen nothing but pure external service, 
whereas they describe them as inwardly associated with the 
kingdom of the Messiah. According to Daniel they are to be 
subjugated by the Jews. There is a similar intimation in the 
expression " without hands," in chap. ii. 34, 35. A kingdom, 
however, which is not of this world, whose origin is entirely 
from above, and which is established without weapons of war, 
cannot lead to a purely outward service. " His dominion is an 
everlasting dominion." The everlasting duration of his dominion 
is a common feature in the announcement of the Messiah ; com- 
pare Ps. Ixxii. 5, 7, 17, Ixxxix. 37, 38 ; Is. ix. 6. 



We have started with the assumption, that the Son of Man 
coming in the clouds of heaven was Christ. The history of 
biblical interpretation proves, that there must be good ground for 



DANIEL, CHAP. VII. 13, 14. 87 

this explanation. It was supported by the whole of the early 
Christian Church with very few exceptions.^ The Jews were 
certainly interested in opposing it, as Christ had so expressly 
declared himself to be the Son of Man. Yet, with the exception 
of Abenezra, they are unanimous in supporting this exposition. 
It is even found in the Sibylline books and in the Book of 
Enoch ; compare the references in Gass, p. 92 sqq. On the 
ground of this passage the Messiah was called by the Jews 'Jjy, 
the man of the clouds. The Talmud also gives this explana- 
tion in a series of passages. Aharhanel bears witness that the 
Jewish expositors generally adopted it : " The expositors explain 
these words, like a Son of Man, as referring to the King Mes- 
siah." (See the careful discussion of the Jewish writings in 
question in Carpzov's treatise, Beck's remarks on the Chaldee 
paraphrase of 1 Chr. iii. 24, and Schotigens h. Hebr. ii. p. 263). 
So far as the rationalistic commentators were concerned, besides 
their general inclination to limit the number of Messianic pro- 
phecies as far as possible, there were special reasons why they 
should reject a Messianic explanation in the present case, if they 
could find any possible excuse for doing so. They assign its 
composition to as late a date as the period of the Maccabees. 
But according to the current theory, which I have shown to be 
erroneous in my work ^\fur Beihehaltung der Apocryphen" 
there is not a single trace of the expectation of a personal Mes- 
siah to be found in the Apocryphal books. This belief is said to 
have been altogether extinct in the days of the writers of the 
Apocrypha. If therefore there is any Messianic prophecy in the 
book of Daniel, according to this theory it must be altogether 
erroneous to assign it to a Maccabean origin. Hdveimick has 
already directed attention to the gross contradictions in which De 
Wette has involved himself by saying in § 188 of the Biblische 
Dograatik, " The Messiah appeared as a divine being in the clouds 
of heaven," Dan. vii. 13, 14, and then laying it down in the next 

1 Theodoret (on ver. 28) expresses his surprise that in opposition to the 
most transparent facts it should be so commonly maintained by pious teachers 
(t-iuv tyi; IviTiliua; liocc^xeiXuv)^ that the fourtli kingdom is the Macedonian. 
He probably alludes to Ephraim Syrus, who explained the title Son of Man 
as referring in a .lower sense to the Maccabean age, in a higher sense to 
Christ. But this was quite an isolated exception. 



88 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

section as a characteristic of the doctrines held by the Apocry- 
phal writers that they contain " nothing about a Messiah or a 
kingdom of the Messiah or of God," and then again at § 255 of 
his Introduction to the Old Testament describing the Christo- 
logy of chap. vii. 13, 14, of the book of Daniel, as indicating the 
late politico-religious spirit of the book. But notwithstanding 
this, so strongly is the Messianic character impressed upon the 
passage, that nearly all the rationalistic commentators have sup- 
ported the Messianic interpretation ; not only De Wette, but Ber- 
tholcU, Gesenius, v. Lengerke, and Maurer. 

The testimony, which we have thus obtained at the outset 
in favour of the Messianic exposition of this passage from the 
history of the biblical exegesis, is confirmed on closer investiga- 
tion. The arguments adduced by the opponents of such an 
exposition (Paulus, commentary on the New Testament, Weg- 
sclieider in his Dogmatik, Hofmann, Weissagung und Erfiil- 
lung 1 p. 290, and Schriftbeweis ii. 2 p. 541, and Hitzig) are 
thoroughly inconclusive. 

1. " In the second part," it is argued, " in which an explanation 
of the chapter is given, the Messiah is never mentioned, and the 
constancy, with which all that is said of the Son of Man in ver. 
14 is afterwards applied to the saints of the Most High in ver. 
18, 22, and 27, renders [it exceedingly probable that by the 
Son of Man we are to understand the people of Israel." The 
error committed in the statement of this argument is, that the 
passage under review is severed from the entire course of "pro- 
phecy, and no attention is paid to the relation in which Daniel 
himself declares that he stood to the prophets who preceded 
him ; compare, for example, chap. ix. 6, " thy servants the pro- 
phets, which spake in thy name," and ver. 10. It was a funda- 
mental idea of prophecy, that the future salvation was to be 
bestowed upon the people of the saints of the Most High, 
through the medium of the Messiah : that it did not belong to 
the people as a body, but to the people as united under Christ, 
their head ; compare Eph. v. 23, " Christ, the head of the 
church ;" ver. 30, " we are members of his body ;" and Col. i. 18. 
If Daniel could assume that this was already known, he had no 
reason to fear that he would be misunderstood, when he after- 



DANIEL, CHAP. VII. 13, 14. 89 

wards attributed to the people of the saints of the Most Hig^h, 
what he had previously written of the Messiah. No true Israelite 
would have misunderstood him, even if he had not expressly 
mentioned the Messiah before, and thus guarded against any 
misapprehension. Compare C. B. Michaelis on ver. 18 : " they 
will receive the kingdom in and with Christ their head ; see vers. 
13, 14." Moreover such a transition from the person of the 
Messiah to the whole body of the church is very common even 
among the earlier prophets. Look, for example, at Is. lii. 13 — 
53, in conjunction with chap. liv. 2. — 2. It is said that " as the 
four beasts undoubtedly represent four kingdoms, it is natural 
to suppose that by the fifth figure, that of the Son of Man, we 
are to understand not an individual, but a nation." On the 
contrary the analogy favours the Messianic interpretation. The 
four beasts do not represent kingdoms without heads, but " four 
kings," chap. vii. 17. " Thou art the head of gold," says Daniel 
to Nebuchadnezzar. Hence, according to the analogy, we are 
not to look in this instance for a kingdom (ver. 27) without a 
king, a sovereign people. — 3. " On the supposition that the book 
of Daniel was composed in the Maccabean age, a personal 
Messiah is from the very outset precluded." This argument, 
which Hitzig adduces, is of no worth except so far as it serves 
to throw light upon the genesis of the anti-Messianic exposition. 
— 4. " The divine nature of the Messiah is an idea altogether 
foreign to the -Old Testament." On the contrary, compare what 
we have already said on Is. ix. 5, and Micah v. 1. 

The positive arguments in favour of the Messianic explanation 
are the following : — 1. The ideal personality of the nation would 
have been more particularly pointed out at the very outset ; other- 
wise every one would understand the passage as referring to the 
actual person of the Messiah. The elevation of the people had 
hitherto been inseparably connected with the royal house of 
David ; and earlier prophets had invariably pointed to the Son 
of David as the author of its future glory. If, therefore, Daniel 
ascribed this future exaltation first to the Son of Man, and then 
to the nation, he could only intend that the former of these should 
be understood as referring to the Messiah. — 2. His coming in 
the clouds of heaven is decisive. The anti-Messianic expositors 
have not only to explain how Israel could be in heaven, how 



90 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

it could come from heaven (Sltzig), or ascend from the earth 
to heaven {Hofmann) ,^ but how it could become possessed of 
omnipotent judicial power. For it is this that is indicated by 
his coming with the clouds. — 3. Israel could not appropriately 
be compared to a son of man. Such a comparison presupposes 
that there was a difference as well as a resemblance. — 4. In the 
other passages of this book, in which any one is described as 
being like the children of men, it is not an ideal person, but a 
real person, who is spoken of " The same remark applies to 
Ezek. i. 26. 

There can be no doubt that the Lord applies this prophecy 
to himself. We have already shown in the Dissertation on 
Daniel p. 220, translation, that it forms the basis of the 
Saviour's declarations as to his future coming to judgment, in 
Matt. X. 23, xvi. 27, 28, xix. 28, xxiv. 30, xxv. 31, xxvi. 64; 
just as his declarations, respecting the kingdom of God and 
kingdom of heaven, are founded upon chap. ii. 44, both of these 
expressions, so far as they relate to the Messianic kingdom, 
being taken from that passage. And if this may be regarded 
as established, there can be no doubt, that in other places, 
in which Jesus speaks of himself in a different connection as 
the Son of Man, there is also an allusion to the passage before 
us. The very frequency with which this expression is em- 
ployed (we find it no less than fifty-five times in the mouth 
of Jesus, after making deductions for parallel passages), is 
an indication of the existence of some passage in the- Old 
Testament, upon which it is founded, and which gives a 
deeper signification to this unassuming expression. A closer 
examination of the usage itself leads to the same conclusion. 
With the exception of those passages which treat of Christ's 
second coming to judgment, the expression is generally employed 
by the Saviour, when he is speaking of his humiliation, his 
ignominy and his sufferings. Compare, for example, Matt. xx. 
28 : " as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to 
minister ;" Luke xxiv. 7: " the Son of Man must be delivered 

1 There is nothing in the text about coming from heaven, or going to 
heaven. And Carpzov has correctly observed : " the Messiah is said to have 
come not to men on the earth, but to the Ancient of Days in heaven, and to 
have been brought not into the presence of the men, who were about to be 
judged, but into the presence of the Father." 



DANIEL, CHAP. VII. 13, 14. 91 

into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified," &c., John xii. 
34 : " the Son of Man must be Hfted up." In sucli passages as 
these its appropriateness and significance can only be seen, as it 
is explained by the Book of Daniel, where heavenly majesty is 
associated with appearing as a Son of Man. It then acquires an 
argumentative force. It grants what is evident to the eyes of 
all, but proclaims at the same time the hidden majesty behind. 
It is as much as to say : do not stumble at my lowly humanity, 
that is not at variance with prophecy ; on the contrary, it is 
attested by it ; it does not prevent my being a Son of God, but 
even according to prophecy the two go hand in hand. — The 
numerous passages in which this expression occurs presuppose 
the humanity of Christ ; and it is in connection with this that their 
argumentative force is seen. On the same ground, in part at 
least, we may explain the fact that the apostles do not speak of 
Jesus as the Son of Man. When Jesus had ascended to the 
right hand of the Father, his lowly humanity was no longer the 
stumbling-block which had to be taken out of the way. During 
the life of (Christ on earth it was but right that both the apostles 
and the Lord himself should acknowledge, that appearances 
spoke powerfully against him, and such an admission was con- 
tained in the use of the expression " the Son of Man." — ^A 
second explanation may be found in the fact, that the words of 
the Lord were always primarily addressed to persons, who were 
acquainted with the prophecies of the Old Testament, and to 
whom slight and significant allusions were both intelligible and 
impressive. The case was different with the apostles, who had 
also to address themselves to G-entile Christians.^ Those who 
attempt to explain the use of the expression " Son of Man" by 
Christ, without reference to the Book of Daniel, are unable to do 
justice to the fact that it is never employed by the Apostles. 
" The ideal man" would be constantly echoed in the writings of 
the apostles, if it had been from preference that the Lord made 
use of so peculiar an expression. Let us look minutely at a few 
more of these passages. " Whom do men say that I the Son of 

1 This argument, however, can onlj be regarded as of subordinate impor- 
tance, since Jesus was not called the Son of Man by his disciples even during 
his life on earth. " No one was so called (viz., the Son of Man) but Christ 
himself, and no one, whilst he walked on earth, so called him except him- 
self." Bengel, Glnomon, vol. i., p. 320, English translation. 



02 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

Man am?" the Lord inquires of his disciples in Matt. xvi. 13. 
The words in apposition, " the Son of Man," indicate the possi- 
bility of various opinions prevailing respecting Christ, some of 
them very derogatory, and at the same time furnish the ground- 
work of a correct reply, and contain the germ of Peter's answer, 
" thou art the ISon of the living God." He says to his disciples. 
Be not ye offended, like the ignorant multitude, at my lowly 
humanity. Kemember that in Daniel the Son of Man comes 
with the clouds in heaven. — The scribes looked upon it as blas- 
phemy when Christ fuigave sins, because he was a man. And 
it would really have been so, even if Jesus had been the ideal 
man. When Jesus says to them, in Matt. ix. 6, " that ye may 
know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins," 
he refutes the argument drawn from his humanity, by his allusion 
to the passage in Daniel, in which divinity is associated with 
humanity, — "For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath" 
(Matt. xii. 8) : I am so, notwithstanding my human lowliness, 
which Daniel has shown to be attended by divinity. — In John v. 
27 he says, " he hath given him power to execute judgment also 
because he is the Son of Man." To Christ is committed the 
execution of judgment not because of his humanity alone — even 
an " ideal man " would have no right to act as a judge ; and we 
must not imagine that an ideal man is referred to merely because 
the article is omitted — it is upon his combined divinity and 
humanity that this appointment rests. But there is no intima- 
tion of this in the expression Son of Man, except as it is com- 
pared with the prediction in Daniel. 



THE 8EVEi\TJ WEEKS. -CHAP. L\. 24-27. 

GENERAL SURVEY. 

In the first year of Darius the Mede, Daniel is engaged in the 
study of Jeremiah, and his mind is deeply aff"ected, when he 
peruses again the well known prophecies, which foretel the misery 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24 — 27. 93 

of the covenant nation, its captivity for seventy years, its re- 
turn after this to its own land, and the consequent commence- 
ment of the rebuilding of the city and temple. The sixty-ninth 
year had now arrived (see Dissertation on Daniel, 143 sqq., 
translation). The fall of Babylon, the one leading topic of 
Jeremiah's prophecies (chap. xxv. and xxix.), had already oc- 
curred, — (according to ver. 1, Daniel saw the vision in the first 
year of Darius " who Avas made king over the realm of the 
Chaldeans ") — and his faith in the truth of the divine predictions 
with reference to the other event, which was now drawing near 
with rapid steps, and the very germs of which lay hidden in 
existing circumstances, was firmly supported by what he already 
saw. Daniel was far from distrusting the promises of God. But 
the less he doubted, the more firmly he trusted in the grace of God, 
and the more thoroughly he recognised the justice of God (for this 
also required the fulfilment of the promise, when once it had 
been given in mercy), — the more did he feel himself impelled to 
intercede on behalf of the nation, the temple, and the city of the 
Lord. True boldness in prayer to the Lord springs from the 
conviction, that we are praying according to his will. In form 
the prayer of Daniel is restricted to the fact of forgiveness ; but 
there lies hidden in the background a prayer for further dis- 
closures, as to the manner in which it will be granted. From 
the whole character of Daniel it is a priori impossible,, that he 
should ask for nothing more than a simple confirmation of the 
prophecies of Jeremiah. We have now before us the one pro- 
phet, who was distinguished above all the others for his wide 
range of vision, and in whose predictions we find on every hand 
the most minute revelations with regard to the future. And we 
may see still more clearly from the answer, that a prayer for 
vsuch revelations lay hidden behind. The answer is not restricted 
to a fresh confirmation of the fact of deliverance ; but more pre- 
cise disclosures are made as to the manner in which it will be 
effected. There were two respects, in which such disclosures 
were especially necessary. First of all the question ar()se, 
whether, when the seventy years of Jeremiah were passed, the 
glorious condition of the kingdom of God, predicted by the earlier 
prophets, would be realised all at once, and especially whether 
the Messianic salvation would immediately follow. The pro- 



94 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

phecies of Jeremiah furnished no material for answering this 
important question, which must have occupied the minds of the 
people more and more as the seventy years were drawing to a 
close. In chap. xxv. 1 1 there is merely a reference to the ter- 
mination of the Chaldean captivity, and in chap. xxix. 10 to the 
return to Canaan, with which the commencement of the rebuild- 
ing of Jerusalem is naturally associated. — A second important 
question was, whether the future would bring salvation alone, or 
whether, in connection with the revelation of mercy, there would 
also be a fresh manifestation of the justice of God. 

How much these questions were agitated in the days of the 
prophet, and how great the need of a revelation to decide them, 
may be seen very clearly from the prophecies of Zechariah, who 
lived so nearly about the same time. They are the two poles 
around which these prophecies revolve. To those who are 
unable to explain the contrast between the actual condition of 
the nation and the glorious promises it had received, the pro- 
phet points out the successive steps by which complete salvation 
will be attained, and the certain fulfilment in the future of what- 
ever part of prophecy has not yet been accomplished. At the 
same time he shows them that judgment will accompany mercy, 
that Jerusalem will again be destroyed, and the people will 
be scattered once more. In the case of Daniel, there was a pre- 
paration for such an announcement as this, in his knowledge 
of the depth of the people's guilt, to which he gives utterance in 
his prayer. 

The prayer is heard, and Gabriel, the medium of all revela- 
tions, is commissioned to make known to the faithful prophet 
the counsel determined in heaven. The speed with which he 
arrives shows that on the whole his message is a good one. It 
is the following. In return for the seventy years, during which 
the nation, the city and the temple, have been entirely prostrate, 
they shall receive from the Lord seventy weeks of yea^rs, seven 
times seventy years of renewed existence ; and at the end of that 
period, not only will the mercy of God be still unexhausted, but 
then first will the people of God become partakers of that mercy 
in all its richest abundance. Then shall the forgiveness of sins 
be fully imparted, eternal righteousness brought in, the Most 
Holy be anointed, and the blessings of salvation, promised 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24 — 27. 95 

by the prophets, actually enjoyed. This general summary in 
ver. 24 is followed by more minute details in vers. 25 — 27, viz. , 
the point from which the time is calculated ; the subdivision of 
the whole period into several shorter ones, and a notice of the 
characteristics of each, i.e., of the peculiar blessings by whicli 
each will be distinguished ; the announcement of Him, through 
whom the last and greatest act of grace will be accomplished ; a 
description of those who will enjoy the benefits thereof, as well 
as of those for whom it is not designed, and who will therefore 
be excluded. — 1. The point of time, from which the seventy 
weeks are reckoned, is the issue of the divine command to restore 
the city in its ancient extent and glory. This is diiferent from 
the point of time, at which the prophecies of Jeremiah terminate, 
since they merely speak of the restoration of the people to Canaan 
and the first attempts to rebuild the city, which necessarily follow. 
— 2. The entire period is subdivided into three shorter ones of 
seven weeks, sixty-two weeks, and one week. The termination 
of the first is indicated by the completion of the work of rebuild- 
ing the city ; that of the second by the appearance of an anointed 
one ; a prince ; and that of the third by the completion of the 
covenant with the many, for whom the blessings of salvation 
pointed out in ver. 24, as connected with the termination of the 
entire period, are ultimately destined. The last period is again 
subdivided into two halves. Whilst the comfirmation of the 
covenant occupies the whole from beginning to end ; the cessation 
of the sacrifice and meat-ofi'ering, and the death of the anointed 
one, on which it rests, both take place in the middle of this period. 
— 3. As the author of the blessings of salvation, which are per- 
fected at the end of the seventy weeks, there appears an anointed 
one, a prince, who enters upon his office at the end of the sixty- 
ninth week, and having confirmed the covenant with many, during 
the first half of the seventieth week, meets with a violent death. 
The sacrifice and meat-offering cease in consequence ; but the 
confirmation of the covenant still goes on after his death. — i. 
The blessings of salvation, to be bestowed by the anointed one, 
are not intended for the whole nation. On the contrary, the 
greater part of the nation, after cutting itself off by the murder 
of the ^anointed one from his kingdom and its blessings, will 



96 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

become a prey to the army of a foreign prince, which, acting as 
an instrument in the hand of the avenging God, will thoroughly 
exterminate the ruined city and polluted temple. 

The announcement is essentially of a cheering character. This 
is true in a certain sense, even of that part of it, which relates 
to the destruction of the city and temple. For even this is 
necessary to complete the whole, on account of the constancy 
with which the prophets represent the most brilliant manifesta- 
tions of the mercy of God as inseparably connected with the 
most striking manifestation of His justice towards such as despise 
his mercy. The sifting judgments of God are a blessing to his 
church ; in one light they are a cause of joy to believers, though 
in another they are undoubtedly the cause of bitter sorrow. 
Compare Is. i. 24 sqq., Ixv. 13, 14, Ixvi. 24 ; Mai. iii. 21 ; Luke 
xxi. 28 ; 2 Mace. vi. 13, " for it is a token of his great goodness, 
when wicked doers are not suffered any long time, but forthwith 
punished, &c." Daniel had not prayed for the stiifnecked and 
ungodly, but for those who heartily joined with him in the peni- 
tential confession of their sins. These were the object of all the 
promises, and of the tender care of the prophets. Daniel mourned 
over the Chaldean destruction of the city and temple, chiefly 
because it had caused a partial suspension of the theocracy, which 
was still only manifested in an outward form. In this respect 
the overthrow of the city and temple formed the subject of his 
lamentation, in which he prayed for their restoration, compare 
vers. 15 — 19. But this will not be the case with the destruction 
depicted here. The overthrow of the outward temple is accom- 
panied by the anointing of a Most Holy one. The termination 
of the dominion of the anointed one over the covenant people is 
attended by the confirmation of the covenant for the many, in 
whom the prophet is especially interested. The cessation of the 
sacrifices could be easily borne, since that which they foreshadowed, 
the forgiveness of sins and eternal righteousness, would be first 
truly and perfectly secured by the very event, which led to their 
cessation. 

Wieseler is quite wrong when he lays it down as a fundamental 
principle that " every exposition of these verses is false which 
does not point out, in addition to certain predictions relating to 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 97 

a distant future, the announcement of deliverance from exist- 
ing misery ; since this was the immediate object of Daniel's 
prayer" (die 70 Wochen Daniels, Gottingen 39, p. 13). This 
prophecy must be completed from those of Jeremiah. At the 
end of the seventy years there follow, as a matter of course, the 
return of the people and the commencement of the rebuilding of 
Jerusalem. Instead of a repetition of what was already well 
known, further revelations are given at once. The mind of the 
prophet was directed exclusively to the seventy years,^ but now 
by these revelations it is turned abruptly away from them and 
directed to a new cycle of events. Even Steudel felt at a loss 
how to explain this prophecy, and, in order to satisfy the sup- 
posed necessity of the case, by a forced exposition interpolated a 
reference to the fulfilment of the prophecies of Jeremiah. That 
the answer must refer particularly to the time fixed by Jeremiah 
for the termination of the captivity, can only be asserted by those 
who start with the false assumption, that Daniel doubted whether 
God would adhere to the period predicted. For if this was 
regarded by him as certain (and it could not be otherwise), he 
needed no further instruction on this head ; but he did need 
further light on those greater and more important topics, to 
which the answer refers. 



EXPOSITION. 

Ver. 24. " Seventy weeks are cut offwpon thy people and upon 
thy holy city, to shut in transgression, and to seal up sins, and 
to cover iniquity, and to bring eternal righteousness ; and to 
seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint a Holy of Holies" 

" Seve7ity lueeks." 

The word loeeks is masculine here, both in form and construc- 
tion, whereas in other cases it is generally feminine. This has 

1 Ewald says : " Jeremiah certainly thought that the complete Messianic 
salvation would follow immediately upon the seventy years of exile. " 
VOL. III. G 



98 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PKOPHETS. 

not only furnished a welcome pretext to such as wish to alter 
the text, but has given rise to many an erroneous theory, on the 
part of those who retain it as it is. Thus Bertholdt and v. Lengerke 
maintain that the masculine form, which is not used anywhere 
else, is chosen here because of its similarity in sound to O'V^t? ; 
overlooking the fact that vp^^ occurs as a masculine both in 
form and construction, without any reference whatever to d*V?^, 
not only in ver. 27 of this chapter, where it might be attributed 
to the influence of the masculine in the verse before us, but also 
in chap. x. 2, 3. Eioald says that we have here an arbitrary 
change in the gender, such as we frequently meet with in the 
later writers. But we have no right to resort to such an explana- 
tion, unless a thorough examination of the question confirms the 
assumption, on which it is based, that in every other instance 
the gender of the word is feminine. This, however, is by no 
means the case. On the contrary it is evident from Gen. xxix. 
27, riNT yaw n'??, " fill up the week of this one," i.e., first 
keep with her the seven days' marriage-festival, that the word was 
originally masculine ; for the fact that we find the masculine form 
employed here, in the case of a word in which the meaning could 
have no influence upon the gender, is a proof that it was originally 
regarded as masculine. In such words as these, where the feminine 
is only an ideal form, and more or less an arbitrary one, we 
nearly always find some traces of the early masculine gender. 
The co-existence of the two genders in the case of this word 
must be all the more readily admitted, since it is really a par- 
ticiple, " sevened," just as in the song " alle Menschen miissen 
sterben" the " gezwolfte Zahl" is used for the Zwolfzahl. But 
in both adjectives and participles the gender, as a rule, is 
shown in the form ; and therefore the existence of the masculine 
form vptt' is at the same time a proof of the existence of the 
masculine gender, v^^^, with the plural d»v3», is a " sevened" 
period; ^p^^, of which the plural is nivaif', a "sevened" time. 
In both cases ^v. must be understood, and there is the less reason 
to suppose the gender to be definitely fixed, since even in the case 
of the word nj; itself it is very variable. The extent, to which 
the words vp^ and nya^ still retained their force as adjectives 
may be seen from Ezek. xlv. 21, where the feast of passover is 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 99 

called a'p; ny^ip an, " the feast of the ' sevened (periods) of days," 
i.e. the feast, in which the days were divided into sevens, un- 
leavened bread being eaten for seven days. 

The position of the numeral after the noun has also been 
adduced as an argument against the coj-rectness of our text ; but 
numerous examples may be found of this in the case of the tens 
from twenty to ninety, as Gesenms has shown in his Lehrge- 
bdude, p. 698. In the present instance, it has no doubt ori- 
ginated in the wish to render the contrast more striking between 
the " loeeks of years" and the " years" of Jeremiah. The usual 
order of the words is changed, whenever prominence is given 
to any particular word, for the sake of rendering it more em- 
phatic. 

But what right have we to interpret the weeks as weeks of 
years, or periods of seven years each ? One argument, frequently 
adduced by commentators (among the latest by Hdvernick and 
Blomstrand, de LXX. hebdomad, Lund. 53), is this: that when 
the prophet afterwards describes the ordinary weeks as weeks 
of days (chap. x. 2), he intends thereby to intimate that he has 
previously been speaking of weeks of a different kind. But this 
argument will not bear examination, as Sostmann has already 
shown (de LXX. hebdomad, Lugd. 1710). In the passage 
referred to, Daniel says : "I, Daniel, was mourning nipiStt? 
d'd; D'va^-." That this must not be rendered " three weeeks of 
days," but " three weeks long," — d^d; being added in apposition, 
as it frequently is when periods of time are referred to, to show 
that the time is accurately given even to a single day, — is 
evident from the word d'v?^" in the absolute state. The most 
forcible argument is founded upon the seventy years of Jere- 
miah. A reference to these is sufficient to show that seventy 
ordinary weeks cannot for a moment be thought of For what 
comfort would it have afforded to Daniel, if he had been told 
that, as a compensation for the seventy years of desolation, the 
city would stand for seventy ordinary weeks, and then be 
destroyed again ? Moreover Daniel himself must have been 
able to perceive, from the magnitude of the events, which were 
to take place during this period, that something more was 
intended than ordinary weeks. But if they were not ordinary 



100 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPBETS. 

weeks, he would be led all the more naturally to think of weeks 
of years, both from the important position assigned to them in 
the law of Moses, and because the captivity had again so forci- 
bly recalled them to mind, the seventy years' desolation being 
generally regarded as a punishment for neglecting to keep the 
Sabbatical years (2 Chr, xxxvi. 21). It is true, these periods 
of seven years' duration are not called O'l??^ or nSya^' in the 
law itself ; but it is evident, notwithstanding, that they were 
looked upon as weeks, from the frequency with which the seventh 
year is spoken of as " the great Sabbath," or simply " the 
Sabbath" (Lev. xxv. 2, 4, 5 ; xxvi. 34, 35, 43 ; 2 Chr. xxxvi. 
21). Whatever obscurity might still remain, was removed by 
the fulfilment. It must be borne in mind, that an indefinite 
phrase, which comprehended more than the words expressed, 
was intentionally chosen, that the boundary line between pro- 
phecy and history might still be preserved, and the light thrown 
by the latter upon the former might not be superfluous. The 
desire to avoid the two extremes, — namely, a vague indefiniteness 
on the one hand, which might be pleaded as an argument against 
the divine origin of the prophecy and thus frustrate its design, 
and the disturbance of its proper relation to history on the other, 
is apparent throughout the entire section, and is secured iu a 
most remarkable manner. A perfectly analogous example of a 
statement of time, which is indefinite in itself, but perfectly 
definite when the help of history is called in, we find in chap, 
iv. 20 of this same book ; see Dissertation on Daniel," p. 82 
sqq. 

But what led the prophet to make use of this particular 
measure of time ? First of all, the desire to render the state- 
ment both definite and obscure. Now such a desire could not 
have been realised, if he had employed the ordinary reckoning, 
and mentioned the number of years that would elapse between 
the time at which he wrote, and the terminus ad quern. Nor 
would he have effected his purpose, so far as definiteness was 
concerned, if he had chosen a measure of time, which was alto- 
gether arbitrary and entirely unknown, such for example as 
Bengel's prophetic years. It might then have been objected, 
that it was very easy to define periods in this manner, if they 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 101 

were only to be determined by their fulfilment. Another reason 
may be found in the connection between this prophecy, and the 
seventy years of Jeremiah. It served to point out very clearly 
the relation in which the mercy of God stood to the wrath of 
God, that to the seventy years, spoken of in ver. 2 as having 
been accomplished on the desolations of Jerusalem, a seventy 
of another kind was opposed, as the period during which the 
city was to stand when rebuilt, — namely, seventy times seventy 
years. Moreover seven and seventy were perfect and sacred 
numbers, which were all the better adapted to the divine chrono- 
logy, from their connection with the creation of the world and 
other events in sacred history. — Lastly, the allusion to the year 
of jubilee is unmistakeable. Seven weeks of years constituted 
the cycle, in the last year of which the civil restitutio in integrum 
took place, when all debts were cancelled, all slaves set free, and 
lands, which had been diverted from their original owners, were 
restored. The last of seventy weeks of years was the greatest of 
all Sabbaths, the period of spiritual restitutio in integrum, of the 
expiation and cancelling of every kind of guilt. ^ 



" Are cut off." 

We must first of all examine the apparent anomaly in the use 
of the singular number. It may be explained from the fact that 
the seventy hebdomads were not considered individually but as a 
whole ; a period of seventy hebdomads is determined. An analo- 
gous example may be found in Gen. xlvi. 22, " these are the sons 
of Kachael "^'PtS "h^"^^^.." We have here, not certain sons 
opposed to other sons, but the entire posterity of Jacob by Rachael 



1 Even among heathen writers there are traces to be found of a similar 
mode of reckoning. Marcus Varro, after having traced the importance of 
the number seven in natural objects, in the first of his books called Hebdo- 
mades (see the extract in Gellius 3, 10), adds, se quoque jam duodeclmam 
annorum liehdomadam ingressum esse, et ad euni diem septuaginta hebdomadas 
librorum conscrijisisse. In his case, as in that of Daniel, there were peculiar 
reasons for selecting this mode of reckoning ; partly, the prominence already 
given to the importance of the number seven, and partly, the intention to in- 
stitute a comparison between the seven years and seven books. 



102 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

contrasted with his children by his other wives. Compare chap, 
XXXV. 26, and Jer. xHv. 9 : " have ye forgotten the iniquities of 
of the kings of Judah, '^''^^ riSyn n^x" The reference in this 
case is not to particular monarchs, but to the whole line of 
kings. So also in Eccl. ii. 7, " Man-servants and maid- servants 
♦S n;n n;? v.?*!." As a rule we find in such a case as this the 
feminine singular. But wherever the singular masculine is 
employed, as in the passages quoted and the one before us, a 
reason may always be discovered. In the examples cited from 
Genesis, Bcclesiastes, and Jeremiah, a sufficient reason may be 
found in the incongruity of combining together masculine nouns, 
relating to persons, and a feminine verb. In the instance before 
us the reason evidently was, that the author did not regard the 
seventy weeks as an abstract notion, in which case the feminine 
is usually employed, but had a particular noun in his mind, for 
example, time or period ; compare ^v, which occurs as a mas- 
culine in chap. xi. 14. We have an exact parallel in Eccl. i. 10 : 
iij'ja'jD nn n-^'N d»dSj?S • — that is, according to the correct in- 
terpretation {Vulgate quce fueruntj, which Ewald has not 
given. 

The meaning of the «7ra^ Xeyo/oosvov Tirsn is fully established 
by a comparison of the Chaldee and Kabbinical '^inn, to cut off. 
J. D. Michaelis, however, maintains (in his work iiber die 70 
Wochen, p. 42), that the Chaldee and Rabbinical word may 
have been taken from this passage ; but such an assumption 
could only be regarded as probable, if the word was merely .used, 
as in the Targum of Esther iv. 5, with the figurative meaning 
to decide, determine. In that case it might have been obtained 
by conjecture from the context of our passage. But as 'il^n is 
sometimes used with the meaning " to cut off" in a literal 
sense, which could not have been obtained from the passage 
before us, the conjecture falls to the ground. We find, for 
example, D'3in-n, partes, portiones, pars secta et abscissa, and 
-iv:i hv na^nn, according to the Miklal Jophi, incisio carnis. There 
are many who suppose, that cutting off is merely another 
expression for determining ; and in support of this opinion they 
appeal to the fact that verbs signifying to cut off are frequently 
used in this sense in the Semitic dialects. (See the examples 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 103 

quoted by Gesenius, Thesaurus s. v. "^^J). The Septuagint trans- 
lators have so rendered it, l/S^optrlxovTa g/S^opta^sj sxplBrifrav £7ri 
Tov Xizov 60V. But in the very fact that, although Daniel might 
easily have found other, and much more common words, if he 
had merely wished to express the notion of determination,— 
words which he actually does employ on other occasions and even 
iu this section, — he employs a word not used elsewhere, we have 
an apparent proof, that the word is used here with some reference 
to its primary meaning, and is intended to represent the seventy 
weeks as a period accurately defined and sharply " cut off," in 
distinction from a mere determination of time ev TrXarsi. The 
idea of " determining' must therefore by all means be maintained 
(a comparison of this passage with Esther iv. 5. leads to this 
conclusion), but the verse before us lays special emphasis upon 
the precise determination. — Many take the word in the sense 
of shortening. Theodotion regarded this as the meaning, 
and rendered it avvzr^j.'nf^ma.v. It is true, Tlieodoret, who 
commented upon Theodotion's rendering, maintained that ow- 
rifjLvsiv was used by him in the sense of determining (ti/vst- 

/x.r)9r)(jav, avTi rou B^oyn/MX/yQiriaoiV Koci SKpi^ri/jacv' ourcu yap nvis spfxnvv- 

rav sK^B^ajyiocmv) , and this assertion has been repeated by more 
modern writers as beyond all doubt. But no evidence can 
be adduced in support of it either from profane authors, or 
Greek translators. Kypke (on Kom. ix, 28) has shown that 
(juvTif^veiv always means circumcidere, abbreviare, never decer- 
nere, decidere. In this sense the translators of the Vulgate 
understood both the Hebrew and Greek expression (LXX. heb- 
domades abbreviatae sunt super populum tuum). An abbreviated 
period is one shortened as much as possible, that the patience of 
the waiting church of God might not be exhausted. But there 
is no ground whatever for rendering tjnn either shortening or 
hastening. 



** Upon thy people and upon thy holy city" 

Why is Jerusalem described as Daniel's holy city ? Vitringa, 
who follows Theodoret, Chrysostom, and Jerome, observes, " not 



104 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

mine but thine, which is a proof of the indignation of God, as 
the sins of the people were not yet expiated." But by this 
explanation an element is introduced, which is altogether foreign 
to the context. The greater the blessings promised by the Lord 
to his people in this verse, the more incongruous would such a 
thought as this have been. It is much more correct, as C. B. 
Michaelis and others have shown, to explain the expression 
" thy " as alluding to the tender love towards his nation, to which 
Daniel had give utterance in the foregoing prayer. It was this 
affection, which impelled Daniel to intercede, and his intercession 
is described in ver. 23, as having given occasion to the revelation 
which he here receives. There may possibly be also an allusion 
to this in the expression " thy" (see chap. xii. 1). 



" To shut in transgression." 

In N^?V we have a combination of two different readings. 
The vowel points belong, not to the Kethib, but to the Keri. 
The proper punctuation of the former would be n^?^. That 
such an assumption is not generally inadmissible, the following re- 
marks will sufficiently show. Whenever the difference between 
the received reading and the conjectural emendation was restricted 
to the vowel points, the Masoretes did not write in the margin 
the consonants of the latter, inasmuch as they were precisely the 
same as those of the former. They adopted other methods of 
indicating the existence of a double reading, and these methods 
differed according to circumstances. 

1. Where there was nothing distinctive in the word itself, or 
in the context, to show that the vowel points written in the text 
were only the vowels of the marginal reading, and where, there- 
fore, if they simply inserted the points of the marginal reading, 
without explanation, they would violate their own principles and 
make it appear as though no other reading existed, they gave 
the word a mixed punctuation compounded from the two read- 
ings. Examples of this may be seen in T^:?:, Ps. vii. 6 ; 
p?7n, Ps. Ixii. 4 (compare my commentary on these two pas- 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 105 

sages). In the MSS. this combination of the two pointings is 
much more frequent than in the printed editions (see Michaelis 
Or. Bibl. 3. 236). 

2. Where it could easily be seen from the context, or from 
the word itself, that the vowels did not belong to the reading in 
the text, the Masoretes placed them under the word without 
further explanation. We have an example of this in Ps. lix. 
11. The reading in the text is 'Jd^PJ npn 'hSn.^ " my God 
will overtake me with bis kindness." The Masoretes wished to 
substitute 'JD"^p.; npn "rh^.^ " my gracious God will overtake 
me." They did this at once by merely writing under 'nSx the 
vowels of the marginal reading, because every one could see from 
the next word "iipn, that they did not harmonise with the read- 
ing in the text. — We have another example of this second class 
in the word before us. n^2 is never met with in the Piel ; 
hence, by giving the word the vowel pointing of a Piel, it was 
rendered sufficiently evident, that besides the ordinary reading, 
which the form itself sufficed to indicate, there was also an- 
other, in which the word was pointed as a derivative from 
«Sd == nSa. 

Let us proceed now to examine the different meanings to be 
obtained from the two readings. The various significations of 
the verb n^2 all contain the idea of hindering, fettering, circum- 
scribing freedom of movement. From this general notion, the 
more limited one of imprisoning, shutting in (kXe/w, clavis, 
claudo) easily follows. AVe find this, for example, in Ps. 
Ixxxviii. 9 : " I am shut in, xi^s, and cannot go out." In Jer. 
xxxii. 2, 3, nV.?. n»3 and ^"b^^ r^'3 both mean a prison. In the 
passage before us, commentators have mostly adopted the general 
idea of preventing iniquity. But the more special meaning " to 
shut in" harmonises better with the verbs which follow, to seal 
up and cover. " Sealing up" presupposes a " shutting in." 

There is no foundation for Hitzigs objection, that the expres- 
sion would be ambiguous, since-according to Hosea xiii. 12 to 
shut up sin might also mean to serve it for punishment. N^a 
can only denote such a shutting up of sin, as is burdensome to it, 
and subjects it to restraint. 

The marginal reading " to complete transgression," admits 



106 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

of a twofold explanation. It may either mean " to fill up the 
measure of sin (compare Gen. xv. 16 ; Matt, xxiii. 32, " fill ye 
up then the measure of your fathers,") or to put an end to sin. 
Assuming the correctness of the marginal reading, the latter 
would be in all respects preferable to the other. For, as we 
shall presently see, the whole verse treats of acts of mercy, and 
makes no allusion to punishment. 

To the question, which of the two readings is to be preferred, 
we must declare ourselves unconditionally in favour of the read- 
ing in the text. The general relation, in which the marginal 
readings stand to those in the text, is an important argument in 
its favour. For on closer investigation, we find that the Keris 
without exception are nothing more than the conjectures of 
narrow-minded Jewish critics, and therefore have no more ex- 
ternal authority than those of Houhigant and Michaelis} And 
in this case, there is all the less reason to suppose that the Keri 
is founded upon any external authority, from the fact that the 
difference is confined to the vowel points. The Masoretes did 
not venture to substitute hSd for ^Sa, but contented them- 
selves with expressing their opinion that the latter stood for the 
former in this passage — a mere exegetical opinion, which is not 
increased in value by the support which it apparently receives 
from the early translators, (viz., Aquila, Theodotion, and the 
Seventy, the two former rendering it rod avvrikiuai, the latter 
ffyvTeXeiQ^vat rrw acfji.aprixv), especially as it is SO easy to dis- 
cover its source. "The expression " to fetter or shut in .sin," 
which occurs no where else, was one to which the translators 
could not reconcile themselves ; whilst the meaning to finish 
seemed to harmonise beautifully with what followed, whichever 
was adopted, the marginal reading or the text. For even those, 
who supported the latter, explained the expression " to seal up " 
as meaning " to finish, put an end to." But what especially 

1 This was also the opinion of Danz (Litter. Hebr. Chald. p. 67) : non 
datur D'n3 quod exercitatis ac omnia accurate perpendentibus non pariat 
sensum commodum ; quidquid huic sub nomine np quocunque praetextu 
superadditur, inventum est mere humanum et aliam penes me notam non 
invenit, quam interpretationis ut plurimum satis feliciter institutae, subinde 
tamen temere et in ignominiam sacri scriptoris susceptse. 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 107 

favoured the marginal reading, was the desire of the Jews, as 
seen in their commentators almost without exception, to change 
the promises contained in this verse into threats, — a very natural 
desire, seeing that they were well acquainted with the punish- 
ments, which marked the termination of the seventy weeks of 
years, but not with the blessings, and therefore could not but be 
anxious to wipe out every reference to the latter. Aquila even 
substitutes for the rendering " tipon thy people, &c.," y.a.rx 
(contra) rov Xaov (SOU yicti tvs ttoXsus rm ocjicls aav^ and in per- 
fect consistency with this, translates the following clause : rov 
auvrsXiaaci ryiv d^saiav Jtai rov rcXsiaiaaci dixxprla)/. 

Nothing but the strongest proofs could justify our assum- 
ing that the prophet used the verb n^s in the sense of 
nSa, since he frequently makes use of nSa and always with 
n compare ver. 27, chap. xi. 36 ; xii. 7). Moreover, as a 
general rule, verbs with n much more frequently borrow from 
those with ^, than the reverse, so that there is no possibility of 
appealing to the frequency with which r(^^ borrows forms from 
N*73. nSa itself is never written with «. The proofs must 
therefore be limited to some internal reasons for preferring the 
marginal reading. But these are just as little to be found as 
the external ones. The expression to " shut in," to " seal up," 
and to " cover," harmonise so perfectly, that there is in this fact 
alone a decisive argument in favour of the text. The sin, which 
has hitherto lain naked and open before the eyes of the righteous 
God, will now be shut in, sealed up and hidden by the God of 
mercy, so that it may be regarded as no longer existing ; a bib- 
lical mode of describing the forgiveness of sins, analogous to 
the phrases, " hiding the face from sin" "putting away sin." 



^^ And to seal up sins" 

" To seal up " is regarded by many commentaries as a figura- 
tive expression for " finishing, or putting an end to." Thus 
TlieodoTet : ET(ppa7JT£ ^s ra? ufji^xprltzs, 7tav<yoi.s ptev ryjv Karoc vofxo-v 
TroXjTci'av, rriv ^e rov Trvcufj^aros ^a/pnryoifxivos y^d-piv. Several of 

the early translators drop the figure, and express this idea in 



108 MESSIANIC PEEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

literal terms ; but Tlieodotion retains the figure. Thus in the 
Scptuagmt we find: aul ra.s dliKias aTtcc-viuizi \ and in Aquila, 
jtal rov rBkHwaoLi dfjiapTioLv, ut consummetur prcevm'icatio. That 
these renderings are traceable to the cause we have indicated, 
and not, as is commonly supposed, to any difference in the read- 
ing, is as clear as possible from the fact that, even in the case 
of the next verb onn where there is not the slightest trace of 
a various reading, the Septuagint and Vulgate also drop the 

figure (>tai nvvTBXiaQrivai roc. opoi/jiaTa. y.oi,\ Tipo<^y)rf\v, et impleatur 

visio et propheta), whilst Tlieodotion gives the same literal 
version as before (jtal toS a(ppayiaa.i opocmv y.ou Ttpo(^'nrri)i'), which 
Theodoret explains, again without the figure {rour^in rov lomai 
Ts'Xoj ocndi^aas racls 7tpo(^ririiia.is). 

The idea, however, that '' sealing up" is equivalent to "put- 
ting an end to" cannot be sustained. The verb is no doubt 
frequently so used in Arabic, where the meaning has arisen 
from the very common custom of affixing a seal at the end 
of a letter or other written documents. (A large collection of 
examples may be seen in Franc. Tspregi's dissert, de authentia 
selectiorum Kthibim, in Oelrich's collect, opusc. phil. theol. ii. 
p. 153 sqq.). But it is never used in this sense in Hebrew. In 
the only passage which is ever cited as an example (Ez. xxviii. 
12), the rendering given to n'JDn onin, perficiens, absolvens pul- 
chritudinem, rests upon a misapprehension of the meaning of 
the second word. According to chap, xliii, 10 n»jpn means a 
sketch, ov model ; and therefore ri»i?n onSn, "one who seals up 
the sketch," is one who has a right to lay aside the idea of its 
existence, because that idea is perfectly represented in his own 
person, in other words, he is himself a personified idea, an 
ideal. Quite in harmony with this are the words that follow, 
in which the king of Tyre is called " full of wisdom &ndi finished 
in beauty." The figurative use of the word arm in the Hebrew 
is derived entirely from the custom of sealing up, for the sake of 
greater security, any thing that had been shut up or laid aside. 
Thus in Job xxxvii. 7, Grod " sealeth up the hand of every man," 
he shuts it up so that it cannot move. In Job ix. 7 he is said 
to " seal up the stars," that is to shut them up so that they can- 
not shine. In Jer. xxxii. 11 and 14, a sealed book and an open 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 109 

book are contrasted ; and in tlie same manner, a sealed fountain 
is contrasted with an open one in Is. xxix. 11 ; vid. Song of 
Solomon iv. 12. In the book of Daniel the outward act, from 
which the figure is derived, is found in chap. vi. 18, where the 
king seals up the den, into which Daniel has been thrown ; and 
the figure itself occurs in chap. viii. 26 and xii. 4, where the 
prophecies of Daniel are described as sealed up until the time of 
their fulfilment — a figurative representation of their obscurity. 
The opposite of this may be seen in liev. xxii. 10 (see Disser- 
tation on Daniel p. 175, 176 translation). Just as onn is pre- 
ceded in the present case by ^^^, " to shut in," so is it pre- 
ceded in chap. xii. 4 by dhd (" shut up the words and seal the 
book") and in Deut. xxxii. 34 by odd (" is it not hidden with 
me, sealed up in my treasures ?"). Sin is described in this pas- 
sage as sealed up, because it is to be entirely removed out of 
God's sight, taken completely away. 

The marginal reading in the place of Dri'p'2 is dd?|^ (" to be 
completed," the Inf. Hiphil of d°?), the vowel pointing of which 
is inserted in the text. It probably owes its origin simply to 
the ancient versions, in which the figure is dropped, and which 
were so thoroughly misunderstood, as to give rise to the notion 
that they contained the traces of a various reading. There was all 
the greater readiness to adopt this reading, because the form ori^ 
is actually employed in chap. viii. 23, to denote the determina- 
tion of sin, apostasy ; and, for reasons already given, there was 
a strong desire to assign this meaning to the words in the text. It 
maintained itself in its usurped position by the help of the equally 
illegitimate n'?.?'?, whose pretended legitimacy it served to 
strengthen in return. Hitzig and Eivald indeed adduced, as 
an argument in its favour, the fact that onnS follows, which, 
they say, is sufficient of itself to render the Kethib suspicious. 
But this is turned into an argument on the other side, when we 
observe that the frequent repetition of the same words is one of 
the distinguishing characteristics of Daniel's style. Proofs of 
this may be obtained in great abundance from the eleventh 
chapter. In fact they may even be found in this short section. 
For example, the roots V"^" and oou? occur no less than three 
times. But even if this marginal reading, which is so thoroughly 



110 MESSIANIC PEEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

destitute of authority, were adopted, there would be no absolute 
necessity for attributing to the words a threatening meaning. 
To finish sins may mean, to force them to a head, to fill up their 
measure ; but it may also mean to put an end to them by for- 
giveness, and thus answer to the phrase to wipe away sin, nno. 
aon is used in this sense with reference to sin, e.g., in Lam. iv. 
22 : " Thine iniquity is wiped away, TiJ.Sy.-Drij thou daughter of 

Zion But he will visit thine iniquity, thou 

daughter of Edom." 

Instead of the plural n'lN^n there are not a few MSS. in 
Kennicott and De Bossi in which the singular riN^sn is found. 
But there is no reason for giving the preference to this reading, 
which probably owes its origin simply to an attempt to make the 
word more like y^> and pv. The singular V^'P. is met with 
in other passages along with the plural nSN^n {i.e., Micah i. 
5), which may be explained from the fact that V^>, apostasy, 
rebellion, has more of the nature of a collective noun, whereas 
nNtsn relates more to some particular manifestation of sin. 

On the other hand, even if the reading in the text be pro- 
nounced correct in both cases, as it should be, there is nothing 
in the words themselves to prevent our interpreting them in an 
evil sense. The punishment and extermination of the sinner 
might be described as the shutting in and sealing up of sin, 
just as well as the forgiveness of sin. Thus in Is. iv. 4, the 
" filth of the daughters of Zion is washed away and the blood of 
Jerusalem purged from the midst thereof," by means of" the 
destructive judgments of God. Still, the following reasons are 
suflicient to show that this view is inadmissible, and that the 
expression must denote an act of divine grace, — viz. the shutting 
in and sealing up of sin by means of forgiveness. 1. In the 
second part of the verse there is a triple blessing mentioned, 
which the Lord will bestow upon his church at the end of the 
seventy years. If, now, we interpret the first two clauses of the 
verse in a good sense, we find the removal of a triple evil answer- 
ing to this communication of a triple good. There is all the 
more reason to believe that the two halves of three clauses each, 
are thus related to each other, because otherwise the use of the 
word orin in the one case would not correspond to its use in 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. Ill 

the other, whereas the two are evidently closely connected, nor 
would it occur in each case in the second clause. The prophecies 
are sealed up along with the sins, because the wiping away of 
sin, which is predicted in the former as the leading characteristic 
of the Messianic age, will now have taken place. This exact 
correspondence between the double use of the word onn also 
serves to defend it in the first instance against the unfounded 
pretensions of the marginal reading.^ 2. There can be no doubt 
that, if it is not allowable to separate the three terms descriptive 
of sin which are found linked together in other passages (Ex. 
xxxiv. 7 and ver. 5), it is equally unallowable to separate those 
employed to denote what will be done to sin, the " shutting in, 
sealing up, and covering over." In the latter case, in fact it is 
even less allowable, since the three expressions are all figurative, 
and represent the same idea of removing a thing out of one's 
sight. Hence if it can be proved of any one of these, that it 
must necessarily be used in a good sense, the argument will be 
equally applicable to both the others. Now this is indisputably 
the case with Tiv ij??, which is a very common phrase, and 
never means anything but the forgiveness of sins, the covering 
of sin with the veil of mercy, so that the eye of an angry 
judge cannot observe it. As every one must admit, there is 
nothing in the verbs themselves, to show that any contrast 
is intended ; and therefore, if this were the case, it would surely 
have been distinctly expressed in some other way. For ex- 
ample, when Hofmann gives the following as the meaning 
of the third clause : "It is dificrent with the transgression 
of believers, this is expiated," he shows by the turn which 
he here gives to the text, the form which it would really have 
assumed, if such a view had been admissible. — 3. The declara- 
tion, contained in the first three clauses, is closely related to the 
various confessions of sin in ver. 5, and the prayer for forgive- 
ness connected with them. It follows from this that, even if the 

1 Instead of dividing the verse into two halves of three clauses each, 
there are many who divide it into three parts of two clauses each. But the 
accents are decisive against this. The Sakeph Katon divides the three first 
clauses from the other three. Hitzig indeed argues that, if such a triple 
division really existed, the Sakeph Katon ought rather to be connected with 
niNtan. But, apart from the accents, it is evidently not allowable to separa*« 
in this manner the clauses which relate to sin. 



112 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

last of the three were as ambiguous as the other two, it would 
still be better to interpret them in a good sense, since the angel 
would not have been likely to come so very swiftly (ver. 21), for 
the purpose of announcing to Daniel exactly the opposite of that 
for which he had prayed. It was the previous announcement 
of salvation, which alone served to divest of its terrors the pre- 
diction, that followed immediately afterwards, of the destruction 
of the city and temple. It now appeared as running parallel to 
the highest manifestations of mercy towards the faithful among 
the people of God, and so far as their connection with the 
ungodly was thereby brought to an end, it also assumed the form 
of a manifestation of grace. 



" And to cover iniquity." 

We retain the primary meaning of ">!??, because, even when 
it is employed to denote the forgiveness of sins, the ordinary 
construction with Sy and 15?? is still preserved, and the literal 
signification is thus clearly established : and also on account of 
the evident connection between the figure employed in this 
clause, and that contained in the two previous ones. 

Some commentators imagine that there is a gradation in the 
expressions used in the three clauses, to denote the forgiveness of 
sins. But it is much more correct to adopt Geier's conclusion,^ 
that we have here merely an accumulation of epithets, such as 
we find in Ex. xxxiv. 7, and Lev. xvi. 21. A gradation would 
require that the strongest term should stand last. But if we 
look closely into the meaning of the words, the strongest ]!^P. 
is the one which actually stands first. It is applied to sin in its 
worst form, namely as apostasy and rebellion against God ; and 
in Job xxxiv, 37 (" he adds iniquity to sin") it is contrasted 
with n^^n, as being the heavier of the two forms. The 
announcement of the forgiveness of sins difi'ers, therefore, in 
this respect from the confession of sin in ver. 5, where there 
really is a gradation. The word "Jti!??, which answers exactly 
to y^^, the first word here, is there placed after ijn^h 

1 " Tot hie accumulantur vocabula, ut tota peccatorum humani generis 
coUuvies 80 melius comprehenderetur. " 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 113 

li'^VV No^ can we even admit that there is a descent a majore 
ad minus, for in that case nwispij which is applied to sin in its 
lightest form, — viz. regarded as slipping, would be the third, 
not the second word. 



" And to bring everlasting righteousness."^ 

Righteousness, whenever it is referred to, not as a subjective 
attribute, but as a gift of God, always denotes the same thing 
from a positive side, as the forgiveness of sins from a negative. 
The latter implies that God, through his free grace, treats man 
no longer as a sinner ; the former, that he regards him as actually 
righteous, from which it necessarily follows, that he treats him 
as a righteous man. Hence righteousness and salvation are 
frequently associated together, without the peculiar notion con- 
veyed by the former being necessarily lost. — Righteousness, as a 
gift of God, is a thoroughly characteristic mark of the Messianic 
age. (Compare Ps. Ixxxv. 11 — 14, where righteousness is said 
to look down from heaven, on the point of descending with 
blessings upon the people of God, and to go before God, when 
he accepts his people). In Jer. xxxiii. 16 it is predicted that 
in the days of the Messiah, Jerusalem will be called " the Lord 
our righteousness ;" and in chap, xxiii. 6 it is stated that the 
Messiah himself will bear that name. According to Mai. iii. 20 
the sun of righteousness, i.e., righteousness, which shines like a 
sun, rises upon those who fear God. Isaiah (chap. Ixi. 3) speaks 
of the members of the kingdom of God as the terebinths of 
righteousness. The determining cause of this righteousness is 
pointed out in Is. liii. 11, where it is foretold that the servant 
of God, the righteous one, will make many righteous. — This 
righteousness is called an eternal righteousness, both on account 
of its origin in the eternal counsel of the eternal God, and also 

1 Athnach is placed under Olamim, to separate the first of the three posi- 
tive clauses from the other |two, and to link it more closely to the three 
negative ones, with which it is most intimately connected. One test of the 
correctness of the difl'erent expositions given of this verse, is to be found in 
the justice which they do to the Sakepli Katon in the previous clause, and 
to the Athnach here. 

VOL. III. H 



114 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PliOPHETS, 

because of its eternal duration, in contradistinction to the transi- 
tory gifts of righteousness and grace under the Old Testament, 
and to every thing that is created and subject to decay. The 
same contrast is also found in several passages of Isaiah, where 
the eternal character of the righteousness and salvation of the 
Messianic age is expressly pointed out. For example, in Is. li. 
5 — 3 : " the heavens shall pass away like smoke, the earth shall 
get old as doth a garment, and the inhabitants thereof shall die 
like moths ; but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteous- 
ness shall not be abolished, — my righteousness shall be for ever, 
and my salvation from generation to generation ;" and again in 
chap. xlv. 17, " Israel is endowed by the Lord with an everlast- 
ing salvation, ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded, world 
without end." 

Our interpretation of these words is supported by nearly all 
the early expositors without exception, as well as by the 
ancient versions {Sept. xal ^aQrivai ^iyicx.i.onvvnv alwvtov. Theodo- 
tion, y.ou rov dyacysiii ^iKociotyvvriv aiwviov. Vulgate : et adducatur 
justitia sempiterna. Syriac, quce ah a^terno est). Some, how- 
ever, like JR. Bacharias (in Breschit Kabbah on Gen. xiv. 18), 
understand by the eternal righteousness the person of the Mes- 
siah. The same error occurs in connection with the son of right- 
eousness in Malachi. But the error is one which relates to the letter 
more than the spirit, since the treasures of righteousness under 
the New Testament are contained exclusively in Christ. There 
is another explanation, however, essentially different from -this, 
which several of the modern commentators have adopted from 
J. D. Michaelis — namely, " the old righteousness, the innocence 
of former, better days." But in the first place the whole tenor of 
the passage, — the extermination and expiation of sin announced 
just before; the sealing up of the visions and prophets, which, 
as we have already shown, relates especially to the forgiveness of 
sin predicted therein ; the fact that the expression is associated 
exclusively with blessings to be sent down from God ; the verb 
employed ^'"^^ ; and also a comparison of the parallel passages 
in Isaiah, — everything in fact favours the conclusion that the 
righteousness mentioned here is not a subjective quality, morum 
probitas, as even SchoU supposes (comment, de LXX. hebdomad. 
Dan. Frankfort 1829), but a gift of God like the p^v mentioned 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 115 

iu the passages already cited, and also in Ps. cxxxii. 9, "let thy 
priests be clothed with righteousness " (may they receive from 
thee, God, the garment of righteousness), "and let thy saints 
shout for joy " (compare ver. 16). And again, just as in the pas- 
sage before us, so in Ps. Ixix. 27, the communication of divine 
righteousness is associated with the forgiveness of sins. 2. Par- 
ticular prominence is given to the eternal character of the Mes- 
sianic kingdom, and the blessings associated with it, in all the 
parallel passages of Daniel, in which that kingdom is described 
(compare ii. 44, and vii. 18, 27). 



" To seal up vision and prophet" 

Commentators are for the most part agreed in the opinion that 
sealing up is equivalent to fulfilling, or confirming, and that 
allusion is made to the custom of affixing a seal for the purpose 
of adding validity to the contents of a document. It is evident 
from 1 Kings xxi. 8, and Jer. xxxii. 10, 11, 44, that such a cus- 
tom existed. They also adduce as parallel passages Acts iii. 
18 ("those things which God before had showed by the mouth 
of all his prophets, he hath so fulfilled, iTtXripcoaB))"), and Matt, 
v. 17. The expression "to seal" is certainly used in this sense 
in Syriac (see, for example, Ephraem Syrus hymn, 80, adv. 
scrutat. opp. iii. p. 149), as well as the New Testament, e.g., 
John vi. 27 and other passages (see our comm. on Rev. vii. 
3). But it is never so employed in the Old Testament. We 
have already seen that the sole metaphorical use of the word 
DJ^n is one which was founded upon the custom of sealing u[) 
any thing that was laid aside, or deposited in a place of conceal- 
ment. Of course, this would not be decisive in itself, unless 
there were something else to confirm it. But there is all the 
more reason for retaining the established meaning in the present 
instance, from the fact that, as a general rule, it would lead to 
great difficulties to take the verb onn in two different senses in 
the same verse ; and this would be even more than usually the 
case in the verse before us, where it is evident from the arrange- 
ment, that the sealing of vision and prophet is closely connected 
with the sealing of the prophecy (see p. 110). The sealing 



116 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

of the sins is accompanied by the sealing of the prophecies ; 
and the latter is described in the prophecies themselves, as an 
act to be performed in the future. When once the faltilment 
has taken place, although in other respects the prophecy still 
retains its great importance, yet in this respect it has answered 
its purpose, that the eyes of believers, in need of strength 
and consolation, are no longer directed to its announcements of a 
coming salvation, but to a salvation that has already appeared ; 
that they now hold fast, not so much to the word of the Lord, as 
to the works of the Lord, and exclaim with Philip in John i. 46, 
" we have found him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets 
did write, Jesus of Nazareth the son of Joseph." According to 
this interpretation, there is a perfect parallel to our passage in the 
words of Christ, in Luke xxii. 37, " the things concerning me have 
an end" (the prophecies relating to my sufferings are now coming 
to an end); and in Matt. xi. 13, " for all the prophets and the law 
prophesied until John," on which Bengel says, " Now was every- 
thing completed, that had ever been predicted up to the time of 
John;" and also in 2 Pet. i. 19, "we have also a more sure 
word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as 
unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn 
and the day-star arise in your hearts." In the last passage we 
have the sense of two different interpretations combined, the 
current one and our own. The " word of prophecy" has derived 
greater certainty on the one hand from its fulfilments, but on 
the other hand it has lost its force, in consequence, as a gi'ound 
of hope and consolation ; just as the light of a candle, which 
serves but feebly and imperfectly to dispel the surrounding dark- 
ness, is only employed till the full daylight has dawned.^ 

The use of the singular (compare l"nn, Is. i. 1 ; 2 Chr. xxxii. 
32 ; Nahum i. 1 ; and Kleinert, iiber die Aechtheit des Jes. p. 
11), and the absence of the article serve to show that the words 
are used in their widest sense. This generality of expression 

1 In the objections, which have been brought against our explanations by 
Steudel (disquis. in locum Dan. ix. 24 — 27, Tiibingen p. 29), Lengerke, and 
others, the fact is overlooked, that what prophecy loses in importance, 
from the one point of view, it recovers again from the other. The so-called 
heterogeneous idea, that the prophets are to be "abrogated," is undeniably 
expressed in Luke xxii. 37. The laiv and prophecy find alike in Christ, 
their end (Rom. x. 4) and their fullest interpretation. 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL,'CHAP, IX. 24. 117 

may answer a double purpose. It may either indicate, that what 
is predicated of any object, applies to that object without excep- 
tions, as in Ps. xxxvi. 7, " thou preservest man and beast" (see 
also Ps. Ixv. 2 and Ixxiii. 5) ; or it may simply be intended to 
represent indefinitely that which has really a limited application. 
An example of the latter we find in chap. xi. 14, " the sons of 
the wicked of thy people will exalt themselves, pin n-i^yrh^ to 
the fulfilment of prophecy," where the prophet speaks quite gene- 
rally, — (pin being employed in this passage also as a collective 
noun), — although he had really something definite before his 
mind — namely, his own prophecy. The point of importance in 
this case was not, that the event would contribute to the fulfil- 
ment of one particular prophecy, but that it would be subservient 
to the accomplishment of prophecy generally. The last-men- 
tioned argument, in favour of the general character of the 
expression, is confirmed by the rest of the section, in which the 
article is omitted several times, in cases where it must necessarily 
have been inserted, if the expression had been as definite as the 
object referred to (compare for example n'tt'D, vers. 25, 26).— 
Bertholdt, Wieseler, Eitzig, and others explain the clause as 
meaning, " till the predictions of the prophet Jeremiah are ful- 
filled." But this explanation is untenable. 1. It rests upon the 
assumption that sealing is equivalent to confirming. For if this 
term be correctly understood, the only circumstances, under 
which such an explanation would be defensible, would be if I'iin 
(the vision) stood alone. The addition of n^dji. renders it alto- 
gether inadmissible ; for how could a prophet be described as of 
no further use, simply because one single prediction of his had 
been fulfilled ? But even if it stood by itself, the indefinite 
character of the expression would extend far beyond the limits 
assigned elsewhere, if the prophet had merely one particular pro- 
phecy of Jeremiah before his eyes. That we have here a viola- 
tion of the rule, " the article is most indispensable, where refe- 
rence is made to a person or thing, that has been mentioned 
just before," is a conclusion to which we should be justified in 
coming, only if the prophecy of Jeremiah had been mentioned 
so immediately before, that it would occur at once to the 
mind of any reader, and the indefinite character of the expres- 
sion be thus removed ; — unless there were other circumstances 



118 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

connected with the passage, such as some striking resem- 
blance between the prophecy of Jeremiah and the promises 
here given, which might serve as an indirect ckie to the pre- 
diction referred to. — 2. The y.arapyHM of the r^n and the N'Si 
could not take place in any other way, than through the fulfil- 
ment of that which is here described, as about to be accom- 
plished at the end of the seventy weeks, more especially the 
sealing up of sins, with which the sealing up of the vision and 
prophet was closely connected. This same prediction ought, 
therefore, to be contained in the prophecy or two prophecies 
of Jeremiah, to which the prophet is said to refer. But there 
is no trace of this in either of them. The twenty-fifth chapter 
contains nothing but a promise of the termination of the Baby- 
lonian captivity, and the twenty-ninth is restricted to an assurance 
of the return of the Jews and the gracious protection of God. 

There can be no doubt, therefore, that we have here an allusion 
to the forgiveness of sins to be imparted in the days of the 
Messiah, the announcement of which runs through all the writ- 
ino-s of the prophets (compare Is. liii. ; Zech. xiii. 1). And 
when this, the essential element in the work of Christ, bad been 
accomplished, the prophecies, in this respect at least, could justly 
be regarded as abolished. 



"■And to anoint a most holy (or holy of holies J." • 

Those who explain the entire verse, as referring to the times 
immediately succeeding the return from captivity (for example, 
Micliaelis, Jahn, and Steudel), regard these words as alluding 
to the dedication of the temple which was built by Zerubbabel 
and Joshua ; and several of those, who connect it with the period 
immediately following the oppressions of Antiochus Epiphanes, 
refer this particular prophecy to the fresh consecration of the 
temple, after it had been desecrated by the Syrians. In both 
cases ntt'D is taken to mean nothing more than dedication. For 
neither in the account of the building of the first temple, nor in 
the history of the second, — either when it was first built or after 
its desecration, — do we find the least intimation that the sane- 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 119 

tuary was anointed, as the tabernacle is said to have been (Ex. 
XXX. 22 sqq.). On the contrary, according to the unanimous 
tradition of the Jews (see Lund i. 29), the holy oil was entirely 
wanting in the second temple. In the case of the first temple, 
the anointing may have been omitted, because the sacred vessels, 
which had already been anointed, were transferred from the 
tabernacle to the temple. But there is one objection, which 
applies equally to both of these explanations. In both of them it 
is taken for granted, that o'^'^l^ ^ip generally denotes the Most 
Holy place in the earthly temple ; whereas this is invariably 
called ^'^If^ ^■i.p. The former expression, on the other hand, is 
always applied, not to the Holy of Holies, but to other objects, 
which were most holy in a sense of their own, as compared with 
the forecourt. <fec., e.g., the altar of burnt-offering and other ves- 
sels in the sanctuary. A glance at the Concordance will suffice 
to show that this distinction has been constantly observed. It is 
most marked, however, in Ez. xli. 4, as compared with chap, 
xliii. 12 and xlv. 3. The first passage treats of that portion of 
the new temple, which will correspond to the Holy of Holies in 
the first temple ; and here 0'ii?nj3n t^'^p is used. In the other 
two the prophet speaks of the entire hill upon which the new 
temple is to stand, and describes it as a most holy place ; and in 
this case D'^^f^ ^'ip is employed. The only passage in which 
at first sight the latter expression, without the article, appears to 
refer to the Holy of Holies in the temple, is 1 Chr. xxiii. 13, 
" Aaron and his sons were set apart o'^'^l'^ ^'ij? *itt'"'npn'7." Vulg. 
ut ministraret in sancto sanctorum. But a more correct 
explanation would be, " and Aaron was set apart to sanctify 
him as a most holy one, he and his sons for ever, to offer incense 
before the Lord, to serve him and to bless in his name for ever."^ 
Another reason why the passage should not be explained as 
referring to the Holy of Holies, is that it is difficult to under- 
stand, why the prophet should speak of this in particular, and 
not rather of the whole temple. 

1 The explanation given by Clericus, " that they might consecrate the most 
holy things, the sacritices and sacred vessels," is open to this objection, that 
the function, referred to, was of too subordinate a character to be mentioned 
here, especially to be mentioned first. 



120 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

To overcome this difficulty some have assumed, that the whole 
temple is described as a Holy of Holies, in the same sense in 
which the author of the second Book of the Maccabees calls it 
" the most holy temple of all the earth " (v. 15), and " the great 
and holy temple " (xiv. 31). In support of the application of 
this expression to the entire temple, Steudel refers to Num. xviii. 
10, " in the most holy place, Q'l^'ip ^"ipa, shalt thou eat it" 
(compare Lev. vi. 16, " in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the 
forecourts of the sanctuary"), and to Ez, xlv, 3. But although it 
cannot be denied, that o'^i^ip ^'ip is applied in both these pas- 
sages to the whole temple ; it is by no means employed, as a name 
peculiar to the temple. Any such use of the term was scrupu- 
lously avoided, that there might be no ambiguity. Immediately 
afterwards the temple is called it'ipn, as it is also in chap. viii. 
14. In chap. ix. 17 it is called tt'ipo. In this case, however, 
not only would the unusual term " holy of holies" have been 
liable to be confounded with the "' holy of holies," ordinarily so 
called, but there would have been nothing to distinguish it from 
the other things, which are also called most holy. It would be 
only by a mere guess, and without any foundation whatever, that 
the expression could be understood, as referring to the temple 
itself 

The latter argument may also be adduced, as a decisive 
reply to those who refer the term " holy of holies " to the altar 
of burnt-offering, whether that which was erected on the return 
from captivity (as Wieseler supposes), or that which was conse- 
crated afresh in the time of the Maccabees (1 Mace. iv. 54 sqq.), 
as Hitzig assumes. The fact, that this altar is reckoned in Ex. 
xxix. 37 among the most holy things, is far from being a proof, 
that it could be designated here o*i^"ip ^ip without any further 
explanation. Every interpretation ivhich is based upon a 
mere conjecture, must for that very reason he rejected. As the 
ground covered by the term " most holy," is very extensive, and 
therefore the world itself is not sufficient to enable us to deter- 
mine the precise object referred to, the only explanation, that can 
possibly be correct, is the one in which the exact meaning has 
been gathered from the context ; and this is the more apparent 
in the present instance, since the sketch contained in these words 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 121 

is more fully elaborated in the verses that follow. But there is 
no reference in these verses to the dedication of the temple and 
altar. 

It is unnecessary for us to spend any more time in discussing 
the opinion, that the words refer to the period immediately suc- 
ceeding the return from captivity, seeing that the supporters of 
this theory, by the forced manner in which, for the most part, 
they alter the text, bear their own testimony to the fact that it is 
untenable. The seventy weeks of years may be demonstrated 
with mathematical certainty to form part of the original text. 
For all that is necessary, in order to convince one's self of the 
correctness of the number, is to add together the smaller periods 
into which the whole is divided, 62 + 7 + 1. But if this is 
assuredly correct, how could the fresh consecration of the earthly 
temple be announced as an event which would not take place 
for 490 years ? — We may proceed at once, then, to a con- 
sideration of the objections, which can be brought against the 
second interpretation, in addition to those already mentioned. 1. 
The outward dedication of the outward temple and altar is not in 
harmony with the other communications of divine grace, promised 
in the context. They are all of a spiritual nature ; they relate 
to the wiping away of sin, and bear a Messianic character. 
Hence, even if we should determine to refer the section generally 
to the Maccabean era, we could not understand it as relating to 
a fresh dedication of the outward temple, a merely external work 
of man. On the contrary, we must assume that the prophet, by 
linking together the termination of religious oppression and the 
commencement of the Messianic kingdom, referred to something 
of far greater consequence than this. 2. It cannot be a fresh 
dedication of the old temple (or altar) at the end of the seventy 
weeks, that is here referred to ; for in ver. 27 the very same 
period is indicated, as that in which the temple will be com- 
pletely destroyed. 3. Such an assumption is exposed to insuper- 
able chronological difficulties, since the 490 years stretch far 
beyond the period, in which the fresh dedication of the temple 
occurred. 

By a very large number of expositors the words are interpreted, 
as referring to the anointing of the Messiah. There are three 
ways in which this conclusion is arrived at. Many translate ^iji 



122 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

D^mi? " the most holy one," or, what would be more correct, 
" a most holy one. " This rendering was probably the one 
intended by the translators of the Septuagint (x.<xi su(ppsivxi ayiov 

ocyioj-v) and by Theodotion (>cal rov y^plGai ayiov a.yicov'). It is 

very evident, that they could not have thought of the " Holy of 
Holies" in the temple ; for the Greek translators invariably call 
this ayiov Toiv (xyiajv^ roc ayioc ruv ayj'wv, or else ro a.yiov rov 
izyiou (compare Tromm concordance s. v.) Moreover, the word 
£:v(ppaivai.i employed in the Septuagint, favours the idea that the 
noun is to be taken as a masculine. There is no absolute 
necessity for supposing, that this word originated in a various 
reading, no'c? ; on the contrary, it is probably nothing more 
than an explanation of the figurative expression, in accordance 
with Ps. xlv. 8, where the great king is represented as anointed 
with the oil of joy. There is all the more reason for coming to 
this conclusion, because, throughout the whole of the verse, the 
disposition of the Septuagint translators, to introduce such ex- 
planations, is everywhere apparent. Theocloret takes for granted 
that this interpretation is indisputably correct, and represents it 
as not even rejected by the Jews themselves : " to these again, 
he adds : ' and to anoint a holy of holies.' Who is this, the holy 
of holies ? Let the Jews tell us ; and if they cannot, let them 
learn of us, that this is the Lord Christ, who said through 
Isaiah, ' the spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord hath 
anointed me,' to whom David bore witness, &c. (Ps. xlv. 8)." 
There is the less difficulty connected with the view, held by the 
translators of the Septuagint and by Theodotion, from the fact 
that it can be proved from other sources, that the reference to a 
person, and the Messianic interpretation generally, were current 
among the Jews from the very earliest times (compare the quota- 
tions in Bairn. Martini, p. 28.5, Carpzov, Schottgen, p. 264, and 
Edzard ad Abodah Sarah, p. 246, 247). In the Christian 
church this explanation was very widely adopted, especially 
through the influence of the Vulgate, " et ungatur sanctus sanc- 
torum." In the Syriac version it is even introduced into the text 
(" until Messiah, the most holy"). It is warmly defended by 
Scholl. At the same time, doubts were expressed at a very 
early period, as to its correctness. Eusebius (demonstr. viii. c. 
2) observes, that he cannot find any passage in the Sacred 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 123 

Scriptures in which the high priest is called sanctus sanctorum. 
And this argument in another form, — viz. the fact that in the 
whole Bible d^'^i^ '^IP is never applied to a person, but only 
to things, is quite sufficient, without any thing farther, to over- 
throw this interpretation. 

Others regard D''?''7i^ ^'Hp as a neuter, and understand it as 
referring primarily to the Holy of Holies in the temple. At the 
same time, they look upon it as a type which is mentioned here 
in the place of the antitype, and appeal to those passages in the Old 
Testament, in which Jehovah describes himself as a sanctuary 
(Is. viii. 14 ; Ezek. xi. 16), and to others in the New, in which 
Christ compares himself to a temple. This explanation is adopted 
by G. B. Micliaelis, Hdvernick, and others. But it is open to 
the same objections, as we have already brought against the inter- 
pretation, which restricts the reference to the outward temple, or 
Holy of Holies, o'u^ip vi^) without the article, and without any 
previous allusion to the temple, cannot mean the Holy of Holies ; 
it can only have the general meaning, a most holy thing. ^ 

According to the third modification of the Messianic interpre- 
tation, Christ is here represented as a most holy thing. No 
objection can be offered to this explanation, founded upon the 
usages of the language. It is a matter of frequent occurrence 
for persons to be treated as things, in cases where the intention 
is to place them in the same category with impersonal objects 
(remember for example the res sacra miser) ; and the passage 
already referred to (1 Chr. xxiii. 13), where Aaron and his sons 
are represented as set apart as a holy of holies, shows that this 
expression in particular, ^^^li^^ ^'np, was applied to persons, 
though without losing its neuter signification. The word ^"^P, 
when it stands alone, is used quite as much in a neuter sense as 
DT"Ji^ ^"T!p; and yet the High Priest wore upon his forehead the 
inscription nin* vi^. With perfect justice, too, have the advo- 
cates of this interpretation referred to Luke i. 35, where Christ 
is described as ayiov (" that holy thing"). 

There can be no doubt that, as a question o^fact, Christ may 



1 This remark may also be adduced, as an argument against the explana- 
tion given in our first edition, in which the words are referred to the church 
of the New Testament. 



124 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

quite appropriately be designated a Holy of Holies. He is fre- 
quently called the "holy one" even in the New Testament; 
compare Acts iii. 14, iv. 30 ; 1 John ii. 20 ; Rev. iii. 7. But it 
is the context, which most decisively points to Christ, as Blom- 
strand has correctly observed. We have already laid stress upon 
the fact, that the expression " a holy of holies" is in itself an in- 
definite one. The more precise meaning can only be learned from 
the context. Now in thefirst five clauses there is nothing mentioned, 
which is not on other occasions associated with the Messiah ;^ and 
we have all the more reason to expect that at last the true centre, 
the person of the Messiah himself, will be introduced, on account 
of the completeness of the verse in itself Again, the allusion to 
anointing also points to the Messiah. He had already been 
exhibited to the people of Grod in Ps. ii. as the anointed one. 
But what really decides the question is, that, in the following 
verses, in which the sketch given here is carried out into more 
minute detail, the person of the Messiah occupies so prominent 
a position, that it could not possibly be altogether wanting here. 
Moreover, in the notice of the anointed one in ver. 25, there is 
an unmistakeable allusion to the anointing of a most holy one in 
the verse before us. The prophet there explains himself. 

We have already shown, that the anointing cannot be under- 
stood literally. Let us inquire, therefore, into the meaning of 
the figurative expression. In this inquiry we shall examine, 
first of all, the passages relating to the outward act from which 
the figure is derived, and afterwards those in which -the 
figure itself occurs. The first class embraces such passages 
as Ex. XXX. 22 sqq., and xl. 9 sqq., where the Lord commands 
Moses to prepare holy anointing oil, and anoint therewith the 
tabernacle and its furniture, and the priests who performed 
service therein. The meaning of this symbolical action is most 
clearly explained in Zech. iv. The oil was a symbol of the 
Spirit of God ; the anointing of the temple was a visible repre- 
sentation of the communication of this spirit to the' church, which, 
is thereby set apart, from everything that lies beyond the limits 
of the operations of divine grace, and sanctified. As Calvin 

1 Blomstrand : " In illo solo omnis prophdia impleta est, ille justitiam 
aeternam introduxit, et culpam expiavit, ilium cruci affigendo populi peccatum 
obsignatum est, scelus absolutum." 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 125 

says : ** the Spirit of God sanctifies us and all our works, because 
apart from Him we are unholy, and all that belongs to us cor- 
rupt." The outward holiness, which every one received, accord- 
ing to Ex. XXX. 29, by merely touching the vessels of the temple 
which had been sanctified by the oil of anointing, was a symbol 
of the inward holiness, of which every one is made a partaker, 
who enters into an inward and vital union with Christ and his 
church. The correctness of this explanation will be at once 
apparent, if we compare the other passages, in which the design 
of the symbolical act is clearly shown. In 1 Sam. x. 1 sqq., 
after Samuel has anointed Saul, he says to him, " truly the Lord 
hath anointed thee to be captain over his inheritance. 
And the Spirit of the Lord comes upon thee . . . and thou 
art changed into another man. Then thou doest what thy hand 
shall find ; for the Lord is with thee." What can be more plain 
here, where the anointing is placed in causal connection with the 
communication of the Spirit, than that the former typified, what 
the latter secured ; — that it was a seal and pledge of the blessings, 
which the Lord bestowed upon the rulers of the nation for bis 
people's good ? The same idea is expressed in 1 Sam. xvi. 
12 — 14, where the anointing of David is recorded : " And the 
Lord said, anoint him, and Samuel took the horn of oil and 
anointed him in the midst of his brethren, and the Spirit of the 
Lord came upon David from that day forward. And the Spirit 
of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the 
Lord troubled him." Similar passages may be quoted from the 
New Testament. In Mark vi. 13, we read that the apostles 
" cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were 
sick, and healed them in the name of the Lord ;" and James says 
(v. 14) : " Is any sick among you ? let him send for the elders 
of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with 
oil in the name of the Lord." On the latter passage Bengel 
observes : " Whitaker says, ' let those use oil, who can procure 
health for the sick by means of their prayers ; let those, who 
cannot, refrain from using a vain symbol.' The design of this 
anointing at first was to procure a iniraculous restoration to 
health, and when this cannot be procured, it is nothing but a 
vain symbol." Even in this case, therefore, the oil was a symbol 
of the Spirit of God. — Let us pass on now to examine the pas- 



126 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

sages, in which the anointing is merely figurative. On Is. Ixi. 1 , 
" the Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord hath 
anointed me," &c., Vitringa remarks: ''' unctio inferebat partici- 
pationem spiritus sancti." In 1 Kings xix. 15 sqq., where Elijah 
is directed to anoint Hazael to be king over Syria, and Jehu to 
be king over Israel, and Elisha to be a prophet, the symbolical 
action and the figure are mixed up together in a remarkable 
manner ; an evident proof of the little importance attached to the 
material form, even in the case of the former. Jehu and Hazael 
were actually anointed ; the latter merely as a symbol of the divine 
power, which was to be imparted to him, as an instrument of 
divine justice, for the punishment of Israel. There is no account 
of any other prophet being anointed ; and therefore, in the case of 
Elisha, the anointing must be regarded as a figurative term ex- 
pressive of the communication of the gifts of the Spirit. In the 
New Testament the gifts of the Spirit bestowed upon the true 
members of the church, the " holy and royal priesthood" (1 Pet. 
ii. 5, 9), are called a xplaiJ^a. (1 John ii. 20, 27) ; and the word 
anoint is used in Acts iv. 27, x. 38, and 2 Cor. i. 21, both 
alone and with the addition of the words " with the Holy 
Ghost," to denote the communication of the gifts of the Spirit to 
Christ and to believers.^ 

From what has been stated above, it follows, that the anoint- 
ing of a Holy of Holies can only denote the communication of 
the Spirit to Christ, to which prominence is given in other pro- 
phecies of the Old Testament, as a distinguishing characteristic 
of the Messiah. (See the remarks on Is. xi. 1, xUi. 1, Ixi. 1.) 
This gift of the Spirit, which is described in Acts x. 38 as an 
anointing, " how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy 
Ghost and with power," followed immediately upon the baptism 
of Jesus. We must not restrict it to this, however. The baptism 
must be regarded as merely the commencement of the anointing ; 
for the baptism occurred at the end of the sixty-ninth week, or 
the beginning of the seventieth. But the blessings, referred to 
here, were such as would not exist in their full perfection till the 

1 With reference to the harmony between the figure and the fact, compare 
Vitringa on Is. x. 27, and my work on " Sacrifice," in which the point of 
resemblance is shown to be their softness and smoothness (gentleness), in 
contrast with the harshness of nature. 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX, 24. 127 

end of the seventy weeks of years ; whereas the anointing of the 
Messiah at his baptism, if regarded as a single event and not 
like the others, as a progressive action, would be entirely sepa- 
rated from that particular point of time. It cannot be objected 
to this, that the sealing of sins, &c., so far as it was effected by 
the death of the Messiah, was also separated from this point of 
time. For although, objectively considered, the " finishing " cer- 
tainly took place in the middle of the seventieth week of years ; 
yet the subjective completion, the communication of the treasures 
of grace and blessings of forgiveness, which had been procured 
by the Messiah, did extend to the terminal point referred to ; 
and thus, in ver. 27, the confirmation of the covenant to many is 
described as continuing throughout the whole of the seventieth 
week. The sealing of the visions was also not finished till then. 
For the prophets speak continually, not merely of reconciliation 
as an objective fact, but also of the personal appropriation of it 
by the people of the covenant. Hence the anointing must be 
regarded as continuing through the entire period of Christ's 
work on earth ; and even the first Pentecost, and the outpouring 
of the Spirit generally, in the opening period of the Christian 
church, must be included within the scope of this prophecy. 
The church is anointed along with Christ its Head ; compare 
1 John ii. 20 : " and ye have an anointing from the Holy One," 
and ver. 27 : " but the anointing, which ye have received from 
him, abideth in you." 

The anointing of a Holy of Holies is contrasted with the de- 
solation of the sanctuary and the destruction of the wing of 
abominations, mentioned in ver. 26 and 27. The former sanc- 
tuary was destroyed, because it had become a mere shell without 
a kernel ; for that, which made it a sanctuary, — viz., the presence 
of the Lord, had departed from it in consequence of the guilt of 
the nation. But a new Holy of Holies was to be anointed in its 
place. What was said in Ex. xxx. 29, after the anointing of the 
tabernacle and its vessels had been commanded, " and thou shalt 
sanctify them and they shall become most holy, D'unp vip^ 
every one luho touches them shall become holy" was now to receive 
in this Most Holy One a complete fulfilment. 



128 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

Ver. 25. And thou slialt know and understand : from the 
going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto 
an anointed one, a prince, are seven iveeks and sixty-tivo weeks : 
the street is restored and built, and frmly determined ; but in 
narrow times. 

^' And thou shall know and understand." 

We have already shown in the Dissertation on Daniel (p. 211, 
transl.), that ^yp^) Vl^}] cannot mean "mark well," as most 
commentators suppose, but must he regarded as an intima- 
tion, that the announcement about to be made would not be 
easy to understand, but would require a well-skilled spiritual 
mind. (Compare the analogous expressions used by Christ, 
" whoso readeth let him understand," " he that hath ears to hear, 
let him hear," " whoso is able to receive it, let him receive it"). 
The words are evidently connected with the explanation given 
by the angel in ver. 22, with reference to the design of his 
coming. 

" From the going forth of the word." 

There can be no doubt that "i^n nsd signifies the issue of the 
decree ; just as, in chap. ii. 13, the command to slay the magi- 
cians is said to have gone forth. The only question, about 
which there can be any controversy, is : who is to be understood 
as issuing the command? A very large majority of commentators 
are of opinion, that reference is made to the decree of a Persian 
king ; but we maintain on the contrary that the word which 
goes forth can only be a decree from Grod, or from the heavenly 
council. The following are our reasons. 1. The idea, that the 
term "i3i is used here to denote the word of an earthly potentate, 
without any reference being made to such a word, directly or 
indirectly, either before or after, is exposed to great difficulties. 
Nothing is gained by referring to Dan. ii. 13, and Esther iv. 3. 
For in the first of these two passages, the author of the decree is 
mentioned in the preceding verse, and the decree has also been 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 25. 129 

already noticed ; and in the second (" in every province, whither- 
soever the king's commandment and his decree came"), the verse 
itself shows, to what it is that allusion is made. In this case, 
however, the word must have gone forth from Him, by whom 
everything predicted in the entire prophecy, as about to happen 
to the covenant people, had been determined, — who had cut off 
the seventy weeks upon his nation, — and from whom the decree 
had gone forth respecting the ruins in ver. 26, and the final 
sentence in ver. 27. This is the more apparent, sinces He is 
expressly mentioned at the end of the verse (V"^??)) ^^ ^^^® 
author of the decree to rebuild the city. 2. "'^t n^; is applied 
in ver. 23 to a divine decree ; — namely, the decree that seventy 
weeks of years should be determined upon the nation. And in 
the case before us, where the expression occurs again with the 
same indefiniteness as to the agent referred to, simply because 
the whole narrative treats of Daniel's intercourse with the 
heavenly world, it is impossible, without an inward feeling of 
constraint, to come to the conclusion, that another agent is 
abruptly introduced as the author of a decree. 

The " going forth of the word" is in itself an invisible event. 
But the effects come within the limits of the visible, and to this 
we necessarily turn, to see whether it is possible, by chronological 
calculations, made after the fulfilment, to convince ourselves of 
the truth of the prophecy. We must look to the effects, to learn 
when the " going forth of the word" took place. If the com- 
mand of God was really issued, that which was commanded must 
actually have occurred. Hence the going forth of the word, with 
reference to the rebuilding of Jerusalem, must be assigned to 
that period of history, at which the work was first taken in hand 
with vigour and success. As the covenant people were then 
subject to the Persian king, we naturally expect to find an echo 
of the word of God in the edict of a Persian monarch. And 
thus we come very near to the exposition we have rejected, in 
which the passage is regarded as containing a direct allusion to 
such an edict. 



VOL. III. 



130 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 



" To restore and to huild Jerusalem." 

The preposition lamed points out the object, to which the word 
refers.^ There are various ways, in which ^'^fi^ has been incorrectly 
explained. 1. Several commentators suppose it to relate to the 
restoration of the people. But apart from the forced ellipsis, which 
this explanation demands, the connection between a'u'nS (to re- 
store) and Jerusalem is sufficiently evident from the word ai'^'n^ 
which is closely related to it, and which, like nnjDj^ can only 
refer to si'n"?, the street. — 2. Others, such as Scaliger, BertJioldt, 
and Ho/mann, render the passage " to rebuild" (Vidg. utiterum 
cedijicetur ) , and maintain that, even in the Hiphil, ai'i' is used 
to express the repetition of a thing. But we need only look at 
the one passage, which is brought forward as a proof of this, to 
convince ourselves that it affords no support whatever to this 
assumption, which is a priori inadmissible. The passage referred 
to is 2 Sam. xv. 25, " and the king- said to Zadok, hriTig hack 
the ark of the covenant into the city, if I shall find favour in the 
eyes of the Lord, V?*^?:"!, he will hrvag me back, and show me 
both it and his habitation." s^D in this passage is transitive, 
as it always is, " to cause to return, to bring back." But what can 
we understand by causing a city to return, or bringing a city back? 
It denotes a perfect restitutio in integrum.'^ This is evident from 

1 This definite announcement of the object constitutes a fatal objection to 
the opinion, expressed by Lengerke and others, that "the word" here is the 
same as " the word" mentioned in ver. 2. The prediction of Jeremiah con- 
tained in chap, xxv., which is there referred to, does not announce the per- 
fect restoration of the city, but threatens its destruction. The same may be 
said of Hitzig's opinion, that reference is made to the prediction in Jer. xxx. 
and xxxi. This song of Israel's deliverance does not relate exclusively or 
even especially to the complete restoration of Jerusalem. Moreover there is 
no precise period of time mentioned in the passage, and therefore it is not 
adapted for chronological purposes. If the Scriptures . generally spoke, as 
Hitzig imagines that they do in this instance, if they left the expositor to 
mere conjectures, his vocation would really be a very unworthy one. 

2 Eddiger (in Gesenius thes.) says nothing about an adverbial use of 3»c',"i, 
but gives the meaning, restituit in integrum. He cites as examples, not only 
this passage, but Ps. Ixxxiv. 4 (in this he is wrong), and Is. i. 26, " I will 
restore thy judges as at the beginning," in which he is clearly correct. 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 25. 131 

Ezek. xvi. 55 and other passages, " and thy sisters, Sodom 
and her daughters, shall return to their former estate, '^^?'^? 
in^li^V, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their 
former estate, and thou and thy daughters shall return to your 

former estate." (XJTJT. a.Trox.a.TaaTa.^i'riaovra.i x.aQus rj/Jccv ccTt' 

ap'/rts} In ver. 53 there is an announcement to this effect, 
" I return to the captivity, niistp n^? ''???', of Sodom and her 
daughters," &c., a phrase, which is never employed to denote the 
return of captives, but always without exception a restitutio in 
integrum, — (i^i^^, captivity, being used figuratively of affliction) 
— and in this case the context shows that it can have no other 
meaning. (See the remarks on the passage itself) — In the 
passage before us the addition of riijr^S restricts the restitutio 
in integrum to one particular department. " To bring back and 
build," &c. ; " bringing back to build ;" or " building to bring 
back," to build the city again in its ancient dimensions : equiva- 
lent to the expression used by Jeremiah xxxiii. 7, "to build up 
as at the beginning." We may discover the essential importance 
of the idea contained in s'^D, which is added to the verb " to 
build," from the fact that ^l^'n occurs again before the verb 

T ; : • 

The result which we obtain from such an explanation of the 
meaning of the word 3'^f'7^, is this : we must reckon the seventy 
years, not from the period, when the first miserable attempts 
were made to rebuild the city, but from the time when, accord- 
ing to the testimony of history, the rebuilding was commenced 
in such a manner, as promised to restore the city, and eventually 
did restore it, to very nearly its ancient dimensions and beauty. 
What follows is also in harmony with this. In the announce- 
ment of the destruction, not only is the temple mentioned along 
with the city in ver. 26, but in ver. 27 also. The fact that it is 
not mentioned here in connection with the building of the city, 
but that only the streets of the city are referred to, presupposes 
that the temple had already been erected, and formed the com- 
mencement of the building here foretold. For it is very impro- 

1 Rqfmann renders this " to their former place," contrary to the usage of 
the language, and without giving the true sense. 



132 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

bable, that the angel should have omitted just the most 
important thing, the one which caused Daniel the greatest grief, 
and for whicli he had most earnestly prayed {cf. for example, 
ver. 17, 20). At the same time, the existence of the temple was 
a proof, that the rebuilding of the city had already been com- 
menced. 

By many ■"'jd is supposed to mean fortify ; and certainly ^y^ 
TV is frequently used to denote the fortification of a city. (For 
proof see Gesenius Thesaurus, and Winer s.v., but more espe- 
cially 31icliaelis, Suppl. p. 190, and his commentary on Josh. 
vi. 5, where he shows that the same idiom is also met with in 
the Syriac.) Not that the verb receives a new meaning ; but 
partly because, in the case of a city already in existence, the 
building must necessarily have been restricted to the fortification 
of it {e.g., in 2 Chr. xi. 5, "''>^?'r ^^^^ and then in ver. vi. nja 
alone), and partly because the term city, in its fullest extent, in- 
volves the idea of fortifications. But, that this meaning cannot 
be applied here is evident from what follows : streets are built ; 
and therefore it must be the interior of the city to which allu- 
sion is made. This explanation itself has arisen entirely from 
the desire to fix upon the time of Nehemiah, as the starting 
point ; whilst a false interpretation of ^T?'? and ai^'n rendered 
it impossible to gratify this wish in a legitimate way. 



" Until an anointed one, a prince." 

Several of the more recent commentators, such as Bertholdt, 
and before him Hitzig, explain this as meaning till an, or till 
the, anointed prince. But, as the earlier expositors unanimously 
affirmed, n^^f'c cannot properly be regarded as an adjective 
ao-reeing with tj^ ; for the adjective in Hebrew is placed after 
the substantive. (See, for example, Vitringas excellent treatise: 
de LXX. hebdom. Dan. observ. sacr. t. 2 p. 290). There are 
but few exceptions to this rule, and even in these the deviation 
is very slight ; see Eivald § 293 b. 

Of those who correctly regard n^c^o as a noun, and tjj as in 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 25. 133 

apposition, the greater number are of opinion that the former is 
used here as a kind of proper name, with express reference to 
the Messiah. In support of this, they appeal to the absence of 
the article, on which they found an argument against the non- 
Messianic exposition. If we look merely at the word n^tt'D^ the 
notion is a very plausible one. It is well known that, when 
appellative nouns are changed into proper names, they gradually 
lose the article ; for the simple reason, that the individual referred 
to, being the only one of its kind, does not need to be distin- 
guished from others. Thus I'i'Vy is used as a name of God, 
frequently without the article; e.g., Num. xxiv. 16; Num. 
xxxii. 8. And as the word ncv is applied to the Messiah 
by Isaiah and Jeremiah in an appellative sense, with a more 
precise definition subjoined, whereas it is afterwards found iti 
Zechariah as a proper name, without any such definition ; so 
may 'I'l^'o, which occurs in the second Psalm as an appella- 
tive description of Christ, have been so commonly applied to 
the Messiah, as to acquire the character of a proper name. 
There would be the less difficulty connected with such an assump- 
tion, since we know that at a later period this was indisputably 
the case ; compare, for example, John iv. 25, where the Samari- 
tan woman says, " I know that jMessias cometh (not the Messias), 
which is called Christ." But, however admissible this expla- 
nation would be, if n'ro stood alone, the addition of tjj renders 
it clearly untenable. For this word cannot be regarded as a 
proper name, seeing that it is applied to a heathen prince in 
ver. 26. Hence it ought in such a case to have the article, 
" Messiah the prince," just as you find '^^^n '\)'\ never i"!7 
t?:i?. (see Gesenius Lehrgebiiude § 172). We must, therefore, 
render it " an Anointed one, a Prince ;" and, in accordance 
with the usual character of Daniel's prophecies, so expressly 
indicated in the words "thou shalt know and understand" at 
the commencement of the verse, we must assume that he pur- 
posely selected the more indefinite expression, and instead of 
speaking of the anointed one, the prince {>txr iioxriv), merely 
spoke of an anointed one, a prince. He evidently left his readers 
to obtain a deeper insight into his meaning from the general expec- 
tation of the advent of a great king, to which earlier prophecies 



134 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

had given rise, as well as from the other statements in the con- 
text, and from the fulfilment itself, whose accordance with the pro- 
phecy would of necessity be all the more apparent in this instance, 
on account of the period being so definitely fixed. 

That the connection between these words and Christ is too 
close, for even the most prejudicial to deny it, is evident from 
Bertholdt's confession, that " it is very natural, though not 
absolutely necessary, to associate the idea of Jesus the Messiah 
with the expression tjj n^ro (an anointed one, a prince), and 
that of his death on the cross with the words in ver. 26, 
iS ^'Ni n'tt'D nns'." For the present, we will keep out of sight 
the confirmation afi'orded to our opinion by the exact agreement 
in point of time, and confine ourselves to the evidence, which a 
careful inquiry would bring within the reach of Daniel himself 
and his contemporaries. 1. As we have already remarked, the 
blessings promised in the previous verse, — viz. the forgiveness 
of sins, the introduction of eternal righteousness, and so forth, 
were among the characteristics commonly held up by the pro- 
phets, as those which would distinguish the Messianic era. If, 
then, in a description like the present, which is clearly an expan- 
sion of ver. 24, an exalted king is announced, who is to appear 
at the end of sixty-nine weeks of years, that is, shortly before the 
period fixed for the complete fulfilment of the promises made to 
the covenant people ; how was it possible to come to any other 
conclusion, than that this king would be the author of those 
blessings, the Messiah, whom all the prophets had exhibited in 
that capacity? — 2. The connection between the two verses, 24 
and 25, is more particularly indicated by the relation, in which 
the announcement of " an anointed one" in the latter stands to the 
words, " to anoint a holy of holies or most holy," in the former. 
For the express purpose of giving greater prominence to this 
connection, dt;ii^ ^"^P ^JP^'l is placed at tlie end and n»;£^'D 
before tjj. Every explanation chat has been thought of, ex- 
cept the Messianic, is precluded by the fact that the term 
" Holy of Holies," or " Most Holy," is altogether inapplicable. — 
3. Whilst TJi does not hinder our referring the passage to the 
Messiah, since this term is expressly applied to the Messiah him- 
self in Is. Iv. 4 (see the remarks on that passage) , and also to 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 25. 135 

David the type of the Messiah in 2 Sam. vii. 8, and elsewhere •/ 
like the corresponding terms ->¥', Is. ix. 5, ^^n, Micah v. 1, and 
N^'^J, Ez. xxxiv. 24, the word n't'o, which stands to i'^^ in 
the relation of the particular to the general, most decidedly refers 
to him in the passage before us, notwithstanding the omission of 
the definite article. It serves to point out the "''JJ more dis- 
tinctly as a theocratic ruler ; just as in 1 Sam. x. 1 (" and 
Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his (Saul's) head, 
and kissed him, and said : truly the Lord hath anointed thee as 
prince over his inheritance"), the anointing did not constitute 
Saul merely a ruler in general, but a theocratic ruler, who was 
furnished by God with the requisite gifts for the discharge of his 
duties at His representative. It is not true that any heathen 
monarch might have been called n»c'D, an anointed one. Such an 
assertion is opposed to the meaning of the symbol and the figura- 
tive use of the term, as already explained, and also to the usages 
of the language. In all the books of the Old Testament there is 
only one heathen king to whom the expression is applied, — namely, 
Cyrus, who is called " anointed" in Is. xlv. 1, not as a king merely, 
but on account of the remarkable relation which he sustained 
to the church (a relation unparalleled in history), — on account of 
the gifts, with which he was endowed by Grod for the good of the 
church, — on account of his possessing the first elements of the 
true knowledge of Grod, as his edict in the Book of Ezra clearly 
shows fcf. Kleinert on Isaiah, p. 138 sqq.), — and lastly on account 
of the typical relation in which he stood to the author of a still 
higher deliverance, namely the Messiah himself. There was a 
certain sense, in which Cyrus might be regarded as a theocratic 
ruler ; and this is the light in which Isaiah represents him (see 
the excellent remarks made by Vitringa on Isaiah, I.e.). It is 
only in connection with the whole description, given by Isaiah, 



1 The numerous passages, in which tjj is used with reference to the 
king of Israel (1 Sam. xiii. 14, xxv. 30), prove that Hofmann is wrong in 
saying, that Christ is called trvo as king of Israel, and tjj as king of 
the heathen. There is all the less reason, to give such a limitation to the 
meaning of n»jJ on the ground of Is. Iv. 4, since it is much more natural to 
refer to the numerous passages in the books of Samuel. The true explanation of 
the addition of tjj to n'co is found in the relation in which the pas- 
sage stands to ver. 26. 



136 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

that Cyrus is called an anointed of God ; and it by no means 
follows from this passage, that the term could have been applied 
to him, apart from that connection. Still less can it be inferred, 
that any other heathen king might have been called by the same 
name ; when the only points, in which they resembled Cyrus, 
were such as did not constitute the reason of his being so desig- 
nated.' — 4. Apart from any evidence contained in the word itself, 
the context furnishes a proof that the anointed one was to be a 
theocratic, not a heathen, king. This proof is found in the 
evident antithesis between I'JJ T^^^^, and f*3n tjj in ver. 26. 
The general term " prince" is common to both. But to h'itd 
(anointed), the specific term for a theocratic ruler, there is 
opposed son, " the coming one," advena, a terra descriptive of 
a heathen prince. If then it is certain, for the reasons assigned, 
that the expression i'JJ n^ro could only apply to a theocratic 
king ; who else could possibly be thought of but the Messiah 
himself, seeing that the whole period, from Daniel downwards, 
does not furnish a single person to answer to the description, and 
he was the only theocratic king who had been announced by the 
prophets, either at the time of, or after the captivity, as one who 
was yet to come ? — 5. The opinion expressed by Wieseler, that 
" an anointed one, a prince" means a High Priest (of the ordi- 
nary stamp), is quite inadmissible. No doubt, the High Priest 
is called the anointed ^97"/e5^ in Lev. iv. 3. cf. v. 16, Ex. xl. 13, 
Lev. xvi. 32 ; but it does not follow from this, in the most remote 
degree, that n't'o by itself could ever denote the priestly o-ffice. 
Kings were also anointed, and the addition of the word "I'JJ 
shows that it is to these, that reference is made ; for this word 
always denotes civil rank, where there is nothing added to define 
it more precisely. That the expression " an anointed, a prince" 
does not indicate a double office is very obvious from such 
passages as 1 Sam. ix. 16, " and ihow. anointedst\\\m "prince o\qv 

1 The case of Hazael has also been quoted. According to 1 Kings xix. 
15, IG, he was anointed by Elijah as king over Syria. But it does not 
follow from this, that a heathen king could be called rr'tt'o without further 
explanation. The anointing had a purely theocratic signification, as we may 
clearly perceive from the fact that Hazael was to be anointed in conjunction 
with Jehu and Elisha. All three were to be the instruments of God, in 
bringing about a reaction against the prevalence of idolatry in Israel. 



THE SEVENTY "WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 25. 137 

thy people Israel," and chap. x. 1, " the Lord hath anointed thee 
prince over his inheritance."' 

Assuming, then, that the words " an anointed one, a prince" 
must certainly be understood as referring to Christ ; the only 
question that still remains to be asked is, whether the point of 
time, alluded to in the prophecy, was his birth, or the period 
of his consecration as Messiah by the anointing from above. The 
latter is the opinion most commonly entertained by Messianic 
expositors.- And we must also decide in its favour. After the 
lapse of seventy weeks, the whole of the work of salvation to be per- 
formed by the Messiah, was to be completed. At the end of sixty- 
nine weeks, or rather, as we find from the more exact announce- 
ment in ver. 27, in the middle of the seventieth week, he was to 
be cut off. Since, then, according to this passage, sixty-nine weeks 
were to elapse, before the time of the Messiah, there only re- 
mained a period of seven years to intervene between his coming, 
and the completion of the work of salvation, and three years and 
a half between his coming and his violent death ; a convincing 
proof that n^ro -ij? referred, not to the birth of Jesus, but to 
the public appearance of the Messiah, who was in fact not really 
the Messiah until his baptism, not Christ but only Jesus (com- 
pare Peter's address in Acts i. 21, and Luke iii. 23). 



Are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks." 



The prophet divides the period, which is to elapse between 
the going forth of the word and the coming of the anointed one, 
into two parts. Sixty-nine weeks in all are to intervene. At 
the end of seven the city will be comi)letely restored ; and 
sixty-two more will pass before the anointed one, the prince, 
appears. 

1 " Onias combincil tho two in his own person, tho hif^h-priestly .and 
regal dignity. As an anointed one, i.e. as priest, he is called Messias, and as 
a secular prince he bears the title ofTJj. Messias tjj, therefore, means 
a priest-prince, or an anointed one, wiio is made a prince." 

- Compare, for example, I'etaviu.s (doctr. temp. 1. 12. c, 3.3 t. 2 p. 264 : 
" GD hehdomades desinunt in Christum ducem, non nascentcm, sed in lucem 
apertumque prodcuntem, sciquo ad ilKovof^iav et kk^uIiv accingcntcin, h. e. in 
baptismum ipsius, qui anno primo septuagcsimae hebdomadis incun-it." 



138 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

This was the explanation given by Theodotion 'iws XpiTroD 

rijoui/^ivov k0^o(x,a.^is E'TTTa, y.a\ s/SSo/xas^sy h^'nytovra Sfo ; and the 

Vulgate renders it in the same manner, usque ad Christum ducem 
hebdomades septem et hebdomades 62 eru7it ; but the text of the 
Septuagint is in such utter confusion, that it is impossible to 
make any use of it. The Athnach under 'iy?i^' has been 
appealed to in opposition to this rendering. According to Mar- 
sham, the accent shows that the two numbers are to be kept 
distinct, and the second of the two to be connected in the follow- 
ing manner with the succeeding clause, " from the going forth 
of the word to Messiah, the leader, are seven weeks ; and in 
sixty-two weeks the street and wall shall be built again." But 
the theory, on which this assertion is based, that Athnach always 
stands where we should place one of the leading stops, is incor- 
rect ; and none have less right to lay any emphasis upon an 
accent, than men who so often set all accentuation at nought on 
the most trivial grounds. When the leading divisions of a sen- 
tence are self-evident, Athnach is not infrequently used, where 
we should place one of the smaller stops, merely to show that 
certain words are not to be connected. Thus, for example, in 
ver. 2 it stands under d*")S^D, whereas, according to the ordinary 
usages of the language, it should have been placed under Q'i^n ; 
and so again in Ps. xxxvi. 8 we find it under d^n instead of 
D'OV (compare Prov. vi. 26). In the present instance, how- 
ever, the separation of the two periods was of great importance, — 
namely, to show that the seven and sixty-two were not a merely 
arbitrary division of a continuous period, but that each of the 
two periods had its own distinguishing characteristics. 

Marsham's views have been adopted by the more modern anti- 
Messianic expositors. But the following reasons will suffice to 
show their fallacy. 1. His explanation takes for granted that 
the anointed one, the prince, was Cyrus ; an assumption already 
disproved by the positive arguments, adduced to show that the 
Messiah is referred to. We shall notice it again' more particu- 
larly by and by. 2. If the second number be connected with 
the words that follow, the only interpretation, that can possibly 
be given is " for sixty-two years," or, " during sixty-two years 
(EwaldJ, the streets will return and be built." But this is a 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 25. 139 

most awkward rendering. For how could the restoration of the 
streets, which was accomplished according to the testimony of 
history in a much shorter time — (and this testimony is of the 
more importance to our opponents, on account of their assuming 
that we have here a vaticinium post eventum), — how, we say, 
could the building of the streets be described as occupying the 
whole period of 434 years ? This difficulty is tacitly acknow- 
ledged by many of our opponents, in the attempts which they 
make to get rid of it, attempts altogether at variance with the 
usages of the language. They maintain that the words D'V?.^'1 
D«;tt?!) D^wty are in the accusative, which very frequently denotes 
the period during, or within which anything has been accom- 
plished ; and hence they adopt the rendering " within sixty- 
two weeks." But Ewald has laid down this rule, " the accusa- 
tive is employed to denote a period of time, when the entire 
period is occupied by the transaction referred to ; but if the in- 
tention be to show that an action was performed at some parti- 
cular point within a longer period, ? must be used, like the 
ablative in Latin ;" and the rule is so thoroughly without excep- 
tion, when a lengthened period of time is referred to, that it is 
observed, notwithstanding Ewalds assertion to the contrary, 
even when the writer omits to mention the particular point 
intended. The passage in Genesis (xiii. 3), which is generally 
rendered " in the thirteenth year," has been set aside by Ewald 
himself, who says that it ought rather to be rendered " during 
the whole of the thirteenth year." The most plausible quotation 
is Jer. xxviii. 16, " this year thou shalt die." But it may very 
soon be perceived, that njti^n in this passage is one of the com- 
paratively few nouns of measure, time, &c., which have acquired 
an adverbial signification through constant use, and cori-e- 
sponds exactly to aiy, i|^.i, nnp., n^?, DS>n, and ^^h^. The use 
of r\y^n in the sense of "this year," not "all this year," as in 
Is. xxxvii. 30, was so thoroughly adverbial that it could not 
have been written with a demonstrative pronoun. «'nn n^wn 
was not admissible, and therefore, where the demonstrative was 
introduced, as in Jer. xxviii. 17, njwn was followed by 'iJ^? 
^'CIl!. Among the nouns which had acquired the nature of 
adverbs, we must include d'^SlI, literally " the coming ones," 



140 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

then " in future," Is. xxvii. 6. In a similar manner we can 
also say, this day, this hour, this week, meaning within either of 
these ; but these seventy years could only mean during the whole 
of that period of time. Our opponents have only one other out- 
let left, — namely, to take d^J^'i o*^^ D'j?31£' as a nominative abso- 
lute, thus, '• and as for the sixty-two weeks, the street is re- 
stored," &c. This is the rendering suggested by v. Lengerke 
and Hofmann. But this explanation is also untenable ; for in 
that case we should expect to find a suf&x in the clause " the 
street," &c. , to show its connection with the sixty-two weeks (see 
Gesenius Lehrgebaude p. 723). There is also another objection 
to this rendering, — namely, that in every other case in which a 
period of time is mentioned, distinct events are given, which 
either mark the termination of the period, or occupy the whole 
of it. Thus, for example, all the blessings promised in ver. 24 
belong to the end of the seventy weeks of years. The same 
remark applies to ver. 27. How then could it be regarded as the 
characteristic feature of the sixty-two weeks that the building of 
the city occurred at the commencement ? 

There can be no doubt whatever, that every interpretation is 
false, in which the two periods of seven weeks and sixty-two 
weeks are supposed to be distinguished by some feature common 
to both, or which leads to the conclusion, that the prophet might 
have written sixty-nine, just as suitably as seven and sixty- two. 
Such a supposition is altogether at variance with the general 
character of the whole prophecy, in which there is nothing 
superfluous and not a word without meaning ; but a special reason 
for rejecting it is found in the analogy between this announce- 
ment, and all the other periods of time referred to in the prophecy. 
In the case of all the rest, there is some particular event named, 
which will be fully completed by the time that the period referred 
to comes to an end. Thus, at the expiration of the seventy weeks, 
we find the bringing in of everlasting righteousness and the for- 
giveness of sins ; at that of the sixty-two weeks, the appearance 
of the Messiah ; to the end of the seventieth week there is assigned 
the complete establishment of the covenant, and to that of the 
first half, the abolition of sacrifice. Hence, we cannot agree with 
Auberlen (der Prophet Daniel und die Offenbarung Johannis p. 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 25. 141 

133), who says " it must be admitted that there is no fact men- 
tioned in the text, as marking the termination of the first seven 
weeks ; but prominence is given to them, merely as forming the 
introductory portion of the period of restoration." We gain 
nothing from such a quasi-division ; especially as there is nothing 
in the text to sustain it, but, on the contrary, it rests upon mere 
conjecture, which ought to be renounced altogether, wherever the 
interpretation of the Scriptures is concerned. Moreover, the mere 
fact that such a division exists, and also the Athnach, by which 
this division is strongly accentuated, are both at variance with 
such an explanation ; but most of all the expression " after three- 
score and two weeks," with which the next verse commences, and 
instead of which, according to Auherlen's hypothesis, we should 
expect to find " after threescore and nine weeks." 



" Restored and built is the street, and firmly determined ; hut in 
narroiu times." 

These words must relate to the first of the two periods, men- ] 
tioned in the preceding clause. For as every one of the periods 
named must necessarily have a distinctive mark, and the appear- 
ance of the Messiah is selected as that of the second period, what 
remains for the first, but the complete fulfilment of the command, 
which forms the starting point of the entire period of sixty-nine 
weeks ? We have, therefore, in this clause merely an express 
announcement of what might be inferred from preceding state- 
ments ; and there is the less reason to regard the words as inde- 
finite, since the 26th verse contains a further expansion of what 
had already been said, as to the distinguishing characteristic of 
the second period. Hence the expression, " the threescore and 
two weeks," is sufficient to show that the preceding clause relates 
to the seven weeks. In addition to this, sixty-nine and sixty- 
two weeks of years are both of them very improbable periods 
for the building of a city. On the other hand, a period of 
seven weeks of years would have in its favour some remark- 
able provisions in the law itself. According to the Mosaic 



142 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

decrees, the year of praise or jubilee, the welcome period of 
restoration to all the wretched, returned at the end of every seven 
weeks of years ; compare Lev. xxv. 8, " and thou numberest 
seven weeks of years unto thee . . . (ver. 10) and ye return 
every man unto his possession, and ye will return every man 
unto his family. . . . (ver. 13). In this jubilee year ye 
shall return every man unto his possession." Hence the ques- 
tion asked by von Lengerke, " what right have we to refer the 
words ' restored and built is the street ' to the first seven weeks, 
and to regard this as constituting their peculiar characteristic ?" 
is evidently quite uncalled for. The first peculiarity of the 
seven and the sixty-two weeks is noticed in this verse ; the second 
in the verse which follows. Now the latter refers to the termi- 

l nation of the sixty-two weeks ; and therefore the former must 
certainly point out the characteristic of the seven weeks. This 

' is sufficient in itself to decide the whole question. Everything 
else is merely accessory. The seven weeks evidently embrace the 
period, which intervened between the going forth of the word to 
restore and build Jerusalem (in other words, the time when the 
work of building was seriously taken in hand) , and its complete 
accomplishment. 

That 3l^>! is not used adverbially,, as many suppose, but 
denotes the restoration of the city to its former condition, may be 
inferred from the evident reference to s^V'nV in a previous 
clause. The mention of building shows very clearly that, of the 

\ only two meanings ever given to 3'in"?, "street" and "public 

1 place," the former is the one intended here. Other explanations, 
indeed, have been suggested, but they are based so entirely upon 
arbitrary conjecture, as not even to deserve to be mentioned. 
Hassencamp (iiber die 70 Wochen p. 64 sqq.) supposes that njs 
is used figuratively, with the meaning, " to restore ;" but the 
evident allusion to the previous J^"'^?^, which can only be taken 
in a literal sense, shows that this cannot be the case. The 
explanation to which Cocceius is still so much attached, " cedifi- 
cahitur quoad forum," must also be rejected. For although the 
construction is not infrequently met with ; in the present instance 
it is not admissible, ainn is feminine, and therefore would 
naturally be regarded as the subject ; and, if this is not the case, 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP, IX. 25. 143 

Jerusalem ought to be expressly named, particularly as it is not 
mentioned immediately before. The description is said to be 
enigmatical, but it is nowhere ambiguous ; on the contrary, it 
always furnishes the clue to a safe interpretation. Wieseler 
thinks that the street is not the most important thing connected 
with the building of a city, and therefore that 3inn cannot be 
the subject. But we may see from the names Rechoboth Ir and 
Rechoboth Nahar, in Gen. x. 11 and xxxvi. 37, that the street 
was really regarded as the leading characteristic of the city (com- 
pare Kirjath Chuzot, city of streets, equivalent to Strassburg, in 
Num. xxii. 39). 3''n-\ is used in the singular and without the 
article, to show that the word is employed in its widest sense. 

Modern expositors generally link together \Tn! and s'Sm.. In 
this they follow the early translators, who evidently adopted 
this combination in the hope that it would help them to solve the 
meaning of the former word ; LXX. : xal d.mix.o^oixriOiri'yiTa.i ih 
TrXuTOi xal /w.^xo5r. Theodotioii : 'nXarslix. y.a\ n'iyos. Vulgote : 
platea et muri). Thus, for example, Jahn derives the meaning 
platea angustior from the supposed connection ; Steudel renders 
the word, " rampart ;" Ewald, " a pond ;" Hofmann, " an en- 
closed space ;" Hitzig, " a court-yard." But all these meanings 
are purely imaginary ; and the mode of exposition adopted is 
sufficiently condemned by the variety of the results arrived at. 
Some refer to the Chaldee V'"*n, to which they attribute the 
meaning " a trench." But Mich aelis has already shown (Suppl. 
p. 951) that V'"*" does not mean " trench" at all, but " aque- 
duct ;" and, as he says, there was not much need of trenches at 
Jerusalem on account of its situation. However, the question is 
sufficiently decided by the fact that you cannot speak of building 
ti-enches ; and there is no ground for calling in the help of the 
Chaldee, unless it can be shown that V"^" is not to be met with 
in the Hebrew with a suitable signification. Hassencamp, who 
sought to prove that \r^n meant " a 'place of judgment," gained 
nothing by confining his attention to Hebrew usages (1. c. p. 
66 sqq.) ; for neither the form of the word, nor its ordinary signi- 
fication, allows of such a reference, and the idea of building at 
once precludes it. Still he deserves credit for having recalled 
attention to the usages of the Hebrew language. According to 



144 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

these, V'>""71 cannot mean any thing else than " it is cut off, 
firmly determined."^ The meaning of the root \l^ has been 
admirably traced out by Schultens (on Proverbs xxii. 5). The 
radical signification is "to cut," "to cut off';" and from this 
comes the secondary meaning of careful and precise " appoint- 
ment" and " determination." It occurs in the latter sense in 1 
Kings XX. 40 : "so is thy judgment, '"il^Vin nnx tu decidisti, 
secante velut acie." The passive participle VPn is used in Job 
xiv, 5, with the meaning '^firmly determined :" i*c; D»v>inq dn, 
"when his (man's) days are cut off";" and in Is. x. 22, ;')''?? 
Vi">n, " completion is cut off (determined upon) by an irrevocable 
decree." In Joel iii. 14 V^""7'? P?V- is applied twice to the 
place, where the multitudes of people are to assemble, and where 
the day of the Lord will be held ; and if we compare ver. 2 and 
12, where the same place is called " the valley of Jehoshaphat 
of the Lord's judgment," we shall see that it does not mean, as 
Credner supposes, " valley of the threshing machine," but, as 
the Sepiuagint renders it, rris ^Uns, valley of judgment, of the 
sententia prcecisa and ahsoluta. All doubt, as to the word 
being used in a similar sense in the passage before us, is com- 
pletely removed by the fact, that V'*'^ occurs twice in this pro- 
phecy, in the sense of cutting off, firmly and irrevocably deter- 
mining (compare the word iinj in ver. 24). 

V^ni is very properly separated by the accents from the 
words that follow, and more closely connected with the preced- 
ing clause : " and determined, (viz., what has just been stated, 
that the street shall be built) ; and (= but it will be built) in 
narrow times." V''"^""' is by no means parenthetical. Those, who 
explain it thus, overlook the fact, that the expansion of the 
more concise term serves to connect nnasj with the last clause. 

The two expressions " determined " and " narrow times," served 
to anticipate two objections, which might have disquieted the 
minds of pious Israelites. According to appearances there was 
no prospect whatever of a return, much less of the rebuilding of 

1 Steudel thinks that, in this case, we should be sure to find xinv No 
doubt we should, if clearness of expression were aimed at ; but not where the 
greatest brevity is sought for, aa in the case before us. 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 26. 145 

the city in its former dimensions. And when the return of the 
Jews had really taken place, a whole series of years had passed 
by, with nothing in the circumstances, in which they were placed, 
to afford the least hope of the restoration of the city. On the 
contrary, the Jews were obliged to content themselves with an 
open space, of comparatively small extent. What could be more 
natural than the idea, that the promise of the Lord had only 
been a conditional one, and that the sins of the nation had 
caused it to be revoked ? The prophet guards against any such 
idea, by the forcible word VI"*?'' (determined). — Another diffi- 
culty would be sure to arise from the fact, that, even when the 
promise had been fulfilled, the circumstances of the people were 
anything but glorious. This might easily give rise to doubts as 
to the omnipotence of God, of which we have so glaring an ex- 
ample in the words of the wicked, as quoted by Malachi. But 
this difficulty could be met by the proof, contained in the expres- 
sion D'nvn p"iv?>i (and in narrow times), that the augustia tem- 
porum did not exist without the knowledge and will of God, that 
his plans had not been fi'ustrated, but that all had been foreseen 
and predetermined. 

A historical exposition of the words " in narrow times " is 
found in Neh. ix. 36, 37, "we are servants this day" and so 
forth. Even the building of the walls was not effected without 
great opposition. Every one who took part in the work, had his 
sword " girded by his side," Neh. iv. 18. 



Ver. 26. " And after the sixty-two loeehsan anointed onetvill 
be cut off ; and there is not to him ; and the city and the sanc- 
tuary the people of a prince, the coming one, loill destroy ; and it 
will end in the flood, and to the end there is war, dea'ee of ruins." 



"And after the sixty-two iveeJcs an anointed one will be cut off." 

The distinguishing characteristic of the seven weeks having 
been already given, the prophet now proceeds to a farther ex- 
planation of the circumstances connected with the coming of the 

VOL. III. K 



146 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PKOPHETS. 

anointed one, the prince whose appearance he had already de- 
scribed in ver. 25, as occurring at the end of the sixty- two weeks, 
which would follow the seven weeks. 

n"!?? denotes a violent death, when used without any further 
explanation, such as we find, for example, in the frequently 
recurring phrases St2Vj?. r^-cii (cut off from his people) and 
"^ii-w] niv.D (from the congregation of Israel), which have no 
connection with this passage. It is a standing expression for 
the fate of the ungodly (cf. Ps. xxxvii. 9, Pro v. ii. 22), which is 
constantly pictured as violent and sudden, to show, as conspicu- 
ously as possible, that it is attributable to a supernatural cause. 
In the passage improperly quoted by Steudel and Hofmann 
from the first Book of Kings (viii. 25) , there is a more precise 
explanation given, to what the expression " cut off" applies ; 
but where this is not the case, we must conclude that it refers to 
the one thing, which most naturally occurs to the mind, — namely. 

The word n*\??D is intentionally left indefinite, without any 
article to show its identity with the TJii. n't^a above, in per- 
fect accordance with the character of the whole prophecy. It 
was the more natural to leave it so, because an attentive and 
unprejudiced reader could easily gather from the context, that 
such an allusion was intended. As ri'^'o (anointed) was suffi- 
cient in itself to show that a king of Israel was referred to, and 
as this is confirmed by the following clause, in which he is con- 
trasted with a prince, the coming one, it was impossible to think 
of any other than the Messiah, since he is the only king of 
Israel mentioned in prophecy, as coming after the period of the 
captivity. The " anointed," the " prince," was to appear at the 
end of the sixty-nine weeks. Of whom, then, but of Him, was 
it possible to think, when it was announced, in this more 
expanded account, that the violent death of an anointed one 
would take place at the expiration of the seven and the sixty- 
two weeks ? A casual connection is traced in this verse between 
the death of the anointed one, and the demolition of the city and 
temple ; just as a similar connection was pointed out in ver. 25 
between his appearance, and the communication of all the bless- 
ings promised in ver. 24. How could it fail to be perceived 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 26. 147 

that, as both blessings and curses belonged to the same period, 
they had also the same author, and that the cause of the latter 
was to be found in the violent death, which is here announced, 
of the very same anointed one, who was to bring the fulness of 
blessing, and who actually did bring it to those who received 
him, and allowed him to confirm the covenant with them ? The 
reference, too, is all the more apparent, because the violent death 
of the Messiah was predicted by Isaiah, before the time of Daniel, 
in chap, liii., where the perfectly analogous expression is found 
in ver. 8, " he has been cut off from the land of the living." 
It was also declared at a later period by Zechariah (chap. xii. 
10). When once the prophecy had been fulfilled, all uncer- 
tainty was changed into a crime, since this statement with 
reference to the years was always at command, to secure its 
removal. 

According to Steudel and Hofinann the anointed one men- 
tioned here is an ideal person ; and the meaning of the announce- 
ment is " the dignity of the anointed will come to an end." 
But the fallacy of this is shown not merely by the expression 
" cut off," but also by the fact tliat tliere teas no o§ice in Israel, 
to which the name of " the anointed" was applied, and the 
practice of anointing was not restricted to one particular office. 
The word n'tt'o is unintelligible when taken by itself; its 
meaning can only be learned from its connection with n'tt-n 
TJJ in ver. 25. At all events, on account of the relation in 
which it stands to the latter, it must necessarily refer to one 
particular person. Moreover the " prince, the coming one," 
contrasted, with him, is an individual. And lastly, such an 
interpretation is irreconcileable with the words which follow. 



" And there is not to him." 

The different explanations, that have been given of these 
words, may be divided into two classes ; the fi.rst embracing those 
in which an attempt is made to obtain a meaning, without 
assuming an ellipsis ; the second, those in which the existence of 



148 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

an ellipsis is taken for granted. We shall first examine the 
former of these. In opposition to the whole of them we main- 
tain the thesis : t:?* never has any other meaning than " nonentity" 
or " it is not ;" r^ always means the latter. It is impossible, 
therefore, to put any meaning into the words, which they will 
really bear, without assuming an ellipsis. 1. The rendering " et 
non sibi" was very generally adopted in the ancient church. 
Vitringa says : " not for his own sake, so much as for the 
sake of others, — namely, the elect and believers, who will enjoy 
the fruit of his death." But this rendering must be rejected, 
for the simple reason that r^ was never interchangeable with 
N^, either in the earlier or later period of the language ; on the 
contrary, there is always this marked distinction between them, 
that whilst n^ is a simple negative, r?* is the negation of exist- 
ence. This will be at once apparent, if we look closely at all 
the passages, which Gesenius has quoted in his Lehrgebaude 
(p. 830), and in the Thesaurus (s. v.), as proofs that r?? and «^ 
are interchangeable. In Ex. iii. 2, ^2« i?;'« ^.\^^), the suffix at 
once prevents us from thinking of an interchange of TH and 
«*^. For how could a simple negative take a suffix ? Sax is 
not a preterite, but a Pual participle, with the o wanting ; a 
form, of which the greatest number of examples occur in this 
conjugation. In Jer. xxxviii. 5 i31|! o.?p.^t Spv "^^^ r^"''? is 
not to be rendered " for the king cannot do anything against 
you ;" but, as the accents show, and as KimcM, Cocceius and 
3Iichaells have rendered it, non est rex is, qui possit apud vos, 
vel contra vos quidquam, which is a much more forcible expres- 
sion, and holds up more prominently the impotence of the king. 
It is also favoured by the order of the words, "'' for not is the king 
he," in which there is a contrast implied between the case as it 
really stood, and as it would naturally have been expected to 
stand. In Job. xxxv. 15, *i3?* ^P4 r.^1 '? ^^^) is not to be 
rendered " but now, when his anger had not visited ;" espe- 
cially as the absolute ]\<S is used. The true rendering is, " and 
now, because it is not, his anger punishes, and he turns not 
much to the proud." " Because it is not" means there is none 
of that fervent waiting upon him, which the speaker had urged 
upon Job in the previous verse, and had held up before him as 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 26. 149 

his duty.* In Ps. cxxxv. 17, and 1 Sam. xxi. 9 the notion of 
existence, which is ah-eady contained in r.*?, is still further 
strengthened by ^.l, in a manner perfectly analogous to the cus- 
tom of rendering the verbal notion more emphatic, by placing 
the infinitive before the finite tense ; Dp'S? n!|i-»'!:|»N p)^ is 
equivalent to ^.>7J? n^ ^""I;! &c., "there is no breath at all in 
their mouth." ri':pi ?]7;-rnn nb-rj. y^^, means, "hast thou then 
no spear at all f This grammatical proof, which is decisive 
in itself, is confirmed by the fact, that the rendering is unsuit- 
able. For who is cut off for his own good ? It would be very 
difterent if 1^ could be made to bear the meaning " on his own 
account." In that case a merited death, brought upon a man by 
himself, would be opposed to death, submitted to for the sake of 
others ; and we might then refer to Is. liii. where such pro- 
minence is given to this idea. — 2. Others render the words, 
" and nothing is to him." On this Cocceius says : "his disciples 
will be scattered ... a crowd of wicked men will surround 
him ;" and Gousset, " he is in want of everything." But the mean- 
ing nothing, so commonly assigned to Y.^ and Y^. in lexicons 
and commentaries, is a pure invention. It expresses the nega- 
tion, not of quiddity but of entity. If any one is desirous of 
obtaining further information as to this distinction, which is 
expressed in every language, he may find it in Aristotle's 
Metaphysics. We will also examine the passages, which are 
ordinarily adduced in support of this second rendering. Is. 
xli. 24, ]:?<o Di^N does not mean, " ye are less than nothing," 
but, " ye are of nonentity." ye belong to the sphere of non- 
existence ; and so also the meaning of the first clause in chap, 
xl. 17 is not " all nations are as nothing," but they are " as 
nonentity," as though they did not exist before him. Psalm 
xxxix. 5 : " my life is as non-existence before thee." — In 
Haggai ii. 3, where the insignificance of the new temple, 
when compared with the former one, is referred to, inbs xSq 
D5»vv5 ;'Kj?, is much more correctly rendered, as it has been by 

1 Cocceius says : Tiomo in examen venit, ut probetur ejus spes et patientia. 
Quando ilia non exstat, invadit ira ejus, qua odit et amolitur peccatum, etiam 
in iis quos salvos vult. 



150 MESSIANIC PEEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

the more modern expositors, and was first of all by Jerome, " non 
talis est ista, quaj cernitur, ut qiiodam modo non esse videatur ?' 
' ' is it not as if it did not exist ?" Ex. xxii. 3 : "he (the thief) shall 
make compensation for it (that which he has stolen) ; ]'?* dn' 
i"?, he shall be sold as a compensation for what he had stolen." 
In this case we can see at once, from the context, what has 
to be supplied; — viz., "if there be not to him the means of 
making compensation." — 2 Chr. v. 10, nini^n ^j^" pn f-nxa yvt. If 
^•inss |\N stood alone here, it could no more mean there was 
nothing in the ark, than n^n ^^. The ellipsis, " any tiling else," 
is apparent from the antithesis. The same may be said of 
2 Kings xvii. 18 : i>?V nniin; ton^' pn nxt^^j nS. We should 
have just as much right to infer from this passage, that 
J*"^ means nothing, as to attribute this meaning to ^^?, on the 
ground of the passage mentioned before. — In Ps. xix. 7, V^. 
■irpi evidently means, " there exists no hidden thing," and not 
" there is nothing hidden," as Gesenius renders it. — Ex. viii. 10, 
iirn'S^. n'lntD ^♦^? is translated by Gesenius " nihil est sicut 
Jehova deus noster " (there is nothing like Jehovah our God) ; 
but the contrast implied shows clearly enough, what has to be 
supplied to the words " there is not as the Lord our God." 
The rendering nothing is quite unsuitable, for the God of Israel 
is expressly contrasted with the gods of other nations (compare 
chap. ix. 14). Hence r?? is never used in the sense of nothing, 
any more than ^i: in that of something. Who would think of 
maintaining, that the Arabic qawJ" might also be used in the 
sense of " there is nothing ?" Or who would venture to affirm, 
that we not infrequently used the words existence and non- 
existence for something and nothing ? — 3. Others again, like 
L'Empereur (ad Jacchiad. p. 191), and before him Hitzig, 
adopt the rendering, " and there is no one to him." But y^ is 
only used in the sense of nemo, nuUus, when the person alluded 
to is mentioned afterwards ; e.g., " there is no one making 
afraid," t*"!n? V^.. It does not follow from this, however, that 
I'N means no one ; the one is implied in I'lO?. And this 
remark is applicable to all the examples quoted by Gesenius. 
For instance, 1 Sam. ix. 4 : " They went through the land of 
Shaalim ]!«; and they were not;" not "there was not one." 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 26. 151 

The subject (the asses) is omitted, to give conciseness to the 
style ; just as we find the object omitted in both instances after 
isso nS (they found not). But, of course, such an omission 
was only possible, when the subject or object had been pre- 
viously mentioned (what they did not find must of necessity be 
what the author had just said that they were looking for, — viz., 
the she-asses) ; and therefore it has no bearing upon the passage 
before us. If the prophet had intended to use the word in the 
sense referred to, he would have written in?j( after y^., as he 
has in chap. x. 21, '»y pTnnn nn?? y^_\ — 4. CJi. B. Micliaelis 
Sostmann, and Hdvernick, explain the words thus : non erit sibi, 
non amplius inter viventes reperietur. But V?< never includes 
the idea of a person. It does not mean " he is not," but " it is 
not." If this had been the meaning intended, the word em- 
ployed must necessarily have been, not r.'*, but 13.V??, which we 
find in the passages quoted as parallel ; e.g., Gen. v. 24. Besides, 
the dative of the pronoun could only be properly employed (to 
show that the thing mentioned, whether an action or a passion, 
related to the subject) in cases where the whole passage was of a 
peculiarly subjective character (compare, for example, Ez. xxxvii. 
11) ; but not in such a passage as the present, where everything 
is so rigidly objective. — 5. Hitzig supposes that i'? V^ stands 
simply for " he is not." What will not men do, to get rid of a 
difficulty ! 

It is clearly demonstrated then, that the words are not com- 
plete in themselves, and therefore that something must be sup- 
plied. All the early translators, without exception, were convinced 
of this. There was not one of them, who adopted any of the erro- 
neous views as to the meaning of r^:, to which we have just alluded. 
The only point in which they differ is, that they either copy the in- 
definite phraseology of the original, as Aquila {stoXoOpsuOmsraci 
riXsi/jufxivoi koci ovy. e'fjTiv oLvrx), SymmacllUS {ly.KOTch'ysra.i X-piaros 
xocl ov% vTiocp'^^i avrcf), and the Syriac have done ; or express 
what has to be supplied, in the translation itself, as is the case 
with the Septuagint and Vulgate. 

Of course, we can only learn from the words immediately pre- 
ceding our clause, what it is that we have to supply ; and there- 
fore every exposition, in which this is not done, is so purely 



152 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

arbitrary that it must be at once rejected. Bertlioldt has 
wandered farthest away from the mark in his explanation : " he 
will have no successor belonging to his family." There would 
really be something pitiable in the condition of men employed 
in the interpretation of writings, containing such examples of 
mere caprice, as this would be. Their occupation would be per- 
petual conjecture, without the possibility of ever being certain 
that their conclusions were correct.^ There is something much 
more plausible in the explanation, suggested by many expositors: 
" there is to him no helper ;" inasmuch as the word supplied is 
much less limited in its meaning, and would, therefore, more 
readily occur to any one occupied in guessing. The same may 
be said, though for a different reason, of the interpretation which 
many have adopted from the Septuagint : judicium non erit ei, 
i.e., crimen quod judicium promeruit. There is something in 
the expression cut off, which might suggest what is here supplied, 
since it is not unfrequently used with reference to the punish- 
ment of evil-doers. 

If we endeavour to supply what is wanting, from the words 
that precede,^ it must necessarily be that which belongs to the 
anointed one as such. Just as "he is cut off" refers to the 
destruction of his personal existence, so must the words, " and 
there is not to him" indicate the destruction of what belongs to 



1 Eicald's explanation is not much better, — viz., " and there is not to him, 
sc. a son and heir ;" nor is that of Bosch, " and he will not be in existence or 
present, who (will be) to him, that is related to him." 

2 This has been attempted in a very unjustifiable manner by Lengerke, who 
endeavours to arrive at Bertholdt's rendering by a different road : " and there 
does not exist (an anointed one), who is connected with him." But we have 
no right to take n»c'D from the context, unless the same anointed one is in- 
tended. According to Lengerke, however, the meaning would be : and there 
is not another anointed one. Again it cannot be regarded as allowable to 
supply ntt/N before iS. ni:»N is only omitted in cases, in which the 
meaning is evident. But, in this case, every one would naturally connect iS 
immediately with ^'N. Moreover iS ncN could not be used in the 
sense referred to. It would be much too vague, to express the meaning 
" belonging to his family." Maurer agrees with Lengerke, with this single 
exception, that he does not supply ids*. In his opinion, " and there is 
not to him (an anointed one) " means " neqve habebit imperii successorem et 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 26. 153 

him, not of some accidental possession merely, but of that which 
constitutes his distinguishing characteristic. Now, there cannot 
be two opinions as to what this would be, in the case of "an 
anointed one, a prince." In 1 Sam. x. 1, Samuel says to Saul: 
" the Lord hath anointed thee to be prince over his inheritance." 
Hence the distinguishing characteristic of an anointed one was, J 
that he was prince over God's inheritance, Israel. This ceased 
to be the case, the rule of the anointed one over his nation was 
overthrown, when through the guilt of that nation he was vio- 
lently put to death.^ Hence the rendering adopted in the 
Vulgate, " et non erit ejus populus, qui eum negaturus est," is 
perfectly correct so far as the sense is concerned. And Jalin 
was wrong, only so far as he wished to introduce the word dv, 
a people, which is of course not allowable. The correctness of 
the interpretation we have given is confirmed by what follows. 
The negative consequence of the cutting off of the Messiah, — 
namely, the termination of his rule over the covenant people, is 
most appropriately followed by its positive effects, the destruction 
of the city and sanctuary by the people of a prince, the coming 
one. In this, there is a close resemblance to the description in 
Zechariah chap, xi., where the Messiah has no sooner resigned 
his office as shepherd, on account of the obstinacy with which 
the people resist its exercise, and broken his pastoral staff, than 
the poor flock becomes a helpless prey to all kinds of misery, 
and the whole land is overrun by enemies, who have hitherto 
been restrained by the invisible power of the good shepherd and 
king alone. — The expression, " and there is riot to him," bears 
the same relation to the previous clause, " an anointed one is cut 
off," as the words in John viii. 21, "ye shall die in your sins," 
to the announcement which precedes them, " I go away" (com- 
pare chap, vii. 34). — Wieseler objects to this explanation, on 
the ground that " it is not even true ; for if an earthly dominion 

hcercdem legitimum." Steudel also completes the passage from the context in 
an indefensible manner, thus : — "and there is not (an anointed one) to it," 
— namely, the nation. The suffix is supposed to refer to Djr in ver. 24 ! 

1 Hofmann thinks that what is meant is " everything belonging to the 
n'rn, a nation, temple, and the worship of the people whom he serves." 
But, as we have shown, the reference here is to the tjj wvo the princely 
anointed one, and his inheritance can only be the people of Israel. 



154 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

is intended, Jesus, the carpenter's son, never exercised it at all ; 
but if a spiritual one, then, according to the testimony of the 
New Testament, it was by his death, that he actually acquired 
it." It is very clear, however, that the truth of the prophecies 
of the Old Testament is entirely gone, if Jesus is not to be 
regarded as the rightful king of the Jews. According to Wiese- 
ler's view Nathanael was completely in error, when he said to 
Christ, " thou art the King of Israel" (John i. 50). Why then 
does John lay such peculiar stress upon the fact, that in the 
superscription on the cross, Jesus was described as '• the King of 
the Jews ?" Why is he so careful to mention, that Pilate could 
not be persuaded to alter what he had written ? Lampe cer- 
tainly enters into the spirit of John, when he writes : " Assur- 
edly we have here an interposition of the providence of God, 
which guided the hand of Pilate, as he had formerly controlled 
the lips of Balaam and Caiaphas. We sincerely believe, that 
Pilate wrote this title under some remarkable impulse from God." 
And so Bengel says (on chap. xix. 22), " Pilate thought that he 
was acting upon his own authority, but was really obeying the 
authority of God." Moreover, in Christ's own actions we 
have his positive testimony, which admits of no exceptions, to 
the fact that he is the King of the Jews, or i-ather that he 
was so until his crucifixion, when the children of the king- 
dom were rejected in consequence of that event ; in other 
words, to the fact that Pilate was right in asking the Jews, 
" shall I crucify your King ?" and that it was not without reason 
that the soldiers plaited for Christ a crown of thorns, and having 
put on him a purple robe, exclaimed, " hail King of the Jews !" 
(chap. xix. 3). The same declaration, in deeds if not in words, 
is to be found in his entrance into Jerusalem (Matt. xxi. 1 — 11), 
in which there was a direct reference to the prophecy, " say to 
the daughter of Zion, behold thy King cometh to thee." — The 
announcement, " and there is not to him," came into operation 
when the Jews uttered the fatal words, " away with him, away 
with him, crucify him," and, " we have no king but Cfesar." 
Then it was, that they were given up by their king, whom they 
had solemnly renounced, and were delivered over to Caesar, to 
whom they had professed allegiance. 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 26. 155 



" And the city and sanctuary will the people of a prince, the 
coming one, destroy." 

There are many, who like '/. D. Michaelis, Jalin, and Blom- 
strand, imagine that, by the tj^ here we are to understand the 
same person, as by the ^V^ n^'? and n»ro mentioned before. 
In Confirmation of this opinion they appeal to the fact, that in 
the New Testament the destruction of Jerusalem is frequently / 
attributed to Christ, However, the following reasons are suffi- 
cient to show, that this opinion cannot be maintained, but that 
"'■'JJ refers to a heathen prince, and, as the issue proved, a Ro- 
man one, whilst the '•'people" (not " the people") are his army, 
1. The use of the word tjj alone, whereas the Messiah is called 
Tjj rrra and n'tt'D, leads to the conclusion that a contrast is 
intended, and makes it impossible to think of any other than a 
non-theocratic ruler. — 2. This contrast again is expressed as 
clearly as possible in the ^<aD (the coming one), attached to 
TJJ, which serves to point out this prince as a non-theocratic 
ruler, coming from without; just as the term "anointed" de- 
scribed more precisely the prince mentioned before. The gram- 
matical relation of N*3n to tjj is sufficient in itself to show that 
the former word is introduced, both as a more precise defini- 
tion, and also to point out a contrast. The grammatical con- 
nection of the two nouns n^u^a and i*JJ, and the fact that the 
former is placed first, whereas it is afterwards written alone, 
indicate a similar intention, ^an i»jj must not be rendered 
" of a coming prince," but " of a prince, the coming one." 
The article prevents us from taking xan as an adjective, agree- 
ing with TJJ. Just as the rule, that " a noun with the definite 
article cannot be joined to an adjective without it," is one 
that admits of no exceptions ; so is also the rule, that " an adjec- 
tive with the article cannot be connected with a noun without it." 
Hence the expression, " a prince, the coming one," in other words, 
" the one who is coming" (Eioald § 325 «), implies the previous 
existence of another prince, a native king ; and the Messiah has 
already been announced as answering this description. ni3 is 



156 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS, 

the standing expression in Daniel, to denote generally departure 
from one's own country into a foreign land, but more particularly 
the invasion of a country by a foreign king ; and in this sense it 
occurs again and again in chap. xi. (Compare vers. 13, 16, 21, 
40, 41). In the very first verse of the Book of Daniel it is used 
in connection with the attack made upon Jerusalem by a foreign 
foe. But there is a passage of peculiar importance in Jer. xxxvi. 
29, " the king of Babylon shall certainly come and destroy this 
land, and shall cause to cease from thence man and beast." We 
have here a parallel passage, which strikingly accords with the 
announcement in Daniel, if we adopt the explanation given above. 
In both, N13 is connected with n'pitt'n ; and " the prince" in 
the one case corresponds to the king of Babylon in the other. — 
The interpretation given hy Blomstrand and others, — namely, that 
" the coming one" means " the ficture one," must be rejected for 
the following reasons. The verb «''3 is never used in Daniel to 
denote futurity. The expression, " coming days," may no doubt 
be used in this sense ; but a coming prince would not, without 
further explanation, mean a prince who will appear at some 
future time. Again, the predicate would be a superfluous one, 
if this were the meaning ; for everything is future in prophecy, 
and in this section especially the whole relates to futurity. — 
Blomstrand quotes Matt. xxii. 7, to prove that it is Christ who is 
here referred to : " when the king heard thereof, he was wroth : 
and he sent forth his armies and destroyed those murderers, and 
burned up their city." It cannot be denied, that there is a" close 
connection between this passage, and the announcement in Daniel ; 
but with our explanation it is quite as obvious, for the whole 
context shows, that the foreign prince is to be regarded as the 
messenger of the anointed one. The term o spxai/^svos (the coming 
one), which is applied to Christ in the New Testament, and on 
which Blomstrand also relies, is not taken from this passage, but, 
as we shall afterwards see, from Malachi iii. 1. 

Several commentators connect the expression, "the coming 
one," not with the " prince," but " the people," " the people . . . 
that shall come." But it is a sufficient proof of the incorrectness 
of this explanation, that " the coming one" is a phrase evidently 
introduced for the purpose of distinguishing one prince from 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 26. 157 

another. In the case of the people, there is no room for any such 
distinction as is evidently indicated by the article in ^an (the 
coming one) ; for in the whole course of the prophecy there is no 
reference whatever to any native army. The absence of the 
article from the word d2 proves that it means men, and from 
the context we obtain the meaning soldiers. 



" And it ivill end in the flood." 

These words are intended to show the immense power of " the 
prince, the coming one," and to ward off every attempt to weaken 
the force of the word " destroy." The invasion of the foreign . 
prince resembles a flood, and the destruction is such, that it com- > 
pletely puts an end to both city and temple. 

It is evident from chap. xi. 45, that ivp can only mean, the 
end to which a person is brought. The question is, to what does 
the suffix refer ? Anti-Messianic expositors say, " to the heathen J 
prince." But the whole context is opposed to such an assump- 
tion, for the account of the desolations is continued after this ; and 
these desolations proceed from the very same prince, whose death 
is supposed to be predicted here. Moreover, the following ^i?., in 
which there is evidently an allusion to '^^\>, relates to the covenant 
nation and the holy land. There is not the least indication of 
the conqueror being defeated, in anything that follows ; so that if 
it is to him that reference is made here, the words must have 
been dropped into the text at random. 

The Messianic expositors all agree in this, that the suffix must 
refer to that which is described, both in the preceding and 
following clause, as destroyed and made desolate. But they 
differ from one another in their grammatical explanations. 
Some, like Geier, suppose that the suffix relates to the city and 
temple ; but, in this case, we should rather expect to find a 
plural. Others, Hke Sostmann, refer it merely to the temple ; 
but it is difficult to see, why peculiar prominence should be given 
to this ; seeing that both city and temple are spoken of in the 
preceding clause, and in the words which immediately follow. 



158 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

Vitringa and C. B. Micliaelis have given the correct version, et 
finis ejus rei} 

The following remarks furnish a certain clue to the meaning 
of n?W?. 1. The verb and noun are only used in Daniel, in 
connection with a hostile invasion ; in the same manner as in Is. 
viii. 8. Thus in chap. xi. 22, " and the arms of the flood — the 
Egyptian armies which had previously inflicted so much injury 
upon others — will be overflowed by him and broken ;" then, 
again, in chap. xi. 10, 26, 40. — 2. There is the less ground for 
giving up this meaning, which is the only established one, inas- 
much as the flood, mentioned here, evidently answers to the 
coming spoken of before, — namely, the hostile invasion of the holy 
land. — 3. The article in "^tott-s (with the flood) points back most 
distinctly to ^"^^ (the coming one). This is, at all events, the 
simplest explanation, and the one which most naturally suggests 
itself. It would be only in a different connection, that the 
article could be used generically. These remarks suffice at the 
outset to do away with a number of incorrect explanations ; for 
example that of Hofmann and Wieseler, who suppose that ^^'^' 
denotes " the execution of the judicial wrath of God," in support 
of which view not a single parallel passage can be adduced ; — 
that of Rosenmiiller, Rodiger, and others, who take " with a 
flood" to be equivalent to " suddenly ;" — and that of Steudel and 
Maurer : " vi quadam ineluctahili oppressus," &c. 

It will now be still more apparent, how unsuitable it is to 
refer these words to the heathen prince, and especially to 
Antiochus Epiphanes, as modern commentators have done. 

^ Examples are by no means rare, of this use of the suffix, and also of the 
separate pronoun, with reference, not to some particular noun that goes 
before, but to the whole matter in hand — (compare the N>in in Zech. xi. 11, 
and Jer. xxxii. 6 — 8, where it relates to the whole of the preceding sentence) 
— for example, Ezek. xviii. 26, " when the righteous man turneth away 
from his righteousness and committeth iniquity and dieth K^^^V.! on that 
account," — namely, because he has forsaken righteousness and committed un- 
righteousness : — Is. Ixiv. 5, " behold thou art wroth, for we have sinned ; nna 
D^iy, in them (sin and wrath) we are now already an eternity ;" — Prov. 
xiv. 13, nnnns finis ejus rei, — namely, if one laughs ; Ps. Ixxxi. 6, " for 
a testimony in Joseph he has ordained this, "job)" the keeping of the feasts 
of praise and thanksgiving, recommended in the previous verse. 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 26. 159 

Did lie find his end in the same expedition, in which he destroj'ed 
the city and temple ? We have here the very opposite of the 
oppression by Antiochus Epiphanes. Of this the prophet never 
speaks, without at the same time announcing its termination. 
In chap. xi. 36 he says, with reference to him, " and he shall 
prosper until the indignation be accomplished." The oppression 
referred to here, on the contrary, is not nv-ny (chap. xi. 25) ; 
its end coincides with that of its object. This is expressly 
stated, and hence it is evident that the prophecy closes with 
the threat of the utter destruction of city and temple. The ex- 
pression itself precludes a merely partial destruction, and there 
is not the least intimation of their being restored again. 



'■^ And to the end is war ; decree of ruins." 

Many connect these words together, so as to form one sentence : 
" and to the end of the war is decree of desolations." But we 
prefer to take them in the manner indicated above ; first, because 
the evident connection between Vi?. and "isi? leads us rather to 
think of the termination of the whole affair ; — again, because 
nonSo has no article, which we should expect it to have, if it 
referred to a certain definite war already mentioned, just as in 
the case of i:^!i' the article is prefixed, the particular flood, 
referred to, already predicted ; — and also because the decree of 
ruins has its starting point, rather than its goal, in the end of j 
the war, — a difficulty, which these expositors avoid only by giving 
to nScDi:/ the inadmissible rendering devastations. The meaning 
is, that the war and the decree of ruins will only terminate, when 
the object itself ceases to exist. It is no passing hostile invasion, 
that is here referred to, like that which occurred in the time of 
Antiochus Epiphanes ; but one in which the city and the temple ^ 
would be completely destroyed. 

nvnnj might, from the form of the word, be in the absolute 

V vv:v o ■ ' 

state, like ^D!^^. in Zech. xi. 9. But, as nvnri.^. is found in every 
other case, in which the absolute state occurs (cf. Is. x. 23, 
xxviii. 22), and as the form, used here, is met with, not only in 



160 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

chap. xi. 36, but even in the present prophecy, and, again, as this 
participle in the Niphal always has the force of a substantive, 
meaning " something cut off," — viz., a sentence, sententia perem- 
toria (an expression taken probably from judicial language and 
used to denote a fixed, irrevocable, final sentence ; see below at 
ver. 27) — it is best to follow the Syriac, and render it as a noun 
in the construct state. 

If we look to the derivation of nSon'^ from the intransitive 
verb Doif', of which it is a participle (on this point see ver. 27) , 
it can have no other meaning than: devastated places, ruins, 
certainly not " devastations" in Q,n active sense. This is con- 
firmed by the usage of the language. We find it at ver. 18 of 
this chapter : " look upon our desolations, l^'^bp'^:^. In Ezek. 
xxxvi. 4, it is construed as an adjective, and joined to '^"i^^n, 
and in Is. Ixi. 4 it occurs twice as a parallel to it. It never 
even assumes the appearance of an abstract. The decree of the 
ruins is the decree, to which the ruins belong, inasmuch as it has 
called them into existence. 

There is something remarkable in the relation in which these 
last words stand to the closing words of ver. 25 ; a relation which 
is indicated in both places by the introduction of the verb V7P- 
By the irrevocable decree of God, the city now lying in ruins will 
be rebuilt ; by an equally irrevocable decree, it will be laid in 
ruins again. 



Ver. 27. "And one week loill confirm the covenant to the 
many (or ' he will confirm the covenant to the many one week ') 
and the middle of the week loill cause sacrifice and meat- 
offeri7ig to cease, and the destroyer comes over the summit of 
abominations, and indeed until that ivhich is completed and 
determined shall pour doivn upon the desolate places." 



And one loeek will confirm the covenant to the many (or ' he 
loill confirm the covenant to the many onetveek'J." 

Many suppose that the subject of I'^^O (will confirm) is the 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 161 

( heathen prince. But, apart from the substance of the clause 
itself, it is a sufficient objection to this opinion, that the " com- 
ing prince" is not mentioned immediately before ; that he only 
occupies a subordinate position in ver. 26 ; " and that even there he 
is not the subject of a sentence," (Hitzig). According to others, 

' "the week" is the subject, (Theodotion: xal ^wocf^uasi W- 
Qriitriv TtoXXoTs sli^oixa.^ /^la), SO that we have here an example of 
the idiom, frequently met with, in which a place, or a period of 
time, is described as performing, whatever takes place within it. 
We have a specimen of the former in Ps. Ixv. 12, 13. " the hills 
rejoice ; the valleys shout for joy ;" and of the latter in Mai. iv. 
1, " the day cometh that shall burn as an oven ;" — in Job iii. 3, 
" the night which said there is a man child conceived ;" — in 
ver. 10, where the night is cursed, because it did not shut up 
the doors of the womb ; — and again in Prov. xxvii. 10. Nu- 
merous examples are cited by SchuUens (p. 41) from Arabic 
authors; and by Gronovius (observv. i. 1, c. 2) from writers in 
other languages. — Lastly, there are others who regard " the ) 
anointed one" as the subject. From what has already been 
stated, there can be no doubt, that the action referred to here 
really belongs to him. The fact that he is not mentioned 
in the context immediately before, is not of great importance. 
What Maurer has erroneously asserted with reference to Antio- 
chus, — namely, that " it would not have been of any consequence, \^ 
if the distance had been greater, seeing that Antiochus is the 
leading character of the whole epoch," is really applicable to 
" the anointed one." In the whole section he is the leading 
person, and even the coming prince, in ver. 26, is his agent. In 
ver. 24 the anointed one appears, as the centre of all the divine 
operations, the dispenser of every blessing. In ver. 26, again, it 
is he, whose death is described as causing the rejection of the 
whole nation (see the clause immediately following). But of 
ver. 26 we have a further expansion in the verse before us. 
First of all, it contains a fuller explanation with reference to the 
anointed one, and then returns to the " prince, the coming one." 
Again, the passage in Isaiah, upon which this is based, and to 
which allusion is made in chap. xi. 33, and xii. 3 (Is. liii. 11) : j 
" by his knowledge will the righteous one, my servant, justify ' 
many," favours the supposition that the anointed one is the sub- 

VOL. III. L 



162 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

ject (compare vol. ii., p. 305). With this we may also compare 
Is. xlii. 6, where Christ is described as the personal and living 
covenant of the nation. 

Some commentators maintain, that the one week is not to be 
connected with the previous sixty-nine, as necessarily following 
immediately upon them ; but that the reference is merely to some 
week or other, which must not be too far removed from the 
other sixty-nine. This one week, they say, is the one which was 
followed by the destruction of Jerusalem. But we can see at 
once, that this opinion has not been formed from an impartial 
examination of the text, but from the attempt to escape from a 
difficulty, caused by comparing the prophecy with its fulfilment. 
Vitringa (in his hypotyposis historise et chronologicB sacrae) has 
laid it down, as one of the fundamental rules to be observed 
in the interpretation of this prophecy, " that the period of seventy 
hebdomads, or 490 years, is here predicted, as one that will con- 
tinue uninterruptedly from its commencement to its close or com- 
pletion, both with regard to the entire period of seventy hebdo- 
mads, and also as to the several parts (7, 62, and 1), into which 
the seventy are divided. What can be more evident than this ? 
Exactly seventy weeks in all are to elapse ; and how can any one 
imagine, that there is an interval between the sixty-nine and the 
one, when these together make up the seventy ? But the most 
fatal objection to this theory lies in the impossibility of discover- 
ing, in the week supposed to be alluded to, that which was really 
its distinguishing characteristic, — namely, the conformation of the 
covenant. For where do we find, in the whole period of the 
Roman war, manifestations of mercy of so striking a character, 
and so strongly confirmatory of the covenant of the Lord with 
his people, that it was a fitting thing to pass over the seventieth 
week in perfect silence, with all the proofs of mercy which were 
really given them, merely for the purpose of giving prominence 
to this particular week ? Some would gladly get rid of this 
argument, by leaving the one week, to which the confirming of 
the covenant belonged, the actual seventieth week, and simply 
assigning to the half week, which follows, a position outside the 
cycle of the seventy, embracing the period of the Jewish war. 
Bat a difficulty arises here, — namely, the article in ^i3"f D, which 
prevents us from understanding thereby a half week generally, 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 163 

and compels us to explain it, as referring to the particular week 
mentioned just before. 

The one thing, which has given occasion to this false interpre- 
tation, is the notion, that the destruction of Jerusalem by the ! 
Romans must necessarily fall within the limits, embraced by the 
chronological data given in the prophecy ; a notion which led even 
the acute-minded Scaliger, to resort to the most forced and far- 
fetched assumptions. Vitringa, on the other hand, has laid down 
the sound canon : " These hebdomads terminated in the three 
years, which immediately followed the death of Jesus Christ ; for 
his death was undoubtedly to happen in the middle of the last 
hebdomad, after the seven and sixty-two years had already come 
to an end." That there is no ground for the former opinion, we 
shall see when we come to explain the words, " the middle of the 
week will cause sacrifice and meat-offering to cease." 

•n's^n means " to make strong," " to confirm ;" and we have no 
right to attribute other meanings to the word, as Bertholdt and 
Hitzig have done. This is evident from the derivation, from tiie 
use of the Piel {e.g., Zech. x. 6, 12), and also from the meaning 
of the Hiphil in the only other passage in which it occurs, — 
namely, Ps. xii. 5. 

, By the covenant, many understand the covenant already in 
I existence ; others, again, the new covenant to be established by 
the anointed one {cf. Jer. xxxi. 31). The absence of the article 
must not be relied upon, as a proof of the correctness of the latter 
view. For there are other passages in this book, in which the 
word nns is used without the article, though the Old Testa- 
ment covenant is intended (xi. 28, 30, 32) ; just as li'ip with- 
out the article is employed to denote tlte sanctuary in chap, viii, 
13. (The absence of the article may be explained on the ground, 
that the words covenant and sanctuary had grown into proper 
names). At all events, whether it be the confirmation of the 
covenant already in existence, or the establishment of a new one, 
that is here referred to, — (in the latter case " making the cove- 
nant strong" would be equivalent to " concluding a strong 
covenant"), — a contrast is evidently intended to the quality of \ 
the previous covenant, which had not been fortified by sucii 
glorious manifestations of the grace of God, as were witnessed 
now, and, therefore, could only be regarded as Aveak in com- 



164 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

parison with that which was now about to be conckided, and 
which would be based upon the forgiveness of sins, the impartation 
of eternal righteousness, and the anointing of the Holy of Holies. 
Again, the word nna is never used in the book of Daniel, except 
in chap. xi. 22,^ to denote any other kind of covenant than that of 
God with Israel ; and this fact alone is sufficient to show that the 
expression can hardly refer to an alliance, into which Antiochus 
Epiphanes entered with some rebellious members of the covenant 
people, — an explanation which we should be obliged to reject on 
many other grounds. 

The comprehensive phrase " to strengthen the covenant," 
embraces the communication of all the blessings, already pro- 
mised by the prophet in ver. 24. 

The article in D'snS may be generic, "the many" in contra- 
distinction to the few ; compare Matt. xxiv. 12. The many are 
few. when looked at from another point of view. This declaration 
is both preceded and followed by the announcement, that the 
mass of the people will be destroyed. But it is a consolation to 
know, that salvation is still to be imparted to the many ; though 
not to the nation as a whole. 

There can be but little doubt, that there is an illusion to Is. 
liii. 11 in the expression " to the many ;" the strengthening of 
the covenant corresponding to the justifying announced in Isaiah. 
And this supposition is confirmed by a comparison of chap. xi. 
33 and xii. 3. 

The occasion of the prophecy is sufficient to explain the fact, 
that, both here and in ver. 24, we only read of what the Messiah 
would do for the faithful among the Jeios. Daniel was impelled 
to make intercession by his fear, that the Lord had rejected Israel 
on account of its sins. What could be more natural, therefore, 
than that the answer from God should embrace only what was 
requisite to dissipate this fear ? 

We simply add the excellent paraphrase, which Vitringa has 
given of these words (in the Observv. T. ii. p. 258) : " in the 

1 The covenant-prince in this passage can only be the covenanted prince, 
compare nna Sy3, Gen. xiv. 13. In chap. xi. 32, on the other hand, Hitzig 
has correctly maintained in opposition to Hdvernick, that the covenant of 
God with Israel is intended : " In the whole book, not excepting chap. xi. 32, 
the word nns is applied to the covenant of God with Israel. 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 165 

meantime God will have regard to very many elect, who are to 
be preserved v-xr BxKoyriv x^piros, and to whom the covenant of 
divine grace will be made known by Christ and his apostles ; — 
a covenant to be confirmed and attested by illustrious miracles 
and gifts of the Holy Spirit, which are to be displayed among 
them, especially for seven years, reckoning from the time when 
the Lord shall have first entered upon his public ministry in the 
midst of the Jews." 



"And the middle of the week will fin the middle of the week 
loill he) cause sacrifice and, burnt-offering to cease" 

"^fn means the half oxidi the middle. No one can dispute the 
latter meaning ; compare, for example, nS'Sn »yn, the middle of 
the night, Ex. xii. 29 ;— o'l^trn 'vn, the midst of the heavens, Josh. 
X. 13. And it is also evident that this must be the meaning here ; 
for if the half of the week had been intended, it would certainly 
have been stated which half was referred to. 

If " the anointed one" is the subject, the accusative must be 
used in the same sense as in nS'S nivn (Job. xxxiv. 20), and 
rnnvN b^ni^ at the beginning of the night, in Judg. vii. 19 ; com- 
pare Ewald § 279). 

Sacrifice and meat-ofiering are individual examples, selected 
for sacrifices of every kind ; compare Ps. xl. 7, where the list is 
more comprehensive. 

The fact that the strengthening of the covenant is to go on 
during the whole of the week, in the middle of which the sacrifice 
and meat-ofiering cease, is a proof that it is not to be a sorrowful 
event for believers, but rather a cause of joy; whilst on the other 
hand its connection with the destruction of the temple which is 
announced immediately afterwards, shows that, so far as the un- 
believing portion of the nation is concerned, it is to be regarded 
as a judgment. If we inquire now in what way this cessation of 
sacrificial worship is to be brought about ; the death of the Mes- 
siah at once suggests itself as the cause. That the expression 
" after sixty-two weeks" (sixty-nine if we reckon from the going 
forth of the word) cannot be understood to mean, that the Mes- 
siah was to be cut ofi" at the very beginning of the seventietii 



166 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

week is evident from the simple fact, that if this were the case, 
the point of time fixed for his appearance and that for his death 
would coincide (compare ver. 25, " from the going forth of the 
word . . unto the Messiah are sixty-nine weeks") ; and the 
words themselves, " after sixty-nine weeks," clearly show that we 
must not go beyond the middle of the seventieth week, the period 
fixed for the cessation of the sacrificial worship. 

But in what respect did the death of Christ put an end to the 
sacrificial ceremonies ? So far as the abolition was a benefit, 
the question may easily be answered. The Levitical ritual was 
abolished as weak and unprofitable (Heb. vii. 18), when the true 
forgiveness of sins had been procured by the death of Christ, and 
eternal righteousness was brought in. The shadow vanished in 
the presence of the substance, the type before the antitype. But, 
with reference to the abrogation as a punishment, as Frischmuth 
says : " the question has respect, not to the bare fact of the 
abolition, but to its having taken place in a legal point of view." 
The sacrificial rites had been established by God himself, as an 
attestation of his covenant with Israel (see the remarks on Zech. 
ix. 11). When, therefore, this covenant ceased to exist, in con- 
sequence of the murder of his son, the sacrificial rites ceased at 
the same time, so far as everything essential was concerned ; 
since this depended entirely upon their being appointed and ap- 
proved of God. The question, therefore, as to their being out- 
wardly maintained for some time longer, did not come into 
consideration at all. Their actual cessation was merely an 
outward proclamation of a decree, which had already been 
carried into efiect at the very moment of the Saviour's death. 
The only end, which it answered, was to take away from Israel 
a merely imaginary possession. And in the same way, the 
destruction of the city and temple by the Komans was nothing 
but an outward manifestation of a state of things, which existed 
already. When Christ was put to death, Jerusalem ceased to 
be the holy city, and the temple was no longer the house of God, 
but an abomination. Hence, in connection with all the three 
things mentioned in this prophecy, the only point to which pro- 
minence is given, and which is placed in its chronological position, 
is one which involves all the rest, and of which the others were 
but the development. We have just the same kind of represen- 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 167 

tatioa in Zech. xi., where the raging of civil strife, and the 
devastation of the city and land by foreign foes, are placed in 
immediate connection with the rejection of the Messiah, and his 
abdication of the office of shepherd. The supernatural agency, 
by which the former had been hitherto warded off, ceased at once 
with the occurrence of the latter ; and it was of little consequence, 
whether the natural causes, by which they were brought about, 
required a longer or shorter period for their full development. 
When once Jesus had been condemned to death, " immediately 
the fig-tree (of the Jewish nation) withered away." From that 
time forth (aiixpri, Matt. xxvi. 64) , the Son of Man was engaged 
in coming to judgment. In the prospect of his death the Saviour 
wept over the city ; so distinctly did he foresee its destruction 
(Luke xix. 41 — 44), the root of which was to be seen in the fact, 
that it knew not the time of its visitation. With reference to 
the close connection between the death of Christ, and the destruc- 
tion of the city, see also Luke xx. 14 — 18, and xxiii. 48. 

Theodoret points out the fact, that what is here announced, as 
the effect of Christ's death, was symbolised at the moment of his 
death by the rending of the veil of the temple (Matt, xxvii. 51 ; 
Mark xv. 18), and Calvin, in his excellent remarks on the 
meaning of this symbolical event (harmonia Evang. p. 368), 
from which we can only make a short extract, has shown that 
there is a real foundation for this statement in two respects, in both 
of which the abolition of the sacrificial worship is here predicted. 
" The rending of the veil," he says, " was not only an abrogation 
of the ceremonies, which had been maintained under the law, 
but as it were an opening of the heavens, that God might now 
invite the members of his Son to approach him with familiarity. 
In the meantime the Jews were admonished, that an end was 
put to outward sacrifices ; that henceforth the ancient priesthood 
could no longer be required, and that, although the walls of the 
temple might continue to stand, God was not to be worshipped 
there any more, with the rites they had hitherto performed. The 
substance and truth of the shadows were now perfectly realized, 
and therefore the letter of the law was changed into spirit." 



168 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 



^' And over (the) summit of abominations (comes the) 
destroyer." 

We take 1^?, wing, to be a figurative term denoting the 
summit. It is not difficult to find philological proofs of the cor- 
rectness of this view, for it is generally admitted that such a 
figurative use of the word does occur in Hebrew. The wings of 
a garment are the two ends of it ; the wings of the earth (Is. xi. 
12), extrema terrarum. In Rabbinical Hebrew, "the wings of 
the lungs " are extremitates 'pulmonis. In the New Testament, 
" the wing of the temple," in Matt. iv. 5, and Luke iv. 9, is the 
summit, not of some adjoining building, but of the temple itself, 
see Fritzsche's reply to Killmoel and others). The idea is so 
closely connected with the nature of the object, that we find it in 
nearly every language. We will merely cite a few examples 
from the Greek. The direct meaning of uripvyioii, as given by 
Suidas and Hesychius, is dy.pojrripm. The latter mentions some 
examples of this use of the word: itnpvyia, ^ipos n rov pvfxov, 

x.ai rov TrvEiz/AOvoj tov Xo^ov ra, axpa, xou rov euros ro avo;, xa.1 
%i(povs ra. sx-aripcodsv, yj ra. axpa rSv l/xacriojv. According to 

Pollux the outer side of an oar was called 'nrspa. ([. 62). — 
In the D»2fii3tt', abominations, there is doubtless, among other 
things, a special reference to idols ; for not only is this the sense, 
which the word almost invariably bears (even Nahum iii. 6 is 
not an exception, compare i. 14),* but there are several passages 
in the earlier writings, which we shall quote presently, that appear 
to have formed the basis on which this clause is founded, and in 
which this use of D'yiijs^y generally prevails. — In our opinion, the 
I wing of abominations is the summit of the temple, which has 
' been so desecrated by abominations, that it no longer deserves to 
be called the temple of the Lord, but a temple of idolatry. In 
this expression we may perceive the reason, why the temple is 
laid in ruins, in the manner predicted here, oiy^i? we render 
destroyer; and in defence of this rendering, we appeal to the 

1 In Hos. ix. 6 the word is applied to idolatrous worshippers, but only to 
show the close connection between the worshippers and the idols themselves, 
"and they became abominations like their idols." The rule therefore is 
without exception. 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 169 

ordinary meaning of the Poel ; — to chap. xi. 31, where the par- 
ticiple is indisputably used in this sense ; — and to the evident 
antithesis in the words do'^i?, and ooi^, the latter of which 
can have no other meaning than " the destroyer." 

That the destroyer is said to be, or come, over the summit of 
the temple, we regard as a sign of its utter ruin ; inasmuch as 
the capture of the highest part presupposes the possession of all 
the rest. A fortress, for example, is completely taken, when the 
enemy has surmounted its loftiest battlements. 

The philological correctness of this explanation no one will be 
able to call in question, after what we have already written.^ Its 
distinguishing characteristic is this, that it shows the destruction 
of the temple to have been occasioned by the desecration, which 
it had received from the covenant nation itself In support of 
this explanation the following arguments, of a positive nature, 
may be adduced. 

1. It is in harmony with all the rest of the prophecy. The 
ancient temple is described in the prophecy as changed, on 
account of the unbelief of the people and the murder of the 
Messiah, from a house of God into a house of abominations, 
which must be destroyed. In this respect it is contrasted with 
a Holy of Holies, which is to be anointed, according to ver. 24, 
at the end of the seventy weeks. The destruction of the temple, 
which is no longer a temple, or dwelling place of the true God, 
corresponds to the cessation of the sacrifices, which are not sacri- 
fices now. 

2. The destruction of the second temple is most closely related 
to that of the first. That there was nothing accidental in either 
of these, but that both were effected by the avenging justice of 
God, who was inflicting punishment for the apostasy of his 
people and the desecration of his temple, was demonstrated by 

1 Gesenius says in the thesaurus : " if we follow the Masoretic points and 
the rules of syntax, this ought to be rendered ' above the top of the abomina- 
tions will be the destroyer ;' but with the parallel passages, xi. 31 and xii. 
11, against such a rendering, it is better to interpret the passage, as if the 
reading had been DDtfo 'Vipif f]J3 Syi : ' and the abominations of the 
destroyer, {i.e. the idol of Antiochus,) will be placed on the top of the temple.' " 
So that the true meaning is to be given up, and a false one preferred, because 
of the parallel passages ; although this false interpretation is at variance with 
history ! It would be better to look a little more closely into the meaning of 
these parallel passages. 



170 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

God with such clearness, that it ought to have opened the eyes 
of the blindest, • and to have proved to him, that the theocracy 
was not a fiction, but a reality. The second destruction hap- 
pened on precisely the same day as the first. " And now," — 
says Josephus, de bello Jud. vi. 4, 5, after having related how 
Titus had resolved to spare the temple, but had been prevented 
from carrying his resolution into effect, by the much earlier decree 
of God, — " and now that fatal period had come round, the tenth 
day of the month Lous, in which the former one had been burned 
by the king of the Babylonians." What a seal did God thus 
set upon the book of his revelations ! — With the two events so 
closely connected, we cannot but be prepossessed in favour of 
such an expla,nation of the passage announcing the second 
destruction, as places cause and effect in precisely the same rela- 
tion to each other, as that in which they stood in the predictions 
of the first ; especially when we consider, that Daniel himself had 
been an eye-witness of this connection, that he had given new life 
to the writings of the earlier men of God, and that the study of 
these writings had been the immediate occasion of that interces- 
sion, which led to his receiving the revelation before us. — Let us 
proceed now to an examination of the passages themselves. In 
2 Kings xxi. 2 sqq. we read : " Manasseh did that which was 
evil in the sight of the Lord, after the abominations of the 
heathen, whom the Lord cast out before the children of Israel ; 
— and he built altars in the house of the Lord, — and he placed 
the image of Asherah, which he had made, in the temple.^^And 
the Lord spake by his servants the prophets, saying, because 
Manasseh hath done these abominations, — and hath made Judah 
also to sin with his abominations, — therefore thus saith the 
Lord, behold I bring evil upon Jerusalem and Judah — and I 
stretch over Jerusalem the measuring line of Samaria — and I 
destroy the remnant of mine inheritance, and give them into the 
hand of their enemies, — because they have done evil in my 
sight." Now if we turn to Jer. vii. 10 sqq., we read there: 
" they place their abominations in the house, upon which my 
name is called to pollute it. — Is this house, upon which my 
name is called, a den of robbers in your eyes ? — Therefore will I 
do unto this house, upon which my name is called and wherein 
ye trust, and to the place, which I gave to you and to your 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 171 

fathers, as I have done to Shiloh." And again in Ezekiel we 
find, in chap. v. 11, "wherefore as I live, saith the Lord God, 
because thou hast defiled the sanctuary with all tliine abo- 
minations, and with all thy detestable things ("iiiyiisi?'"^^? 
■;|)nhy'iin-SD?!))j I also will take away and my eye shall know 
no pity, and I will not spare ;" — in chap. vii. 8, 9, " I send upon 
thee all thine abominations. I will send upon thee according to 
thy ways, and thine abominations shall be in the midst of thee ;" 
— ver. 20, " and liis beautiful ornament he has changed into 
pride, and the images of their abominations they made into 
detestable things therein ; therefore 1 give it to them for un- 
cleanness, and I give it (their ornament) into the hand of 
strangers for a prey, and to the ungodly for a spoil, and they 
pollute it;" — and in ver. 22, "and I turn my face away from 
them, and they (the enemies) pollute my secret place (the Holy 
of Holies) and the vricked enter into it and defile it." Many, 
like Rosenmilller, who follows Jerome, understand by ♦??• 
■i'ly. not the ornament of his beauty, but his beautiful orna- 
ment, — " gold and silver, and every good thing, which had been 
conferred upon them by God." But it is evident that the allu- 
sion is to the temple, and the following proofs are decisive : the 
word .J^l^Vn in ver. 21 ; — the 23d verse, where the Holy of 
Holies is mentioned by way of climax ; — the expression in ver. 

20, "I give it to them for uncleanness (the sanctuary, which 
they have defiled, shall become a source of uncleanness to them, 
instead of holiness ; — and the parallel passage in chap. xxiv. 

21, "behold I profane my sanctuary, my glorious beauty, the 
desire of your eyes, the pasture of your souls " (compare Jer. vii. 
4, and Is. Ixvi. 3, 4). Now the prophecy of Daniel stands in 
the same relation to these, as the eleventh chapter of Zechariah 
to the two prophecies of Jeremiah. 

3. " Wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be 
gathered together." These words of the Lord point out to us 
the cause of all the evil, that ever has befallen the church of God, 
whether under the Old or the New Testament, and that ever 
will befal it. This connection between the ^^ where " and the 
" ^Aere " was apparent even in the oppression under Antiochus 
Epiphanes ; and if a careful examination of the passages relating 



172 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

to that event leads to the conclusion, that Daniel recognises it 
here, and has even designedly given it prominence ; if we see, for 
example, that he represents the desecration of the temple by a 
heathen, as the consequence of a previous desecration by the 
people of the covenant themselves, we shall be all the more dis- 
posed to believe that, in the case before us also, he calls atten- 
tion to the renewed operation of this fundamental law. The 
passages in question are the following: chap. xi. 31, " and arms 
(brachia) shall arise from him (eojuhente, GeseniusJ, and pol- 
lute the sanctuary, the stronghold, and take away the constant 
(thing), and send the abomination (Vip^D) as a destroyer." 
These words are of the greater importance, since they contain 
the same characteristic expressions as our own passage, and we 
are therefore led to conclude, that there is an intimate connection 
between the two. We take d'VI, '"arms," in the sense of aids, 
helpers (compare Ps. Ixxxiii. 9, Ezek. xxxi. 17, and verse 6 of 
this chapter), and refer the suffix in iJ^i? to the heathen king, 
i.e., taking history as our guide, to Antiochus Epiphanes. The 
arms, the helpers furnished by him, are " those that forsake the 
holy covenant," ver. 30, " those that blaspheme the covenant," 
ver. 32, vSij which is always a feminine, is construed here as a 
masculine, on account of its meaning. There is evidently an 
antithesis in the expressions " they take away" and " the constant 
(thing)." They take away, that which ought not to be inter- 
rupted for a single moment, all the signs of the worship and 
supremacy of the Lord. Commentators have, for the most part, 
incorrectly interpreted the passage, as referring exclusively to the 
daily sacrifice. Tcri is never found alone, as in this case, when 
it refers to one particular object ; though, where there are other 
words to show the allusion, it is used, not only of the daily 
sacriiSce, but also of the fire on the altar, of the sacred lamps, 
of the show-bread, and other things. The prophet embraces 
the whole of these, as Gousset (s.v.) has correctly explained. 
The word give is used with direct reference to the expression 
take away. They put in its place. The whole sum and sub- 
stance of idolatry is included in the word V''P^^?, " the abomina- 
tion." They give this as a destroying thing, because their 
actions bring destruction in its train as a righteous punishment. 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 173 

in perfect keeping with the chxuse, " they desecrate the sanctuary, 
the stronghold." Because they have desecrated that, which 
hitherto has afforded them a sure protection, — namely, the tem- 
ple ; they are now given helplessly over to their enemies by a 
righteous retribution. The antithesis to " the giving of the 
abomination" as a destinictive thing, which constitutes the 
starting point of the evil to be inflicted, is formed by " the 
giving of the abomination" as a thing destroyed, i.e. the anni- 
hilation thereof to be effected by God, which constitutes the 
close. With this explanation, the passage harmonises perfectly 
with that in Daniel, according to the interpretation we have 
given above. In both of them, the abomination is represented 
as something " which brings in its train a fearful tragedy of 
devastation, as sin is followed by punishment. The abomina- 
tions are regarded as the antecedent, that is as the sin, which 
is punished by the coming destroyer through the just judg- 
ment of God" (Lampe in his valuable treatise on the l2^iKvyfxa 
rrii epniMuuicui, in the Bibl. Brem. cl. 3, p. 990 sqq.). Ber- 
tholdt gives a different explanation, and Hitzig, Maurer, and 
Wieseler are substantially of his opinion. He says: "and 
his troops (those of Antiochus) will desecrate the fortified 
sanctuary, and will abolish the daily sacrifice, and set up the 
abomination of desolation." If this be correct, the scandal 
is represented as proceeding, not from the midst of the cove- 
nant nation itself, but from the heathen. But, apart from 
the fact that T'pp'D and oo'^'p vijs^'n are incorrectly rendered, 
the following objections may be offered to this explanation. 
(1). It is at variance with the context. Vers. 30, 32 are 
occupied with the members of the covenant nation itself, who 
had treacherously forsaken the covenant of the Lord. What 
could lead, then, to the abrupt introduction of an account 
of the foreign troops between the two ? — (2.) If we examine the 
8th chapter, we find the abomination described there, as some- 
thing proceeding from the covenant nation itself (see also chap, 
xi. 14). — (3.) D'V"^] can hardly be understood as meaning 
armies. For if it were used in this sense, the feminine would 
be employed, as in vers. 15, 22. — (4.) T'ivsD, the fortress, points 
to a desecration on the part of the covenant nation itself As a 



174 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

contrast to I'^'pn, it shows the guilt and folly of the deed. They 
rob themselves of their own stronghold. — The second passage is 
chap. viii. 12: yWP.^ T?pD"^y ID^n n?vi. We render this: "and 
the army is given up for the consent (thing) on account of 
the wickedness ;" equivalent to " on account of tlie wickedness, 
which has been committed, in connection with the constant thing." 
There is no grammatical difficulty in the way of Be Weffe's 
rendering, " and the army is given up along with the continual 
offering, on account of the wickedness." But there is nothing to 
show what the wickedness is. That »*^5?, army, (a feminine 
in this case, as it is in Is. xl. 2, and always is in the plural), 
can only be understood, as referring to the army of the Lord, 
— namely, the people of the covenant, is evident from the feet that 
it is used in this sense in vers. 10, 11. Even if there were 
nothing in the word itself, to prevent its being employed in a 
diiferent sense, it could not be differently interpreted here. If 
it were used in any other sense in this passage, it would only 
cause confusion. Israel had just before been compared to the 
army of heaven, the stars, because it was a " kingdom" (Ex. 
xix. 6), a royal nation, the stars being a symbol of kings. ^ It 
is evident from ver. 13, that yv?^^ must refer to wickedness, 
proceeding from the midst of the covenant people ; for they are 
expressly described in this verse as y^^D. The correct render- 
ing is : " how long will the vision last, the constant thing and the 
wickedness laid waste, the giving of the sanctuary and also of 
the army to destruction?" Dot:/, as a thing destroyed, corres- 
ponds to DD-ia nn, to give for a treading down ; ^"^^ (the 
sanctuary) to I'^^D (the constant thing) ; and a^^ (the army) 
to VI^'.^D (wickedness). The explanation we have given is con- 
firmed by ver. 23, where the oppression of the covenant nation 

1 Wieseler and Hitzig rely upon the absence of the article, as a proof that 
Israel is not referred to. But we must be very careful how we deal with 
arguments based upon the mere introduction, or omission of the article. It 
was not required here, because the particular allusion was sufficiently clear, 
on account of the relation in which the words stood to vers. 10 and 11. 
" The artistical brevity of the later writers is seen most strikingly," says 
Ewald, " in the omission of the article ;" and he cites as an example imp, 
the sanctuary, Daniel viii. 13 sqq., and x. 1. Another example might be 
quoted from Daniel, — viz. the use of nnn without the article, to denote the 
Old Testament covenant. 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 175 

is described as occurring D'V?'sn onn?, " when the transgres- 
sors are finished," that is, when the measure of iniquity is full, 
and punishment is thereby brought down with violence.^ The 
historical fulfilment favours the explanation, which we have given, 
of both these passages. In all three sources of the history of the 
sufferings endured under Antiochus Epiphanes, they are repre- 
sented as the result of the abominations, which existed in the midst 
of the covenant nation itself, and as a just retribution. This is 
particularly the case with regard to the desecration of the temple. 
It is to Jews, not to heathen, that that desecration is ascribed. — 
We are the more inclined to quote some of the passages, because 
they serve at the same time to set before us the course, which 
God generally pursues in such circumstances, both as regards 
prophecy and its fulfilment, and thus furnish an additional 
proof of the correctness of our interpretation, altogether apart 
from the passages in the book of Daniel. The rebellious mem- 
bers of the covenant nation were the cause of its sufferings, not 
only because they first induced Antiochus to interfere in the 
affairs of that nation (see 1 Mace. i. 11), but also, from a higher 
point of view, because their wickedness called down the vengeance 
of God, see 2 Mace. iv. 15 sqq. " Setting at nought the honours 
of their fathers, and liking the glory of the Grecians best of all ; 
hy reason whereof sore calamity came upon them ; for they had 
them, to he their enemies and avengers, whose custom they 
followed so earnestly, and unto whom they desired to be like in 
all things. For it is not a light thing to do wickedly against 
the laios of God, bid the time folloioing icill declare these 
things." By this the city lost that salvation, which the Lord 
had formerly bestowed upon it, when a better state of mind 
prevailed ; see chap. iii. 1, 2, " now when the holy city ivas 

1 Hitzig, perceiving that d'^u'S in this verse could not be separated from 
yu'S in vers. 12, 13, observes that the transgressors here are no doubt the 
same as those, who were guilty of the transgression mentioned in ver. 12, 
— namely " the heathen." This is certainly consistent. Maurer, on the other 
hand, says : " but Alexander and his successors are nowhere so described." 
And Michaelis observes, more profoundly still, " The term ' transgressors,' 
when the word is used absolutely, is applied to such of the Jews as trans- 
gressed against God and his law, rather than to Gentiles (inasmuch as the 
latter had not yet received a i-evelation of the law, or the covenant of God), 
cf. Is. i. 2, xlvi. 8, xlviii. 8, and Ez. xx. 38. 



176 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

inhabited loith all peace ; and the laws ivere kept very ivell, 
because of the godliness of Onias the high priest, and Ms hatred 
of wickedness, it came to pass that even the kings themselves 
did honour the place, and magnified the temple with their best 
gifts." The rebels were indirectly the sole cause of the desecra- 
tion of the temple, and also assisted directly in that desecration : 
see 1 Mace. i. 33 sqq. The Syrians prepared a stronghold, " and 
they put therein a sinful nation, ty^ansgressors of the laiv, and 
fortified themselves therein." — That we are to understand, by the 
sinful nation and the transgressors of the law, apostate members 
of the covenant nation, is evident both from the words them- 
selves and also from Josephus (Antiquities xii. 5, 4 ; compare 
J. D. Michaelis in loc). — Ver. 36. " For it was a place to lie 
in wait against the sanctuary, and an evil adversary to Israel, 
thus they shed innocent blood on every side of the sanctuary 
and defiled it." Even the setting up of the fi^iXvyixa rris 
spnixuasoji, the abomination which brought desolation in its 
train, — namely, the heathen altar, was effected with the co-opera- 
tion of these apostates ; compare ver. 52 sqq., " then many of 
the people ivere gathered unto them, to wit, every one that for- 
sook the law ; and so they committed evils in the land, die, and 
they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar, and 
builded idol altars throughout the cities of Judah on every 
side." And on acount of all this wickedness the wrath of God 
fell upon Israel ; ver. 64, " and there was very great wrath upon 
Israel." As the gates of Jerusalem had been opened to Antio- 
chus by the apostates fcf Josephus xii. 5, 3), so was Menelaus 
his guide, when he laid his impious hands upon the temple and 
defiled it — " Menelaus, that traitor to the laivs and to his own 
country being his guide" (2 Mace. v. 15 sqq.). The reason why 
the Lord permitted this desecration is given in ver. 17 : " the 
Lord was angry for a while for the sins of them that dwelt in 
the city, and therefore his eye was not upon the place!' The 
connection, between the fate of the temple and the conduct of the 
people, is traced in a most striking manner in ver. 19 sqq. — 
" nevertheless God did not choose the people for the place's sake, 
but the place for the peoples sake. And therefore the place 
itself that was partaker ivith them of the adversity that hap- 
pened to the nation, did afterward communicate in the blessings 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 177 

sent from the Lord ; as it ivas forsahen in the lorath of the 
Almighty, so again, the great Lord being reconciled, it loas set 
up with all glory" 

4. This explanation is supported by the testimony of tradi- 
tion. We may see this very clearly from the passage in Jose- 
phus (Wars of the Jews iv. 6, 3, p. 292), where it is said of 
the zealots, " they occasioned the fulfilment of the prophecies 
against their own country ; for there was a certain ancient say- 
ing, that the city would be taken at that time, and that the 
sanctuary would be burned by an enemy, for sedition would 
arise, and their own hands would pollute the temple of God ; 
the zealots did not disbelieve these sayings, and yet they made 
themselves the instruments of their accomplishment." There can 
be no doubt whatever that, by the " certain ancient saying" {ns 
TioiKccios "koyos dv^pwv), we are to understand the prophecy 
before us (see Dissertation on Daniel, p. 215). The d7ij5» 
were understood as referring to abo^ninations, with which the 
wicked members of the covenant nation itself would desecrate 
the temple ; and we may see how widely this particular view was 
spread in addition to the general idea that the prophecy related 
to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, from the fact 
that Josephus expressly affirms, that even the zealots shared in 
it. HofnaMn objects to our conclusion, that "the prophecy" 
referred to is the passage before us, on the ground that this 
passage does not contain the slightest allusion to civil commo- 
tions, or the desecration of the temple by the Jews themselves. 
That the latter is actually predicted here, is what we are at 
present occupied in proving. It is certainly true, that the icords 
TTxrji^ £av )ia.rex.a>iri4'r, are not to be fouud in our prophecy. 
But there were two things, that would inevitably lead Josephus 
to assume the existence of sedition ; first, the cutting off of the 
anointed one, and secondly, the fact that the temple is described 
as the place of abominations. Both these facts show clearly, 
that the whole force of the ungodly party must have been put 
forth ; and at the same time they were evidently altogether 
inconceivable, without powerful opposition on the part of those 
who were faithful. That this is the way, in which we are to 
explain the origin of the words ardais euv ytoi.ra.ay.ri-^rt, is con- 
firmed by another passage of Josephus, — viz., Bk. vi. chap, ii, 

VOL. III. M 



178 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

§ 1 ; and this passage also serves to prove, that our explanation 
is supported by the testimony of tradition, and that, from the 
very earliest times the Jews regarded the prophecy as referring 
to native abominations. The words of Josephus are as follows : 
" who does not know the writings of the ancient prophets, and 
the prediction which hangs over the miserable city, and is now 
about to be fulfilled ; for they foretold its capture, whenever any 
one should begin the murder of his own countrymen. And now, 
are not the city and temple full of those of our own people who 
have fallen ? God, therefore, God himself brings fire upon it 
to purify it by means of the Eomans, and destroys the city which 
is filled with such pollutions" (fxia<yixa.rojv). /x.j'a<7;Ooa is adopted 
in the Septuagint, at Jer. xxxii. 34, as the rendering of VV'''. 
Josephus connected the abomination with the cutting off of the 
anointed one. From the one fact he inferred the rest (he had 
already been speaking of the murder of the High Priest Ana- 
nias). There is not a single 'passage in Daniel beside this, in 
which Josephus could have found any announcement of mur- 
derous abominations in the temple, lohich loere to proceed from 
the members of the covenant nation itself The prediction of 
the destruction of the city and temple, on which Josephus lays 
stress in both passages, is altogether restricted to the prophecy 
before us ; as Wieseler has said, the words of the itockaios 
"koyos, " that the city should be taken and the sanctuary burned 
by an enemy," exactly correspond to the words of Daniel 
in ver. 26 : and the people of the prince " shall destroy the 
city and sanctuary." As all the things which Josephus men- 
tions in the two passages are to be found in the 9th chap- 
ter, and as the most distinctive features are not met with 
in any other part of Daniel, and, moreover, since Josephus 
refers to chap. ix. 27, as containing a prediction of the 
Roman invasion (see Book vi. 5, § 4 ; and compare the proofs 
which Wieseler gives that the rirpoLycjw^i is the same as the 
^^3, p. 158 sqq.), it must be regarded as demonstrated that 
he alludes to this passage, and this alone. There is the less 
ground for supposing that there is also an allusion to chap. xi. 
12, since the arguments adduced by Wieseler, to prove that 
certain references to the Roman age have been discovered in this 
chapter also, and that Josephus only referred the 8th chapter to 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 179 

Antiochus Epiphanes, evidently break clown. The " three years," 
in Antiquities xii. 7. 6, point to the twelfth chapter quite as 
much as to the eighth.^ 

5. This explanation is supported by the weightiest of all 
authorities, that of the Lord himself But with the numerous 
false interpretations of the words in question, this requires to be 
most closely examined. The passages we refer to are Matt, 
xxiv. 15, 16, " when ye therefore shall see the abomination of 
desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy 
place, — whoso readeth let him understand, — then let them which 
be in Judea flee into the mountains ;" — and Mark xiii. 14, " when 
ye shall see the abomination of desolation standing where it 
ought not (let him that readeth understand), then let them, &c." 
We have already proved (in the Dissertation on Daniel, p. 213 
sqq.), that the Lord referred to the words of Dan. ix. 27, and not 
to chap. xi. 31, xii. 11, as Bertholdt, Hofniann, and others 
suppose. We showed there, that the predictions in chap. xi. and 

1 Even the proofs offered by Wieseler, who follows Hdvernick, that the 
Septuagint rendering of Dan. ix. 24 — 27 is traceable to the opinion that the 
prophecy refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, cannot be regarded as satisfactory. 
The arguments adduced in support of such an assumption ought to be more 
direct. For, according to Wieseler' s own confession, this is not what we 
should most naturally expect. At p. 132 he acknowledges that, in the time 
of Christ, this passage in Daniel was universally supposed to refer to the 
second destruction of Jerusalem. At p. 162 he says, " these anticipations do 
not repi'esent the consciousness of an individual, but the general consciousness 
of the Jewish nation. For they were not hatched in the brain of any one 
man, but, as we are expressly told, they gave life to the actions of a whole 
people." If this was the national belief, the Alexandrian translators would 
hardly have ventured to set themselves against it. And if the Septuagint 
version was opposed to such a belief, it could hardly have arisen at any sub- 
sequent period. But all the proof that is offered rests upon a forced inter- 
pretation of the chronological notices in ver 26. There is nothing there 
about 139 years, but seventy-seven times and sixty-two years. It seems 
very far-fetched to suppose that the author took as his starting-point 
the commencement of the era of the Seleucidae ; and even if it were so, the 
years would not agree. According to 1 Mace i. 21, the persecution commenced 
in the 143d year. Moreover, there are several things which do not suit the 
time of the Maccabees ; for examj^le the expressions olxo^o/irnrn; 'u^iv(raXr,f^ 

ToXiv KuaiM (VQi:. 2o), aVoiTTaiwiTai ^^iirfia (vCr. 26), j^i to lioov filiXwy/jia tuv 

lani/,ainuv Urai, " on the temple there will be an abomination of deso- 
lation," — (there is nothing to answer to this in the time of Antiochus 
Epiphanes), — and also (nivrixnce. aof/,irfra.i im rriv l^t^fiuTiv. The deviations 
from the original text arc not to be attributed to the desire of the translator 
to force the passage into harmony with the circumstances of the Maccabean 
era, but to the fact that he was a bungler, and possibly here and there to 
corruptions in the text, which he certainly exaggerated far more than was 
necessary. 



180 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

xii. were at that time commonly believed to have been fulfilled 
in the time of the Maccabees ; whilst the fulfilment of that con- 
tained in chap. ix. was regarded as still reserved for the future. 
The words " let him that readeth understand," which are quoted 
from chap, xi., were adduced as a still further proof And lastly, 
we pointed to the fact, that the expression ev tottw uylcy corres- 
ponds exactly to srl to Upov ^^iXuyfMa. rm ipr)y.cunBOj)i. With 
regard to the objection that in the first passage the Septuagint 
has the plural toJv spri(jiuasai\, and in the other two the sin- 
gular T^j sprifXMriBMs, Wieseler has justly observed that, " the 
question, why the Evangelists have written the singular instead 
of the plural rwv spYifxcJascuv, is easily decided, if we consider 
that the plural itself is entirely arbitrary and has no foundation 
in the text." The Evangelists have done just the same thing in 
the case of the svl to Uph of the Septuagint. Many com- 
mentators (for example ScJiott, comment, in serm. de reditu, p. 
47 sqq.) have explained (2^iXvyiJ.oc rris ipnixuaicos, ahominatio 
devastation is, as meaning ahominatio devastanda ; and this, 
according to Kiihnol, is an abstract in the place of the concrete, 
and means detestahilis desolator. The reference is said to be tx) 
" the army of the Romans, which was about to destroy Jerusalem, 
the heathen soldiers, who were worshippers of idols, and hence, 
or for that very reason, were to be held in abomination." For 
our part, on the contrary, we follow the steps of such excellent 
predecessors as Olearius (observv. in Matt., p. 682), Lampe 
(1. c), Beland, and Eisner, and understand by " the abomination 
of desolation," the abomination with which desolation was con- 
nected, as the effect with the cause. The genitive is exactly 
like that which we find in the expression oclpsnsis aTtuXiiccs, in 
2 Pet. ii. 1, and resembles a.va.aroLais Z^cori^. The word Itto-jt 
(standing) may be accounted for on the ground that the abomi- 
nations, with which the temple was defiled, were figuratively 
represented as idols set up in the temple. The figure is 
employed by Daniel, and was evidently borrowed from an earlier 
period, when this actually was the form in which the abomination 
was displayed ; (compare the passages quoted from authors who 
wrote before the captivity). 

The leading arguments adduced in support of the current 
interpretation, — namely, the fact that, in the parallel passage, 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS DANIEL, CHAP. IX, 27. 181 

Luke xxi. 20, (" when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with 
armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh"), the com- 
passing of the city by the Romans is given as a sign of the 
coming destruction, and a proof that it is time to fly, — proves 
nothing at all, as we have already shown in the Dissertation on 
Daniel, p. 217. For what hinders us from assuming, that the 
Lord directed attention to other signs of the coming destruction, 
which are given in the prophecy of Daniel, either at the same 
time or on a different occasion ; that Luke recorded the ouUvard 
sign, which was taken from Dan. ix. 26 (xal ^ocrnXsia. e^vwv 
(pOifB TYiv 9r6X(v), selecting this just because it was the most 
obvious, and could be understood without that thorough acquaint- 
ance with the book of Daniel, which the other presupposed, and 
which Luke could not expect his readers to possess ; whereas 
Matthew and Mark restricted themselves to the imoard sign, 
which was taken from ver. 27, and which coincided in point of 
time with the outward one ? In either case an attentive observer 
would have all that was required. 

On the other hand, the ordinary interpretation is fraught with 
many difficulties. The greatest of these assumes various shapes, 
according to the different views that are taken of the meaning 
of the words ev roitco ccyioj (in the holy place), without however 
being more easily overcome in the one case, than in the other. 
If we suppose it to refer to the temple, as Beza and others do, it 
is impossible to explain why the time, pointed out as the proper 
period for flight, should be just the moment when it would 
inevitably be too late, and no longer within the power even 
of those who had survived the indescribable miseries of the 
siege, which the Lord certainly desired to spare his followers. 
Moreover, in this case it would be impossible to tell, how to 
interpret the parallel passage in Luke. For, although the signs 
mentioned by the different Evangelists need not be the same, 
they must certainly coincide in point of time, instead of being 
separated from each other by so great an interval, as that which 
intervened between the first commencement of the siege, and 
the complete conquest of the city. — If, on the other hand, we 
follow the greater number of those who support the common 
explanation, and understand by " the holy place," the neighbour- 
hood of Jerusalem, we avoid Charybdis only to fall into Scylla. 



182 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

For it is evident that " the holy place" must necessarily mean 
the temple. This is involved in the expression itself. It is not 
enough to quote passages, in which Jerusalem is called a holy 
city, and Palestine a holy land. Let those who do this try 
rather to find a single passage, in which the actual expression, 
" the holy place," is applied to anything else than the temple. 
They will certainly try in vain, notwithstanding the frequency 
with which the expression occurs in the Septuagint and New 
Testament (compare, for example, Acts vi. 13, " against this 
holy place," and xxi. 28 "hath polluted the holy place"). Le 
Moijne among others has shown, that D'ip?, the place, was 
frequently used by the Jews to denote the temple, even without 
the term " holy" (comm. in Jerem. xxiii., p. 165). ScJiott, 
indeed, cites Is. Ix. 13 ; but the passage refers to the temple, and 
not to the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, in the Hebrew as well 
as the Septuagint. A promise is given, that the costly wood of 
Lebanon shall contribute to the glory of the temple : xal -h ^6z,a. 
rov Ailioivov Ttoos us riuH — '^o^ciaai rov roTTov tov kyiov fxov. — 
Again the words (iliKvyy^a, rrts spnixuuscjs (abomination of desola- 
tion) show, as is generally admitted, that Christ had the Septua- 
gint translation in his mind ; though, on the other hand, his 
substitution of h roitco aylco for ETTi TO Uph proves that he 
adhered to that version, which was the one current among the 
jieople, only so far as it rendered the original text with general 
fidelity. If, then, allusion is made to the temple, both in the 
Septuagint and the Hebrew text, how could tottos ayios be sup- 
])Osed to mean anything else ; especially when the reference to 
Daniel follows immediately upon the words " standing in the 
holy place ?" Lastly, it is evident from the connection with 
what goes before, that the temple must be intended. The out- 
ward circumstance, by which the Lord was led to deliver this 
discourse, was the disciples showing him the buildings of the 
temple. In verse 2 he had foretold their destruction, and the 
disciples had asked him, when this would take place. If, then, he 
speaks here of an abomination of desolation, which would stand 
in " the holy place," in close connection with what he had already 
been saying, how could any one imagine that by the holy place 
he meant something different, in this connection, from that which 
he had so designated immediately before ? 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 183 

We adduce the following proofs in support of our explanation, 
according to which the desolation is pointed out in its relation 
to the imcard sign, just as in Luke its relation to the ouhcard 
sign is made prominent. 1. Christ does not enter into any 
further explanation of the meaning to be attached to the phrase 
" abomination of desolation," but assumes that it is either already 
known, or may be learned from the book of Daniel, to which he 
expressly refers. Now, as we have already proved from Josephus, 
D'viijs'yi; and ^^^Xvyf^x were at that time universally regarded, 
as referring to some defilement of the temple on the part of the 
covenant people themselves. If the Lord, then, had not approved 
of this interpretation, as being the correct one, would he have 
contented himself with this simple allusion, and not rather have 
given some clue to the meaning of ^lixvyixoi. tt?? sprjixufyiais ? — 
'2. There is a remarkable parallel to this passage, as we inter- 
pret it, in the 28th verse of the same chapter of Matthew, 
" wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered 
together," in other words, where the sin is, the punishment is 
sure to follow. The drapery is taken from Job xxxix. 30.^ 
3. Our explanation is in perfect harmony with history. Even 
Titus SSLW, that the destruction of the sanctuary had been brought 
about by the fearful abominations, with which it had been 
polluted, as several passages of Josephus clearly show. And 
Josephus himself is thoroughly imbued with this idea. He 
says, for example (in the Wars of the Jews, B. iv. 5, 2), after 
having narrated the death of the true friends of their country : 
" but I think that God, having condemned the city to destruc- 
tion on account of its pollutions, and having decreed that the 
sanctuary should be purified with fire, cut off these its protectors 
and friends." 

The difference between the words of Daniel, and those of the 
Lord, is simply this. The language of Daniel is more general 
in its character. The temple, both in the time of Christ, and 
after his death, is represented as a place, desecrated by idolatrous 
abominations, and therefore devoted to destruction. Christ, on 
the other hand, who wished to furnish his disciples with an out- 
ward and visible sign of the coming destruction (compare the 
expression orav I'^'/irs), singles out one particular period in this 



184 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PKOPHETS. 

desecration ; — namely, the point of time when that, which had 
hitherto been concealed, though already there, was brought to 
light by the just judgment of God, — according to the plan which 
he usually adopts in things great and small, and whether the 
apostasy be that of a nation, or of a single individual. In this 
instance the form, in which the existing state of things was 
brought under the cognisance of the senses, was of so frightful a 
character, that many even of those, who had taken part in the 
secret desecration, were seized with horror ; in fact the history 
of the zealots given by Josephus can only be explained from 
the fact that, when crime reaches its height, it passes over into 
a species of frenzy. 

Wieseler starts the objection, that we should expect to find ri'D 
before o'vipir, " over the summit of the house of the abomina- 
tions." But to this we reply, that n^^ was probably used as a 
proper name, and applied to the roof of the temple. The reasons 
for such an assumption may be found in Matt. iv. 5, Luke iv. 
9, and the Septuagint version, in which n^3 ^y is rendered l'n\ 
TO lepov. The Greeks appear to have had a similar idiom. The 
Scholiast to Aristophanes says, ra.s yaip t<2v UpaJv ati'yas irrspa 
xai dcTous x-aXovaiv. But, apart from this peculiar use of the 
word, the context shows very clearly that " the summit " could 
only mean the roof of the temple. For the prophet had just 
been speaking of the temple and things connected with it. — 
Wieseler himself cannot help observing, that, " when we look at 
the general connection, there cannot well be any doubt that the 
words refer to the destruction of the temple." 

Having thus sustained our own explanation, let us now take a 
glance at those which differ from it. The first which presents 
itself is that of Lampe. In every thing essential, it is the same 
as our own ; but he takes a different view of the meaning of 1^?. 
In his opinion, this applies to the temple generally and not merely 
to the summit : " the iving, not as the extreme point, but as 
that which covers and defends." He appeals to such passages 
as Ex. xix. 14 ; Deut. xxxii. 11, 12, where the care, which God 
takes of his people, is represented under the image of the pro- 
tection, afforded to its young by an eagle or any other bird. If 
this explanation be adopted, we have a parallel in chap. xi. 31 : 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS DANIEL, CHAP. IX. ^24^, ^if] 185 



27 



" and they defile the sanctuary, the stronghold ;" li^ being merely 
a figurative term for tSvd. But a fatal objection to this is found 
at once in the fact that n^^ is in the singular, whereas in every 
other instance, in which the term "wing" is figuratively employed 
to denote protection (not only in the passages quoted from the 
Old Testament, but in those cited by Lampe from both Greek 
and Latin authors), the plural is used as being from the very 
nature of the case the more appropriate. Lampe appeals to Ps. 
xci. 4 ; but the collective noun ^1'?^., feathers, is not inter- 
changeable with 1^3, To this we may add the harshness of the 
expression, " wing of abominations," if taken to mean the temple, 
which if kept holy, would have been a protection, but is now 
changed into a place of abominations, and cannot therefore 
justify the false confidence which the people continue to repose 
in it. 

The explanation, given by Jahn, contains a somewhat similar 
idea to our own. He supposes " over the wing of abominations" 
to mean " over the abominable army of seditious men and 
thieves." But it is a sufficient objection to this, that the singu- 
lar 1^3 cannot be used for an army; And this is perfectly 
natural ; for the figure is based upon the resemblance supposed 
to be borne by a hostile army to a bird of prey, which stretches 
out its wings above its victim. In Is. viii. 8, to which Jahn 
refers, the Dual ojsj? is used, d'?^?*., alae, is also employed 
by Ezekiel in the same sense, but only in the plural. We find 
the plural again in the analogous passages quoted by Gesenius 
from Arabic authors, both in the Thesaurus s. v. l^J, and in his 
commentary on Isaiah, vol. i. p. 335. We need scarcely call 
attention, therefore, to the fact, that the verb dc^' itself points 
to a building, as that which is to be destroyed, especially 
if we compare ver. 26, where the word nSci:\:; is applied 
to the ruins of the city and temple. To this word, o«:'^'? and 
ODtt? in the verse before us correspond ; the former being regarded 
as the agent employed in inflicting ruin, the latter as that 
upon which it falls. Nor need we say that the connection, 
which exists between the desolation and the interruption of the 
sacrificial worship, leaps to the conclusion, that the temple is in- 
tended. 



186 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

Among the explanations, which are fundamentallj'^ different 
from our own, we select first of all that of Bertlwldt : "on the 
wing roof of the sanctuary will the abomination of desolation 
stand ; this refers to the statue of Jupiter Olj'mpius, which 
Antiochus Epiphanes set up on the pinnacle cf the temple." 
There are so many points here, which are open to attack, that we 
need not stop to mention the fact, that there is no historical 
foundation whatever for the statement, that such a statue was 
set up. (1). It contains its own refutation ; for it cannot be 
sustained without changing the construct state f]^? into the abso- 
lute state 142. — (2). Even granting that this pretended emenda- 
tion is admissible, the meaning alleged cannot be obtained from 
the words. How could op"^? D^v^ijsiy mean abomination of 
desolation ? Bertlioldt maintains that oi^tt'o is a participial 
noun, desolation, like '"'??'?, a cover, ^ynp. an abomination. 
But 3vn)p never occurs in the sense attributed to it ; it is only 
used as a participle Piel, with a transitive signification (compare 
the notes on Is. xlix. 7). ■ib?'? is not an abstract noun at all. 
And even if this view were not altogether inadmissible, it would 
be so here, on account of the evident antithesis in the words 
DDtt'o and DD-nfj as agens and patiens ; especially as the same 
antithesis is found in other passages of Daniel (compare xi. 31 
with xii. 11). And what do we gain by all this forcing ? The 
absolute state D»yij3it> cannot be used for the construct. It 
is undoubtedly correct that in Hebrew the want of composite 
nouns was supplied, not only by connecting two nouns together 
in the construct state, but also by placing them side by side in 
the absolute state ; for example, ^"^V?^ HI, Tawmehvein, " wine 
of reeling," Ps. Ix. 5, and P.ir'"i;!^y Mildegerechtigkeit, meekness 
— righteousness, Ps. xlv. 4. In this case the pronunciation 
supplied the want of the ordinary grammatical signs of close 
relationship. But this very rare and therefore a priori impro- 
bable construction, of the existence of which we ought to have 
the most convincing proofs, is restricted to nouns whose mean- 
ings are intended to coalesce so as to form one idea. The use of 
the construct state, on the other hand, is far less limited, and 
serves to point out any relation in which one noun can stand to 
another. Now we cannot suppose that the two words abomi- 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 187 

nation and desolation coalesce in this manner in the present 
passage. The connection would necessarily be of the slightest 
description possible, a mere juxtaposition, since the idols could 
not be regarded as the cause of the desolation. 

Rosenmiiller suggests this explanation, " and over the wing 
of abominations there will be a devastating (one), i.e., a de- 
vastating general will command a detestable army." But we 
have already shown that 1^2 cannot mean an army, because it is 
in the singular. Is. viii. 8 and xviii. 1 can hardly be adduced 
as having any bearing upon the question. In both passages 
reference is made to the wings of a bird of prey, which are figu- 
ratively employed to denote a victorious army. We have also 
proved that D'siptt- does not mean amj abominable thing, but idol 
deities in particular. 

V. Lengei-lie and Ifaurer agree with us in rendering the pas- 
sage, " over the summit of abominations comes the destroyer ;" 
but they suppose the temple to have been first made into a place 
of abominations by the destroyer : " et cum templo a se profanato 
ad arbitrium aget vastator." Wieseler, on the other hand, has 
already observed, that it is very harsh to assume the existence of 
such a prolepsis as this, " the prince destroys that summit in 
such a manner that it becomes a summit of abominations." The 
most natural supposition is, that the summit of abominations and 
the destroyer bear the same relation to each other, as the cutting 
off of the anointed one to the destruction of the city and sanc- 
tuary by the foreign prince, referred to in the previous verses. 

Wieseler understands by n^3, the point or surface of the altar, 
and by the abominations, the unholy, heathenish spirit, the un- 
belief, in which the people otfered their sacrifices upon the altar 
of the Lord. But the word nr-cpvym in the New Testament and 
(gpov in the Se-ptuagint both show, that ^^^ is the roof of the 
temple, and not the point of the altar. Again, we do not see 
why the point of the altar should be particularly mentioned. 
Lastly, D'vipr can only refer to the idols themselves. 

Eivald renders the passage, " and indeed on account of the 
frightful climax of abominations." But he is obliged to confess 
that " n^^ is very rarely used in the purely figurative sense of 
the extremity." And to this we may add, that DcrD cannot be 
shown to have ever been used in the sense oi frightful. 



188 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

Whilst Ewald lets the words slip, others, in direct opposition 
to the true character of the whole prophecy, connect them with 
what follows, so as to make a long straggling sentence, which is 
peculiarly inappropriate as a conclusion. 

Aiiherlen renders it thus : " And for the devastating climax of 
abominations and until the completion, and indeed that which 
is determined, it will drip over that which is laid desolate." We 
have here a false rendering of 1^^, in which Auherlen follows 
Ewald,^ and also of O'vipu^. It is the more natural to understand 
by Dottfo the destroyer, in the literal sense of the word, as such a 
destroyer had already been mentioned. Auheiien ought to have 
hesitated all the more, therefore, before he set aside any distinct 
reference to the temple, seeing that he actually does speak of the 
words as containing such an allusion. 

Hitzigs first translation of the words was this : " And over 
the summit of the abomination of desolation and unto 
it will be poured out." In defence of the rendering abomination 
of desolation, for Df^^n O'vipr, he quoted Is. xix. 4, o'^'i? 
'"I'^'i^, where we also find a plural noun coupled with a singular 
adjective. But who would draw the conclusion from such an 
example as this, that every plural might stand for a singular. 
This is really the case with but a small and well defined class 
of nouns, in which the plural form is merely used to show that 
the word is employed as an abstract, not that the thing itself 
may also be regarded as an abstract ; for example, Q'J'isi? and 
also D'^^y? and ^'^''^^., when used directly to signify dominion. 
Now, if the same rule were applied to D^lj?^, which is never 
used in any other sense than as an actual plural, it could 
only be rendered: destructive abomination, or idolatry. But 
what would this mean ? Could the lifeless idols of Antiochus 
Epiphanes be regarded as the authors of desolation ? And 
what could we understand by " over the wing, or over the point 
of the destructive abomination ?" We need scarcely say that 
with this explanation there is inseparably connected a false ren- 
dering of nv-inji nSa, as well as of '^inn and Qtsr. 

1 Auherlen must certainly have found it difficult to make up his mind to 
speak of an " accidental analogy in the -m^vyioy of Matt. iv. 5." 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS DANIEL, CHAP, IX. 27. 189 

Eitzig's present rendering is " abomination of horror," or 
"horrible abomination" (Entsetzens-grduel). Doii'o is said to 
be a neuter noun, pointing out the object of amazement and 
horror, onr, which occurs afterwards, is an abbreviation of 
DDrn. The object referred to is the heathen altar of sacrifice. 
But we can find no really analogous example of a " neuter sub- 
stantive" in such a form as this. Is. xlix. 7, where ayric is 
used for an object of abhorrence, is said to present the closest 
analogy; but both this and liii. 3 can only be made to bear 
upon the question by being falsely rendered. It is evident that 
Doro is a participle, both from the form, and also from Ezra 
ix. 3, 4. As a Poel participle it can only be rendered in one of 
two ways ; either in an active sense, which most naturally sug- 
gests itself in this " most emphatic active root," or as marking a 
gradation, wliich is the case in Ezra ix. Again, if Dcttfo were 
a substantive, the a could not be dropped. Moreover, if this 
explanation is correct, we cannot see why V''P^ should stand in 
the plural. — Wieseler ]\i^i\y observes: "one argument against 
the supposed combination of the two words may be found in the 
fact, that, in the only passage in which it really occurs (Dan. xi. 
31), the singular V'^i'"'^'^ is employed. We are forced to the 
conclusion, therefore, that the plural o'vipir is purposely intro- 
duced here, especially as this is the only'place in which it occurs 
in the Book of Daniel ; and that the object has been to prevent 
its being connected with coro, which would otherwise have 
been an admissible construction." Lastly, any allusion to the 
point of the altar would be altogether out of place. 



''And indeed until that which is completed and determined 
shall pour doion upon the ruins." 

We will first enquire into the meaning of ^\^. Commenta- 
tors and Lexicographers generally assume that the word means 
completion, and that it is used here for the complete destruction. 
The form of the word is sufticient in itself to excite suspicion as 



190 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

to the correctness of this explanation. It is the feminine of the 
adjective nSs as "s; is of nJ?;. The masculine occurs in Deut. 
xxviii. 32 in the sense of dejiciens, tabescens. The form ^b.^, 
from a verb nS, ansv^ers to such forms as an?, in derivations 
from the regular verbs, which are always adjectives with an 
intransitive signification, never abstract nouns, and least of all 
abstracts with a transitive meaning. The inference, which we 
draw from the foi-m, is confirmed by the usages of the language, 
■"ii;'2 is never used in any other sense than as a feminine, or 
neuter, that (which is) completed. A very obvious example of 
this we find in Zeph. i. 18. where "i?? is connected with another 
I)articiple, " for the Lord does a completed (work), a fearful 
thing only (Sna in the Niphal never means directly to make 
haste), with all the inliabitants of the land." This is also clearly 
the case in the passage before us, and in Is. x. 23, xxviii. 22, 
where ^^^ is connected in precisely the same manner with another 
participle. From this meaning of '""^a we may explain the 
adverbial use of the word in Gen. xviii. 21 ; Ex. xi. 1 ; and 2 
Chr. xii. 11; completely, entirely and very. It suits the con- 
nection in Dan. xi. 16 " a completed (work) is in his hand," in 
contrast with the imperfect execution of his decree. And it is 
equally applicable to the frequently recurring expression nry 
hSd. This means, sometimes, " to do a complete thing, to carry 
a thing perfectly out, to put the finishing stroke," Jer. iv. 27, 
v. 10, 17 (with persons) Nahum i. 9 ; at other times, with an 
accusative, to make a thing or a person into something finished, 
completely to destroy, Neh. ix. 31 ; Jer. xxx. 11 ; Ezek. xi. 13, 
XX. 17 ; Nahum i. 8. The meaning given by Huve7mick to the 
expression in Ezek. xi. 13, "to execute a final sentence," does 
not suit the last two passages. With such a rendering, it is 
impossible to explain the use of the accusative. 

The completion may refer to the determination itself, or to 
the execution of it. The verb "^3 is not infrequently used to 
denote the completeness of a determination. For example, 1 
(Sam. XX. 7, "if he, Saul, be wroth, know that evil is completed 
on his part," that he has formed a fixed and unalterable deter- 
mination to do evil ; and again at ver. 9 ; — 1 Sam. xxv. 1 7 : 
" now therefore consider, and look what thou doest, J^?"??"'? 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 191 

J^^^v", for evil is firmly determined for our master, and for 
all his household ;" — Esther vii. 7, " for Haman saw, 'inS-D-'a 
"V;7 I'!;??, that evil was firmly determined against him by the 
king." These passages show that the completion not only refers 
to a determination generally, but that it was especially restricted 
by usage to the completion of a determination to do any one an 
injury. It never occurs in a good sense (compare Prov. xxii. 
8, and SchuUens on the passage). Our adjective n^3 is also 
used in 1 Sam. xx. 33 to indicate such a fixed determination : 
"and Jonathan knew n'h nSa-*?^ that it was a fixed determi- 
nation on the part of his father, to slay David." Now it is evi- 
dent that, in tliis passage also, nSs refers to something completed, 
not in the performance, but only so far as the determination was 
concerned ; Jirst, from its being connected with another word, 
which denotes the firm and unalterable character of a determi- 
nation ; secondly, from the word '^IJ^n^ which is always used to 
denote the cause of destruction, whether it be the wrath of God, 
or the sentence of God, but never the destruction itself; and 
thirdly, (from Is. xxviii. 22, where the nvnnji hSd (the same 
combination as we have here) is described as an object of hear- 
ing, " I heard from the Lord, the Almighty, a completed and 
determined thing." 

There is thus a perfect similarity between the relation, in which 
the two words stand to each other in the passage before us, and 
tliat which we find in these two passages of Isaiah ;^ and this 
similarity renders it extremely probable, that when thus asso- 
ciated they had become current as a legal term, expressive of the ) 
last fixed and irrevocable sentence, particularly in cases of capital 
crime. 

We do not regard this clause as a perfectly independent one, 
as many expositors do, who render it " until the completion it 
will drip," &c. ; but we connect it with the pieceding clause, 
thus : " over the wing of abominations comes the destroyer, and 
indeed," &c. That this is correct, is proved in part by the 
words nv-inj hSd, when rightly understood. For, if this must 

1 Vitringa has given a correct interpretation, founded upon Rom. ix. 27 
but the explanation given by G'eseniun and others is incorrect. 



192 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

necessarily mean the determination, the final sentence, in con- 
tradistinction to the smaller amount of chastisement resolved 
upon before, *iy cannot denote the termination of the dripping. 
The punishment inflicted by God does not terminate with the 
final sentence, but this is rather the first commencement of its 
fearful manifestation. Moreover, according to our interpretation 
the verb ^?n receives the subject which naturally belongs to it, 
— viz., the final sentence, which is regarded as dripping down, 
because with Grod decree and execution coincide. Thus, in ver. 
xi. it is said: " Then the curse was poured upon us, and the 
oath, that is written in the law of Moses ;" and in Mai. ii. 2: "I 
send you the curse ;" and in Zech. v. 4, the roll inscribed with 
the curse, comes to the house of the thief and perjured man and 
destroys it. But if the clause be regarded as independent, "iJ^O 
must be rendered an an impersonal verb, which it never is else- 
where, and certainly cannot be here, seeing that it occurs in ver. 
11 with a definite subject. We need not say, that the Vav in 
iv] does not furnish a valid ground of objection to our explana- 
tion, for Vav is frequently used in the less restricted sense of et 
quidem, e.g. in ver. 25, P''^?\ compare Jer. xv. 13. Kat occurs 
in the same sense in John i. 16.^ 

The expression " it will pour down over " is founded upon the 
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha, as the type of all the 
subsequent judgments of God. In its primary signification ^IDJ 
is applied to the falling of natural rain (2 Sam. xxi. 10 ; Ex. ix. 

1 See Geseniiis Leiirgebdude, p. 845, and Ewald § 330 b. Wieseler is 
of opinion that " the meaning assigned to Vav only applies to cases, 
in which it stands before a singular noun, or a clause governed by a 
preposition, but not when it stands before so long and independent a 
sentence as this is, consisting of conjunction, subject, and verb." But 
the point in question cannot really be, whether Vav has any peculiar 
meaning; it is simply used on several occasions, when we should write 
"and indeed," or "and that." Again, the distinction drawn between 
iy as a preposition and as a conjunction, can hardly be regarded as well- 
founded. Where it appears to stand as a conjunction, the whole clause is 
treated as a noun, a thing of frequent occurrence in Hebrew. But even if 
we were obliged to admit the force of Wieseler' s objection, it would be easy 
to evade it by a slight modification of our rendering. Nothing more would 
be necessary than to supply the relative before -|rn as Blom$trand and 
others have done. 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 193 

33). But the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha was caused 
by a supernatural rain (" God rained fire and brimstone upon 
8odom and Gomorrha," Gen. xix. 24). This passage of Genesis 
is taken as the basis of many others, in which the fate of the 
ungodly is depicted. The passages, in which the alhision is most 
distinct, are Ps. xi. 6, and Ezek. xxxviii. 22 : " fire and brim- 
stone will I rain upon him." But the reference is also apparent 
in the following passages, which are more closely related to our 
own : 2 Chr. xxxiv. 21, " great is the wrath (literally the heat) 
of the Lord, that has poured down upon us (1J3 ^^^\), because 
our fathers have not observed the word of the Lord, to do ac- 
cording to all that is written in this book ;" 2 Chr. xii. 7, " and 
my wrath will not pour down ip^ upon Jerusalem ;" Jer. vii. 
20 : " behold mine anger and my fury are poured out ri^^j upon 
this place, over (as in the passage before us) man and beast, and 
over tree of the field, and over fruit of the earth, and it burns 
and is not quenched ;" — Jer. xlii. 18 : " as my anger and my fury 
hath poured down (l^O ^^^*' ^^ inhabitants of Jerusalem, so 
will my fury pour down {y^^) over you, when ye come to 
Egypt ;" — Jer. xliv. 6 : " my fury and mine anger pour down 
(see Is. xlii. 25, where i'sn non are used as a compound word, 
my wrath-fury), and burn in the cities of Judah, and in the 
streets of Jerusalem, and they become a ruin and a desolation ;" 
see also Nahum i. 6 ; Lamentations ii. 4 ; and Is. xlii. 25. It is 
very evident from these parallel passages, that the fiery rain of 
the wrath of God was a standing expression for the judgments, 
which issued in the destruction of the covenant nation, an ex- 
pression so current, that we even meet with it in plain historical 
prose. Daniel, who had witnessed one such fiery rain (compare 
ver. 11), and who had just been interceding on behalf of the awful 
ruins, received for answer, that when they had been rebuilt, and 
after that, had excited the wrath of God to a more fearful 
extent than before, another fiery rain would lay them in ashes 
and ruins again. The expression always implies utter destruc- 
tion, and for this reason we cannot think of the era of the 
Maccabees. To get rid of this unwelcome conclusion, most of 
the modern Maccabean expositors take do^ as an active verb, 
and thus divert the burning wrath from the covenant people to 
VOL. in. N 



194 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

the foe (" over the destroyer" )^ and, as we may readily suppose, 
there are not wanting Jewish commentators to bear them out in 
this, although with one accord they refer the prophecy to the 
destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. Aharbanel says: 
" besides this he remembers the desolation which will come upon 
the heathen themselves, and which will extend even to their utter 
destruction." The adoption of so ungrammatical an explanation 
is a proof, that no other resource could be thought of. The verb 
o.ott? is always intransitive, and never means to devastate. To 
show this we will look through all the passages, that are quoted 
as examples of this meaning. In Ez. xxxvi. 3 nistt?" ]yi is usually 
rendered propferea quod devastant vos. But it ought rather 
to be translated, " because ye are desolate, and because they 
earnestly strive after you, to make you a possession of the 
heathen." This is evident from ver. 4, where the desolation 
caused by the Chaldeans, and, after this, the misery which the 
sufferers had to endure from their haughty neighbours, are repre- 
sented as the cause of the active display of the divine compas- 
sion. (We find the two invariably associated in the complaints 
that were uttered at the time). For " the desolate ruins" 
nSD^tt? nSanri, and " the forsaken cities," exactly correspond to 
nSDtt'. Throughout the whole of the prophecy the surrounding 
nations are never charged with the desolation of the land of 
Israel, but only with cruel insults and rapine. The desolation 
is always described as Chaldean. — Appeal is also made to Dan. 
viii. 13, where O!?'^ y^>.^] is supposed to mean " abomination of 
the destroyer." But the grammatical obstacles in the way of 
such a rendering are so conspicuous, that Gesenius and Winer 
have been induced in consequence to substitute o^^n y^'?., and 
thus to bear their testimony to the fact, that they could not 
venture to apply their own principles of interpretation to what 
is actually in the text. We have already shown that the 
explanation, which must be given, is this, " how long does 
the vision last, the continual thing (the sacred worship) and 
the wickedness (the covenant people as a living sin ; for a 
similar personification see Zech. v. 8, where the Israelitish 
nation is spoken of as ungodliness, personified under the 
image of a woman, and again Mai. i. 4), as laid waste." Tonn 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 195 

requires that op'^ should be rendered as a passive. For what 
could we understand by " how long does the constant thing last," 
when it is evident from the context, that reference must be made 
to the length of the period of suspension ? The meaning, there- 
fore must be, how long does the continual thing last as a thing 
destroyed. Thus in the parallel and explanatory clause dd-jo 
belongs equally to both ^'np and n^x (army). In connection 
with the former, it corresponds to i*?!??, and with the latter to 
vi£'?n. Lastly, appeal is also made to Dan. xii. 11, "and 
from the time that the constant thing is taken away, VT*?' ^^1) 
Dci:;." The rendering given here is " and the devastating abo- 
mination given," which makes the clause a part of the descrip- 
tion of the starting point. But the difficulty in this case is, 
that the terminus ad quern is entirely wanting, and in addition 
to this it is impossible to shut one's eyes to the evident antithesis 
in the words, " they give the abomination as a destroying one," 
in chap. xi. 31. The words must be taken, therefore, as deter- 
mining the final point ; from the time when the continual thing 
has been taken away, and up to the time when the abomination 
is given as a thing destroyed, that is, up to the time, when the 
abomination, which has been already represented as the author 
of desolation, in other words, as bringing desolation in its train 
by the law of retribution, is itself laid waste, and the sanctuary 
justified, as we find it expressed in Dan. viii. 14. This expla- 
nation is confirmed by ver. 7, where ^ is used, in the same 
manner as here, to point out the terminus ad quern. — There is 
all the less room to translate dd^:; by destroyer in this passage, 
on account of the evident antithesis of ^^^n and Qc-vi^' as agens 
and 'patiens, which prohibits the identification of the two, and 
also because the participle t^^'^ is used once more in this section 
(ver. 26) as well as in the other portion of the chapter, in an in- 
transitive sense. To this it must be added, that in the passages 
of Isaiah, to which there is an allusion here, as there is in chap, 
xi. 36 to Is. x. 25, the finished thing and the firmly determined 
thing refer to the judgment upon Judah, not to the heathen 
destroyer ; and also that doi^' is never applied to a single indi- 
vidual in the other passages in which it occurs. 

As DOtt'D is masculine and has the force of a substantive, it 



196 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

is most natural to construe ddiu' in the same way : not " over 
the ruined (temple)," but simply " over the ruined one." The 
ruined one is an ideal person, like the Sabbath in Is. Iviii. 13. 
Taking it in connection with what precedes, we may either think 
of the city and temple, or, what really comes to the same thing, 
of Israel itself; compare Lam. iii. 11, " he hath made me, 
Shomem," and chap. i. 13. 

Wieseler objects to the explanation we have given, as a whole, 
on the ground that " it makes the prophecy conclude with the 
most terrible of all the calamities, which could possibly befal the 
Jewish nation. Daniel would thus have prayed in vain for the 
preservation of the city and sanctuary. Passing calamities might 
befal the nation and the sanctuary. But the deliverance pro- 
mised at the end would certainly afford them consolation and 
peace." — Seventy weeks of years, during which the city and 
temple would continue to stand, had been announced to Daniel 
in answer to his prayer, whilst the fresh destruction, predicted 
here, was not to take place, till the true covenant people had 
received a rich compensation. And what is not irregular in 
history, cannot be so in jyrophecy . 

Another of Wieseler s objections is this : " the clause com- 
mencing with *ij?i would then contain the culminating point of 
the divine judgments, slighter punishments having gone before. 
But, as the destruction of the temple is threatened in the fore- 
going Dcra, what other calamity of a more grievous kind could 
still befal the temple and the Jewish nation ?" The -climax, 
however, consists in this, that prominence is given here to the 
final and lasting character of this catastrophe, which distin- 
guished it from earlier chastisements, the Chaldean, for example, 
in which the destroyer also came over the temple. 

Let us take a glance now at a few of the other explanations 
which differ from our own. 

V. Lengerke renders the passage, " and indeed until the com- 
pletion and (until) the decree shall pour down over the destroyer." 
We have already shown that this is a false rendering of both 'iVs 
and D»2"''i'. Again nVs and nvnnj are separated, contrary to the 
passage in Isaiah upon which this is based. 

The same objection applies to Wieseler s rendering : " and 



THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 197 

until it is finished, that which is determined will pour down over 
the wasted one." The subject to ^^^ is also said to be " the 
half week referred to immediatel}'- before." But it is the middle 
of the week, not the half week, that is spoken of in the previous 
clause. Moreover, until ought in that case to be ivhen. Wieseler 
admits that d'2i^' never can by any possibility mean destroyer, 
but only destroyed (desolate). But his assumption cannot be 
sustained, that " the wasted one " is used here in the sense of 
" that which is to be laid waste," or, to quote his own words, that 
" it ought properly to be read, over him, so that he is laid 
waste." The destroyer, according to the previous clause, comes 
over the temple, or Israel. It must be the latter, therefore, 
which is here represented as the wasted one. If any other had 
been intended it must have been stated more clearly. 

Eioald translates it : " still until destruction and determina- 
tion pour down upon the terrible thing." 

Hitzig explains it thus : " and over the summit of the horri- 
fying abomination, and unto the extermination and decree, it 
(the extermination) will pour down upon the horrible thing." 
According to this, the object of the pouring would be mentioned 
twice. 

Auberlens exposition is the following : " and until the com- 
pletion (till the determined end of the desolation arrives, and 
the promised kingdom of Grod comes) it will pour down over 
that which is desolate." This is opposed to the meaning of h^d 
and also to the primary passage in Isaiah. Moreover, the sub- 
ject of ip^ is lost in this case ; and Auberlen tries to recover it 
from ver. 11 ! 



V V 



PRECISION OF THE DATES. 

The prevalent opinion among both Jews and Christians has 
always been, that the seventy weeks, and also the shorter periods 
into which they are divided, are fixed with precision, and clearly 
defined. It is enough to excite suspicion, as to the correctness 



198 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

of the opposite view, that it has only been entertained by persons, 
whose hypotheses clash with chronology (such as Bleek, for 
example, who has the chronology against him in all his three 
periods), or by those who have no taste for chronological re- 
searches. Although this rarely happens, we must make a careful 
distinction between what is subjectively indefinite, and what is 
objectively so. To establish the former it would be necessary to 
prove, that the chronology of the different periods was altogether 
uncertain, from the outset to the close. But, as no such proof 
can be adduced, and the divine wisdom is shown in the fact, 
that the time fixed for the coming of the Messiah falls at a 
period, when chronology rests upon the surest foundations, both 
because we have at command several distinct eras, which we 
can compare together, and also because we have the testimony 
of many contemporaneous authors of different nations, the 
assumption is one, which must be unhesitatingly rejected. In 
support of the latter, — namely, that the chronological data are 
only given in the gross, the following arguments have been 
adduced. 

1. We are told, that "it is very clear, that the d'V?? (the 
weeks) are chosen as the measure of time, principally because 
of their similarity to the numeral d'V?F (seventy in the two pro- 
phecies of Jeremiah." — 2. That " it is evident, that the number 
of these is fixed at seventy, for no other reason, than because 
the absolute necessity of making them correspond to the seventy 
years of Jeremiah required it, and precluded the selection of any 
other number." This is BertJiokU's opinion. It is certainly 
correct, that the seventy weeks of restoration are closely related 
to the seventy years of desolation. But what follows from this ? 
The starting point was so chosen, that this reference was accu- 
rately borne out by the result. And the fact, that there exists 
this difference between the starting point of the seventy weeks 
and the terminus ad quern of Jeremiah, is a proof of the inten- 
tion to mark the time with precision. — 3. Cocceius says, " it is 
incredible that God should have desired to make faith dependent 
upon chronology." But if the idea, which lies at the basis of this 
argument be correct, we might prove that every translation of 
the sacred Scriptures must be inspired. For otherwise, faith 



PKECISION OF THE DATES IN DAN. IX. 199 

would depend upon philology. And it might also be proved, 
that all historical researches, as to the canonicity of the biblical 
books, are useless. The argument does not affect our prophecy, 
any more than any of the others, which have a determinate 
chronology. And if the existence of one such prophecy can be 
demonstrated, it follows at once, that the argument must be 
founded upon erroneous premises. Do those, who have no taste 
for chronological researches, or cannot engage in them, receive 
any less, because provision is made for tliose who possess both 
the talent and the taste ? Is not the declaration itself still 
there, as much as in the case of the other Messianic prophecies ? 
And is it not true of all the external evidences of the divinity of 
Christianity, that no man can find them out for himself, unless 
he possesses the requisite knowledge for submitting them to a 
test ? Can any one of these prophecies be properly tested, with- 
out any knowledge at all ? Is it not indispensably necessary, 
even to discern an ajjproximation to fulfilment ? And will any 
one venture to draw the line, beyond which God must not go ? 
Are all the evidences of Christianity intended for every man ? 
Is it not, rather, true, that God in his wisdom and love has 
taken care, that every one, who is open to conviction, shall find 
some of these evidences within his reach ? Shall any man, who 
is not at home in some one of the departments, in which God 
has deposited marks of his truth, look with an evil eye upon this 
manifestation of the benevolence of God ? Shall the Christian 
historian, for example, be envied, because the evidence afforded 
by the wondrous effects of Christianity, unfolds itself to him with 
greater clearness and perfection, than to a man who is more or 
less unfitted for the study of history ? And lastly, do not the 
gifts in the church exist for the good of the whole ? Does not 
the research, which has been directed by the Spirit of God, and 
the results of which have been handed down as a traditional 
inheritance within the church, confer a benefit even upon those, 
who have not been actively engaged themselves, but who receive 
the results with confidence ?^ 

The arguments in favour of the definite character of the 

1 With this reply to the objection offered by Cocceius, compare the reply 
given by Sack in his Apologdik, Ed. 2 p. 336 : " As chronology could not be 



200 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS, 

clionological data, are just as strong, as those on the opposite 
side are weak and slender, 

1, The seventy weeks are very closely related to the seventy 
years of Jeremiah. The chronological precision of the former 
rests upon precisely the same proofs as that of the latter. And 
the evidence is easily produced. That Daniel looked upon the 
seventy years as a definite period is apparent, as even Lengerke 
acknowledges, from the prayer which he offered in the sixty- 
ninth year, and which was founded upon the assumption, that 
the period was close at hand, when this prophecy of Jeremiah 
was to be fulfilled. But, even if any doubts had been entertained 
on this point previous to the fulfilment, they would all cease 
when the prediction was actually accomplished. 

We have proved in the Dissertation on Daniel (p. 147 trans- 
lation), that the first year of Cyrus was exactly seventy years 
from the period from which Jeremiah reckons, — viz., the fourth 
year of Jehoiakim ; see also Kilj^er Jeremias, p. 64, Kleinert 
Jesaias xciv. 137. I have also shown, in my treatise de rehus 
Tyriorum, that the Tyrian chronology leads to the same result. 
Steudel objects (p. 14 sqq.), that " seventy years are allotted by 
Jeremiah to the Babylonian captivity, whereas it only lasted 
sixty-eight years." But the two years of Darius the Mede are 
regarded as a continuation of the tyranny of Babylon over Judah ; 
for it still existed in substance, and did not actually terminate 
till the first year of Cyrus. With reference to Steudel' s objec- 
tion, founded upon Zech. i. 12, where the affliction is desciibed, 
as having lasted seventy years in the second year of Darius, see 
our remarks on the passage itself. Again Steudel observes, that 
" in 2 Chr. xxxvi. 21, the seventy years of Jeremiah are spoken 
of, as relating to the devastation of the land, which really lasted 

determined with precision by every reader of the Scriptures in Israel ; all that 
was left for those, who could only fix upon the starting point, as falling some- 
where within the period of the commandments and permissions issued by the 
Persian kings, was a general calculation as to the time when the Messiah was 
to be expected ; though the space, over which it would extend, would not be 
very large. But this was amply sufficient to strengthen fixith and heighten 
expectation ; and in this sense we may also say of modern readers of the 
Scriptures, that, even if the methods and results of learned chronological 
researches are beyond their reach, the simplest historical knowledge is suffi- 
cient to produce a conviction in the mind, that the prophecy was fulfilled in 
Christ." 



PKECISION OF THE DATES IN DAN. IX, 201 

but fifty-two years." The author of the Chronicles, he argues, 
must therefore have taken the seventy years to be a round num- 
ber. But the desolation of the land had existed in the germ, 
and in its earlier stages, from the fourth year of Jehoiakim, and 
merely reached its height in the destruction of the temple. As 
a general rule, captivity and desolation go hand in hand. Len- 
gerke (p. 430) renews the assertion, that in Jer. xxv. 11, 12, 
and xxix. 10, the number seventy is used in connection with two 
distinct events, which differed in the period of their commence- 
ment. But we have shown, on the contrary, in our Dissertation, 
p. 146, that the second passage points back to the first, that there 
is but one starting point, and that this is to be found in the earlier 
of the two passages. 

2. All the other chronological statements made by Daniel, 
with reference to the future, are definite in their character. It 
is universally admitted, that those contained in chap. viii. and 
xii., in connection with the Maccabean era, are not only true to 
the year, but to the day. It is evident too, from chap. iv. 34, 
that the period fixed for Nebuchadnezzar's madness was chrono-' 
logically exact, " at the end of the (appointed) days ;" although 
the measure of time, actually adopted, had to be determined by 
the fulfilment. 

3. The prophecy itself bears all the marks of chronological 
precision. We have already shown in the explanation, that this 
is clearly indicated by the expression 'ijnnj. The terminus a quo 
and the terminus ad quern are not left indefinite, but are fixed 
by very distinct events. Not only is the entire period of seventy 
weeks divided into three parts of seven, sixty-two, and one, but 
the latter is divided again into two equal portions. How could 
this be done, if half a century more or less made no difi'erence ? 
God himself would have given occasion to doubt his own word, 
if a prophecy containing all the marks of chronological exactness 
was proved by the fulfilment to have been quite indefinite. 

4. If these reasons were insufficient to decide the question, 
which they are not, the solution must be sought in the fulfil- 
ment ; and whichever explanation coincided with this, would be 
the correct one. 

Of course, the exactness, which we maintain to exist, cannot 
be greater than the circumstances themselves admit of. It can 



202 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

only exist in its fullest extent, in connection with announcements, 
such as the greater part of those contained in our prophecy, 
which have respect to one particular and sharply bounded point 
of time. In the case of events, which from their nature cannot 
have such precise limits, — the completion of the building of the 
city, for example, and the subjective appropriation of the bless- 
ings of salvation procured by Christ, — the precision of prophecy 
could not surpass the precision of history. 



COMMENCEMENT OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 

We have already shown in our exposition, that we are not to 
look for this at the commencement of the rebuilding of the city 
generally ; but rather at the time when the work of restoring the 
city in its former extent and grandeur was first taken in hand. 
We have now to determine, by the light of history, in what year 
this actually occurred. 

If the reference were simply to the commencement of the 
rebuilding, it would unquestionably be correct to fix upon the 
first year of Cyrus as the starting point, as some have actually 
done. Isaiah celebrates Kores as the builder of the city (chap, 
xlv. 13), and all the sacred writings, which treat of the period 
between Cyrus and Nehemiah, evidently assume the existence of 
a Jerusalem, during that period of time. 

But clearly defined as the starting point is in this prophecy, 
it can neither be assigned to the first year of Cyrus, as it is by 
one ; nor to the second year of Darius Hystaspes, as it is by 
another ; nor to the seventh year of Artaxerxes, as it is by 
a third. Up to the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, what had once 
been the city of Jerusalem loas an open village, thinly populated, 
and exposed to injury of every kind from those ivho divelt 
around. It bore the same relation to both the earlier and the 
later city, as the huts, which are run up after a city has been 
destroyed by fire, as a shelter from rain and wind, bear to the 
city itself, both before the fire and after its restoration. In the 
broad space, single dwellings rose up amidst the rubbish, which 



COMMENCEMENT OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 203 

lay heaped up around the city to such an extent, that it was im- 
possible to complete the road all round it. 

We will first of all dispose of the arguments, which have been 
brought against this view of the state of Jerusalem. " In Hag- 
gai i. 4," it is argued, " we find these words, ' is it a time for you to 
dwell in your cieled houses, and my house is waste ?'" But this 
passage merely proves the existence of certain " cieled houses," and 
is by no means at variance with the view we have given of the state 
of Jerusalem. Stress is laid again upon Ezra iv. 12, where the 
enemies of the Jews are said to have written to Artachshasta, 
" be it known unto the king, that the Jews, which came up from 
thee to us, are come unto Jerusalem, to build the rebellious and 
the bad city, and to finish the walls and restore the ruins," com- 
pare with ver. 16, "we make known to the king, that if this 
city be builded again, and the walls thereof completed, there 
will be no portion for thee on this side of the river." Artach- 
shasta is not Smerdis, but Artaxerxes, in this as in every other 
passage of the Bible. Vers. 6 — 23 form a parenthesis, relating 
to the city and walls ; and the design is to show, that the hostility 
of the enemies of the Jews was brought to bear upon them even 
here. These results have lately been thoroughly demonstrated 
by ScJmltz (Cyrus der Grosse, Studien und Kritiken, 1853). 
But the passage proves the very opposite of what it is said to 
prove. We learn from it, that, in the time of Artaxerxes, Jeru- 
salem was completely in ruins, and that the attempt to put an 
end to this mournful condition entirely failed. The attempt was 
probably made after the arrival of Ezra, which had put fresh 
spirits into the people. They hoped indeed for the connivance 
of the government ; but they deceived themselves, when they 
cherished such hopes as these. 

" The authority of Ezra," says Auherlen, p. 119, " was so ex- 
tensive, that the rebuilding of the city was essentially involved in 
that authority. This is very clearly and simply expressed by 
Ezra himself, when he says in his penitential prayer (chap. ix. 
9) : our God hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the 
kings of Persia, so that they cause us to revive, to raise up the 
house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, and so 
that they give us loalls in Judah and Jerusalem ("^aj, a walling 
round ; not merely building, but, as it were, fortifying the city)." 



204 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PliOPHETS. 

— To this we reply, that it is stated in Ezra vii. 11, " now these 
are the contents of the letter, which the King, Artachshasta, gave 
to Ezra, the priest, the scribe, who was learned in the command- 
ments of the Lord and his laws for Israel." In this description 
of Ezra, the whole extent of his royal authority is contained. It 
refers solely and exclusively to the sphere of religious worship, 
and it is with great truth that Schultz has said : " the hands of 
Ezra the priest were only loosed in matters connected with the 
temple ; in every other respect they were still firmly bound. 
And Nehemiah was the first to receive permission to build 
the city and its walls, which Artachshasta, in his unfavourable 
edict, had not indeed represented as impossible, but which he 
had hitherto withheld." And if we look at the edict, which was 
issued by Ezra himself, we shall see that the meaning, given by 
Auherlen to chap. ix. 9, is a priori inadmissible. The literal 
rendering of the passage is this : " and has inclined favour to 
us before the kings of Persia, to give us life, to raise the house 
of our God, and to set up its ruins, and to give us a fence, in 
Judah and Jerusalem." The blessing, conferred by Grod, is the 
restoration of the temple alone. In connection with this, both 
life and the fence are given. The fence (">3^ is an enclosure, a 
fence, a wall, and is principally applied to the defences of a vine- 
yard, but never to city- walls, see the remarks in Ps. Ixxxix. 41, 
and Micah vii. 11) is taken from Is. v. 5, where it is used to denote 
the divine protection. And the pledge of the renewal of that 
protection was just the sanctuary. The same idea is expressed 
in ver. 8 : " and that he may give us a peg — a sure existence — 
in his holy place." 

Lastly, appeal is made to Nehem. i. 3 : " and they (those who 
had come from Jerusalem to the Persian palace) said to me : 
the remnant, that are left of the captivity there in the city, are 
in great misery and reproach, and the wall of Jerusalem is 
broken down, and the gates thereof are burned with fire." From 
this 3Iichaelis and others, who follow him, say that " it neces- 
sarily follows, that the walls of Jerusalem had been first of all 
rebuilt by those who had returned, and then destroyed a second 
time by the surrounding tribes. For Nehemiah cannot have 
been ignorant that the walls had been demolished by Nebuchad- 
nezzar, and therefore this cannot have furnished a fresh occasion 



COMMENCEMENT OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 205 

for his grief." But what is there to force lis to the conclusion, 
that the visitors brought some intelligence, that was quite new 
to Nehemiah ? He was not ignorant of the ftict that the walls 
and gates had never been rebuilt ; but the excitement of a court 
life had absorbed his attention. Now, hoVever, the contrast 
between the promise, and that which was actually to be wit- 
nessed, stood out with peculiar vividness before his mind ; and 
he was impelled to offer an earnest intercessory prayer, which 
prepared the way for its removal. The inference is no better 
and no worse, than that which has been drawn from the impres- 
sion made upon Josiah by the reading of the law, — namely, that 
he was entirely ignorant of it before. Are we justified in con- 
cluding that, because the people wept when Ezra read the law 
to them (Neh. viii. 9), they had never known anything of it 
before ? Moreover, the relation, in which the words, " they are 
in great misery and reproach," stand to the clause, " the walls 
are destroyed," &c., is that of effect and cause. Nehemiah had 
never thought before of the things which were told him now, 
— namely, that the destruction of the walls exerted a most perni- 
cious influence, and completely hindered the rebuilding of the 
city, by exposing its inhabitants to all the insult and injury 
that would be heaped upon them by their enemies round about. 
The ruined condition of the walls, therefore, appeared to him 
now in a very different light ; and whilst it pained him, it also 
led him to offer prayer, and to form plans for bringing active 
assistance. The following positive proofs may be adduced, that 
the Chaldean destruction of the walls and gates is referred to 
here, and that they continued in this state of ruin until the time 
of Nehemiah: 1. The description of the Chaldean destruction, 
which we find in Lam. ii. 8, 9, is precisely the same, so far as 
the walls and gates are concerned, as that which is given here 
(compare also 2 Kings xxv. 10). — 2. The enemies of the Jews 
only know of one destruction, and that one of distant date ; com- 
pare Nehemiah iv. 2, where Sanballat says: "what do the 
withered (feeble) Jews ? will they give life to the stones out of 
the heaps of rubbish which have been burned up ?" — 3. The 
Book of Ezra does not say a single word about the walls being 
restored. And yet we can hardly imagine, that such an event 
would be passed over in silence ; an event, the importance of 



206 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

which may be seen from the fact that, when it was in actual 
progress, the enemies of the Jews tried to prevent it, both by 
stratagem and force, and tliat nothing excited their anger so 
much as this. Moreover, in Ezra iv., we may find positive proofs 
that the walls were not rebuilt. And the second portion of 
Zechariah (chap. xiv. 10 sqq.), which was written after the sixth 
year of Darius, when compared with several passages of Nehe- 
miah, which are quoted there, clearly shows that, at the time of 
both these writers, the walls and gates were in the same state, 
as that in which the Chaldeans left them, with the very same 
fragments standing as they had spared, and no others. See also 
Neh. iii. 8: " and they finished Jerusalem, as far as the broad 
wall ;" from which it is evident, that they did not require to 
rebuild the broad wall, to the west of the Ephraim's gate, which 
was still standing, according to the passages already quoted 
(compare 2 Chr, xxvi. 9), the strength given to this wall by 
Uzziah having kept it from falling down. There is no notice of 
permission to rebuild the city and walls, in the edicts of any of 
the Persian kings. And who would venture to maintain, that 
this was self-evident ? It is one thing to let a defenceless people 
return home, and quite a different thing to furnish them with 
means of defence, which might be turned against the giver 
himself, in the event of a general revolution. The latter pre- 
supposes an amount of confidence, such as we never meet with 
in the monarchs of Asia, who were well aware, that their power 
was based upon the wickedness of their subjects ; and nothing but 
the close relation, in which Nehemiah stood to Artaxerxes, could 
account for the exception in this instance ; especially when we 
consider that the Jews, as we learn from Ezra iv., had been 
accused of a disposition to rebel. 

This refutation of the arguments, adduced in opposition to 
the view we have given of the condition of Jerusalem up to the 
time of Nehemiah, contains, in part, the positive evidence of the 
correctness of that view ; and hence we only need to make the 
evidence complete. 

In Zechariah the condition of Jerusalem is represented, 
throughout, as merely temporary. According to chap. i. 16 the 
measuring line is not to be drawn over Jerusalem, till a later 
period. In ver. 12 the time then present is spoken of, as belong- 



COMMENCEMENT OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 207 

ing to the period of affliction, not to that of restoration ; it is 
merely a supplement to the Chaldean captivity. According to 
chap, ii., the future alone will witness the completion of the 
destruction of Babylon, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem ; in 
fact everything, that has yet been done in connection with the 
latter, is so insignificant, that it is hardly taken into considera- 
tion ; and the prophet speaks as if the building would be altogether 
new. Compare, particularly, ver. 1, " And behold a man with 
a measuring line in his hand. Then said I, whither goest thou ? 
And he said to me, to measure Jerusalem, to see what is the 
breadth thereof, and what is the length thereof." In chap. vii. 
7, the time past, when Jerusalem was seated and contented, is 
contrasted with the present. Jerusalem, therefore, was still a 
city ; though (s'^'n nS) it was not seated, but prostrate. In 
chap. viii. 5, the prophet predicts, that the streets of the city 
will one day be full of boys and girls, playing in the streets 
thereof ; and we may see how little there was at that time, to 
bear out the prediction, from the fact that, in ver. 6, he feels 
it necessary to remind those, to whom such a change in the state 
of things appeared strange and incredible, of the omnipotence of 
God. 

Under Ezra, and notwithstanding his commission, the degraded 
and sorrowful condition of the people still continued. He says 
this himself, as plainly as possible, in chap. ix. 7 : " Since the 
days of our fathers have we been in a great trespass unto this 
day ; and for our iniquities have we, our kings, and our priests, 
been delivered into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the 
sword, to captivity, and to a spoil and to confusion of face, as it 
is this day." There was only a small beginning of grace, in the 
preservation of a remnant and the restoration of the sanctuary, 
ver. 8, 9, 1.5.^ 

1 In order to be able to transpose the point, from which the seventy weeks 
of years are reckoned, to the seventh year of Artaxerxes, the year in whic'i 
Ezra came to Jerusalem, Auberlen was obliged to give an incorrect descrip- 
tion of the nature of Ezra's mission, and the character of his times. He 
thinks (p. 113) that, "so far as the historical matter is concerned, the first 
part of the Book of Ezra forms a complete work ; whilst the second part is 
closely connected with the Book of Nehemiah, and the two together make 
up a perfect historical picture." " The first period after the captivity," 
he says, " we may call the period of the building of the temple ; the 
second, represented by Ezra and Nehemiah, that of the restoration of the 
people, and the building of the city ; the first, the period of religious 



208 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

The same picture, of the state of things in existence previous 
to the arrival of Nehemiah, is given in the book of which he 
was the author. That the number of inhabitants was very- 
small, is evident from the expression, " the remnant, that are 
left of the captivity there in the city." From this it seems to 
follow, that the small number of inhabitants in Jerusalem had 
diminished in the interval between Zechariah and Nehemiah. 
The people may have been wearied out by the constant annoy- 
ances, to which they were exposed from enemies, who made Jeru- 
salem their peculiar mark ; and they may therefore have scattered 
themselves over the rest of the land. But it is from chap. ii. 3 
and 5, more especially, that we see how little there is to warrant 
the idea, that the city was restored before the time of Nehemiah. 
In that passage, Nehemiah is represented as saying to Artaxerxes, 
" the city, the place of my fathers' sepulchres, lieth ivaste, and 
the gates thereof are consumed with fire. Send me unto Judah, 
unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may build it." 
From this it is evident, that there was so little difference between 
the condition of Jerusalem, as it was then, and as it had been 
during the captivity, that there was no necessity to make the 
slightest allusion to any change in this respect, and its existing 
state could be described in precisely the same terms, which are 
applied to its earlier condition in the chapter before us. That 
there was no exaggeration in the account, which Nehemiah gave 
to the king of Persia, is apparent from his description of what 
he saw, when he arrived at Jerusalem, " ye see the distress that 

restoration ; the second, that of the religious and political combined." 
But it is not an accidental circumstance, that in Neh. xii. 47, the contrast 
lies between Zerubbabel and Nehemiah, whilst Ezra is not even named ; 
nor is it a mere accident that the mission of Ezra is recorded in the 
same book, wliich descril^es the work performed by Zerubbabel and Joshua. 
The whole of the book of Ezra centres in the temple. The mission of Ezra 
had reference to this quite as much as that of Zerubbabel and Joshua. No 
political changes were introduced by him. Ezra himself published the edict, 
in which Artachshasta prohibited the erection of the walls, and therefore of 
Jerusalem. There was, no doubt, an essential connection between the 
mission of Ezra and that of Nehemiah. Ezra's religous reformation was to 
secure the conditions, without which Nehemiah's political reform could not be 
carried into effect. But this connection, which is never expressly mentioned 
in the Scriptures, was too spiritual and refined, to come into consideration 
here. What is required here is a massive starting point. If it is certain, that 
Ezra had nothing directly to do with the restoration of the city, it is no less 
60, that his mission cannot have been the point from which the seventy 
years are reckoned. 



COMMENCEMENT OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 209 

we are in, liow Jerusalem lleth waste, and the gates thereof are 
burned with fire" (ver. 17). Very striking too is the statement 
in Neh. vii. 4, " the city was broad and large, but the people 
were few therein, and there were no houses built." The reference 
here is to the period immediately following the erection of the 
city walls. Kelying upon the promises of God, the people had 
built the walls upon their former plan ; but the dis|)roportion 
was most startling. The few houses in existence seemed almost 
lost, in the broad space within the walls. 

Thus far, we have proved that the actual restoration of the 
city was not commenced before the time of Nehemiah. We 
shall now proceed to show, that it was by him, that the com- 
mencement was actually made. We may see from Ecclus. 
xlix. 13, that in later times he was regarded as the restorer, not 
only of the walls and gates, but also of the city itself: "among 
the elect was Neemias, whose renown is great, who raised up for 
us the walls that were fallen, and set up the gates and the bars, 
and raised up our ruins again." On the other hand, Joshua and 
Zerubbabel are celebrated in ver. 12, as the builders of the 
temple. But we can adduce a still stronger proof from the 
book of Nehemiah itself. From chap. xii. 43 we perceive, that 
the completion of the city walls was regarded as a great and 
glorious favour, conferred by the Lord upon his people, through 
the instrumentality of Nehemiah : " Also that day they offered 
great sacrifices and rejoiced, for God had made them rejoice 
with great joy, the wives also and the children rejoiced, so that 
the joy of Jerusalem was heard even afar otf." The effect pro- 
duced among the heathen round about, by the completion of the 
wall, is thus described in chap. vi. 15, 16 : " so the wall was 
finished .... and it came to pass, that when all our 
enemies heard thereof, and all the heathen that were about us 
saw these things, they were much cast down in their own eyes : 
for they perceived, that this work was wrought of our God." 
In close connection with chap. vii. 4, where the course of the 
narrative is interrupted, merely for the purpose of relating certain 
things, which occurred between the determination and its com- 
plete execution, Nehemiah describes in chap. xi. 1, 2 the 
measures, which he adopted, to increase the number of inhabi- 

VOL. III. 



210 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

tants in Jerusalem. At his instigation, first of all, the rulers of 
the people all came from the country into the city ; after this, 
the tenth of the rest of the people were ordered to do the same ; 
and lots were cast, to determine who should go. Lastly, a con- 
siderable number of families went, of their own accord, from the 
country into the city. This was at first regarded as a sacrifice, 
dictated by love to the theocracy, on account of the sudden 
rupture of every tie which necessarily attended it ; but the same 
course was afterwards frequently adopted from necessity, by 
those who had no such motive to influence them. Jerusalem, 
being the only fortified city in the land, possessed so great an 
advantage in this respect, that every one, whose circumstances 
permitted it, was led to select it as a dwelling place. The 
erection of the walls of Jerusalem, and there being " no more a 
reproach," are represented in Neh. ii. 17 as inseparably con- 
nected. Partly for this reason, and partly, also, because the 
sanctuary was situated in Jerusalem, the Jews, who still con- 
tinued to return from their dispersion, would not be likely to 
take up their abode anywhere else. Many were certainly induced 
to return by the intelligence, which they received, of the restora- 
tion of Jerusalem. How gloriously, and how quickly the city 
continued henceforward to grow, — whereas it had made no pro- 
gress at all in the long interval between the first year of Cyrus 
and the time of Nehemiah, — will appear from the passages, 
which we shall presently quote from heathen writers. 

The examination of the four Psalms, cxlvii. — cl., is also of 
interest in connection with this question ; for there is solid ground 
for believing, that they were sung at the dedication of the walls 
under Nehemiah. In these Psalms, " the plaintive tone, which 
runs through all the earlier Psalms composed after the captivity, 
even when combined with exultation, vanishes at once. Here, 
for the first time, the people appear again to rejoice in their 
existence." The security against danger from without, which 
had been obtained through the restoration of the walls, is repre- 
sented in Ps. cxlvii. 13, 14 as the foundation of every other 
blessing : " he hath strengthened the bars of thy gates, and 
blessed thy children within thee. He maketh peace in thy 
borders, blesseth thee with the fat of the wheat." And again in 



COMMENCEMENT OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 211 

Ps. ■cxlviii, 14, we read : " He also exalted the horn of his people, 
the fame of all his saints, of the children of Israel, the nation 
that draws near to him." 

If we endeavom- now to determine the point of commence- 
ment still more precisely ; the period which at once suggests 
itself, is that of Nehemiah's prayer for the restoration of the city 
(chap. i.). In answer to this prayer, the divine decree went 
forth to rebuild the city ; and this is actually mentioned in ver. 
25, as the point from which the seventy weeks are reckoned. To 
the hearing of this prayer Nehemiah traces all the rest ; especially 
the readiness, with which Artaxerxes hearkened to his request 
(chap. ii. 8, 18).^ Now this prayer was oifered in the month 
Kislev, the third month of the civil year, in the twentieth year 
of Artaxerxes ; and therefore, in our chronological reckoning of 
the seventy weeks, we have only to subtract nineteen whole years 
from Artaxerxes' reign. 

We must now examine certain objections, that have been 
offered to the point of time, from which we date the commence- 
ment of the seventy years, in common with Julius Africanus, as 
quoted by Jerome, who is very correct, on the whole, in his 
exposition of our prophecy, except that he reckons by lunar 
years,^ and also in common with the majority of commentators 
and certainly with the best. (1.) We are told, that " it was 
indispensable, that Daniel should survive the period of the issuing 
of the edict, referred to here ; otherwise it would afford him no 
consolation, and he would not even have known when he was 
to begin to reckon ; his own prophecy, therefore, would have 
been unintelligible to himself" This is Hassencamps objection 
(iiber die 70 Wochen, p. 9 sqq.) But his argument is based 
upon the erroneous assumption, that the communication was 
made to Daniel simply for his own sake ; whereas, according to 
the correct view, he was merely an instrument, through whom 
God revealed things, which could not be understood in their 
full extent for hundreds of years. We say according to the 

1 Bengel, ordo temp. p. 346. " Mandata regum {ilix^oMTo, liy/Aocra, ut 
habet phrasis Luc. ii. 1), illi verbo subserviebant." 

2 A mode of reckoning, which was never adopted by the Hebrews, and 
therefore is so thoroughly destitute of foundation, that we need not stop to 
prove its incorrectness ; see, per contra, Vitringa 1. c. p. 200 ; Frank syst. 
chronol. i. 1, § 8 ; Ideler, Chronologie i., p. 490 sqq. 



212 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PKOPHETS. 

correct view ; for it is the view which we find in the book of 
Daniel itself. The vision in chap. viii. is represented in ver. 
26, as shut up till a far distant time. According to ver. 27, 
Daniel himself was astonished, and no one comprehended it. 
In chap. xii. 4, the whole of the previous prophecy is said to be 
shut up, until the time of the end, when many will run through 
it, and great will be the knowledge of its meaning. In chap, 
xii. 7, the angel fixes the time. Daniel hears, but does not 
understand ; he therefore asks the angel for a further explanation 
(ver. 8). The angel replies (ver. 9) that he cannot give it, 
because the prophecy is shut up and sealed, until the last time 
(seethe Dissertation on Daniel, p. 175). With special reference 
to the passage last quoted, Peter says (1 Pet. i. 10 — 12), " the 
prophets inquired and searched diligently " as to the future sal- 
vation. It was revealed to them, however, that the prophecy, 
ministered by them, was not for themselves, but for those who 
should be living at the time of its fulfilment. Daniel did not 
want to know luhen he was to begin to reckon ; it was enough 
for him to be able to gather from the prophecy itself that he was 
not to begin to reckon yet, because the time had not yet come. 
A more exact calculation was reserved for the men of a later age ; 
and even for them, there was so much obscurity previous to the 
fulfilment, — first, on account of the method, in which the point 
of commencement itself was determined (a method which evi- 
dently aimed, in this as in every other prophecy, at avoiding the 
two extremes, of objective uncertainty on the one hand, and such 
distinctness on the other, for those who lived before the fulfil- 
ment, as would do away with the difference between prophecy 
and history) , and secondly, from the want of any careful chrono- 
logical investigation of the whole period, which is so apparent iu 
the case of Josephus — that it was impossible to do anything 
more than obtain from prophecy an approximation to the time 
when Christ would appear. At the same time, it may be proved 
from history that it did answer this end, so far as the more 
thoughtful were concerned. Subjective certainty, corresponding 
to the objective, was reserved till the prophecy had been fulfilled. 
It is not true, however, that, if we suppose this to have been the 
point of commencement, the prediction can have aff"orded no 
consolation to Daniel. Was not the fact itself a rich source of 



COMMENCEMENT OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 213 

consolation ? Moreover, Daniel was not left in utter uncertainty 
as to the time. The period of the return from captivity was 
accurately known to him. He knew that this would take place 
in two years more. Cyrus, who was to effect it, had already 
appeared upon the stage, and, from the very nature of the case, 
it seemed impossible that the return could be separated by a very 
long interval from the complete restoration of the city. More- 
over, the announcemeni may have been all the more consolatory 
to Daniel, from the very fact, that he thought the two would be 
much more nearly connected, than they really were. That he 
actually did think so, may perhaps be inferred from the deep 
sorrow, to which he gives utterance in chap, x., when an unex- 
pected obstacle presents itself to the resumption of the theocracy, 
in the third year of Cyrus (see Beitrdge i. 146 sqq.). A more 
precise statement, as to the length of time that would intervene 
between the point at which Jeremiah's prophecies would termi- 
nate, and that at which the fulfilment of the present announce- 
ment was to commence, would only have tended to dispirit those 
who were about to return, if not to deter them from returning 
altogether ; a step which, even apart from this, comparatively 
few resolved to take. 

2. It is argued that " the blessing desired and promised was 
proportioned to the calamity endured. The Chaldeans had 
destroyed, at the same time, both the temple and the city. Both 
temple and city were still lying in ruins, at the time when 
Daniel prayed. And therefore, as Jeremiah's prediction of the 
desolation of the city involved that of the temple as well (Jer. 
xxi. 10, &c.), so is the latter included in Daniel's description of 
the desolation and re-building, though the cityalone is mentioned. 
Hence Daniel embraces the whole in his prayers, people and 
sanctuary, city and sacred hill. And the answer, brought by 
the angel, equally embraces them all" (Bengel, ordo tempor. p. 
343). But this proves nothing more than that the message 
from God must have referred to the temple, as well as the city. 
Indirectly, this certainly is the case ; inasmuch as, at the com- 
mencement of the seventy weeks, or of the restoration of the city, 
it is taken for granted that the temple is already finished. For 
how could the city be called the holy city, apart from the temple ? 
Moreover, the announcement of the destruction of the temple, at 



214 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PliOPHETS. 

the end of the seventy weeks, presupposes its restoration. But 
to maintain that the re-building of the terople must necessarily 
have taken place at the same time as that of the city, is to 
maintain that the history must have been different from what it 
really was. If the two events were actually separated from each 
other, why should not one of them be selected in the prophecy as 
the point from which to reckon ? And why should it not be the 
one, from which if we begin to reckon, we find the seventy weeks 
of years terminate precisely at the point intended. 

3. Wieseler's objection is this (p. 80), " The starting point is 
said to be eighty years from the time when Daniel received his 
prophecy. But who could have blamed Daniel, if he had taken, 
as the basis of his calculation of the seventy weeks, a prophecy 
with which he was well acquainted, and the import of which 
was the same as that of his own, I mean Jeremiah's prophecy in 
the year 606 ? Why was it not at least pointed out to him, that 
the "131, from which he was to begin his reckoning, was some- 
thing belonging to the future, and not to the past ?" The 
impossibility of its referring to Jeremiah's prophecy, we have 
already shown in our remarks on ver. 25. That the point of 
commencement was in the future, was a fact about which Daniel 
could have had no doubt. It was to be seen in the existing con- 
dition of Jerusalem, which was still in ruins, and therefore far 
removed from complete restoration. We have already shown, 
that the divine command coincided exactly with its fulfilment by 
man, in other words, with the commencement of the perfect 
restoration, and that the issue of such a command could only be 
known from its execution. 

4. Wieseler says again, " what right have we to fix upon the 
edict of Artaxerxes, in the twentieth year of his reign, as the 
consequence of this divine decree ? God had already caused 
similar edicts to be issued before ; e.g. that of Darius Hystaspes 
(Ezra vi. 12), and that of Artaxerxes himself in the seventh year 
of his reign (Ezra vii. 8)." But the edict of Darius simply re- 
lated to the building of the temple, and had nothing to do with 
the city. The edict of Artaxerxes informed Ezra the priest of 
the conditions, on which he was to enter upon his work, as a re- 
former of religious worship. 

5. Hofmann objects that, " it appears very strange that the 



COMMENCEMENT OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 215 

seventy weeks of years should have no chronological connection 
with the seventy years of Jeremiah, seeing that any one, who 
reads the passage along with the context, would at once imagine 
that the seventy weeks, at the end of which Daniel was led by 
Jeremiah's prophecy to expect the final restoration and the glory 
of Jerusalem, were replaced by, and expanded in the seventy 
weeks of years." Jeremiah predicts that, at the end of seventy 
years, the Chaldean captivity will come to an end, and the 
people will return. The complete restoration and glory of Jeru- 
salem, Jeremiah does not assign to the same point of time. 
Whether they belonged to the same, or to a later period, had 
not been revealed to Daniel. But even if the seventy weeks of 
years did not follow immediately upon the seventy years, they 
were nevertheless essentially connected with them ; they were a 
rich compensation, provided by the mercy of God, for the suffer- 
ings of seventy years. But no one, who would avoid the most 
forced and untenable assumptions, can possibly bring the seventy 
weeks of years into direct chronological connection with the 
seventy years of Jeremiah. 

6. Hofmann says again, " the rebuilding of Jerusalem as a 
whole, cannot possibly be assigned to this period." But we 
have already shown, that the term building is more closely 
defined by the restoration mentioned before. And, even apart 
from this, the rebuilding of Jerusalem was really the work of 
Nehemiah. All that had been done before his time hardly 
deserved the name. According to Neh. ii. 5, Nehemiah says to 
the king of the Persians : " send me unto Judah, unto the city 
of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may build it." " There were 
no houses built," it is stated in Neh. vii. 4. Build is the watch- 
word, throughout the whole of the book of Nehemiah. There is 
no other book in the Bible, in which the word occurs with the same 
relative frequency. According to Ezra iv. 12, previous to the 
arrival of Nehemiah, the Samaritans accused the Jews to 
Artaxerxes of building Jerusalem and setting up the walls, and 
restoring its foundations. But as the attempt was merely an 
experiment, and was prohibited at the outset ; at the time when 
the book of Ezra was composed, Jerusalem was still not built. 
For, in the whole of the book, there is no account of any revoca- 
tion of the edict in which the Jews were forbidden to build. 



216 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

" If this city be built, and the walls thereof restored," is what the 
enemies of the Jews say (chap, iv, 13, 16). The city, therefore, 
had not been built up to that time. If it be built, the accusers 
maintain, the most disastrous consequences will ensue. The 
antithesis to the building in ver. 15 is the state of desolation, in 
which the city had lain up to the time of Artaxerxes. " This 
city is not to be built," says the edict of Artaxerxes, " until com- 
mandment shall be given from me" (chap. iv. 21) ; and on the 
strength of this edict, the enemies prevented the Jews, by main 
force, from attempting to build. " Until commandment shall 
be given from me ; — the words stood like a brazen wall in the 
way of any building, until the mission of Neheraiah ensued, 
which was founded solely and exclusively upon the personal 
relation in which, by the providence of God, Nehemiah stood to 
the Persian monarch. " The Lord doth huild up Jerusalem," 
is the joyful exclamation of the congregation in ver. 2 of the 
147th Psalm, which was composed under Nehemiah. Thus 
Nehemiah is always referred to in ilie Scriptures, as the sole 
builder of the city. If the building of the city is attributed to 
Kores in Is. xliv. 28 and xlv. 13, this may be explained from 
the fact that the central point of the city, the temple, was to be 
erected by him, and this, of course, could not be accomplished 
without houses being built as well. This was the interpretation 
given to the prophecy by Cyrus himself He says, in Ezra i. 2 : 
" he hath commanded me to build him a house in Jerusalem." 
Of the restoration of the city, as a city, there is not a single Word 
in the edict of Cyrus. 

With this inquiry as to the point of commencement, we now 
connect an examination of the historical confirmation of the 
account, here given, of the peculiar characteristics of the first 
period, that is, the first seven weeks, dating from that point. 
The restoration of the city is said to occupy the whole seven 
weeks, and to be completed when they close. Now, the twentieth 
year of Artaxerxes' reign, as we shall prove by and by, was the 
year 455 B.C. ; and therefore the seven weeks must have expired 
in the year 406, two years before the close of the nineteen years' 
reign of Darius II., the successor of Artaxerxes. So far as this 
particular point is concerned, but very modest claims can be put 
forth to a demonstration of the agreement between prophecy and 



COMMENCEMENT OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 217 

its fulfilment ; partly from the nature of the period itself, which 
is not detached, and sharply defined ; and partly from the fact, 
that Josephus passes over this period altogether, and our histo- 
rical information, therefore, is as good as none at all. But, 
notwithstanding this, we are almost in a condition to outbid 
these modest claims. 

The most remarkable testimony is given by Herodotus, whose 
history cannot have been written before the year 408, since he 
records events, which occurred in this and the previous year 
(cf. Clinton, fasti Hellenici p. 85, but especially DaJdmann, 
Forschungen i. 95 sqq.), and cannot have been written much 
later, for this would make the historian himself too old. Hence, 
his remarks as to the size of Jerusalem may be regarded, as 
pretty nearly descriptive of what it was at the end of the seven 
weeks. We must claim permission, it is true, to make one 
assumption, — namely, that the Kadijtis of Herodotus is Jerusa- 
lem ; but we may do this without hesitation. It is a thing 
which speaks for itself The arguments already adduced in sup- 
port of this assumption, — for example, by Lightfoot (opp. t. ii. 
p. 408), Prideaux (i. p. 106 sqq. French ed.), Cellarius (3. 13, 
ed. Schiuarz 2. p. 456), Heine (observv, sacrse 1. 1. c. 5. p. 63), 
the acute editor of the ohservatio de Cadyti, magna Syrice urhe 
(in the nova var. script, coll. fasc. 1. Halle 1716), Zorn (on 
Hecateus Abder. p. 94), and Dahlmann (Forschungen 2 p. 75), 
— are not shaken in the least by Hitzigs treatise ; and, since 
this treatise was written, Niehuhr (in the first volume of the 
hist. pMl. ScJiriften, Ahhandlung iiber die Armen. GJironik des 
Eusebius), Bdhr and Stein (in their editions of Herodotus) have 
joined the ranks of its defenders. Herodotus refers to Kadytis in 
two passages. The former of the two (2. 159, "after the battle 
he took Kadytis, which is a large city of Syria ") relates, it is 
true, to the times anterior to the captivity ; — namely, to the taking 
of Jerusalem by Pharaoh Necho, after Josiah had been slain in 
the battle at Megiddo. But Herodotus speaks of Jerusalem in 
this passage, as being still a large city, even in his own day. Of 
greater importance, however, is the second passage 3. 5 : aTro 
yap ^oivjxrjy l-^^XP^ ovpaiv ruiv KaSyrior TroXioy, rj aari ^upcov rwv 
riaXaJffTJVwv xaXso/ULgvwv' amh ^e Ka^uTior, lovcns iioKios {cos s/xoi 

5ox££j) SapSi'wv ou TToXXo; ixoirjaowi x. t. X. It is evident from 



218 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

the comparison, drawn between Kadytis and Sardes in this pas- 
sage, that the predicate " large," in the former one, is to be 
taken in its fnllest sense. This city of the earliest antiquity was 
as large, and as populous, under the Persian dominion, and even 
later, as it had formerly been, when it was the capital of the 
kings of Lydia. This is apparent from Pausanias (Lacon. p. 
175 ed. Wech.) and other authorities. Pausanias says: h ya-p 
Sy) rris ^A/yias rrii itccrcj ixlyi(TTOv [xipos mviitccvro!. ri Au^ia., ycal 
al 2,<x.po£is ttXovtco rs y.ai 7tapa.(7>i£vri TrpoeT'XjOy' raJ tb aarpa.'niv- 
ovri £7ri flaXairiTTp rovro o'iy.y)rripiov x.Tts'^i^Bix.TOj yiocQxTrsp ys az^rw 
ficcaiKzl TO. 1,ovaa." Pliny describes this city, as the ornament 
of all Lydia (" celebrakcr maxime Sardibus," h. n. 5. 29); 
Strabo speaks of it, as very ancient and large ; and the latter 
predicate is applied to it so constantly, that it appears to have 
been a standing epithet (compare Ovid, Metam. xi. 137, Vade, 
ait, ad magnis vicinum Sardibus amnem). 

Another remarkable testimony is that oi Hecataeus Abderita, 
a writer of the time of Alexander and Ptolemy Lagus. (For 
further information respecting him see the Dissertation on 
Daniel, p. 228). It belongs indeed to a later age, but it is not 
less remarkable on that account. It is contained in a fragment 
quoted by Josephus (contra Apion, Book i. § 22), and Eusebius 

(prtep. Evang. 1. ix. C. 4): I'ttj yap ruv 'lovla-iu)/ nx. fxh TToKXa. 
o')^upoj[/.(x.rcx. y.(x.ra. rriv y^cupav ytai yi.aiij.cci' fj^lx Ss TtoKis hyjjpct, 'jti.M- 
TTiKOVTa; yt.a.'kinra. arcc^icov tyjv tts^i/joet^ov" •:^v o'lttovrji fxsv dvOpcu- 
TTwv TTspi ^ui^£)ia, (Ji.vpia.'^Bi, ytacXovni S' (xutyiV ^IsponoXvf/.a., On which 

Scaliger observes, "you see, how large a city Jerusalem must 
have been, when it could truly be called the ornament of the 
East in the time of Hecataeus." 

It is mentioned in the prophecy, as a peculiar characteristic of 
the rebuilding to take place in the seven weeks, that it would 
occur in troublous times. This is also in perfect keeping with 
the actual circumstances. We cannot sufficiently wonder, how 
the hidden blessing of Grod was able to work so powerfully in the 
midst of crosses, that, in a comparatively brief space of time, 
there rose up, in the place of a desolate heap of rubbish, a city 
of such magnitude, that there were few in Asia to surpass it. 
We may see from Nehemiah (chap, iv.), how thoroughly appli- 
cable to this period the epithet "troublous times" really was. 



COMMENCEMENT OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 219 

The builders, hard pressed by the enemies round about, were 
obliged to carry their weapons in one hand, and work with the 
other ; and during the night their powers, which had been ex- 
hausted by the labours of the day, were again called into requi- 
sition, for the duties of the watch. And, even when the building 
was finished, their misery and anxieties were not at an end. 
This is apparent from the graphic account given in Neh. ix. 36, 
37 : " behold we are servants this day, and for the land, that thou 
gavest unto our fathers, to eat the fruit thereof, and the good 
thereof, behold we are servants in it. And it yieldeth its increase 
for the kings, whom thou hast set over us because of our sins ; 
also they have dominion over our bodies, and over our cattle, at 
their pleasure, and we are in great distress." Of this, the pro- 
phecies of Malachi, which were written in the midst of the same 
period, also contain an evident proof. He is constantly reprov- 
ing those, who murmured against God on account of the oppressed 
condition of the new colony, and who even suifered themselves 
to be led away thereby to total unbelief. 



We append the additional observation here, that the position, 
assigned to the Book of Daniel in the Canon, appears to rest 
upon the connection, which exists between the prophecy before 
us, and the history recorded in the Book of Nehemiah. In the 
arrangement in the Canon, plan and intention are conspicuous 
everywhere, even in the most minute particulars. The collection 
of the Nebi'im, especially, is most carefully arranged. Hence, 
we should expect, at the very outset, to find the same evidence 
of a well considered plan in the third collection. It contains 
such of the sacred books, as were neither composed by Moses, 
nor by the prophets in their prophetic capacity. (The idea of 
the Nahi included not only the prophetic gift, but the prophetic 
office also, which Daniel did not fill). The Psalms of David, 
and others that were added to them, form the commencement. 
Then follow the three books from the age of Solomon ; the first 
and third places being assigned to those, of which Solomon is 
expressly named in the heading as the author, and Job being 
placed in the middle. As an appendix to the writings of David 
and Solomon, we find the Book of Ruth, which is occupied with 



220 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

the origines of the royal family of David. Then follow the 
Lamentations of Jeremiah, which belong to the period of the deso- 
lation. Next to these comes Ecclesiastes, composed in the days of 
the new colony, by a contemporary of Malachi. In the position 
assigned to this book, we have the testimony of the compilers, 
that Solomon was not the author. Next come the Books which 
are occupied with both history and prophecy, relating to the 
state of things after the captivity ; first of all the Book of 
Esther, which it occupied with events, that occurred in the 
reign of Xerxes ; — then Daniel, on account of his predicting in 
chap. ix. the restoration of the city under Artaxerxes, a prophecy, 
which would have the greater prominence in the estimation of 
the compilers of the Canon, from the fact that they were eye- 
witnesses of the fulfilment ; — then Ezra and Nehemiah, who 
give an historical account of the mercy, shown by Grod to his 
people in the reign of Artaxerxes (strictly speaking, Daniel 
ought to have been placed between Ezra and Nehemiah, but it 
was thought unadvisable to obscure the connection, which exists 
between these two books, by a local separation) ; — lastly, the 
Chronicles, the closing book of the Canon, Paraleipoinena. 
The fact that this latest work is placed last in the Canon, is a 
proof, that the other books do not owe their position to mere 
accident. The arrangement of the subject matter is closely con- 
nected with the chronological order. This may be seen in the 
position assigned to the Books of Euth and Daniel. It it also 
apparent from the fact, that Ecclesiastes stands before Esther. 
With the exception of the Book of Ruth, which forms a kind of 
parenthesis, we have none but poetical books from the Psalms 
to the Preacher. The Preacher could not properly be separated 
from the other kindred writings. The author has been led into 
this investigation by a remark made by Auherlen in his " der 
Prophet Daniel uud die Oifenbarung Johannis," p. 131. 



TEEMIXATION OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 

The extreme point to which the prophecy extends, — namely, 
the period, which was to commence with the complete forgive- 



TERMINATION OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 221 

ness of sins, the bringing in of eternal righteousness, &c., falls 
precisely at the close of the seventy weeks. But it is a mistake 
to make this the basis of chronological calculations ; for the 
simple reason, that it is not marked by any distinct and clearly 
defined event. Such an event, however, we do find at the end 
of the sixty-ninth week, — namely, Christ's public appearance, 
and his anointing with the gifts of the Spirit ; and we are the 
more inclined to take this as the basis of our calculation, just 
because of the very remarkable fact, that the chronological 
data, connected with this event, are as carefully recorded in the 
history of the fulfilment, as they are here in the prophecy itself, 
and more carefully than in the case of his birth, his resurrection, 
his ascension, or any other event connected with his life. 

We read in Luke iii. 1, "in the fifteenth year of the reign of 
Tiberias Caesar, Pontius Pilate being govei'nor of Judrea, . . 
the work of God came unto John." According to this, the public 
aj)pearance of John the Baptist and of Christ occurred in the 
year of Rome 782. Attempts have, indeed, been made, — partly, 
for the purpose of upholding the authority of several of the 
church-fathers, whose notices differ from the statement given 
here, and partly, to shake the solid historical foundation of the 
sacred narrative, — to rob this account of its credibility. But 
they have not been successful. For whilst Paulus and Kiihndl, 
for example, affirm that it is uncertain, which mode of reckoning 
has been adopted in this statement, as to the year of the reign 
of Tiberias ; Ideler (Chronologic i. p. 418), and Wieseler (chron. 
Syn. p. 172), have proved that the reckoning, adopted in history, 
invariably dates from the death of Augustus, when his actual 
government commenced. And when the two former critics argue 
that Luke merely mentions the year, in which John made his first 
public appearance, and not that in which Christ appeared ; they 
overlook the fact, that this precise announcement of the time of 
John's appearance, followed, as it immediately is, by the appear- 
ance of Christ, without any fresh allusion to chronology, is in itself 
a proof that they both occurred in the same year.' We are also 

1 Bengel has very forcibly observed : — " Certainly it was not the object of 
Luke to mark exactly the entrance of the Forerunner, and to touch only in- 
cidentally upon the beginning that was made by our Lord Himself, but what 
he chietly cared for recording was the latter. However the joining of John 



222 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

led to conclude that both John and Christ made their public 
appearance in the same year, from the expression in Luke (ver. 

23): xai ocvroi iiti o 'Irinovs ai/jsl Ircuv rplxx-ovrai. dpy^oixsMOS. If 

we render this " Jesus also himself," it follows that when John 
entered upon his office he also was (a^x'^M-^vos-) about thirty years 
old, and, consequently, that as John was only six months older 
than Christ, he entered upon his public mitiistry just six months 
before him. If we adopt the rendering " and Jesus himself," 
the words would then imply that the historical data, connected 
with the account of John's appearance, were equally applicable 
to that of Christ, and that the only new matter, to be introduced 
here, was the notice of Christ's age. This notice again equally 
applies to John, seeing that it was not an accidental circumstance, 
that Christ first appeared at the end of his thirtieth year, but 
a compliance with the legal injunctions of the Old Testament. 
There is no force in the objection offered to the conclusion to 
which we have come, — namely, that the year of Christ's appear- 
ance coincided with that of John's, on the ground of ver. 21, 
when taken in connection with Matt. iii. 5. For, even if Judea 
had been ten times as large as it really was, at such a time as 
this, when all minds were raised to the highest pitch of expecta- 
tion, and religious intercourse was so constant and lively, through 
the medium of the capital, half-a-year would amply suffice to 
attract the attention of the whole land. 



HAKMOM BETWEEN THE PEOPHECY AND ITS FULFttMENT WITH 
REGARD TO THE INTERVAL BETWEEN THE COMMENCEMENT AND 
TERMINATION OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 

According to the prophecy, the point of commencement, — 
namely, the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, was removed from the 
closing event, — viz., the public appearance of Christ, by a period 
of 69 weeks of years, or 483 years. Now, if we turn to history, 

with Him is appropriate and seasonable, that he may not be supposed to have 
preceded Jesus by a longer interval." (English translation, vol ii. p. 45.) 



DURATION OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 223 

it must strike the most prejudiced mind as a very remarkable 
fact, that, of all the current chronological calculations, in rela- 
tion to this period of time, there is not a single one, luhose results 
differ more than ten years from the statements of the 'prophecy. 
But, on a closer examination of these calculations, we find that 
the one, which has the greatest probabilities in its favour, fully 
establishes the agreement of prophecy and history, even to a 
single year. 

In order to arrive at this result, there is no necessity to 
thread our way through a labyrinth of chronological researches. 
Chronological authorities are all agreed in this, that Xerxes 
began to reign in the year 485 B.C., and that the death of 
Artaxerxes occurred in the year 423. The only point in which 
they differ has respect to the commencement of Artaxerxes' 
reign. Our task, therefore, will be accomplished, if we can 
prove that he began to reign in the year 474 B.C. For, in this 
case, the twentieth year of Artaxerxes would be the year 455 
B.C. according to the ordinary reckoning, or 299 from the foun- 
dation of Rome. Add to this 483 years, and we are brought to 
the year 782 u.c. 

We should probably have been spared the trouble of this 
inquiry altogether, had not the error of an acute writer, and the 
want of independence on the part of those who succeeded him, 
involved the question in obscurity. According to Thucydides, 
Artaxerxes began to reign a short time before the flight of 
Themistocles into Asia. Dodwell was led astray by certain 
specious arguments, and set down the year 465 B.C. as the date 
of both these events (Annall. Thuc). The thorough refutation 
of these arguments by Vitringa was, strange to say, entirely 
overlooked by both linguists and historians, and apparently even 
by such writers as Wesseling and others, of Holland itself The 
view expressed by Dodwell was adopted by Corsini in his Fastis 
Etticis, and currently received. Even Clinton (fasti Hellenici 
lat. vert. Krilger Leipz. 1830), strongly as he expresses his con- 
viction, that Dodwell has thrown the whole chronology of this 
period into confusion (compare e.g. p. 248, 53), could not shake 
off his influence in the most important points ; although in 
several particulars he has successfully opposed him. Hence, he 
has only increased the confusion ; for he has neither given us the 



224 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

actual chronology, nor left us the events in the chronological 
order, in which they were so skilfully arranged by Dodivell. The 
credit of having once more discovered the right road is due to 
Kriiger, who, after an interval of more than a hundred years, by 
an entirely independent inquiry, arrived at the same result as 
Vitringa, and to a great extent adopted the very same line of 
argument. In this admirable article, liber den Cimonischen 
Frieden (in the Archiv, fiir Philologie und Padagogik von 
Seebode i. 2 p. 205 sqq., with which his hist, pliilol. Studien 
Berlin 36 should be compared), he places the death of Xerxes 
in the year 474 or 473, and the flight of Themistocles a year 
later. 

Let us, first of all, examine the arguments which appear to 
favour the conclusion that the reign of Artaxerxes commenced 
in the year 465. (1.) " The flight of Themistocles must have 
taken place several years after the supremacy in Greece had 
passed from the hands of Athens to those of Sparta ; for the 
transfer was made at the siege of Byzantium, where the 
treacherous proceedings of Pausanias first commenced. The 
flight of Themistocles was occasioned by the charge brought 
against him, in consequence of some papers that were discovered 
after the death of Pausanias. Now Isocrates says, in the 
Panathenaikos, that the supremacy of the Lacedasmonians 
lasted ten years. And dating from the time of Xerxes' expe- 
dition, the transfer must have taken place in the year 470." 
We may spare ourselves the trouble, which Vitringa has taken, 
to invalidate this supposed testimony of Isocrates ; for all modern 
scholars, and to some extent independently, have come to the 
conclusion, that Isocrates is speaking of a ten years' supremacy, 
not previous to, but after that of the Athenians (see Coraij zu 
Pan. c. 19 ; Dahlmann, Forschungen i., p. 45 ; ^r%er Abhandl. 
p. 221 ; Clinton p. 250 sqq. ; Kleinert Dorp Beitrage ii., p. 
136). — (2.) From Aelian 1. 9, c. 5, Corsini concludes that 
Themistocles was still in Athens in the year 472 (fasti. Att. iii. 
p. 180). It is stated there, that Themistocles thrust back Hiero, 
when he came to the Olympian games, on the ground that no 
one who had failed to share in the greatest danger, had any 
right to participate in tlie pleasure (the tale is also told by 
Plutarch). Now, as Hiero began to reign in the third year of 



DURATION OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 225 

the 15th Olympiad (478), the only Olympiad that can possibly 
bethoughtof isthe 77th (472)." This is Gorsini's argument; 
but it is much more probable that the Olympian games of the 
76th (476) are referred to here, seeing that such an occurrence 
presupposes, that the memory of the /xsyLaroi to^v mv'^uvuv was 
still fresh in the minds of the people. — (3.) " According to this, 
Xerxes can only have reigned eleven years ; and Artaxerxes, on 
the other hand, fifty-one. But such a supposition is at variance 
with the account, given in the Can. Ptolem. (see Ideler Chronol. 
i., p. 109 sqq.), where Xerxes is said to have reigned twenty-one 
years, and Artaxerxes forty-one ; it is also opposed to the state- 
ment of Ctesias, who assigns to Artaxerxes forty-two years, as 
well as to the testimony of certain other authors, quoted by Bdhr 
(zu Ctesias, p. 184), and, at excessive and unprofitable length, 
by Kleinert (iiber den Eegierungs-antritt des Artaxerxes Dorpat 
Beitrage zu den theologischen Wissenschaften vol. ii., Hamb. 
33)." Ceteris paribus, this argument would certainly be decisive. 
But, as it is opposed by other weighty authorities, it is not 
sufficient in itself to outweigh thera all. The accounts handed 
down from antiquity vary, as to the length of Xerxes' reign ; 
and a long list of the different opinions may be found in Kleinert , 
p. 100. This fact alone weakens the importance of the par- 
ticular statement referred to. As far as Ctesias himself is 
concerned, we are ready at once to assent to what Hofmann 
says of him (p. 92), — namely, that no one is likely to be able " to 
give a better account of the length of Artaxerxes' reign, than the 
physician of Artaxerxes' Mnemon." But if we look more closely 
at the historical character of Ctesias, or if we merely bear in 
mind, what Kleinert has shown (p. 19), that '• the statements 
made by Ctesias, as to the reigns of the Persian kings, are as a 
rule false," and that he assigns thirty-five years to the immediate 
predecessor of Artaxerxes Mnemon, which is quite at variance 
with the accredited history ; our confidence in him will be con- 
siderably shaken. The canon, again, has not much weight, 
except where it is based upon astronomical observations, to which 
there is no allusion here. Apart from these, it takes its place 
with all the other historical sources.^ The whole error was com- 

1 Even the astronomical data of Ptolemoeus cannot be relied upon without 
reserve. Biot the astronomer says, that, after examining his catalogue of 
VOL. III. P 



226 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

mitted, when a single j^ had been mistaken for xa in one of the 
earlier documents.^ For when once the reign of Xerxes had 
been set down at twenty-one years in consequence of this mistake, 
the reign of Artaxerxes would be shortened to forty-one as a 
necessary consequence. Wesseling (on Diod. xii. 64), did not 
hesitate to throw these notices aside, and set down the reign of 
Artaxerxes at forty-five years. — (4.) " From what Ctesias says 
(chap. XX.), it appears that Artaxerxes was not born till some 
time after Xerxes began to reign. For, after relating that 
Xerxes had ascended the throne, he proceeds to observe ; ya/xit 

Vi asp^ris ^Ovo^oc QuyaTipex." Afxi/yrpiv xoci y/vsraj ocurui tic/as Aa^siaTof 
xal ETsps- /XETa tvo ETO) ' Tarao-TT-ns", xal erj ^ h.pxa.^ipi.ri^. If CtesiCLS 

has given these events in their true chronological order, Ar- 
taxerxes cannot possibly have been more than seven years 
old in the year 474." But all the accounts, which have come 
down to us, agree in this, that although he was young when 
Xerxes died (see Justin, iii. 1), he was old enough to govern 
by himself We must not content ourselves with the answer, 
that it is not at all likely that Xerxes, who was born in 
the early part of the 36th year of the reign of Darius (see 
Herodotus vii. 2), and therefore was thirty-four or thirty-five 
years old when Darius died, should have remained unmarried 
till so advanced a period of life. Ctesias himself helps us out of 
the difficulty, into which he plunges us by his want of accuracy. 
According to chap, xxii., Megabyzus married a daughter of 
Xerxes previous to the invasion of Greece ; and yet, if the 
chronology of Ctesias in chap. xx. is correct, this daughter, who 
is there mentioned, had only just been born. And according to 
chap, xxviii., Megabyzus complained to Xerxes, immediately 
after his return from Greece, of the disreputable conduct of this 
wife of his. — (5.) " There can be no question whatever, that the 

stars, he has lost all that still remained of his high esteem for this author 
(see SeijffaHli Berichtigungen der Geschichte, und Zeitrechung Leipz. 55, 
p. 64). Zecli (astronomische Untersuchungen Leipz. 51), found the notices 
of eclipses in Ptolemseus incorrect in many respects ; compare SeyffaHh (p. 
84 sqq.), who also expresses a very unfavourable opinion as to his historical 
canon. 

1 The objections brought by Kleinert, p. 109 sqq., against this supposition, 
are founded upon a misapprehension of our meaning. He argues as if we 
(supposed the error to have been committed by one single copyist of the 
canon ; whereas we attribute it to the original editor himself, whose work was 
compiled from the monographs of different individuals. 



DURATION OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 227 

Achashverosh of the Book of Esther is Xerxes himself But the 
twelfth year of this king is expressly mentioned in chap. iii. 7 
of that book ; and some of the events recorded afterwards hap- 
pened towards the end of that same year." The difficulty 
vanishes, however, if we include the years, during which Xerxes 
shared the government with Darius. According to Herodotus 
(7, chap. ii. — iv.), Xerxes was made king by Darius, two years 
before the death of the latter ; vid., e.g., chap, iv., d.T:ilih 11 

liocyikria. Y\ipf7'r\'7i ^ocpeios "S-sp^sa.^ 

We have an example, in the accounts relating to Nebuchad- 
nezzar, of the manner in which the Hebrew writers were accus- 
tomed to reckon years of joint sovereignty, wherever such an 
arrangement took place (see Dissertation on Daniel, p. 51, and 
Hitzig on Jew xxv. 1). And in the Book of Esther itself we 
find traces, by no means obscure, of this mode of reckoning. It 
is only on this assumption, that it appears possible to place the 
account of the enormous banquet in chap. i. in its proper light. 
The occasion appears to have been the actual entrance of Xerxes 
upon the government ; though we need not, therefore, lose sight 
of what has hitherto been regarded as the exclusive object, — namely, 
the desire to consult with the leading men, as to the expeditions 
which he was about to undertake. In this case, the presentation 
of Esther (ii. 16) would belong to the period of Xerxes' return 
from Greece ; whereas, otherwise, about two years must have 

1 According to Kleinert, p. 121, we are not to understand these words, as 
meaning that he shared the throne ; but merely, that he was appointed succes- 
sor. However, the words themselves show, that this is not correct. A^oSilai 
/3a<r;Xsa, sajs Schweigliduser in his Lexicon to Herodotus, est riominare, con- 
stituere, creare regem ; and he adduces examples to substantiate this mean- 
ing. The fact that Herodotus says in chap, iv., ocioSocMovros Ii Aa^s/ou ^ ^rtff,xn'i'n 
xvtxiu^vo-i is Tov ^a7da. tov ixilvou 3%|£a, is no proof that Xerxes had not shared 
the government during the lifetime of his father. On the contrary, 
the exact meaning and limitations of this passage are determined by 
the expression a,-7rili%i fji.iv i^ainx'ia, which is repeated three times before. 
Thucydides (i. 9) relates a perfectly analogous occurrence. When Eurystheus 
marched against the HeracHdge, he entrusted the government of Mycenae to 
Atreus, his mother's brother, for the period of the war. But, as Eurystheu.s 
did not return, Atreus took possession of the government over Mycense, and 
the other provinces belonging to Eurystheus. And among the Persians 
themselves, Artaxerxes Mnemon appointed his son joint-sovereign, in just 
the same manner, and even without any such external inducement. Justinus 
(B. 10, C. 1) says, " Per indulgentiam pater regem vivus fecit, nihil sibi abla- 
tum existimans, quod in filium contulisset sinceriusque gaudium ex procrea ■ 
tione capturus, si insignia majestatis suae vivus in filio conspexisset." 



228 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

intervened — a supposition that is not free from difficulty/ 
Kleinert's assertion, that from the statement made in chap. x. 2, 
3, it necessarily follows, that the greatness of Mordecai lasted 
for several years, cannot be admitted to be well-founded. The 
main thing was the simple fact, that Mordecai the Jew attained 
to the highest dignity in this universal empire. — (6.) Kleinert (p. 
215) is of opinion, that Diodorus (xi. 71) connects the revolt of 
the Egyptians under Inarus with the death of Xerxes and the 
ascent of the throne by his successor ; whereas, if Artaxerxes 
began to reign in 474, there must have been an interval of thirteen 
or fourteen years, between his accession and the revolt of Inarus. 
But, as the earlier writers, even where they enter fully into 
the particulars of the history of Inarus (for example Herodotus, 
Thucydides, and CtesiasJ, are all silent on this point, and give no 
intimation that the revolution of Inarus belonged to the opening 
period of Artaxerxes' reign, the notice in Diodorus can have but 
little weight ; especially as he is so far from mentioning any par- 
ticular year, that he does not even expressly state, that the revolt 
of Inarus belonged to the period referred to. 

We pass on now to the positive proofs which may be adduced 
of the correctness of our view. And in doing so, we shall point 
out, first of all, those which establish it directly ; and secondly, 
those which do so indirectly, by showing that the flight of 
Themistocles, which must have taken place before Artaxerxes 
ascended the throne, cannot possibly have occurred later than 473 
B.C. The latter are much the stronger and more numerous of 
the two. 

The former class includes the following " : — 

1. The fact, that the whole period from the eleventh year of 
Xerxes' reign is a perfect blank, must be inexplicable to those, 
who imagine that he reigned for twenty-one years. The bibli- 
cal accounts do not reach beyond the close of the tenth year. 

1 If the reason of the delay was merely the absence of the king, the mar- 
riage would be sure to take place as soon as this obstacle was removed. 

2 The most direct testimony of all is found in a Chronicon, copied into 
Scaliger's thes. temp. " Post Darium regnavit Xerxes Persus annos xi." 
But although this Chronicon is by no means destitute of worth (see Kleinert 
p. 53), it is not of sufficient importance, to enable us to cite it as a positive 
argument. It is a matter of greater consequence, that in all probability 
Ctesias assigns to the reign of Xerxes a period of " at the most ten years and 
a little over." The evidence is given by Kleinert p. 19 seq. 



DURATION OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 229 

Ctesias only mentions one trifling incident connected with the 
times subsequent to the Grecian war (chap, xxviii.), — namely, 
an occurrence which took place immediately after the close of 
the war. Herodotus notices another (Book vii. chap. 107), 
which belongs to the period directly succeeding the capture of 
Ion, and which is assigned by Hermann to the year 476 (Lehrb. 
des Griech. Altertlmmer, 4 Ausg. § 36). Of course, we have 
only to do with such things as are expressly attributed to Xerxes 
by ancient authors, and not with those, which are set down to 
the latter portion of his reign, according to the more modern 
collocations. 

2. The statements oi Justin (iii. 1), as to the age of Xerxes' 
sons at the time of his death, are irreconcileable with a twenty- 
one years' reign. He says '" Securior de Artaxerxe, puero 
admodum, fingit regem a Dario, qui erat adolesceois , quo maturius 
regno potiretur, occisum." If Xerxes reigned twenty-one years, 
as Ctesais (chap, xxii.) affirms, his first-born son Darius can- 
not have been an adolescens when he died, but must have been 
at least thirty-one years old.^ On the other hand, assuming 
that he reigned only eleven years, these terms are perfectly appli- 
cable. Darius would in that case be about twenty-one years old. 
Next to him came Hystaspes, who was two years younger 
(Ctesias chap, xx.), and after him Artaxerxes, who might there- 
fore be about fifteen or seventeen years old. And this shows, too, 
that the supposition of his having reigned fifty-one years cannot be 
objected to, on the ground that it would make him too old ; an 
objection, by the by, which may easily be set aside by the simple 
remark, that the length of his life would be exactly the same, 
whether he reigned fifty-one or forty-one years. If he ascended 

1 Kleinert brings forward the authority of Scheller, who says that an adole,s- 
cens was "a young man of from ten to thirty years old or more." But 
iScheller is a bad guide in anything that must be understood cum grano sails. 
The real meaning of adolescens is that given by ForcelUni : " homo qui 
pueritiam excessit, et nondum ad juventutem pervenit ; ita dictus, quod eo 
raaxime tempore crescat." It is just our word youth (.Jiingling), which may 
be applied jocularly or hyperbolically (like the word child itself), under cer- 
tain circumstances, to a man of thirty and even to one of sixty. When 
Cicero the orator says of Alexander the Great, that he died an adolescens, it is 
quite a mistake to make use of this passage, in determining the meaning of 
the word when employed in unvarnished history. Moreover, the expression 
puero admodum appears to indicate, that even Darius had not long laid aside 
his child's shoes. 



230 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS, 

the throne at seventeen, he lived till he was sixty-eight years 
old. 

3. According to the preponderance of authority, numerical 
and otherwise, the problematical peace of Ciraon was concluded 
after the battle of the Euryraedon (b.c. 470). And as there is 
perfect unanimity, as to its being with Artaxerxes that it was 
concluded, he must have ascended the throne before 470. For 
a fuller development of this argument, we must refer to Krilger. 

Before proceeding to the indirect proofs, we must make one 
observation in defence of the relation, in which we place the 
commencement of the reign of Artaxerxes to the flight of Themis- 
tocles. This connection is sustained by the unanimous testimony 
of ancient historians. As guarantees of its correctness, we adduce 
Thucydides, chap, cxxxvii., where he says of Themistocles, who 
had arrived in Asia, siTriiJ.TTsi ypccfxixa-ra. ss- ^amXia. Apraiip^w 

Tov s-iplov, vewarl ^amXEvoMTo.,'^ and Charon of Lampsacus, 
who, according to Plutarch, chap, xxvii., also speaks of Thucy- 
dides as flying to Artaxerxes. On the other hand, there are 
some, for example, Ephorus, Dinon, Klitarch and Heradides 
(see Plutarch I.e.), who represent him as coming to Xerxes. If 
we test these statements by the weight of authority, possessed by 
the various witnesses, the decision cannot but be unconditionally 
in favour of the accounts given by Thucydides and Charon. 
Thucydides was a contemporary of Artaxerxes, and was born about 
the time when Themistocles fled. In chap, xcvii., this prince of 
Grecian historians says that the reason, why he recorded the events 
between the Median and Peloponnesian wars, was that all his 
predecessors had passed them over in silence, and that Hellanicus, 
the only one, who touched upon them, had described them ^pccyj^us 
T£ xai ToTs- xpomii ov% a-Kpijiais ; and from this, two things may 
be inferred : Jirst, how little confidence can be placed in the ac- 
counts of this period, which have been given by later writers, 
seeing that they cannot have been derived from any contempo- 
raneous authority, for Thucijdides must have been acquainted 
with it, if any such had existed ; and, secondly, that Thucydides 
himself wishes to be regarded as a careful and accurate historian, 

1 The letter of Themistocles cited there is also addressed to Artaxerxes : @i/^i 

rrtxXi)? iixu -ra^ti fft, o; xaxa f/Xt •rXnaTo.'^XXrivaiv 'ii^ya.fffji,ai rot u/isn^oy o'mav, oiroi 



DURATION OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 231 

when writing of this period, and therefore, since so honourable a 
man would not make false pretensions, he really must be so. The 
other witness, Charon, was the less liable to err, inasmuch as he 
was already a historian at the time when the event occurred, and 
lived under the Persian government. On the other hand, the 
earliest witnesses in favour of the opposite view were separated 
by more than a century from the period in question. Ephorus 
(vid. Dalilmann, Forschungen i. p. 79 sqq.) outlived the domi- 
nion of Alexander in Asia, and Dinon was the father of Klitarch, 
who was one of Alexander's attendants. 

In consideration of these circumstances, the testimony of 
Thucydides and Charon was received without hesitation, in the 
later years of antiquity. Plutarch observes, that the account 
given by Thucydides accords more perfectly with the chrono- 
logical works. Nepos says: " Scio plerosque ita scripsisse, 
Themistoclem Xerxe regnante in Asiam transiisse: sed ego 
potissimum Thucydidi credo, quod aetate proximus de his, qui 
illorum temporum historias reliquerunt et ejusdem civitatis 
fuit." Suidas and the Scholiast on the equites of Aristophanes, 
from which the former has extracted a second article on Thucy- 
dides word for word, do not even mention the other opinion, but 
describe Themistocles without reserve as flying 'npos tov 'A/jra^- 
ip^riv, TOV Bipho rov iJipaou 7ia7^a. And we need have the 
less fear of contradiction ; since, so far as we know, all modern 
scholars, with the exception of Hofmann, acknowledge the autho- 
rity of Thucydides and Charon. We only remark further, that 
the opposite opinion may be rejected without hesitation, inas- 
much as it is so easy to account for its origin, — namely, either 
from the fact that the event bordered on the reigns of both 
Xerxes and Artaxerxes, or from a simple change of names, which 
we may assume the more readily on account of the frequency 
with which it occurs. We find it even in the contemporaneous 
author Aristotle (Pol. v. 8), and twice in Ctesias, — viz., in chap. 
35, where Bdhr would alter the reading in opposition to all the 
MSS., and in chap. xliv. (see Bdhr in loc. and Eeimarus on 
Dio Cass. ii. p. 1370). Lastly, the error may have arisen from 
the flight of Themistocles being assigned to the proper year, 
whilst the reign of Xerxes was supposed to last twenty-one 
years ; in which case, of course, it must have been with Xerxes 



232 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

that he took refuge. This last explanation is favoured by the 
number of contemporaneous authors, by whom the same mistake 
is made ; though, at the same time, so general an agreement 
presupposes the existence of some plausible reason. 

We will now pass on to a review of the indirect proofs them- 
selves. 

1. We commence with Cicero, who mentions the exact year 
of the flight of Themistocles, and who made use of the annals of 
Atticus in determining such questions as these (La3l. c. 12). It 
is true that Corsini maintains (3, p. 180) that Cicero was writ- 
ing of the year in which Themistocles was banished from Athens ; 
but we only need to look at the passage, to convince ourselves 
that this was not the case ; " Themistocles — fecit idem, quod 20 
annis ante apud nos fecerat Coriolanus." The flight of Corio- 
lanus to the Volscians occurred in the year 263 u.c. (b.c. 492). 
Hence Cicero places the flight of Themistocles in the year 472, 
a year later than we do ; but this is of no importance, since the 
round number twenty suited Cicero's purpose best, whilst the 
more precise number nineteen is most suitable for chronologists. 
If Dodwell's arrangement were correct, there would be an interval 
of twenty-seven years between the two events. We cannot give 
up this argument, in spite of Kleinert's objections (p. 186) ; 
although for very obvious reasons, we do not regard it as 
decisive. 

2. Diodorus Siculus, who places the flight of Themistocles in 
the second year of the 77th Olympiad (b.c. 471), favours our 
opinion, according to which it occurred two years earlier, much 
more than the opposite view. The same date is given, on inde- 
pendent grounds, in the Armenian^ Chronicle of Eusehius : " 01. 
77, 2, Themistocles ad Persas confugit " fcf. Wagner de The- 
mistocle Exsule in the Zeitsclirift filr AUerihumsivissenschaft 
1847, p. 114). In Jerome's Eusehius, 01. 76, 4 is the date given 
(not 77, 1). This is exactly the same, as the date assigned by 
us. 

3. The strongest argument is this, the whole series of rerum 
gestarum, as given in their exact order by Thucydides, renders 
it impossible to assign the flight of Themistocles to a later date, 
than the year 473. That the expedition of the allied Greeks 
against Cyprus and Byzantium under the command of Pausanias, 



DURATION OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 233 

the capture of the latter city, and the transfer of the supremacy 
in Greece from the Lacedaemonians to tlie Athenians, in conse- 
quence of the insolence of Pausanias, occurred in the year 477, 
we may assume as already demonstrated by Clinton (p. 250 sqq.)^ 
The view entertained by 0. lliiller (Dorier ii., p. 498), who dis- 
tributes these events over a s[)ace of five years, is opposed to the 
express statement of Thucydides ev rrioB rri iycfjuovicc, chap, xciv.), 
who places the capture of Byzantium in the same year as the 
expedition against Cyprus. Popj^o proves, that these words can- 
not be taken in connection with what follows, without introducing 
an alteration into the text, in opposition to every critical autho- 
rity. To this we may add, that the last of these two events is 
assigned to the year 477, by the unanimous voice of antiquity. 
Clinton has shown (p. 249), that in all the calculations as to the 
duration of the Athenian supremacy, this year is adopted as the 
starting point ; and that the only point in which they differ, has 
reference to its termination. (It is true that he is vigorously 
opposed by Kleinert, p. 137 sqq., and the objections of the latter 
are to some extent well founded.) Again, in Thuc. c. 128, the 
expedition against Cyprus and that against Byzantium are 
represented as following directly the one upon the other. But, 
if Dodioell, who also describes these events as occurring in the 
same year (p. 61), had been compelled to acknowledge, that they 
did not happen in the year 470, as he assumes, but in the year 
477 ; he would surely have seen, that it was impossible to prolong 
the list of events till the year 4(55. and would therefore have 
given up his whole hypothesis. The discontent of the allies led 
to the recal of Pausanias. That this took place in the same year, 
may be inferred, first, from the nature of the case, for it presup- 
poses that his command was not yet at an end, and secondly, 

from Thuc. chap. XCV. : sv rovrcp oe ol AaKs^aiptoviot, ixBTBTriiJ.- 
Ttovro YlaurKxviav, ava>cpvouvTE.<r S;v TTEpl BTtuv^a.wvTO. Pausanias came 

to Sparta, and being acquitted went privately in a trireme to 
Byzantium. This must have been very shortly afterwards ; 

1 The arguments are thus concisely stated '\>j him (p. 252) : " Dodwelli 
rationi neutiquam favet Isocratis auctoritas. Repugnat rerum gestarum 
series, repugnat quod Thucyd. significat, Plutarchus et Aristides diserte 
tradunt, repugnat denique temporis spatium, quod Atheniensium imperio 
assignant Lysias, Isocrates ipse, Plato, Demosthenes, Aristides, quibus fortasse 
ad den us est Lycurgus." 



234 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

for Thucydides (chap, cxxvii.) proceeds immediately to mention 
it, and what is the most decisive of all, Pausanias finds the fleet 
still at Byzantium.^ That he did not stay long, is evident from 
the statement made by Thucydides (chap, cxxxi.), to the eifect 
that the Athenians drove him away by force.^ He went to live 
at Colone in Troas : but was summoned back to Sparta in con- 
sequence of reports, which had been taken thither, that he was 
in correspondence with the barbarians. The Ephori threw him 
into prison, but soon released him again. It was at this time 
that his intimacy with Themistocles commenced. The latter 
had been expelled from Athens, and was now at Argos, whence 
he made excursions into the rest of the Peloponnesus. Plutarch 
states distinctly, that Pausanias did not take Themistocles into 
his confidence, until the latter was expelled from Athens ; and 
according to all accounts, their intercourse was carried on by 
word of mouth. Now, it is evident that the interval, be- 
tween the release of Pausanias and his death, cannot have been 
a very long one. Pausanias was not condemned ; because no 
positive evidence could be brought against him. But it is psycho- 
logically improbable, that the proofs should have been long want- 
ing, and that, for a number of years, such a man, as he was, 
should have guarded against giving the most open offence : — a 
man, whose pride became almost a phrensy, and who was so 
destitute of prudence, that he rendered the execution of his own 



1 Kleinert maintains that Thucydides says nothing of the kind. We find 
it, however, in the words of the chapter referred to : aipiKulTai is 'exxmo-^tovtov- 
rZ fiit x'oyco i-r) rh "Exxmixov voXiuov, " professedly to join the Greek expedition 
there," and in the statement in chap, cxxxi., to the effect that the Athenians 
compelled him to leave Byzantium. 

2 Kleinert (p. 151) has been led astray into a series of historical fictions, 
through misunderstanding the words kk) Ix roZ BuZavriou /3i«, U-roXio^x^hU. 
If his assumptions were well founded, the historical credibility of Thucydides 
would be placed in a very disadvantageous light. The true explanation of 
the words is given in Heilmann's translation of Thucydides (Ed. 2, by 
Bredow, p. 148) : " as the Athenians were not at war with the Lacedaemo- 
nians and Pausanias had no warriors under his command, it cannot be an 
actual siege, which is intended here, as has been assumed by the majority of 
translators, by the most modern historians, and even by the Scholiast ; but 
must be understood as meaning (per synecdochem), to bring any one into a 
certain condition by the employment of forcible measures; just as Thucy- 
dides himself, when describing in chap, cxxxv. how this same Pausanias was 
starved to death in the temple, uses the expression i^i'proxii^x.vfav aiirit 

XlfiM. 



DURATION OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 235 

treacherous plans an absolute impossibility ; that, according to 
Thucydides (chap, cxxx.), he went about in Median clothes, took 
a journey through Thrace accompanied by Median and Egyptian 
Trabantes, kept a Persian table, rendered approach to his 
person difficult, and gave free vent to his passion ; — a man, of 
whom Thucydides very significantly remarks : " aal aarix^iv rriv 
^toivoiav ouK ri^vvacrOj dXX spyon j^pay^im -re pou^rnkov ^ a. Tin yvcufxri 
ixci^ovus Bsi'TTBiTo. sfxsXks 'ffpccisiv" and of whose foolish hauteur 
he gives an example (in chap, cxxxii.), from the period imme- 
diately following the battle of Platea. The agent in the disco- 
very was the man, who was employed to carry to Artabazus the 
last letters to the king. With what haste the negotiations were 
carried on, and therefore that they did not occupy many years, 
may be seen from the fact, that the king sent Artabazus to Asia 
Minor expressly for the purpose of expediting them. The dis- 
covery was followed at once by the death of Pausanias. (See 
Thuc. cxxxiii.) We certainly do not allow too short a time, if we 
set down three years, as the period occupied in these transactions. 
That we must not allow more is apparent also from Diodorus, by 
whom all these events are assigned to the year 477 (01. Ixxv. 4), 
though it must be admitted that he is not very trustworthy. How 
could this have occurred to him, or how could such a mistake by 
any possibility have arisen, if the beginning and end had been 
separated by an interval of eight or nine years ? How impossible 
his sources rendered it for him, to place the death of Pausanias at 
any great distance from this period, is evident from his fictitious 
account of Themistocles being twice accused, of which no other 
explanation can be given. ^ — Now, if we must place the death of 
Pausanias in the year 474, or thereabout, certainly as early as 
this, the flight of Themistocles cannot have been later than the 
year 473. For Themistocles had been in the Peloponnesus for 
some time, when Pausanias died. The accusation of the former 
followed immediately afterwards (see Thuc. i. 1 3.5) ; and the com- 
bined interests of the Lacedaemonians, and of the enemies of The- 
mistocles at Athens, the former of whom would enjoy nothing more 



1 As we attach but very little importance to the argument founded upon 
Diodorus, we do not think it worth while to fullow Kleinei-t (p. 155) in his 
elaborate objections, which only prove, what every one knows, that in making 
use of Diodorus we have anything but a safe foundation. 



236 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

than to make the Athenians participants in their disgrace,^ may 
make us sure, that the decision would be expedited as much as 
possible. Themistocles, being now prosecuted by the Lacedae- 
monians and Athenians combined, fled from the Peloponnesus 
to Corcyra. But even there he was not allowed to remain, and 
therefore took refuge on the opposite continent. As he was 
still in danger of being overtaken by his pursuers (Thuc. chap. 

CXXXvi. )tai Siw)t6/x£Vos' vTio rcuv t: poi7rcrxyiJ.ivcov yiocra. Tivryriv rt "/^aipoiri) ^ 

he found it necessary to betake himself to Admetus, the 
king of the Molossians. But here he cannot have remained 
long ; for, according to Thucydides, he was sent away as soon 
as his pursuers arrived. How can it possibly be imagined, that 
the latter were years behind him ?^ How could they long remain 

^ X lut. Xll6tll. C. 2iK> ; xaTlfioaiv ftiv aiirou AaKiOaifiOvioi, xaTriyopouv S' di (p^ofouvTig 

2 The advocates of the opposite view are unable to conceal their perplexity 
here : " We come now," says KleineH (p. 163) " to the most difficult point in 
connection with the whole exposition, the flight of Themistocles. . • ' How 
can it be imagined,' says Hengstenherg ' that his pursuers were years behind 
him ? ' It cannot be denied that there is something difficult and obscure in 
this matter. Still one may risk a little in a good cause ; and so I will not 
despair, but try to throw some light upon the darkness ! Our one object 
must be to gain time." This candid confession does not augur well for the 
details which follow. And the latter are actually arranged, precisely in the 
manner which we should be led to expect. Thus, he first of all attempts to 
vindicate the historical character of the account of a second accusation of 
Themistocles at Athens on the part of the Lacedjemonians ; although this is 
mentioned by no one but Diodurus, of whom he himself speaks most dis- 
paragingly. This vain attempt he closes with the words, " thus we should 
already have gained some time." He tries, but to no purpose, to find- some 
support for this fictitious account, in Plutarch's Themistocles, chap, xxiii. 
The " former charges " are those mentioned by Plutarch himself in chap, 
sxi. 2, — namely, such as had been brought against Themistocles, before the 
arrival of the Lacedaemonians. Themistocles defended himself particularly 
against these, but not directly against the later ones, simply because the 
charges were not sent to him, but the order of arrest was made out at once. 
According to Plutarch, the flight followed immediately upon the accusation. 
The rest is of precisely the same character. How thoroughly Kleinert felt 
this himself, is evident from the explanation, which he introduces at the close, 
with the candour and honesty that distinguish him so much. At p. 232 he 
says : " The difficulties connected with the view, which I have defended, of 
the period of Xerxes' reign, I am far from overlooking. My efforts to 
remove them may not always have been successful ; and who knows, ivhether 
it is possible to remove them at all f " He says, that he can still imagine the 
opposite opinion fighting its way to victory, through all the objections that 
can be brought against it. Wagner also adheres to Xerxes' twenty-one years' 
reign, on the authority of the Canon, and thus sets himself the task, of 
reconciling what never can be brought into harmony ; and his perplexity is 
equally conspicuous. He says at p. 196, " Tria, h^ec constant, Themisto- 



DURATION OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 237 

ignorant of his retreat, which was by no means kept a secret ? 
It is expressly, and even superfluously, stated by Thucydides, 
that the arrival of his pursuers, and the flight to Asia, took 
place very shortly afterwards (uo-ts^ov ov itoWcS). If we could 
place confidence in a statement of Stesimhrotus, quoted by 
Plutarch, we must certainly admit, that Themistocles stayed 
some months with Admetus. For he relates, that the friends of 
Themistocles brought his wife and children to join him there ; 
having privately conveyed them away from Athens. But the 
unfounded character of this statement is apparent from the lame, 
fictitious story, which Stesimhrotus tells immediately afterwards, 
of Themistocles being shipped off by Admetus to Sicily, and of 
his having asked the daughter of Hiero in marriage, in return 
for his promise to bring the Greeks under his sway, — seeing that 
he inserts this, without observing that the one tale cancelled the 
other ; a fact, which did not escape the observation of Plutarch 
(jiT oyx ojo' oTtojs sTriXacQoixtws toutcvVj ■/) rov @ifj.Li7roKXia TCoiaJv sTXi- 
Aa06/>o£vov, TrXsu^aj (pTjo-iv x. t. X.). Plutarch himself pronounces 
one of the tales oi Stesimhrotus, " an impudent, wicked lie" (Peri- 
cles, chap. xiii.). From a story, told by Suidas, it is very clear, 
that the sons of Themistocles remained in Athens. It is also 
related by Thucydides (chap, cxxxvii.) and by Plutarch (The- 
mistocles, chap. XXV.) — who begins to write independently at 
this point, and does not continue merely to quote from Thucy- 
dides, as Kleinert assumes, — that it was not till after his arrival 
in Asia,^ that money was sent to him by his friends, to enable 
him to pay the boatman, who had brought him thither ; a fact 
which both establishes the incorrectness of Stesimhrotus, and 

clem a. 01. 77. 3, vel certe non postea ad Naxon appulsum esse, venisse ad 
Persas Artaxerxe recens rege facto, Artaxerxen a. 01. 78. 4 regnare coepisse." 
There is only one method, he continues, of reconciling these apparently con- 
tradictory facts : " Themistoclem cum Pydnae navem conscendisset non con- 
fcstim ad Persarum regem venisse, sed quinquennio fere prastermisso." 
And during this time Themistocles remained in concealment in Asia ! — Six 
or seven years are said to have intervened, betvreen his flight to Corcyra and 
his ari'ival at the court of Artaxerxes. We need only read the 137th chapter 
of Thucydides impartially, to see that this is impossible. To such forced 
hypotheses are they driven, vrho are determined to abide by the authority of 
the Canon. 

1 It is in vain for Kleinert to maintain that um^o)/ cannot be understood 
in this sense ; compare the expression just before, tlim^ov aipixviTrai is 



238 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

proves that Themistocles did not stop sufficiently long at any of 
the places, in which he had taken refuge, for his friends to 
send him the money required. Themistocles was conveyed by 
Admetus to Pydna ; and thence he sailed in a boat direct to 
Asia. Consequently, as not more than a year can possibly have 
elapsed, between the death of Pausanias and the arrival of 
Themistocles in Asia, the latter must have taken place, at the 
latest, in the year 473, and possibly as early as 474. Even if 
the former were the precise date, we should still be perfectly 
justified in fixing upon 474 as the year, in which Artaxerxes 
ascended the throne ; seeing that it could not immediately coin- 
cide with the arrival of Themistocles. 

4. If the assumption were correct, that Artaxerxes ascended 
the throne in the j^ear 465, and that the flight of Themistocles 
took place in the same year, Charon of Lampsacus must have 
been excessively old. According to Suidas, he flourished under 
the first Darius, 01. 69 (504 B.C.). Now, as his history con- 
tains an account of the flight of Themistocles to Artaxerxes, he 
must have been occupied in writing history for at least forty 
years, if that occurrence did not take place before the year 465. 
This is certainly not impossible ; but, in re dubia, it must be 
rejected as being the more improbable. " Historia3 enim non 
sunt explicandae," says Vitringa (ProU. in Zach., p. 29), " ex 
raris et insolentibus exemplis, sed ex communi vivendi lege et 
ordine. Si res secus se habeat, in ipsa historia ascribitur ne 
fallat incautos." (Compare the further excellent remarks which 
he makes on this subject). That this argument is not without 
force, is evident from the efforts, made by some of the supporters 
of the chronology which we regard as incorrect, to get rid of the 
reasoning, by cutting the knot. Suidas, after giving the age of 
Charon, as he found it in the earlier sources, adds, " pcaXXov 
^£ h £7r\ rm YlipaiyLwv " and takes away from the front what 
he tacks on at the end. Creuzer (on the fragm. historr. Gra^c, 
p. 95), rejects this chronology, simply on the ground that it 
makes Charon too old. 

5. According to Thuc. i. 136, when Themistocles was on his 
way to Asia, he came into the midst of the Athenian fleet, 
which was besieging Naxos. But, according to the testimony of 
Thucydides (chap, c), which renders any other proofs unne- 



DUKATION OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 239 

cessary, this siege of Naxos preceded the great victory, gained 
by the Athenians at the Eurymedon, which occurred, according 
to Diodorus, in the year 470. (See the defence of the date in 
Wagner, p. 115). Thucy elides brings us to ahnost the same 
year as Diodorus mentions ; since he introduces the account of 
the revolt of Thasos (in the year 467) with XP'^'^V ^'^'^^P'^v, which 
could not properly be used in connection with events following 
immediately the one upon the other. (On yjovu uarspov, see 
the remarks of Wagner, p. 115). Hence, the siege of Naxos 
and the flight of Themistocles cannot have occurred later than 
471. 

6. Kriiger has shown, that, according to the statement of 
Plutarch, to the effect that Themistocles had attained the age 
of sixty-five years, his death cannot have happened later than 
the year 470, or his flight later than 473, It is stated by Aelian 
(v. hist. 3, 21), — and his statement has all the internal marks of 
credibility, — that, when Themistocles was a little boy, on coming 
one day from school he met Pisistratus the tyrant, and refused 
to move out of his way.^ Now, assuming that this took place in 
the last year of the life of Pisistratus (b.c. 529), and that 
Themistocles was six years old at the time, he would then have 
been born in the year 535, and have died in the year 470. It 
cannot be adduced as an objection to this conclusion, that 
Plutarch speaks of Themistocles as still alive at the time of 
Cimon's Cyprian expedition (449 B.C.), and as being still young 
when the battle of Marathon was fought. For the former 
statement has evidently arisen, from confusing the expedition 
referred to, with the victory gained over the Persian fleet at 
Cyprus (vid. Diodorus xi. 60, and Dahlmann Forschungen i., 
p. 69); and the latter is based upon a conclusion, to which this 
mistake has given rise. "No one," says Dahlmann (p. 71), 
" who will read Thucydides i. 138 without prejudice, can fail to 
perceive that the death of Themistocles happened very shortly 
after his settlement in Persia, probably in the second year, — 
that is, of course, provided that he regards Thucydides himself 
as trustworthy." 

KUinert (p. 218) wants to substitute one of the sons of Pisistratus, on 
his own authority. But this is nothing less than an acknowledgment of the 
force of the argument. 



240 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 



THE LAST WEEK ; AND THE HALF-WEEK. 

We have shown, that the last week commences with the public 
appearance of the anointed one, that his death occurs in the 
middle of the week, and that the confirming of the covenact 
occupies the whole of it. All that remains to be done here, is 
to show how exactly the prophecy and its fulfilment coincide, 
with reference to one particular point, the death of Christ. The 
terminal point of the confirmation of the covenant is, more or 
less, a vanishing one, and therefore does not admit of being 
chronologically determined, with any minute precision. Suffice 
it to say, that, in the few years immediately following the death 
of Christ, the sycXoyri were gathered together, out of the ancient 
people of the covenant — with what result we may see, for 
example, in the history of the first day of Pentecost, — and that 
the gospel of Christ was then carried to the Gentiles ; so that 
the prophet could justly represent salvation, as both objectively 
and subjectively finished at the end of the seventy weeks, so far 
as the covenant nation was concerned, to which alone his pro- 
phecy referred. 

The opinion, that the death of Christ was separated from his 
baptism by an interval of exactly three years and a half, was 
entertained by many of the Church Fathers. Thus Eusehius 
says (h. eccl. i. 10 :) ovV oXos 6 fXBrtxiu Tirpocirris Tiapiararai %poi)os ; 
but whilst he adduces very incorrect reasons to support this 
assertion (cf. Valesius remarks on this passage), Theodoret re- 
marks, with a correctness of reasoning almost beyond his age : 

£< Ss ris Kod Tov y^pomv )tiZTa/>ta6c7v i^sXEt, ix. toS xara 'Iwavvr/v 
iuo.yyc'kiov (xabriaBroci' ms Tispi roc rplac srin nai rifj.i'ju uriputa-i o 
xvpios y.al rovs ocyiovs a.urov ixocOriraii rri ^j^aaxaX/a xai ro7i hautxocji 

^r^MCuacCS^ t6t£ to Ttd^OS VTtilMclVE. 

It is on the gospel of John particularly that the decision of 
this question depends. Three feasts of the passover are expressly 
mentioned by him, during the public life of Christ (see chap. ii. 
13, vi. 4, and xiii. 1). It is a disputed point whether there is a 
fourth or not ; and the decision of the question, whether the 
death of Christ is to be placed in the third or fourth year of his 



THE LAST WEEK ; AND THE HALF- WEEK. 241 

public ministry, rests entirely upon the interpretation to be given 
to John V. 1, " after this there was a (the) feast of the Jews, and 
Jesus went up to Jerusalem." 

The question what feast is intended here is considerably sim- 
plified, by the fact that of late it has almost universally been 
admitted that, if the apostle refers to any particular feast at all, 
the choice must lie between the feast of Pui-im and the Passover, 
But, so far as the opinion that the apostle does not refer to any 
particular feast is concerned, we must at the very outset pro- 
nounce it untenable ; though we do not feel called upon to enter 
more minutely into the reasons for rejecting it. It is a sufficient 
objection that, in every other case, John speaks of particular 
feasts ; that, throughout his gospel, the arrangement is regulated 
by the feasts, — in this instance, for example, the feast mentioned 
introduces the third group (see the Commentary on the Revelation 
ii. 2, p. 187) — and that the references to the feasts have a chrono- 
logical significance, for which reason the passover is mentioned 
in chap. vi. 4, even when Christ did not take part in it. 

But the opinion, that the feast of Purim is intended here, 
requires to be investigated the more thoroughly, because, though 
it met with comparatively little acceptance formerly, it has found 
many champions in modern times. 

The principal argument adduced in support of this opinion, 
and in opposition to the passover, is the following : — " As the Lord 
remained at home till after the passover, of which mention is 
made a few days after his return, he did not appear in Jerusalem 
between the former (supposed) passover and this one, or rather 
not till six months later, — namely, at the feast of tabernacles, and 
therefore neglected the obligation to take part in divine worship 
fore more than a year and a half. Such an assumption is alto- 
gether opposed to the determination of Christ, to fulfil even out- 
ward righteousness ; moreover, by acting thus, he would have 
exposed himself to public reproach." 

A rare argument ! For the matter would be made neither 
better nor worse by this visiting the feast of Purim. The ob- 
servance of this feast could not be reckoned as belonging to the 
fulfilment of righteousness. For it is not prescribed in the law ; 
and it was under the law alone, not under the ordinances of men, 
that the Son of God had placed himself. Prudential considera- 

VOL. III. Q 



242 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

tions would contribute just as little, to induce him to take this 
step. For there was no ordinance of man which required the 
feast of Purim to be celebrated in Jerusalem. Hence, if the 
difficulty were a real one, it would affect the supporters of this 
view quite as much as it does ourselves. A man who spent all 
the rest of the year at Jerusalem, but was absent from the three 
festivals which were commanded to be celebrated at Jerusalem, 
was just as guilty of a violation of the law, as a man who had 
never set foot in Jerusalem at all. But the difficulty is alto- 
gether imaginary. The reason why Jesus remained away from 
Jerusalem for so long a period is stated clearly enough in chap, 
vii. 1, "he would not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought 
to kill him." By healing the sick man on the Sabbath-day, 
which occurred during the feast mentioned in chap. v. 1, Jesus 
came into decided conflict with the Sanhedrim, which henceforth 
thought only of killing him. As early as chap. v. 18, it is stated 
that, " for this reason the Jews sought the more to kill him." 
The natural consequence was, that Jesus avoided Jerusalem for 
a considerable time. This reason was quite sufficient for the 
Lord, on account of the attitude which he always assumed 
towards the ceremonial law. He only considered himself bound 
to observe it, so long as it did not clash with more important 
considerations. The latter were never sacrificed to its demands. 
Matt. xii. 3 is decisive on this point. In this passage the Lord 
refers those, who accused his disciples of breaking the ceremonial 
law, to the example of David, who ate the shew-bread contrary 
to the law. and yet was not blamed by the Scriptures for so 
doing ; a proof that the ceremonial law is not binding under all 
circumstances. He then points to his own absolute authority, 
which warranted him in breaking the law whenever his higher 
purposes required it. He calls himself the Lord of the Sabbath, 
and represents himself as greater than the temple. Christ's 
hour was not yet come ; his presence in Jerusalem would neces- 
sarily have given occasion to his enemies to try and hasten it 
prematurely ; and it would have been nothing less than tempting 
God, to refrain from employing human means to guard against 
the danger. Even for those who were not Lords of the Sabbath 
and the feasts, as the Son of God was, but who were uncondi- 
tionally subject to the law, the obligation to observe the outward 



THE LAST WEEK ; AND THE HALF-WEEK. 243 

religious injunctions of the law was getting weaker and weaker 
every day. If the attempt had ah'eady been made a den of 
thieves, Luke xix. 46 ; if that ungodhness, which was soon to 
turn it into a house of abominations, was ah'eady fully developed ; 
how could the laws, which related to it as the bouse of God, be 
any longer carried out in their full extent ? The temple did not 
consist of stone and mortar. In its essential characteristics, it 
was no less destroyed at the time of Christ, than it had been 
during the Babylonish captivity ; and hence, it was no more 
reprehensible to neglect to visit it in the one case, than it had 
previously been in the other, whenever circumstances directed 
attention to the evil side, — namely, to those respects, in which the 
temple was no longer really the house of God. 

" It is not less improbable," in Wieseler's opinion (chronol. 
Synopse p. 217), " that John should not have had a single record 
to make of the instructions of Jesus, during almost an entire 
year. For if the feast mentioned in chap. v. 1 was a passover, 
everything related in the fifth chapter belongs to this one pass- 
over." — But if Jesus was obliged to hurry away from Jerusalem 
and Judea, in consequence of the plots of the Sanhedrim, John 
lost thereby the requisite material for a fuller account. From 
chap. ii. 12 till the commencement of the history of the Passion, 
John supplies the omissions of the first three Evangelists, who 
confine their accounts to Galilee, by narrating what occurred on 
the triumphal journey to Jerusalem. The narrative of John 
only touches upon Galilean ground, by way of exception, in chap, 
vi., where Jesus addresses the crowd, which is on its way to 
Jerusalem to the feast of the Passover, and preaches to them, so 
to speak, an Easter sermon on the true Paschal lamb: "my 
flesh is meat indeed." In the second group (chap. ii. 12' — iv. 
54), every thing is very different from what we find here in the 
third. For, in the former case, Jesus spent some months in 
Judea, after the feast was over (see John iii. 22, iv. 1 — 3). 

When Wieseler asserts (p. 217), that the expression ^sra 
racvra, in chap. vi. 1, cannot possibly cover an interval of an 
entire year ; he attaches far too much importance to these con- 
necting formulae. We simply remind him of Matt. iii. 1 : iv ^e 
T(z7s 'h/xspxis sKsivxiS ■Tiocpa.ylvircci 'Yudvuris 6 ^aimirri? , which imuie- 



244 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

diately follows the account of Joseph's settlement in Nazareth ; 
and also of Glen. xxii. 1. 

We now proceed to the arguments in favour of our opinion. 

1. The dispute is decided at once in favour of the Passover, 
if the article is to be regarded as genuine. That we cannot deal 
so summarily with it as Wieseler does, who says, " both exegeti- 
cally and critically the conclusion is indisputable that the article 
is a later correction," is evident from the fact, that Tischendorf 
has restored it to the text. It is enough to excite suspicion, that 
even Wieseler places the exegetical before the critical. The 
omission of the article might very easily have originated with 
those, who did not know what to make of it. The feast must 
either be the feast par excellence, or the feast mentioned before. 
In the former case, it must be the Passover, which was shown to 
be the one fundamental festival of the nation by the fact, that it 
was instituted before any of the others, before the Sabbath itself, 
and even before the conclusion of the covenant at Sinai, of which 
it lay at the foundation (for proofs of the superior worth attached 
to the Passover see Limd jlid. Heiligthiimer p. 974). And in 
the latter case, we are still brought to the feast of the Passover, 
as being the only festival mentioned before. Not only is it 
noticed at the commencement of the second group, which answers 
to that of the third, and comes very near to it, in spite of the 
distance between the two, in consequence of the striking simi- 
larity of the words employed (chap. ii. 13, " and the Passover of 
the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem ;" chap, 
v. 1, " after this was the feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to 
Jerusalem ") ; but it also occurs a very short time before, in chap, 
iv. 45 ; " then when he was come into Galilee, the Galileans re- 
ceived him, having seen all the things that he did at Jerusalem 
at the feast ; for they also went unto the feast." — But, even if 
the article is not genuine, we can only refer it to the Passover. 
For, as it is a priori impossible that there should be any uncer- 
tainty as to what feast it was, we must complete the passage 
(" there was feast (not even a feast) of the Jews ") from the con- 
text. According to Winer, the definite article may be omitted, 
" when the omission does not introduce any ambiguity into the 
discourse, or leave the reader in any uncertainty whether he is 



THE LAST WEEK ; AND THE HALF- WEEK. 245 

to understand the word definitely, or indefinitely." This is 
the case here. Every unbiassed reader thinks at once of the 
Passover. The decision of this point rests upon what goes be- 
fore ; especially as the expression, " and Jesus went up to Jeru- 
salem," precludes the possibility of any other being intended 
than one of the three leading festivals ; and among these it is 
most natural to fix upon the Passover, inasmuch as this was the 
only one, at which it was a universal custom to make a pilgri- 
mage to Jerusalem. The words xa^' loprrt-y in Matt, xxvii. 15 
and Mark xv. 6 are perfectly analogous ; so perfectly so, that 
every other analogy is rendered superfluous in consequence. On 
the latter passage, Fritzsche observes : " quanquam ri lopr% de 
quibusvis feriis in genere dicitur, tamen h. 1. quum de Paschate 
agatur (Marc. xiv. 1), xa9' soprm ad Paschatis ferias referri 
debet : singulis Paschatis feriis ;" and Lucke (on John ii. p. 8) 
says : " the formula xara Ss loprrtM is certainly used to denote 
the Passover, hut only in connection tvith the Msiorii of the 
Passion. In itself, it leaves the feast undetermined." The 
applicability of these words to the passage before us is at once 
apparent. 

2. The standing expression, to/v 'lot;^aiwv, which was based 
upon Lev. xxiii. 2, is never used by John in connection with 
any but the three leading festivals appointed in the law, twice 
(? all three times) of the Passover, and once of the feast of 
Tabernacles. What proof can possibly be adduced that, even in 
later times, the idea has been entertained of placing the feast of 
Purim on a par with the rest, and above all with the feast of the 
Passover ? The passage, quoted hjHug, Einl. 2, p. 200, relates not 
to the feast, but to the Book of Esther. The festival was always 
regarded as popular, rather than religious. The account of the 
opposition, which was raised to its first introduction, was not 
forgotten (see Lightfoot on John x. 22). Besides, even if this 
could be established, what right has any one to draw conclusions 
from the later, as to the earlier period ? It was very natural 
that this festival should gain in estimation, in proportion as the 
carnal dispositions of the Jews increased in force ; and, on the 
other hand, that the three leading festivals should continue to be 
distinguished above all the rest, so long as the temple remained 
standing, and the whole body of the people went to Jerusalem 



246 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

to attend them. The Enkcenia (feast of Dedication), which 
stand on the same footing as the feast of Purim, seeing that the 
latter is not among the feasts prescribed to Israel in Lev. xxiii. , 
are not called hprri tZv 'loy^ai'wvin John x. 22. 

3, The words " Jesus went up to Jerusalem," when taken in 
connection with ver. 13, from which it appears that the city was 
filled with persons, who had also come to the festival, render 
it impossible to refer the expression to the celebration of the 
feast of Purim. From the very nature of the case, the people 
did not travel to Jerusalem to keep this feast. It was not con- 
nected in any way with the temple ; and even in Jerusalem, there 
was no divine worship associated with it. The whole festival 
was restricted to reading the Book of Esther, which took place in 
the synagogues ; doing no work ; and eating and drinking. It 
was kept by the Jews of the Diaspora, before it began to be 
observed in Palestine. — Moreover we can bring forward positive 
testimony to the fact, that the people did not think of going to 
Jerusalem to celebrate the feast of Purim. Josephus (Antiqui- 
ties xi. 6) says " the Purim is celebrated by the Jews in every 
part of the earth ; and banquets are prepared on the occasion." 
In the Talmud Megilla (chap. i. § 1 — 3), there are rules laid 
down, as to the proper time for keeping the feast, in such cities 
as were walled round in the days of Joshua ; in such as were 
not enclosed so early as that ; and lastly in villages (on the 
reason for this distinction see Vitringa de decem otiosis c. 18 in 
Ugolini thes. t. 21 p. 431 sqq.). It cannot be objected to "this, 
that, " according to chap. x. 22, Jesus was in Jerusalem at the 
time of the Eiikania, which could also be celebrated out of 
Jerusalem." There is no force in this objection, unless it can be 
shown that Jesus went to Jerusalem, for the express purpose of 
being present at the feast. But the object of his journey really 
was, to attend the feast of Tabernacles. He then remained in 
Jerusalem for some time ; and it was during his stay there that 
the feast of Dedication took place. And even if this had not 
been the case, the Enkcenia, as a festival in commemoration of 
the dedication of the temple, was so closely connected with the 
temple itself, that there were probably many who did more than 
the law required. 

4. It is extremely improbable, that Jesus should have visited 



THE LAST WEEK ; AND THE HALF WEEK. 247 

the feast of Purim, and not have taken part in the Passover, 
which was kept a month later. Was there anything in the 
nature of the feast of Purim, which was likely to have attractions 
for Jesus ? We are very far from wishing to detract from the 
authority of the Book of Esther, but when judged by the true 
standard, reference to Christ, it undoubtedly occupies the lowest 
place among all the books of the Old Testament. Is it likely 
that the Saviour, who never mentions this book, and whose 
apostles never refer to it in any way, should have attended the 
feast, which was instituted to commemorate the events there 
narrated ; with the deliberate intention, as Hug supposes, of 
showing the estimation in which that book was held by him ? 
Or was such a festival as this, in which it was meritorious to get 
intoxicated, and customary to drink on, till it was impossible to 
distinguish between " blessed be Mordecai," and " cursed be 
Haman,"^ adapted to promote the object, for which all the 
Lord's journeys to Jerusalem were made ? Even a human teacher 
would not select time and place, in such a manner as this. 
Wieselers conjecture (p. 222), that possibly Jesus attended this 
festival, to show his approval of recreation (!), is certainly a very 
hopeless one. Not less so is another one, — namely, that Jesus 
intended thereby to furnish a practical proof, that he did not 
despise the Jewish nationality. The enjoyment connected with 
this festival was of an unholy kind ; and the nationality of the 
Jews is generally held up by Jesus, for the purpose of condemn- 
ing, rather than approving. — The twofold motive, which led 
Jesus to attend the festivals at Jerusalem, was to observe the pre- 
cepts of the law, and to make an impression upon the crowds of 
people, who were assembled in such numbers, and in a state of 
mind suited to the occasion. Neither of these motives could 
have led him to the feast of Purim. 

5. According to ver. 9, the healing of the sick man took place 
on the Sabbath, and the manner in which the first and second 
verses are connected, as well as ver. 13, lead to the conclusion 
that this Sabbath formed part of the feast. But, if so, it 
could not have been the feast of Purim ; for that was never 

1 He who will not get drunk must sleep, " for after this he will be unable 
to distinguish between the two words," BodcnscJiatz Kirchl. Verf. der Juden 
p. 256. 



248 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

celebrated on a Sabbath since tlie two festivals were thoroughly 
opposed to each other, and the ordinance of God could not 
give place to the appointment of man. If it happened to 
fall upon a Sabbath, it was postponed ; (for the proofs of this 
see Beland, antiqq. sacr. iv. 9, and ScMckard de festo Purim, in 
the crit. Sacr. vi. p. 491 sqq. Frankfort).^ 

But we are not restricted to the proof derived from John v. 1 . 
By the side of this we may place another from the parable in 
Luke xiii. 6 sqq,, from which, in addition to its own independent 
significance, we may obtain a guarantee for the correctaess of 
the result, to which we have been brought by John v. 1. At the 
time when Jesus related this parable, three years of his ministry 
had already passed. According to ver. 7, the owner of the vine- 
yard (God) says to the husbandman (Christ), " behold these 
three years I come seeking fruit on this fig-tree, and find none." 
Wieseler observes (p. 202), — after having proved, what is per- 
fectly evident, that the three years in the parable contain a 
chronological datum, — " on this supposition, of course we have 
not to understand the rpia 'im as meaning exactly three years, 
neither more nor less ; for it would not have suited the character 
of the parable to enter into a calculation of months and days. 
But, if we are to regard it as actually containing a chronological 
datum, it must mean at least from two years and a half to three 
years, and at the most three years and a half ; for otherwise it 

1 In opposition to this, Wieseler maintains (p. 219), that it was only an 
arrangement of viodern date, which prohibited Purim from being kept on a 
Sabbath. " At the time of the Mishna, the 14th, Adar might still fall on a 
Saturday ; but in this case the reading of the Megilla was postponed till 
another day." To this we reply, that of course the 14th Adar might fall 
upon a Sabbath, but not the feast of Purim. It was the reading of the Me- 
gilla, which constituted the very essence of this festival. That section of the 
Mishna, which treats of the feast of Purim, actually bears the name of Me- 
gilla. There was nothing beside this, but feasting ; and Bartenora (in 
Surenhus. Mischna 2, p. 388) says of the Purim banquet, " juxta omnium 
consensum non faciunt illud die Sabbati." The leading passage of the 
Mishna, on which Wieseler relies (Megilla c. 1 § 2), " if it falls upon the 
Sabbath, the reading takes place in villages and large towns on the previous 
day of assembly, and in walled cities on the day following," shows, that, at the 
time of the Mishna, and therefore in the time of Christ also, it was regarded 
as a settled thing, that the Purim was incompatible with the Sabbath. It is 
simply from a misunderstanding of the passage itself, that Wieseler interprets 
the second passage, which he quotes from the Mishna, as relating to the con- 
nection between the feast of Purim and the Sabbath. The remarks of 
Vitringa (p. 238 sqq.) contribute to a correct interpretation of this passage. 



MODERN NON-MESSIANIC EXPOSITORS. " 249 

would have been called either two or four years." At this time, 
at least two years and a half had gone by. But according to 
ver. 8, the fig-tree was to receive a respite of another year : 
" Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it and 
dung it." From this we obtain, in all, at least three years and 
a half ; answering to the four passovers of John. Those, who 
allot a shorter space of time to the public teaching of Christ, are 
obliged to resort to forcible expedients. Thus for example, 
Bengel remarks on rovro to etos- (this year), " the third year ;" 
whereas according to ver. 7 three years had already passed. Kai 
TQuro TO Iros must therefore mean, in addition to the three, the 
fourth also. Hence when Bengel observes, " it follows from this 
parable, that there were in all three passovers between the bap- 
tism and the resurrection of Christ," we must substitute four for 
three. Still more constrained is Olshausens notion, that toDto 
TO £T0f is to be taken in a general sense ; as denoting the period 
between the ascension of Jesus and the destruction of Jerusalem. 
— If it is clearly decided, that the parable of the fig-tree was 
delivered by Christ a year before his death, we should be inclined 
to look upon Luke xiii. 1 and 4 as referring to intelligence, 
which had been brought to Christ by some Gralileans, who were 
on their way back from the feast (namely the last passover but 
one), at which we find from John vi. 4 that Jesus was not pre- 
sent. — The parable of the fig-tree in the vineyard is intimately 
connected with the symbolical action, performed by Christ, when 
he afterwards cursed the fig-tree (Matt. xxi. 18 sqq.). The year 
of grace had now expired ; and the sentence, which had been 
delayed before, now actually took effect upon Jerusalem, which 
did not know the time of its visitation. Compare the words, 
" immediately the fig-tree withered away," with Luke, " if not, 
then after that thou shalt cut it down." 



MODEEN NON-MESSIANJC EXPOSITOKS. 

We shall confine ourselves to such points as have not already 
been fully demonstrated in the exposition. 



250 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

These expositors are for the most part agreed, that, as the 
time fixed by Jeremiah had long passed by without his prophecy 
being fulfilled, the supposed Pseudo-Daniel attempted a kind of 
mystic interpretation, or paraphrase of the seventy years. For 
seventy years he substituted seventy weeks of years. They also 
agree in the following respect ; like most of the Jewish exposi- 
tors, they fix upon the year of the destruction of Jerusalem, or 
the commencement of the Babylonish captivity, as the starting 
point, and thus include the whole period, during which the city 
was lying desolate, in the seventy weeks ; they look upon the 
anointed one, in ver. 25, as a different person from the anointed 
one in ver. 26, and suppose the former to be Cyrus ; lastly, by 
the coming prince they understand Antiochus Epiphanes ; they 
regard the last week, as the period of oppression, to which he 
subjected the covenant people, and fix upon his death and the 
consequent deliverance of the people, as the terminal point in 
the whole prophecy. In all these points they have been preceded 
by Marsham, to whom we do no injustice when we pronounce 
him a rationalist in disguise, and who has at least the merit of 
having called forth the admirable treatise of Vitringa to which 
we have already frequently alluded. They differ from one 
another as to the anointed one, who is spoken of in ver. 26 as 
being cut off. According to Bertholdt and Eosenmuller, this is 
Alexander ; Bleek and Ewald say that it is Seleucus IV. Phi- 
lopator, the brother of Antiochus Epiphanes and his immediate 
predecessor, who was poisoned. According to Eichhorn, WiesBler, 
Hitzig, and Hofmann, he is Onias III., the High Priest. There 
is a hint at the genesis of these views in the words of Hitzig : 
" After the death of Jesus the Son of man (vii. 13), it was inevit- 
able, that those, who regarded him as the Messiah, should inter- 
pret the words ' the anointed one shall be cut off' as pointing to 
him." It was necessary at any price to set aside the exposition, 
which owed its origin to faith ; for the simple reason that they 
had got rid of faith itself In what we have already written, 
these views have been sufficiently refuted. We add, however, 
the following remarks.^ 

1 If any one desires more, especially if he wishes for details of the different 
Anti-Messianic expositions, he will find them in Steiidel (de recentioribus 
quibusdam loci Dan. ix. 24 — 27, interpret, quae circa Ant. Epiph. sevum 



MODERN NON-MESSIANIC EXPOSITORS. 251 

1. We cannot see, how the supposed Pseudo-Daniel could 
possibly regard the prophecies of Jeremiah as unfulfilled, and 
so be induced to make them the subject of a parody. These 
prophecies contain no Messianic elements whatever. All that 
Jeremiah announced, as about to take place at the end of the 
seventy years, — the termination of the Chaldean captivity, and 
the return of the covenant people to their father-land. — was 
fully accomplished as soon as the seventy years had expired 
(see Dissertation on Daniel, p. 147). The author of the Book 
of Daniel evidently looked upon this as actually the case, when 
he mentioned in chap i. 21, that Daniel continued till the first 
year of Cyrus, the time of deliverance for which he longed (see 
Dissertation on Daniel, p. 54 and 254), and the same view is 
also to be met Avith in other passages of the Scriptures ; e.g., 
Ezra i. 1, and 2 Chr. xxxvi. 21. Wieseler, who acknowledges 
the force of this argument, says (p. 13) : " Every interj)retation 
of the seventy weeks is false, which proceeds upon the supposi- 
tion, that the author intended nothing more, than to give a 
mystic paraphrase of the prophecy respecting the seventy years, 
on account of their not having hee7i fulfilled in their natural 
sense ; for we have proved from Dan. i., that the author believed 
this prophecy to have received the most literal fulfilment." 

2. A mystic interpretation like this, "for seventy years write 
quickly 490," is so evidently a mere caprice,^ that no author could 
have adopted it, unless he intended to make fun of Jeremiah. 
For how could he have expected any one else to look upon it as 
a serious exposition ; not to mention the impossibility of his 
regarding it in this light himself But can we imagine it 
possible, that the same writer, who confesses in ver, 6, that the 
greatest sin which the people committed against God had been 
their refusal to hearken to the voice of his servants, the pro- 
phets, who spoke in his name, should have cherished the design 
of undermining the authority of the earlier prophets, in such a 

oraculum hoc editum sumunt : Tubing. Pfingst program m 1835), in Blom- 
strand, and in Aubeiien. — The Anti -Messianic expositors themselves take 
care, that the untenable chai-acter of their whole method shall be more and 
more exposed to the light, by means of their mutual recriminations. Wieseler 
and Hitzig are particularly deserving of praise, for w^hat they have done in 
this respect. 

1 Ewald himself calls it " a leap in thought." 



252 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

way as this ? How could the supposed Pseudo-Daniel expect, 
that any great importance would be attached to his own an- 
nouncements as to times and seasons ; when he had set aside, in 
so absurd a manner, the earlier predictions of a prophet who was 
universally esteemed ? 

3. Even if the author intended merely to give a paraphrase of 
the prophecies of Jeremiah, it was indispensably necessary, that 
he should adopt the same starting point for his seventy weeks of 
years, as Jeremiah had previously adopted for the seventy years. 
Now, in both the prophecies in question, the starting point is 
the fourth year of Jehoiakim (see the Dissertation on Daniel ut 
supra). And many of the Anti-Messianic expositors fix upon 
this year, as being also the starting point of our prophecy. 
But, in the first place, they cannot point to any divine command 
to rebuild Jerusalem (we have already shown at ver. 25, that 
there is no such command in Jer. xxv.) ; and secondly, from 
the fourth year of Jehoiakim to the anointed the prince, — if we 
are to understand this term as applying to Cyrus, — there are 
not forty-nine years, but, according to the constant biblical 
chronology, which is also adopted in ver. 2 of this chapter, 
seventy years. Hitzig takes refuge in the assumption, that the 
seventy weeks and the seven weeks are reckoned from different 
starting points ; the former from the year 606, the latter from 
the destruction of the city in 588. But this is clearly inad- 
missible ; for the seven weeks form the commencement of the 
seventy. Moreover, Hitzig cannot point to any command to 
rebuild Jerusalem in 588. The prophecy in Jer. xxx. 31, to 
which he has recourse now. as formerly to chap, xxix., does not 
relate to so special an occurrence as this, but to the deliverance 
of Israel and Judah generally, and mentions no particular period 
of time, such as would certainly be required in this case ; and 
in addition to this, it was written before the destruction (see 
vol. ii. p. 423). But even wdth these great sacrifices (see 
the remarks on ver. 25, in disproof of any reference to Jer. xxx. 
31), Hitzig does not succeed in making the numbers square. 
From the destruction of Jerusalem to the first year of Cyrus 
(B.C. 536), there were not forty-nine, but fifty-two years. To 
say " that Cyrus first came under the notice of the Jews in the 
year 539," is a mere attempt to get rid of the difficulty. We 



MODERN NON-MESSIANIC EXPOSITORS. 253 

find nothing to this eflfect in history. Cyrus could not have 
been described as " the anointed, the prince," before the year 
536. And there is the less ground for fixing a chronological 
error upon the author, from the fact, that he shows such an 
accurate acquaintance with this period, even in its minutest 
details, and also, because such unanimity has prevailed among 
the Jews from the very earliest times, with reference to the 
chronological data, which lie so conspicuously upon the surface. 
We may surely count upon general support, if we substitute 
another name for that of Daniel in Hitzig's remark, " if the 
calculation does not suit, Daniel has made a mistake." 

4. The fact that, in ver. 24, there is an evident antithesis to 
ver. 2, where it is said that seventy years are to be accomplished 
upon the ruins of Jerusalem, militates against the assumption, 
that the destruction is taken as the point of commencement. How 
can the years, which are to be accomplished ti'pon the ruins, be 
included in those, which are to be accomplished upon the city ? 
Again, according to the notion of the "more modern scientific 
expositors," the rebuilding of the city was to commence with the 
sixty-two weeks ; and yet, the author is supposed to have calcu- 
lated these sixty-two weeks from the year 606, the first year of 
the Chaldean captivity, ^tfe/^ says, without hesitation: "the 
sixty-two weeks reach to the year 606 ; but the events, which 
are said to occur during these weeks, did not commence till the 
year 636." It is very clear that, instead of charging the author 
with such thoughtless capriciousness as this, one would rather 
call in question the confident assertions of " the more modern 
scientific expositors," which have but little ground to rest upon. 
Steudel has justly observed, with reference to such assumptions, 
" we must first inquire, whether the author, who had it in his 
power to adopt any method of computation that he pleased, 
would have created such difficulties as these." 

5. i?^, without the article, cannot properly be referred to the 
definite announcement made by Jeremiah, which is mentioned 
in the previous verse. Moreover, the expression "^st ^"i^, which 
is used in ver. 23, where the command is said to go forth, that 
seventy weeks shall pass over Jerusalem, is a proof that, in this 
case also, the reference is not to a prophetic announcement, but 
to a divine command. But what passage is there in the book 



254 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS, 

of Jeremiah, in which we can find the least trace of any such 
divine command, that Jerusalem is to be rebuilt ? 

6. If the prophet had no further design, than to extend the 
period fixed by Jeremiah, we should necessarily find the longer 
period terminated by the same event, which Jeremiah had 
already described as marking the end of the period referred to 
by him. But there is no sign of this. Of the blessings, which 
are spoken of in ver. 24, as belonging to the close of the seventy 
weeks, not one is mentioned by Jeremiah. On the other hand, 
the termination of the Babylonian captivity, and the return to 
their own country, which Jeremiah actually does place at the 
end of the seventy years, are here supposed to have taken place 
at the commencement of the weeks, which are determined upon 
the city and nation. 

7. If the seventy weeks reached no further than the time of 
the Maccabees, Daniel would have laid himself so thoroughly 
open to the charge of a gross violation of chronology, that we 
should be greatly perplexed by the fact, which has been adduced, 
as the leading argument against the genuineness of his book, 
— viz., the accurate acquaintance with history, which the book 
itself proves him to have possessed. In this case, the interval 
between the days of Cyrus, and the death of Antiochus Epiphanes 
would be set down at sixty-three weeks, that is 441 years, whereas 
it was not more than 372. We should have to assume, there- 
fore, that there was an error of sixty-nine years. This error 
increases in importance, if we take into consideration another 
assertion which has been made by several commentators. They 
aflirm, for example, that the author does not mention more than 
four Persian kings in all, subsequent to the time of Cyrus, and 
that he made Xerxes the last of these, and represents him as being 
conquered by Alexander (see e.g., Bertlioldt, p. 716). If so, he 
would have shortened the Persian period by about 147 years, 
which would have to be added to that of the Seleucidse, in addi- 
tion to the sixty-nine years, of which there is an excess in any 
case. This would give 380 years to the Seleucidse, which would 
have to be divided among eight kings, including Antiochus 
Epiphanes ; an error, to which it would be impossible to find 
the slightest analogy, even in the calculations of the most igno- 
rant Jews, who have attempted to determine the chronology of 



MODERN NON-MESSIANIC EXPOSITORS. 255 

the period referred to ! In the Seder Olam (chap, xxx.) its 
duration is fixed at 180 years. The errors of Josephus, in re- 
lation to this question (for an examination of which see Brink, 
examen chronol. Jos. in Havercamp ii. p. 298), would not he 
worth noticing by the side of it. And what makes the matter 
worse, is that Daniel shows such an accurate acquaintance with 
this period, even in its most minute particulars ! We see, then, 
what ground Bertholdt had, for describing the seventy weeks as a 
round number, which gives but an indefinite idea of the actual 
chronology. We have already cut off this last retreat, but is 
it not in itself a proof, that in secret the difiiculty is regarded as 
insuperable ? The fact, that we have only forced hypotheses to 
deal with, is apparent from the different methods to which the 
Anti-Messianic expositors have had recourse. Ewald says, " the 
difiiculty certainly arises here, that, reckoning from the year 
607, which is to be taken as the starting point according to Jer. 
XXV. 1, more than forty-nine of the seven times seventy years 
have passed, before we reach the time of Cyrus, and less than 
434 between the reign of Cyrus and 176 B.C.; in fact the whole 
period does not fit in well." — (About half a century too much !) 
— But, in Eioald's opinion, the author did not know any better. 
Now, this is certainly not a very probable assumption. A person, 
who was so thoroughly uninformed on such a subject, would not 
be likely to meddle with it all. The whole point of the matter 
rests on the chronological data. The supposed Pseudo-Daniel 
would have found it necessary to make any sacrifice rather than 
lay himself open here. " How would he have dared," says 
Steudel, " to lay his interpretation open to the gravest charges, 
when he knew that it was founded upon the shallowest acquaint- 
ance with history." The untenable clmracter of this assump- 
tion, then, has not been hidden from most of the "modern 
scientific expositors." But they attempt to get out of the diffi- 
culty, by still less scientific means than these. Whilst Eioald 
could not make up his mind, to dispute the evident fact, that 
the seventy weeks of years, like the seventy years of Jeremiah, 
form a continuous whole, which is subdivided into the three 
periods of seven, sixty-two, and one ; the commentators referred 
to {Lengerke, Wieseler, Hofmanii, Hitzig, and others), are ready 
to sacrifice everything, in order to get rid of the seven weeks, that 



256 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

they may have only sixty-three to dispose of. But the simple fact, 
that they cannot agree as to the method, by which this end is to 
be attained, is a clear proof, that we are in the midst of a region 
of inclination and caprice. In the text, the seven weeks stand 
before the sixty-three ; but Hitzig places them in the middle, 
Wieseler at the end (in a review of his in the GoUinger gel. 
Anzeiger 1846 p. 113 sqq., in which he revokes the most import- 
ant of the views he formerly expressed); whilst, according to 
Hofmann, they are entirely distinct, and refer to a period, which 
is separated from the sixty-three weeks by thousands of years. 
These worthless and marvellous hypotheses of the " modern 
scientific expositors " are all knocked on the head by the simple 
sentences of Blomstrand : "The seventy hebdomads in ver. 24 
are the same as the seven, sixty-two, and one, in the verses 
which follow. The different parts of the seventy hebdomads do 
not coincide ; nor are they separated by intervals. Of the seven, 
sixty-two, and one, the seven are the first, and the one is the 
last." (Compare what we have already written at p. 97). The 
acknowledgment made by Hitzig, " the seventy weeks extend as 
far as 116 B.C., that is forty-nine years later than the year 166," 
is fatal to the whole system of Anti-Messianic exposition ; and 
Hitzig' 8 assertion, that " the iipurov vl/suSof in the calculation is 
the seven weeks, which the author was obliged to dispose of," is 
much more applicable to the torturing process, to which these 
expositors are obliged to have recourse, in order that these seven 
weeks may be disposed of by themselves. It is certainly a priori 
improbable, that the author, who was under no constraint, should 
have created such difficulties of his own accord. It is an edify- 
ing spectacle,, to observe how those, who have once departed 
from the simple truth, exert themselves to find the door, and 
how one searches here, and another there, but alike without 
success. 

8. If the prophecy relates to the Maccabean era, how is it 
that it contains no allusion whatever to an event, which is men- 
tioned in all the other prophecies of Daniel connected with this 
period, the restoration of the state and temple ? Why does ,it 
finish with the mournful announcement of complete and per- 
manent desolation, which has nothing to do with this period 
at all ? A poor comfort for a prophet in want of consolation : 



MODERN NON-MESSIANIC EXPOSITORS. 257 

Everything that serves to divest of its terrors the predicted deso- 
lation of the city and temple, when the prophecy is understood 
as referring to the Messianic era, is entirely wanting in such a 
case as this. In the Maccabean age, the theocracy itself was 
suspended, when the city and temple were destroyed, for its very 
existence was inseparably connected with both of these. 

9. As we have already observed, Bertholdt supposes the 
anointed one, mentioned in ver. 26, to be Alexander. This 
gives rise to a whole host of difficulties. The anointed one dies 
sixty-two weeks of years after Cyrus ; and yet there are said to 
be only four kings between them, each of whom, therefore, must 
have reigned more than a hundred years. He is described as 
beign cut off in the same week of years, at the end of which 
Antiochus Epiphanes is said to have perished, i.e., the seventieth. 
And yet, according to the actual history, there were seven kings 
between him and Antiochus, and, according to Bertholdt's 
imaginary history, ten ! Bertholdt tries to get rid of these 
difficulties, by assuming that 'y^^ does not mean after, but 
he/ore the expiration ! And as Alexander did not suffer a violent 
death, although this is the ordinary meaning of rinan^ he affirms 
that it also is applied to mortem placidam. Another dilemma 
arises in connection with Seleucus Philopator. It is predicted 
that the anointed will not die till after the end of the sixty-two 
weeks, that is, till the seventieth ; and the termination of the 
reign of Antiochus Epiphanes is said to occur in the same week. 
But how is this possible, seeing that the latter reigned eleven 
full years ? Our opponents have the less ground for pretending. 
that there is any error here ; since the author, according to their 
own account, was contemporaneous with the events. We shall 
content ourselves with merely referring to the impossible suppo- 
sition, already noticed, that the D'wd is a heathen ruler, having 
no connection whatever with the theocracy. 

10. The notion, that the prophecy expires in the Maccabean 

era, is opposed to the unanimous testimony of Jewish tradition. 

In the first book of the Maccabees, reference is constantly made 

to the prophecies in chap. viii. and xi., relating to that period, 

but never to the passage before us (see Dissertation on Daniel, 

p. 214).^ We have also shown in this dissertation (p. 215), 

'^^Hitzig's assertion, that 1 Mace. i. 54 contains an allusion to this pro- 
VOL. III. li 



258 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

that, in the times immediately after Christ, the prophecy was 
universally referred to a destruction that had yet to take place, 
— namely, that by the Romans (see the remarks on ver. 27). To 
the passages quoted at ver. 27, we have still to add Josepkus, 
de bell. Jud. 6. 5. 4, " having it written in the prophecies, that 
the city and temple would be destroyed, as soon as the temple 
became quadrangular." This, as Belaud has already observed, 
can only be founded upon a false rendering of the n^a in the 
passage before us. On the other hand, the words which imme- 
diately follow, " but what chiefly incited them to the war was an 
ambiguous oracle, which is also found in the sacred writings," 
&c., cannot be connected with this passage (as they have been by 
Less, iiber Eeligion ii. 708, and many others) ; seeing that the 
Xfvjff/Jt-os- ci[x(pij2oXos is distinguished clearly enough from the 
prophecy quoted immediately before. And there is just as little 
ground for the assertion of the same writer, that it was this predic- 
tion alone, that gave rise to the expectation, which was so general 
among the Jews, at the time when Christ came, and which had 
spread so widely throughout the whole of the East, — namely, that 
the Messiah was about to appear, — an expectation, of which so 
many false Christs availed themselves, for the accomplishment 
of their own purposes. It was certainly founded, to a much 
greater extent, upon the announcement in chap. ii. The fourth 
kingdom was generally and correctly supposed to be the Roman 
empire ; and the fifth, which was to destroy it, the kingdom of 
the Messiah (see Josephus x. 10, 4). What was more natural, 
therefore, than that the expectation of the Messiah should be con- 
fidently entertained, from the time when the Roman empire first 
came into hostile collision with the Jews ? The unanimity, with 
which this prophecy was understood as referring to the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem by the Romans, is also apparent from the fact, 
that none of the later Jewish expositors have ventured to adopt 
a different interpretation, notwithstanding the disadvantage, at 
which it places them in their controversy with Christians (for 

phecy, and furnishes a proof that it was at that time supposed to refer to 
Antiochus Epiphanes, is refuted by what we have stated there. "We have 
already proved in our notes on ver. 27, that there is no ground for the asser- 
tion, that the Septuagint version of this passage is based upon the supposi- 
tion that the prophecy refers to Antiochus Epiphanes. 



MODERN NON-MESSIANIC EXPOSITORS. 259 

proofs, see Sostmann p. 18 sqq.). — Moreover, the universal pre- 
valence of the term Messiah at the time of Christ, as the name 
by which the expected one was known, seems to show, that pre- 
vious to the time, when unbelief in Him who had appeared 
rendered a correct interpretation impossible, the anointed one 
was generally understood to mean the Messiah. And this, again, 
presupposes that the prophecy, from which the name was derived, 
was one held in high estimation. Now this we know to have been 
the case, in a very eminent degree, with the prophecy before us at 
the period referred to, 

11. The theory, which connects this prophecy with the Mac- 
cabean era, and the entire non-Messianic interpretation, will 
continue false, so long as the word of Christ is true, — that is, to 
all eternity. We have already proved, in the Dissertation on 
Daniel, p. 213 (compare p. 179 sqq. of this volume), that Matt, 
xxiv. 15 (Mark xiii. 14), contains an allusion to this prophecy ; 
and we have also shown at p. 216, that it is quoted by the Lord 
as an actual prophecy, which had still to be fulfilled, so far as 
the destruction of the city and temple was concerned. — Hitzig, 
who does not trouble himself about the authority of the Lord, 
admits without hesitation, that " the abomination of desolation " 
in Mark xiii. 14, is taken from Daniel, as is expressly stated in 
the parallel passage (Matt. xxiv. 15), and in fact from chap. ix. 
27. Wieseler, who hesitates to attack the authority of Christ, 
acknowledges at p. 77, that Christ himself appears to give his 
sanction to the Messianic interpretation ; but thinks that, if it 
appears to us impossible, that there should be any reference to 
the Messiah, we shall also be disinclined to attribute such a doc- 
trine to Christ himself With these words before us, we shall 
not set out with the expectation of finding his attempt, to prove 
that Jesus only applied these words of Daniel to his own fate by 
way of accommodation, altogether free from partiality. He finds 
himself in a false position, and the more so because he admits, 
(1) that, at the time of Christ, it was a thoroughly national con- 
viction, that the passage referred to calamity, which was to come 
upon the nation, and (2) and even the immediate disciples of 
Jesus expected the future destruction of Jerusalem and the 
temple, in consequence of this prophecy of Daniel. The words 



260 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS, 

of the Lord, " whoso readeth let him understand," which refer 
to the obscurity and depth of Daniel's prediction (see Disserta- 
tion, p. 210 sqq.), are interpreted by Wieseler as an injunction 
to the disciples not to content themselves with the current exposi- 
tion of Daniel's prophecy. 



Let us now examine the arguments, which are brought against 
the Messianic interpretation. 

1. Assuming the genuineness of these prophecies, it is affirmed 
that " we cannot possibly understand them, as fixing the time 
with exact precision, when the kingdom of heaven was to be set up 
or completed. For if the Redeemer declares, that such a know- 
ledge of the future, with reference to the day and hour, is not 
possessed by either the angels of heaven or himself (Matt. xxiv. 
36 ; Mark xiii. 32), and if he even repeats this after his resurrec- 
tion, we cannot possibly suppose, that it was so clearly revealed 
to another prophet, and even to one of a much earlier period, 
that he was able to make such an announcement to his people 
with chronological accuracy, either in ordinary terms or accord- 
ing to a so-called mystical standard, that is, if the latter is to be 
regarded as definite in its character" (Bleek p. 234). In other 
words : " because Christ did not think it advisable, to give his 
disciples — who were eager for the reward before they had endured 
the conflict ; who, without any right to do so, were asking after 
things, which were not suited to their present condition-, and 
forgot to strive after the one thing needful, the birth from above ; 
who were still carnal, and to whom the Lord had still many 
things to say, which they could not hear then ; — because to these 
disciples the Lord refused to make known the time, when the 
kingdom of glory .should be established, a revelation, which could 
only have operated injuriously, so far as existing circumstances 
were concerned, especially considering the distance at which the 
ultimate completion of salvation still lay, and the necessity, which 
at present existed, for the foundation of this kingdom to be kept 
prominently before the minds of the disciples : — therefore, Grod 
could not possibly have made any disclosures to a prophet of the 
Old Testament, as to the time when the kingdom of "rrace was 



MODERN NON-MESSIANIC EXPOSITORS. 261 

to be established ; and even if there be a prophecy, which, when 
tested by all the laws of a sOund exegesis, is found to fix the 
precise period, to the very year, and if no error can be pointed 
out, either in the exposition, or the chronology, it is nevertheless 
a priori certain, that it must be false." What right have we 
to take what is said of the kingdom of glory, and apply it, without 
reserve, to the kingdom of grace ? And what right have we to 
interpret a refusal, which, even in connection with the former, 
had respect simply to one particular period, as if it had been an 
unreserved and absolute refusal ?^ It is very apparent from 
Acts i, 7 and 8, that the reason why the disciples received such 
an answer, is to be found purely in their condition at the time. 
"It is not for you," says Christ, "to knowthe times and the seasons, 
which the Father hath put in his own power ; but ye shall receive 
power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you." This is not 
what you stand in need of now, but something very different ; and 
though God withholds the former, you will receive from Him the 
latter. The only turn that could be given to this argument, so as 
to make it plausible, would be the following : " If the Lord, who 
even in his state of humiliation was superior to all the prophets, 
speaks of definite revelations, as to the times and seasons at 
which future events would transpire, as beyond his own reach, 
whilst in this state ; can God have communicated such revela- 
tions to any prophet whatever ? But, in this case, the argument 
would be equally directed against every other prophecy, in which 
definite chronological announcements are contained, and not only 
against those of the Old Testament, but against those of Christ 
himself, who foretold that he would rise again in three days, 
and, in fact, against all the prophecies, in which casual events 
are predicted. For what real difference is there, between fixing a 
time before hand, or making any other definite announcement ? 
We are involved at once in further difficulties of the most serious 
kind. For how can we imagine one whole department of divine 

1 Bengel has given an admirable reply to those, who argue from these pas- 
sages against the existence of any definite statements of time in the Book of 
Revelation, in both the Gnomon and the Ord. temp. p. 301. He writes 
among other things : " He does not say, no one will know but no one knows. 
He himself will know one day, and when he has learned the day and hour, 
it will be for him to communicate the knowledge, whenever and to whom- 
soever he please." 



262 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS, 

knowledge, as absolutely inacessible, even when this knowledge 
would assist his cause, to one who knew that the Father heard 
him always (John xi. 42), and to whom the Father showed all 
things that himself did (John v. 20). This passage and a num- 
ber of others show that the following is the correct view of the 
Saviour's limited knowledge. In that state of humiliation, in 
which the divine nature of Christ was quiescent, if he required 
anything for the fulfilment of his vocation, which was beyond 
the reach of the powers and gifts of his human nature, he received 
it by direct communication from above, and asked for it in prayer. 
In himself, he neither possessed the power to work miracles, nor 
the power to foresee the future ; but this power was never refused 
in answer to his petition, for such was the harmony of his will 
with that of Grod, that he could not ask anything, which it was 
not the design of God to give. From this it is evident that 
Christ's not knowing was simply the result of his not willing, 
and that the reason of his not willing was the want of fitness on 
the part of his disciples. Just in the same way might the Lord 
have replied to Satan, when he told him to turn the stones into 
bread, that he could not do it, without thereby prejudicing his 
miraculous power. But if the want of knowledge on the part 
of Christ resulted from the unsuitableness of the knowledge asked 
for, both as concerned the persons and the time ; what right have 
we to infer from this, that the Lord might not at some other 
time have communicated suitable revelations containing distinct 
chronological announcements of future events, first of all t'o his 
servants the prophets, and through them to his people ? But 
the worthlessness of the argument is firmly established at the 
very outset, and without further inquiry. The things, which 
Bleelc affirms that the passage cannot possibly contain, were 
found in it by the Lord of the church himself (Matt. xxiv. 15).^ 

1 Compare Saclc's remarks, with reference to this argument, in his Apolo- 
getik ed. 2, p. 333 sqq. He says : " Must then the divine in thought and 
word be always poetical, ideal, figurative, hyperbolical, and perhaps indistinct 
and vague ? Is there something ungodly and profane in numbers ? Do 
they not occupy a very important place in the divine economy, in the govern- 
ment of the world, in the perfect kuowlege of him, with whom everything 
has its time and hour, and who, therefore, when he reveals himself, must 
communicate this to his servants the prophets in definite measure and with 
a distinct object ? Even Abraham was told the number of the years, that 
his posterity would remain in Egypt." 



MODERN NON-MESSIANIC EXPOSITORS. 263 

2. Reference is also made to the " great resemblance between 
this prophecy, and those which are acknowledged to relate to 
Antiochus Epiphanes ;" and from this it is argued, that the sub- 
ject of the prophecy before us must be the same. Hofmann 
(p. 97) and Wieseler (p. 74) rely chiefly upon this. But the 
resemblance is, for the most part, caused by a misinterpretation. 
If we look, first of all, to the substance of the prophecies ; the 
similarity is nothing more than this, that in both cases a foreign 
prince brings destruction upon the covenant nation in conse- 
quence of its sins, and the sacrificial worship is suspended. 
This is really all. In the one case, the city and temple are ir- 
remediably destroyed ; in the other, they are merely subjected 
to a severe visitation. According to one announcement the 
nation as such entirely perishes ; according to the other, it is 
restored after a brief interval. The announcement, as to the 
anointed one the prince, and the glorious blessings to be brought 
by him, is peculiar to this prophecy. The most important point 
is supposed to be the perfect similarity in the chronological 
statements. The two thousand three hundred days, in chap, 
viii. 14, are said to correspond to the last week of years men- 
tioned here ; and the twelve hundred and ninety, and thirteen 
hundred and fifty-five days, to the half week in chap. xii. 11, 

12. But it is still a disputed point, whether the 2300 evening- 
mornings are to be understood as so many half-days (as Hitzig 
supposes), or whole days. If we suppose the latter, we shall 
then have six years and a quarter, not seven years ; and whereas 
the one week mentioned here is described as the period, in which 
the covenant is to be confirmed, the two thousand three hundi'ed 
evening- mornings represent the length of time, during which the 
visitation of the covenant- nation by the heathen tyrant continued. 
There is nothing about a half-week here, but only about the 
middle of the week. — So far as the expressions are concerned, 
the only point, which merits any attention, is the agreement be- 
tween DDtTD D'xipu' t^ja Sj? in ver. 27, and ooit* in chap. viii. 

13, Dcrn yiprn in chap. xi. 14, and °^^ V"'!"'' in chap. xii. 11. 
This agreement can hardly be accidental. In fact, as a rule, 
the recurrence of such rare, characteristic expressions, points 
to a deeper connection, and is almost equivalent to a distinct 



264 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

reference. And, according to our view, such a reference is 
very appropriate here. There was an intimate connection 
between the Syrian destruction and the Roman, both in the 
guilt (VP^O) ^^d the judgment (012^'). (For the correct ex- 
position of chap. viii. 13, xi. 31, xii. 11 see p. 108 sqq. and 
133.) 

3. " There is no other prophecy in the Book of Daniel, which 
goes beyond the death of Antiochus Epiphanes." This is an 
assertion without foundation. If the fourth universal monarchy 
in chap. ii. and vii. is the Roman, we have here the link of con- 
nection with the prophecy before us. The announcement of the- 
Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven, in chap. vii. 13, 
leads us at once to expect, that we shall find, somewhere else, 
a prediction of the first coming of Christ ; especially when we 
consider the great prominence given to this announcement in 
the prophecies of Zechariah, who was nearly contemporaneous, 
and in whom we discover so many points of resemblance. 

4. Wieseler says (p. 83), "the Messianic interpretation is 
evidently impossible, from the simple fact that there would in 
that case be no reference whatever in this passage to the oppres- 
sion by Antiochus Epiphanes, which happened at this very time, 
and which is so prominent throughout the rest of the book." 
But enough has been said on this subject elsewhere ; and there 
was no necessity to allude to it here. The point, from which 
this prophecy starts, is the aspect of the ruins of Jerusalem. 
Its leading subject is the rebuilding of the city ; and after "that 
its destruction again, along with the circumstances, which occa- 
sioned the latter. 



( 265 ) 



THE PROPHET HAGGAI. 



Haggai means the festal one. This is a good name for a pro- 
phet. The distinguishing characteristic of the festivals was an 
elevation of the religious consciousness. A festal man was one 
who was always in this state of mental elevation. The circum- 
stances, under which Haggai first appeared, were the same as 
those which attended the appearance of Zechariah, and will be 
discussed more fully in connection with that prophet. His pro- 
phecies have all one design, — viz., to expedite the building of the 
temple. It was not without a purpose, that the first discourse 
(chap, i.) was delivered on the first day of the month, that is, 
the feast of the new moon (c/ Num. xxviii. 11 ; 2 Kings iv. 
23) ; inasmuch as the prophet was more likely to attract atten- 
tion on a feast-day. And as the circumstances of the times were 
such as to call for repentance, he commences with reproof} He 
contends against the prevailing indifference and selfishness, which 
had banished the thought of Grod from the mind, and points out 
how these bring their own punishment, inasmuch as those who 

1 The prophet's rebuke presupposes that, notwithstanding the obstacles 
which were thrown in the way by the Samaritans (Ezra iv. 1 — 5), no insu- 
perable difficulty had presented itself to the erection of the temple between 
the first year of Cyrus and the second of Darius Hystaspes. If the erection 
had been prohibited by edicts of the Persian king, the leaders of the people 
would have been able to meet the charges brought by the prophet. The 
issue of any such edicts (which may be shown to be impossible, not only on 
the ground here stated, but also from the third address) would never have 
been assumed, had not the fact been overlooked that the paragraph in Ezra 
iv. 6 — 23 has no connection whatever with the building of the temple, but is 
an intercalated section, having reference to the building of the city walls. 



266 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

take away from God what really belongs to Him will have their 
own taken from them as a just retribution. This address 
answered its purpose. Four and twenty days after its delivery, 
, on the twenty-fourth day of the sixth month, in the second year 
of Darius, the works connected with the temple were re-com- 
menced with zeal, under the superintendence of Zerubbabel and 
Joshua the High Priest. 

But there soon arose a fresh occasion for Haggai's public ap- 
pearance. When the work had sufficiently advanced for the 
people to be able to contrast the new temple with the former 
one, they were plunged in deep distress. The shout of joy, 
which was raised when the foundation was laid, was mingled 
with audible weeping, especially on the part of the old men, who 
had seen the glory of the first temple (see Ezra iii. 12). There 
appeared to be a glaring contrast between the promise and the 
reality. How glorious the former ; how miserable the latter J! 
According to Isaiah (see especially chap. Ix.), Jeremiah, and 
Ezekiel, the new temple was to be infinitely superior in its glory 
to the old. And how did it look now ? It was a nonentity in 
their eyes (chap, ii, 3). Gloomy thoughts now arose among the 
believers. Can this temple be the one which God promised ? 
Are not the miserable circumstances in which we are placed an 
intimation from him that we are to abstain from the fruitless 
undertaking ? Is it a right thing to build him a hut, instead 
of a temple ? Whether he has entirely cast ofi" his people on 
account of their sins, and altogether withdrawn his conditional 
promise, or intends to fulfil his promise, at some time or other 
in the remote future, for a worthier generation than we are, who 
still groan beneath his wrath, and are reaUy in Babylon, though 
outwardly in Canaan, — he has at all events declared us unworthy 
of so great and holy a work, by the very circumstances in which 
we are placed. 

In such a state of mind, comfort was the thing they needed ; 
and Haggai was called by God to impart it. He discharged his 
commission, by addressing to them the discourse contained in 
chap. ii. 1 — 9, which was delivered on the 21st of the 7th month. 
He urges the people and their leaders to be of good courage ; 
assuring them of the fact that the Lord is with them, and that 



HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 6 — 9. 267 

the word, which he spoke to them at the very first, " fear not," 
continues still in force. ^ 

Having thus re-opened the fountain of consolation for every 
kind of trouble, the prophet addresses himself especially to the 
immediate cause of the despondency of the nation on this occa- 
sion, its want of faith in God and his grace. They were not to 
allow the small beginnings of the new temple to trouble them. 
God would remove the obstacles which, so far as an eye of flesh 
could see, rendered it impossible that the glorious promises of 
the earlier prophets, respecting the flocking of the Gentiles with 
all their gifts and possessions, should be fulfilled. He, the 
Almighty, will shake the strong kingdoms of the earth, and 
deprive them of the power which has made them, in their proud 
self-conceit, entirely forgetful of Him (vers. 6 and 7). Thus 
humbled, the Gentiles will come with their possessions, to do 
homage to the Lord, whose temple will now rise to lofty glory 
(ver. 7). It cannot be otherwise, for God is the possessor of all 
earthly things (ver. 8) . And this glory will be so great, that 
it will far surpass that of the former temple, whilst it will also 
be accompanied with peace to the people of the Lord (ver 9). 



CHAP, n., VER 6-9. 

Ver. 6. " For thus saith the Lord of Hosts, there is yet a little, 
a7id I shake the heaven and the earth and the dry (land)." 

'3 shows that we have here the reason for the^exhortation " fear 
not." It is not without a reason that the expression, " thus 
saith the Lord of Hosts," is repeated five times in these four 

1 Ver 5. " The word, which I concluded with you when ye came out of 
Egypt and my spirit dwelt in the midst of you . fear not." (Lay this to 
heart, bear it in mind). That this explanation (which is the one given by 
EwalcV) is correct, is evident from the fact that the words "fear not" are 
taken from Ex. xx. 17. This, therefore, must be the word which the Lord 
pledged to them at the time of their exodus from Egypt. The Spirit of God 
in this passage (as in Is. Ixiii. 11) is the miraculous power of God, which was 
displayed in the Mosaic age in the midst, and fur the good of the nation. By 
this power the exhortation "fear not" was seconded then ; and the same 
power will give effect to it now. See Zech. iv. 6. 



268 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

verses. The greater the impossibility of discovering even the 
smallest human prospect, the greater the necessity for laying 
emphasis upon the omnipotence of Gocl.^ In our explanation 
of the words n'h tiyp r\m nij?, we have followed the example 
of Luther (es ist noch ein Kleines dahinj, and Calvin (adhuc 
unum hoc modicum). There can be no doubt of its gramma- 
tical correctness. It has been objected that the numeral is not 
used for the indefinite article in Hebrew, as it is in German. 
But, in the first place, there are not a few examples of the use 
of the word with a diminished force, though not to the same 
extent as in this passage, especially in the later period of the 
language (see Gesenius, Thes. p. 61), and in Chaldee, in is 
very frequently used in this sense (Thesaurus p. 63); and 
secondly, r\m is not really used for the indefinite article in 
the passage before us. The meaning is not, a little, but a 
(one) little. The brevity of the time is rendered still more pro- 
minent by the addition of nns* ; just as in Is. xvi. 14 t^vo and 
"ivip are connected, so as to express the shortest possible time. 
We cannot exactly follow Verschuir (adhuc una heec temporis 
particula), and take '^y^ as a noun, according to its primary 
signification. It is only known in the language as an adverb ; 
and there is the less necessity to render it otherwise, on ac- 
count of the npN, from the fact that even adverbs, which are 
proved by their form to have been always adverbs, are not 
infrequently construed as nouns, e.g. ddi*?, ojn 'o-j. There is 
quite as little difficulty, connected with tayo nna, as witli o;? 
toy)?, toyp 'np. It corresponds exactly to our expression ein luenig, 
a little, where the word little is still an adverb. Most of the 
earlier expositors take rinx nij? and N'n tjvo separately f adhuc 

1 Verschuir has written a valuable commentary on this passage. This 
commentary was reprinted in the earlier collection of his Dissertations, p. 
121 sqq. ; and, notwithstanding the erroneous character of the main conclu- 
sion, — viz., that our prophecy relates to the time of the Maccabees, and is only 
connected with the Messianic era, so far as it was typified by the former, 
and sundry other errors, it is after all the best, which has ever been written 
upon the passage. " God," he observes, " who speaks by our prophet, is 
introduced as the supreme ruler of the whole earth, the king of kings and 
emperor of emperors, as the bravest hero, possessed of the most numerous 
army, who would be, as it were, the torch and trumpet of wars, would excite 
them^ by his providence, and at the same time would overrule them, for the 
aappiness and well-being of his people." 



HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 6. 269 

semel idque hrevi abhinc), in support of which they appeal, 
to the Septuagint (sn a/ra^), and the Syriac (yet a time), 
in which nnx is correctly rendered, but ^V^ is omitted alto- 
gether. Frlsclimuth and Mieg have taken the most trouble 
to defend this rendering, which has lately been revived by 
Schmieder (the former in his de gloria templi secundi, reprinted 
in the thes. ant. i., p. 994 sqq. ; the latter in his de desiderio 
gentium, in the thes. nov., p. 1077 sqq.). rinK is certainly 
used sometimes, in the sense of once. But the fact, that iijr 
tayo is a standing phrase {yid. Ps. xxxvii. 10, Is. xxix. 17, Jer. 
li. 33), presents an insuperable obstacle to the two words being 
separated here).^ If the prophet's intention was to write " only 
once more," the word only would hardly have been omitted ; 
seeing that it would be just upon this word that the whole 
meaning rested. The use of Vav, as the connecting link 
with what follows, shows that n'^, which stands for the sub- 
stantive verb, belongs to the whole of the foregoing clause, 
and not merely to a parenthesis.^ The question arises, how- 
ever, how far the notion of brevity is suitable here. The 
earlier commentators, who, for the most part, understood by 
the shaking of the heaven and the earth, the establishment 
of a new economy, the conclusion of a new covenant, were 
not a little perplexed with this question. They either re- 
ferred to Ps. xc. 4 and 2 Pet. iii. 8, and spoke of the 
measure of time adopted here, as being not the human standard, 
but the divine, according to which a thousand years are as one 
day ; or they maintained that the brevity was merely relative : 
" in comparison with another, much longer period, the time that 

1 The same objection may be brought against the rendering adopted^ by 
Hitzig and Eojmann, " one more, little is it," one more, only one period, 
which will not be subdivided into several. It would be altogether unpa- 
ralleled, that one should stand for " a time," and that a time should be used 
without further explanation for a continued period. 

'^ If we have given a correct exposition of ver. 5, there is certainly a refer- 
ence to the Sinaitic legislation, as these commentators maintain (" as once, 
when the law was proclaimed from Mount Sinai with terrible thunders and 
lightnings, and all nature was shaken," Michaelis). The Lord will shake 
anew, but even in this case Israel need not fear. On the contra-ry, this 
shaking will contribute to the glory of the kingdom of God, by breaking the 
power of the heathen. Hence £t/ a?ra? is correct, as far as the sense is con- 
cerned ; but it is not necessary, that the reference to what transpired in olden 
times, which is so slightly indicated, should be made prominent in such a 
way as this : " there is yet a little, and I shake (anew)." 



270 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

would elapse, previous to the foundation of the new economy, is 
described as short." But these can hardly be sustained. The 
former certainly cannot. For he who speaks to men, must 
speak according to human conceptions, or else state that he has 
not done so. The prophet lays stress upon the brevity of the 
time in this case, for the purpose of administering consolation. 
But only what is short in human estimation would be fitted to 
accomplish this. The second, also, is untenable. For he who 
speaks of time relatively, must mention with what the compari- 
son is instituted. But there is no trace of anything of the kind 
in this passage, as the various conjectures of these commentators 
sufficiently prove. Moreover, what space of time could there be, 
of such a length, that another one of five hundred years could 
be described as " a little" in comparison ? We are thus brought 
to the conclusion, that the explanation given to the words, " I 
shake the heavens and the earth," cannot be the correct one. 
There is no difficulty whatever connected with the correct expo- 
sition, — namely, that reference is made to the great political con- 
vulsions, hy which the poioer of the Gentiles was to he broken and 
their pride humbled, and thus they ivere to be made capable of 
receiving salvation. This shaking commenced immediately. 
The axe was already laid at the root of the Persian empire, 
whose subsequent and visible fall was but the manifestation of a 
far earlier one, which had been hidden from view. We have 
already noticed, in a general way, the idea which the earlier 
commentators usually associated with the shaking of the heaven, 
the earth, the sea and the dry land. They very properly sup- 
posed, as we have just observed, that allusion was made to the 
phenomena connected with the giving of the law, when Mount 
Sinai trembled violently. Compare the historical account in 
Ex. xix. 16 — 19, and the poetical description in Judges v. 4 
sqq., " Lord, when thou wentest out of Seir, when thou 
marchedst out of the field of Edom, the earth trembled (ni:?vi)," 
&c. With this smaller shaking, the establishment of the 
Old Testament economy, the prophet is still further supposed 
to contrast the greater shaking, the establishment of the new 
Testament economy, when the heaven would be shaken as well 
as the earth. To the arguments already adduced in opposi- 
tion to this explanation, and in support of the one already 



HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 6. 271 

mentioned, which we regard as the correct one, and which 
Verschuir was the first to demonstrate thoroughly, we may add 
the following. 1. The same words occur again in chap. ii. 21 ; 
and, with the evident connection between the two passages, we 
may find in the latter a test of the correctness of any exposition 
of the former. In ver. 22, "and I overthrow the throne of the 
kingdoms, and destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the 
heathen, and overthrow the war chariots and their warriors, and 
horses and their riders fall, man by the sword of his brother," 
we have an explanation of ver. 21. It shows that the shaking 
of the heavens and the earth, mentioned in ver. 21, refers to 
great changes, to be brought about by the omnipotence of God 
in the state of the nations, to bloody wars, by which he would 
throw down from the summit of their power those who proudly 
exalted themselves against him, and generally to the coming of 
the day of the Lord upon everything high and exalted, of which 
we have a description in Is. ii. In ver. 23, '' in that day, saith 
the Lord of Hosts, will I take thee, Zerubbabel, the son of 
Shealtiel, and will make thee as a signet-ring, for I have chosen 
thee, saith the Lord of Hosts," we have a confirmation of the re- 
sult, which we have already obtained from the words " there is yet 
a little, — ^namely, that the shaking of the heaven and the earth 
cannot be regarded as something connected with a far distant 
future alone. The leading idea is God's affectionate care of his 
people amidst all the great changes, which he was about to bring 
to pass in the world, and which, just because they were not acci- 
dental, but overruled by him, would have for their object the eleva- 
tion of his peopleand kingdom, and could not possibly injure them ; 
so that they might look in peace and comfort upon the destruction 
and dissolution, which were taking place on the earth, convinced 
that they were only the throes of a better world. And, although 
Zerubbabel is introduced here, on account of his office, rather 
than his person ; although the promise is made through him to 
the people ;^ and although it extends far beyond the life of 
Zerubbabel, and has no actual limits in time ; yet the very 

1 " God addresses Zerubbabel, that he may show, in his person, that he is 
about to bless the people, whom he has determined to gather together under 
that sacred head For, although Zerubbabel did not obtain pos- 
session of the kingdom ; yet God determined that a spark, as it were of that, 



272 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PKOPHETS. 

fact, that Zerubbabel is selected as the representative of the 
nation, — with especial reference to the fears, which agitated both 
Zerubbabel himself, and the rest of that generation, from their 
consciousness of weakness, which seemed sure to succumb to 
even the slightest opposition, — this fact, we say, is a proof that 
the reference in this passage cannot be to something absolutely 
remote, but only to something, which actually commenced in 
the age in which the promise was given, though it might also 
extend through all ages, and be merely continued in the bless- 
ings promised by Christ, that " he would be with his people 
always even to the end of the world," and that " the gates of hell 
should not prevail against his church." — 1, The opening words 
of the next verse, " and I shake all the heathen" are at variance 
with the supposed reference to the establishment of a new 
economy. The commentators, already referred to, maintain 
that the shaking in this case is different from that mentioned in 
the previous verse, and denotes the agitation of mind, which 
would be excited among the heathen by the Spirit of G-od after 
the founding of the new economy.^ To Verschuir belongs the 
honour of having been the first to call attention to the fact, that 
these words are not connected with a description of salvation 
itself, but merely of events which 'prepared the way.^ T4iere 

kingdom should appear, which he had set up in the family of David. . . . 
In tine, God showed that it had pleased him, that the nation should be 
gathered together under one head, because Christ would at length spring 
from the seed of Zerubbabel " (Calvin). See Zech., chap. iv. The announce- 
ment points back to Jer. xxii. 24, " though Coniah, the son of Jehoiakim, 
king of Judah, were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee 
thence," and shows, that this prophecy is only temporary in its character, 
that it cannot annihilate the promise, which was given to the family of David, 
and through that femily to the nation, but that in future this promise will 
recover its force again. The signet ring, which is greatly prized and carefully 
preserved, and with which a man does not part, is a characteristic emblem of 
the family of David in its relation to God. 

1 This was the explanation given by the Jewish expositors, e.g., Kimchi 
(inclinabo corda eorum, ut loco suo se moveant ad veniendum et videndum 
gloriam banc et suismet manibus afferant aurum et argentum), Jarclii and 
Abenezra. Calvin also explains the shaking as " the inward movement, by 
which God impels the elect to enter the fold of Christ." Michaelis para- 
phrases the passage thus, " I will move them by the sound of the Gospel to 
repentance and faith." 

'^ " The section before us is divisible into two leading parts, of which the 
one describes the events, which would precede the state of perfect happiness 
and glory, and be instrumental in bringing it; about (ver. 6 and 7) : whilst 
the other embraces the state of perfect prosperity itself." 



HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 6. 273 

can be no doubt whatever, that this is the correct view. The 
word 'Pif y^n itself indicates, not gentle internal emotions, but 
violent agitations ; and there is the greater reason for believing 
this to be the meaning, because the word occurs in this sense 
immediately before, and it cannot be supposed that the same 
word, which is evidently chosen with intention, is used here in 
an entirely different sense. But if we compare ver. 22, no 
further doubt can possibly remain. The words, " I will over- 
throw the throne of kingdoms and will destroy the strength of the 
kingdoms of the heathen," stand in precisely the same relation 
to the shaking of the heavens and the earth, as the words " and 
I shake all the heathen," in the verse before us. We are fully 
warranted in explaining the latter clause from the former. But 
if there can be no doubt that, by the shaking of the heathen, we 
are to understand the breaking up of the foundations of their 
kingdoms, the dissolution of their power ; the shaking of the 
heaven and the earth must mean the same thing. 3. In 
addition to this, the image itself is a natural one, only when 
it is understood as referring to violent political convulsions. 
Storms and earthquakes do not represent the omnipotence 
of God in general ; they are the natural symbols of his omnipo- 
tence to destroy, and they were regarded in this light, even 
by the nations of antiquity. Earthquakes were looked upon, 
as the omens of approaching destruction.^ Just as the mani- 
festation of the destructive power of Grod in inanimate nature 
excites a foreboding, even in the rudest minds, that the same 
destructive power will also be put forth in the affairs of men ; 
and just as we see in every earthquake, to some extent, a real pro- 
phecy of the judgments of God on men ; so, on the other hand, 
where these judgments have been inflicted, where grievous con- 
fusion and calamity prevail on every side, to the alarmed and 



1 Compare, for example, the remarkable passage in Herodotus (vi. 98), from 
which it is evident that he shared the opinion of the people in this respect : 

AjjXo? ixivri^n, ui 'iXiyou ol A»jXio;, xa) 'tt^uto. ko.) u/rrccTa, fii^?' '^('■■'^ <rii<rh7iroc. Kai 
TovTo fi-it Kov Tipa; av^^cuiroio'i Tuiv //.iXXovTav nrnriai kukudi i(pr\)/i o 6ias, E^r} 

rpiuv Touriav I'ti^rii yiviiui)/, iyiviro •xXio) kocko, rri 'EXXa,%i, ri It) I'luotn, aXXa; 
yivia,; rati t^o AaoS'ou yivo[/.l)icc$. . . . ovTia oHiy riv aliKi; xitn^Hvai 

Atixav, TO -r^h touirxv axlvnrov ; SCO also chap. iv. 28, Thucjdides ii. 8, and 
Justin xl. 2. 

VOL. III. S 



274 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

anxious man even external nature appears to be dissolving ; he 
feels as if heaven and earth were breaking up. This will explain 
liow it is, that the manifestations of God's destructive power in 
the natural world, as for example in storms and earthquakes, 
are so often employed in Scripture, to represent the manifesta- 
tions of the same destructive power in history. An example ot 
this we have in the 18th Psalm, where the description of a storm 
is introduced, to show the fearful destruction, which is sus- 
pended by God over the Psalmist's foes. And again in Is. xiii. 
13, where the vision of the destruction overhanging Babylon is 
widened into the vision of a judgment on the whole earth, of 
which the former was a type and offshoot, and, at the same time, 
an actual prediction. " Therefore," says the Lord, " I will shake 
the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the 
wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger." 
And, again, in Ps. Ix. 2, where great misfortunes, which had 
befallen the covenant-people, are represented under the image of 
an earthquake, by which great clefts had been made in the 
earth : " thou hast made the earth to tremble, thou hast broken 
it : heal the breaches, for it shaketh." Even in the poetic prose 
of the first Book of Maccabees, we find in chap. i. 28 the fearful 
sufferings, with which the covenant-people had been visited, 
represented as a literal earthquake, " the earth was shaken for 
the inhabitants thereof." (See the commentary on Eev. vi. 12). 
Having thus determined the general meaning, we must look 
into the subject somewhat more closely to ascertain, if possible, 
the thought which lies at the foundation of this announcement. 

Had the prophet simply predicted, without further explana- 
tion, the glorification of the kingdom of God by the flocking of 
the heathen into it, with all their possessions and gifts, his pro- 
phecy would have met with little acceptance. The contrasts 
were too glaring ; on the one side poor, miserable, despised Israel, 
which was at that very time engaged in building a wretched hut 
for its God, instead of a splendid temple, and even for that had 
obtained permission with difficulty from its heathen rulers ; on 
the other side, heathenism in the bloom of its strength, full of 
pride, on account of its own power, and the power of its deities, 
and scarcely deigning to look atlsrael and its God. These contrasts 
could only be softened down, in a supernatural way, by the God 



HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 6. 275 

of heaven, who bringeth down the mighty, and raiseth the humble 
and miserable out of the dust. The prophet directs the attention 
of the people to his preparatory movements. He is about to 
shake the might of the heathen, and bring down all their pride. 

If we fix our attention exclusively upon this shaking, our 
])rophecy is parallel to that of Daniel, concerning the four king- 
doms, which were to be destroyed by the omnipotence of God, 
and in whose place a fifth kingdom was to arise, the kingdom of 
the people of the Lord. Both were equally consolitary to the 
covenant nation. However the power of this world might exalt 
itself, they knew that there was a worm, gnawing secretly at the 
root. The transference of power from one nation to another 
invariably revived their hopes. They saw in this, the positive 
proof of the nothingness and perishable nature of all earthly 
things ; from it they learned, that the things of earth did not 
stand in their way like an indestructible wall of brass ; and they 
might indulge the hope, that, when these changes had run their 
course, the power of man, so far as it presented a contrast to the 
Kingdom of God, would ultimately cease to exist. 

But there is one peculiarity which distinguishes the prophecy 
before us from that of Daniel. Not only is the forcible destruc- 
tion of the power of man, by the interposition of God, presented 
to our notice here, but a moral effect is mentioned, which this 
destruction will produce, even upon those who are thus destroyed. 
The heathen, who have been " shaken," come of their oion 
accord, and consecrate themselves, and all they have, to the 
Lord. To effect this is the design of the shaking ; the highest 
object, which God sets before him, in his superintendence of the 
events of the world. 

How far were the means adapted to promote the end ? This 
question must be answered from the whole biblical view of the 
economy of sufferings. The Bible teaches that, in consequence 
of the corruption of human nature, the possession of the good 
things of this world brings with it the danger of their being 
abused, of the heart being set upon them and trusting in them, 
and of a high-minded contempt of God ; and, in many cases, 
this danger can only be averted by God himself taking, the pos- 
sessions away. This view has stamped itself even upon the 
language of {Scripture. Just as each individual must enter the 



276 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

Kingdom of God through tribulation, and only he who sows in 
tears can reap with joy, so is it, also, with whole nations. The 
historians and prophets describe, on every page, how constantly 
Israel was shaken, that its beauty might come to the Lord. " In 
their affliction they will seek me early" (Hos. v. 15) ; this is a 
key note, which runs through them all. And it is always after 
God has smitten Israel that it turns to him and seeks to be 
healed (vid. Is. xxvi. 16, vol. i. p. 516). The application of 
this fundamental view, of the effect of suffering upon the nature 
of man, to the treatment of the heathen on the part of God, is 
hinted at on every hand. But it occurs with the greatest 
frequency and distinctness in Isaiah, from whom we quote some 
passages, which are in all respects to be regarded as parallel to 
our own. The fact that in Isaiah one or more nations are 
singled out, whereas here all the heathen are referred to, makes 
no real difference ; for the special announcement in Isaiah is 
evidently an emanation from the general idea, which the prophet 
merely applies to some one nation in particular, because it is with 
that alone that he has to do. In chap. xix. 1 — 15 the prophet 
describes the judgment of the Lord on Egypt ; and in ver. 16 
sqq. the manner in which this judgment will issue in its humi- 
liation and salvation. The congregation of the Lord, which it 
formerly despised, becomes an object of its veneration. Altars 
are erected in the land of Egypt, and the three nations of Egypt, 
Israel, and Assyria, the last of which had arrived at the same 
knowledge through the same humiliation, unite together to form 
one covenant-nation and brotherhood, and serve the Lord to- 
gether ; — just as in Amos ix. 12, the remnant of Edom, the 
portion which had been spared amidst the judgments of God, 
unites with the covenant-nation, and is admitted into it by the 
Lord. We find the same idea at the close of the prophecy 
against the Egyptians and Cushites in chap xviii. ; and also at 
the end of the prophecy against Tyre, chap, xxiii. 17, 18. After 
a period of suffering Tyre flourishes again through the grace of 
God ; but this time her acquisitions are devoted to the Lord. 

In what relation does the idea stand to history, when presented 
in the general form in which it is expressed in this passage ? 
!So much is evident, that no shaking can come into consideration 
here, except so far as the coming of the heathen is either asso- 



HAGGAI, CHAP. IT. 6. 277 

ciated with it, or a consequence of it. For this reason we must 
reject such explanations as that of Verschuir, who places the 
principal fulfilment in the time of the Maccabees, and also the 
manifestly insipid notion of Brusius, who talks about an earth- 
quake during the reign of Herod. We cannot even assume that 
the prophecy reached no farther than the first coming of Christ. 
On the contrary its fulfilment must go on as long as the oppo- 
sition lasts between the earthly power and the Kingdom of the 
Lord on the earth ; that is, till the entrance of the kingdom of 
glory. 

All the dealings of God with the nations have for their ultimate 
object, the establishment and advance of the kingdom of God. 
With a firm hand he guides the affairs of the world, century 
after century, towards this final issue. Where the eye of flesh 
sees only chance, and where that of faith discerns only the puni- 
tive justice of God, to which exclusive reference is made in so 
many of the other prophecies, and which is certainly not to be 
excluded here ; there, does the prophecy before us open all at once 
a view of the secret operations of the mercy of God, which smites 
only to heal, in the case of the heathen as much as of the 
covenant-people, and which, even where absolute annihilation 
appears to have taken place, as in the case of Sodom and 
Gomorrha, causes life to come forth from death (see Ezek. xvi. 
55) , and only casts entirely away when every method of severity 
and love has been resorted to in vain. 

We now proceed to examine in what way the idea was realised 
previous to the first coming of Christ. Here the shakings of the 
heathen followed closely one upon another. How thoroughly 
the power of Persia had been undermined was soon brought to 
light, in the invasion of Greece by Xerxes, the successor of 
Darius. It could easily be foreseen then that its days were 
numbered ; and in the rapid conquests of Alexander these anti- 
cipations were fulfilled. And his power also, which seemed 
destined to be eternal, succumbed to the fate of everything 
temporal. Livy says : " inde morte Alexandri disti'actum in 
multa regna, dum ad se quisque opes rapiunt lacerantes viribus, 
a summo culmine fortunae ad ultimum finem centum quinqua- 
ginta annos stetit." The two most powerful of the kingdoms, 
which arose out of the empire of Alexander, the Syrian and 



278 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

Egyptian, destroyed each other. The Romans now attained to 
universal dominion, but at the very time when they seemed to 
have reached the summit of their greatness, the " shaking" had 
proceeded to a very considerable extent. 

Let us imagine Christ appearing at the time, when any one 
of these empires was in the vigour of its youth. Would he have 
been likely to find an entrance ? Quite as little, we may be 
sure, among the Persians, when intoxicated with their victories, 
as among the victorious Greeks or the old iron Eomans. But 
now, a sense of the nothingness and perishable character of 
everything earthly, and a longing for imperishable, heavenly 
possessions, and for a fixed and immoveable heavenly kingdom, 
had spread far and wide through the countries of the earth ; and 
the strength of this feeling may be gathered from the fact, that 
there were many who sought this kingdom, even in the imperfect 
form, in which it then existed, — a small beginning of the promised 
accession of the heathen, — and that whilst some merely sought 
in it external support, others were received into it altogether. 

All that remains to be done, is to look at the one passage in 
the New Testament, in which this prophecy is quoted, — viz., Heb. 
xii. 26 sqq. 

In the 2,5th verse of this chapter, the author urges those whom 
he is addressing, not to reject the perfect revelation of God in 
Christ, and so expose themselves to a much severer punishment 
than was inflicted upon those, who hardened themselves against 
a less perfect revelation of God under the Old Testament. The 
superior dignity of the former he demonstrates in ver. 26, from 
the fact that only a comparatively small shaking took place at 
the foundering of the Old Covenant (as a sign of the dominion of 
God over creation, and of the destructive power, which he exerted 
over it, Mount Sinai had been shaken then), whereas an infinitely 
greater shaking had been predicted in connection with the New 
Testament times, a shaking, which should embrace not only the 
ivliole earth, but the heavens also. The meaning of the shaking 
referred to in the prophecy of Haggai, — the words of which he 
represents as having been spoken by God, at the commencement 
of the period alluded to in the prophecy (see a similar case in 
chap. x. 5), — is explained in ver. 27 as follows : " and this once 
more signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as 



HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 6. 279 

of things that are made, that the things which are not shaken 
may remain." Many mistakes have been made here, in conse- 
quence of its being generally supposed (although Calvin gave ' 
the correct explanation),^ that the emphasis rested exclusively 
upon the words " once more,"" whereas the author takes no further 
notice of these words, to which we might add, " and so forth," 
but merely explains the rest of the sentence, " I shake not the 
earth only," &c. The word Vva has also been incorrectly rendered 
ecbatically, " so that that which is not moveable remains," 
instead of " in order that that which is not moveable may re- 
main." That the things which are not moveable should remain, 
is the design of the removal of those things which are ; and their 
continuance, therefore, must necessarily present an irreconcile- 
able contradiction to the establishment of the immoveable. From 
these remarks it will be evident, that what the author describes 
as the fundamental idea of this expression, and what we have 
already discovered to be so, perfectly agree. Every created thing, 
so far as it is opposed to the kingdom of God, must be shaken 
and laid in ruins, that this kingdom may continue to stand. 
" How great and glorious then," is the writer's inference in ver. 
28, "must be this kingdom which cannot be moved!" How 
earnestly should those, whom Grod has admitted into it, strive to 
lay fast hold of grace and serve Grod acceptably ! How should 
their walk be marked by fear ! For, just as the grace, bestowed 
upon them, infinitely surpasses that which preceded it ; so is their 
God, infinitely more than the God of the Old Testament (Deut. 
iv. 24), a consuming fire. — It is the same divine energy, which 
shakes the kingdoms of this world for the good of the kingdom 
of God, and which at the end of time will destroy this world 
itself, the fashion of which passes away (see 1 Cor. vii. 31), — 
destroy it, that is, so far as it is impregnated with sin and evil, 

1 " The apostle lays no stress upon the word ava.%. He merely infers from 
the shaking of the heaven and the earth, that the condition of the whole 
world was to be changed by the coming of Christ." 

2 This is the opinion of Tholu.ck and Bleek. The expression " once more " 
in the Septuagint is supposed to have been used by the author in the sense 
oi" only once more," i.e. for the last time; and thus, he is made to intro- 
duce into the text, without any warrant, the very word, upon which the 
whole argument depends. The correct plan, on the contrary, is to assume 
that the emphasis cannot rest upon 'irt a.'ralj seeing that it does not answer 
the evident purpose of the author, when explained in a simple manner. 



280 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

and therefore unfit to be the scene of God's glorified kingdom. 
Hence, the prophecy and its application are closely allied to those 
passages, in which the creation of a new heaven and new earth 
is predicted (Is. Ixv. 17 ; Ixvi. 22) ; and of the fulfilment of 
which both the prelude and commencement were, and still are 
to be found, in the shaking of the heathen and their kingdoms. 
For this renewal contains the germ and beginning of the events, 
which will take place at the end of days. — These remarks will 
serve to explain the striking agreement between the passage in 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is founded upon Haggai, and 
that in 2 Pet. iii. 10 sqq., which rests upon Isaiah. 

Ver. 7. " And I shake all the heathen, and the beauty of all 
the heathen cometh, and I Jill this house loith glory, saith the 
Lord of Hosts." 

The Vulgate rendering of d.'Sj nnpn (^et veniet desideratus 
gentibus) has been so generally followed, and the belief, that the 
expression refers to the Messiah, has become so prevalent in 
consequence, that Chladenius (dissert, ad hunc locum) was able 
to describe it as " communis fere omnium interpretum ac fir- 
missima sententia." "The desire of the nations" has taken 
so deep a root, through the practical application that has been 
made of it, in sermons, hymns, &c., that commentators for the 
most part have shrunk from the thought of giving up an expla- 
nation, which had become endeared to them, before they brought 
their learning to bear upon the passage at all. Of the earlier 
commentators, Calvin has pointed out with the greatest distinct- 
ness the untenable character of this rendering ; and the follow- 
ing reasons suffice to prove, that it cannot be sustained. 1. The 
plural I''? leaves no room for it.^ — 2. ^^DPn is taken in a sense 



1 F. Ribera says, " I have a strong suspicion, that this passage has been 
corrupted by the later Jews, who were hard pressed by its weight and force." 
Baimund Martini supposes the plural to refer to the two natures of Christ. 
Chladenius says : "when that comes, which is desired by many, in fact by 
a'.l, — without doubt it is equivalent to the advent of many." But by far the 
greater number, from Frisclimutli down to Scheibel, appeal to the rule laid 
down by Glassius, " when two substantives stand together, of which the one 
is governed by the other, the verb sometimes agrees in number with the latter 
of the two, even when it really belongs to the former." But the rule is ex- 
pressed too vaguely ; and when we introduce the necessary limitation, it is 
apparent at once, that it has nothing to do with the case before us. It can 
only apply to a construdio ad sensum ; and in the only circumstances in 



HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 6. 281 

in which it never occurs ; although the lexicons give this as the 
leading and primary meeting. Neither the masculine ^?^, nor 
the feminine men, is ever used with the meaning " wish, desire," 
although, from their derivation, they would certainly bear such 
a sense ; but they invariably mean " beauty," to Koixxos, and 
the word occurs so frequently, that we are fully warranted in 
drawing a conclusion, as to the general usage of the language, 
from the examples which we have before us.^ The only admis- 
sible rendering, therefore, is " the beauty of all the heathen." 
But in what sense this expression could be applied to the Mes- 



which this occurs, the word, which occupies the leading place in the gram- 
matical construction, is merely a subordinate term, so far as the sense is 
concerned. All the examples, which are given, do really come under this 
category. But it is very evident, that the passage before us does not. Coc- 
ceius, and those who follow him, have been most successful, in their attempt 
to get rid of the difficulty, caused by the plural verb. They render r^pn 
as an accusative, — a construction which is frequently adopted with verbs of 
motion, — " and they will come to the desire of all nations, — namely, to Christ ; 
that is, they will draw near to him, who is given to the nations, and will love 
him." 

1 In a whole series of passages the meaning " beauty " is indisputable and 
uncontested ; for example, in all those, in which the mipn »Sd, the " vessels 
of beauty," or "beautiful, costly vessels," are mentioned. And again in Jer. iii. 
19, where mpn ^"iN, " the land of beauty," occurs as a parallel to 
♦Dy rhr\:, "the inheritance of ornament." In Is. ii. 16, the day of the 
Lord is said to come upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all "the sights 
of beauty," mpnn nS-iDi;^, i.e., upon everything, which is beautiful to 

look at ; — in the Septuagint, where the word is never rendered " desire," the 
ptissage is translated Wi ■^raaa.v 6'.a\i -rXoluv, (this word is a false exegetical 
emendation) x.axxous. in the Vulgate, " Super omue, quod visupulehrum est." 
In Ezek. xxvi. 12, we find, " they will destroy '^jntpn »rin, thy beautiful 
houses," just as in Jer. xii. 10, »nipn r^p}:r\, " my beautiful inherit- 
ance;" Is. xxxii. 12, -ipn nV; "beautiful fields:" Amos v. 11, icn ions 
"beautiful vineyards;" and Ezek. xxiii. 6, npn 'i^ina beautiful youths." 
There are only two passages left, which, according to the current exposition, 
support the rendering " wish, desire," but in which the ordinary meaning 
can, and must be retained. The first of these is 2 Chr. xxi. 20, " and he 
departed (died) r^'icn s^a, and they buried him in the city of David, and 
not in the sepulchres of the kings." In this case the commentators for the 
most part adopt the rendering " nee uUum sui desiderium reliquit. But even 
if mpn could have the meaning " desire," this rendering would have to be 
rejected, on account of its harshness. " Without desire," for " without any 
one wishing for him" might do very well in poetry, but not in plain prose. 
The meaning is rather " without loveliness " (Schone, beauty; LXX. oLx. U 
ivaivJ) ; and what follows, — namely, that he was not buried in the sepul- 
chres of the kings, is to be regarded as an illustration of this want of beauty ; 



282 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

siah, it would be very difficult to show. — 3. The context does 
not favour the conclusion, that the Messiah is referred to. The 
" shaking of the heathen" had been promised immediately before, 
as the means by which God would remove the hindrances, which 
had hitherto prevented their approach to his kingdom. And we 
naturally expect to find this followed by an announcement of 
their coming, with all their gifts and possessions ; especially as 
this was the main point of the whole prophecy, and the antici- 
pation of such an issue was to soothe the trouble of the people, on 
account of the miserable condition in which the house of God then 
was. But, instead, of this, the announcement of the Messiah is said 
to be introduced without any preparation, and in a thoroughly 
unconnected manner. In this case, then, the words, " and I fill 
this house with glory," can also not be referred to the gifts and 
possessions of the heathen ; for the question, which constitutes 
the glory, of which there maybe many kinds, can only be answered 
by a reference to what goes before. And if so, it is impossible 
to understand the 8th verse, " the silver and the gold are mine."' 
Look, too, at the connection between the words, " and I fill this 
house with glory," and the third verse, " who is left among you 

to which has also to be added the fact, that there was no mourning on the 
part of the people, no solemn funeral rites, or honourable memorial. The 
worst form of death mnn nSs, is that threatened by Jeremiah, " an 
ass's burial," or that predicted by Isaiah respecting the king of Babylon to 
be "cast out, as a carcase trodden under foot." — The second passage is Dan. 
xi. 37 : " neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor d»w; nion 

o ' . T ■ T : V 

nor regard any god, for he shall magnify himself above all." In this passage, 
according to Gesenius, Havernick, and others, we are to understand, by 
the wish or desire of women, the Anaitis or Mylitta. But there is no ground 
whatever, for having recourse to so far-fetched an explanation. The older 
rendering " the beauty of women," suits the passage admirably. What 
better description could be give of that cold avarice, which follows its one 
object with a fixed eye, unafiected by any of the softer and warmer emotions 
of religion or of love, which makes itself into a god, and whose heart is only 
to be found where its treasure already is '? How closely these two are asso- 
ciated, reverence for God, and esteem for the beauty of women, however dis- 
tinct they may appear, is apparent from the connection, which may be traced 
throughout all history between religion and love, between the impure forms 
of the two on the one hand, and the pure manifestations of the two on the 
other. 

1 In this case, we should be compelled to resort to such evidently hetero- 
geneous expositions, as that of Frischmutli and most of the earlier commen- 
tators : " if I wished to adorn the temple with costly furniture, I could easily 
supply you with it, for all the silver and gold are mine," where God is repre- 
sented as quieting the minds of those, who were pained by the contrast 



HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 6. 283 

that saw this house in its ^first glory f and how do you see it 
now ? is it not as a nonentity in your eyes ?" From this allu- 
sion it is evident that the glonj referred to in this passage must 
be the same as that which distinguished the magnificent temple 
of Solomon, and whose absence was now the cause of the nation's 
lamentations. And if this be the case, as we have already said, 
the words, which stand immediately before, cannot but justify us 
in thinking of this particular kind of glory. 

There are differences of opinion, again, among those who do 
not admit the reference to the person of the Messiah. If we set 
aside such explanations, as are evidently philologically incorrect, 
for example that of KimcJii, who would supply the preposition 3 
before mon, " they, the heathen, come with the possessions of 
all the heathen ;" that of others f Verscliuir for instance), who give 
to nnon the meaning, which we have aheady proved to be false 
" they come to the desire of all the heathen, in other words, to 
Jerusalem ;" and that oi Eioald, "there come the longing, that 
is the nations most longed for,^" — there remain only two, between 
which to choose. The beauty of the heathen nations may mean 
either " the beautiful ones among them," the most eminent and 
excellent — (this is Riickert's explanation, " and they come, the 
elite of all nations ;" he takes no notice of the accents, and with- 
out any grammatical necessity separates i«3 from mon) — or, 
" whatever the heathen have, that is beautiful, all their valuable 
possessions." The latter is the earliest of all existing explana- 
tions. It is to be found in the Septuagint : y.al rihi. ra. Uxey-rci. 
•noiiiTcuv Tuiv s9vaJv. The Syriac also has it : et excitaturus sum 
omnes gentes, ut afFerant optatissimam quamque rem cunctarum 
gentium. 

The following reasons induce us to give the preference to the 
latter of the two. 1. What we have already said under No. 3, 

lietween the promise and what they actually saw, by simply recalling what 
he had formerly predicted, — namely in Is. Ix., and declaring the very thing to 
be no good at all, which he himself had promised as a good before. Calvin's 
sound mind could not be brought to assent to this. He observes : "as it is 
immediately added, the silver and the gold are mine ; the sense Avhich I have 
already given, will on that account be the more simple, — viz., that the Gentiles 
would come, furnished with wealth of every kind, that they might offer 
themselves and all their possessions as a sacrifice to God." 

1 This is the explanation which he gives, when commenting upon the pro- 
phecy. In his Grammar, i 307 b. he gives the rendering " desire, that is, 
valuables." 



284 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

against referring the expression to the Messiah, is also to some 
extent applicable ,here. In other places, the fact that the heathen 
themselves shall come, is promised to the congregation of the 
Lord, as its greatest glory. But, in this case, where the promise 
is made with direct reference to circumstances of a peculiar 
nature, this could not be so appropriate, as it is elsewhere. It 
might, indeed, be said that, if it was certain that the heathen 
would come, since gifts are the usual tokens of homage, their 
possessions would be sure to follow. But the one point of special 
importance is not left for the reader to gather by inference 
merely, but is expressed as distinctly as possible. And thus in 
the case before us, it is more appropriate that the coming of the 
heathen themselves should be inferred from the coming of their 
possessions, seeing that what is the principal point in other cases 
is subordinate here ; than that the coming of their possessions 
should be deduced from the fact that they would come themselves. 
There was all the greater reason for this, on account of the stress 
laid upon the coming of the possessions, in that passage of Isaiah 
(chap. Ix.) which presented to the view of the people a scene, 
so different from that which actually met their eye, as to have 
given rise to all their despondency. Compare, for example, 
verse 9 : " surely the isles shall wait for me and the ships of 
Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their 
gold with them, unto the name of the Lord thy Grod, and to 
the Holy One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee." — 2. In 
the very passage, which the prophet had in his mind at" the 
time, we find something, which answers exactly to the rnon 
d'ijh-SDj as we understand it ; and may therefore justly assume, 
that it was to this that Haggai especially referred. In Is. Ix. 5 
it is said, " the riches of the sea shall come unto thee, o\iJ ^n 
i^ If^i;, the force of the heathen shall come to thee," and in 
ver. 11, " therefore thy gates shall be open continually, they 
shall not be shut day nor night, tc bring to thee the force of the 
heathen, d^i'^ S»n, and their kings shall be brought." It is true 
that we find just the same differences in the expositions of these 
passages. Some explain the force of the heathen as meaning 
" the army, the hosts of the heathen ;" in which case both pas- 
sages would refer to iDerso7is. But it is evident from the parallel 
passages that by the /oi'ce in this case we are to understand the 



HAGGAI, CHVP. II. 6. 285 

possessions ; thus in chap. x. 14 we find, " My hand hath found 
as a nest the force of the nations ;" chap. Ixi. 6, '* ye shall eat 
the /orce of the heathen ;" Micah iv. 13, " and thou consecratest 
to the Lord their gain, and their strength to the Lord of the 
whole earth ;" see also Zech. xiv. 14. Just as Isaiah lays stress 
upon the possessions, whilst the persons are implied,^ so is it with 
Haggai, whose prophecy is based upon his. By bringing forward 
these references, we do away with the objection to our exposition, 
which might be founded upon Ewald's remark in § 307 b., to the 
effect that it is only a common thing for a noun in the singular 
to be connected with one in the plural, when the nouns relate to 
distinct self-acting objects, especially to persons, whilst it is a 
rare thing, in cases where there is an abstract noun, referring to 
objects without life. To this the general answer may be given, 
that in the Scriptures the distinction between things with life and 
things without life is by no means so marked, as it is with us, — 
particularly in the case of the sacred psalmist and prophets, who 
attribute motion even to the most immoveable objects. The same 
references also overthrow Scheibel's thoroughly trivial objection : 
" quis sanus possit vertere, pretiosa venient ?" If Isaiah describes 
the strength of the heathen as coming, why should not Haggai 
the beauty ? — 3. It is very questionable, whether the beauty of 
the heathen could stand for the most beautiful, or most eminent 
among them ? At any rate there is no parallel passage with 
any such meaning as this. A comparison of Ezek. xxiii. 6, 
and other passages, will show, that the proper expression would 
rather be nnrpnn-.n'rVD. Besides, what could we understand 
by the heautiful heathen ? Would it mean the richest, or most 
powerful ; just as we find, in other descriptions of a similar 
character, particular nations singled out, e.g. Ps. Ixxii. 10, 
" the kings of Tarshish and the isles shall bring presents, the 
kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts ?" But in this case, 
the kind of beauty would be more particularly pointed out. On 
the other hand, there is a passage in 1 Sam. ix. 20, in which 
nicn occurs in a sense perfectly analogous to that in which it is 
used here, according to our interpretation. Samuel says to 

1 Vitringa : propheta opes facultatesque hie spectari non vult absque 
hominiljus eas apportaturis ut ex seq. contextu liquet, qui proin synecdo- 
chice hie intelliguntur. 



286 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

Saul : "as for thine asses, that were lost three days ago, trouble 
not about them, for they are found ; and to whom is all the 
beauty of Israel, ^«;)V.* J^IPr!"^?, is it not to thee and to all 
thy father's house ?" The same connection between glory and 
beauty, we find in Nahum ii. 10, " take ye the spoil of silver, 
take the spoil of gold, and there is no end to the store ; glory 
comes through all the vessels of beauty nnpn ''?.? ^3? "'"i^?." 

The concluding words of the verse, " and I fill this house with 
glory," are supposed by most commentators to denote the glorifi- 
cation of the temple by the appearance of the Messiah ; Ahar- 
bcmel and Hasdus (Schulz. prais. Has. de glor, templi secundi 
Bremen 1724) refer it to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and 
appeal to Ex. xl. 34 and 35, 2 Chr. v. 13, 14, 1 Kings viii. 10, 
11, and Ezek. xliii. 4, where almost the same words are used, in 
connection with the residence of God in the tabernacle, the 
temple of Solomon, and the new spiritual temple. 

It can hardly be imagined that this agreement is purely acci- 
dental. Still less, however, can the conclusion be drawn from 
it, which these writers suppose. The essential difference between 
the passages is sufficient proof of this. In the other cases a 
particular kind of glory is referred to, the glory of God, and the 
manifestation of that glory ; but here it is glory in general, that 
is mentioned, i"'33 without either article or suffix. We are 
compelled, therefore, to look to what goes before, to ascertain 
what this glory really is. It consists in the coming of the beauty 
of all the heathen, to glorify and adorn the temple of the Lord, 
just it is said in Is. Ix. 13 : " the glory of Lebanon shall come 
to thee ... to beautify the place of my sanctuary, and I 
will make the place of my feet glorious." This is confirmed by 
the words, " the silver is mine, and the gold is mine," in the 
next verse, and also by ver. 9, where the predicted superiority 
of the glory of the second temple to that of the first can only 
relate, as ver. 3 shows, to the particular thing which distinguished 
the first temple, and was so painfully missed in the second. But 
it does not follow, from what we have said, that there is not a 
very important connection beween this passage, and the others 
that have been named. The same God, who formerly conde- 
scended to give to the temple its greatest ornament, by commu- 
nicating his own glory, will also fill this one with glory by the 



HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 6. 287 

coming of the beauty of the heathen. At the same time, the 
communication of this fresh glory presupposes the restoration of 
the former in a much higher degree. For why do the heathen 
come with their beauty ? For no other reason than because 
they perceive that God dwells in the midst of his people. 

We must now turn to another objection, which has been 
brought by Chladenius and most of the earlier commentators, 
against the whole of the interpretation which we have adopted 
as our own, — viz. that "silver and gold are too mean and insignifi- 
cant to be mentioned in such a connection as this."^ The answer 
which first suggests itself is this, if it was proper for Isaiah to 
prophecy of such things, as he undoubtedly has done, and in a 
very lofty strain, why not for Haggai ? By this answer so much 
at least is gained, that those, who have brought forward the pro- 
blem as one which we alone had to solve, must now take part 
with us in seeking a solution. Nor is it difficult to find one. 
It presents itself at once, if we know how to distinguish between 
form and substance, shell and kernel. What was it that caused 
the faithful to be so cast down, when they looked at the outlines 
of the second temple ? Certainly not that it failed to gratify 
their taste for beautiful buildings. But rather, because they 
saw, in the contrast between the new temple and the former one, 
a type of the relation in which they themselves stood to Grod ; a 
positive declaration that his favour had been withdrawn from 
them ; and a positive prediction that it would not return. They 
argued from the temple, which was then the seat of the kingdom 
of God, to the nature of the kingdom itself. Hence their grief 
arose from the outward, only so far as they looked upon it as a 
type of the inward. And the shape, which their grief assumed, 
determined the shape, which was given to the consolation offered. 
But for this, it would have been no consolation at all. The 
standpoint of the people was still that of the Old Testament, 
under which they lived. To them, as their grief clearly showed, 
the kingdom of God was inseparably connected with the temple. 
And therefore, under the form of a prediction of the glorification 

1 " The shaking of the heavens, the earth, the dry land, and all the 
nations ; of what is it a pledge, and why will it take place ? for this, forsooth, 
that the temple at Jerusalem may be filled with the gold of the nations ! 
He must be mightily fascinated with the glitter of gold and silver, who can 
associate together in his mind the gold and silver ornaments of the second 
temple, and the shaking of the heavens, the earth, and all the nations." 



288 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

of the temple, which they were to be urged to build, God gives 
them an assurance, that he has not cast off his people ; that his 
promises are still all yea and amen ; and that, however despised 
his kingdom may be now, yet, when its time is come, it will out- 
shine all the kingdoms of the world in its glory. We have here, 
what cannot be overlooked, a truly divine accommodation ; which 
differs in this respect from a practice of evil notoriety, that the 
latter aifects the very essence of the truth, whereas the other 
has respect to the form alone. This true accommodation runs 
through all the words and works of God, from paradise till the 
time of Christ. What else do we find in the promise of Christ, 
that his disciples should receive a hundred fold more of earthly 
good, than they had lost for his sake ? What else, in the decla- 
ration, with which he cheered their minds, that they should sit 
upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel ? What 
else, in the manner in which he treats their notion, that there was a 
seat at his right and left hand, when he passes it by without 
remark, and, instead of rectifying the form, in which the idea 
necessarily clothed itself from their training and their spiritual 
condition at the time, contents himself with merely chiding their 
views, as to the conditions of this glory, which affected the 
essence and had their roots in sin ? A similar accommodation 
we may find in all the revelations, that were made by him either 
personally or through his apostles, as to the state after death and 
the kingdom of glory. Like the description of the state in para- 
dise, he sets it before us in a form, in which we can comprehend 
it. Was he to withhold the truth altogether, because, in its 
own peculiar form, it would be incomprehensible ? The last 
example, to which we have referred, throws all the more light 
upon our passage, from the fact that believers under the Old 
Testament stood in the same relation to the kingdom of grace, 
as that in which we stand to the kingdom of glory. What is 
true of the law, is equally applicable to prophecy in this respect ; 
heaven and earth will pass away, before one jot or one tittle will 
fail (compare Matt. v. 18 with xxiv. 35). But in prophecy, as 
well as in the law, that which is founded in the nature of God, 
and therefore eternal even to its minutest parts, is not the letter, 
but the spirit ; and this is to be sought for in the letter, and 
not outside. This kind of accommodation is set before us for our 



HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 7. 289 

imitation. Or should we, perhaps, say nothing at all about 
heaven to children, because we can only tell them of it in a 
childish way ? On the contrary, the childish form of truth is 
just the true one for the child. For there is no other, in which 
it could comprehend it at all ; and any other form would only 
give rise to erroneous conceptions, as to the reality itself. 

We shall not have much difficulty, now, in determining in 
what the fulfilment of this prophecy consisted. In the slight 
prelude to its complete fulfilment, it appears in the very form in 
which it is depicted here. Every gift, which was brought by 
proselytes, during the still remaining period of the Old Testa- 
ment, and dedicated to the temple out of pure love to the God 
of Israel, belonged to this fulfilment ; just as all the outward 
help, which the Lord affords to his people, is a realisation of the 
promise in Matt. xix. 29. But the beautifying of the temple, 
which took place in the time of the Maccabees, and again in that 
of Herod, and which is regarded by several commentators, who 
adhere to the letter, as the sole fulfilment, had no connection with 
it at all. The former had none ; for the reference here was to a 
glorification of the temple, which would proceed from Gentiles, 
who had been brought to repentance and faith by the outward and 
inward leadings of God. The latter had none ; for, although 
Herod was a Gentile, what he did for the temple was not the 
result of faith and love.'^ There were many, indeed, who loere 
to yield to this temptation, and therefore who suffered themselves 
to be so infatuated as to regard the very man, whose power was 
the greatest proof of the loss of the divine favour, and who was 
a hammer by which God designed to break the hard heart of 

1 Calvin has truly observed in reference to this, " conatus est diabolus 
larvam ipsis objicere, ut desinerent sperare in Christum." But we must go 
further still. Not only Satan himself was consciously acting with this design, 
but his agent Herod also. It was not a matter of accident, that the second 
temple was so inferior in glory to the first ; that the literal fulfilments of this 
prophecy were so trifling and rare ; or that the condition of the people, from 
the captivity till the time of Christ, was altogether so low and miserable. So 
also, it is not without purpose, but the result of wise and holy designs on the 
part of God, that the literal fulfilment of Matt. xix. 29 so seldom occurs. 
" If," as Calvin says, " the temple had been as richly endowed, and even if 
the appearance of the kingdom had been just the same, as it was before, the 
Jews would have rested satisfied with these outward splendours ; and thus 
Christ would have been despised, and the spiritual grace of God would have 
been rejected as worthless." The inferior realisation was withheld from the 
people, that they might not cUng to what was merely accidental, the silver 
and the gold ; and thus, from their satisfaction with the present, lose their 
VOL. III. T 



290 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

Israel, as the instrument of divine mercy. But believers waited, 
both before and afterwards, for the consolation of Israel. For 
the seeming fulfilment they still substituted the real one, which 
will only be perfectly accomplished, when the whole fulness of 
the Gentiles shall have entered the kingdom of God, and that 
kingdom shall ha ve been raised to its highest pitch of glory. 

In the controversy with the Jews, great importance was 
attached to this prophecy ; not so much, however, in the time of 
the church Fathers, when the house of God was supposed to 
mean the church,^ as afterwards. The desire of the Gentiles, the 
Messiah was to appear while the second temple was still stand- 
ing. How vain, therefore, must be the hope of Israel, which 
still looks for a Messiah, seeing that the temple has been long 
since destroyed ! There seemed to be only one difficulty in the 
way of this argument, — namely, the rebuilding of the second 

longing for the principal fulfilment. But this longing was too strong for 
Ilerod ; the heavenly kingdom, he feared, might interfere with his earthly 
rule. He built the temple on the same principle as that on which he ordered 
the murder of the children at Bethlehem. He wanted to prevent the coming 
of the kingdom of God ; and to change the " latter days," for which men were 
longing, into the present time. This intention is made very prominent in 
the account given by Josephus (B. 15, chap, xi.), and even the special refer- 
ence to the prophecy before us. From our pi'ophecy, for example, we may 
explain the notion, which appears in Herod's address, that the second temple 
must necessarily be equal in height to the first, — Haggai had predicted that 
the glory of the second temple would be greater than that of the first. Com- 
pare Josephus XV. 11, i 1, " for our fathers built this temple to the supreme 
God, after the return from Babylon. But as to its size, it still wants sixty 
cubits of its proper height. For by so much did the Jirst one, which Solo- 
mon built, exceed it ;" and also, " but since I now rule by the will of God, 
and have enjoyed a long peace, and have become possessed of wealth and 
great resources, and, most of all, as the Romans, who, so to speak, are the rulers 
of the whole world, are friendly and well disposed towards me," &c. The 
allusion to our prophecy is unmistakeable here. Herod endeavours to prove 
the existence of all the conditions, which are described in the prophecy, as 
essential to the glorification of the temple. " All the Gentiles," who were 
to promote the building of the temple, were in his estimation embraced in 
the " Romans, who were the rulers of the whole world." Of gold and silver 
there was enough in the hands of him, who had been called by God to the 
throne ; and the announcement " in this place will I give peace " was ful- 
filled. We may see from § 3, how he made every exertion to ensure the 
accomplishment of the prediction, " the glory shall be greater," &c. " He sur- 
passed his predecessors in the money which he expended, so that no one else 
appeared to have adorned the temple at all." Pretended miracles were also 
at hand, to prove that the work was under the especial superintendence of 
God. 

1 Augustine, for example, says, " this house, the church of Christ, is more 
glorious than that first one was, which was constructed of wood, stones, and 
other metallic substances " (de civ. del B. 18, c. 45, 48). Cyril writes to the 
same effect. 



HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 7. 291 

temple by Herod. Some attempted to get rid of this difficulty 
in an unwarrantable manner, by assuming, in direct opposi- 
tion to the clear statement of Jose-phus, that the rebuilding was 
only a partial one. The proper method of removing the diffi- 
culty, however, was that adopted by «/. A. Ernesti and several 
others before him. In his treatise, de templo Herodis M. (re- 
printed in his opusculis philol. crit. p. 350 sqq.), he undertakes 
to prove and actually does prove, first, " that Herod rebuilt the 
whole temple from the very foundations, the old one being taken 
down piece by piece;" and secondly, "that, notwithstanding 
this, according to both the historical style of writing and the 
popular mode of speech, it was justly called the second temple." 
To the arguments brought forward by him we may add, that 
the object, which Herod is proved to have had in view, neces- 
sarily required that the identity of his temple with that of 
Zerubbabel should be preserved ; and this was no doubt one of 
the main reasons, why he had the other destroyed piece by piece 
and rebuilt in the same way ; and also that the very name of a 
neiv temple in a religious, not an architectural sense, could only 
be properly given to one, the erection of which so completely 
coincided with some new and important epoch in the history of 
the theocracy, that the new period was outwardly represented by 
the new temple. 

Now, according to our interpretation, this earlier method of 
proof seems entirely to lose its force. The allusion to the person 
of the Messiah disappears. The temple does not come into 
consideration any longer as a building ; but as the seat of the 
kingdom of God, as the representative of that kingdom. On 
closer consideration, however, it is evident, that the argument 
only requires a new turn, in order to recover its force again. 
Let the destruction of the second temple be regarded, not as an 
outward event, but as being, what it really was, a positive 
declaration on the part of God, that the kingdom of God had 
been taken away from the Jews ; and let it be also considered 
that this declaration has been perpetuated for eighteen hundred 
years in the fate of the Jews ; and it will be difficult to avoid 
the conclusion, that, if the fulfilment of these prophecies and the 
continued existence of the kingdom of God cannot be found 
elsewhere, Haggai must be looked upon as a visionary enthu- 



292 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

siast. And if this be the case, then all who regard him as a 
true prophet of the true God, must seek the fulfilment elsewhere. 
If such glory was to be given to the second temple, in other 
words, to the kingdom of God, of which it was the representa- 
tive, during its second period ; we cannot imagine this glory 
interrupted, and all the manifestations of God, as the covenant 
God, suspended for so long a time, that the previous inter- 
ruption and suspension will bear no comparison with them ; 
especially when we consider that, in the former case, justice and 
severity were attended by manifestations of love and mercy, in 
a great variety of forms. If the second temple was to be 
glorified, the only kind of destruction, at all reconcileable with 
the credibility of the prophet, is one which is strictly speaking a 
glorious elevation ; a destruction, — namely, like that of the seed, 
which dies in the earth, that it may bring forth much fruit. In 
this case, however, we have a destruction, which is nothing but 
a destruction. If, then, there is any ground for hoping that 
the prophecy will be eventually fulfilled, there must not be an 
intervening period, without any preliminary fulfilments at all. 
The prophet himself represents his announcement, as separated 
from the fulfilment by " but a little " time. But here are 
eighteen centuries, during which God continues not God, that 
when a fitting opportunity arrives, he may become God once 
more ! How foolish, to hope for anything absolutely future ! 
It is feeding on wind and ashes. Either the Lord is always 
with us, or he will not come again. He who does not taste" now, 
how great are the goodness and friendship of the Lord, will never 
do this in the future. In the time to come, there is no new 
beginning, there is only completion, as surely as God is God 
now, and not merely loill he God by and by. The believers in 
Israel, who were waiting for the consolation of Israel before the 
appearance of Christ, would have been as foolish as the modern 
Jews, if they had not already been comforted by this consolation 
both in the present and the past. The modern unbelief, which 
prevails among the Jews, is but a manifestation of what existed 
unconsciously before. As for hoping for something absolutely 
future, or believing in a God, who will not manifest himself as 
such, till some future time ; a man may conceive of this, and 
even hold to it so firmly as to become a martyr in consequence \ 



HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 8, 9. 293 

and yet this is not hope and faith. For true hope and true faith are 
a i^^roTTa^if Twv eXm^ofjiivcuv (Heb. xi. 1) ; and of this the neces- 
sary ground-work is the relative presence of the things to come. 
Now, the longer God delays to become God, the more generally 
must the conception vanish. Atheism is the goal, to which 
modern Judaism is rapidly hurrying. The impartation of new life 
to the ancient worship, which, with all the abhorrence of idolatry 
that attends it, is still identical with it in the main thing, — 
namely, in the worship of a God, who gives no sign of his power 
and goodness at the present time, is hardly conceivable. The 
Church of Christ and Atheism will divide the spoil. 

Ver. 8. " The silver is mine mid the gold is mine, saith the 
Lord of hosts." 

The declaration " will be mine," in both the foregoing and 
following verses, is founded upon the fact, " is mine," mentioned 
here. 

Ver. 9. " Great will he glory of this latter house above the 
former, the Lord of hosts hath spoken it, and in this place wiU 
I give peace, saith the Lord of hosts." 

Hitzig, Maurer, and Eivald have revived the Septiiaginf 

rendering (^lort /xsyaiXri 'snra.1 ri ^o^a. rov oIkov toutou ri s/yy^drri 

vTTsp Triv Tipdjxrtv), " the last glory of this house will be greater 
than the first." The idea involved in this would be that, througli 
all ages, there would only be one house of God in Jerusalem, 
though under different forms. No doubt verse 2 favours such an 
idea. But there is in fact no difference between the two inter- 
pretations. The first glory would then be, as ver. 3 shows, the 
glory of Solomon's temple, and the second that of Zerubbabel's. 
The want of glory, on the part of the latter, formed the starting- 
point of the whole prophecy. And the declaration, that in due 
time it would possess it in full and superabundant measure, was 
the prophet's consolation. The place is Jerusalem. Whatever 
is promised to it, belongs to it only so far, as it is the seat and 
centre of the kingdom of God. To understand by peace merely 
spiritual peace, as most Christian commentators have done, is 
just as arbitrary, as to substitute for the silver and gold, spoken 
of here and in Isaiah, a spiritual good, which is only figuratively 
described as silver and gold, as Vitringa does. That outward 
peace is primarily intended, is evident from the parallel passage 



294 MESSIANIC prp:dictions in the prophets. 

in Is. Ix. 18, " violence shall no more be heard in thy land, 
wasting nor destruction within thy borders, and thou shall call 
thy walls salvation and thy gates praise." But when we trace 
back this promise to its fundamental idea, we see that the mean- 
ing which commentators have erroneously put into the loord 
itself, — whether spiritual peace, as some suppose, or every kind 
of blessing and prosperity, as others imagine, — is undoubtedly 
included in it. If it is certain that God is the widows' God, 
the orphans need no special promise ; if he punishes murder, he 
will also punish anger ; if he leaves the ungodly no outward 
rest, he will also send him inward trouble ; if he gives outward 
peace, he will give inward peace as well ; there are even circum- 
stances, in which he can fulfil his assurance in the most glorious 
manner, when he takes away that which he has expressly 
promised. At the same time, it must be observed that this 
prophecy, like every other in which peace is announced as a cha- 
racteristic of the Messianic era, will receive a literal fulfilment 
at last in the kingdom of glory, on " the new earth wherein 
dwelleth righteousness." 

The last two predictions form a pair. They were delivered 
on the same day, about two months later than the second one, 
and after it had become manifest, that the improvement in the 
disposition of the nation was something more than a mere ebul- 
lition of feeling. The new era might now be distinctly marked 
off from the earlier one. The prophet leads them on to a seri- 
ous contemplation of all that has taken place since their return 
from captivity, — the negligence that has been shown with re- 
gard to the building of the temple, and the way in which it 
has been punished, — in order that the evil, that has hitherto 
befallen them, may serve for their edification, and not prove 
a stumbling-block ; and having done this, he finishes with the 
declaration, " from this day will I bless you." Whilst this 
promise is introduced in contradistinction to the failure of the 
crops and other evils, from which they have hitherto suffered, 
and therefore relates to the ordinary blessings of nature ; the 
second prophecy, vers. 20 — 23, contains a promise that in the 
fearful storms, with which the world is threatened, — storms, 
with which the prophecy of Daniel is so particularly concerned, 
— God will maintain the government in Judah, of which Zerub- 



HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 9. 295 

babel is the representative, yea, more than this, will preserve it 
with the most anxious care ; so that the events, which bring 
destruction to the world, will contribute to its establishment. 
" I make thee a signet-ring," says the Lord to Zerubbabel. The 
simile of the signet-ring is introduced to denote inseparable union, 
and the most scrupulous care (compare the fundamental passages, 
Jer. xxii. 24 ; Song of Solomon viii. 6). We have here, there- 
fore, not merely a parallel to Zech. ix. 1 — 8, where the preser- 
vation of Judah is set forth in the midst of the catastrophe which 
befals the land of Hadrach ; but also a parallel to Dan. ii. and 
vii., where the exaltation of the kingdom of God goes hand in 
hand with the destruction of the kingdoms of the world. What 
was here promised to Zerubbabel found its complete fulfilment 
in Christ. 



( 296 ) 



THE PROPHET ZECHARIAH. 



The Messianic prophecies of Zechariah are only second to 
those of Isaiah in distinctness and importance. In this, the last 
prophet but one, the prophetic gift once more unfolded all its 
glory, as a proof that it did not sink from the exhaustion of age, 
but was withdrawn according to the deliberate counsel of the 
Lord. 

Zechariah, like Jeremiah and Ezekiel, was of priestly descent. 
Berechiah is mentioned in chap. i. 1 as his father, and Iddo as 
his grandfather. The latter filled the honourable post of head 
of a priestly class, among the exiles who returned with Joshua 
and Zerubbabel (Neh. xii, 4). That Berechiah died young is 
evident from the fact, that in Neh. xii. 16 Zechariah is named 
as the immediate successor of Iddo in this office under Joiakim, 
who succeeded Joshua. Hence Zechariah was priest as well as 
prophet, at least in his later years. As in the case of Ezekiel, 
so also with this prophet, his priestly vocation may in many 
instances be gathered from the prophecies themselves (see, for 
example, chap, iii., vi. 9 — 15, ix. 8, 15, xiv. 16, 20, 21). 

Zechariah has this in common with his contemporary Haggai, 
that his prophecies are completed in four addresses. The one 
with which the collection opens was delivered, according to chap, 
i. 1, in the eighth month of the second year of Darius, no doubt 
Darius Hystaspes. We may be sure that this was the com- 
mencement of Zechariah's prophetic labours. The character of 
the address itself favours this view. It is general in its bearing, 
as befits an introductory or preparatory address. The headings 
of the second and third prophecies (chap. i. 7, and chap. vii. 1), 



THE PROPHET ZECHARIAH. 297 

also lead to tlie same result, since they clearly indicate the chro- 
nological arrangement of the collection, and we may safely infer 
from them, that the two which are without dates, in chap. ix. 
and xiv., belong to a subsequent period. 

The prophet must have been very young, when he entered upon 
the duties of his office. For his grandfather Iddo was in the full 
discharge of his official duties at the time, as the fact, already 
referred to, that Zechariah was his immediate successor, plainly 
shows. Moreover, the prophet is expressly called a young man 
in chap. ii. 4. Now as we learn from Neh. xii. 4 (compared 
with ver. 1), that the prophet's family returned to Judea with 
the first company of exiles in the first year of the reign of Cyrus, 
and eighteen years had intervened between that time and the 
second year of Darius Hystaspes, Zechariah can only have spent 
the earliest years of his childhood in Babylon ; and the Babylo- 
nian colouring of his prophecy, therefore, must be accounted 
for, not as De Wette and others suppose, from his having been 
educated in Babylon, but partly from the fact that the Babylo- 
nian infiuence still continued to operate upon the whole body of 
exiles, and, to a still greater extent, from his resting so much, 
as he evidently does, upon earlier prophets who came into 
immediate contact with the Babylonians, and especially upon 
Ezekiel. 

Let us look now at the historical circumstances, under which 
Zechariah commenced his labours, and which furnished the 
immediate occasion of his prophetic discourses. The privileges 
granted to the exiles by the edict of Cyrus, with reference to the 
building of the temple, were soon taken from them through the 
machinations of their enemies, the Samaritans, at the Persian 
court. They wanted both the means and the zeal, which were 
requisite for carrying on the work of building the temple with- 
out foreign aid. Their zeal had been considerably damped, a 
short time after their return, by the obstacles which were thrown 
in their way ; for they thought themselves warranted, on account 
of previous promises, to expect nothing but deliverance and 
prosperity. At the time referred to, every one was selfishly 
concerned about the improvement of his own affairs alone. It 
was under these circumstances, and to offer a powerful resistance 
to this state of mind, that Haggai and Zechariah were called by 



298 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

God ; the former, whose reproofs led to the immediate renewal 
of the attempt to rebuild the temple, commencing his public 
labours two months before the latter. The principal object 
which Zechariah had in view was, as beseemed a true prophet 
of God, not to urge forward the outward work, in itself con- 
sidered, but, throughout, to produce a complete spiritual change 
in the people themselves, one fruit of which would necessarily 
be increased zeal in the work of building the temple. — Those 
among whom the prophet was called to labour, consisted of two 
classes. There were first the honourably disposed and true 
believers. They had sunk into great weakness and perplexity, 
in consequence of the apparent contrast between the promises of 
God and what they actually beheld. They had begun to doubt 
both the power and willingness of God to help them. So far as 
the latter was concerned, it seemed to them that their own sins 
and those of their fathers were too great for God to have com- 
passion on them again. In such cases as these, when the pro- 
phet had to deal with troubled minds, his task was to bring 
consolation. He does this, by pointing from the mournful cir- 
cumstances of the present to a better future, and by recalling the 
unfulfilled portions of former prophecies, the accomplishment of 
which he represents as still to come. This feature in the pro- 
phet's announcements was of the greater importance, from the 
strength of the assaults which threatened the faith, even of such 
as were right-minded, in time to come, when there would no longer 
be messengers sent from God, and from their consequent "need 
of a sure word of prophecy, as a light upon the darkness of their 
road. — The second class consisted of the hypocrites. They had 
left Babylon in considerable numbers along with the rest, induced, 
not by the proper motive, love to God and his sanctuary, but by 
selfishness, by the hope of sharing in all the blessings promised by 
God to those who returned, which they fancied were about to be 
poured out at once, and to the enjoyment of which, in spite of the 
most emphatic declarations on the part of the earlier prophets, they 
believed, with infatuated self-delusion, that they had a rightful 
claim, just because they had abstained from the grosser kinds of 
idolatry, and had exchanged them for its more refined form, — 
namely, the outward righteousness of works. So far as many of 
these were concerned, the disappointment of their hopes could not 



THE PROPHET ZECHARIAH. 299 

fail to take oflF the hypocrites' mask from this species of unbelief. 
And that would be sure to be the case to a still greater extent 
in the time that was coming. The prophet pictures the future 
blessings of God as intended even for this class also, that he may 
thereby hold out an inducement to true conversion. But he 
states at the same time most emphatically, that nothing but 
conversion can secure for them a share in the blessings ; he 
reminds them of the judgments, which fell upon those who treated 
the warnings of earlier prophets with contempt, and threatens 
them with new ones, of quite as fearful a character, — namely, 
another destruction of Jerusalem and another dispersion of the 
nation, if they despise the last and greatest manifestation of the 
grace of God, the sending of the Messiah. 

The scattered notices may be combined together so as to form 
the following picture of the future. The triumph of the people 
of God is still in the distance ; the four monarchies of Daniel 
must first finish their course (chap. ii. 1 — 4). The worldly 
power, at present existing, — viz., the Persian empire, is to be 
overthrown (chap. ix. 1 sqq.), and that by the Greeks, as appears 
from chap. ix. 13. In the midst of this catastrophe, which falls 
heavily upon the nations round about, particularly upon Tyre 
and Philistia, Judea is carefully protected by God (chap. ix. 8). 
The people of the covenant, however, — not Judah merely, but 
Ephraim also, which has now returned from captivity (chap. x. 
8 — 10), — are subsequently drawn into a fierce conflict with the 
Greeks, which terminates in the victory and liberation of the 
covenant people (chap. ix. 11 — x. 12). But their liberty is of 
short duration. Previous to the coming of the Messiah, Judah 
sinks very low again, and loses all its worldly power (chap. ix. 
10). But, amidst all these circumstances, Judah may still com- 
fort itself with the mercy of its God ; the civil and ecclesiastical 
authorities being still the instruments of his blessing (chap. iii. 
4). At length, however, the Lord will interpose in the most 
glorious manner on behalf of his people, by sending the Messiah. 
The Messiah himself is to spring from the family of David (see 
at chap. xii. 8) ; at the same time he will be connected with the 
Lord by a mysterious unity of nature, and the angel of the Lord 
will manifest himself in him (chap, xi., xii. 8, 10, xiii. 7). He 



300 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

appears in a poor and lowly form, riding upon an ass ; still 
he is rich in salvation, and able to overcome the whole world 
(chap. ix. 9, 10). He combines in his own person both the 
High Priest and the King (chap. vi. 9 — 15). As King he 
procures peace for his nation and raises it to a universal domi- 
nion (chap. ix. 9, 10); as High Priest he expiates in one day 
the sin of the whole land (chap. iii. 9), and provides an open 
fountain for sin and uncleanness (chap. xiii. 1), by means of his 
death and the shedding of his blood (chap, xii. 10). 

But the appearance of Christ does not at once secure salvation 
for all the covenant nation ; on the contrary, it is the cause of 
fearful judgments. As early as chap. v. there is an announce- 
ment of another severe judgment which will fall upon Judah, 
and of a fresh expulsion from the Lord's own land. This is still 
further unfolded in chap. xi. The Lord by his angel undertakes 
the office of shepherd over the wretched nation, which is on the 
road to destruction in consequence of its sins. But the good 
shepherd comes into sharp collision with the wicked, depraved 
authorities of the nation. He is forced to relinquish his office 
of shepherd. He receives the wretched pay of thirty pieces of 
silver. He is torn away from his flock by a violent death (chap, 
xiii. 7), and pierced by his own nation (chap. xii. 10). As a 
punishment for this the worst of all its crimes, the nation is 
given into the hands of wicked shepherds, and destroyed by strife 
within and enemies without (chap. xi.). Two-thirds utterly 
perish (chap. xiii. 8). But this is not the end of the ways of 
God with the children of the kingdom. At length, in conse- 
quence of the outpouring of the Spirit upon them, they will 
return and look with penitence upon him whom they have 
pierced (chap. xii. 10 — xiii. 6). 

Still the whole nation does not at first despise salvation. 
There is a small flock within it, by which it is welcomed with 
joy (chap. ix. 9). To this select body, the poor of the flock, 
who hold to the good shepherd (chap. xi. 11), the kingdom is 
given. They have to sustain a fierce conflict with the whole of 
the heathen world, which is arrayed against them ; but, by the 
miraculous assistance of their God, they obtain the victory (chap. 
vi. 1 — 8, xii. 1 — 9, xiii. 9, and xiv.). The Gentile world, how- 



THE PROPHET ZECHARIAH. 301 

ever, is not merely judged, it is also converted and presses into 
the kingdom of God, the limits of which are co-extensive with 
those of the whole earth (chap. viii. 20 — 23, ix. 10, xiv. 16). 

With regard to the arrangement of the prophecies themselves, 
the collection consists of four parts, which differ in the date of 
their composition. Of these, the second and fourth contain 
various subdivisions, arising either from difference of subject, or 
from some new turn being given to the discourse ; though at the 
same time these subdivisions are linked together, not only by the 
fact that they are assigned to the same date, but by a similarity 
in the mode of description adopted and also by the relation in 
which they stand to one another. (1). Chap. i. 1 — 6 contains 
the prophet's opening address, delivered in the eighth month of 
the second year of Darius. (2). The second, or emblematical 
portion of the collection (chap. i. 7 — chap, vi.) consists of a series 
of visions, partly comforting and encouraging, and partly (chap. 
V.) threatening in their nature, which were all seen by the 
prophet in the same night, — viz., in the twenty-fourth of the 
eleventh month of the second year of Darius, (3). The third 
part consists of an address, which is both prophetic and didactic 
in its character (chap. vii. and viii.). This was delivered in the 
fourth year of Darius ; and the occasion of it was the earnest 
inquiry of the people, whether they were still to continue to 
observe the day on which the temple was destroyed, as a day of 
fasting and mourning, or whether they were soon to expect their 
affairs to take so favourable a turn, that their former calamities 
would be buried in oblivion. (4). The last division contains a 
prophetic picture of the future fate of the covenant nation. Its 
contents are essentially the same as those of the second address, 
inasmuch as there is no main-point introduced here which does 
not also occur there. But it differs from it, partly in the mode 
of representation adopted, the ordinary prophetic discourse being 
introduced here and a series of visions in the former case, and 
partly in the omission of any distinct allusion to the building of 
the temple, either by way of exhortation or of prophecy. Taking 
this in connection with the position occupied by the prophecy, 
at the end of the collection, we are warranted in concluding that 
it was not composed till after the building of the temple had 
been completed, at all events not till after the sixth year of 



302 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

Darius. This serves to explain the fact that no date is given. 
In the case of all the others it was of importance that the date 
should be mentioned ; in the first, because it served to point out 
the commencement of the prophet's labours ; in the second, 
because it contained the prophecy, which was fulfilled a few years 
afterwards, that the building of the temple should be success- 
fully completed by Zerubbabel ; and in the third, because the 
question put by the people was occasioned by particular circum- 
stances connected with the fourth year of Darius. In connection 
with the fourth address, on the other hand, which only related 
to circumstances in the remote future, inasmuch as the event 
predicted in the second as belonging to the immediate future had 
already become a thing of the past, it was quite sufficient to have 
a general knowledge of the period when the prophet wrote, and 
this could be learned from the dates already given. 

Very loud complaints have been uttered as to the obscurity of 
the prophet Zechariah, expecially by Jewish expositors. Thus, 
for example, Abarbanel says (on Dan. xi.), " the prophecies of 
Zechariah are so obscure, that no expositors, however skilled, 
have ' found their hands ' (Ps. Ixxvi. 5) in their explanations." 
And Jarchi, " the prophecy of Zechariah is very abstruse ; for it 
contains visions resembling dreams, which want interpreting. 
And we shall never be able to discover the true interpretation 
until the teacher of righteousness arrives" (i.e. the Messiah ; the 
expression beign taken from Joel ii, 23). But these assertions, 
as the concluding words of Jarclii clearly show, rest for the most 
part upon a subjective basis. The more marked the reference to 
Christ in the case of Zechariah, the more impenetrable must his 
obscurity be to those who deprive themselves of the light of ful- 
filment, and who, because they have pictured to themselves a 
Messiah after the desires of their own hearts, must necessarily 
misunderstand and distort what is said here respecting the true 
Messiah, his lowliness, and death, his rejection by the greater 
part of the covenant nation, and their consequent punishment. 
So thoroughly is all this opposed to their cherished fancies. The 
charge of obscurity may also be traced, in the case of the ration- 
alists, to the same subjective foundation as in that of the Jews, 
inasmuch as they also must necessarily make strenuous efforts, 
to avoid finding any very close correspondence between the pro- 



THE PROPHET ZECHARIAH. 303 

pliecy and its fulfilments, anything, in fact, that cannot be set 
down to a merely human foresight, such, for example, as the 
prediction of a lowly Messiah rejected by the covenant people, 
and put to death. There is also a personal reason in their case, 
seeing that their view of prophecy would dispose them to do 
anything, rather than seek to overcome the actually existing 
difficulties by strenuous effort, or an appeal to the help of God. 
How thoroughly different must the efforts, and therefore the 
results of a De Wette be, who starts with the assertion that the 
last part contains prophecies of a visionary character, which defy 
all attempts at a historical explanation, from those of a Vitringa, 
who says (proll. p. 60), " but obscurity does not frighten away 
any one, who is eager for the truth, from investigating the 
genuine meaning of the prophecy ; for it is indisputably certain, 
that there is a hidden sense in it relating to the most important 
things, which every one, who is not altogether indifferent to the 
truth, is anxious to find out, unless it be actually impossible." 
At the same time it must not be overlooked, that, although the 
obscurities are much greater in Zechariah than in the other pro- 
phets, on account of the predominance of symbolical and figura- 
tive language, yet there are two circumstances, which facilitate 
the interpretation of his prophecies. In the first place, there is 
no prophetic book, in the study of which we can obtain such 
decisive results from a careful comparison of parallel passages, 
as we can in that of Zechariah, who rested so much upon the 
prophets who had written before him. And, secondly, since he 
lived after the captivity, his prophecy does not move over nearly 
so extensive a field, as that of his predecessors. The chiaro- 
oscuro which we find for example in the second part of Isaiah 
and Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and which arises from the fact that 
the whole range of blessings to be poured out in the future, espe- 
cially the deliverance from captivity, and the Messianic era, are 
embraced in one view, disappears for the most part from the 
prophecies of Zechariah, just because the prophet stood between 
these two events. 



304 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 



I -CHAP. I, 1-6. 

The first revelation was raade to the prophet in the eighth 
month of the second year of Darius Hystaspes. This prophecy, 
in which the prophet warns the people not to fall into their 
fathers' sins, and so incur their fathers' punishments, and urges 
them to return to the Lord with uprightness of heart, may be 
regarded as a kind of introduction, both to the prophet's labours 
generally, and also to the present collection of his prophecies. 
There were already serious indications, among those who had 
returned, of inward rebellion against the Lord. In the pro- 
phecies, which followed, the prophet was to introduce a series of 
consolations for such as were in trouble and despair. In order 
that these consolations might not be usurped by any to whom 
they did not belong, and abused to the increase of their carnal 
security, it was necessary that the indispensable condition of sal- 
vation, true repentance, should be placed at the head. The 
denunciation of fresh punishments against those who would not 
fulfil this condition, contains the germ of all that the prophet 
afterwards declares with greater distinctness in chap. v. and xi. , 
as to a new and utter devastation and destruction which awaited 
the land, when once ungodliness should have become supreme 
again and the good shepherd had been rejected. The simple 
difi'erence is this, that the threat is merely conditional here, 
whereas in the other case it is expressed absolutely, the Lord 
having then revealed to the prophet that the full development of 
the germ of ungodliness, existing in his own age, on which the 
infliction of the divine judgments depended, would assuredly 
take place, and the majority of the people would betray an utter 
want of the sole condition of salvation, true repentance. 



II-CHAP. L7-VL35. 

The second revelation consists of a series of visions, all belong- 
ing to the same night, which contain a complete picture of the 
future fate of the people of Grod. 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. I. 7 — VI. 15. 305 

1. THE VISION OF THE RIDER UNDER THE MYRTLE-TREES. 

(Chap. i. 7—17.) 

In the dead of night, when the mind is set free from the ties 
which bind it to outward things, and its susceptibility for divine 
things is thereby increased, the prophet sees, not in a dream, but 
in an ecstasy, a proud rider seated upon a red horse, who stops 
by a pool of water in the midst of the myrtle-bushes, and is sur- 
rounded by red, brown, and white horses. In the rider at the 
head he recognises the Angel of the Lord ; and in his attendants 
the angels that wait upon him. He enquires of an angel, who 
approaches him, and who introduces himself as an interpreter, 
what the meaning of the vision may be. Through his mediation 
he learns from the angel of the Lord, that the riders are the 
servants of the Lord, who have just ridden through the whole 
earth at his bidding. For what purpose, he gathers from the 
report which they bring to the angel of the Lord, not only in his 
presence, but in words which he can understand, the interpreter 
having opened his ears. They have found the whole earth quiet 
and at peace. This report, which sets the mournful condition of 
the people of the Lord in a still more distressing light, when it 
is contrasted with the prosperous nations of heathenism, induces 
the angel of the Lord to intercede with the supreme Grod on 
behalf of the former, and to inquire earnestly whether there is 
still no hope of deliverance, although the seventy years of misery 
appointed for the people, according to the words of the prophet 
Jeremiah, have long since passed away.^ He receives a consola- 

1 Vitringa ssijs (1. c. p. 17) " est pulcherrimum Petavii aliorumque observa- 
tum, periodum LXX. annorum, decretorum punitioni Judeese gentis ad 
perfectum implementum prophetiae bis reprgesentatam esse. A quarto 
Jehojachimi usque ad initia Babylonica Cyri, quando dimissi sunt Judaei 
ex exilio, effluxerunt LXX. anni. Rursus totidem anni effluxerunt ab 
excidio templi et urbis, quod accidit octodecim post annis, usque ad 
secundum Darii Hystaspis : intersunt enim rursus inter initia Cyri Baby- 
lonica et Darii secundum anni octodecim." In the statement made here, 
" against which thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years,' 
(ver. 12 cf. vii. 5), the seventy years mentioned by Jeremiah, which came to 
an end in the first year of Cyrus, are regarded as the main period, the rest 
beign looked upon as so much added. It was possible to acquiesce in 
this addition with the greater readiness, when the loss of the temple, the 
crowding point of the calamity, had not lasted so long as seventy years. But 
when the second year of Darius had arrived, the questions became more 
anxious and the prayers most earnest. 

VOL. III. U 



306 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PKOPHETS. 

tory answer from the Lord. This reply is communicated to the 
prophet by the interpreter, who charges him to make its contents 
publicly known. Its purport is as follows. The vengeance of 
the Lord will be poured out in due time upon the nations, by 
whom his commission to punish the covenant people has been 
executed, not as a command from Him, but to gratify their own 
desires, and at the same time with an amount of wicked cruelty 
which has far exceeded his commands ; even though they may 
be found at present in a state of peace and prosperity. And so 
also will the promises, which have been made to the covenant 
nation, be all fulfilled, though they may be apparently delayed. 
Ample proofs will be given to it of the continuance of the divine 
election ; the building of the temple will be completed ; and 
Jerusalem will rise from its ruins. 

The following remarks may serve to give us a closer insight 
into the meaning and design of this vision. But first of all, a 
question of great importance presents itself, and one which bears 
upon the correct explanation, not of this vision only, but also of 
those which follow ; — namely, whether the interpreter is the same 
person as the angel of the Lord, or a different person altogether. 
The majority of commentators (including Marck, G. B. Michae- 
Us Bosenmiiller, and Maurer) maintain the former ; Vitringa, 
with whom we agree, the latter. The following reasons have 
been adduced for believing that they were the same. (1). "In 
ver. 9, where the prophet addresses the interpreter as ' my Lord,' 
these words must necessarily be addressed to the angel of the 
Lord ; for no other person has been mentioned at all." — But the 
fact is overlooked, that in the prophecies generally, and especi- 
ally in the visions, on account of their dramatic character, per- 
sons are very frequently introduced, either as speaking or as 
addressed by others, without having been previously mentioned. 
— (2). " In ver. 9, the interpreter promises to explain to the 
prophet the meaning of the vision. The explanation is then 
given in ver. 10 by the angel of the Lord, who must, therefore, 
be the same person as the interpreter." — But the actual words of 
ver. 9 are, " I will make thee see, what these are." This refers 
to the opening of the spiritual eyes and ears of the prophet. 
And it is not till after this has been done by the interpreter, that 
the prophet is able to understand the words of the angel of the 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. I. 7 — 17. . 307 

Lord and the report which the attendant angels bring to him. 
Compare chap. iv. 1, where the interpreter is said to wake the 
l)rophet, as a man that is wakened ont of his sleep. — (3). " Ac- 
cording to ver. 12 the angel of the Lord presents a supplication 
to the supreme God on behalf of the covenant people. And in 
ver. 13 the Lord is said to have answered the interpreter with 
comfortable words. Now it can hardly be supposed that the 
question was asked by one person, and the answer given to 
another." — But we may either imagine, as Vitringa suggests, 
that the prophet has omitted to mention the circumstance, that 
the answer was first of all directed to the angel of the Lord, and 
reached the interpreter through him, or, what is more probable, 
that the Lord addressed the answer at once to the interpreter, 
because the angel of the Lord had asked the question, not for his 
own sake, but simply in order that consolation and hope might 
be communicated through the interpreter to the prophet, and 
again through him to the nation at large. 

On the other hand, the following reasons may be offered, for 
believing that the interpreter was not the same person as the 
angel of the Lord. 

1. The title which is given to the interpreter throughout, 
" the angel, that talked with me," serves at the outset to point 
him out as a different person from the angel of the Lord. This 
would not be the case if it only occurred immediately after the 
angel had spoken to the prophet. But the fact that it is intro- 
duced on other occasions (see for example ver. 9, 13) is a proof, 
that it does not relate to any particular act on the part of the 
angel, but to his office, and is equivalent to angelus collocutor, 
or mterpres. And, as if to make it plain that the expression is 
used as an official title, the prophet never employs any other, and 
uses this without the slightest variation, never even substituting 
the construction with dj? or r\s, which usually occurs in other 
cases, for the expression 3 "im. The explanation of this is to 
be found in the fact that the words were put into the mind of 
the hearer, in order that they might continue there (see vol. i. 
p. 192). 

2. The occurrence described in chap. ii. 1 — 4 is quite 
decisive. The prophet sees a figure occupied in measuring the 
future dimensions of Jerusalem. The interpreter leaves the 



308 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

prophet, for the purpose of making inquiry on his behalf as to 
the meaning of this vision. But, before he reaches his destina- 
tion, another angel comes to meet him with the command, " run, 
say to this young man," &c. Assuming that the interpreter and 
the angel of the Lord were the same, directions would have 
been given to the latter in a tone of authority by an inferior 
angel, — a procedure altogether irreconcileahle with the superior 
dignity, which is ascribed to him everywhere else, and especially in 
Zechariah. Moreover it was, in all probability, the angel of the 
Lord himself, who was measuring Jerusalem. And if this sup- 
position be correct, there is the less possibility of his being the 
same person as the interpreter, since the latter was with the pro- 
phet at the time, and it was not till afterwards that he left him, 
to make inquiry concerning the vision. 

3. It is a striking fact, that no divine work is ever ascribed 
to the interpreter, nor any divine name given to him, as to 
the Angel of the Lord, and that he never does anything more 
than communicate to the prophet the commands of a higher 
authority, and explain to him visions, which are invariably 
manifested to the prophet's inward sight by the Lord himself, 
and never by the interpreter (c/ chap. ii. 3, iii. 1). 

4. The conclusion at which we have arrived is confirmed, on 
comparing it with what we find in other passages of the Old 
Testament. In Ex. xxxii. 34 the chief revealer of God, the 
Angel of the Lord, is represented as having another angel sub- 
ordinate to him, who stands to him in the very same relation in 
which he himself stands to the supreme God. But what we find 
in the Book of Daniel in connection with this subject, is of especial 
importance for the interpretation of Zechariah. The Angel of 
the Lord, the great prince, who represents his people (chap. xii. 
1, c/ Zech. i. 12), is called there by the symbolical name of 
Michael. He generally appears in silent majesty, and only 
occasionally, as in the case before us, speaks a few words. But, 
as a mediator between him and Daniel, Gabriel is introduced, 
whose duty it is to unfold and explain the visions (compare chap. 
viii. 16, ix, 21, and see Dissertation on Daniel p. 135 sqq.). 

The Angel of the Lord is seated upon a red horse in the 
midst of a thicket of myrtles. The latter is a striking image of 
the kingdom of God, — not a proud cedar or a lofty mountain. 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. I. 7 — 17. 309 

but a modest myrtle in the hollow, yet lovely for all that, as 
Esther was originally called Hadassa, myrtle, on account of her 
loveliness. The comparison of the kingdom of God to the quiet 
waters of Siloah, in contrast with the roaring waters of the 
Euphrates, is of a similar character (see Is. viii.). Whilst the 
kingdoms of the world were surrounded by outward splendour, 
the kingdom of God was always lowly and unpretending ; and 
at this time especially it appeared to be approaching its end. 
The fact that the Angel of the Lord stopped in the midst of the 
thicket of myrtles, was an indication of the distinguished protec- 
tion enjoyed by the Church of God, notwithstanding its feeble 
condition. In the same way is Christ represented in Rev. i. 13, 
ii. 1, as walking in the midst of the seven candlesticks, the pro- 
tector and judge of the Church. The thicket of myrtles was 
n'?y'??. This must be a different form of nSni?. The latter 
means the depth (Vulg. in pro/undo), and in other cases is only 
applied to the sea or the deep places of a river. In the symbo- 
lical language of Scripture it represents the world. n'^ivo 
itself is used for the sea of the world in Ps. cvii. 24 ; and also in 
Zech. X. 11, " and all the nSno of the Nile are put to shame, 
and the pride of Assyria is cast down, and the rod of Egypt will 
depart." The cognate word ^^"^^ is also employed to denote 
the powers of the world in Is. xliv. 27. The true explanation 
is given in the Chaldee version, " in Babele." And this has 
been revived by Baumgarten (Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharia i. 
p. 73), who finds an allusion in this passage to the " abyss-like 
power of the kingdoms of the world." The expression in chap, 
ii. 7, " thou that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon," cor- 
responds to the words "in or at the depth," in the passage 
before us. Whether there is any reference to the fact that the 
myrtles of nature flourish best by the water's side (Virgil Geor- 
gics 2. 212, litora myrtetis lastissima ; 4. 124, amantes litora 
myrti), we shall not stop to inquire. We cannot better express 
what we are to understand by the fact, that the Angel of the 
Lord appears seated upon a horse and that a red horse, than in 
the words of Theodoret, " he sees him mounted on a horse, to 
show the rapidity with which everything is accomplished ; and 
the red colour of the horse sets forth his indignation against his 
heathen foes, for wrath is bloody and therefore red." Red is the 



310 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

colour of blood. It is in red garments that the Angel of the Lord 
is described in Is. Ixiii. as coming from Bozrah, after having slain 
the enemies of his kingdom. And in Rev. vi. 4 it is on a red 
horse that he is seated, to whom power is given to take peace from 
the earth, and that they should kill one another, and to whom 
is given a great sword. (With reference to red, as the colour of 
blood, see the notes on Rev. xii. 3). Hence the colour of the 
horse is the symbol of what the angel of the Lord says of him- 
self in ver. 15: "I burn with great wrath against the nations 
that are in safety and at ease." The inferior angels, who sur- 
round the angel of the Lord, are a symbolical representation of 
the idea, that all the requisite means are at his command for the 
salvation of his people and the destruction of his foes. The 
colour of their horses represents the judgments which await 
the latter, and which are about to be executed with irresistible 
force ; just as in Rev. vi. 2 sqq., the colour of the horses is a 
symbol of the work to be accomplished by the riders. The red 
and brown colours both relate to the blood ; — the Arabic word, 
which answers to cpnir, is used de sanguine concreto, see the 
thesaurus of Gesenius. White is the colour of brilliant lights, 
the symbolical representation of glory, and in this connection 
refers to the glorious victories to be obtained over the enemies 
of the kingdom of Grod. The riders have just returned from a 
mission, and give in their report in the hearing of the prophet. 
As Satan goes to and fro in the earth, to see how he can get at 
the righteous (see Job, chap, i.) ; so do they go to and fro in 
the earth in the interests of the church of the Lord. In the 
present case the immediate object was not to perform any active 
service, but merely to reconnoitre, and the result of their inquiry 
furnished the occasion for the prayer for compassion on Jeru- 
salem. In the second year of Darius there was universal peace ; 
all the nations, that had constituted the former Chaldean empire, 
were in the enjoyment of uninterrupted prosperity. Even the 
Babylonians — to whom it is evident from ver. 15, that the 
expression "the whole earth sitteth" (as contrasted with the 
prostrate condition of the people of God) " and is quiet," chiefly 
refers — had quickly recovered from all that they had suffered in 
consequence of the capture of the city by Cyrus. The city had 
continued rich and flourishing. Judea alone, the seat of the 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP, I. 7 — 17. 311 

kingdom of God, presented a mournful aspect. The capital was 
still for the most part in ruins. There were no walls round 
about to protect it. The building of the temple had hitherto 
been exposed to difficulties, which the disheartened nation still 
despaired of overcoming, though the work had been resumed 
some months before at the instigation of Haggai. The number 
of inhabitants was but small ; and the greater part of the land 
was still a waste (see Nehemiah, chap. i.). Such a state of 
things necessarily exposed the faithful to great temptation, and 
furnished the ungodly with an excuse for their ungodliness. 
Compare Mai. ii. 17, where the latter say, " every one that doeth 
evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and he delighteth in them," or 
" Where is the Grod that punishes ?" and chap. iii. 15, " therefore 
we call the scorners happy, for the ungodly increase, they tempt 
God, and everything prospers with them." It required a large 
amount of faith, under such circumstances as these, to have no 
doubts as to either the truthfulness or omnipotence of God. 
The return of the covenant nation had been but a small step 
towards the fulfilment of his promises. The predicted judg- 
ments on Babylon embraced far more than the mere capture of 
the city ; and yet even this, the opening judgment, had been 
concealed from view, by the fact that the city was gradually 
recovering. The prophecy before us was intended to ward off 
the temptations, to which such a state of things were sure to 
give rise, and which crippled every effort in connection with the 
theocracy. The appearance of the angel of the Lord, as the 
protector of his people, was in itself a rich source of consolation. 
And his interceding for his people showed still mere clearly, that 
the time of commiseration was drawing nigh. For his inter- 
cession could not be in vain : nor could the will of God be 
unknown to him. The answer, which he received from the 
Lord, was enough to quiet any fear and trembling that might yet 
remain. It showed that his promises and threats would cer- 
tainly be fulfilled, however gradually, at the time determined 
in his wise and holy counsel. 

We must add a few words here as to the fulfilment itself. 
A commencement was made immediately afterwards. The 
revolt of the Babylonians, in the reign of Darius Ht/staspes, 
brought the city a great deal nearer to the complete destruc- 



312 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN TEE PROPHETS. 

tion, which had been predicted. Apart from the fact that it may 
be regarded as a continuation of the conquest of the city by 
Cyrus, it inflicted deeper wounds than this had done. A fearful 
massacre took place in the city, and its walls were destroyed. 
Again, the building of the temple at Jerusalem was successfully 
accomplished in the sixth year of Darius. The arrival of Ezra, 
and shortly afterwards that of Nehemiah, who restored the walls 
of the city and greatly added to the population, were proofs that 
the favour of God still rested upon the nation, and signs of its 
continued election. But we must not look to the immediate 
future for the complete fulfilment. The prophecies of Zechariah, 
like those of his predecessors, embrace the whole range of the 
judgments and salvation of God ; with the exception only of 
that portion which had already taken place, such for example as 
the conquest of Babylon and the return of the covenant people. 
Hence, whatever is said here concerning the wrath of God on 
Babylon and the other enemies of the kingdom of God, could only 
be finally accomplished in their complete extermination ; and 
what is said respecting the renewal of the favour of God towards 
his people, in the sending of the Messiah. In the fact that the 
fulfilment commenced at once, the people received a pledge, that 
at some future period the whole of the prophecy would assuredly 
be fulfilled. 



2. THE FOUR HORNS AND THE FOUR SMITHS. 

(Chap. i. 18—21.) 

This vision is also consolatory in its tendency. The prophet 
sees four horns, and the interpreter explains to him that they 
represent the enemies of the kingdom of God. He then sees 
four smiths, who break these horns in pieces. The meaning is 
obvious. The enemies of the Lord are to be punished for their 
sins ; the Lord will defend his feeble church against every attack. 
So far expositors are all agreed. But there is a difference of 
opinion as to what we are to understand by the four horns or 
hostile powers. (On the horns, as the symbol of power, see the 
Commentary on Ps. cxlviii. 14, and Kev. v. 6). According to 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. I. 18 — 21, 313 

some, the four were contemporaneous {Hitzig says they repre- 
sent " the Gentile foes of Judah in all quarters of the world"), 
whilst according to others they followed in succession. The for- 
mer assert, without any ground, that the preterites, i^^i in ver. 
2, and ^^'^ in ver. 4, prove that the kingdoms referred to had 
already shown hostility to Judah, and still continued to do so. 
(Judah only is mentioned ; the name Israel is applied to Judah 
in ver. 2 as a title of honour). The fact is entirely overlooked, 
that it is with an inward perception that we have to do, and that 
to this everything appears to be present. It is a fatal objection, 
however, to this exposition, that there were not four independent 
powers in a state of hostility to Judah in the time of Zechariah. 
All the nations, with which Judah came in contact, were sub- 
ject to the Persian empire. Hitzig supposes that " in the time of 
Zechariah these hostile kingdoms had already been for the most 
part (?) subdued by Cyrus and Cambyses ; although the author 
speaks of four smiths as breaking off the horns, to make the num- 
bers correspond." But how could the prophet say anything 
unsuitable, for the mere purpose of " making the numbers cor- 
respond ?" The parallel passages, however, afford positive 
evidence of the correctness of the opinion, that a succession is 
intended. A slight allusion to the rise of four worldly powers 
in succession may be found even in Joel i. 4 (see vol. i. p. 318). 
In Daniel chap. ii. and vii. the four parts of the image and the 
four beasts represent four successive phases of the imperial 
power. This is of the greater importance, since the prophecy of 
Daniel was just that link in the prophetic chain to which 
Zechariah was called to attach his own prophecies, and the 
symbol itself points back to Daniel, as well as the number four 
(compare Dan. vii. 7, 8, viii. 3 — 9). If we inquire more par- 
ticularly what four empires are referred to, the first must be the 
Babylonian, which was not yet completely humbled, as the third 
vision shows, although it had already received a fatal wound 
from the Persian smith. The second is the Persian. That the 
Grecian must have been recognised by the prophet as the third, 
is evident from the expression in chap. ix. 13, " I stir up thy 
sons, Zion, against thy sons, Javan." The fourth is not 
named. The connection with Daniel is apparent here also, for, 
in his prophecy, the approaching dominion of Greece is expressly 



314 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

and amply referred to ; whilst the fourth monarchy on the other 
hand is left without a name. 

Zechariah was at all events informed by this vision, that the 
triumph of the people of God was still remote. But the final 
victory was certain notwithstanding ; and though it would have 
to suffer from one imperial power after another, it would still 
survive them all. 



3. THE ANGEL WITH THE MEASURING LINE. 

(Chap, ii.) 

The symbolical apparatus is but small in this case. The 
prophet sees, as Ezekiel had done before him (xl. 3), a figure 
engaged in measuring the future dimensions of Jerusalem, 
because the present area will not suffice for the enlargement, 
which is to be effected by the mercy of the Lord. The figure is 
in all probability no other than the Angel of the Lord. No proof 
need be offered that such an occupation was a very suitable one 
for the person by whom, as guardian of the covenant nation, the 
enlargement itself would be brought about. The fact that he 
gives instructions to another angel, whom he sends to the inter- 
preter, is a proof that he must have been of a higher rank than 
that of an inferior angel. We have also the further advantage 
of an exact correspondence between this passage and the twelfth 
chapter of Daniel, where precisely the same persons are intro- 
duced, — viz., Michael, the angel of the Lord, accompanied by 
Gabriel, the interpreter, and another angel (see the Dissertation 
on Daniel, p. 134 sqq.). The interpreter has hitherto remained 
with the prophet, who is looking on from a distance ; but now 
he leaves him, to ascertain from the Angel of the Lord the mean- 
ing of what he is doing. He has only just set out, when 
another angel is despatched by the Angel of the Lord, to give 
him the required explanation, and order him to communicate 
it to Zechariah. From the fact that the angel speaks of him as 
" this young man," the conclusion has been quite correctly 
drawn, that the prophet was but a youth at this time. Still it 
is probable that there is also an allusion to his inexperience and 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. 11. 315 

short siglitedness as a man.^ There is only one thing in which 
the commentators have erred, — namely, that they have selected 
one of these to the exclusion of the other. The prophet's youth 
is distinctly noticed, because youth is a type of the nature of 
man in relation to God and his holy angels (vid. 1 Sam. iii. 1 
sqq. ; Jer. i. 6, 7). — The message, which the other angel brings 
to the interpreter for Zechariah, is the following. The city is 
to extend far beyond its present boundaries, and will be de- 
fended and glorified by the Lord (ver. 4, 5). The infliction of 
judgment upon Babylon, and the ungodly powers of the world in 
general, goes hand in hand with the mercy bestowed upon 
Jerusalem. The thought is expressed in the form of an appeal 
to the Zionites, who are still dwelling in Babylon, to escape ; an 
appeal, which was not intended to be put in practice, any more 
than the similar appeal in Jer. li. 6. The highest possible glory 
is conferred upon Jerusalem, from the fact that the Lord himself 
takes up his abode there, the result of which will be, that many 
nations will attach themselves to the congregation, which is 
rendered glorious by his presence (vers. 10 — 13). All this is 
explanatory of the symbol. The great extent of Jerusalem, 
which this symbol indicates, has its ultimate ground in the 
appearance of the Lord in the midst of his people, and its neces- 
sary condition in the defeat of the whole worldly power, by 
which the kingdom of Grod is opposed, and which is represented 
here by the daughter of Babylon. On the other hand, the 
especial cause of Jerusalem becoming too small for its inhabi- 
tants, and breaking forth on the right hand and on the left (Is. 
xlix. 19), is that " many nations are joined to the Lord in that 
day" (ver. 11). — Vers. 6 and 7 are placed in a false relation to 
what goes before by those who understand them to mean, " this 
may lead all the Jews, who are still left in Babylon, to decide 
upon a speedy return to their own land, that they may share 



1 Jerome was also of this opinion, and says : " human nature is always 
childhood, when contrasted with the dignity of angels ; because angels do 
not grow up into men, but men into angels." And Vitringa says to the 
same effect : " he calls him lyj, not from any contempt of short-lived man, 
who is unskilled in many things, and chiefly ignorant of things celestial, 
but by way of contrast ; and the expression is equivalent to inexperience, 
needing to be taught many things, just as Ezekiel is always called ' Son of 
Man,' in exactly the same sense." 



316 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

with their brethren in the promised blessings." That the in- 
junction to leave Babylon was based exclusively upon the judg- 
ment which threatened it, is evident from the exclamations " up, 
up andy?ee"^ (ver. 6), " up, Zion, and save thyself" (ver. 7). — 
The whole announcement is essentially Messianic ; and in such 
events, as the increase in the population of Jerusalem, par- 
ticularly from the days of Nehemiah onwards, the calamity which 
fell upon Babylon under Darius Hystaspes, and the victories 
gained by the Maccabees (" and they shall be a spoil to them 
that serve them," ver. 9), we see nothing more than a slight pre- 
lude to the fulfilment. The essentially Messianic character 
is especially apparent from what is said in ver. 10, 11, of the 
Lord dwelling at Jerusalem, and the heathen nations flocking 
thither in consequence, as a splendid demonstration of the mercy 
of God, which, according to ver. 13, was to fill all nations with 
overpowering amazement. On this Baumgarten has correctly 
observed, that " the great choice is laid before them, either to 
humble themselves before the Lord, who is coming in his king- 
dom, or to destroy themselves ; since the time is gone by, when 
the flesh can exalt itself." It is evident from ver. 11, " and I 
will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that 
the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto thee," that the person, 
who announces here that he will glorify the church with his 
presence, is the angel of the Lord, who was afterwards to appear, 
as the prophets had predicted, in the Messiah himself. Conse- 
quently, He who was to dwell in the midst of the covenant nation, 
just as He had formerly been present in the pillar of cloud and 
of fire, was the very same person, who was now sent by the 
supreme God to convey this glorious intelligence through the 
prophet to the nation, who is called Jehovah in ver. 10, and 
who is here designated the messenger, to distinguish him from 

1 From the fact that fligM is referred to, it is evident that ver. 6 must be 
explained thus, " for I have scattered you to the four winds of heaven " (and 
especially to the north) ; cf. Ezek. xvii. 21. With reference to the connection 
between ver. 8 and ver. 6, 7, MicJiaelis says, " it is stated in ver. 9, why the 
Jewish exiles were to fly, — viz., that they might not be involved in the de- 
struction, which the Angel was about to bring upon the hostile land." That 
Tias inN in ver. 8 must mean " after glory," that is, after ye have been 
brought to glory, is evident from the allusion to the close of ver. 9. Michaelis 
says, " it is not enough for me to manifest my glory in Israel, I will also 
make my name illustrious in the Gentiles themselves." 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. III. 317 

the sender. That the person, who is described in ver. 8, as 
executing judgment upon the heathen, was identical with the 
Messiah, may be clearly seen from chap. ix. 9, where the arrival 
of the latter is announced to the nation in almost the same 
words ; " Sing and rejoice, daughter of Zion, for lo, I come ; " 
" Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion, sing, daughter of Jer- 
usalem, behold thy king cometh unto thee." 

Still further explanation may be obtained from chap, xi., where 
the Angel of the Lord is described as coming in the Messiah ; 
appearing to the people, among whom he had hitherto been in- 
visibly present, and whom he had represented before Grod ; and 
entering upon the office of shepherd over them. In this and the 
ninth chapter, the bright side only is shown ; but in the chapter 
just referred to, as well as in chap, v., the dark side is also dis- 
played, — viz., the unbelief of the greater part of the nation in 
Him who had appeared, and their rejection of Him. Even in 
the earlier Jewish commentators, quoted by Jerome, and also in 
Kimchi and A harhanel, we find an admission that the prophecy 
refers to the Messianic times. 



4. JOSHUA, THE HIGH PRIEST, BEFORE THE ANGEL OF THE LORD. 

(Chap, iii.) 

The ten verses are divided into two fives. The thesis is, " say 
not, I have acted too wickedly." In the first half the forgive- 
ness of past sins is promised to the High Priest, and through 
him to the people of God. In the second half an assurance is 
given, first, that the protection of God shall be immediately ex- 
tended to the high-priestly office (ver. 6, 7), and secondly, that 
in the more remote future the true High Priest will appear, who 
will take away the sin of the land in one day, and pour out upon 
it the whole fulness of salvation. 

Ver. 1. ^^ And (the Lord) shoioed me Joshua, the high priest, 
standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his 
right hand, to oppose him." 

The future with Vav conversive connects this vision closely 
with the one which precedes it, and shows that it constitutes one 



318 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

link in the series of visions, which were all seen by the prophet 
in the same night. The subject of the verb " sJioioed" is 
undoubtedly the Lord, as the Septuagint translators and Jerome 
perceived. This is the most natural construction ; for the Lord 
is mentioned immediately before, in the very sentence with which 
the Vav conversive connects this verse. To this we may add 
the analogous expression in chap. ii. 3, " the Lord showed me 
four smiths." According to the usual explanation, the angelus 
collocutor is the subject, but his task is invariably to interpret, 
not to show the pictures. ^^iJn psn, the High Priest, is intro- 
duced here with peculiar emphasis, as also in ver. 8 and chap, 
vi. 11. It proves that it is not the person, but the office of 
Joshua, which is the point in consideration here, not his private 
but his public character. The expression, " standing before 
the Angel of the Lord," has been misunderstood by the greater 
number of commentators. They imagine it to be a judicial 
phrase ; the Angel of the Lord being represented as a judge, 
Satan as the plaintiff, and Joshua as the defendant. But such 
an idea is very prejudicial to a correct interpretation of the 
whole vision. The expression, " to stand before a person," is 
never used of the appearance of a defendant before a judge, but 
always of a servant standing before his Lord, to offer his services 
and await his commands. Compare, for example. Gen. xli. 46, 
" Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh ;" 
1 Sam. xvi. 21, " and David came to Saul and stood before him, 
and he loved him greatly, and he became his armour-bearer ;" 

1 Kings i. 28, x, 8, and Deut. i. 38. But in connection with the 
service of the Lord this phrase is still more frequently employed. 
Thus in ver. 4 {cf. Is. vi. 2) it is applied to angels ; in 1 Kings 
xvii. 1 to the prophets, " Elijah said, as the Lord God of Israel 
liveth, before whom I stand" (see also in Jer. xviii. 20) ; and in 

2 Chr. XX. 13 to the whole nation. But it was most frequently 
used in connection with the priests, for whose service it became 
the standing technical phrase ; vid. Deut. x. 8, " at that time 
the Lord separated the tribe of Levi, .... to stand be- 
fore the Lord, to minister to him, and to bless in his name ;" 
2 Chr. xxix. 11, " my sons, be not now negligent ; for the Lord 
hath chosen you to stand before him, to serve him, and offer 
incense to him;" Ps. cxxxv. 2, " ye servants of the Lord, that 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. III. 1. 319 

stand in the house of the Lord ;" Judg. xx. 28, " Phinehas stood 
before the Lord in those days ;" and Deut. xvii. 12. And thus 
the prophet sees Joshua the High Priest on the present occasion, 
engaged as a priest in the service of the angel of the Lord, who 
is introduced in ver. 2 under the name of Jehovah, which belongs 
to God alone, and who attributes to himself in ver. 4 an exclu- 
sively divine work, the forgiveness of sins. As a priest he also 
entreats favour for himself and the nation, and offers prayer and 
intercession. Theodoret describes him as rar vulp tov xdou 
Trpaa/oEj'af 7ipo<^i^ipoj)i rcj Qecjj. The Correctness of this explana- 
tion is confirmed by ver. 4, where 'JS^ "loy occurs again in 
connection with the service of the Lord. — The words that follow, 
— viz., " Satan stood at (lit. over) his right hand," are also gene- 
rally rendered incorrectly. Starting with the supposition, which 
we have already shown to be false, that a judicial process is 
alluded to here, the majority have traced this description to a 
custom, said to have been prevalent among the ancient Jews, for 
the plaintiff to stand at the right hand of the defendant — a 
custom, of the existence of which not the slightest trace can be 
found. The right hand is mentioned rather as being the most 
appropriate place for one, who wished to hinder or support 
another with success. Thus in Ps. cix. 6, we read, " set thou a 
wicked man over him and let the enemy {Angl. Satan) stand at 
his right hand." — The prophet uses the very words of this pas- 
sage in the Psalms. The enemy alluded to in this Psalm, in 
which the word r^^', Satan, occurs more frequently than any- 
where else, is the fitting representative and type of the enemy 
generally. — Again, in ver. 31 the Lord is spoken of as " stand- 
ing at the right hand of the poor." In Ps. cxxi. 5 the Psalmist 
writes, " the Lord is thy shade upon thy right hand ;" and 
in Ps. cxlii. 4, " look to the right hand and see, no one 
will know me." Job again (chap. xxx. 12) says, " at the right 
hand riseth up the brood, they trip me up, and prepare against 
me their ways of destruction." — iJt?'^^ is well explained by 
Tarnov thus, " that he who is called Satan, from the oppo- 
sition he offers, might thus fill up the measure of his name ; " 
and by Bicckert, " the enemy stood at his right hand to act 
the part of an enemy towards him." — The scene, then, is the 
following, the high priest is in the sanctuary, the building 



320 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

of which has already commenced, and is engaged in prayer for 
the mercy of the Angel of the Lord : the latter comes down, con- 
descends to appear in the temple, as a proof of his favour, attended 
by a company of angels {yid. ver. 7) . Satan, the sworn enemy 
of the church of God, looks with jealous eyes at the restoration 
of the church to the favour of the Lord ; and prepares to inter- 
rupt it again by his accusations. — We need not stop to show the 
fallacy of the opinion, advocated by some of the earlier commen- 
tators (Kimchi and Drusius) , and revived for the most part by 
Uwald, that Satan is a figurative term, and refers to Sanballat 
and his confederates, who tried to hinder the building of the 
temple. It is disproved by the prologue to Job, which Zechariah, 
who always rests upon earlier writings, had undoubtedly before 
his eyes (compare Job i, 10 with Zech. vi. 5). It is also of 
importance to refer to that passage, inasmuch as it will show us 
how much is drapery and how much belongs to the subject- 
matter. In both passages, and also in Rev. xii. 10, where Satan 
is called " the accuser of our brethren, which accused them before 
our God day and night," the doctrinal idea is simply this, that 
Satan leaves no stone unturned, to turn away the favour of God 
from the individual believer and the whole church of God. That 
to this end he appears before God in heaven, or the temple at 
Jerusalem, as an accuser, belongs to the poetical or prophetico- 
symbolical representation, the very essence of which required 
that spiritual things should be set forth in an outward and visible 
form. — The only question that remains is, what means did 
Satan employ, to effect a rupture between the High Priest and 
the Angel of the Lord ? There is no ground for the assumption 
of the Jewish commentators and several modern ones, that the 
accusation, which Satan brought, was false, and the High Priest 
was perfectly innocent. This is evident from vers. 3 — 5, where 
the hord forgives the High Priest his sin, and has his filthy gar- 
ments taken off and clean clothes put on instead, the symbol of the 
righteousness which is imparted through grace. The true exposi- 
tion is this. The High Priest, as we have already shown, is 
introduced here as discharging the duties of his office. But, 
when so engaged, he took the place, in a certain sense, of the 

whole nation f Cyril : h ^i ys Upeus voriQairi av avTi Travrof rov 

Xxov). Among the proofs of this we may cite Judg. xx. 27, 28, 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. III. 1. 321 

where the High Priest Phinehas says to the Lord : " shall I yet 
again go out to battleagainstthechildren of Benjamin, my brother, 
or shall I cease ? and the Lord said, Go up, for to-morrow I 
will deliver them into thine hand." Just as the sins of the High 
Priest were imputed to the nation (" if the anointed priest sin- 
neth so as to bring guilt upon the nation " oyn noc-NS) ; so did 
the High Priest, on the other hand, come before the Lord laden 
with the sins of the whole nation, of which he was the repre- 
sentative.^ The representative cliaracter of the High Priest, 
again, is more especially apparent in this case, from the fact that 
the reasons assigned by the Lord in ver. 2, for rejecting the accu- 
sation of Satan, have reference, not to his private circumstances, 
but to the relation, in which the whole nation stands to the Lord. 
On the annual day of atonement, also, the High Priest had to 
do with Satan. And on that occasion he was opposed to him, 
not as an individual, but as the representative of the nation. 
The expiated sins of the nation were sent away into the desert 
to Satan. Of course, the High Priest himself is not to be thought 
of, as exempt from sin. In fact, he had to atone first of all for 
himself and his house on the great day of atonement, before he 
offered the expiatory sacrifice for the nation (Lev. xvi. 11 ; Heb. 
v. 3.) The High Priest, laden with his own sins and those 
which were imputed to him, stood before the Lord as a man 
who, like Isaiah, was of unclean lips and dwelt among a nation 
of unclean lips, and who had to confess his own sin and that of 
the nation, as Daniel also had done in the discharge of his extra- 
ordinary priestly function (chap. ix. 20). It was this, in fact, 
which constituted the ground of the objection,— -namely, that the 
High Priest could not act as the representative of the nation and 
bear its sin, because he was involved in that sin himself Be- 
sides, it was not the ordinary sinfulness of humanity, the pecca- 
tum quotidianum, for which the saints have constantly to humble 
themselves, that was in question here ; but, just as in Dan. ix., 
the abominations of iniquity, which had called down the jud^^- 
ment of the Babylonian captivity, the consequences of which still 
continued to press heavily upon the nation. When the people 

1 Alenezra on Lev. iv. 13, ijis Sipiy Snjn |n3,-i njni SNif* Sa "ecce pon- 
iifex max. (xqiiijjaratur universo Israeli. For other proofs see Herwcrden de 
sacerdote magn. Hebr. Groningen 1822. p. 9. 

VOL. III. ^ 



322 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

returned from exile, tliey called to mind the grievous sins of their 
forefathers, and were also conscious of their own sinfulness ; and, 
seeing nothing but the first and slightest manifestations of divine 
mercy, they began to despair. They believed that God had 
rejected the High Priesthood, which he had appointed to mediate 
between himself and the nation, but which had become involved 
in the sins of the people. This despair of the mercy of God 
could not but be followed by consequences quite as disastrous as 
those which had resulted from false security ; and their care- 
lessness about building the temple, on which such undue stress 
has been laid by commentators, was but one of these, and that a 
comparatively small one. — Experience shows, that despair of the 
forgiveness of sins strikes at the root of all religion. And the 
Psalmist expresses the close connection between the two in the 
words, " there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be 
feared." The prophet does not represent the Lord, as appearing 
in glory, to send the people to sleep in their sins with the false 
peace of self-righteousness, but as giving them the assurance, 
that, notwithstanding the magnitude of their sins, He, of his own 
free grace, would allow the office of High Priest to continue, and 
would accept his mediation until the time should come, when 
the true High Priest, of whom Joshua was only the type, should 
appear and elBfect a perfect and everlasting reconciliation. 

Ver. 2, '^ And the Lord said to Satan : the Lord rebuke thee, 
Satan, the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee. Is 
not this a brand plucked out of the fire f" 

The Pelagianism, which characterises the modern expositions of 
this passage, such, for example, as that oi Ewald, appears in its 
most unvarnished form in JarcMs paraphrase, " Accuse not this 
righteous man, he has been delivered from the furnace on account 
of his purity and worth." The rejection of Satan's accusation is 
founded by the Lord, not upon the worthiness of Joshua and 
the nation, but solely upon his own choice, his own grace, which 
have been manifested in the recal of the nation from its captivity, 
and which he cannot now deny without thereby contradicting 
himself.^ ">yj, to rebuke, when applied to God, who accomplishes 

1 Calvin says : " God points to the favour which he had shown to the 
priest, that the faithful may learn that Joshua will be superior to his 
enemies, because God will not forsake his own work ; for, where the grace 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. III. 3. 323 

all things by his own word, includes the idea of actual suppres- 
sion and repulse; compare, e.g., Ps. cvi. 9, and Mai. iii. 11. 
The word is repeated, that the reason may be added : " the Lord 
rebuke thee," and indeed rebuke thee for this reason, &c. (com- 
pare chap. vi. 13). The election of Jerusalem is mentioned 
here, in contrast with its temporary rejection during the Baby- 
lonian captivity {vid. chap. i. 17). This election had continued 
throughout, but had been prevented from showing itself. The 
manifestation of it had recommenced with the restoration from 
captivity (c/ Eom. xi. 1 sqq.), and no machinations of Satan 
should interfere with it any more. The expression, " a brand 
plucked out of the fire," is taken from Amos iv. 11, " ye are as 
a brand plucked out of the fire," and is used to denote the occur- 
rence of great misfortune, which is prevented, however, by the 
mercy of the Lord from issuing in utter destruction. In the 
words, " the Lord said, the Lord rebuke thee," a distinction is 
made between the Lord and his Angel ; and, at the same time, 
the latter is placed on an equality with the former, in respect of 
divine wrath and glory. 

Ver, 3. " And Joshua ivas clothed with filthy garments, and 
stood before the Angel." 

In the opinion of several commentators (Eichhorn, Ewald, 
and others), the unclean clothes are a sign that he stood in the 
position of a criminal ; for among the Komans such persons 
were brought to the bar in dirty clothes, and were called sordi- 
dati in consequence. But there is no trace of any such custom 
among the Israelites ; and the exposition itself is based upon the 
erroneous assumption, that the standing before the Lord relates 
to a judicial process. Moreover, it is irreconcileable with ver. 4, 
where the removal of the unclean clothes is a sign of the forgive- 
ness of sins. It is evident from this, that the only correct explana- 
tion is one in which, according to the common usage of Scripture, 

of God is concerned, the end always answers to the beginning ; and he does 
not grow weary in the way of goodness." And Cyril still better : i>5;« 

yag ui II Xiyoi, tv^ov ^f^kfifif/tiXrixiv ofioXoyovfuvus o lirpan^, xa) Tait iraic 
(fiXoyl'oyiai; i'TKr^rifiiyo; o^Stcci, trAjjv sxtit;«£ ^ixx; all fiiT^ius, avirXv Tai 
irufiipopas, l^s^'PTcciT^n fiiXi;, as ix frugoj oaXoi hfj^iip^ixrii;' oura ya^ rk ti 
aly;^IJi,aXu(r'ta.s a-riixoviffara ^iKa^n., a^Ti xai f^iXi; r'i; avnxiiTTOV TaXtxiToiiiag SiStifa 
Triv ^Xoya, tfaMffai en out lyxa,Xu)i toi; riXinf-i'toi;' ho; ya^ o oixaiuv, Tig o xaru- 



oivuy. 



324 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

the filthy garments are understood to represent sin (compare, 
for example, Is. Ixiv. 5, "we are all as an unclean thing, and all 
our righteousnesses are as a filthy garment ;" Is. iv. 4 ; Prov. 
XXX. 12 ; Kev. iii. 4, vii. 14), and with reference to the command 
that the High Priest was to wear clean clothes, when he came 
before the Lord. The High Priest, who was here engaged in 
the worship of the Lord, did not come before him in the cleanly 
manner required by the law, but covered with his own sins and 
those of the nation. Satan thought this a safe handle for his 
accusation ; but he was mistaken. The Lord, who had refined 
his people though not as silver (Is. xlviii. 10), who was content 
that the furnace of affliction should have removed only the worst 
dross of sin, and should have produced in his people the first 
beginning of true penitence, a hunger and thirst after righteous- 
ness, which required to be kept alive by kindly treatment, and 
not stifled by severity, imparted to them of his own free grace 
that which they did not possess. He bestowed the gift of justi- 
fication upon the High Priest, and in him upon the nation at 
large ; vid. Ps. cxxx. 7, 8. 

Ver. 4. ''And he ansivered and spake unto those, who stood 
hefore him, take aioay the filthy garments from him. And unto 
him he said, behold I take away from thee thine iniquity, and 
they will clothe thee ivith festal attire." 

Just as the dirty clothes represented sin, so are forgiveness 
and justification represented by the putting on of clean and gay 
clothing at the command of the Lord. We must reject the 
explanation given by Marck, who maintains that it is not jus- 
tification, but sanctification, which is set forth in the whole 
symbolical action and in the explanation contained in the address 
to Joshua. The expression, " to cause sin to pass away," is 
only used with reference to the former (vid. 2 Sam. xii. 13). 
The ninth verse also helps to show, that it is the forgiveness of 
sins that is here referred to. The typical justification, granted 
to the High Priest and through him to the nation, is there con- 
trasted with the true and perfect justification to be secured by 
the Messiah, " I remove the iniquity of this land in one day." 
n:y is frequently used, where an address, inquiry, or entreaty, 
is tacitly assumed to have gone before ; but the commentators, by 
whom this has been overlooked, have erroneously interpreted it, as 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. III. 5. 325 

meaning to commence a discourse.^ In this instance, the meaning, 
" to commence " a discourse is all the more inappropriate, because 
the expression, " he stood before the Lord," which immediately 
precedes, evidently implies some silent prayer or address on the 
part of Joshua. Whenever the High Priest appeared before 
the Lord, the simple fact of his appearing involved a prayer for 
the forgiveness of sins. Those who stand before the Lord, or 
before his Angel, the prince of the Lord's army (Josh. v. 14), 
are his higher servants, the angels (c/! Is. vi.). They are ordered 
to adorn his inferior servant with the signs of the forgiveness of 
sins, which He alone is able to impart. The infinitive lioSn 
simply denotes the act itself. This was the only point of impor- 
tance here ; the persons, by whom it was to be performed, had 
already been pointed out in the address delivered to them. In 
the words addressed to Joshua, there was the more reason for 
omitting this, since it belonged to the drapery, and formed no 
essential part of the transaction, and also because his attention 
was to be directed exclusively to the author of the pardon, and 
not to the agents employed in the symbolical representation. 

Ver. 5. ^^ And I said : let them set a clean turban upon his 
head, and they set a clean turhan upon his head, and clothed 
him with garments, and the angel of the Lord stood hij." 

The prophet, who has hitherto been merely a silent spectator 
and reporter, comes suddenly forward as one of the actors, being 
emboldened by love to his nation. The idea, which the prophet 
intends to express is this : may the Lord bestow perfect purity 
upon the High Priest, and in him upon the nation." In symbol 
he represents it thus. The Lord merely issues the command to 
put clean clothes upon Joshua. And before the instructions are 
carried out, the prophet prays, that that portion of Joshua's 
unclean apparel, which has not been included in the command, 
may also be taken away. His prayer is heard, and Joshua is 
now clothed afresh from head to foot (hence the turban is put 

1 Vitringa (on Zech. i. 11), has correctly explained the use of the word ; 
" I would have it borne in mind that, in every case, in which njy or a.To- 
xol^iirSai is placed at the opening of a speech or narrative without any ques- 
tion preceding it, there is always a question tacitly assumed ; just as in the 
sacred books, where they commence with the copula, some antecedent is 
always supposed to exist, with which the narrative or speech is tacitly con- 
nected, even though nothing at all has gone before." 



326 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

ou first). The expression, " and the angel of the Lord stood 
by," is well explained hy Micliaelis thus: "he stood by like a 
master presiding over the ceremony, approving what was done, 
and adorning it with his own presence."^ By remaining present 
during the whole process, instead of contenting himself with 
giving his orders, and leaving the execution of them to his ser- 
vants, the angel of the Lord furnishes a proof of his tender care 
and esteem for his nation.^ 

Ver. 6. '^ And the Angel of the Lord testified to Joshua and. 
said ; Ver. 7, Thus saith the Lord, if thou ivilt loalk in my loays 
and observe me, thou shall judge my house, and keep my courts, 
and L give thee guides among these, ivho stand by" 

The reconciliation of the High Priest, and in him of the 
nation at large, is followed here by his being confirmed in his 
office, in which there is also included a promise for the nation ; 
for the High Priest was the mediator between God and the 
nation, and the latter could not be rejected, so long as the High 
Priest was accepted of Grod. The very opposite of what is pro- 
mised here had taken place in the time of the Babylonian capti- 
vity, compare Is. xliii. 27, 28 : " thy first father (the High 
Priest, as the parallelism and ver. 28 both show) hath sinned, 
and thy mediators have transgressed against me. Therefore I 
profane the princes of the sanctuary, and give Jacob to the 
curse." With reference to the phrase, " to heed any one's heed," 
in the sense of observing him, compare Mai. iii. 14. — That." the 
house of God" in this passage is the temple, is evident from its 
connection with the courts. The High Priest and temple are 
represented as essentially connected even in the Mosaic law. 

1 Baumgarten has justly observed that " the prophet might have waited 
quietly till the command was executed, and we may be sure that the clean 
turban would not have been forgotten, among the festal garments which 
Joshua was to put on." But his prayer was not superfluous on that account. 
The importunate prayer of the church is always the condition of the grant- 
ing of mercy. According to Baumgarten, the turban is introduced here as 
the supporter of the golden j^late, on which there was the inscription, " holy 
to the Lord." But this would certainly have been alluded to in more pre- 
cise terms. In this connection the turban can only be referred to as an 
article of dress, and in fact the one which would be the first to strike the 
eye. 

2 The angel of the Lord had been standing all the time. There is nothing 
at all to show that he was sitting down at first, but afterwards stood up. 
The point upon which emphasis is laid is, that he remained standing, and did 
not go away and simply leave his servants to carry out the instructions. 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. III. 8. 327 

Hence the people cannot be directly alluded to. But in the Old 
Testament the temple is represented as the spiritual dwelling 
place of all Israel (see the note on Ezek. xl. sqq.), and the allu- 
sion to judging shows that it is in this point of view that it 
comes into consideration here. The " keeping of the courts of 
the Lord " refers to the obligation, which rested upon the High 
Priest, to keep away every kind of idolatry and ungodliness, first 
of all from the outward temple {cf 2 Chr. xix. 11, xxiii. 18, 
Jer. xxix. 26), and then from the Church of G-od, of which the 
temple was the central point. It is represented here, not as a 
duty, but as a reward ; inasmuch as activity in connection with 
the kingdom of God is the highest honour and greatest favour, 
which G-od can confer upon any mortal. — In the words, " / give 
thee guides among these, ivho stcmd hy" the Lord promises his 
inferior servant a renewal of that assistance from his higher 
ones, which he had received but a short time before (ver. 4). 
D^aSnn is the Chaldee form of the Hiphil participle, in the place 
of the ordinary d'S'^io, The Hiphil is used in the sense of "to 
lead ;" e.g. Is. xlii. 16 : "I lead the blind by the way, which 
they know not."^ 

Ver. 8. " Hear nozo, Joshua, the High Priest, thou and 
thy companions, ivho sit hefore thee ; for they are people of 
loonder ; for behold I hring my servant Zemach."^ 

We will first of all inquire into the meaning of risic. It is 
commonly supposed, that the primary meaning of this word is 
proof but the following reasons suffice to show, that amazement 
is really the original signification. (1). The Arabic word (.ll^ij. 
n.^^, indicates it. The original meaning of this word is " some- 
thing which excites surprise," and a secondary meaning, "a cala- 

1 The idea, which several commentators would force upon the text, by 
altering the punctuation and inventing a form "^Sno, a walk (a word, the 
meaning of which could not be brought in here without constraint), — namely, 
the reception of the earthly servants of God into the chorus of the heavenly 
ones, is altogether foreign to the Old Testament. On the other hand, accord- 
ing to the established rendering, the angels appear in their ordinary character 
as " ministering spirits." Baumgarten very properly calls to mind the 
ascending and descending of the heavenly messengers between heaven and 
earth, of which Jacob had a vision at Bethel (House of God). 

2 The connection with the preceding verses is correctly pointed out by 
Kimclii thus : " he says, although I bring you this salvation noAV, 1 will 
bring you hereafter a greater salvation than this, at the time when I bring 
my servant Zemach." 



328 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PEOPHETS. 

mity, the greatness of which produces surprise and astonishment " 
(compare Is. lii. 14, Schultens on Job, p. 413); neither of these 
meanings can be obtained if the primary signification is supposed 
to be " proof "^ (2). The use of the word in Hebrew requires 
that amazement should be adopted as the primary meaning. 
For this is the only one, from which all the different senses 
in which the word is used can possibly be derived, especially 
the sense which it bears in Ps. Ixxi. 7. The frequent associa- 
tion of riaiD and riSx is so far from proving the two words to 
have the same meaning, that it proves the very opposite. It 
shows that they must be both descriptive of the same thing, but 
from different points of view, and in this case hardly any other 
explanation is possible, than that the one represents the subjec- 
tive sensation caused by a thing, the other its objective import. 
In this we are borne out by similar words in other languages, 
e.g. ripacs and (7r)/x£ibv, prodigium and signum. The occurrence 
of the -word r^x in the Book of Kings, and of nsw in the Chroni- 
cles, in the account of the miracle performed on behalf of Heze- 
kiah, from which the erroneous conclusion has been drawn that 
the two words are perfectly symbolical, may be accounted for on 
the ground that one writer gave greater promise to the former 
view, and the other to the latter. — But risio is more particu- 
larly applied to any person or thing, attracting attention and 
exciting astonishment from the fact that it typifies and fore- 
shadows a future event. There are four passages, besides the 
one before us, in which the word occurs with this special 
meaning. In Is. viii. 18, Isaiah calls his sons " signs and 
ivonders" (ninix and D^ri^Sn) in Israel, on account of the pro- 
phetic names, which they had received from the Lord, by 

1 Gesenius is wrong when he asserts (thes. s. v. riSs) that the i " t in 
s.11^) forms no part of the root. He brings forward as a proof of this the 

combination of dl^o) and ^\ calamitas, pernicies noxa from the root 

i S ti- But the two words have nothing in common, i **^i | by itself 

does not mean misfortune any more than nS'in Ps. Ixxi. 7. For, assuming 
this to be the primary meaning, how could it afterwards come to mean 
wonder ? 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. III. 8. 329 

whom they had been constituted types of the coming deliver- 
ance. In Is. XX. 3, the prophet is said to have walked naked 
and barefoot three years, as a type of the Egyptian nation, " for 
a sign and wonder upon Egypt." According to Ez. xii. 6, after 
the Lord had given the prophet instructions to set forth in his 
actions the future fate of the Israelites, he said to him, " I have 
made thee a tvonder for the house of Israel" (compare ver. 11), 
" say I am your wonder, like as I have done, so shall it be done 
unto you ; they shall go into captivity." In Ez. xxiv. the death 
of the prophet's wife is recorded. The prophet is forbidden to 
mourn for her, and thus the attention of the people is most 
strongly attached. They surmise that there must be some 
weighty reason for the prophet's conduct. The explanation comes 
to them from the Lord : " Ezekiel is to be a ivonder to you ; ac- 
cording to all that he hath done shall ye do." — (ver. 24 ; compare 
ver. 27). In all these passages risio answers exactly to rvuris 
rwM i/.iWmrojv \ with this single exception, that in the latter 
the objective side alone is made prominent, and there is no allu- 
sion to the subjective emotion of which it is the cause. ^ 

We now proceed to the details of this passage. By the com- 
panions of Joshua, who are directed to listen as well as he, we 
must understand his colleagues, the priests of a lower grade. 
First, this is apparent from the design of the whole prophecy. 
Joshua is spoken of throughout, not as a private person, but as 
High Priest. He is introduced as engaged in the perform- 
ance of the duties of his office ; and even in this verse he is 
expressly appealed to as High Priest. Hence, if his companions 
are spoken of here, they must be his colleagues in the priest- 
hood, and not such as are associated with him in any other capa- 
city. — Secondly, the expression, " who sit before thee," leads to 
the same conclusion. This does not refer to the connection be- 
tween a teacher and his pupils, but to that between a president 
at a board, and the rest of the members, or, generally, between 
a chief and his subordinates {vid. Ez. viii. 1 ; Num. iii. 4 ; and 
1 Sam. iii. 1). 3«" is the term ordinarily applied to the meet- 
ings of public officials {vid. Ex. xviii. 13 ; Ps. cxxii. v.). It was 

1 Cocceius saw this : " men of wonder (or prophetic sign, poHenti) are 
those to whom something wonderful or unusual happens, that men may be 
stirred up to think of my promises." 



330 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

by no means an infrequent thing for priests to meet in this way 
under the presidency of the High priest (see Lightfoot on Matt, 
xxvi. 3. Lund. p. 517). The expression, which was first used 
in connection with these meetings, was then transferred to the 
general relation in which the High Priest stood to the priests 
as his subordinates. Just as the priests are called the com- 
panions of the High Priest in the passage before us ; so in Ezra iii. 
2 they are called his brethren, " then stood up Joshua and his 
brethren, the priests, and Zerubbabel and his brethren." — *3, 
of which many a false interpretation has been given, explains the 
reason why Joshua and his companions are ordered to pay atten- 
tion. They are to listen with peculiar attention to the pro- 
mise of the Messiah, because they stand in a closer relation 
to him, as being types of him, and because their order will 
be glorified by him, in whom alone the idea of the order will be 
fully realised. — Commentators have found great difficulty in the 
word non^ which appears to refer exclusively to the companions 
of Joshua, whereas Joshua himself, as the chief, was the most 
perfect type of the Messiah. But this difficulty falls away, when 
we observe that the prophet passes abruptly from the second 
person to the third ; and evidently means that " Joshua and his 
companions are to hear ; for they are," &c. This is obvious 
from ver. 9, where Joshua is spoken of in the third person. 
Such changes in the construction are very frequent ; e.g. Zeph. 
ii. 12, " ye Cushites also, dead men of the sword are they" (Q'""); 
Ez. xxviii. 22 ; Jer. vii. 4. — The second '^ (for) explains the 
reason, why Joshua and his associates are naSn »^^"^n (men of 
wonder). The reason is to be found in the appearance of the anti- 
type. For if there is no reality in this, the type itself falls away. 
The antitype, the Messiah, is called by two names. First, he is 
described as my servant, (as in Is. xlii. 1, xlix. 3, 5, 1. 10, Hi. 
13, liii. 11 ; Ez. xxxiv. 23, 24). Of these passages, it was evi- 
dently Isaiah Iii. and liii., which the prophet had in his mind, as 
we may see from ver. 9, where the removal of iniquity is men- 
tioned as the especial work of the Messiah. And, secondly, 
he is called hdx, a sprout. The latter expression contains an 
allusion to the original lowliness of the Messiah ; at first he will 
resemble, not a proud tree, but a sprout, which grows but gra- 
dually into a tree. This is confirmed by the parallel passages. 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. III. 8. 331 

which will be collected at vol. ii. p. 13. Of these passages, 
judging from the relation in which Zechariah ordinarily stood to 
the prophets from whom they are cited, the quotations from 
Jeremiah (xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15) and Ezekiel were probably those 
which he had more particularly in his mind at the time. There 
is no necessity for assuming, as several commentators have done, 
that the sprout means the sprout of David. The expression 
denotes the original lowliness of the Messiah as a general fact, 
and not merely, as in Is. xi. 1, his descent from the family of 
David, which had fallen into obscurity ; though the one was a 
necessary consequence of the other. ^ The only question that 



1 Quenstedt's assertion is incorrect, that " a sprout is a term denoting de- 
scent and affiliation . . . and always has reference to the root from which 
it springs." In Is. liii. 2 the Messiah is also described as a tender sprout, 
piv, in opposition to a proud tree, without any regard to his descent, but 
simply as an indication of his original lowliness. Calvin says : " he compares 
Christ to a sprout, because he appeared to spring, as it were, from nothing — 
because his origin was contemptible. For what pre-eminence did Christ 
obtain in the world when he was born ? How did he found his kingdom ? 
And how was his priesthood inaugurated ? " In the Septuagint r\^)i is ren- 
dered avaToxiij but as Jevome has correctly stated (on chap. vi. 12), the word 
is used in the sense oi sprout, and not of " a rising light," as many expositors 
have falsely assumed. The word avaroxh is used in the same sense in Ezek. 
xvi. 7 {a.va.ToXri rou ay{iv) and xvii. 10. The verb nov is sometimes ren- 
dered dvaTiXXtiv, il,a.vaT'iXXltv and at other times (pvnv, asiaipCut and pXctgruynv, 

the words being used interchangeably. In Jer. xxxiii. 15 nox is translated 
liXaffTo; (as it is also by Symmachus in the same passage), and in Jer. xxiii. 
5 by ^xda-rnfio. (vid. March exercitt. misc. p. 160 sqq.). It was generally 
admitted by the earlier Jews that " the servant of the Lord, Zemach," meant 
the Messiah. In the Chaldee the passage is paraphrased thus : " behold I 
bring my servant, the Messiah, who will be made manifest." In Echa Rab- 
bati, Zemach is inti'oduced under the name of the Messiah. And in the 
Christian Church, also, this view was the prevailing one from the very earliest 
times. There were some of the Church Fathers, however (Theodorci in loco, 
and, so far as we can gather from his obscure expressions, probably Eusebiiis 
demonstr. 1. 4 c. 17), who were misled by the expression in the parallel pas- 
sage, chap. vi. 13, " he will build the temple of the Lord," and imagined that 
Zerubbabel was intended. On another ground, — namely, the wish to do away 
with all references to the Messiah as far as possible, the same opinion is 
advocated by some of the later Jewish expositors, and also by Grotius. The 
objection generally offered is this, that noy is a standing term for the 
Messiah, and is more particularly used by Jeremiah, the forerunner of 
Zechariah, in this sense ; and that some person is promised here, who is yet 
to come, whereas Zerubbabel had already been actively employed for a long 
time in the new colony ; but there is a stronger objection still, — namely, that 
such an interpretation is altogether opposed to the design of the prophecj^. 
What had Zerubbabel to do with a prophecy which was occupied throughout 
with the priesthood ? How could his appearance be specially announced as 
peculiarly honourable and delightful to the priests, or how could it be repre- 
sented as a higher good, in contrast with the lower good which had already been 



332 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

remains to be answered is in what sense the priests are described 
as types of the Messiah. That which constituted them types 
cannot possibly have been anything else than the distinguishing 
characteristic of their ofiSce ; for the fact that the colleagues of 
Joshua are associated with him is a sufficient proof that the 
reference is to his office, and not to his person. Now the pecu- 
liar distinction of the priestly office was its mediatorial character ; 
and from the circumstances of the nation, for which it interceded 
with God, it was occupied chiefly with obtaining the forgiveness 
of sins, by means of sacrifice and prayer. The Messiah there- 
fore could be represented as the antitype of the priesthood, only 
so far as he was to effect in the most perfect manner that media- 
tion and expiation which had been but partially effected by the 
latter. And this is still further confirmed by the following 
considerations : — (1.) We have already seen that the nation was 
in trouble about the forgiveness of its sins, and was comforted 
by the assurance that, notwithstanding the sins, the Lord would 
not cast away the priesthood. If then the priesthood comes into 
consideration throughout, solely in connection with the pardon 
of the nation, and if Joshua is introduced as occupied in securing 
this, what other conclusion can we come to, than that the High 
Priest, who is promised here as the antitype, is contrasted with 
the typical High Priest merely in reference to the complete 
atonement to be effected by him ? (2.) The Lord expressly 
promises in ver. 9 that he will wipe away the sins of the whole 
land through his servant. (3.) The forgiveness of sins is re- 
ferred to throughout as a distinguishing characteristic of the 
Messianic times (Acts x. 43). In Zech. xiii. 1 the prophet 
describes it as the chief blessing to be conferred upon such as 
shall look upon him whom they have pierced, that they will 
possess an open fountain for all sin and uncleanness. But the 
greatest light is thrown upon this passage by Is. liii., where the 
Messiah is represented as being at the same time both the true 
sacrifice and the true High Priest. As the latter, he sprinkles 
many nations (chap. lii. 15) ; presents a sin-offering liii. 10) ; 

bestowed upon them, the confirmation of their office on the part of God? 
In what respect were the priests types of Zerubbabel ? And in what sense 
could the removal of the sin of the land in one day (ver. 9) be attributed to 
him ? 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. III. 9. 333 

and represents transgressors (ver. 12). The difference between 
this passage and our own is merely that in the former the means 
are described by which the High Priest is to effect reconciliation, 
but not in the latter. And finally, even as early as Ps. ex., the 
Messiah is represented as a High Priest. 

Ver. 9. " For behold, the stone, that I have laid he fore Joshua, 
upon this one stone are seven eyes, I ivill heiv it out, saith the 
Lord of Sahaoth, and wipe out the iniquity of this land in one 
day." 

*3 shows that this verse assigns the reason for the statement 
contained in the clause immediately preceding : " for I bring my 
servant Zemach ;" just as the first '3 in ver. 8 introduces the 
reason for the command to " hear," and the second the reason 
for the assertion, " they are types." So far as appearances were 
concerned, there was nothing that indicated the coming of the 
Messiah. The deplorable condition of the new colony seemed 
to preclude the least prospect of the fulfilment of such splendid 
promises {cf chap. iv. 10). Hence the Lord, the Almighty 
(Jehovah Sabaoth) , turns the attention away from what is seen, 
by pointing to his loving care for the good of his kingdom, as 
the foundation of the promised blessings. — The eyes are the 
symbol of the powers of God, which are at work both above and 
within the sphere of creation. In Ezek. i. 18, the felloes of the 
wheels, which were attached to the cherubs, are described as full 
of eyes ; and according to chap. x. 12, " their whole flesh, and 
their backs, and their hands and their wings, were full of 
eyes." In Kev. iv. 8, the four beasts, the representatives of 
the living creation, which is entirely pervaded with spirits, are 
said to have been " full of eyes within and round about." Accord- 
ing to Rev. V. 6, the lamb had " seven eyes, which are the 
seven spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth." And in Zech. 
iv. 10 the operations of the Spirit of the Lord (compare chap, 
iv. 6, " by my spirit") are represented under the figure of the 
seven eyes of the Lord, which run to and fro through the whole 
earth. It is a matter of comparative indifference, whether the 
seven eyes, the fulness of the creative power of God, and the 
whole energy of his Providence, are to be understood as being 
upon the stone, which the original passages in Ezekiel, and the 
parallel passage in the Revelations, would lead us to suppose, or as 
directed towards the stone, which we might infer from chap. iv. 



334 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

10, where the seven eyes of the Lord are represented as looking 
upon the plummet in Zechariah's hand, and where in fact " these 
seven eyes " are introduced as the same as those already referred 
to. — The question also arises, what are we to understand by the 
stone, upon which the seven eyes are described ? Early exposi- 
tors were almost unanimous in referring it to the Messiah. But 
this cannot be the meaning, as we may see from the expression 
" which I have laid before Joshua," where the stone is repre- 
sented as something already in existence, and simply to be orna- 
mented in the future, and also from the words, " I will hew it out." 
Others speak of the foundation stone of the temple ; but we can- 
not see how this was to be carved. The correct explanation is, 
that the unhewn stone, which is to be polished and carved by 
the Lord, is a figurative representation of the nation and king- 
dom of God, descriptive of its present lowly condition, and the 
glory, which it is afterwards to receive from the Lord. In this 
case, the stone is very appropriately described as lying before 
Joshua, since he had at that time the chief oversight over the 
church of the Lord {vid. ver. 7). On the employment of the 
figure of a stone to represent the kingdom and people of G-od, 
see the notes on Is. xxviii. 16 (vol. 2 p. 155) and the commen- 
tary on Ps. cxviii. 22. The antithesis to the insignificant stone 
referred to here, on which, however, there are seven eyes, is 
found in the large mountain mentioned in chap, iv, 7. which 
represents the power of the world. This stone has nothing to 
do with the precious stones on the shoulders and breast "of the 
High Priest. It is treated rather as an incipient mountain, as 
in Dan. ii. 35 (compare Jer. li. 63, 64), where the stone also 
represents the mountain. On the polishing and carving of the 
rough stone compare Ex. xxviii. 9, 11, and 21, and MicliaeUs, 
" I will make it into a highly ornamented stone." It consists 
chiefly in the sending of the Messiah, but without excluding 
the earlier manifestations of the mercy of God. Through him, 
according to Haggai's contemporaneous prophecy, (chap. ii. 7 — 
10), the second temple was to be filled with glory, and to be 
made more glorious than the first, — o^nins nn& ; to open open- 
ings, to carve. — ^1° is transitive in this case, in other cases 
it is intransitive, recedere. This land ; — viz. the land of Judah, 
which is the only place mentioned here, because, although the 
reconciliation to be effected by the Messiah was to extend farther 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IV. 335 

than this, and even over the whole Gentile world, the prophet's 
design throughout this prophecy was simply to comfort the 
troubled minds of his own people. The expression " in one day," 
where the day is mentioned as the shortest portion of time, im- 
plies that the atonement to be made by the Messiah wi]l not be 
constantly repeated, like that made by the typical priesthood, but 
completed in one single action. 

Ver. 10. "On this day, saith the Lord of Hosts, yeiuill invite 
one another under the vine, and under the fig-tree." 

These words contain a figurative description of the repose, the 
peace, and the prosperity, which are to follow upon the forgive- 
ness of sins obtained by the Messiah. The original passage is 
in Micah iv, 4. 



5. THE CANDLESTICK AND THE TWO OLIVE TREES. 

(Chapter iv.) 

We must imagine a pause between this vision and the one 
before it. The interpreter had left the prophet for a short time, 
and the latter had come back from his ecstasy into the condition 
of ordinary consciousness. The weakness of human nature, and 
its inability to bear a vision of supersensual objects for any length 
of time, had been made manifest in his case ; as they afterwards 
were in that of Peter and his companions, who could not help 
falling asleep during the transfiguration of Christ (Luke ix. 
32). " And the angel that talked with me," the prophet says in 
ver. 1, " came again and waked me as a man that is wakened 
out of his sleep." We have here the deepest insight into the 
state in which the prophets were, during their prophecies, as 
compared with their ordinary condition. The two bear the same 
relation to each other as sleep and waking. A man's ordinary 
state, in which he is under the control of the senses, and unable 
to raise his spiritual eye to the contemplation of divine objects, 
is one of spiritual sleep ; but an ecstatic condition, in which the 
senses with the whole lower life were quiescent, and only pictures 
of divine objects were reflected in the soul, as in a pure and un- 
tarnished mirror, was one of spiritual waking. This explanation 



336 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

which is the only true one, has not been adopted by any of the 
commentators, with the exception of Cyril, who says, " our con- 
dition, when compared with that of the angels, is to be regarded 
as a sleep." The others, as for example Tlieodoret, Jerome, and 
Vitringa, have been led astray by their preconceived and errone- 
ous opinions as to the condition of the prophets while they were 
prophesying. They suppose that, in this case, the prophet was 
so absorbed in the contemplation of the vision described in chap, 
iii. that the admonition of the interpreter was needed to direct 
his attention to the new scene which opened before him. But it is 
a sufficient objection to this supposition, that it completely over- 
looks the expression, " the angel came again," and can give no 
reason for his having gone away. 

The new vision which is now presented to the prophet's view 
is the following. He sees a candlestick of pure gold, and over 
it an oil-vessel, from which the oil flows into the seven lamps of 
the candlestick, into each one through seven tubes. ^ On the two 
sides of the candlestick, and towering above it, stand two olive 
trees. The interpreter first of all reminds the prophet of his 
human weakness, and directs his attention to the deep signifi- 
cance of what he saw, by asking him the question, " Knowest 
thou what this meaneth ?" and then proceeds to give the follow- 
ing explanation of its meaning (vers. 6 and 7) : " this (this 
vision, so far as it embodies a prophecy) is the word of the Lord 
to Zerubbabel : not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, 
saith the Lord of Sabaoth. Who art thou, thou great molmtain 
before Zerubbabel ? Into a plain ! And he has brought out 
the foundation-stone with the shouting (of angels, Luke ii. 13), 
' Grace, grace unto it.' " (As the foundation of the temple had 
been laid long before, n'^ii must be rendered as an ordinary 
preterite [not as a prophecy] : he has brought out, namely in 

1 The number seven occurs so frequently (seven lamps, seven times, seven 
pipes, seven eyes) that we are led at the outset to expectthe form of the nar- 
rative to correspond, especially as the whole consists of fourteen verses. 
These are divided into two sevens, and eacli of these into two parts of three 
and four verses respectively. In the first seven we have the vision (ver. 1 — 3), 
and a concise explanation (ver. 4 — 7). In the second we have a further ex- 
pansion of the fundamental idea contained in the explanation (ver. 8 — 10), 
followed by a supplement to the account of the vision, in the shape of an 
incident which had been passed over before, that the attention might not be 
diverted from the leading idea (ver. 11 — 14). 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IV. 337 

laying the foundation of the temple, as the result will show). 
Hence the meaning of the vision is this : the interests of the 
Church are not promoted by human strength, but by the Spirit 
of God alone, by which it is inspired, defended, and sustained. 
This truth is applicable to the Church of God in all ages, but 
the immediate object in setting it forth in symbol at this parti- 
cular time was to impart consolation to the desponding nation 
and its head, and thus to give them strength to enter with 
greater spirit into the work of building the temple. For what 
did it matter though whole mountains of dilBficulties stood in the 
way, and even the gigantic mountain of worldly power rose up 
to intercept the work,^ since it did not depend upon the power 
of man, of which indeed there was none at command, but the 
Lord had taken the whole upon himself ? With this explana- 
tion, the general and the particular stand in their proper relation 
to each other. The immediate fulfilment in connection with 
which Zerubbabel was the representative of the family of David, 
the temple, of the kingdom of God, and the Persian empire, of 
the worldly power in general, was merely the prelude to the true 
accomplishment. The great mountain did not become truly a 
plain till Christ appeared. — We proceed now to inquire in what 
relation the symbol and its interpretation stand to each other. 
Oil is one of the most clearly defined symbols in the Bible (com- 
pare the remarks on Dan. ix. 24). It always represents the 
Spirit as dwelling in the Church. At the same time it must be 
noticed that it is the physical, rather than the moral operations 
of the Spirit, which come into consideration here. Our remarks 
upon the seven spirits, mentioned in Eev. i. 4, are perfectly ap- 
plicable to the passage before us : " the seven spirits form here 
a mighty bulwark against despair, a compact phalanx, by which 
all the attacks of the world-power upon the Church must be 

1 A mountain is too commonly used as the symbol of a kingdom for us to 
suppose that, in this instance, the great mountain merely represents difficul- 
ties in general (see my commentary on Psalm Ixviii. 17 and Lsxvi. 5, and on 
Rev. viii. 18). The same symbol occurs in the books of Zechariah's imme- 
diate predecessors Jeremiah (li. 25, 63, 64) and Daniel, the latter of whom 
describes the stone, which breaks the image, as becoming a great mountain, 
and filling the whole earth (chap. ii. 35). There is an evident allusion, in 
the great mountain mentioned here, to the great mountain referred to in 
Daniel. Whilst the stone in the one case becomes a great mountain, the 
great mountain in the other turns into a plain. 

VOL. III. Y 



338 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

defeated. The seven spirits press into the service of the Church, 
delivering and helping, overthrowing and destroying even to the 
uttermost corners of the earth." If, then , the oil is the Spirit, 
so far as he dwells in the church, the olive trees can only be the 
Spirit regarded in his transcendental existence. — The candlestick 
also is quite as well defined a symbol as the oil. As the vehicle 
of the Spirit of God, it can only denote the community, the 
people of the covenant, the Church. In Kev. i. 20 it is expressly 
stated that " the seven candlesticks are seven churches ;" (for the 
meaning of the candlestick see the commentary in loc. and the 
Dissertation on the Pentateuch, vol. ii. p. 528). That the 
candlestick is entirely composed of the purest metal, — namely, 
gold, is a sign of the glory of the Church of God. The great 
number of tubes, seven for every one of the seven lamps, shows 
the variety of the channels, by which the mercy and power of 
God are communicated to his Church, and also the abundance of 
the supply.^ 

There are many who suppose, that in the description, which 
the prophet has given of the symbol, he has omitted one circum- 
stance by mistake, — viz., the fact that in the two olive trees there 
were two branches full of olives, which lay in tw^o presses (for 
this is the way, in which niiju^y in ver. 12 must be rendered, 
as we may see among other things from the word il?, which 
cannot possibly be translated " hard by," as it has been by many 
expositors^), and fed the candlestick with oil, — and that he sup- 



1 Nothing but confusion results from the opinion expressed by Hitzig and 
others, that the seven lamps are the same as the seven eyes of the Lord men- 
tioned in ver. 10. We i-ead there : "for who hath despised the day of small 
things, for they rejoice and see (equivalent to see with joy) the plummet in 
the hand of Zerubbabel, these seven, the eyes of the Lord : they run to and 
fro through the whole earth." " These seven" are already known from hav- 
ing been mentioned in the previous vision (chap. iii. 9), which is closely con- 
nected with the one before us {vid. ver. 14). But in order to prevent any 
obscurity, and the possibility of the seven being confounded with the seven 
lamps in ver. 2, the eyes of the Lord are expressly mentioned again. The 
eyes are the symbol of the operations of the Spirit of the Lord, the powers of 
God as manifested both in and above the sphere of nature. These go through 
the whole earth, to ward off danger on every side from the kingdom of God, 
and to bring assistance from every quarter. 

2 If the opinion be still adhered to, that jrnnjy means pipes or channels, 
these channels mast at all events differ from the mpviD in ver. 2, as is 
evident from the difference in the name and in the number, and also from 
the word T3. In ver. 2 the pipes, referred to, were those which conducted 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IV. 339 

plies the omission in ver. 11 sqq. But the omission was inten- 
tional on his part. If this had been mentioned before, it would 
have interfered with the general impression produced by the 
symbol, and obscured its main design. The prophet, therefore, 
does not call attention to this particular circumstance, till he 
has received and reported the interpretation of the symbol gene- 
rally. He inquires first of all, in ver. 11, " what are these tivo 
olive trees ?" The question cannot refer to the meaning of the 
olive trees in general ; for the prophet had already been told that 
they were symbols of the Spirit of God. It can only relate to the 
number of the trees. But, before receiving a reply from the 
angel, the prophet perceives that the number is of no importance, 
so far as the trees are concerned, but that two trees are intro- 
duced simply on account of the two branches. He corrects him- 
self, therefore, and without waiting for an answer inquires in 
ver. 12, " what do these two ears ^ of the olive trees mean, which 
are in the two golden presses ?" and the fact that he receives 
from the interpreter a reply to the second question, but not to the 
first, shows that the number of the olive trees was not in itself a 
point of any importance. The answer runs thus: "they are 
the two sons of oil,^ which stand before the Lord of the whole 
earth." "iny with ''y literally means to stand over any one, but 
here it is used in the sense of serving ; the servants stand by the 
Lord who is seated ; compare Is. vi. 1, 2, •' the Lord sat upon a 
lofty throne ; . . , seraphim stood over him," that is, they 
stood by his side so as to rise above the seated Lord. 

The question arises now, who were these two sons of oil, the 



the oil from the vessel to the lamps ; here, on the other hand, the channels 
could only be those, by which the oil was conducted into the vessel itself. 
If we imagine these to have been open at the top, there would be no diiSculty 
in explaining the word n>3. The two olive branches lie in the channels. 

1 'Kimchi says, " he compares the branches of the olives to ears, because, as 
the latter are full of grains of corn, so the former were full of olives." 

2 nnx», a noun formed from the the third person future of -inv " it shines" 
(lit. the shining one), is a rhetorical, or poetical name for oil. It serves to 
indicate the relation in which -iny» stands to the ordinary word ]pz\ that 
the former only occurs once in the first four books of the Pentateuch, whereas 
the latter is met with very frequently ; on the other hand nnv» is used 
more frequently than |Dtt' in the book of Deuteronomy, in bariupny with 
the style of this book, which is generally more elevated tiian that of any of 
the others. 



340 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPEHTS. 

servants of the Lord xar i^^xfiM ? Many commentators suppose 
them to have been Zerubbabel and Joshua. And certainly one 
very strong argument may be adduced in support of this opinion. 
We cannot possibly be left to that species of conjecture, in which 
some indulge, who think of Haggai (a person never once named) 
and Zechariah. On the contrary we must look to the context 
for more precise information. Now in chap. iii. Joshua the 
High Priest is represented as " standing before the Lord," and 
in this very chapter Zerubbabel comes to his side as his colleague 
(ver. 14 is the connecting link between chap. iii. and iv.). They 
are both introduced, just like the two sons of oil in this case, as 
the persons by whom the whole covenant nation is represented, 
the medium through which it receives the grace of God. It is 
certain, however, that these two, considered merely as indivi- 
duals, cannot possibly be intended, but that they are regarded 
rather in their ideal character, as types and representatives ; for 
the simple reason, that the supply of oil for the candlestick, the 
communication of divine grace to the Church, cannot possibly be 
made to depend upon the lives of two frail and mortal men. It 
is with j ustice, therefore, that it has been assumed by others, 
that the two sons of oil denote the two offices of priest and king 
(or rather the sacerdotal and civil authorities in general), which 
were principally employed in the economy of the Old Testament 
as instruments of the grace of God, and of which Joshua and 
Zerubbabel were the existing representatives. These were the 
only orders which could be called sons of oil (a phrase descrip- 
tive of the grace of oiSce bestowed upon them by God, which was 
symbolised by the ceremony of anointing), the only orders which 
had really been anointed with oil at the very outset. With 
reference to the High Priest, compare the important passage in 
Lev. xxi. 12. The fact that the practice of anointing was 
dropped in the case of the civil authorities after the captivity, 
does not affect the question. They had been anointed in the 
persons of their predecessors in office, and the grace of office 
which the symbol expressed, they still retained. And the direct 
intention of the present symbolical representation was to assure 
both the High Priests and civil authorities, that this was the 
fact ; and by this assurance to comfort and gladden the hearts 
of the people ivho fancied that God had forsaken them. The 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. V. 1 — 4. 341 

civil and ecclesiastical authorities were still to be what they had 
previously been, the medium by which the Lord conveyed his 
blessings to his Church. But the promise received its most com- 
plete fulfilment in the coming of Christ, who is described in chap, 
vi. as combining both offices, that of High Priest as well as King, 
in his own person, who is specially referred to as High Priest in 
chap. iii. and as King in chap, ix., and through whom the oil of 
Divine grace was poured into the candlestick of the Church, in 
infinitely greater abundance than through any of the previous 
servants of God. 



6. THE FLYING ROLL. 

(Chap. V. 1—4). 

This vision and the one which follows are mournful in their 
character. Like the eleventh chapter, they show that it was not 
the prophet's object to urge forward the building of the temple 
at any cost, but that his main design was rather to lead the peo- 
ple to repentance and faith ; in which case zeal for the outward 
work, which was already commenced, would follow as a matter 
of course. Stimulated by Ezek. ii. 10, the prophet now sees a 
flying roll, twenty cubits long and ten cubits broad. These di- 
mensions correspond exactly to those of the porch of the temple 
(1 Kings vi. 3). This can hardly be accidental. The porch, 
the outermost portion of the actual temple, was the spot from 
which God was supposed to hold intercourse with his people, 
just as Solomon judged the people in the porch of his palace (1 
Kings vii. 7). Hence the altar of burnt-offering stood before 
the porch, in the fore-court of the priests ; and when any great 
calamity fell upon the land, the priests approached still nearer 
to the porch to offer their prayers, that they might, as it were, 
embrace the feet of their angry Father, Joel ii. 17. By giving 
to the flying roll, the symbol of the divine judgments upon the 
covenant nation, the same dimensions as those of the porch, the 
prophet appears to intimate that these judgments were a direct 
result of the theocracy. It may be, however, that the peculiar 
nature of the porch does not come into consideration, and that 
the only point of importance is the fact that the dimensions are 



342 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PliOPHETS. 

borrowed from one part of the temple. There is writing on both 
sides (n.Tpi) n;]:)?) qf the roll, as was the case, according to Ex. 
xxxii. 15, from which the expression itself is borrowed, with the 
tables of the law, and also with the roll in Ezek. ii. 9, 10. On 
one side stand the curses against those who abuse the name of 
the Lord to purposes of perjury ; on the other the curses against 
thieves, (pp^, to clean, is used here in the sense of wiping 
clean away ; cf. Is. iii. 26). The former are adduced as examples 
of those who broke the commandments of the first table, the 
latter of those who violated the second ; so that one side of the 
roll contained the judgment of God against the transgressors of 
the command, " thou shalt love the Lord thy Grod with all thy 
heart," and the other the judgments against the transgressors of 
the command, " thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."^ — This 
curse is to go out over the whole land, it is not merely to touch 
the wicked in a superficial and passing manner, but to consume 
them utterly and for ever with all they have and are. In the 
expression, " he consumes their house and its wood and its 
stones," there is an allusion to 1 Kings xviii. 38. We have here, 
therefore, an announcement of a new and terrible judgment from 
Grod, which was to fall upon Judea, when the ungodliness that 
already existed in the germ, even in the time of the prophet, should 
have taken root and put forth branches. It is still further ex- 
plained in chap, xi., how this ungodliness would lead the people 
to reject the good shepherd, and thus deprive them of the last 
means of deliverance. 



7. THE EPHAH AND THE WOMAN SITTING IN THE MIDST OF IT. 

(Chap. V. 5—11). 

The interpreter, who had gone away for a time to join the 
choir of the heavenly angels, comes back to the prophet, to explain 
to him the meaning of another vision. The expression, " the 
Angel of the Lord went forth," indicates the opening of a new 
scene and the occurrence of a pause between the two visions. 

1 BaumgaHen has pointed out the fact, that the prophet selects the middle 
command from each of the tables. 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. V. 5 — 11. 343 

The prophet sees a form rise up as it were out of a mist, but is 
not able to distinguish what it is. The interpreter tells him : 
" this is the ephah that goeth forth" not, " this which goeth 
forth is an ephah," for the grammatical construction does not 
admit of this. According to ver. 3, "going forth" is equivalent 
to appearing. We must not follow Jonathan, who understands 
it as meaning false measures. The meaning of the symbol is 
rather, " Israel will fill up the measure of its iniquity." The 
ephah, which was one of the largest measures, was peculiarly 
adapted to symbolise this thought. That it is sin which we are 
to understand as filling the measure, is not to be gathered from 
the symbol itself, but from its relation to the previous vision, the 
two visions forming a pair. The idea of there being a culminat- 
ing point in the course of sin, a point at which it brings punish- 
ment irresistibly in its train, occurs as early as in Gren. xv. 16 ; 
and in Matt, xxiii. 32 the Lord refers particularly to the measure 
being filled. The words of the Angel, " this is their eye in the 
ivhole land," may be most simply explained to mean, the efforts 
of the whole nation are directed to the filling up of the measure 
of its sin. yy is not " appearance," but " eye ;" compare chap. 
ix. 1, " the Lord is the eye of men," for, " the eye of the Lord is 
directed towards men." — On closer examination the prophet per- 
ceives, that there is a woman sitting in the ephah ; " this 
(equivalent to behold) a woman sitting in the midst of the 
ephah" (ver. 7). From the fact that the woman is mentioned 
for the first time here, it is evident that she must have j ust come 
into the ephah. Up to this time the woman had not shown her- 
self at all. In the 6th verse their eye (viz., that of the children 
of Israel) is spoken of; the nation therefore is still regarded 
according to its actual plurality, and not according to its ideal 
unity. The causal connection between sin and punishment is 
represented to the eye by the fact that the woman is obliged to 
fill with her own body the ephah, which she has already filled 
with her sins. The interpreter informs the prophet that the 
woman is ungodliness (cf Mai. i 4), the ungodly Jewish nation 
is called wickedness,^ like the ungodly Athaliali Mirshaat in 2 Chr. 
xxiv. 7. The woman is thrown down into the ephah, in which 

1 The opinion has obtained currency, that by wickedness here we are to 
understand wickedness in itself, and not as incorporated in Israel, in which 



344 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

she was at first sitting up so as to rise above it, and a heavy 
weight is laid upon her, — a symboHcal representation of the fact, 
that the Lord, by means of his judgments, would restrain the 
nation in its course of sin.^ Two women appear with wings, 
and carry the ephah through the air with the speed of the wind 
into the land of Shinar. The ephah is deposited there, and it is 
assigned to the woman as her permanent dwelling place. — The 
women undoubtedly represent the instruments to be employed 
by God in the punishment of his people, — namely, hostile nations, 
such as the Babylonians had formerly been. The number two 
forms part of the symbol, and has nothing to do with the thing 
signified. The weight of the ephah was so great, that it took 
two persons to carry it. In the description of the women as 
having wings like the luings of a stork, the size of the stork is 
the only point considered. The other comparisons that have 
been suggested are so far-fetched, that they can be nothing but 
guesses. Jonathan has given a correct explanation of the mean- 
ing of the whole symbolical representation : " swift people carry 
them swiftly away." Commentators have found great difficulty 
in explaining why the land of Shinar is mentioned, as that into 
which the Israelites are transported. Rosenmilller was led to 



case the whole prophecy Js changed from a threat into a promise. Accord- 
ing to Baumgarten, the leading idea is the " restoration of the congregation 
of the saints by the removal of impurity." But a comparison of the analogous 
verses 1 — 4 will show that this cannot be the meaning. The punishment of 
persons is spoken of there ; and just as we have in that case a representation 
of the punishment to be inflicted upon the sinners in the land, so have we 
here a representation of their removal yrom the land. A comparison of chap, 
xi., which is of great importance from the connection between the emblema- 
tical portion and chap ix. — xiv., leads to the same conclusion. Moreover, 
it is only concrete sin, sin in individuals, that admits of being carried away. 
The transportation of sin, apart from sinful individuals, is nonsense. Such 
an explanation breaks down the boundary which separates prophecy from 
poetry. But it is a sufl&cient objection to this explanation that it is impos- 
sible to understand why the sin should be taken to the land of Shinar parti- 
cularly. However, the wavering and multiplicity of conjectures, which 
distinguish these commentators, is in itself a proof, that they have no firm 
ground to stand upon. On the other hand, the allusion to Israel is con- 
spicuous in the evident reference to the Babylonish captivity, which appears 
to the prophet as revived. Shinar is mentioned in Is. xi. 11, and Dan. i. 2, 
as the scene of Israel's punishment and the land of exile. 

1 The analogous terms t]D3 nD3, 3m suffice to prove that 133 means 
a talent, the largest weight in use among the Hebrews. The sense in which 
the word Ntt': occurs in ver. 9 shows that the proper rendering is, " a talent 
of lead was lifted up." 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. VI. 1 — 8. 345 

infer that the prophet is describing a past event, — namely, the 
captivity of the Jews in Babylon, and not predicting a future 
one. But such a supposition is thoroughly untenable. All the 
rest of Zechariah's visions relate to the future. Why should 
this be the sole exception ? In the vision immediately preced- 
ing this, a coming judgment is foretold. Why should this relate 
to times gone by ? Moreover, the sojourn in Shinar, mentioned 
in ver. 11, is represented as of long duration and final in its 
character, in contrast with the other which was but short. 
Forced explanations, such as these and others like them, only 
betray a want of acquaintance with the essential character of the 
prophetic visions, and the custom, which the prophets adopted in 
consequence, of representing future events by images drawn from 
the past, and at the same time transferring to the former the 
names which belonged to the latter. We have a striking 
example of this custom in the case before us, an example, not 
only which cannot be set aside by any objections, but which 
serves to rebut many of the attacks upon the genuineness of the 
second part, to which the ignorance referred to has given rise. 
The future dwelling place of the Jews, who were to be banished 
from their country, is called by the name of the land in which 
they were captives before, just as in chap. x. 11, their future 
oppressors are called by the names of Assyria and Egypt. 



8. THE FOUR CHARIOTS. 

(Chap. vi. 1—8). 

This vision is closely connected with the preceding one, so far 
as the actual substance is concerned. As the Lord had judged 
his unfaithful nation, so will he also judge the heathen world, 
which raises itself in hostility to his kingdom. Compare the 
more detailed remarks in chaps, xii. — xiv. In these we find the 
parallels to this vision. In fact there is a remarkable parallelism, 
throughout, between the visions of the first part and the prophe- 
cies of the second, which we shall allude to more fully by and 

by. 

Let us now look more particularly at the form, in which this 
revelation is communicated to the prophet. 



346 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

He sees from chariots (verse 1). He is instructed as to their 
meaning by the interpreter, who tells him, " these are the four 
winds of heaven, which go forth, after they have stood serving 
before the Lord of the whole earth." The less intelligible sym- 
bol of the four chariots is explained by the well understood, and 
clearly defined symbol of the wings, the meaning of which could 
be easily discovered, especially from Zechariah's immediate pre- 
decessors. The four winds of heaven serve as symbols of the 
divine judgments. The judgments of God which break forth on 
all sides are represented in Jeremiah also (chap. xlix. 36) under 
the image of the four winds : " and upon Elam will I bring the 
four winds from the four quarters of heaven, and will scatter 
them towards all those winds." In Dan. vii. 2, the four winds 
of heaven are described as being " let loose upon the G-reat Sea," 
— a representation of the judgments to be executed by the great 
conquerors of the world. In Rev. vii. 1, four angels are said to 
" stand at the four corners of the earth, holding the four 
winds of the earth," indicating that the tempests of the divine 
judgments will break forth on every side. And, lastly, in 
Ezek. i. 4, the violent storm from the north denotes the judg- 
ment, which issues from Babylon and falls upon Judah. — 
According to ver. 5, the four winds come from " the Lord of 
the whole earth." We must therefore imagine the mountains 
as surrounding the dwelling place of God. The fact that the 
mountains are said to be of brass is a clear proof of their ideal 
character, and therefore of the error into which many have fkllen, 
who suppose that the allusion is to Zion and Moriah, whereas in 
reality these mountains never occur in the Scriptures in such a 
connection. The article shows, that the mountains have already 
been mentioned elsewhere. And it can hardly refer to any thing 
else than the words of the 125th Psalm, which was sung at the 
very time when the building of the temple was interrupted, 
" round about Jerusalem are mountains, and the Lord is round 
about his people." By these words the mountains round Jeru- 
salem were constituted a symbol of the divine protection, which 
is extended over his Church. Hence, the mountains are the 
spiritual mountains of the divine protection, which are said in 
Ps. cxxv. to be round about his people. The fact that there are 
two mountains shows that they are protected on both sides. They 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. VI. 1 — 8. 347 

are said to be of brass, to indicate that the Lord surrounds his 
kingdom with a protecting wall of impregnable strength. And 
finally, that the description is figurative throughout, and cannot 
be understood as announcing that the temple will be still standing, 
at the time when the judgments fall upon the nations of the 
earth, is evident partly from this description of the mountains, 
and partly from the previous chapter, where we find the predic- 
tion that Jerusalem will be completely destroyed, and the people 
led away into captivity before the destruction of the nations 
commences. 

The colour of the horses is just as significant in this passage 
as in chap. i. It indicates that the chariots are destined to exe- 
cute judgment upon the enemies of God. The meaning of three 
of the colours is evident enough. iVs we have shown at chap, i., 
red is the colour of blood, black of mourning, and ivhite indicates 
a glorious victory over the enemies of the kingdom of God. 
From these analogies it necessarily follows, that the colour of the 
speckled horses must also have a meaning. The word literally 
means hail-like (Gousset : x*'^'='s°'^'^^^°'' g'^'andinati h. e. punctis 
notati quasi grandineis globulis). Hail in the Scriptures is 
frequently employed as a figurative representation of the divine 
judgments, which fall upon the ungodly. Compare Rev. viii. 7 
(where the seer beholds the devastations of war, which overtake 
the ungodly world, concentrated into a great hail-storm) ; Ezek. 
xiii. 11 ; Is. xxxii. 19 ; and Rev. xvi. 21. 

After the description of the colour of the horses belonging to 
the fourth chariot, there follows a second predicate, d'vdn. 
There can be no doubt as to the meaning of this word ; it can 
only signify powerful. Now from the position in which the 
horses of the fourth chariot stand, this predicate cannot apply to 
them in contrast with those of the other three chariots, but must 
in fact belong equally to the whole ; although only formally 
connected with the fourth. This is confirmed by ver. 7, where 
the same predicate is applied in a peculiar manner to the horses 
of the first chariot, in accordance with the position in which they 
stand. 

After obtaining from the interpreter an answer to his question, 
as to the meaning of the four chariots (vers. 4, 5), the prophet 
proceeds to describe the direction which, by his inward sight, he 



348 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

saw them take, " The chariot with the black horses went to the 
north country, and the white followed them, and the speckled 
luent to the south country. And when the strong ones went 
forth, they desired to go through the whole earth, and the Lord 
said, depart and go through the earth, and they loent through 
the earth." The difficulty, by which commentators have been 
induced to resort to the most forced interpretations, arises from 
the fact that the black horses of the second chariot are men- 
tioned first, and the red horses of the first chariot appear to be 
entirely overlooked. But on closer examination the difficulty 
vanishes. The red horses of the first chariot are the strong ones ^ 
mentioned here (the principal cause of the mistakes into which 
the commentators have fallen is their having overlooked the 
article) ; the strong ones, that is those in comparison with which 
the others were to be regarded as weak, although in themselves 
they were really strong and this epithet had already been applied 
to some of them, in other words, the strongest among them. They 
are mentioned last, because in the consciousness of their strength 
they were not content, like the rest, with one particular portion 
of the earth, but asked permission of the Lord to go through the 
whole earth. The idea intended to be expressed is, that the 
judgment was to be a universal one, and not a single portion 
of the earth was to be spared. 

The chariot with the black horses and the one with the white 
both go to the north country. There must be a reason for this 
quarter being expressly mentioned, and for the two chariots going 
thither. The inhabitants of the north country, — an expression 
applied throughout to the Babylonians and Assyrians {vid. chap, 
ii. 10, 11), — had been in past times the most dangerous enemies 
of the covenant nation. Hence the prophet uses them as a type 
of the future enemies of the Church. Shinar is employed in the 
same way in the previous chapter, as a type and figure. 

Pretty nearly the same may be said of the south country. To 

1 To Hofmann's question, " how do we know that the red horses were the 
strongest ?" it is a sufficient reply, that the red alone remained, and that it 
was all the more impossible that they could be overlooked, since they took 
the lead in the whole series. They must, therefore, of necessity be tacitly 
implied in tlie strong ones, and this is confirmed by the fact that if the 
horses of all the four chariots were strong, it might be presupposed, that 
those of the first chariot would be the strong among the strong. 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. VI. 9 — 15. 349 

the south of Palestine dwelt the Egyptians (Dan. xi. 5), the first 
oppressors of the people of God, who are classed by Zechariah 
on other occasions with the enemies from the north, as a type of 
the future enemies of the nation (compare chap. x. 10, 11). The 
fact that only one chariot goes to them represents them as com- 
paratively less steeped in guilt, their oppression appearing in a 
less glaring light on account of the distance of time. 

The vision concludes with an explanation, given by the Lord 
to the prophet, of the reason why the chariots are sent away, 
" Behold, those that go to the north country quiet my spirit in the 
north country." We have no right to substitute wrath for spirit, 
on the ground of such passages as Ezek. v. 13, xvi. 42. The 
Spirit of God is introduced in chap. iv. 6, 7, and Rev. i. 4, as the 
power which sustains the weakness of the Church and removes 
all the hindrances that the world places in its way. According 
to Is. iv. 4 it is by the Spirit that the Lord executes his judg- 
ments on the earth. This Spirit of God is quieted in the north 
country, with regard to its operations and the manifestations of 
its power, — namely, the judgments which it executes there. The 
necessity for this closing explanation arose from the fact that 
the symbol of the chariots had been explained in ver. 5, not in 
a literal manner, but by a figure, which was less obscure, no 
doubt, than the symbol, but still required a further elucidation, 
the design throughout being to furnish the means of obtaining 
such a clue to the meaning of the symbol, as should be unexcep- 
tionally certain. The explanation applies, it is true, directly to 
only one quarter, and that the quarter which, as we have already 
observed, was the principal mark of the judgments of God. But 
the prophet could easily infer from this, what must be the desti- 
nation of the others, which were sent out under similar circum- 
stances. 



9. THE CROWN ON JOSHUA's HEAD. 

(Chap. vi. 9—15). 

The future history of the kingdom of God, which the prophet 
had just described, and the judgment upon both the former 



350 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

people of the covenant and the other nations of the earth, had 
their origin and course in the promised " Anointed of the Lord," 
whose appearance is presupposed. That the attention of the 
prophet, and consequently that of the nation, may be directed to 
Him, He is presented once more to the prophet's inward sight 
towards the close of his ecstatic condition ; and, as the last words 
show, with this pleasant and at the same time terrible image, 
the whole series of visions, the contents of which in some way or 
other all referred to Him, are brought to a close. 

The section consists of seven verses, divided into three and 
four, the first portion containing the symbolical action, the second 
the interpretation. 

There is a close connection with the previous visions, as the 
absence of any reference to a difference of time sufficiently shows. 
And the opening words, " it came to pass," lead to the same 
conclusion. But it does not stand on a perfect equality with 
the previous sections, as we may see from the double number 
four, which serves to show that they are complete in themselves, 
an arrangement which there is less reason for regarding as pos- 
sibly accidental, on account of the new commencement being 
clearly pointed out in the case of the second section in chap. iv. 
1, and also from the fact that there is no vision in this case, 
and therefore no interpreter, but a direct message from the Lord, 
containing instructions to perform a symbolical action. 

Ver. 9. ''And the ivord of the Lord came to me : (Ver. 10) 
Take from the captives from Cheldai, from ToUah', from 
Jedaiah, going on that day into the house of Josiah, the son of 
Zephaniah, whether they are come from Babylon ; (Ver. 11) take 
silver and gold and make croiuns, and place them on the head 
of Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, the High Priest. 

The Jews, who had remained behind in Babylon in great 
numbers, when they heard of the recommencement of the build- 
ing of the temple, which had taken place five months before, 
sent messengers to Jerusalem with contributions. This is not 
necessarily implied, it is true, in the expression " of the captives," 
or of the exiles, in ver, 10 ; for nSijn is sometimes applied in 
the Book of Ezra, not to those who were still in exile, but to 
those who had already returned, and who are commonly called 
" the sons of the captives." But it clearly follows from the close 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. VI. 9 — 11. ' 351 

of ver. 10, where it is expressly stated that the persons raen- 
tioned had come from Babylon, and where the name of their 
host in Jerusalem is given. ^ It is also implied in ver. 15. The 
representatives of the " captives" are there exhibited, as a type 
of the distant heathen nations, who would one day be actively 
engaged in promoting the erection of the temple, or church of 
God. But this type vanishes, if we understand the captivity as 
meaning the exiles who had long since returned. In ver. 10 we 
have, first of all, the simple infinitive mpS^ a sign that further 
details are to follow. As the verb is separated from its object 
by a particular account of those, from whom the things referred 
to were to be taken, it is repeated for the sake of greater per- 
spicuity. nSijn HKD is placed before the names of the difierent 
individuals, to show that they had not come on their own account, 
but as representatives and messengers of a whole body, — namely, 
of the Jews who were still in exile ; just as Sherezer and Regem- 
melech are introduced in chap. vii. 2 as the messengers of the 
Jews of Palestine, and say in the name of the whole nation, 
" shall I weep," &c. (ver. 3). The representative character of 
the individuals referred to had an important bearing upon the 
object, which the prophet had in view. It was only in this 
character, that they could fitly be used as a type of the heathen 
nations. From ver. 14, where the crowns are said to be placed 
upon the heads of the persons named for a memorial, Maurer 
and others would infer that the gifts were presented by those 
who brought them. But all that can be gathered from this 
verse is, that they were the spiritual centre of the whole trans- 
action, and had probably contributed the largest proportion of 
the collection that had been made. Moreover, as the nSu was 
not an organised body, the deputation must not be regarded as 
having been formally appointed. The " wise men from the 
East" were delegates from the heathen world, though they had 
not received any formal appointment. — In the prophet's estima- 
tion the names of the messengers are just as typical as their 



1 It is a decisive objection to the rendering "and of Josiah, tlie son of 
Zephaniah, who had come from Babylon, going into the house of the latter," 
which makes Josiah one of the messengers, that in this case he could not 
have had a house in Jerusalem. It will subsequently appear, however, that 
the host was a party concerned. 



352 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

persons. He regards them as indicative of the distinguishing 
characteristics of those, whom the individuals themselves repre- 
sented, and of the blessings they were destined to receive. This 
is apparent from ver. 14. Two of the representatives are called 
there by different names from those mentioned here ; though 
they have precisely the same signification. *lVn (Cheldai) the 

robust (from i^^ = jJLii^ perennavit, sempiternus fuit, vegeta 
viridique senectute fuit),^ is called there o^n the strong, from 
oSn to be strong. Josiah ("God founds or supports"), from 
nv» = tt?VK to found, from which n;;^'N, a support (Jer. 1. 15), 
is derived, is called there |n favour {cf chap. iv. 7, xii. 10 ; 
Zechariah uses the word ^n exclusively with reference to the 
o-race of God). The change, which is intentionally made in the 
first and last names, is designed to show that the names are not 
used as current coin, but are to be taken in their primary signi- 
fication. No further proof need be given that the other names, 
Tohiah (goodness of God)^, Jedaiali (God knows), and Zepha- 
niah (God conceals, Ps. cxxvii. 5), were also adapted to the 
prophet's design. — On «inn dS*? Michaelis justly observes : " On 
that day, — namely, the day on which thou art to perform 
what I now command. Perhaps God had fixed a particular 
day in the vision, which the prophet did not think it so neces- 
sary to mention in his account of the vision itself — Take silver 
and gold and make crowns. The prophet is to ask for as much 
of the silver and gold, which they had brought with them, as 
would be required to carry out the instructions given by the 
Lord. Commentators differ as to the number of crowns to be 
made. The majority are in favour of two, on the ground that 
otherwise the type would not correspond to the fact, or to 
the prophecy which follows, in which the combination of the 
royal and high-priestly dignity in the person of the Messiah is 
announced. But Marck has said with perfect justice in reply to 
this argument : "ad sacerdotium cogitanduna non ducit heic 
corona, sed persona et munus Josute." We cannot see why 

1 That the primary meaning of nSn is that of duration has been already 
shown at Ps. xvii. 14. JeuJiari says : de homine dicitur iSn quando per- 
sistit et viget. 

- Jod in proper names is usually a connecting vowel and not a suffix. 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. VI. 9 — 11. 353 

another type should be introduced of the very same thing, of 
which Joshua himself was a type already, as chap. iii. expressly 
shows. Moreover, there is not the slightest intimation of there 
being two crowns ; — certainly not in the fact that there were 
two metals, which might just as well be made into one crown, or 
even into several, as into two. — Lastly, it is very questionable 
whether the head-dress of the high priest could be called ^^^^v., 
(a crown) , a name which is never applied to it. The choice, there- 
fore, lies between two opinions ; the first, that only one crown 
was to be made ; the other, that there were several. The plural 
n-i-iDv. cannot be adduced in support of the latter. For the 
plural may properly serve to show the glory of the crown ; or 
may be explained from the fact that kings of kings had a dif- 
ferent crown from ordinary monarchs, — namely, one composed of 
several crowns or diadems. The plural is undoubtedly used for 
one crown in Job xxxi. 36 : "I will bind it on me as a crown,'' 
where a composite crown must necessarily be alluded to, just as 

in Rev. xix. 12 {aocl ettI rriv iCi(pa.Xriv xurov ^la.'^rifxa.rac '^oXXoi) 

Christ is said to wear, not many separate diadems, but many 
diadems joined together as a sign of his royal dignity. The use 
of the word Ataroth, as the name of a city, is also a proof that 
the plural was applied to one crown. The description of Sama- 
ria, in Is. xxviii. 1, as a crown of glory, corresponds to this. 
We are also led to the conclusion that there was but one crown, 
partly by the fact that a plurality would be both unmeaning 
and unsuitable, partly by the command to place it on the head of 
one man, Joshua, and partly also by the singular verb which fol- 
lows the plural nnay in ver. 14, though the latter alone would 
not be decisive. — Thus far we have simply a prophecy embodied 
in a symbolical action.^ Let us inquire how much of this would 
be intelligible to Joshua and his enlightened contemporaries, 
apart from the verbal prophecy, which follows. It must have 
been perfectly clear, that the crowning denoted the conferring of 
royal dignity. But with this the idea, that the acted prophecy 

1 Why was the crown not placed upon Zerubbabel's head ? In that case the 
leading idea, — namely, the union of the royal and high-priestly dignity, would 
not have been expressed. But could not the priestly diadem have been 
placed upon Zerubbabel ? Certainly, but Zerubbabel was not a king. He could 
not, therefore, have represented the royal dignity of the Messiah in his own 
person, as Joshua represented his high-priestly character. 

VOL. III. Z 



354 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PEOPHETS. 

related to him as an individual, completely vanished. The royal 
government could never be diverted from the family of David, 
without setting at nought the promises of God, vi^hich had been 
given to him. Joshua, therefore, could have no doubt that the 
crown was placed upon his head as the type of another. Who 
this was, could not possibly be to him a matter of doubt, since he 
had shortly before been greeted as the type of the Messiah (chap, 
iii.), and the Melchizedek-priesthood of the Messiah, that is, the 
union in his person of the two characters of high-priest and king, 
had been already announced to David (Ps. ex.). But if any 
uncertainty remained, it was removed by the verbal prophecy 
which followed. The object of this was to explain the previous 
symbolical action in two respects, first, as to the meaning of 
Joshua's coronation, and, secondly, as to the reason, why the 
material, of which this crown was composed, was to be obtained 
from the messengers and representatives of the brethren at a 
distance. The explanation of the first is contained in ver. 12, 
13, that of the second in ver. 14, 15. 

Ver. 12. ''And say to Mm : thus saith the Lord of hosts : 
behold there is a man, whose name is The Sprout, and from his 
place he will sprout up and build the temple of the Lord." 

The prophecy is placed by the side of the symbolical action 
as if it was independent of it, though the meaning is precisely 
the same, nan points to the Messiah as if he were present, 
and calls to Joshua, who represented him in name as well as 
office, to fix his mental eye upon him. The manner in- which 
the word nov. is introduced here, — viz., as a proper name of the 
Messiah, though with a direct allusion to its literal meaning, 
as is apparent from what follows, points back to earlier pro- 
phecies, in which the Messiah is represented as a Sprout of 
David to be raised up by the Lord, and particularly to that of 
Jeremiah (see the remarks on chap. iii.). npr vnpii^D is 
explanatory of no??. The great promised One will rightfully 
bear the name of Sprout ; for he himself will sprout up joyfully, 
and for that very reason it will also sprout forth under him. 
There is only one other passage in which vnnno occurs, — viz., 
Ex. X. 23 : " And they did not rise up, every one from under 
liim," that is, from that which he had under him. The mean- 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. VI. 12. 355 

ing in this passage, therefore, is '■'■from under Mm" equivalent 
to "from his place." Alting understands it as referring " both 
to the nation (from the house of David, Judah, and Abraham, 
to whom the promises were made), and also to the country." 
The expression, " he will sp7'out up from Ids soil" denotes the 
prosperity of Christ. At the same time, it presupposes the low- 
liness, from which he will first rise by degrees to glory. There 
are some who do not take the Messiah to be the subject of 
ni3V' ; e.g., Luther, "it will grow under him;" Calov, "under 
him and his kingdom everything will spring up and flourish." 
But this is incorrect. The introduction of a different subject 
from the noun immediately preceding is in itself objectionable ; 
and the parallel passage in Jeremiah, which the prophet had 
before his mind (chap, xxxiii. 15), " behold I cause a righteous 
Sprout to sprout up unto David," is a proof that, as it is the 
Messiah, whom the Lord there causes to sprout up, it is also the 
Messiah, who is described as sprouting up in the passage before 
us. Moreover, in the rendering referred to, the p in vnnno, 
which cannot mean " under him," is overlooked. — He builds the 
temple of the Lord. That there can be no reference here to the 
building of the outward temple, as Jewish commentators have 
dreamt, has been very clearly shown by Reuss (in the learned 
dissertation, qua orac. Zach. vi. 12, 13, expl., in his collected 
works, vol. i. p. 1 — 156). The building of an outward temple 
is never ascribed to the Messiah. In chap. iv. 10, the prophet 
promises in the name of God, that the temple, which had been 
begun by Zerubbabel, should also be completed by him, and 
according to his predecessor Haggai (chap. ii. 7 — 9) and his 
successor Malachi (chap. iii. 1), this same temple was to be 
glorified by the presence of the Messiah. Still the building of 
the temple, and the high-priesthood of the Messiah, must stand 
in a certain relation to each other. If, then, the purification to 
be effected by the latter was not of an outward, but an inward 
character, and if this was to be accomplished not by the blood 
of animals, but by the blood of the High Priest himself, a fact 
of which the prophet could not have been ignorant after his 
diligent study of the earlier prophecies {cf Is. liii.), and with 
which chap. xii. and xiii. actually prove him to have been well 



356 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

acquainted, — so also here, when the prophet is led by the build- 
ing of the temple, which was in progress at the time, to speak of 
the Messiah as performing a similar work, his words must be 
understood figuratively, especially as it was a common custom 
with him to start from the shadow of the good things to come, 
and then rise to the good things themselves, to set forth the 
future under the figure of the present, and apply to things, that 
had yet to come, the names which really belonged to those 
already in existence. — Moreover it is to be observed, that it is 
not stated here that the Messiah will build a temple to the 
Lord, but the temple of the Lord. Thus the temple is repre- 
sented as still in existence, and always the same, but destined to 
be elevated by the Messiah to a state of glory, surpassing any 
that had ever been thought of before. Let us examine now, in 
what sense the building of a temple is ascribed to the Messiah. 
Under the Old Testament, the temple was the seat of the king- 
dom of God ; it was in this, and not in the walls, or any other 
outward thing connected with it, that the very idea of the temple 
consisted. And for that reason, it was admirably adapted to be 
the type and figurative representation of the kingdom of God 
itself, that is of the Church, which did not commence with the 
coming of Christ, but was essentially the same under both the 
Old and New Testaments.^ Solomon and Zerubbabel had helped 
to build this temple ; inasmuch as their outward efforts pro- 
ceeded from faith, and were directed not to the outward edifice, 
to the shell merely, but to the kernel, which continued to exist, 
when the shell had long been destroyed. For proofs that the 
tabernacle and temple bore a symbolical character, and were 
symbols of the kingdom of God in Israel, see the remarks in the 
present volume on Zech. xl. — xlviii. With Ezekiel, who had 
depicted the restoration of the kingdom of God under the form 
of the restoration and glorification of the temple, Zechariah is 
closely connected ; and in chap. vii. 2, he calls the congregation 
the house of God. 
Ver. 13. ^^ And he ivill build the temple of the Lord, and he 

1 " The temple of God is one, — namely, the Church of the saved, originating 
in the promise given in paradise, and lasting to the end of the world." 
Cocceius. 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. VI. 13. 357 

tvill wear majesty ; and he sits and rules upon his throne, and 
is prince upon his throne, and the counsel of peace luill he be- 
tioeen them both." 

The repetition of the expression, " and he will build the 
temple," is not uncalled for. In this instance the words refer to 
the clause which follows, " and he will wear majesty ;" as the 
word ^<^^1, which is repeated in the two clauses, clearly shows. 
They call attention to the fact that the Messiah, who will be 
clothed with majesty, may be expected to build a far nobler 
temple, to glorify the kingdom of God in a far higher degree 
than the poor and lowly Zerubbabel, and his companion in lowli- 
ness, Joshua. They opened, therefore, a plenteous source of 
consolation for those who mourned over the weak and insignifi- 
cant origin of the new colony : they turned their attention away 
from the miserable present and directed it to a glorious future. 
— The words, " he will wear majesty," are explanatory of the 
symbolical act of placing the crown upon Joshua's head, iin is 
used to denote royal majesty in particular ; vide 1 Chr. xxix. 25, 
" and the Lord magnified Solomon, and bestowed upon him 
royal majesty and glory (nis^n T"in), which had not been on 
any king before him ;" Dan. xi. 21, " to whom they shall not give 
royal majesty" (nisSn mn) ; also Jer. xxii. 18 ; Ps. xxi. 6, and 
viii, 6, where man is represented as appointed by God to be an 
under-king. And in the passage before us the reference to the 
symbolical action, as well as what follows, show that it is in 
this special sense that the word has been employed. Many 
render the clause, " he will receive majesty," and Beuss has taken 
great pains to defend this rendering. But there are many other 
passages, in which majesty and glory are represented as some- 
thing worn by rulers, something existing upon their heads, with 
special reference to the insignia of royalty, — namely, the crown. 
See, for example, in addition to the passages just cited from the 
Chronicles, Daniel, and the Psalms, Num. xxvii. 20, " thou be- 
stowest on him of thy glory ininc." Such a description was 
all the more natural here, since the prophet had Joshua before 
him at the time, wearing on his head the crown, the insignia of 
royalty. In what follows, the expression, " he will wear majesty," 
is more fully carried out. There is first the royal supremacy. 



358 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

Then the kingly glory is heightened, by the fact that the dignity 
of High Priest is associated with that of King. The expressions 
" Ae sits" and "he rules" di&er in this respect: the former 
denotes the possession of the honour and dignity of a king, the 
latter the actual exercise of royal authority. — The suffix in ixs?? 
is supposed by many, particularly Vitringa (obss. s. 1. p. 317) 
and Reuss to refer to Jehovah. But the close connection between 
the first and second iNoa-Sy is thereby overlooked. This con- 
nection shows that the emphasis is not to be laid upon the suffix, 
but that the prophet's intention was to give especial prominence 
to the idea that the Messiah would be both King and High Priest, 
upon one and the same throne. This truth was a very consola- 
tory one to the covenant nation. It furnished a guarantee that 
its future head would have both the power and will to assist. 
As a true High Priest the Messiah was to appear before Glod as 
the representative of his people, and procure for them the for- 
giveness of sins. This the prophet himself has already more 
fully announced in chap. iii. As a true king, of whose glory all 
that preceded him had been but a very imperfect type, he was to 
protect them when forgiven, and in general to bestow upon them 
all the blessings, which God had appointed for them. In the 
primary passage also (Ps. ex.), the glorious kingdom of the 
Messiah is mentioned first, and then his high-priesthood. Ac- 
cording to the irrevocable decree of God he is not only a King, 
he is also a High Priest for ever, and as such he cleanses his 
people from their sins. — Hitzig and others render the -words, 
" and there is a priest upon his throne ;" and regard it as an 
announcement of the fact, that a glorious High Priest will arise 
hy the side of the Messiah. But it is a sufficient reply to this, 
that the mere mention of a priest would convey no meaning what- 
ever. The reference in this case would not be to a High Priest at 
all, — moreover, he could not even be the subject of prophecy, 
for he was then in existence, — still less to a glorious High 
Priest. — Diiferent explanations have been given of the words 
"between them both "in the last clause of the verse. It is 
a very ancient and widely spread idea that the true meaning 
is, " between the sprout and Jehovah." (Jerorae mentions it, 
and Coccetus, Vitringa, Beuss, and others have adopted it). 
(Jn the other hand, in the opinion of a very considerable num- 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. VI. 13. 359 

ber (Jerome, Marck, Michaelis, &-3.), the reference is to the 
two offices or persons of the High Priest and the King, 
which were to be united in the Messiah. The latter is to be 
preferred. The objection oflfered to this, — namely, that the King 
has not been expressly mentioned before, has no force ; for the 
Messiah has been pointed out clearly enough as King. There is 
nothing surprising in the fact, that a distinction should be made 
between the Messiah as King, and the Messiah as High Priest ; 
for it is evidently based upon the previous state of things, in 
which the two offices, associated together in the Messiah, were 
administered by two persons. But what decides the question is, 
that this is the only explanation, which places the words in their 
proper connection with the main object of the prophecy; — namely, 
the union of the offices of High Priest and King in the person of 
the Messiah ; to which we must add, the two referred to must 
necessarily be the two last named. Hence it could only be by 
mistaking the reference intended in the suffix of i!<d3, that 
Jehovah could be regarded as one of them. — There are different 
views again as to the meaning of oi^ip nxy.. Jerome,^ and 
several after him (e.g., Michaelis and Maurer), explain the 
words as referring to the harmony between the two offices, as 
united in the Messiah, in contradistinction to the discord which 
often prevailed between them to the great disadvantage of the 
kingdom of Grod, when they were administered by different 
individuals. The Berlehurgey- Bible says, " And there will be 
a counsel of peace and pleasant harmony, as when on consulta- 
tion counsellors are of one mind and opinion." Others again 
regard oiSr as a gen. objecti, " consulation concerning peace," 
i.e., concerning the acquisition, impartation, or reception of it. 
There is a similar expression in Is. liii. 5, "the chastisement of 
our peace," equivalent to the chastisement, which has for its ob- 
ject our peace, and also in Zech. viii. 16. It is difficult to decide 
between these two explanations. Peace fi-equently occurs in 
Zechariah as an interchangeable term with salvation, e.g., chap, 
viii. 10, 12, and also as an equivalent to peaceableness, e.g., 
chap. viii. 19. The former gives a more emphatic meaning, and 

1 " Et consilium pacificum erit inter utrumque, ut nee regale fastigium 
sacerdotalem doprimat dignitatem, nee sacerdotii dignitas regale fastigium, 
sed in unius gloria domiui Jesu utrumque conaentiat." 



360 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

is favoured by the fact that injurious contentions between the 
King and High Priest are hardly heard of in early times. The 
prophet, then, represents the Messiah as King, and the Messiah 
as High Priest, as consulting together respecting the best means of 
securing peace and salvation for the covenant nation. If com- 
bined efforts to promote the good of the nation, such as had been 
already seen as an imperfect type in the case of Joshua and Zerub- 
babel, had been followed by such beneficial results, what might 
be expected, when the true High Priest and true King, the 
Messiah, should strive earnestly to attain this end, and should 
devote to that purpose all the means, afforded by the two offices, 
which were concentrated in his person. 

Ver. 14. ^^ And the crown shall he to Chelem, and TohiaJi, 
and Chen the son of Zephaniah, for a memorial in the temple 
of the Lord." 

The prophet now passes on to an explanation of another 
feature in the symbolical action, — namely, the circumstance, that 
the materials for the crown were to be obtained from the mes- 
sengers and representatives of the Jews who lived at a distance 
from their native land. The crowns were to serve as a memorial 
of them, and, as may be seen from what follows, principally on 
account of the typical significance of the whole transaction. 
The sight of the crown (or, if the whole was purely ideal, their 
mental perception of it) brought before the minds of all the fact, 
that those who had dedicated it were types, both in their names 
and condition, of the heathen, who would one day come with 
haste from distant lands, as they had done, and with the 
greatest readiness do all they could, to ornament the temple and 
advance the kingdom of God. Thus the crown was for a 
memorial " to Chelem and the rest," in a much higher sense than 
was ordinarily the case with presents to the temple. — There 
were only three delegates from Babylon, but the crown served 
quite as much for a memorial to Josiah, who had given them an 
hospitable reception in Jerusalem. For he formed quite as 
essential a part of the typical representation as any of the others. 
The host represents the elect of Israel, the guests are types of 
" those that are far off."^ 

1 There is room to doubt, whether the act enjoined upon the prophet in 
this vision was afterwards really performed by him. The account given by 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. VI. 15, 361 

Ver. 15. " And those that are far off luill come and build at 
the temple of the Lord, and ye learn that the Lord of Sahaoth 
hath sent me unto you ; and it cometh to pass, if ye ivill hearken 
to the voice of the Lord your God." 

After what has been said as to the temple-building on the 
part of the Messiah, no special explanation need be given, of what 
is meant by the participation of those that are far off, — viz., the 
heathen in distant lands (vide chap ii. 15, viii. 20, 22, ix. 10 ; 
Is. Ix. 10, &c.), in the building of the temple (1 Pet. ii. 5). — 
" And ye learn, &c. :" the result, the active participation of the 
heathen in the setting up of the kingdom of God, would furnish 
a proof of the divine origin of what had here been predicted in 
word and deed. — The last clause has frequently been misinter- 
preted. Jerome says : "fient autem omnia, quce promissa sunt, 
si dominum audire voluerint, et acta poenifentia in bonis 
operibus manserint." Theodoret : ravra. os, (pnalv, Eirrai, xa* 

TO TipoaYixo)) ^iizra.1 itipocs, iocv, ufj.c'is to7s ^siois uirocytouTrirs "koyois. 

And Maurer expresses himself to the same effect. But if this 
were correct, we should have, what never occurs and in fact 
would be absurd, the coming of the Messiah, and particularly 
the participation of the heathen in his kingdom, made to 
depend upon the faithfulness of the covenant nation. To escape 
this difficulty, others, such as Marck for example, connect '"i;^! 
with the clause immediately preceding : " this (your discerning 
the Divine character of my mission) will take place, if ye are 
obedient to the Lord." But it is only in appearance, that this 
removes the difficulty. For the words, " ye will learn," are equi- 
valent to ye will have an opportunity of learning ; and this con- 
tinued true, even in the case of those who wilfully closed their 

the Talmudists (Middoth, iii. 8), of the place in the temple, where the crown 
had been suspended, certainly does very little to prove the affirmative. On 
the other hand, ver. 11 tends rather to prove that this was not the case, for 
the prophet can hardly have been a goldsmith, and yet he is ordered to make 
the crown. This might, however, be understood as meaning that he was to 
have it made. A still stronger proof may be found in the prevailing character 
of Zechariah's prophecies, in which there is so little that is external. And, 
as in the case of Ezekiel, this creates so strong a presumption that the trans- 
action was not an outward one, that it can only be set aside by the most 
cogent arguments. And lastly, we may adduce, as still more specific, the 
analogy of the whole symbolical transaction in chap, xi., which must have 
passed within that sphei'e of spiritual perception, to which all the visions in 
this section l^elong. 



362 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

eyes. But the absence of the pronoun ought to have led the 
commentators to adopt another explanation, — viz., that we have 
here an example of aposiopesis, which gives a peculiarly emphatic 
sense. In addition to the perfectly analogous passage in chap, 
vii. 7 of this same book, we may find similar examples in 2 Sam. 
ii. 27, V. 8, Ps. Ixxxi. 9 (compare my commentary), and in the 
New Testament, e.g. Luke xiii. 9 .• Kav /xh Troimrt xapTiov, el ^g 
/xrnye, els to /xe'xxov sjtxovl/sif ccurriv. There is the more reason for 
adopting such a conclusion, since it is one of the peculiarities by 
which Zechariah is distinguished from all the other prophets, 
that he so frequently uses '"i;^. to introduce a sentence. " If ye 
will hearken to the voice of the Lord, then ... ye shall 
participate in all these blessings, and the Messiah will make 
atonement for you as your High priest, and promote your pros- 
perity as your King." With these words of earnest admoni- 
tion, the exposition of which is contained in chap. v. and xi., 
the prophet closes this particular prophecy, and at the same time 
the whole connected series of revelations, which he received 
during this remarkable night. 



We have now to add an outline of the history of the interpre- 
tation of this prophecy. In the earlier writings of the Jews we 
may still find proofs, that the Messianic interpretation was the 
one generally adopted by them. In the Chaldee paraphrase it 
is introduced into the translation, " behold there the- man, 
Messiah is his name, he will be revealed and glorified." In 
Breschit Rabba (quoted by Bairn. Martini p. 155, 759) the.se 
words occur, " R. Barachias adduces this : God says to the 
Israelites, ye say to me, we are orphans and have no father. 
The God, whom I raise up to you, has also no father, as we read 
in Zech. vi. 12, ' behold there is a man by name Zemach, he 
will shoot forth under himself ;' and as it is also stated in Is. liii. 
3, ' he springeth up before him as a plant.'" Iti Echa Rabbati, 
an old commentary, or a kind of catena, on the Lamentations, in 
the summary of the names of the Messiah in Raim. Martini p. 
880, we read, " Joshua ben Levi said, he is called sprout, as it is 
said in Zech. vi. 12 ;" for other passages see Schottgen, hor. hebr. 
ii. p. 219 sqq. 104, 422, also his " Jesus der wahre Messias," 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. VI. 9 — 15. 363 

p. 402. At the same time it must not be overlooked, that, even 
before the period when efforts were intentionally made to distort 
and pervert all the Messianic prophecies, the whole of this pro- 
phecy was sometimes explained as referring to Joshua and 
Zerubbabel. We may learn from Jerome, in what way this 
meaning was introduced into the text. The sprout was supposed 
to be Zerubbabel ; but, as it could not be shown that in his case 
there was any combination of the royal and high-priestly dignity, 
to get rid of the difficulty it was assumed that in ver. 13 there 
was a change in the subject at the verb n;ni. : he, Zerubbabel, 
will sit and rule upon his throne, and there will also be a priest, 
Joshua, upon his throne, " but the High Priest Jesus (Joshua), 
the son of Jozedech, will also sit on his priestly throne, and with 
one mind and united counsels they will govern the people of God. 
And there will be peace between these two, i.e., between the one 
who is of the royal tribe and the one who is descended from the 
Levitical race, that the people of God may be equally governed 
by the priest and king." The innocent occasion of this exposi- 
tion, which was so welcome to most of the modern Jewish 
expositors from their doctrinal prejudices, is to be found in the 
words, " he will build the temple of the Lord." As the com- 
mentators failed to perceive that the prophet leaves the shadow 
here, the building of the outward temple which was then going 
on, and which he regarded as the type of the erection of another 
and more glorious one, just as the leaders Joshua and Zerub- 
babel were types of the spiritual architect who was afterwards to 
come, and passes to the substance, they imagined that these 
words precluded any reference to the Messiah, and were sufficient 
to prove that Zerubbabel was intended, seeing that he had 
already been mentioned in chap. iv. 9 as the builder of the 
temple. 

The pernicious effect of this misunderstanding, for which 
there was all the less ground in the case of Zechariah, since it is 
so common a custom with him to ascend from the shadow to the 
substance, may be seen in some of the commentators of the 
Christian Church. Theodoret, for example, says, ravrac Se 
ocTtuyra. mpl rod 'ZjOpo^Zocjiik Trpoayopavsi, oux, ^^ fXTi^iTTco XByfiivro'^^ 
5.XX' COS fMri^i-Tru) rriv YiyeiJ.oviacv ■nxpsi'kiri(p6ros ; and Eusehius writes 

to the same effect (demonstr. 4, 17). This mistake was the 



364 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

more pardonable in their case, as the misinterpretation of ver. 
13, which is connected with this exposition, was favoured by the 
Septuagint version, to the use of which they were restricted. 
The translators, for example, probably sharing this mistake, 
render the clause, " and he is priest upon his throne," by ytaX 
ETToct Upws SK ^iiiuM ccvTov^ thus making the king, who is high 
priest as well, into a king with a high priest standing at his 
side. We should expect, at the outset, that Grotius would 
lay hold with both hands of the plausible pretext, afforded 
him by such predecessors, for rejecting the Messianic exposition. 
In his opinion, the meaning of the prophecy may be para- 
phrased thus : "as the house of David has been restored in Zer- 
ubbabel, so will the temple (nnv» vnnnoi) he supposes to mean 
" the temple will spring up under him, under his feet"), of 
which he will lay the first stone, be restored by him. He will 
also wear the crown of a prince, and sitting on a throne will 
make laws with senators. A priest also will have a throne in 
that same senate, and there will be the best agreement between 
the two." Clericus followed in the footsteps of Grotius, and in 
opposition to his own exposition of Jer. xxiii. 5, where he cites 
this passage as well as chap, iii., as referring to the Messiah, in 
his translation of Zechariah makes Joshua and Zerubbabel the 
subject of this prophecy. The same opinion is expressed by the 
somewhat superficial Calmet. Eecently Eichhorn and Eioald 
have endeavoured to revive this exposition, without taking the 
least notice of the complete refutation which it has received from 
Marck and Beuss (1. c. p. 68 sqq.). There is something peculiar 
in the manner, in which they get rid of the difficulty that in the 
symbolical representation the crown is placed upon the head of 
only one man, Joshua, whereas, according to their interpretation, 
the prophecy, in which the symbol is explained, refers to two 
persons, Joshua and Zerubbabel. Eichhorn asserts that in ver. 
11, after the clause. " and set them upon the head of Joshua, the 
son of Jozedech, the high priest," the words, " arid of Zerubbabel, 
the son of Shealtiel, the prince" have fallen out; and therefore 
he restores them in his translation. Eioald contents himself 
with interpolating " and upon that of Zerubbabel." But the 
fact, that they are compelled to resort to such an assumption as 
this, may be regarded as a confession on their own part of the 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. VI. 9 — 15. 365 

untenable character of the entire exposition, to sustain which 
it is also necessary to alter i'^n (to him) in the 12th verse into 
D'iSn (to them). 

From the whole mass of arguments, which might be brought 
against this explanation, and in defence of the Messianic inter- 
pretation, we simply select a few. (1). The parallel passages 
are decisive in favour of the latter ; first of all chap. iii. 8, where 
the Messiah is called a sprout, as he is in this passage, and 
Joshua is expressly referred to as a type of him ; secondly, the 
prophecies of Jeremiah, already quoted, respecting the Zemach, 
which the prophet evidently had before his eyes ; and lastly, 
Ps. ex., the announcement contained in which, respecting the 
union of the offices of High Priest and King in the person of the 
Messiah, is simply expanded here. — (2). If the prophecy refers 
to Joshua and Zerubbabel, it is difficult to see why the crown, 
the insignia of government, should be placed upon the head of 
Joshua, or even granting, though it cannot be proved, that it 
might also be an emblem of the high priesthood, why it should 
not have been placed upon the head "of Zerubbabel as welL 
Surely Joshua could not be a type of Zerubbabel ? For what 
reason can the prophet possibly have had for making a man the 
representative of his contemporary ? — (3). The rendering, "and 
there will also be a priest upon his throne," for ]nb n;ni. 
iKps-Syj is in itself a very forced one ; moreover the want of 
harmony to which it gives rise, between the prophecy in symbol 
and the same prophecy in words, is a sufficient proof that it is 
not correct. — (4). The sprout cannot refer to Zerubbabel, for 
the former is represented as something future, and Zerubbabel 
had already been occupied for eighteen years in connection with 
the new colony, and had long ago commenced the building of the 
temple, which is also announced as belonging to the future. 
Theodoret's reply, that the prophecy relates to his exaltation to 
new honours, has no force whatever ; for Zerubbabel remained 
exactly the same after the prophecy as he had been before. 
The royalty, attributed to the subject of this prophecy, was 
never conferred upon him. — (5). If the explanation refen-ed to 
be correct, it is difficult to imagine anything more unmeaning 
than this solemn prophecy, with its magnificent promises. 
Joshua and Zerubbabel (this would be the substance of it) will 



366 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS, 

continue as they are ! — (6.) The prediction contained in ver. 15, 
of the admission of the heathen nations into the kingdom of God, 
a mark of the Messianic era, is completely isolated in this case, 
and it is impossible to tell how it found its way into the prophecy 
at all. Nor can any reason be assigned, why the silver and 
gold for the crown should be taken from the " captivity ;" and 
yet it cannot have been without design that this was introduced 
into a symbolical transaction, in which there is nothing else 
without a meaning. — (7). If we adopt Eivald's explanation : 
*' two crowns are to be made for the two worthy presidents, not 
merely to be placed as crowns of honour around the heads of 
these deserving men, but also as tokens of their Messianic glori- 
fication" we make the prophet himself into a false prophet and 
miserable dreamer. 

Even Hitzig has declared himself opposed to the views advo- 
cated by Eichhorn and Ewald. He observes, in reply to them, 
that there is not a single example on record of a prophet regard- 
ing a contemporary already in existence as the future Messiah ; 
and, moreover, that in chap. iii. 8 it is not Zerubbabel's assump- 
tion of the character of Messiah, but the appearance of the 
Messiah himself, which is represented as a future event. But 
Hitzig' s own explanation is no better than the one which he re- 
jects. In his opinion the coming of two distinct persons is here 
announced, the Messiah and a glorious High Priest. He cannot 
obtain this meaning, however, without making the sacrifice of a 
double alteration in the text, in which he follows Eichliorfi and 
Ewald, and adopting a false rendering of ver. 13, which he trans- 
lates, " and there is a priest," instead of " and he is priest." As 
Hitzig also regards the building of the temple as an outward 
event, his exposition is involved in still greater difficulties than 
that of Eivald. Zerubbabel was actually to finish the erection 
of the outward temple. How then could this be attributed to 
the coming Messiah ? 



ZECHARIAH, CHAPS. VII. AND VIII. 367 



CHAPTERS VIJ. AND VIII. 

This prophecy is separated from the preceding one by a space 
of nearly two years. It belongs to the ninth month of the fourth 
year of Darius. The chronological data given by the prophet 
are important, as throwing light upon the event which occa- 
sioned the prophecy. The congregation (the house of God, ver. 
2, compare chap. iii. 7 and Hosea viii. 1),^ send delegates to the 
temple, to inquire whether they were to continue to observe the 
fast, which had hitherto been kept on the day on which the 
temple was destroyed by the Chaldeans, and which had embraced 
a penitential acknowledgment of guilt, and a prayer for forgive- 
ness and for the restoration of former prosperity, or whether 
they were now to relinquish the custom. The question involved 
a prayer, that God would speedily change the days of mourning 
into days of rejoicing. It is stated, therefore, in ver. 2, that the 
delegates had come to intreat the Lord. The question and the 
prayer both presuppose, that the existing circumstances fur- 
nished a ground of hope that a happy future awaited the nation. 
Now it is precisely in the fourth year of Darius that this fact 
can be well established. Up to that time the building of the 
temple had been carried on without intermission, and great pro- 
gress had been made. The fresh schemes, to which the Samari- 
tans at the Persian court resorted, in the hope of preventing 
this, had just been completely thwarted {vide Prideaux). The 
faint-heartedness of those who had returned was thus put to 
shame, and the brightest hopes were cherished with reference to 
the future. 

The inquiry was directed to the priests and prophets, who were 
assembled in the temple, in the hope that God might reveal his will 
through one of them. And this He did through Zechariah. The 
reply may be divided into two distinct parts. The first part, chap, 
vii. 5 — 14, contains a reproof of the wrong motive, which led to 
such a question being asked, at least on the part of some of the 

1 That the whole nation is intended, and is called here by the name of its 
ideal dwelling place, is evident from the singular in ver. 3, and also from 
ver. 5, where the answer is addressed to the " people of the land." 



368 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS, 

petitioners. It contained in the germ that dead pharisaical 
reliance upon works, which subsequently increased more and 
more, until it became just as pernicious to the new colony, as 
outward idolatry, which sprang from precisely the same principle, 
had formerly been to the nation at large. This also exerted an 
injurious influence upon the estimate which they formed of the 
value of fasting. A custom which had no meaning, except as 
the outward manifestation of a penitent state of heart, was re- 
o-arded as having worth in itself, as an o'pus operatum. It was 
supposed that merit was thereby acquired, and surprise and dis- 
content were expressed, that God had not yet acknowledged and 
rewarded the service of so many years. The prophet points out 
how preposterous such a notion is, declares that the Lord requires 
something very different from this, — namely, the fulfilment of the 
moral precepts of his law, without which all outward service is 
pure hypocrisy, and calls attention to the fact that it was their 
failing to satisfy this demand, to which earlier prophets had 
loudly and repeatedly given utterance, which had brought upon 
the people that indescribable calamity, from which they had not 
yet recovered, and also that in future the same cause would 
necessarily be followed by the same effect. — In the second part 
of his address (chap, viii.) the prophet proceeds to meet the 
question with a direct reply, the substance of which could no 
longer confirm the hypocrites in their carnal security, but might 
serve to comfort and strengthen such as were weak in faith, both 
in his own and subsequent times, until the appearance of Christ 
himself. The following is a summary of his reply. Such 
abundant deliverance was in reserve for the covenant nation, that 
not only the day on which Jerusalem was destroyed, but the 
other days also, which had been set apart as fast-days, in com- 
memoration of peculiarly mournful events in connection with their 
past history, such, for example, as the capture of Jerusalem in 
the fourth month, the murder of Gedeliah in the seventh, and 
the commencement of the siege in the tenth, would all be altered 
into days of rejoicing ; for the blessings, which they were about 
to receive, would be far greater than those which they had lost 
on the days referred to. In this reply the prophet embraced the 
whole of the blessings of salvation intended for the covenant 
nation, and the full meaning of his declaration was first realised 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 1 — 10. 369 

in Christ. The conclusion (ver. 20 — 23) relates exclusively to 
the manner in which the kingdom of God would be glorified by 
Him, and, as a still further expansion of Micah iv. 2, Is. ii. 3, 
and Jer xxxi. 6, it contains a description of the eagerness with 
which heathen nations would strive for admission into the king- 
dom of God. 



CHAP. IX. l-IO. 

A hostile army sweeps victoriously over the Persian empire, 
and casts it down from the summit of its glory. The prophet 
more especially describes its march through those provinces of 
the empire, which bordered immediately upon Judea, that the 
contrast with their gloomy fate may place the better lot of the 
covenant nation in a still more brilliant light. Whilst Damas- 
cus and Hamath are overtaken by the judgment of God and fall 
into the hands of the conqueror ; whilst all the wealth of Tyre, 
its bulwarks and its insular position, fail to secure its safety, and 
it is taken and given up to the flames ; whilst the neighbouring 
Philistia is despoiled of its ancient splendour, and its leading 
cities, Askelon, Gaza, Ekron, and Ashdod, fall into the .deepest 
obscurity ; Jerusalem is still saved from destruction by the pro- 
tecting hand of the Lord (ver. 1 — 8). There can be no doubt, 
that we have here as graphic an account of the expedition of 
Alexander the Great, as is consistent with the permanent distinc- 
tion between prophecy and history.^ In the main points the 
exact agreement between prophecy and history may be proved 

1 Compare, for example, the historical account given by Stark (Gaza und 
die philistdische Eiiste, Jena 52 p. 237) with the prophetic description in the 
passage before us. He writes, " The plan laid down by Alexander after the 
battle of Issus, to commence by destroying the power of Persia along the 
coast, had led him to Phoenicia. All the other cities, and even Cyprus, sub- 
mitted to him. Tyre, the heart and centre of the maritime strength of Persia, 
was the only (me which defied him. After seven months of great exertion, 
including works upon the water, and naval engagements, it was captured in 
July 332. All resistance to the mighty progress of Alexander now seemed 
in vain. The whole of Coele-Syria and Palestine fell into his power. Gaza 
was the only city which offered any resistance," &c. 

VOL. III. 2 A 



370 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

by express historical testimony. The taking of Damascus is 
described by Arrian (ii. 15), Curtius (iii. 25) and Plutarch 
(Alexander, chap. xxiv.). The fate of both Tyre and Gaza is too 
well known for any farther evidence to be required. According 
to Arrian (ii. 27), Alexander first of all depopulated the latter, 
which had formerly been a flourishing city, and having settled 
a colony there, which he had gathered together from the surround- 
ing tribes (the fate denounced against Ashdod in ver. 6), turned 
it into a mere garrison. There is nothing to astonish us in the 
fact, that the conquest of Hamath is not expressly narrated ; for 
the historians follow the course taken by Alexander himself, who 
kept to the sea-coast, whereas the land of Hamath must have 
been skirted by Parmenio on his march to Damascus. There is 
just as little reason for surprise, that we have not an express 
account of the fate of the other cities of Philistia ; for the bio- 
graphers of Alexander are without exception extremely brief in 
their narratives of his march through Syria and Palestine, on 
account of their restricting themselves to a simple record of the 
most important events, and chiefly to such as throw some light 
upon Alexander's character, which was the principal object they 
had in view, as Arrian s history most strikingly shows. — We 
have already shown, in our Dissertation on Daniel, p. 225, how 
completely history confirms the prediction, contained in this 
passage, of the preservation of the covenant nation in the midst of 
an expedition, which was so destructive to the surrounding coun- 
tries. — Zechariah's prophecy, respecting the latter, is throughout 
simply a resumption of earlier predictions. His announcement 
of the fate, which awaited Tyre and Sidon, is linked on to Ezekiel, 
and that concerning Damascus, Hamath, and the four cities of 
Philistia, to Jeremiah. 

In vers. 9 and 10, the prophet places by the side of these in- 
ferior manifestations of the divine mercy, his greater gifts, the 
mission of the Messiah, at which he had already cast a passing 
glance in the seventh verse. 

We shall preface our exposition with some remarks on the 
land of Hadrach, which is introduced in ver. 1 as the leading 
subject of the prophecy. 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 1 — 10. 371 



ON THE LAND OF HADRACH. 

The opinion, expressed by many of the Jewish expositors, on 
the authority of R. Jose, and also by Bocliart and many Chris- 
tian writers, particularly since his time, — namely, that the land of 
Hadrach Xpn X?.^. (Zech. ix. 1) was a district in the neighbour- 
hood of Damascus, has been for some time past very generally 
adopted on the strength of the arguments adduced by MicJiaelis 
(Supplem., p. 676). But all the historical evidence, which is 
brought to prove the existence of a province of Hadrach, rests 
upon a confusion of names, Hadrach being confounded with the 
Arabian city of Draa or Adraa, the ancient Edrei, 'V.'p.}^., which 
is mentioned in Deut. i. 5 as the second capital of Og the king 
of Bashan. According to A hulfeda (tabula Syria3, p. 97) , this 
city is about thirty-two miles from Damascus. In the Middle 
Ages it was still a considerable city, the residence of the suffra- 
gan of Bozrah. It is frequently mentioned in the history of the 
Crusades ; and, according to the testimony of Seetzen and others, 
it is now uninhabited and in ruins, {vide Bitter, Erdkunde xv. 2, 
p. 834 sqq.). It is very clear that many of the earlier writers 
have confounded the two names ; although, as written in Hebrew 
and Arabic, there is scarcely any resemblance between them. 
Thus, for example, Adrichomius fiheatr. terrce sanctce, p. 75) 
says : " Adrach, or Hadrach, alicbs Adra, Adraon and Adratum; 
is a city of Coele-Syria, about twenty-five miles from Bostra, and 
from it the adjacent region takes the name of ' land of Hadrach.' 
This was the land, which formed the subject of Zechariah's pro- 
phecy. After the coming of Christ the city was set apart as an 
episcopal see, and recognised the supremacy of the Archbishop 
of Bozrah. When the Christians of the west took possession of 
Palestine, it was also called the city Bernardi de Scampis." 
Calmet, in his Commentary on Zechariah, says : " nous connais- 
sons une ville d'Atra dans I'Arabie deserte, celebre autrefois, et 
qui soutint des sieges contre Farmee de Trajan commandee par 
lui-meme (Xiphilin. ex Dione et Dion) et contre celle de I'em- 
pereur Severe (Herodian 1. 3. 9, Zonaras p. 216) of. Cellarius 1. 
3, c. 15." In the case of others, however, where this confusion 
of names is not so distinctly expressed, it is necessary to prove 



372 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

that it really exists. We commence with what is generally 
accepted as the most demonstrative evidence. " To this I may 
add," says J. D. Michaelis, " what I learned in the j^ear 1768 from 
Joseph Abbassi, a noble Arab of the country beyond the Jordan. 
. . . I inquired, among other things . . . whether he 
was acquainted with a certain city ^*Jv&, for thus I wrote it in 
Arabic characters. . . . He replied that there was a city of 
that name ; that he had heard about it ; but that he had never 
been there. That it was a small place now, but was reported to 
have been at one time larger than even Damascus. . . , He 
added, that it was said to have been the capital of a large region, 
which was called the land of Hadrach ; that noble families were 
said to have sprung from this land of Hadrach ; that the Arabs 
related many things about its chiefs and kings ; and that it was 
even reported to have been formerly the abode of giants. There 
was also a tale told about Mahomet having been born in this 
region. ... I pressed him to tell me where it was situated. 
He said that he could not do this very accurately ; that he merely 
remembered to have heard it said, that it was somewhere near 
the tenth milliarium, on the road from Damascus towards the 
desert. I forgot to ask him what kind of milliarium he meant, 
but I fancy that those of the Arabs are somewhat larger than 
others, — namely, about the nineteenth ortwentieth part of adegree." 
Now the easiest way to get rid of this testimony would be, to 
appeal to the fact that, according to the incontrovertible evidence 
adduced by Steph. Sclmlz in the Leitungen des Hochsten, the 
informant of Michaelis was an impostor. But this would not 
settle the question, since the impostor was really a native of the 
country, to which he pretended to belong, and may therefore 
have been in a position to give correct information as to its his- 
tory and geography. Moreover, a closer examination will show, 
that his replies were not altogether fictitious, but that, apart 
from his confounding Hadrach and Adraa, his statement was 
generally correct and trustworthy ; and this may be all the more 
easily explained, from the fact that he had never been at the spot 
himself, and acknowledged that he had only obtained his infor- 
mation from hearsay, and also from the fact that he would be 
all the more disposed to overlook a little difference in the pro- 
nunciation, from his eagerness to be ready with an answer to the 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 1 — 10. 373 

questions which were addressed to him. The following proofs 
may be offered, however, that the two names have really been 
confounded. (1). Not only is the direction from Damascus 
towards the desert, that is towards Arabia, the same, but the 
distance also corresponds, since the ten Arabian miles are about 
seven or eight German (between thirty-five and forty English). 
— (2). Abbassi said, that there were many traditions respecting 
the ancient kings of this region, which was said to have been at 
one time inhabited by giants. Who can help thinking of the 
account given in the Pentateuch of Og, the gigantic king of 
Bashan, whose iron bedstead was nine cubits long, and four 
cubits broad, and who reigned over the Kephaim, a people great, 
and tall, and strong {vide Num. xxi. 33 ; Deut. i. 4, iii. 1 — 11) ? 
These accounts were probably received from the Christians, who 
were very numerous in Adraa in the Middle Ages, and according 
to their usual custom the Arabs embellished them still further, 
in which they were greatly assisted by the character of the 
country itself, which, according to Seetzen, is full of caves. — 
At any rate his statement as to the former gi-andeur and present 
decline of the city is perfectly applicable to Adraa. 

Having thus disposed of the leading witness, the two others 
need not cause us any difficulty. The first of these is Theodoret, 
who says, 'A^pxx 'nokis knr\ r-hs 'Apa-liioci. The two names could 
be the more readily confounded in this case, on account of Theo- 
doret writing a. for the Hebrew n ; and the fact that he calls 
Hadrach a city in Arabia removes all doubt whatever, as to this 
confusion having really taken place. — The second is B. Jose, as 
quoted by Jarchi (in loc), " sed dicebat illi Kabbi Jose, filius 
Damascense mulieris, in disputatione : coelum et terrani super me 
invoco : natus sum Damasci, estque locus aliquis, cujus nomen est 
Hadrach." As we have met with so many instances in which 
the two names are confounded, we may quietly lay aside the 
testimony of B. Jose, without impugning his veracity, seeing that 
he is not very likely to have inquired particularly whether the 
Hebrew and Arabic characters exactly corresponded, and had 
probably never seen the name of the place in writing at all. 

The conclusion to which we are thus brought, that hitherto no 
evidence has been given of the existence of a city and region of 



374 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

Hadrach, involves something more than is here expressed. It 
shows that Hadrach cannot be a proper name at all. If the word 
occurred in a historical book, such as the Pentateuch for example, 
or some other of the earlier books, and was given as the supposed 
name of a comparatively insignificant place, in a district but 
little known either in ancient or modern times (say for example 
in the interior of Africa), nothing would be more absurd than 
such a conclusion. But the very opposite is really the case. 
We find the name in a prophetical book, where the general 
character of the prophetic writings would lead us to look for 
symbolical names, and in one of the very latest of the books of 
Scripture ; and this fact precludes the reply, that the name may 
be the only memorial of the city that has been handed down, 
Moreover, it does not belong to a single city merely, but to a 
whole province, or a w^hole country ; and its connection with 
Damascus, and the other places named, shows that we must look 
for it in a cultivated part of the globe, and in one well known 
both in ancient and modern times. How can we imagine it 
possible, then, that such a land should have eluded all research, 
both ancient and modern, if it really existed under the geogra- 
phical name of Hadixich ? It is very apparent that the transla- 
tors of the Septuagint were not aware of the existence of any such 
land ; for they have twisted the name into Se^pa^,, and this is 
not a corruption, as Michaelis maintains (p. 679), but the origi- 
nal reading, which is found in every MS., and was corrected by 
Jerome, not from Greek codices, but from the Hebrew text. 
The ancient Jews had evidently no historical accounts whatever 
of any land of Hadrach, as we may gather from the fact, that 
the name is universally regarded as symbolical. In the Chaldee 
version it is rendered ^^'i'^T. ^3^1^?, in terra mistrali, probably 
with a tacit allusion to the two passages in Job (ix. 9, and 
xxxvii. 9), in which l^D ''?J^ (the chambers of the south) is a 
term applied to the most remote and inaccessible southern regions. 
But the idea of the south is expressed in the word pn alone, a 
fact which must certainly have been overlooked. Jarchi expressly 
affirms, that the figurative explanation of the word prevailed 
among the Jews, until Eabbi Jose succeeded in introducing his 
supposed emendation. Jerome, who also drew from Jewish 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 1 — 10. 375 

sources on this occasion, as the exact agreement between his 
explanation and that of the Jews clearly shows, says nothing 
about the existence of a literal interpretation. Under these cir- 
cumstances, we need have no hesitation in pronouncing Hadrach 
a figurative appellation, especially as it is a very usual thing 
for the prophets to employ such names as these. It is well 
known, that Isaiah calls Jerusalem by the symbolical name of 
Ariel (lion of God,) and also " the valley of vision," on account 
of its being the seat of the prophets. Babylon, again, he names 
'•' the desert of the sea," and Edom he calls Dumah. Ezekiel 
refers to Jerusalem imder the name of Okolibah, and Jere- 
miah speaks of Babylon as Sesach. Even if we could not dis- 
cover any outward occasion for the selection of this figurative 
appellation on the part of Zechariah, it would be no proof that 
our conclusion was unfounded ; for this is the case with most of 
the names mentioned above. 

If, then, the name must clearly be symbolical, our next task 
is to determine its meaning.^ We cannot hesitate long as 
to this. Nor have we even to search out the true meaning. So 
far as the mere rendering (aot the application) of the word is 
concerned, the meaning to be given here is the oldest in exist- 
ence ; and, though from its very nature it needs no such support, 



1 Since the opinion, which generally prevailed Avhen the first edition of the 
Christology was published, — namely, that Hadrach was the name of some 
region near Damascus, has been given up in consequence of the arguments 
which were there adduced,^ Bleek (Studien und Kritiken 1852 ii. p. 258) 
and Gesenms have given expression to the conjecture, that Hadrach was the 
name of a king of Damascus ; whilst others, e.g. Movers (Phonizier i. p. 478), 
have suggested that it was the name of one of the gods of Damascus. But 
there is no trace of the existence of any such god or king. In the Scriptures, 
there is certainly not the slightest allusion to either. Now it is not the 
custom in the Bible to introduce a name of this description without fur- 
ther remark, when it has never occurred before. Moreover, according to the 
usual construction (and there are very few exceptions) the proper name which 
follows px is the name of the land itself or of the nation, and the analogy 
presented by all the other names in the section is a sufficient proof that this 
must be the case here. We have nothing afterwards but the names of coun- 
tries and cities. The transparency of the meaning is also fatal to such a 
hypothesis, for it clearly shows that it is with an ideal name, not a common 
name, that we have to do. The meaning itself would not be applicable to 
either a king or a god. 

Gesenius (in the tliesaurus) admits that we have proved, (1) that all the statements, which 
have usually been applied to Hadrach, belong to Adraa, and (2) that Hadrach cannot possibl 
be the name of any city or province in Syria. 



376 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

yet the authority of tradition may possibly be appealed to in its 
favour. JarcJii and Kimclii say : " R, Juda the son of Elai (a 
pupil of Akiba of the time of Hadrian ; cf. Wolf bibl. Hebr. i. 
p. 411) interpreted it as an allegorical expression relating to the 
Messiah, who is harsh (in) to the heathen, and gentle (iji) to 
Israel. Jerome says, " assumptio verbi domini, acuti in pecca- 
tores, mollis in justos : Adrach quippe hoc resonat, ex duobus 
integris nomen compositum : Ad acutum, Rach molle tenerum- 
que significans." We are quite willing to leave them their 
Messianic interpretation, and merely borrow their derivation of 
the word. According to the latter, the land of Chadnich is the 
land of Harsh-gentle, or Strong-weak, a land, which is now 
strong and mighty, but when the impending judgment shall fall, 
will at once be weakened and laid low. 

Little evidence is required, that this explanation is perfectly 
admissible, so far as the rules of the language are concerned, and 
in fact that it is the only one, which can be sustained. That 
such combinations are customary not merely in the case of proper 
names, in the strict sense of the term, but also in symbolical 
appellations, is apparent from such examples as Ariel, Jehosha- 
phat, Abiad, &c. "in literally means sliarp and pointed, and is 
applied to a sword in Ps. Ivii. 5, and Is. xlix. 2 ; then, in a 
secondary sense, acris, brave, strong, energetic. In Arabic the 

verb , >.^ signifies vehemens fuit, durus in ira, pugna ; and the 

Hebrew iin is used in the same sense in Hab. i. 8, where it is 
said of the horses of the Chaldeans 3:;)j? ♦3??Tp 1'='n, on which 
Bochart (opp. ii. c. 826) has very correctly observed : " I would 
refer I'^n to the disposition, and understand the terms o^eis and 
acres as being applied to both wolves and horses, because of the 
speed and eagerness with which they execute whatever they 
determine to perform." No further evidence is required so far 
as 1"> is concerned, for it is universally admitted that it means 
soft, tender, and then exhausted, iveak. It is very descriptive, 
as applied to the empires of the East at the period of their 
decline ; compare 33^ "ji in Deut. xx. 8 and 2 Chr. xiii. 7, 
where it is used to denote effeminacy and want of vigour. 

According to this explanation, the symbolical name given to 
the land contains in itself a prediction of its impending fate, the 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP, IX. 1 — 10. 377 

substance of all that the prophet is about to declare respecting 
it. This conclusion recommends itself all the more in the case 
of a writer like Zechariah, whose prophecies are based upon 
those of earlier prophets, from whom many analogous passages 
might be quoted. The first, which we shall adduce, is Is. xxi. 
1, where Babylon, whose overthrow is predicted, is called la^.t? 
d;, " the desert of the sea." From the etymology of the word 
and the general usage of the language, "i^id cannot possibly 
denote a cultivated plain, such as that which surrounded Baby- 
lon. It was applied first of all to land adapted for pasturage 
alone, and afterwards, used to denote a desert. There can be no 
doubt, that Babylon is called " a desert," on account of the utter 
desolation which awaited it, and " a desert of the sea," because 
the waves of the sea of nations were to flow over it, and change 
it into a desert. For it is evident from Jer. li. 42, 43, and xlix. 
23, that " the sea" referred to, is the sea of the nations which 
cause the desolation. — Another analogous example we find in the 
superscription " burden of Dumah," in Isaiah's prophecy against 
Edom (chap. xxi. 11). 'icii means silence. The stillness of 
death was to reign in the desolate land. This figurative title is 
the more appropriate here, since the calamity is represented in 
the prophecy itself under the image of a cheerless and solitary 
night. — But the most striking analogy is in the name Sesach, 
which is applied to Babylon in Jer. xxv. 26, and li. 41. The 
Jewish expositors are unanimously of opinion that '^'^^ is the 
same as Babel according to the so-caUed A thasJi alphabet. This 
opinion has been adopted by some of the Christian commenta- 
tors, and particularly by Jerome, with very great confidence ; but 
many reject it as a Jewish absurdity, and others again regard it 
as very questionable. But there can be no doubt as to its cor- 
rectness. The disinclination to adopt it can hardly be accounted 
for on any other grounds than these, that, although the meaning 
of the word Sesach did not immediately appear, such a transpo- 
sition was regarded as a useless amusement, foreign to the age 
of Jeremiah, and unworthy of a prophet, and that the very name 
of the A tbash alphabet suggested the idea of something extremely 
complicated and artificial. But so far as the latter objection is 
concerned, nothing can be more simple than the construction of 



378 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

this alphabet, in which the last letter of the ordinary alphabet (n) 
is substituted for the first (^<) the last but one ('^) for the second 
(3) and so on (vide Buxtorflex. Chald. s. v. tt'Dnx and his de 
ahhreviaturis Hebr. p. 41). The reasons for supposing that 
Jeremiah has really followed this plan are the following: (1). 
It cannot be purely an accidental circumstance that the name 
■^I^'^', according to the AthasJi alphabet, corresponds exactly to 
the word for which it is substituted. (2). There is another in- 
stance, in which Jeremiah has undoubtedly made use of this 
Atbash alphabet. In chap. li. 1 the prophet says, "thus saith 
the Lord, behold I will raise up against Babylon, and against 
those that dwell in the heart of my foes, a destroying wind." 
The strange expression, " the heart of my foes," excites surprise. 
But the difficulty is removed by the remark made by Jarclii and 
Ehenezra, that, when the two words are read together, according 
to the vi ^&as7i alphabet, they form the word o'lf?. There can 
be the less doubt as to the correctness of the explanation in this 
instance, on account of the number of the letters, which renders 
it less likely to be an accidental circumstance, than in the case 
of Babel. To this we may add the fact, that in other passages 
Jeremiah not merely uses the word O'lV? (Chaldeans) for the 
land of the Chaldeans (as in chap. 1. 10), but connects together 
Babel and Joshbe Kasdim, as in the verse before us. See, for 
example, chap. li. 35. The suitableness of this play upon the 
word, — the Chaldeans being called the heart of the foes of God, 
as being the bitterest enemies of his people, is at once apparent. 
The key to the interpretation of this passage appears to have been 
handed down by tradition, and not first discovered by the Jews of 
later times. The rendering given in the Septuagint xal sm roln 
xaroiKoivrcts XaX^atoyy shows that the translators had it already, 
or rather still, in their possession. The Chaldee version itself, 
"Nitt'Dn Ky-iN, proves the same thing. And if Symmachus had 
not been looking for something else in the expression, he would 
not have retained the Hebrewword ( As/3>ta;//,/;(,a) in his translation. 
But the question still remains, what does the word Sesach 
mean ? For if no meaning can be discovered, the name is still 
open to the charge of being merely a/ew d' esprit. But we may 
infer from the analogy of 'oj? sS^ that such a meaning does 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 1 — 10. 379 

exist ; nor can we be long in doubt as to what it really is. If 
we observe the formation of ^m itself, which is derived from 
'^i??, " to confound," and means " confusion," as the book of 
Genesis expressly affirms, which Jeremiah certainly had in his 
mind at the time — the word "^W must be a derivation of the 
verb Tf?'>^', the irregularity in the form of the word being thus 
sufficiently expUiined. This is confirmed by the fact, that the 
infinitive 11^' occurs in Jer. v. 26 ; although it is otherwise very 
rarely employed. And we may still farther add the appropriate- 
ness of the meaning itself '^^^ is applied in Gen. viii. 1 to the 
decreasing waters of the flood ; and in Jer. v. 26 to the stooping 
posture of bird-catchers. Hence the word Sesach must mean a 
sinking down, and in this case we have a commentary on the 
name in Jer. li. 64 : " thus shall Babylon sink and not rise, 
through the evil that I will bring upon her."^ — It will be obvi- 
ous by this time that there is an analogy between Sesach and 
Hadrach. 

It only remains to inquire what kingdom Zechariah refers to. 
Everything points to the Persian empire. (1). The name itself 
shows that the kingdom must have been one, which was then at 
the summit of its glory and power. But, of all the kingdoms 
which were in any way related to the covenant nation, the Per- 
sian was the only one of which this could be said. All the rest 
were subject to it ; and there was no other, to which the pre- 
dicate in could be applied. — (2j. This explanation is most in 
accordance with the whole of the contents of vers. 1 — 8. If the 
expedition of Alexander is referred to in these verses, nothing- 
could be more suitable, than for the prophet to speak of the 
empire itself, the leading object of the expedition, before pro- 

' That the reason why Sesach and Lebkamai are used in the place of the 
proper names, is not to be sought in the prudence of the prophet, is evident 
from tlie fact tliat the ordinary names are given as icell. When Ndgelsbach 
expresses the opinion, as otliers had done before liim, that " the use of such 
amusing inventions is unworthy of a prophet" (der Prophet Jeremias und 
Babylon, p. 134), he shows that he has not sufficiently considered the feel- 
ings of those for whom the names were written. Babel and Kasdirn were at 
that time the names, which sounded the most terrible in an Israelitish ear. 
The prophet deprives them of all that is terrible, by means of a slight altera- 
tion, by which he indicates that the ruin of Babylon is concealed beneath its 
greatness, and that the Chaldeans are regarded by the Almighty as the heart 
of his enemies. 



380 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

ceeding to describe the fate of the various places, which were 
dependent upon it. — (3). This at once explains, why Zechariah 
employs a symbolical name in this case alone, and calls all the 
other places by their proper names. Zechariah lived during the 
supremacy of Persia ; and the propriety of mentioning the 
Persians by name would be all the more questionable, since the 
enemies of the Jews did everything in their power to convince 
the former of their disposition to rebel (see Ezra iv. 12, 13). 
Zechariah prophesied at the very time, when Judah was con- 
strained to pray, " deliver my soul, Lord, from lying lips, and 
from the deceitful tongue" (Ps. cxx. 2), and when the Samari- 
tans were watching every movement, to find materials on which 
to found an accusation at the Persian court. The introduction 
of the names of the other places, which were subject to the Per- 
sians, could not so easily be employed as the ground of a charge, 
since it might be assumed that in the event of a rebellion, the 
Persians themselves would be the conquerors. — (4). The con- 
struction shows that Hadrach does not stand upon the same 
footing as the rest, but is rather the imperial power of which all 
the others were but so many different portions. — (5), In chap, 
ix. 13 the next phase of the imperial power is very clearly pointed 
out as the Grecian. Greece could not possibly oppress Judah, 
without first taking the place of the imperial power, which was 
in existence then. And if Hadrach denotes the latter, it must 
mean the Persian empire. Daniel had already announced the 
overthrow of Persia by Greece (chap. viii. 5 — 7, xx. 21)", and 
with his announcement the prophecy of Zechariah is imme- 
diately connected. 

Ver. 1. " The burden of the ivord of the Lord on the land of 
Hadrach, and Damascus is its rest ; for the Lord has an eye 
wpon men and upon all the tribes of Israel." 

From the very earliest times two different renderings have 
been given of the word J<'^?, which occurs in the superscriptions 
of the prophecies. By some it is rendered burden, — namely, by 
Jonathan, Aquila, in the Syriac version, and particularly by 
Jerome, who says in his note on Nahum, i. 1, " Massa autem 
nunquam pr^efertur in titulo, nisi cum grave et ponderis laboris- 
que plenum est, quod videtur." (See the remarks on Hab. 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX, 1. 381 

i. 1 and Is. xiii. 1). For a long time this rendering, if not the 
only one, was at least the one commonly received. — By others, 
again, it is rendered utteo-ance, prophecy. It is in this sense 
that the word has been taken by the Septuagint translators, who 
have sometimes rendered it opocfxa, opocms, prif/^a, and very fre- 
quently Krifxfjia., acceptio. In consequence of the adoption of the 
latter by Cocceius (lex. s.v.), Vitringa (on Is. xiii. 1), Aurivil- 
liibs (dissertt. p. 560) and Michaelis (supplem. p. 1685), it has 
forced the other to a great extent into the shade. Latterly it 
has met with almost universal acceptance. But there are strong 
reasons for rejecting it. 

(1). It would be a strange coincidence that n'^, although quite 
as suitable for the superscription of predictions, which are full of 
promises, as of those which consist entirely of threatenings, 
should be found exclusively in the latter. Not only is this 
the case, but it occurs so frequently, that it cannot for a moment 
be regarded as accidental. It is unanimously admitted that 
Isaiah never uses the word except in connection with such pro- 
phecies {vide chap. xiii. 1, xiv. 28, xv. 1, xvii. 1, xix. 1, xxi. 1, 
11, 13,. xxii. 1, xxiii. 1). Now if this was peculiar to Isaiah, 
there would be something plausible in Gesenius' otherwise un- 
founded conjecture, that the prophecies against foreign nations 
originally formed a separate collection, the author of which was 
very fond of the expression, and always employed it in his super- 
scriptions. But when we find that the same rule prevails 
throughout, that in Nahum, Habakkuk, Zechariah, and Malachi, 
the word is still restricted to prophecies of a denunciatory cha- 
racter, it is at once apparent that, in Isaiah and the other pro- 
phets, the practice must rest upon a common basis, which cannot 
be any other, than that the meaning of the word was such as to 
render it suitable for the superscription of threatening prophecies 
alone. The only passage, adduced by Vitringa, Michaelis, and 
others in support of their statement, that it is also used in con- 
nection with prophecies of a cheerful character, is Zech. xii. 1. 
But, as we shall afterwards see when we come to expound it, 
only because they have misinterpreted the passage. Gesenius 
has most inconceivably added Mai. i. 1. The fact that it is 
connected in this instance with a prophecy of a threatening 



382 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

character is so conspicuous as to need no proof whatever. Those 
who contend for the meaning utterance, are perfectly unable to 
explain the acknowledged fact that the word is used almost 
without exception in connection with prophecies containing 
threats. Delitzsch (on Hab. i. 1) thinks that " the reason why 
this word is more especially used in connection with prophecies 
of a threatening nature, is to be found in custom alone, and not 
in the etymology or meaning of the word itself" But what 
gave rise to this custom ? 

(2). It is impossible to bring forward an instance of the use 
of n'm as a noun, derived from n'^J in the sense of " to utter." 
In fact the verb itself has no such meaning (see my commentary 
on Ps. XV. 3). It is always used as a derivative from ^<'^J, in 
the sense of •' to lift." The most plausible passages are Pro v. 
XXX. 1 and xxxi. 1. But on closer examination, it is evident 
that even here the rendering " utterance," or " divine oracle," is 
unsuitable, especially in the first passage, where such an assump- 
tion gives rise to pure tautology (' ' the words of Augur, the son 
of Jakeh, the utterance"). We naturally expect the character 
of Agur's words to be more particularly described. In both 
these passages the meaning "burden" is the only appropriate 
one. The words of Agur in chap. xxx. 1 are a heavy burden, 
laid upon natural reason, which is so prone to exalt itself Their 
purport is reproof. They condemn the grovelling prudence of 
man in the strongest possible terms : he who does not cherish 
simple faith in divine revelation is a mere animal and not a" man. 
In Prov. xxxi. 1, " the burden, wherewith his mother corrected 
him," is the burdensome word, the severe lecture. In 1 Chr. 
XV. 27, Nf »''!3 "^^ is explained by Gesenius and Wilier to mean 
the leader of the singing. But if we carefully examine the 
parallel passages (2 Chr. xxxv. 3 ; Num. iv. 19, 24, 27, 31, 32, 
47, 49), we cannot fail to be convinced that x"^? refers to the 
carrying of the sacred things. The clause in 2 Kings ix. 25 
should be rendered, " the Lord hath raised this burden upon 
him." Nothing but ignorance of the connection between the 
word and the result, in the utterances of the prophets, could have 
led any one to pronounce the meaning burden "indefensible" in 
this instance, as Delitzsch has done. Even the meanings of the 



ZECHARTAH, CHAP. IX. 1. 383 

cognate word riK'^o (hearing, the burden) are derived from 
i<'^i, in the sense of " to lift," not " to utter." It is true that 
Winer and Gesenins bring forward, as a proof of the oppo- 
site, Lam. ii. 14, where the predictions of the false prophets are 
called NVf n'lKtpDj which they render " vain prophecies." But the 
proper rendering is rather, " they see for thee vain burdens 
and captivities." The word D^ni"''? (ccqjtivities, dispersions), 
which follows, is a sufficient proof that n-ixy? must also relate 
to the enemy. The false prophets endeavoured to render them- 
selves acceptable to the nation by predicting great calamities, 
which were to befal their powerful oppressors, burdens against 
the imperial powers, d'hi'^d cannot be rendered in any other 
way {Gesenius, seductiones), for the simple reason that Jere- 
miah, who uses nij very frequently, always employs it in the 
sense of driviiig away, dispersing. Others (e.g. Thenius) refer 
the exptdsions to Judah, which is, as it were, preached out of 
the land by the prophets. But the plural is a decisive proof 
that this is incorrect, for it clearly denotes a plurality of 
nations. 

(3.) Jer. xxiii. 33 sqq., the very passage which is commonly 
adduced to prove that n*^ ? means prophecy, is rather a proof 
uf the opposite. According to the ordinary opinion, Jeremiah 
is represented here as being angry with the scoffers, because 
they take the word k"^?, which means prophecy, and use it in 
the sense of burden, on the assumption that he is sure to give 
utterance to none but evil predictions. But this assumption 
could hardly give such great offence to Jeremiah, or appear to 
him as so very ungodly, for, as a rule, his prophecies, previous 
to the destruction of Jerusalem, were of a mournful character, 
and he really had nothing but evil to announce to the scoffers. 
Their wickedness consisted rather in the fact that they used the 
word burden in a different sense from that in which the prophets 
used it, who always employed it to denote a prophecy announcing 
severe judgments from the Lord. They asked Jeremiah what 
the burden of the Lord was, what fresh burdensome prophecy he 
had to deliver. This wicked play upon the word, which afibrded 
so deep an insight into the hearts of the scofi'ers, would have had 
no meaning, if vC^^ had not been used by the prophets in the 
sense of burden. 



384 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

(4). If n'^o means utterance, it is a very strange thing that 
it is never followed by the genitive of the speaker, whether 
Jehovah or one of the prophets, but, with the exception of the 
passage before us, chap. xii. 1, and Mai. iii. 1, where the Masso. 
of the word of the Lord is spoken of, is always connected with 
the genitive of the object, e.g., "the Massa of Babylon," "the 
Massa of Lumah." In other passages, where the word occurs 
in the sense of burden, it is also connected with the genitive of 
the person who carries it, or upon whom it is laid. Moreover, 
if the word means simply an utterance, we cannot see why it 
should not be used of utterances generally. 

(5). Various proofs might be given that the rendering utter- 
ance is unsuitable. The frequency with which it occurs in the 
prophecies of Isaiah, in the superscriptions of chap. xiii. 1, &c., 
{vide vol. ii., p. 134), hardly befits so common a word, and 
indicates some deeper meaning. Again the rendering burden 
is required by the '3 (for) in Is. xv. 1 : " the burden of Moab, 
for in the night Ar of Moab is laid waste," In Is. xxi. 1, the 
clause which follows is without a subject, if the rendering 
burden is rejected {Michaelis, "quod onus sicut turbines"). 
That Is. XXX. 6 must be translated, " the burden of the beasts 
of the south," is evident from the word inu*' " they carry," in 
which there is an allusion to n^'d. (The expression is applied 
to the Jews, who went in their brute-like folly to the south, and 
sought help from Egypt). In the passage before us and in Mai. 
iii. 1 we have pure tautology, if we adopt the rendering "-utter- 
ance ;" and nothing could be more at variance with the con- 
ciseness of the superscriptions. (How tame Uitzig's translation 
sounds : " utterance, word of Jehovah ! ") 

(6). The rendering burden, in the passage before us, is more 
in harmony with the parallelism of the verse. n"^d corresponds 
to nniJip. The burden of the word of the Lord affects or falls 
upon Hadrach ; his rest is Damascus. 

According to Mai. iii. 1 and chap. xii. 1 of this book, the 
opening words must be regarded as a heading: "the burden of 
the word of the Lord on the land of Hadrach." The further 
details are connected with the superscription by " mid" as if 
preceded by the expression " it is' burdensome." This formal 
isolation of Hadrach is intended to direct attention to the fact, 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 1. 385 

that it stands on a different footing from the rest. The further 
particulars merely relate to the various portions, which stood in 
the closest relation to Judah. In the case of both Hadrach and 
Damascus the prophecy restricts itself to a general announcement 
of threatening calamity ; and we may also observe that, as it is 
merely in the heading that the announcement respecting Hadrach 
is made at all, the relation, in which the others stand to this, 
must be that of parts to "the whole. In the case of Tyre, Sidon, 
and Philistia, which were nearer to Judah, the prophecy enters 
more into details. — The announcement respecting Damascus 
resumes the prophecy against this city in Jer. xlix. 23 sqq., 
which was also delivered at a time when Damascus had long 
since lost its independent government. In that case also Hamath 
is associated with Damascus. Persia, the supreme empire, and 
Damascus, the heathen city, which surpassed Jerusalem in glory 
and contemptuously looked down upon its pretensions, were 
stones of stumbling, which the course of history was to take out 
of the way. 

In the second part of the verse the reason is assigned for the 
divine judgments on Hadrach and Damascus, as well as on the 
nations mentioned afterwards. The providence of God rules 
over the whole earth, which lies open to his view. He must 
therefore eventually remove the existing disproportion between 
the fate of the covenant nation, and that of the heathen nations 
which he now appears to favour. Compare Mai. ii. 17, iii. 13 
sqq., where the prophet represents the people as speaking, and 
complaining that the Lord sends them nothing but misfortune, 
whilst the heathen are blessed with glorious prosperity. Malachi 
had there to do with the ungodly portion of the nation, which 
failed to fulfil its covenant obligations, and yet haughtily de- 
manded the fulfilment of the promises associated with them. 
His reply is therefore a severe one. He threatens still greater 
judicial punishments. Zechariah, on the other hand, has the 
true members of the kingdom of God in his mind. And to them 
he promises, that the Lord will abolish the existing dispropor- 
tion, and bring down the pride of the heathen nations. When 
God punishes the heathen for their sins, his "eye" is at the 
same time fixed upon the " tribes of Israel." According to vers. 
7 and 10, the ultimate result of the judgments of God is the 

VOL. III. 2 B 



386 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

conversion of the heathen, by which the tribes of Israel are de- 
livered from the state of oppression in which they have hitherto 
lived in the midst of the heathen world. The humbling of the 
nations of the world breaks their heart, and prepares them for 
the coming of the kingdom of God. TV, followed by a genitive, 
is used here to denote the eye, which belongs to a person so far 
as it is directed towards him ; compare ver. 8, " for now I see 
with mine eyes." oi*« (man) is contrasted with " all the tribes 
of Israel," and is therefore restricted to the rest of mankind, to 
the exclusion of the Israelites. The prophet appears to have 
taken the antithesis from Jer. xxxii. 19, in which we also find 
a complete parallel to the second half of the verse before us. 

Ver. 2. " HamatJi also, which borders thereon, Tyre and 
Sidon, because it is very wise." 

We must supply " will be the rest (Rulie) of the word of 
God." The suffix in na refers to Damascus alone, since Hamath 
stood in a very difi'erent relation to Hadrach ; and the expres- 
sion, " which borders thereon," appears at first sight to be almost 
superfluous, for the situation of Hamath was generally known. 
It is this idea, which has given occasion to the rendering, 
"Hamath will border thereon;" in other words, "just as 
Hamath is closely connected with Damascus by proximity of 
situation, so will it also be by community of suffering" — a mean- 
ing which the prophet would certainly have expressed more 
clearly. But the expression is not superfluous at all. It con- 
nects Hamath with Damascus, — the two together representing 
Syria, — and severs it from Tyre and Sidon, the representatives 
of Phcenicia; the close connection between these two being 
also indicated by the singular ncrn.-o cannot be rendered 
quamvis (although) ; it is a causative particle, even in this pas- 
sage. In fact, even if it were fully proved that it had some- 
times a different meaning, the parallel passages, which are of 
especial importance in the case of Zechariah, would necessitate 
the adoption of this rendering here {vide Dissertation on Daniel, 
&c., p. 298). " Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of 
God," says Ezekiel to the king of Tyre, who is regarded by him 
as the representative of the whole nation, " therefore I will bring 
strangers upon thee " (chap, xxviii. 6). The mental blindness 
of the Tyrians, who detracted from the glory of God, and attri- 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP, IX. 2. 387 

buted everything to themselves, is represented throughout as the 
cause of the judgment which impended over them. Again, the 
expression " hecause it is very ivise," must not be altered, with- 
our further explanation, into " because it thinks itself very wise." 
That the prophet referred to a real, and not merely to an imagi- 
nary wisdom, is evident from ver. 3, where the wisdom of Tyre 
is represented as leading her to fortify herself strongly, and 
accumulate treasures. But her wisdom is the wisdom of this 
world (1 Cor. i. 20), that " earthly, sensual wisdom" (James iii. 
15), which is inseparably connected with blindness and exagge- 
ration {vide Ezek. xxviii. 3, 4). Such wisdom as this, the 
opposite of " the wisdom that is from above," is sinful in itself, 
and not only fosters, but also springs from pride. — It is not the 
hostility of Tyre to Israel which is represented here as the cause 
of the divine judgments, — as is the case in the prophecies of 
Amos and Zephaniah, which have been erroneously described as 
completely resembling the prophecy before us, and also in part 
at least in that of Ezekiel (chap. xxvi. 2), — but simply its pride 
of wisdom. The precise direction taken by the wisdom of the 
Tyrians may be seen, partly from the next verse, and partly from 
Ezek. xxviii. 4, 5 : " by thy wisdom and by thine understand- 
ing thou hast acquired power, and filled thy treasures with gold 
and silver ; by thy great wisdom in thy commerce hast thou 
obtained great power, and thy heart has exalted itself, because 
of thy power." — The singular ncpn (wise) shows that p'yi nj 
is to be understood as meaning Tyre ivith Sidon ; in other 
words, that Sidon is to be regarded as an appendage of Tyre, 
the two together forming an ideal unity. In perfect harmony 
with the use of the singular here, is the fact that Ezekiel, whom 
Zechariah had before his mind, speaks of the wisdom of the 
Tyrians alone, and that in the third verse, where the particular 
manifestations of this wisdom are described, Zechariah also 
merely mentions Tyre. The reason why Sidon is thus appended 
to Tyre, can only be learned from history. Although Tyre was 
founded by Sidon, the latter had afterwards to relinquish her 
precedence, and in fact became in a certain sense dependent 
upon the former. This is presupposed in the account' of the 
time of Shalmanezer, given in the extract from Menander, which 
is quoted by JosepJms (Antiquities, 9. 14. 2), where Sidon is 



388 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

said to have " revolted from Tyre " {ot-nicrfi rs Tvpicov StSav 

xal "Axri ytixi ri ntaXca Ttipos" xai itoXkai aXXai 'JloXen, a'l rSi rcuv 

Wrsfjvpicov la-vroLs fiamXsi iioc.piloaa.M'). The expression employed 
in Is, xxiii. 2, where Tyre is said to be " filled with the 
merchants of Sidon," points to the same subordinate relation ; 
imless, indeed, Gesenius is right in understanding Sidon in this 
passage as standing for Phoenicia in general, a custom which 
might naturally arise in the earlier times, when Sidon was still 
the capital of the Phoenicians, but of which no satisfactory proof 
can be found in any later portion of its history. At any rate, 
the inferiority of Sidon is apparent enough in Ezek. xxvii. 8, 
" the inhabitants of Sidon and Arvad were thy mariners," which 
Theodoret paraphrases thus : " the Sidonians, who were once thy 
rulers, now fill thy fleet, along with the inhabitants of Arad, and 
row thy vessels ; and those who were wise in thy esteem, act as thy 
pilots." Just as in the case before us, we find, both in Isaiah 
and Ezekiel, the prophecy concerning Sidon simply appended to 
that respecting Tyre, and the fate of the former represented as 
interwoven with that of the latter {vide Is. xxiii. 4, 12, and 
Ezek. xxviii. 21 sqq.). 

Ver. 3. " And Tyre has built herself strongholds and heaped 
up silver as dust, and gold as dirt in the streets." 

The sinful confidence, which she reposed in her fortresses and 
wealth, is shown in the emphatic nS. The same may be said 
of Ezek. xxviii. 2, where the king of Tyre boasts that he sits " in 
the midst of the seas," and is therefore beyond the reach of any 
assault. According to Diodorus Siculus (17. 40) the Tyrians 
resolve to offer resistance to Alexander, " from their confidence 
in their defences, and the preparations they had made upon the 
island." "'"'sa was no doubt selected by the prophet, partly 
with reference to its secondary meaning " loant, distress,"^ 
and partly also because of its resemblance to the name ^», 
Tyre. 

Ver. 4. " Behold the Lord will deliver her up, and smite 
her bulwarks in the sea ; and she herself ivill be destroyed by 
fire." 

On this view Theodoret observes : " Since they have cut them- 

1 Notatur munitionem fore in contritionem." Cocceius. 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 4. 389 

selves off from the protection of God, they shall have a taste of 
his strength;" and Cyril, "nothing will ever avail those who 
resist God." By the exclamation " behold," the prophet, who 
sees by means of his inward vision the approach of the threat- 
ening storm, calls upon his hearers and readers to witness the 
manner in which the proud hopes of the Tyrians are destroyed. 
^"r*; in the Hiphil, means " to cause to possess," or " to cause any- 
thing to be possessed," hence " to deliver up." Calvin has cor- 
rectly observed, that this clause relates more especially to the 
accumulation of gold and silver mentioned in the previous verse, 
just as the second clause refers to the fortifications. Tyre, whose 
confidence in her own possessions is now so great, passes at length, 
along with all her treasures, into the possession of her enemies. 
On account of this very allusion to the preceding verse, we can- 
not render the clause, "the Lord will take her in possession," 
as the Septuagint and Vulgate have done Qtoi. rouro y.6ptoi 
xXnpoyofxrt'yii avrriv ; ccco dominus possidebit earn) ; nor can we 
adopt the rendering given by J aim, " he will drive them out," 
since the next clause sufficiently proves that it is a mistake to 
suppose, that the city stands for its inhabitants ; nor, lastly, can 
we translate it, " he will make her poor," as others have done, 
for the verb never has this meaning, not excepting even 1 Sam. 
ii. 7. — That the proper rendering is "in the sea," not " into the 
sea," is evident from the parallel passage, chap. x. 11, "he smites 
the waves in the sea." ''Into the sea" would have no meaning 
here. And '^'n, in the verse before us, just as "the waves" in 
the passage just referred to, must denote something which is 
already in the sea, and which is smitten there. Moreover, the 
former rendering gives a much more suitable meaning. If the 
city was taken, it would follow as a matter of course, that the 
bulwarks of Tyre would be smitten into the sea. As the forti- 
fications of Tyre were washed by the sea, they must of necessity 
to some extent fall into it, when the city was captured. On the 
other hand, the announcement that the walls were to be smitten 
in the sea introduces a new element of a most essential charac- 
ter. There were three things on which the Tyrians rested their 
confidence in their invincibility, their treasures, their fortifica- 
tions, and their insular position. The last, and in fact the most 



390 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

important, of the three, on which Ezekiel lays peculiar emphasis 
in the original passage (chap, xxviii. 2, 8), and upon which the 
Tyrians themselves placed the greatest reliance, at the time 
when the prophecy was fulfilled, is introduced here by Zechariah 
for the first time. 

Ver. 5. " Ashkelon sees it and is afraid ; Gaza also, and 
trembles exceedingly ; and Ekron, because her hope is put to 
shame ; Gaza loses her king, and Ashkelon shall not sit." 

The prophet follows the march of the conqueror along the 
Mediterranean Sea, commencing with Phoenicia and ending with 
Philistia. Or, looked at in another light, the four places in the 
north, consisting of two pairs, the Syrian and Piicenician, are here 
followed by the four in the west, that is, in Philistia. The omis- 
sion of Gath, one of the five leading cities of Philistia, not only in 
the passage before us, but also in the other passages, on which 
this is based (viz. Amos i. 6 — 8 ; Zeph. ii. 4 ; Jer. xxv. 20), 
may no doubt be explained from the feet that the prophet's plan 
required that the number mentioned should be limited to four. 
Zechariah attaches himself immediately to Jeremiah, the last of 
his predecessors in that prophetic chain, of which he is to form 
a link. The order is precisely the same, and we may be sure 
that this is not accidental. The meaning of this arrangement 
is admirably explained by Cyril : " for they thought that the 
strength of Tyre would avail as a bulwark for themselves ; when 
therefore they saw her prostrate, they would at length be deprived 
of all their hope." Zechariah seems also to have had certain 
passages of earlier prophets in view, particularly Jer. xxiii., 
where the alarm which would seize upon the neighbouring 
nations and cities, in consequence of the fall of this insular for- 
tress, is depicted in various ways. Thus in ver. 5 the prophet 
says, " when the report reaches to Egypt, they will tremble at 
the report concerning Tyre;" and ver. 4, " be thou ashamed, 
Sidon ;" but more emphatically still in ver. 11, " he stretches out 
his hand over the sea and shakes the kingdoms. And he says : 
thou shalt no more rejoice, thou disgraced daughter Sidon," &c. 
-ia|P and i^ap : the object at which one looks, the thing hoped 
for. There is almost a verbal parallel in Is. xx. 5, " they are 

Siculus 17, 41. 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 9. 391 

ashamed of Cushasa, towards which they looked." It is not 
said that the king, but a king perishes from Gaza, which is 
equivalent to " Gaza will no more possess a king." Hence 
there is no allusion to the personal overthrow of one particular 
king of Gaza, as many commentators suppose. Compare the 
parallel passage Amos i. 8, " I cut oif the inhabitant from 
Ashdod, and him that holdeth the sceptre from Ashkelon," and 
Jer. xlix. 38. These parallel passages show, that the disappear- 
ance of the king from the city denotes the utter ruin and 
extinction of the city itself ; so that it corresponds exactly to the 
last clause, " Ashkelon will not sit " which most commentators 
have erroneously rendered, " it will not be inhabited," {cf. chap, 
xii. 6). We need not be surprised to find a king of Gaza men- 
tioned among the subjects of Persia. It is a well known fact, 
that the Philistines were governed by kings from the very 
earliest times. And, as a rule, the sovereigns of the great 
empires of the East allowed the regal dignity to remain in all the 
conquered countries in which they found it, and contented them- 
selves with making the kings tributary, whilst they distinguished 
themselves from all the rest by the title of " king of kings," cf. 
Ezek. xxvi. 7.^ It was nothing but repeated insurrections, 
which led the Chaldeans to deprive the Jews and Tyrians of 
their kings ; and in the case of the latter the regal dignity was 
restored, even during their subjection to the empire. The kings 
of Tyre and Sidon are expressly referred to in connection with 
Alexander's expedition, a clear proof that the Persians also had 
allowed the regal dignity to continue in these regions. The 
commander of the Persian garrison in Gaza, a man named Betis, 
is called (SarnXsus by Hegesias, who lived under the first Ptole- 
mies, and was one of the earliest writers of the history of 
Alexander. But even if this title is incorrect, and Betis was 
merely a Persian officer, there is no reason why there should not 
have been a native king in existence at the same time. 

Ver. 6. ^^ And a rabble dwells at Ashdod, and I exterminate 
the joride of the Philistines." 

1 " It was a part of the Persian system generally, either to maintain the 
existing ruling families, or to appoint fresh rulers from among the natives, as, 
for example, in the Greek cities and islands of Asia Minor and elsewhere " 
(Stark p. 230). Herodotus, again, speaks of " Kings of Syria," who were 
subject to Persia, Book 8. chap. 37. 



392: MESSIANIC predictions in the prophets. 

The only other passage in which iTipD occurs in Deut. xxiii. 
2, and the meaning "foreigner" is quite unsuitable there. 
Maurer is quite wrong in adducing Is. Ivi, 3 sqq., in connection 
with Deut. xxiii. 2, to support this rendering. In the expres- 
sion, " son of the stranger," which occurs in Isaiah, there is much 
more probably an allusion to Deut. xxiii. 3. There can be no 
doubt that "noo is correctly explained, by those who understand 
it as denoting a person, to whose birth some considerable blemish 
attaches. In the present instance it stands for rabble, such as 
generally collect together in colonies. There are some who 
erroneously assume that the expression, " I exterminate the pride 
of the Philistines," is equivalent to " I exterminate the proud 
Philistines." But the prophet cannot mean this, for in the very 
next verse he predicts the conversion, at some future time, of the 
remnant of the Philistines. The pride of the Philistines is rather 
the objects of their pride, their fortified cities, their warlike 
power, and their wealth. These were to be all taken away from 
them ; and they themselves were to sink into obscurity. These 
words embrace the whole substance of the prophecy against the 
Philistines, and apply to the entire nation, what had previously 
been said of the various cities. The extermination of their 
pride, referred to here, is the foundation of the conversion pre- 
dicted in ver. 7. Even with the people of the covenant, the 
Lord adopts the same method as with the heathen nations. The 
extermination of the pride, mentioned in this verse, is equivalent 
to the extermination from Israel of horse and chariot and battle- 
bow, which is spoken of in ver. 10, as the necessary condition of 
the universal dominion to be afterwards obtained in Christ. 

Ver. 7. ^^ And I take away his blood out of his month, and 
his abominations from between his teeth ; and even he remains 
to our God, and he becomes like a prince in Judah, and Ekron 
like the Jebusite." 

Beneath the whole of this verse there lies a personification of 
the Philistine nation ; and this serves to explain, not only the 
singular suffix, and the Nin, but also the clause, which is so 
frequently misunderstood, " and he becomes like a prince in 
Judah." By the blood we are to understand, not the blood of 
the enemies slain by the Philistines, the Israelites for example, 
but the blood of the sacrificial animals, which it was a custom 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 7. 393 

with idolatrous nations to drink at their sacrifices, either quite 
pure, or mixed with wine (for proof see J. D. MicJiaelis, " die 
drei ivichtigstep^ Psalmen von Chrisfo," p. 107 sqq.). The abo- 
lition of one particular abomination of idolatry is selected here, 
to indicate the abolition of idolatry generally. — o'vijjrj abomina- 
tions, is a term invariably applied to idolatry; see the remarks on 
Dan. ix. 27. Hence it cannot be understood to mean the meat 
offered to idols. The expression, " from their teeth," is rather 
employed to show that they held their idols so firmly mordicus, 
that it required such desperate means, as the overwhelming 
judgments referred to here, to eradicate their tendency to ido- 
latry. — Dj is understood by many expositors as referring to the 
Israelites, a remnant of whom, according to the frequent declara- 
tion of the prophets, would repent and be preserved amidst the 
heavy judgments, which were to be poured out upon them by 
the Lord. But such an allusion would be too remote, for the 
prophet, who has said nothing as yet about the Israelites at all, 
to have any reason to expect that he would be understood. The 
actual allusion is rather to the places already mentioned, Had- 
rach, Syria, and Phoenicia. By this one little word, the prophet 
opens up the grand prospect of their future conversion. He 
points to the fact that what is here said with immediate refer- 
ence to the Philistines, is but a particular application of a gene- 
ral truth, which is afterwards expressly announced in ver. 10 in 
its more general form ; — viz., that the entrance to the kingdom 
of God ivill be one day thrown open to the whole heathen world. 
See also chap. xiv. 9, " then will the Lord be king over all the 
earth." In the words, " and he will be as a tribe-prince in 
Judah" the representative, or ideal head of the nation, is intro- 
duced as enjoying the dignity of a prince on the same footing as 
the native princes themselves ; the idea being, that the nation 
of Philistia would be received at some future time as part of the 
covenant nation, and enjoy precisely the same privileges as all 
the rest. (For liW see the remarks on chap. xii. 6). A similar 
mode of representation is adopted in Matt. ii. 6, where Beth- 
lehem is said to be " not the least among the princes of Judah," an 
expression which it is also impossible to explain, except on the 
supposition that the city is personified. Even Micah (chap. v. 2) 



394 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

represents Bethlehem under the figure of its ideal representative. 
Nearly the same idea is expressed in the last clause, " Elcron 
will he like the Jehusite." The Jebusites, the ancient possessors 
of Jerusalem, had dwelt there in common with the inhabitants 
of the city, who were unable to drive them out, till the time of 
David. They were conquered by David ; and all that remained 
were incorporated with the nation of the Lord, on their adoption 
of the Israelitish religion. This is apparent from 2 Sam. xxiv. 
and 1 Chr. xxi., where Araunah, the Jehusite, is represented 
as a man of property and distinction, who lived in the midst 
of the covenant nation, and whose estate was selected by David 
under divine direction, as the site of the future temple. Many 
similar instances may be found, in which a transition is made 
from an account of the judgments, impending over the heathen 
nations, to an announcement of their eventual reception into the 
kingdom of God, for which all their humiliations were intended 
to prepare them, and which alone, as being the ultimate objects 
of all the leadings of God, placed in its proper light whatever 
had gone before ; compare, for example, Is. xix., vol. 2, p. 143, 
144, and the remarks on Haggai ii. 7. 

Ver. 8. "And I fix for my house an encampment against an 
army. Mm that passeth through and him that returneth, and no 
oppression shall come over them any more, for noiu I see loith 
mine eyes." 

The meaning of the promise is not exhausted by the gracious 
protection, to be enjoyed by the covenant nation in the catas- 
trophe immediately impending. The prophet sees in this rather 
the commencement and pledge of a more extensive salvation. 
This remark diminishes the apparent abruptness in the transition 
to the Messianic prophecy in ver. 9. The house of the Lord, 
in the opinion of many, is intended to represent his people 
{over them). But the people are never called " the house of 
God" in this manner, .without further explanation. The ex- 
pression refers to the temple in this case, as in every other. But 
the temple is regarded as the spiritual dwelling place of all Israel 
(compare chap. iii. 7, vii. 2) ; and, therefore, the house of the 
Lord includes the people of the Lord, nnv is simply a diffe- 
rent method of writing ns^j ^ army. ">3j;d and 3f o are regarded 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 9. 395 

by many as relating especially to the expeditions of different 
nations, bent on the conquest of other states, particularly of 
the neighbouring land of Egypt, which had formerly been the 
occasion of great sufferings to the Israelites. But a compari- 
son of Ezek. XXXV. 7, and Zech. vii, 14 will show, that the 
phrase admits of a much wider application, and refers to inter- 
course in general. The more immediate reference may be 
gathered in the present instance from what precedes, against an 
army ; literally from the army, i.e., so that there shall no more 
be an army ; compare yo in chap. vii. 14. " Therefore, although 
the whole world conspires, and hostile forces gather in great 
numbers from every quarter, he exhorts them to be of a calm 
mind, and still hope on, for our God is able to scatter every 
army." (Calvin.) — The words, " and there shall no more come 
anoppressor over them" showthat at that time they were suffering 
from an oppression (the Persian supremacy), as they had formerly 
done in Egypt (Ex. iii. 7). — nn;^, now, refers not to the time, 
when the prophecy was delivered, so much as to the period 
of fulfilment, when the Lord would encamp around his house. 
This may be explained from the general character of prophecy, 
in which the future is regarded as present ; so that where 
definite announcements are made, it is not the actual, but the 
ideal present, which is intended. In the estimation of timid, 
despairing men, men of little faith, God only sees, when in his 
providence he actively interferes. And such is the condescension 
of the word of God, thai it accommodates itself to this idea. An 
important illustration of this may be found in Jer. vii. 11 : " is 
this house, then, on which my name is called, become a den of 
criminals in your eyes ? Behold, I also see, saith the Lord," sc. 
" your evil doings, to fix their proper punishment," ( 3Iichaelis ) . 
The declaration "7 see "was verified by the result. And the 
Lord not only sees, when anything unseemly is done in his house, 
but also when it is done to his house. 

Ver. 9. " Rejoice greatly , daughter ofZion, rejoice, daughter 
of Jerusalem. Behold, thy king ivill come to thee, just and pro- 
tected is he, distressed, and riding upon an ass, and upon a young 
ass, the she-asses' foal." 

The opening summons to shout with joy indicates the import- 



396 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

ance of the subject, and also the greatness of the want, which 
this act of divine mercy is designed to satisfy. Cocceius justly 
observes that the summons itself contains a prophecy. The pro- 
phet has in his mind only the better portion of the covenant 
nation, the true members of the people of God, not all Israel 
according to the flesh. He therefore gives prominence simply 
to the joy and salvation, which are to follow the arrival of the 
Messiah. The peculiar cause of rejoicing is undoubtedly that 
deliverance from the power of the oppressor (ver. 8), which can 
only be truly and permanently enjoyed in Christ (ver. 10). — 
The evangelists have given a literal version of this summons to 
rejoice. Matthew has substituted, from Is. Ixii. 11, " say ye to 
the daughter of Zion," and thus, in a most expressive manner, 
has pointed out the intimate connection between the two passages : 
" Say ye to the daughter of Zion, behold, thy salvation cometh, 
behold, his reward is with him, and his recompense before him." 
~n3.n shows that the prophet has his eyes fixed upon the coming 
king, and sees him about to make his entry into Jerusalem. 
" The enthusiasm of the seer, which has been continually increas- 
ing (ver. 7 and 8), reaches its climax here ; and transports him 
to the very moment, in which the new epoch (ver. 10) is about 
to commence." (Eitzig.) " Thy king," with peculiar emphasis, 
he who alone is thy king, in the full and highest sense of the 
word, and in comparison with whom no other deserves the name ; 
(compare Ps. xlv. 72). The expression also shows, that the pro- 
phet is speaking of a king, who is universally known from previous 
prophecies, and is looked for with longing expectation. — "^^ not 
only " to thee" but ybr thy good, for thy salvation, compare Is. ix. 
5, " unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given." The pro- 
phet merely lays stress upon the blessings, which the Messiah is 
to bestow upon the believing portion of the covenant-nation, 
since it is for them that his prophecy is peculiarly and imme- 
diately intended. But it is evident from ver. 7 and 10 that the 
heathen nations, who are to be received into the kingdom of God, 
will participate in their blessings. — !<i; (he will come) does not 
refer to the coming of the Messiah in his glory and to judgment, 
as in Mai. iii. 1, but to his first appearance in his humiliation, 
as the epithets, which follow, clearly show. — p'^^t, just^ indi- 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 9. 397 

cates the leading virtue required in a king ; and therefore par- 
ticular stress is laid upon this in those prophecies, in which the 
Messiah is represented as a king, e.g. Ps. xlv. 72 ; Jer. xxiii. 5 ; 
Is. xi. 3 — 5. The passage in Isaiah (chap. liii. 11), in which 
the righteousness of the Messiah, as a High Priest, and also as 
a sacrifice for sins, is spoken of (" he, the righteous one, my ser- 
vant, will make many righteous"), cannot be compared with 
this, as it has been by many commentators. — The word yi^'iJ 
has from time immemorial afforded considerable occupation to 
the expositors. (1). It has been very commonly supposed that 
the Niphal participle is used directly for the Hiphil i^'ifiD. 
(The Kal of y^; is nowhere met with). In the Septuagint it 
is rendered acu'(^u^\ by Jerome: salvator ; by Jonathan, P^'is, 
servator. The Syriac and Luther translate it " helper ;" and 
Winer, " conqueror." This explanation is certainly unten- 
able. The assertion, made by many who support it, that Niphal 
is used unreservedly for Kal, there is no necessity for refut- 
ing now. There is only one point of view, from which the 
rendering can be defended with the least degree of plausibility. 
The passive signification of the Niphal frequently passes into the 
reflective, which may be explained on the supposition that the 
attention is fixed upon the effect alone, and not upon the person 
producing it. According to this, we might take y^rSj in the 
sense of " saving himself." And this is actually the rendering 
adopted by 5aMer (scholia): servans se ipsum, h.e. servator." But 
the reflective signification is by no means admissible in the case of 
every verb, y^; occurs no less than twenty times in the Ni- 
phal, and always in a passive sense, never as a reflective. 
Even the participle is found in the former signification in Ps. 
xxxiii. 16. Now the prophet had no occasion whatever to 
employ the Niphal participle in an unusual sense ; for, if this 
had been the meaning he wished to express, there was the word 
y'c^io, which is found in more than thirty passages. The 
authority of the ancient translators has certainly not the least 
weight, in the face of such reasons as these. Their rendering 
rested on the same foundation as the assertion of so many of the 
modern commentators, that y^^ij must be taken in an active 
sense. Compare, for example, Frischmuth on this passage (in 



398 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PKOPHETS. 

the thesaurus (ant.) theol. philol. vol. i.), " it is very evident that 
it would occasion much greater joy, if the king was represented 
as a Saviour, than if it was intimated that he would himself be 
saved." This rendering would hardly have been thought of at 
all, certainly would not have been defended so obstinately, had 
it not been for the idea, that the choice lay simply between this 
explanation and the following one, the difficulties connected with 
which were clearly seen. — (2). Many other expositors have cor- 
rectly taken v^'iJ as a passive, in the sense of " saved." Among 
the Jews, Kimclii for example, expounds it thus, " in his righte- 
ousness he is saved from the sword of Gog and Magog." Chris- 
tian commentators, for the most part, understand it as referring to 
the deliverance of the Messiah from the greatest sufferings by 
his resurrection and glorification.^ There is no force in the 
objection brought by Marck against this rendering, — namely, that 
it does not express with sufficient clearness the mission of the 
Messiah to save and comfort his people, an announcement of 
which would certainly be expected here. For personal deliver- 
ance does not always involve the capacity to deliver others. It 
might extend no further than the king himself. But Calvin has 
already anticipated this objection, in a satisfactory manner : 
" both words depend upon the announcement that the king will 
come to Zion. If he simply came on his own private account, 
he would also be just and delivered for his own sake, that is, the 
advantage of his justice and his safety would remain with him- 
self alone, would be restricted to his own person. But since his 
coming had respect to others, it was for their sake also that he 
was both just and saved." There is another objection, however, 
which is not so easily set aside. According to this view, V"«^''iJ 

1 The best exposition, from this point of view, is that of Glass (phil. s. I. i. 
tr. ii.) : " The sufferings and humility, which characterised the Saviour at 
that time, might interfere with this vejoicing. The prophet, therefore, to 
prevent this from being a stumbling-block, uses the passive yw"iJ. The 
meaning is : the king comes just, humble, and poor. But do not lose heart 
on that account. Do not stumble at the outward appearance. For behold 
he has been saved, that is, after this suffering and death he will as certainly 
be exalted from this state of poverty and misery to the highest celestial glory, 
as if he were already saved and glorified." 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 9. 399 

would simply refer to the ultimate glorification. But this is out 
of place ; for the epithets, which follow, relate to the state of humi- 
liation. — 3. There are others, who also regard the verb as a 
passive ; though not in the sense of saved, but of " supported, 
endued with salvation." The grammatical correctness of this 
rendering is beyond dispute. There are other passages, in which 
the Niphal is used in the sense of being sustained with help, 
blessed with salvation. Thus in Deut. xxxiii. 29 we read, 
" blessed art thou, Israel, who is like unto thee ? A people 
(ytt^ij) clothed with salvation by the Lord (' by the Lord' must 
also be understood in the passage before us), thy helping shield, 
thy proud sword" (compare Ps. xxxiii. 16). It is well known 
that T^Sr\ is frequently used to denote the assistance of God in 
general, and is not limited to one single deliverance. The diffe- 
rence between J?'^'"in and ^'vn was originally this, that the 
positive element predominated just as much in the former, as the 
negative in the latter (vide Hupfeld on Ps. vii. 2). — The mean- 
ing is a most appropriate one. It serves especially to throw 
light upon the reason for P*'?^ being associated with yi^'lJ. The 
two words are as intimately connected as the other two predicates 
which follow. Just as righteousness and the bestowment of 
salvation are attributed to the invisible head of the nation of 
God, as the sum and substance of the attributes with which he 
blesses his people (Is. xlv. 21, " a just God, and a Saviour"), so 
was it the highest glory of his visible representative to be inwardly 
clothed with righteousness {cf. Ps. Ixxii. 1), and outwardly with 
salvation, which flows from him to his subjects. In both respects 
what the Messiah was to be in the fullest sense, the best of all 
the kings before him had only been to a very limited extent. 
Thus even according to this rendering, the meaning, which the 
supporters of No. 2 declare to be the only possible one, is clearly 
implied in the word. The deliverance of the Messiah from 
death and his exaltation to glory constitute but one single 
result ; they were a necessary consequence of the divine assis- 
tance, which he received, and which followed him even in his 
state of deepest humiliation. There is a parallel expression in 
Is. liii. 2, where the Messiah is spoken of as growing up before 
the Lord, that is, under his protection and favour (see the re- 



400 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

marks on the passage). But Jer. xxiii. 6 should be especially 
noticed, " in his (the Messiah's) days Judah will be endued with 
salvation." The substance of these passages is comprehended 
here in a single word. Considering the extent to which Zecha- 
riah rests upon earlier prophets, it is not improbable, that he 
had these passages and also Is. xlv. 21 in his mind at the time. 
Between the expression used by Isaiah, "just and helping," and 
the one employed here, "just and helped," there is the closest 
agreement. 

Whilst the first two predicates point out what the great king 
of the future will possess in common with the best of his prede- 
cessors, the only difference being that he will have it in its fullest 
perfection, the last two point out the characteristics by which he 
will be distinguished from all the rest. 'JJ? is regarded by 
many as equivalent to "'^.y^, meeh. Thus the Septuagint renders 
it "TTpacvs or Tipgios ; Jonathan ^riuj? ; the Syriac humilis. Kim- 
chi, who cites Is. xlii. 2, and most of the other Jewish exposi- 
tors, adopt the same rendering. The only exceptions are such 
as B. Moses Hakkohen and Abenezra, who do not suppose the 
prophecy to refer to the Messiah, for the simple reason that in 
their opinion the idea of lowliness contained in 'Jjf is inapplica- 
ble to him. This fact is so far of importance, that it indicates 
the reason why the rendering in question has been resorted to. 
Of the earlier Christian commentators it has been adopted by 
Frischmuth, and more recently by the whole body of rationalistic 
expositors. There can be no doubt, however, that this explana- 
tion is perfectly unfounded. Of all the numerous passages, in 
which "iy occurs, there is not one instance in which it can be 
maintained with the least plausibility, that it is used in the 
sense of i^^. It is true that the Masoretes have marked two 
passages as having ''JV for 'JV, and two as containing 'iv for 
1JV. But a closer examination of these passages will show at 
once, that there is no foundation for such an assertion. In Num. 
xii. 3 Luther has taken iJV as equivalent to 'JV, and rendered 
it affiicted. But this rendering is now generally regarded as 
incorrect, and probably originated in the endeavour to save 
Moses himself from the appearance of vain-glory. We have the 
better excuse for not entering into any lengthened demonstra- 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 9. 401 

tion, since both Gesenms and Wivier have simpl}^ adduced the 
passage before us in proof of the two being interchangeable, and 
thus tacitly acknowledge that not a single example can be 
brought forward in support of the assertion. No doubt the idea 
of distress is associated in the Old Testament with the subordi- 
nate notion of righteousness, and still more with that of meek- 
ness and humility, because they alone are described as distressed, 
who really take their sufferings to heart, those who bear their 
cross, and therefore cannot be anything else than righteous and 
meek. But the leading idea is not lost sight of. No rich and 
powerful man, no man in full possession of glory and prosperity, 
is ever called 'Jv, and yet this is just what we should have to 
assume in the passage before us.^ This being the case, then,, 
the rendering itself being so utterly destitute of any foundation, 
and, as we shall presently see, even the parallelism being against 
it, it certainly appears as if nothing but the influence of inclina- 
tion could have given rise to it at first, and kept it in existence 
for so long a time. The few Christian commentators, who have 
adopted it, would not have done so, if they had not been led 
astray by their mistaken predecessors. We must not reckon 
Chrysostom and others like him who had merely the Septuagint 
before them, and did not look at the Hebrew text at all. The 
argument employed by Frischmuth, that " meekness, not poverty, 

1 Hiilsius (theol. Jud., p. 163) has admirably observed : " we do indeed 
admit, that as the two words are very closely related in Hebrew, so the quali- 
ties of poverty and humility are also connected by the bond of necessity 
and meet together in the same individual. Hence, in the SeptuagiJit 'jy 
IS rendered ^ja?,- or ^^ais, if not quite correctly perhaps, yet by no means 
absurdly." This also serves to explain the retention of the Septuagint 
rendering by Matthew. According to the Old Testament idea, meekness 
and humility go hand and hand with wretchedness. JVo Ky who is not also 
My, and vice versa. Matthew could the more readily adhere to the generally 
received version, since the evident fact furnished a comnftntary on the 
^^ccis, showing that in prophecy lowliness must lie hidden under gentleness 
It was chiefly the former which was exliibited in Christ's entry into Jeru- 
salem. " At the same time," continues Hiihius, " we cannot allow that the 
two meanings may be so confounded that »jv, which properly means poor, 
may in this case simply denote a humble man, even to the exclusion of 
every kind of poverty, nor is such a rendering compatible with the nature of 
the word ijy itself, which is not applied to a man who is humble by merit 
(i^y would be the right word in this case), but to one who is humble in his 
circumstances ; in other words, a poor, oppressed man, belonginc: to the 
lowest rank." 

VOL. III. 2 C 



402 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

is the cause of joy," may be met by the observation, that it was 
not requisite that every single predicate should contain a direct 
incentive to joy. It was sufficient that the announcement, as a 
whole, should open up an abundant source of happiness. The 
lowliness of the Messiah could not disturb it, for, like Isaiah in 
chap, liii., the prophet represents his kingdom as spreading in 
spite of this over the whole earth, and has already taken away 
all cause of offence by the previous word. Nor is it true, in 
fact, that the distress of Christ is not a cause of joy. Our 
WeihnachtsUeder teach the very opposite of this : — 

" Er ist auf Erden Kommen arm 
Dass er unser sich erbarm." 
" Du kommst ins Elend her zu mir 
Wie soil ich immer danken dir." 

It is also opposed to that prophecy of the Old Testament 
(Is. liii), of which our word 'JV may be regarded as a com- 
pendium, and in which the distress of the servant of God is held 
up, as the indispensable condition of his representative character, 
and the latter as the foundation of our salvation. It must not 
be forgotten, that in the case of Christ his distress can only be 
conceived of as something undertaken voluntarily and for the 
good of the Church. We shall see, presently, to what extent both 
the Jewish and rationalistic commentators were influenced by 
doctrinal prejudices. Even the rendering "poor," which Jerome, 
Symmachus, and many others have adopted, is not quite correct. 
'jy is not the same as r'^** ; it embraces the whole of the lowly, 
sorrowing, suffering condition so fully depicted in the 53d 
chapter of Isaiah. — The second term, " riding on an ass,'"' is 
supposed by many commentators to indicate a humble monarch, 
fond of 'peocce. Thus Chrysostom says in his commentary on 

Matthew, oCyl a.pfji,a.r<x. IXocuvajv ojs o\ \omo\ (ia.aiki'is, ov (popovs 
x'TtocitZv ov (jo^com xai ^opu(p6povb Trspioiyw)/, aXka TioXXriv rr/v sTrisi- 
xeiav xavTsyQsv sTrtSeiJtviy/^Evos- ; but he was probably misled by 
the Septuagint rendering of *JV> which compelled him in this 
case also to look for something answering to 7tpa.vs. Kimchi 
gives a similar explanation, " not from want, for the whole world 
will be subjected to him, but from meekness, he will sit upon an 



ZECKARIAH, CHAP. IX. 9. 403 

ass." In fact all the Jewish commentators, who regard the 
passage as Messianic, explain it in the same way. Grotius 
also says, " this not only indicated his modesty, but also 
his love of peace ; for horses are prepared for war ; the ass 
is an animal of peace." And all the rationalistic commen- 
tators, without exception, expound the passage in the same 
manner. In support of this, we are reminded that the ass 
is a very different animal in the East from what it is with 
us, that in the Scriptures some of the most distinguished 
men are represented as riding upon asses, and that, according 
to the testimony of travellers, they are ridden by such persons 
to the present day. But the following reasons suffice to show 
that this explanation is untenable, and that the fact of his riding 
upon an ass is intended rather as a sign of the lowly condition 
oftheking.^ (1). The connection with '^v is in itself a proof 
of this. March has very correctly observed, " the second out- 
ward characteristic of this king is a special act, resulting from 
the first, which is more general in its nature. If, then, 'JV can- 
not be rendered humble, riding upon an ass cannot be one 
particular manifestation of humility and gentleness, but must 
rather be a sign of lowliness and inferiority. The first two 
epithets were also intimately connected, so as to form a pair. — 
(2). It is certainly quite true, that the ass in the East is a 
superior animal to ours, and therefore more highly valued than 
it is with us. Still it is nothing but an ass after all, and can 
never attain to the dignity of a horse. Those passages in the 
bible, in which distinguished persons are represented as riding 
upon asses, ought not to have been brought forward any more, 
since J. D. Michaelis has written his " Geschichte der Pferde 
und Pferdezucht in Paldstina " (at the close of the Mosaisches 
Recht Part 3). During the period of the Judges, horses were 
not used at all among the Israelites ; and, therefore, even dis- 
tinguished men rode upon asses. It was not till a monarchical 
government was established that mules were used, and horses 

1 " It is as much to say, that the king, of whom he is speaking, would not 
be distinguished for the grandeur of his appearance, as earthly princes 
usually are, but, as it were, for his mean, or at any rate his common con- 
dition, as he would differ in no respect whatever from any plebeian or 
ignoble person." Calvin. 



404 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

were introduced at a still later period. After this, that is from, 
the time of Solomon downwards, ive do not meet ivith a single 
exa7nple of a king, or in fact of any very distinguished personage 
riding upon an ass. But it is only examples from these later 
times that could come into consideration here. As regards the 
accounts of modern travellers, it must be borne in mind that 
they generally speak of the ass merely relatively, contrasting its 
condition in the East with that supreme contempt, with which 
he is regarded among ourselves. When they mention, that in 
the East even distinguished women are in the habit of employ- 
ing them, this does not bear upon the passage before us at all. 
The reason of their doing so is not the noble character of the 
animal, as may be seen from the fact that even in this- country 
they do the same, notwithstanding the contempt in which it is 
held. Chardin states that in some parts of the East superior 
officers, for example the lawyers in Persia, make use of asses 
when they go upon a journey, but this proves nothing more than 
that riding on an ass does not excite ridicule in the East as it 
does here. This may be explained from the fact that, when the 
ass in the East is well driven, it goes at a good speed, and is 
easier to ride than the horse, especially in mountainous districts, 
on account of its being so sure-footed, to say nothing of the ease 
and cheapness with which it can be kept. But in all our accounts 
of the asses of the East, of lohich we have a great ahundimce, 
there is not a single example of an ass beign ridden by a king ; 
nor is there even an instance of a distinguished officer mounting 
an ass on any state occasion, whereas here (and this is a most 
important point) it is in his royal capacity that the king is said 
to ride upon an ass. And there are not wanting proofs, that 
even in the East the ass shares to some extent in the contempt, 
which falls to the lot of his more unfortunate brother in the 
West. In the name priN, from a noun denoting laziness (see 
Gesenius thesaurus, s. v.), this contempt is expressed. And in 
Gen. xlix. 13 we have an illustration from the very earliest times. 
Issachar is there called an ass, and, as the context shows, the point 
of comparison is not merely the strength of its bones, but its 
laziness, which is so great that nothing disturbs its equanimity, 
and it will submit to any load that may be placed upon its back. 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 9. 405 

The honour of the ass is still more pointedly attacked by Jesus 
the son of Sirach (chap. xxx. 24, xxxiii. 24) : " fodder, a wand, 
and burdens are for the ass." Mohammed says : " Of all voices 
that of the ass is the most disgusting, it is the voice of the very 
devil" (vide Herhelot, hihl. Or. s.v. Hemor). The ancient 
Egyptians affirmed that Typhon the evil deity was like an ass, 
and that this animal was his special favourite (Jahlonshy, jpan- 
theon Aeg. iii. 45). It is a well known fact, that in Egypt both 
Jews and Christians are restricted to the use of asses, as a mark 
of inferiority, the horse being reserved for Mohometans. We 
may see how exaggerated the prevalent notion respecting the 
dignity of the ass in the East must be, from the sneer, with 
which king Sapor speaks of the idea of the Jews' Messiah riding 
upon an ass : " King Sapor said to Rabbi Samuel, you say that 
the Messiah will come on an ass ; I will send him my splendid 
horse "^ (vide Sanhedrin xi. fol. 38). — But if any doubt still 
remains as to the meaning of this announcement, it must cer- 
tainly disappear when we look at the fulfilment. It is difficult 
to imagine a poorer display, than the entrance of Christ into 
Jerusalem. Into the same city, which David and Solomon had 
so frequently entered on mules or horses richly caparisoned, and 
with a company of proud horsemen as their attendants, the 
Lord rode on a boiTowed ass, which had never been broken 
in, the wretched clothing of his disciples supplying the place of 
a saddle-cloth, and his attendants consisting of people, whom 
the world would regard as a mob and rabble. In every feature 
connected with this symbolical action the Lord's intention, to 
represent his kingdom as poor and humble, and entirely destitute 
of worldly splendour, is most conspicuous ; and Heumcmn has 
correctly observed (on John xii. 15) : " this act of the Lord's 
may be regarded as an ironia realis, the design of which was to 
ridicule the erroneous ideas entertained by the Jews, with refer- 
ence to the kingdom of the Messiah. — (3). The expression " rid- 
ing upon an ass " is explained in ver. 10. We find an announce- 
ment there to the efi'ect that, before the coming of the Messiah, 
the Lord will cut oft' from Israel the chariot and the horse ; in 

^ There is also force in March's observation : " There is a great difference 
between a good ass, trained for riding, richly caparisoned and decked out 
with valuable ornaments, and a common animal not yet broken in," &c. 



406 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

other words, bring it down to the lowest depth of humiliation. 
This is symbolically represented in its king. As the chariot and 
the horse are mentioned in ver. 6 simply as the marks of Israel's 
pride ; the ass, which is introduced by way of contrast, can only 
be intended as a symbol of humiliation. 

There is a gradation in the two clauses, " he rides upon an 
ass," and " upon a young ass, a foal of the she-asses." It was 
a striking mark of humiliation for a king to ride upon an ass ; 
but a much more striking proof, for him to ride upon a young 
one, which had never been broken in. "*:v by itself signifies a 
young ass. But, as it was on the youth of the animal that the 
prophet particularly intended to lay stress, on the fact that it 
was the foal of an ass, he adds nSinx.-^?. The plural nijhx. 
has given rise to some very remarkable expositions. The simple 
explanation is, that an indefinite expression was often employed, 
where there was no necessity to speak more particularly. Thus, 
for example, in Gen. xxi. 7, " who would have said to Abraham, 
that Sarah should give children suck." Sarah had only one son , 
but the point in question was not the number, but the fact, and 
this was most strongly expressed by the plural. But we have a 
perfectly analogous example in the frequently recurring expression 
">i^?"15, jilius bourn, for vitulus bovinus. And again in "^'S? 
rvT.K. Judg. xiv. 5. In the passage before us the relation 
itself was the only point of importance, the other exponent was 
of little moment, and could therefore be expressed in a more 
general and indefinite manner. Again, a comparison of "^P^'P 
shows that niJnK-p denotes an ass, which is still to a great 
extent dependent upon the mother. The youth of the ass is also 
carefully mentioned by the Evangelists, for the same reason as 
by the prophet, — namely, to point out in a more emphatic manner 
the humiliation of the king. Thus John calls it ovoipiov, " a 
young ass ;" Mark (xi. 2) "a colt, whereon never man sat ;" 
and Luke (xix. 30) " a colt, whereon yet never man sat." That 
there must be a reason for this emphasis has been admitted by 
commentators from time immemorial ; but for the most part 
they have not been very happy in their explanations.^ 

1 Justin and many of the later fathers, whom, strange to say, Pauhis was 
not disinclined to follow, regarded the mother as a type of the Jewish nation, 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 9. 407 

According to the general opinion of both ancient and modern 
commentators, the same ass is referred to in both clauses. Such 
an opinion would never have been entertained, had it not been 
that the expositors started with the assumption, that the passage 
before us related directly and exclusively to the one fact of 
Christ's public entry into Jerusalem, and, then, observing that 
three of the Evangelists mention only one ass, were afraid that 
there might be a discrepancy between the prophecy and its ful- 
filment. But such an assumption is evidently erroneous. Kiding 
on an ass is mentioned principally as an individual example of 
the lowliness referred to just before. And even if it were the 
fact, that we have here simply two parallel clauses identical in 
their meaning, it would be wrong to suppose that the same ass 
is referred to in both. In Gen. xlix. 11, where it is said of 
Judah : " he binds his ass to the vine, the colt of his she-ass to 
choice vines, he washed his garment in wine, and his clothes in 
the blood of grapes," who would think of maintaining that the 
" ass" and the " colt of the she-ass" are the same animal, the 
" vine" and the " choice vine" the same plants, the "blood of 
the grapes " and the "wine" the same portion of wine, or the 
"garment" and the "clothes" the same article of clothing ? 
This explanation, too, is the more untenable, because, as we have 
already shown, there is a gradation in the two clauses, the pro- 
phet first of all illustrating the lowliness of the Messiah by the 
general fact that he would ride upon an ass, and then by the 
more particular announcement that it would be a young animal 
not yet broken in. We may also add that the repetition of 
^v is irreconcileable with the assumption referred to. More- 
over it can hardly be denied that the Lord himself furnishes a 
confirmation of our opinion, in the method adopted by him in 
the symbolical transaction itself, which was intended to incorpo- 

and the ass, which had never been broken in, as a symbol of the Gentiles. 
Bengel, who follows Bocliart and others, says much more plausibly, " what- 
ever serves Christ, ought to be free from the pollutions of sinful bodies." 
But apart from the fact that this does not apply to the present case, in which 
everything points to the outward humiliation of the king, there is another 
reason for rejecting the explanation, — namely, that the passage in Zechariah 
is entirely overlooked, although the Lord so evidently had it in his mind 
throughout the whole transaction. The context is entirely disregarded by 
Maurcr, who says, " perhaps the use of a foal is attributed to the Messiah, 
on account of its being a perfectly sound animal (animal intactum)." 



408 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

rate, as it were, the figurative description given by Zecha- 
riah. This is the only ground on which we can explain 
the reason for his commanding, as Matthew says he did, that 
not only the young ass should be brought, but the mother also. 
He could not mount more than one of the animals. For it 
would have been very unseemly, as Bocliart observes (Hieroz. 
2, 17), when the distance was so short, to mount first one and 
then the other. He selected the young ass, because Zechariah 
had mentioned this as a symbol of the deepest humiliation. 
But the ass had to follow, in order that the imagery of Zechariah 
might be fully represented, and that there might be an outward 
manifestation of the gradation which he had introduced into his 
description. That the mother formed an indispensable part of 
the symbolical transaction, and was not brought merely to answer 
a subordinate purpose, such as to make the colt more tractable, 
as most commentators suppose, is evident from Matthew's words 
(ver. 7) ; " they brought the she-ass and the colt, and put on 
them (eTTavw avruii) their clothes, and they set him upon 
them {i-Ti'-hoj scvru)/)" Even if we suppose the second avrcu-\i to 
refer to the clothes, as Theophylact does (" not upon the two 
beasts, but upon their clothes"), — an exposition which can 
hardly have arisen from anything but embarrassment, — the first 
is inexplicable except on our hypothesis. The solution some- 
times suggested, that the plural stands for the singular, can 
hardly be sustained. The plural is only used for the singular 
in cases in which nothing depends upon the precise subject being 
more particularly indicated ; and examples of this construction 
may be found even in the New Testament. But here it was of 
the greatest importance, that, if the Evangelist intended to say 
that the Lord merely rode upon the colt, he should use a definite 
expression. The use of the plural can only have been intended 
to indicate that both animals were set apart to the service of the 
Lord, and that the fact of the one being covered with garments 
and mounted implied, as it were, that the other was the same. 
Nothing can be inferred from the silence of the other Evangelists 
with regard to the she-ass. John's account is very brief 
throughout, and the subordinate circumstances are all omitted. 
He takes for granted that the particulars are well known, and 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 10. 409 

merely adds that it was not till after Jesus was glorified that the 
disciples understood that there was an allusion in the symbolical 
transaction to the Old Testament prophecy. Mark and Luke 
say nothing whatever about the prophecy, on which Matthew, in 
harmony with the general design and uniform character of his 
gospel, lays such particular stress. This being the case, any 
reference to the she-ass would have been out of place ; for the 
reason of her being taken was unintelligible, apart from the 
allusion to the prophecy. On the other hand it was of the 
greatest importance for them to give prominence to the remark- 
able circumstances with which the event was attended. 

Yer. 10. ''And I exterminate chariots from Ephraim and 
liorses from Jerusalem, and the battle-hoio is exterminated, and 
He speaks peace to the nations, and his dominion passes from 
sea to sea, from the Euphrates to the ends of the earth." 

The meaning of the words, " and I exterminate . . battle- 
bow," is apparent from the original passage, on which this is 
founded, — viz., Micah v. 9, 10 (see vol. i. p. 517). According to 
this passage, the idea expressed in the words is that the world- 
wide dominion of the people of God, which was to be established 
by Christ; would be preceded by a judicial process on the part 
of God, that he would take away from His people everything on 
which they had placed a carnal reliance, that is, all their out- 
ward defences. The truth announced in ver. 6 with reference 
to the Philistines as the representatives of the Gentile world, 
that the way into the kingdom of God would be through great 
tribulation, is represented here as applying to the covenant 
nation also. The word 'mDrij which is common to the two 
passages, serves as an index to the connection between them. 
Instead of " the pride of the Philistines," we have here " the 
chainots and horses," which are alluded to, therefore, as being 
the objects of Israel's pride. The passage has been correctly 
interpreted by Theodoret,^ Etcsebins,^ and others, who regard it 
as containing an announcement of the political extinction of the 
covenant nation by the Eomans. On the other hand, it is falsely 

^ l^'jiXiP^ivaiii k^fiara. 6| '^ip^otif/, xa.) "iwoy s| 'lioovraXrifiC,, tjiv (^a.(TVTii\ra. abraiv xa'i 
T»iv ficevixhv x.a.Ta,KCffai ^affiXiiay, 



410 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

interpreted by those who follow the Chaldee and Septuagint^ 
versions, and understand it as referring to hostile chariots and 
horsemen. The same may be said of those who compare Is. ii. 
4, and suppose that the purport of the passage is to point out 
the utter worthlessness of every outward defence. The reference 
is not to the chariots and weapons of the heathen world, but to 
those of the covenant nation (from Ephraim, from Jerusalem); 
and to a forcible removal fl cut off) , not to the laying aside of 
that which has ceased to be useful. No one can remain long in 
doubt, if he will only examine, ^rs^, the original passage on which 
this is based ; secondly, the word 'niDn ; and, thirdly, the con- 
nection between this passage and the sixth verse. 

That no argument can be founded upon the juxtaposition of 
Judah and Ephraim, against the genuineness of the second 
part, has already been shown in the Dissertations on Daniel 
and Zecliariah (p. 306). At first sight, however, the fact that 
chariots and horses are spoken of here, as things to be destroyed 
at a future time, appears irreconcileable with the age in which 
Zechariah lived, since it apparently presupposes that the cove- 
nant nation was politically independent and capable of self- 
defence at the time when the prophecy was delivered. The 
answer is simply this, the prophet foresees, according to ver. 13 
sqq., that at some future period Israel will once more be inde- 
pendent and able to defend itself But the acquisitions of the 
future must be swept away again before salvation can appear. 
The prophecy is similar to that of Daniel in chap, ix., where we 
find him predicting a future destruction of the temple, although 
it was lying in ruins at the time. The subject to ~^%1) (and he 
speaks) is the king. What worldly kings can only accomplish 
by the force of arms, He efiects by a simple word. The only 
other passage in which b oi^^' i?! occurs, is Esther x. 3, where it 
refers, according to the correct interpretation, to the settlement 
of disputes. In Hitzig's opinion the peace of the " ideal theo- 
cratical king " was to be enjoined upon the heathen and forced 
upon them. But this explanation, which may be traced to 
rationalistic prejudices, is opposed not only to the parallel pas- 
sage, but also to Psalm Ixxii. on which this prediction is based. 
The absolute righteousness of the king is there described as lead- 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 10. 411 

ing the nations to render him voluntary homage. Moreover, the 
context shows that compulsion cannot be intended here. The 
Messiah himself comes " loivly and riding on an ass," and before 
his coming the covenant people are deprived of their weapons, 
both offensive and defensive. Whence, then, is he to obtain this 
external power ? His kingdom must be one that is not of this 
world. The fact that the Messiah speaks peace is primarily for 
the advantage of Zion, which was summoned to rejoice at the 
very outset. Until his coming it suffered greatly from the war- 
like spirit of the heathen (see the remarks on the parallel pas- 
sage in Micah v. 5, "and this man shall be peace"). 

But it does not end with peace. In Christ, Zion is exalted to 
the government of the world. This is intimated in the latter 
part of the verse, "and his dominion passes from sea to sen, 
from Euphrates to the ends of the earth." Many erroneous views 
have been entertained respecting this clause. Eichhorn, who 
adopts Abenezra s views, says : " he will rule from one sea to the 
other, from the (great) river to the end of the land. Jehovah 
gives to the kingdom of Israel its widest bounds, from the 
Dead Sea to the Mediterranean, from the Euphrates to the 
deserts of Arabia." Most of the other rationalists, and of 
those who are inclined that way, have given the same explana- 
tion, for reasons which may easily be conjectured. But the 
following proofs may be adduced that this interpretation is 
not correct. (1). V^-?'*5?^ is never applied to the boundaries of 
the Jewish kingdom, but always denotes the uttermost parts of 
the entire earth. (2). As the terminal point mentioned in the 
second clause is the farthest that can possibly be imagined, the 
one given in the first clause cannot be within the limits of Pales- 
tine. On the contrary, the second sea must be the most remote 
of all the seas. (3). As the whole sentence occurs in Ps. Ixxii. 8, 
and Zechariah must therefore have had this passage in his mind, 
it may justly be made use of in our attempts to expound the pas- 
sage before us. But in the Psalm we find from the verses which 
follow, that, not Palestine alone, but the whole earth, with all its 
tribes and countries, is to serve the king. The kings of Tarshish 
and the isles, of Sheba and Seba, are numbered among his sub- 
jects, and in ver, 11 it is announced that cdl kings shall fall 
down before him, all nations shall serve him. (4). The ex- 



412 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PKOPHETS. 

jjlanation sometimes given to d; iv d^o, from the Dead Sea, 
or from the Red Sea, to the Mediterranean, is inadmissible 
on grammatical "grounds. The article is no doubt frequently 
omitted in poetical composition, even when a definite object is 
referred to. But this is only done, when the object is sufficiently 
obvious of itself. The word "^nJ, in the passage before us, is a 
case in point. This cannot possibly mean any stream whatever, 
but every one sees at once that it must refer to the Euphrates, 
which was called inin^ the river, xar s^oxr/v. This appellative 
noun was sometimes treated in poetry as a proper name, and 
only on this ground could the article be omitted (see Jer. ii, 18 ; 
Is. vii. 20 ; Micah vii. 12). And if the first d; is to be under- 
stood as applying to one particular sea, it must also refer to one, 
which was commonly spoken of as " the sea" xar e^ox-^/v. Now 
this was neither the Red Sea, nor the Dead Sea, which are never 
referred to in this general manner, but the Mediterranean alone, 
which is frequently called " the great sea," and sometimes simply 
'• the sea." But in the passage before us, d* without the article 
cannot even mean the Mediterranean. The second d' is inde- 
finite, and therefore the first must be the same, otherwise it 
ought at least to be written with the article. This is confirmed 
by Micah vii, 12, and Amos viii. 12. We must render it there- 
fore, " from every sea to every sea." If the " sea," however, is 
to be taken indefinitely, we are hardly at liberty to understand 
the ''river" (without the article) as referring distinctly to the 
Euphrates. (In Micah vii. 12, where the sea is mentioned 
indefinitely, whilst the river is the Euphrates, the latter is more 
particularly defined in the context), Apparently there is merely 
a general allusion to the passages in Genesis, in which the 
boundaries of Canaan are given, and where the Mediterranean 
and Euphrates are expressly named, especially to Ex. xxiii. 31. 
The land, which Moses assigned to the children of Israel, simply 
extended from the sea to the river, but the dominion of this 
king will stretch from every sea to every sea, and from every 
river to the ends of the earth : it is a kingdom of unlimited 
extent. We can easily understand, why the prophet should 
have intentionally omitted the more definite terms, which occur 
in the original passage, " and 1 will set thy bounds from the 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 9, 10. 413 

Red Sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the 
desert unto the river," and should have retained the most general 
expression.^ 

Tl\iQ history of the exposition of vers. 9 and 10 is peculiarly 
interesting. The nature of the prophecy itself would lead us to 
expect this at the very outset. The more directly it is opposed 
to the views entertained by both Jews and rationalists respecting 
the Messiah, when we interpret it correctly, the more clearly do 
the prejudices of the opponents of revelation manifest themselves 
when we trace the history of its interpretation. 

Among the Jews, so far as we are able to trace the history of 
their opinions, the Messianic interpretation prevailed. This is 
attested by the numerous passages quoted by Bochart (Hieroz. 
p. 214), Lightfoot, Schottgen, Wetstein (on Matt. chap, xxi.) 
and others, from the Talmud and other ancient Jewish works. The 
unfounded suspicion, expressed by Paulus (commentary on the 
New Testament iii., p. 113), that this interpretation first origi- 
nated after the time of Christ, is refuted by the fact, that it is 
precisely in connection with a passage, which was so directly 
opposed to the Jewish ideas respecting the Messiah, and which 
placed such powerful weapons in the hands of their Christian 
opponents, that the general prevalence of the Messianic inter- 
pretation, even after the coming of Christ, affords the strongest 
proof, that it must have been sanctioned by traditions, that 
had been handed down from the very earliest times. And in 
addition to this, the close connection betv/een the entry of Christ 
into Jerusalem and the passage before us, leads at once to the 
conclusion that at that time it was understood as referring to the 
Messiah. Theodoret, it is true, asserts that the Jews of his day 
interpreted this prophecy, as referring to Zerubbabel. " I am 

1 The rendering adojDted by Hitzig is even more arbitraiy than that usually- 
given by the rationalists, especially the earlier ones. He explains it thus : 
" from the Nile to the Euphrates, and from the Euphrates to the sea of the 
Philistines, the Mediterranean." The only passage, in which the word d* 

is applied to the Nile, is Nahum iii. 8, where the reference is sufficiently clear 
on account of the name having occurred immediately before. It is never used 
of the Euphrates. In Is. xviii. 2, " the sea " means the Mediterranean, which 
the messenger who brought the tidings of the mighty works of the God of 
Israel, hudjirst of all to cross. In Is. xix. 5, xxvii. 1, and Jer. li. 3G, the 
expression is used in a figurative sense. At all events in the passage before 
us, where there is no farther information whatever, " the sea " cannot mean 
first the Nile and then the Euphrates. 



414 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

amazed," he says, " at the blindness of the Jews, whe venture in 
the most shameless manner to declare that it refers to Zerubba- 
bel." But, as there is not the slightest trace of any such inter- 
pretation in the writings of the Jews themselves, and not one of 
the later Jewish anti-Messianic expositors has mentioned Zer- 
ubbabel, whilst from time immemorial the opinion prevailed, 
that the passage could not refer to him on account of the 
future n'^;, it is very likely that Theodoret had not actually 
found any historical record of this interpretation, but merely 
conjectured that it could be found, from the analogy of other 
prophecies. 

The prophecy, when correctly interpreted in a Messianic 
sense, must, however, have been a very inconvenient one to the 
Jews. Taking the passage simply as it stands, altogether apart 
from the fulfilment, it was not so very easy to reconcile it with 
others, in which the glory of the Messiah is depicted, or even to 
reconcile the expression, " poor, and riding on an ass," with the 
other predicates in the very same passage. It is only by the 
history of the Eedeemer himself, that the difficulty is completely 
removed. " His sacred person," as Calmet observes, " presents 
to us a spectacle of the greatest grandeur, divinity, magnificence, 
and strength, associated, without confusion or contradiction, 
with the greatest humility, gentleness, poverty, suffering, and 
weakness. It is only the Christian religion that could combine 
together extremes which appear so directly opposed to one 
another." That this difficulty was a stumbling-block to the Jews 
at a very early period, is evident from the following attempt at 
a solution, which we find in the Talmud (Sanhedrim, C. 11) : 
" if the Israelites are worthy, the Messiah will come with the 
clouds of heaven (Dan. vii. 13) ; if they are not worthy he will 
come poor and riding upon an ass (Zech. ix. 9)." In this ex- 
position not only is the Messianic interpretation retained, but 
the words are taken in their literal sense. There was little 
hope, however, of its meeting with general acceptance, so far as 
this particular difficulty was concerned. It would not yield 
satisfaction, even in appearance, unless the Messianic passages 
were so distinct in their character, that whilst some announced 
merely a lowly Messiah, the rest foretold a Messiah who would 
come in glory. But this is by no means the case, as the passage 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 9, 10. 415 

before us sufficiently proves. The very same person, who is 
spoken of as poor and riding on an ass, is also represented as a 
king, on whom the favour of God will peculiarly rest, and who 
is to rule over the whole earth. The expedient adopted in other 
cases, in order to get rid of the difficulty caused by those passages 
in which a lowly Messiah is announced, was to distinguish 
between the Messiah the Son of Joseph and the Messiah the Son 
of David. But for the reason assigned, this expedient could 
not be resorted to here, although, according to Abenezra, there 
were some who applied it even to this passage. — There was 
another point, of even greater moment than this particular diffi- 
culty. The material character of the Messianic hopes enter- 
tained by the Jews, which grew stronger and stronger from their 
opposition to Christianity, rendered the idea of even a condi- 
tional announcement of a lowly Messiah, intolerable to the great 
majority. Under these circumstances their only alternative was 
either to give up the Messianic interpretation altogether, or to 
expound the passage in some other way, by which the difficulty 
might be avoided. It was but natural, that comparatively few 
should adopt the former method. The Messianic interpretation 
was supported by tradition, and was even sanctioned by the 
authority of the Talmud. Moreover, the righteousness and 
saving power of the king, referred to in ver. 9, and the whole of 
ver. 10, presented such glorious prospects, that there were many 
who could hardly constrain themselves to assign the fulffiment 
to a period already gone by. In addition to this, there was the 
difficulty of bringing the non-Messianic interpretation into har- 
mony with the age in which Zechariah lived. So far as the 
prophets anterior to the captivity were concerned, it was possible, 
though not without doing violence to the words, to fix upon 
individuals, a Hezekiah for example, to whom such of the 
Messianic prophecies, as were felt to be inconvenient, might be 
referred. But when Zechariah prophesied, the second temple 
had been built, the kingdom had long been extinct, and among 
the rulers of the Jews in these later times there was not one, to 
whom the words of ver. 10 could with any plausibility be applied, 
even with the most forced interpretation, and assuming that 
the most grotesque hyperbole had been employed. There were 
at least two commentators, however, who ventured to brave all 



416 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

these obstacles, which they felt to be at all events of less im- 
portance than the troublesome expression, " poor and riding 
upon an ass;" for whilst this not only threatened to overturn 
their entire system of theology, but clashed most fearfully with 
the feelings of their hearts, the non-Messianic interpretation 
merely did violence to their exegetical sensibilities. Rahbi 
Mose Hakkohen, as we are informed by A benezra, referred the 
prophecy to Nehemiah, on the ground that he is called the king 
of Judah in Neh. vi. 6, 7, and that he was poor and rode upon an 
ass, on account of his having no horse to ride upon. A henezra 
refutes him with the simple remark, that in the passage cited it 
is simply stated that the title of king was given to Nehemiah by 
his enemies in a calumnious spirit, whereas he never pretended 
to be anything more than a Persian officer; and on the other 
hand that his history proves him to have been possessed of great 
wealth. — But Ahenezra himself has gone just as far astray. He 
refers the prophecy to Judas Maccabceus, who was at first neither 
a rich man, nor in possession of a horse. Bochart has taken 
the trouble to enter into an acute and learned reply to this expo- 
sition. But the best refutation is that of Abarbonel : "I am 
amazed, that a bad intention should so thoroughly have blinded 
the eyes of his mind." 

But there were a far greater number who adhered to the Mes- 
_ sianic interpretation, and endeavoured to explain away the diffi- 
culties and to cover over the supposed nakedness of the Messiah.^ 
The latter was aittempted in a most absurd manner, by those 
who maintained that the ass, on which the Messiah was to ride, 
was a foal of the she-ass, which was formed during the six days 
of Creation, and was the very same ass as that upon which 
Abraham rode when he was about to offer up Isaac, and Moses 
when he went down to Egypt. (See the Jalkut Bubeni, in 
8chdttgen ut supra, and other passages from the Jalkut Schi- 
meoni, the Pirke B. EUezer and Jarclii quoted by Eisenmenger 
ii., p. 697). Babbi Samuel (in the Sanhedrin ut supra) wards 
off the ridicule of King Sapor by stating, that the ass of the 

1 Athanasius speaks of the heathen as saying in scorn, " the God of the 
Christians, who was called Christ, sat upon an ass ; and according to Ter- 
tuUian the Komans called the Christians asinarii. Compare the ridicule of 
King Sapor already referred to. 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 9, 10. 417 

Messiah will be of a hundred colours ! The subject was handled 
much more ingeniously by those who followed the Septuagint 
and the Chaldean paraphrase, and interpreted "i.v as meaning 
humility, and the riding on an ass as a symbol of the same. " He 
will come with humility, not proudly riding upon a horse," is 
the explanation given by R. Saadias (Haggaon on Dan. vii. 13). 
Kimchi and Jarchi, Aharhanel and others, adopt the same inter- 
pretation. Jarchi betrays his evil conscience, by the fact, that 
he dismisses the word 'j;;, as quickly as possible, with the hurried 
remark that it is a sign of humility. 

In the Christian Church, as a matter of course, the opinion, 
that the prophecy refers to the historical Christ, generally pre- 
vailed until the rise of Deism and Kationalism. Grotius consti- 
tuted the only exception, and his assertion that it was merely in 
a higher sense that the prophecy referred to Christ, whilst the 
literal and immediate reference was to Zerubbabel, excited uni- 
versal displeasure, and called forth a host of replies, the first of 
which was written by Bochart, who left but scanty gleanings for 
his successors. The 7nala intentio was also manifest in the case 
of Grotius. His hesitation, which may be seen in the fact that 
in his notes on Matt. xxi. he expresses the opinion, that the pas- 
sage may also relate to Judas Maccabfeus or any other person, is 
a proof that his only object was to get rid, at any cost, of the 
reference of the Messiah, against which he could not brino- for- 
ward a single argument. And this is still more evident from 
the violent means, of which, although a commentator of refined 
exegetical tact, he has not scrupled to make use, in order to sus- 
tain his point. He renders ns; " he is come," and refers it to 
the return of Zerubbabel from Babylon, which had taken place 
long before the period of the prophecy. He maintams, in oppo- 
sition to the testimony of history, that, although Zerubbabel was 
not nominally a king, he was really so, and very craftily refers 
to Jer. xxiii. 5 and Ezek. xxxvii. 22, 24, as passages in which he 
is also called king in the same sense as in the passage before us. 
But he does not intimate, that this is the case only according to 
his own false exposition, to which the same mala intentio has 
given rise, p'-^t is diluted, and explained to mean '' cequus, 
^ikonxrpis, non tyranniLS." The perversion of the expressions 

VOL. III. 2 D 



418 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

'■' poor" and " riding on an ass" hardly needs to be mentioned, 
since it is not only self-evident, but was furnished ready to his 
hand by the Jewish commentators. With reference to the latter 
of the two expressions, Bochart observes : " his exposition is 
particularly cold, when he pretends that these words of the pro- 
phet, ' riding on an ass,' indicate the modesty of Zerubbabel and 
his wish for peace. For in this sense Solomon with all his horse- 
men might have been described as riding on his ass, since no 
king was more desirous of peace than he." But still more 
violence had to be done to his feelings as a commentator in the 
case of ver. 10. For it is hardly possible to imagine a greater 
contrast, than that which exists between the obscure Zerubbabel 
and the king mentioned in this verse. According to Grotius, 
however, the extermination of the war-chariots, &c., out of 
Ephraim, means that hostility of every kind is to be rendered 
harmless. The clause " he will speak peace to the heathen 
nations " is expounded thus, " the city of Jerusalem will make 
treaties with kings, with the Lacedaemonians, and the Romans." 
The history of Zerubbabel left him quite in the lurch here ; but 
rather than give up his hypothesis, he saved himself at the cost 
of the grammar, and supplied the feminine "Jerusalem" as 
the subject of "^^1. He also refers the masculine suffix in 
S'?^^ to the same feminine noun. But we may see how little 
he gained by all his great exertions, if we merely compare the 
clause, " from sea to sea, from the river to the ends of the 
earth," with his interpretation, " the dominion of Jerusalem, 
which embraced Samaria, Galilee, Gilead, and other provinces 
that had been separated from it ever since the time of Jero- 
boam ! " 

In the history of the interpretation of this prophecy by the 
rationalists, there are many points of resemblance to that by the 
Jews. They were equally unable to discern the reference to a 
poor and humble Messiah. This would have overthrown their 
entire system, the fundamental principle of which was the denial 
of any supernatural interference on the part of God. They con- 
sequently regarded the Messianic idea as a purely human inven- 
tion. But the only way in which they could carry this out with 
any degree of plausibility, was by first of all getting rid of every 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 9, 10. 419 

allusion to the humiliation, sufferings, and death of the Mes- 
siah. For the anticipation of a Messiah in glory is the only one 
which could be accounted for, by either the constitution of human 
nature, or the peculiar circumstances of the Jewish nation. No 
one pretended to trace the origin of the idea of a suffering 
Messiah. There was the greater reluctance to admit the exist- 
ence of this idea in the Old Testament, from the fact that the 
passages in which it is found are much more strikingly in har- 
mony with the historical personality of Christ, than those which 
depict a Messiah in glory. The fulfilment of the latter is to 
some extent yet to come, and what has already been fulfilled is 
for the most part hidden from the natural eye, and only dis- 
cernible by the eye of faith. From their general point of view, 
therefore, they were obliged to take refuge in one of the alterna- 
tives, which had already been adopted by the Jews. 

In the case of the rationalists, there were a greater number 
who tried to fix upon some other person as the subject of the pro- 
phecy, than in that of the Jews. Bauer led the way in his work 
on the Minor Prophets. He referred the prophecy to Simon 
Maccabasus, who was unfortunately, however, not a king at all, 
and from first to last a warrior. But he afterwards saw how 
pointless his own exposition was, and (in the Scholia) adopted 
the " ideal Messianic " interpretation. Paulus, who fixed upon 
the time of the Maccabees as the date of its composition, though 
on doctrinal grounds alone, endeavoured in his notes on Matt, 
xxi. to twist the passage in the most violent manner, so as to 
make it refer to the warlike John Hyrcanus ; an exposition 
which Jahn has taken the trouble to refute in the most complete 
and serious manner ( Faficm. 3Iess. i., p. 171 sqq.). Both of 
these commentators lived at a time, when rationalism could not 
see its way clearly, and, therefore, was afraid even of an ideal 
Messiah. At a later period the second escape from the difficulty 
was preferred. There were only two of the more modern expo- 
sitors, who were unable to feel at home in the new method, and 
faithfully adhered to the old. According to Forberg {comment, 
in Sack. jKirt. jjost. part. i. p. 24), the subject of the prophecy 
is King Uzziah, who defeated the Philistines. The mala in- 
tentio is veiy conspicuous here, in the fact that 'J^ is entirely 



420 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

omitted from the translation. Theiner makes Jehovah the sub- 
ject. The thought, that Jehovah, who had gradually conquered 
all his enemies, and, if any other should arise, would conquer 
them as well, is said to be figuratively expressed by the prophet 
under the image of a triumphal entrance on the part of Jehovah 
into Jerusalem, The false interpretation of the expressions, 
''poor" and " riding upon an ass" reaches its climax here ; and 
we should have no reward for our pains, if we proceeded still 
further to point out the arbitrary manner in which Vl^'i^ has also 
been explained. 

The number of those who understand the prophecy as refer- 
ing to aw ideal Messiah is very great, and includes Ammon, 
Eiclihorn, Gesenius, Winer, Hifzig, Maurer, Eivald, and many 
others. The false interpretation of the two expressions 'Jj? and 
" riding upon an ass" is common to them all. Most of them 
restrict the words " from sea to sea," &c., to the narrow limits of 
Palestine. Many of them again retain the erroneous rendering 
deliverer for v^iJ, assuming at the outset that, if this is not its 
meaning, it must necessarily mean delivered, which would pre- 
suppose some previous suffering, and this would not square with 
that idea of the Messiah of which they were the inventors. 

We now proceed to show that the prophecy necessarily refers 
to the historical Christ. 

1. The testimony of the New Testament, especially that of 
the Lord himself, is of peculiar importance. The earlier theolo- 
gians, for the most part, regarded Christ's entry into Jerusalem 
upon an ass, as affording incontestable internal evidence that the 
prophecy related to him. Thus Chrysostom uses it triumphantly 
as an argument against the Jews : " Ask the Jew, what king 
came to Jerusalem riding upon an ass ? and he will be unable 
to point to any other than this." But it could only be upon 
opponents, who were favourably disposed, that it could make any 
impression from this point of view. The English Deists (see Bib- 
lioth. Britann. i. p. 403 sqq.), and more recently Ammon, reply, 
that such an act as this proves nothing, for it is altogether arbi- 
trary in its nature, and might have been performed by a false 
Messiah. Another reason may also be assigned. The weight 
attached to the fact of Christ's entering Jerusalem upon an ass, 
as an internal proof of the fulfilment of the prophecy, may be 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 9, 10. 421 

traced to the idea that Zechariah speaks strictly and litovally of 
such an entrance as this. But the idea itself is incorrect, as 
Calvin and Vitringa (commentary on Isaiah ii. p. 6G7) per- 
ceived, though they stood almost alone in this respect among 
the earlier commentators. The expression, " riding upon an 
ass," merely particularises the previous 'JJJ, and exhibits in a 
striking figure the humiliation of the exalted king. Vitringa 
has justly observed, therefore, that the prophecy w^ould have 
been fulfilled in Christ, even if he had not entered Jerusalem as 
he did. And hence the absence of this particular sign could 
not be adduced to disprove the reference of the prophecy to any 
other person, provided the substantial element in the imagery, 
extreme humiliation, could be shown to be associated in his 
person with the other distinguishing characteristics. 

In another light, however, the entrance of Christ into Jerusalem 
is of great importance, as a proof of the Messianic chai-acter of 
this passage. It takes the place of the most express declaration 
in ivords. The entrance of Christ was a symbolical action, the 
design and purport of which were to assert his royal dignity, and 
to set forth in a living picture the true nature of his person and 
kingdom, in opposition to the false notions of both friends and 
foes. Apart, therefore, from the prophecy, the entry had its 
own peculiar meaning, as in fact was the case with every act of 
Christ and every event of his life, none of which were intended 
merely as fulfilments of prophecy, though this was undoubtedly 
one object in numerous instances. If this act of Christ had had 
no such meaning in itself, it would be difficult to explain how 
it is, that neither Mark nor Luke makes any express allusion to 
its connection with the prophecy. But the fact that, of all the 
numerous symbols within his reach, Christ should have selectetl 
this particular one, and that, in the arrangement of the most 
minute details, he had still the prophecy before his mind, can 
only be explained on the supposition, that He, who so repeatedly 
and emphatically laid stress upon the prophecies of the Old Tes- 
tament in the closing actions and events of his life, expressly 
intended to declare in this manner, that He was the king pre- 
dicted by Zechariah. The objection that this declaration would 
have no weight, since it would be merely a testimony of him- 
self, was met by the wonderful deeds which preceded this trans- 



422 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

action, and the wonderful circumstances with which it was 
accompanied. It is scarcely necessary to enter at greater length 
into a discussion of the testimony, afforded by the apostles, to 
the fact that the prophecy refers to Christ, after we have thus 
proved that the Lord himself bears testimony to that effect. 
The latter is quite sufficient for the believer, and he who does 
7iot believe the Lord, will pay still less attention to his servants. 
With regard to Matthew, Fritsche has already shown, that the 
close connection, in which he places Christ's entry into Jeru- 
salem with the prophecy, is quite as apparent from the tote in 
ver. 1 (" when he drew near to Jerusalem, then remembering the 
propheci/, he sent," &c.), as from the fourth verse. The formula 
of quotation employed in this verse, " all this was done that it 
might be fulfilled," is the most emphatic of all. And to John 
the allusion to the prophecy appears of such importance, that 
he cites it as quite a remarkable fact, that the disciples under- 
stood this after Christ was glorified. 

2. As an external proof, of a subordinate character, we may 
refer to Jewish tradition (see p. 413 sqq.). Of course this would 
be utterly inadequate in «fee?/' to establish the Messianic character 
of any passage. There are many passages, which are interpreted 
as Messianic in the early Jewish writings without the least foun- 
dation. And the argument founded upon tradition is still 
simply auxiliary evidence, which is not decisive in itself, even 
when, as in the present instance, the tradition can be shown to 
be both very ancient and unanimously adopted, and the passage 
itself is free from everything, that could serve as a connecting 
link, for the Messianic hopes indulged by the Jews, so as to give 
an impulse to the Messianic interpretation. 

3. There are parallel passages, which may also be adduced in 
support of the Messianic interpretation. In ver. 10 the words 
" from sea to sea," &c., are taken from the Messianic 72d Psalm ; 
and the rest of the verse contains an allusion to Micah v. 9, 
which is also Messianic. 

4. But next to the authority of Christ and his apostles, the 
main arguinent, of a thoroughly decisive character, is founded 
upon the contents of the prophecy itself. The signs of a king, 
which are mentioned here, are such as do not apply to any one 
but the historical Christ. Every individual, that might be thought 



ZECHARIAH, CHAPS. IX. 11 — X. 12. 423 

of, in the later period of Jewish history, is excluded by the fact 
that he is described as the king of the covenant nation xar iipx'^^^ 
and still more by the enigmatical combination of apparently the 
most opposite signs, — namely, the deepest humiliation and help- 
lessness, on the one hand, and on the other a dominion, which is 
to spread over the whole earth, not by the force of arms, but by 
means of his simple word, which will bring all nations to peace 
and obedience, and effect so wondrous a change, that, whereas 
the kingdom of God has hitherto been opposed and enslaved by 
the heathen, it now obtains dominion over them, and that with 
their own consent. — Theodoret says : " but the most inconceiv- 
able of all is, that he, who had not where to lay his head, and 
who rode upon an ass, should acquire dominion over both earth 
and sea." The forced explanations, resorted to by those who 
maintain that the passage relates to an ideal Messiah, is a suffi- 
cient proof that their theory cannot be sustained. 



CHAPS. IX. 11-X. 1-2. 

A new section commences here, or rather a new scene opens 
before the prophet's spiritual eye ; as the contents clearly show. 
According to ver. 10, the people were to be rendered completely 
defenceless, and placed in circumstances of utter helplessness, 
in view of the Messianic times. But here on a sudden every- 
thing is warlike. The covenant nation is seen fighting with its 
powerful oppressors, of whom the Greeks are mentioned by name. 
By the help of the Lord a victory is obtained, and this is followed 
by liberty, of which the people of the covenant were painfully in 
want in the time of Zechariah, and by other theocratical blessings. 
Ephraim, whose reunion with Judah had been but very imper- 
fectly effected in the time of Zechariah, is brought back by the 
Lord from his dispersion. 

This description is sufficient to show, that the prophecy more 
particularly refers to the Maccabean age. What the Lord would 
then perform, in order to complete the work which he had already 
commenced, when he led back the covenant people from their 



424 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PKOPHETS. 

captivity in Babylon, is held up by the prophet before the eyes 
of his contemporaries, who were mourning on account of the 
small beginnings of the new colony. 

There is nothing to astonish us in this sudden transition from 
the Messianic age to the period which preceded it. In vers. 
1 — 8 the prophet had already spoken of Alexander's expedition, 
and the safety enjoyed by the covenant nation. And it would 
have been quite in accordance with the actual succession of 
events, to pass at once to the Maccabean times. But in the 
midst of these events, the prophet's mental eye had fallen upon 
the far greater blessings, which the Messiah was to bring to the 
covenant nation. There is no necessity to account for this, as 
John has done, from the contrast between the great Prince of 
Peace and the great worldly conqueror described in vers. 1 — 8. 
If any such contrast had been intended by the prophet, the con- 
queror himself would not have been kept so much in the back- 
ground. The cause is rather to be looked for in the fact, that 
the minds of the prophets were so filled with the Messianic pros- 
pects, that they turned at once from every deliverance, however 
small, to this the last and greatest, to which all the others pointed, 
and did not stop to inquire whether there were any other mani- 
festations of the grace of God, which the people of the covenant 
would previously receive. And, on the other hand, whilst depict- 
ing the latter, they would turn again just as easily and imper- 
ceptibly to the Messianic era, the images of which continually 
forced themselves upon their minds with an irresistible charm, 
and occasionally even mingled themselves with more immediate 
blessings. 

But, as we may see from a comparison of ver. 7 with ver. 10, 
the Messianic announcement in vers. 9 and 10 is intimately con- 
nected with the predictions in vers. 1 — 8 respecting the judg- 
ments on the heathen world. The latter are represented as 
preparing the way for the Messianic salvation. 

The events, which are expressly announced in the section be- 
fore us, are presupposed in ver. 10. Ephraim is here introduced 
as associated with Judah in the Lord's own land, and Israel 
possesses chariots and horses, and appears armed with the battle- 
bow, chap. X. 3, 4, 5. These were circumstances, which had 
no existence in the time of the prophet, and into the origin of 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. TX. 11. 425 

which, when once they had been mentioned in passing, it was 
necessary to enter with greater minuteness. 

Ver. 11. " As/o7' thee also, for the sake of thy covenajit blood, 
I send forth thy prisoners out of the 'pit, wherein is no water." 

These words must be addressed to the whole of the covenant 
nation, not to a portion of it, as Hitzig supposes. For the 
" blood of the covenant " belonged only to the whole body, to 
the nation (Ex. xxiv. 8). Moreover, a more particular descrip- 
tion of the portion referred to would have been required. — Most 
commentators suppose, that a contrast is intended to the bless- 
ing, promised to the heathen nations in the foregoing verse : 
" think not, Zion, that the Lord will neglect thee on this 
account ; on the contrary he will watch over thee with pecu- 
liar care." But even the promises in the two previous verses 
relate directly to the covenant nation alone, and merely concern 
the heathen nations, because the predicted extension of the king- 
dom over them would be beneficial to the covenant nation 
also. It is the king of Zion, whose dominion extends over the 
whole earth, and his people share in his glory. The explanation 
given by Cocceius, Maurer, and others, " not only has thy king 
come, but I have also loosened thy prisoners," is equally inadmis- 
sible ; for the separate pronoun J?n, on which peculiar emphasis 
must be placed, is here treated as entirely superfluous, and dj, 
which is attached to it by Makkeph, is, without any reason, 
connected with 'wpW. The true explanation is that ^^'o?., 
" thou also," stands for " even," just as in ver. 12 DS^'^-DJ, 
" even to-day ;" and the meaning of the clause is, " although 
thou art in a cave without water, in a state of utter helplessness, 
although thou appearest to be hopelessly lost." When the 
covenant was concluded at Sinai, Moses sprinkled the people 
with the blood of the sacrifices, and said : " behold, this is the 
blood of the covenant, which the Lord makes with you, concern- 
ing all these words" (Ex. xxiv. 8). The blood was both the 
symbol and means of reconciliation (compare Lev. xvii. 11, and 
Heb. ix. 18 sqq.), and by this symbolical act, the nation was 
solemnly declared to be purified, to have received forgiveness of 
sins, and therefore to stand under the special protection of God, 
— a declaration, which was constantly repeated in the divinely 



426 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

appointed institution of sacrifice. The covenant blood, which 
still separates the Church from the world, was a sure pledge, 
therefore, of the certain deliverance of the covenant nation out of 
every trouble, provided, that is, it did not make the promises of 
God of none effect, by wickedly violating the conditions laid 
down by God himself. — There can be no doubt, that *nr;iW' is 
a prophetical preterite, and that the prophet referred to a deliver- 
ance, which was to be effected at some future period for the 
covenant nation. 

The " pit without water " contains a retrospective allusion to 
the typical history of Joseph, who is also mentioned in Ps. cv. as 
a type of his nation (compare Gen. xxxvii. 14, to which there is 
indisputably a reference even in the expression employed) — and 
possibly also to that of Jeremiah, which is the more likely, since 
the prophecies of Zechariah are very closely connected in other 
respects with those of Jeremiah ; (compare chap, xxxviii. 6). 
Now there are many -commentators, who regard the pit as a 
figurative representation of captivity. But there is nothing in 
the figure itself to warrant such an opinion. On the contrary, 
we find it used in other passages in a wider sense, — namely, to 
denote the deepest distress and extreme misery ; for example, 
in Ps. xl. 3, and Lam. iii. 53. In Is. xlii. 22, again, the figure 
of a prison is employed, to represent the deepest misery (see 
vol. ii. p. 223). The following proofs may be given that the 
figure of a pit is used in the same general sense in the present 
instance. (1). As the strong-hold in ver. 12 represents pro- 
sperity and safety, the antithesis, the pit, must be a figurative 
expression for adversity and helplessness. We find precisely 
the same contrast in Ps. xl. 3. — (2). The manner in which, 
according to ver. 13, the covenant nation is to be rescued from 
adversity, — namely, by a brave struggle, which the Lord will bless, 
precludes the idea of captivity, associated with the want of every 
means of defence. The field of battle, according to what follows, 
is in the holy land (compare ver. 16 especially). — Lastly, we 
may add, that the assumption, that it is captivity in a foreign 
land which is here referred to, presupposes one of the two erro- 
neous hypotheses, either that ver. 1 1 relates to something already 
gone by, or that the second part is not genuine. 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 12. 427 

Let us examine a little more closely, what distress it is, which 
is here presented to the mental eye of the prophet. The G-reek 
and Latin fathers, as well as the later Christian commentators, 
are unanimous in the opinion, that it relates to that spiritual 
misery, from which Christ was to deliver. But the distress in 
this verse is the same as that, from which deliverance is promised 
in ver. 12; and from ver. 13, where this deliverance is more 
particularly described, it is evident that it loas to consist in a 
victorious conflict with the Greeks. The close connection, which 
exists between the three verses 11 — 13, shows that the distress 
could be no other, than the oppression endured from the suc- 
cessors of Alexander in the Syrian kingdom. This is so very 
clear, that it would certainly never have been overlooked, had 
not the commentators been led astray at the very outset by the 
notion, that it would be too violent a leap, for the prophet to 
pass suddenly from the Messianic times to an earlier period, 
from the highest possible deliverance to one of an inferior kind. 
The majority were so blinded by this notion, that they inter- 
preted the whole section allegorically. Others, e.g., Theodoret 
and March, felt that this was too forced, and explained the 
section, from ver. 13 onwards, as referring primarily to the times 
of the Maccabees. The former, however, including Cyril, Coc- 
ceius, and Ch. B. Michaelis, are more consistent than the others, 
for ver. 13 sqq. cannot possibly relate to something different from 
the two previous verses, with which they are connected in the 
closest manner by the particle *?. 

Ver. 12. " Return to the stronghold, ye prisoners of ho'pe ; 
even to-day do I declare, I loill give hack double unto you." 

The stronghold contrasted with the pit, is a figurative repre- 
sentation of safety and prosperity; just as the rock, the high 
place, &c., in many other passages. " Keturn" is equivalent to 
" ye will return," and at the same time expresses the idea, that 
the return of the covenant people was dependent upon nothing 
but their own will; just as in chap. x. 1, " as^ of the Lord 
rain, is used for " ye only need to ask." — By the expression, 
" prisoners of hope," the prophet directs the attention of his 
people to the covenant and the promises, in which, even in the 
midst of their deepest misery, they still possess a guarantee of 
future deliverance. — That Ewald's explanation is the best (" even 



428 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

to-day, in spite of all the threatening circumstances") ^ is evident 
from the corresponding OJ in ver. 11. — " / will give hack the 
double" — namely, double the prosperity which you formerly pos- 
sessed. The passages on which this is based are Is. xl. 2, " that 
she shall receive from the Lord double for all her sins," and Is. 
Ixi. 7. 

Ver. 13. " For I bend me Judah,fill the boio with Ephraim, 
and raise up thy sons, Zion, against thy sons, Javan, and 
make thee like the sivord of a hero." 

The prophet in this verse points out more particularly the 
nature of the distress, and the manner in which the deliverance, 
already predicted in general terms in the preceding verse, M'as to 
be effected. By the help of the Lord, they will obtain glorious 
victories over their powerful oppressors, the Greeks. ("What 
will a bow effect, unless it is drawn ? And unless the arrows are 
shaken out, the bow itself will be idle." Calvin.) We have here 
the description of a state of things, which intervened hetioeen the 
time, at which the prophet wrote, and the Messianic age. h\ 
the prophet's life-time, Ephraim for the most part had not yet 
returned to the land of the Lord, whilst Judah was subject to 
the Persians, and cherishing anything but warlike thoughts. 
According to ver. 10, the ability of both Ephraim and Jerusalem 
to make war and conquer was to be completely destroyed, and 
the people of the covenant were to be brought back to their 
defenceless condition again. Judah is represented here as the 
bow drawn by the Lord, and Ephraim as the arrow, which He 
shoots, to express the thought, that the Lord will conduct the 
affairs of his people by means of the people themselves, and will 
make use of them as his weapons in the holy war, — a different 
course from that which was adopted in the olden time, when the 
people were told, " the Lord will fight for you and ye will hold 
your peace" (Ex. xiv. 14). — According to the accents. ^V.\>, (the 
bow) is connected with the following word. There is no reason 
to reject their authority. On the contrary it cannot be taken in 
connection with the previous word, as many commentators sup- 
pose ; for 'O^V.? would then lose one of its two objects, and 
would require a suffix agreeing with r.'<^\i.__. — The only legitimate 
rendering is, '' / fill the how with Ephraim." As only one 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 13. 429 

arrow can be shot at a time from a bow, it is full when this is 
placed upon it. The words " / raise up" &c. have caused no 
little difficulty, to all who came with false hypotheses to the inter- 
pretation of this passage. The earlier commentators, who ex- 
plained the whole section allegorically, supposed that the Greeks 
were mentioned here synecdochically for the heathen nations 
generally, who were to be overcome by the Gospel. Now it is 
certainly correct, that the prophets frequently mention only one 
species, when a whole genus is intended ; but, in such a case as 
this, there must be some reason for the selection of a representa- 
tive. For example, no nation could represent all the enemies of 
the kingdom of God, which had not itself stood in a hostile 
relation to it, either before the prophet's days or during his life- 
time, or which was not notoriously an object to be peculiarly 
dreaded in his days. The modern rationalistic commentators 
were thrown into still greater perplexity by this passage. Their 
principle, that the prophets never predicted anything which did 
not lie within the political horizon of their own times, was in 
danger of receiving a sensible shock. The difficulty was only 
increased by transferring the prophecy, as many did, to the time 
of Uzziah. Different plans of escape were resorted to, but all 
equally arbitrary.^ There was no need, however, of any of these, 

1 Fliigge maintained that Javan evidently meant the same as Damascus 
and Hamath in chap. ix. 1, and devoted a special excursus to the attempt to 
prove, that the genuine Hebrew writers never used the term Javan to denote 
Greece ! Forberg thinks that there is nothing surprising in the fact, that a 
war with the Greeks should be announced in the time of Uzziah, if we only 
compare Amos i. 9, 10, and Joel iv. 4 — 7. But we cannot see what these 
passages ai-e to prove, since they make no allusion to a war with the Greeks, 
which in fact was absolutely inconceivable under existing circumstances. 
Greece is simply mentioned as one of the most remote countries, into which 
certain Jewish captives had been carried away and sold as slaves, not through 
any criminality on the part of the inhabitants of those lands themselves, but 
through the fault of the Tyrians, who alone are threatened, in consequence, 
with punishment from God. In Hitzig's opinion, the war was to be carried 
on by the Zionites in Javan, who would rise against their oppressors, and not 
by the inhabitants of Jerusalem. But decisive evidence to the contrary is to be 
found in the fact that the sons of Judah and Jerusalem alone are mentioned 
in Joel iii. 6, whilst Judah and Ephraim are referred to here ; that the 
general character of the account before us proves the war to be a strictly 
national one ; and that, according to ver. IG and chap. x. 1, the scene of con- 
flict is the Lord's own land. Besides, how could any one think of attributing 
to the prophet the romantic idea, that a handful of Jewish slaves would rise 
successfully against their oppressors ! Ewald, it is true, does not shrink 



430 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

if the interpretation of the passage were only approached with an 
unprejudiced mind. The name Javan, to which the Homeric 
forms laon and Iao7ies, and the Syriac Yaunoye come very near, 
and which we need not, therefore, be in too much of a hurry to 
change into Ion, as I. D. Michaelis has done, was used by the 
Hebrews to represent Greece in the widest sense, as we may see 
from the fact that Alexander is called the king of Greece in 
Dan. viii. 21. The prophet, who is undoubtedly enabled by 
divine illumination to look beyond the horizon of his own time,^ 
gives a sliglit sketch of the victories which the Jews will obtain 
under the guidance of the Maccabees, and, by the assistance of 
God, over the Grecian rulers of Syria, and which Daniel had 
even more fully predicted at a still earlier period. The nearer 
the time approached, when the book of prophecy would be closed, 
the greater necessity was there, that such of the holy seers, as 
still remained, should have regard, not merely to their contem- 
poraries, but to succeeding generations also until the time of 
Christ, and that the Lord should deposit in their predictions a 
treasure by which their successors might be comforted and sus- 
tained in their afflictions ; whilst the very fact, that these afflic- 
tions had been distinctly foretold, would furnish them at once 
with a proof, that their fate was determined by God and not by 

back from this startling notion any more than Hitzig. According to his 
explanation, " the prophet incites them to make war upon those who unjustly 
detain the exiles for too long a period ; for example, the lonians (Joel iii. 
6. 7)." " For example " is his own interpretation. Moreover, in Joel the 
Greeks are not represented as the enemies of the covenant nation, whilst 
there is not a single word about any war with them. The prophecy is 
directed against Tyre, Sidon, and Philistia, and all that is said is : " the chil- 
dren also of Judah and the children of Jerusalem ye have sold unto the chil- 
dren of the Greeks, that ye might remove them far from their border. Be- 
hold, I will raise them out of the place, whither ye have sold them, and will 
return your recompense upon your head." BosenmiUler, in order to prove 
his point, that the Greeks are mentioned here metonymically for the heathen 
enemies of the covenant people generally, maintains that the Macedonians 
had acquired such power in the time of the prophet, that all the inhabitants 
of Western Asia were filled with alarm ! Eichhorn resoi'ts to the most des- 
perate moans, and transfers the date of the prophecy to a later period than 
that of Alexander the Great, when the Greeks were really the most powerful 
nation in the whole of Western Asia. 

1 Wo must not overlook the fact, however, that there was a connecting 
link even in his own day. The designs of Darius upon Greece were made 
known very shortly after he ascended the throne (Herodotus iii. 129 — l?)l. 
Flass, Geschichte der Helenen iii. p. 23). 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 14. 431 

chance, and also with a guarantee that the promised deliverance 
would as surely come.^ 

Ver. 14. ^^ And the Lord will appear above them; and his 
arrow goeth forth as the lightning ; and the Lord Jehovah icill 
blotv the trumpet, and he goeth along in the storms of the soidh." 

Israel, surrounded as it was by much more powerful nations, 
could only base its hopes of salvation, as the little flock has 
always had to do in the presence of the world, upon its heavenly 
hero-king (compare Ps. xxiv. 8, " the Lord is strong and a hero, 
the Lord is a hero of war "), He appears above them because 
he fights from heaven on their behalf. The arroivs of God are 
the plagues with which he visits his enemies (Deut. xxxii. 23 ; 
Ps. vii. 14, xxxviii. 3). The fact that the Lord blows a trumpet 
is an announcement of some grand catastrophe. The context 
shows the nature of the announcement, — namely, that it has 



1 The allusion in this passage is so very obvious, that, as we have already 
observed, many of those who support the spiritual interpretation of the whole 
section, and regard it as prophetic of the Messianic times, cannot help giving 
this as at least the lower and primary meaning. Thus, for example, Theo- 
doret says, " but the prophecy contains, as it were, a typical reference to the 
Macedonians : for the children of Zion rose against the children of the 
Greeks, and having routed many thousands of the Macedonians, and erected 
a trophy, returned victorious, and rebuilt the altar which had been destroyed." 
Schmieder objects, that even in Daniel (chap. xi. 11) the Syrian kingdom 
about which he prophecies, is not referred to as a Grecian kingdom, but, 
simply as the kingdom towards the north. But he has overlooked chap. viii. 
21 sqq., where the imperial power, which follows the Medo-Persian, and the 
characteristic of one phase of which is its oppression of Judah, is expressly 
declared to be the Grecian : " the goat is the king of Javan." It is impossible 
to disconnect this passage from the one before us. They are the only tioo pas- 
sages in the whole of the Old Testament, in lohich there is any reference to a 
conflict betipeen Javan and Israel. If we leave Daniel and Zechariah in their 
respective places, the harmony between them cannot but appear a perfectly 
natural one. But if the second portion of Zechariah is transferred to a period 
before the captivity, all that he predicts, in common with Daniel, concerning 
the war vnth the Greeks, becomes an incomprehensible enigma. The fact is 
hinted at by Micah (chap. iv. 11 — 13), but he leaves it to a later phase of 
prophecy to mention the names of the Greeks. The rationalists have found 
the difficulties arising out of this prophecy excessively troublesome, and it 
will hardly be regarded as a scientific proceeding on the part of Bleck (p. 266), 
when he attempts to get rid of the difficulty by such a phrase as this : " if we 
would not rob the prophecy of its ethical character (!) altogether, and regard 
it as the mere production of a fortune-telling soothsayer." The obscurity is 
all on the side of the rationalists ! — The outward conflict, referred to here, 
was undoubtedly the prelude of a still grander conflict, between Israel and 
Javan, to be fought with spiritual weapons. But it is opposed to all the 
principles of sound interpretation, to refer the words immediately to the 
latter. 



432 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE TROPHETS. 

respect to the destruction of the enemies of Israel. Where a 
trumpet is mentioned, the point in consideration is invariably 
the noise, shouting, and roaring. Where it is used in connection 
with anything which God has to say to the Church in the world, 
it indicates something important, fundamental, and decisive. 
(On the winds and storms, as symbols of divine judgments, see 
the commentary on Eev. vii. 1 and Ps. 1. 3). On both the south 
and east of Canaan there lies a desert, where there is nothing to 
break the force of the storm. 

Ver. 15. " The Lord of Sahaoth will defhid them ; and they 
devour and overpower sling-stones, and they dy^inh and make a 
noise as through wine, and are filled like the sacrificial howl, like 
the corners of the altar." 

They devour, not the possessions of the enemy, as many sup- 
pose, but their flesh, as the allusion, which follows, to the 
drinking of blood sufficiently proves (see chap. xii. 6). The 
idea of a lion, on which this description is founded, is introduced 
into Balaam's prophecy. Num. xxiii. 24 : " behold the people 
shall rise up as a great lion, and lift up himself as a young lion" 
(see also chap. xxiv. 8). y'ZiVA?? 1'''??? is rendered by many 
commentators, " they subdue hy sling-stones," in accordance with 
the Septuagint version. But the tameness of this rendering, 
and its want of harmony with the elevated tone of the rest of 
the verse, is a sufficient reason for rejecting it. Others trans- 
late it, " they tread under foot sling-stones," and refer to Job 
xli. 28, where sling-stones are described as being like stubble to 
the leviathan. ^'^^, however, never means to tread down, but 
always to overpower, subdue. The proper rendering is this: 
" they overpoioer sling -stones," their enemies themselves being 
represented as sling-stones to show their weakness and contempti- 
bility. For slinging, men only choose what is contemptible, 
such as pebbles out of the brook, 1 Sam. xvii. 40.' In the clause 



1 This rendering is favoured, first, by the parallelism. Just as in the second 
clause everything which follows sinw relates to the blood, we must assume 
that in the present case the words which follow uSas* relate to the flesh. 
It is favoured, secondly, by the parallel passages. There is a perfectly 
analogous statement in chap. x. 5 : " they are as heroes, treading down the 
mire of the streets," where the enemies are represented as mire, just as in 
this case they are described as sling-stones ; whereas Micah, who is less bold 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 16. 433 

" they will become like tlie sacrificial bowl," the article shows 
that P7?p does not refer to every description of sacred bowl, but 
simply to the one in which the priests caught the blood, when 
the veins of the sacrificial animal had been opened, and from 
which they sprinkled part of the blood upon the horns of the 
altar (cf. Lundjild. Altertliilmer ) . The article points back to 
1n'?o ; like the sacred bowl, — viz., the one which is full of blood. 
Like the corners of the altar. Strictly speaking the blood was 
not sprinkled on the corners of the altar, but on the horns which 
stood upon them. But the prophet mentions the corners here, 
because he regards the horns as part of the corners. The figure 
is a truly priestly one ; and such passages as this and chap. xiv. 
20 point unmistakeably to Zechariah the priest as the author. 
We have here a description of a holy war and victory, in the 
ordinary sense of the terms ; and there is not the least indication 
that a spiritual conflict is intended. Hence the author himself 
shows very clearly that the announcement in this section must 
relate to ante-Messianic times. 

Ver. 16. '■'And the Lord their God grants them salvation in 
that day, as to a Jloch of his people. For croivn jewels (shall 
they be) rising up upon his land." 

The prophet is led, by the comparison already instituted 
between the enemies and sling-stones, to represent Israel under 
the image of precious stones. This explanation is favoured by 
the fact that not only does it give the only suitable antithesis to 
the sling-stones in ver. 15, but it is the only one in which "I'J 
is taken in its proved signification. It also assigns its proper 
place to the *3 in ver. 17 ; for the figure of the sparkling jewels 
includes all the glory of the Israelites, as more particularly 
described in ver. 17 sqq. opijipn is not a pure passive, but is 
used in the ordinary sense of Hithpael, in which it also occurs 
in Ps. Ix. 6. It signifies there "exalted," in contrast with the 
miserable, prostrate condition of those who had drunk the wine 

in his imagery, merely compares them to the mire of the streets (chap. vii. 
10). Thirdly, it is confirmed by the evident antithesis in the next verse. 
The Israelites are there referred to under the image of the most precious 
stones, the crovm jewels ; and in like manner the most insignificant of all 
stones, sling-stones, are evidently employed in this passage to denote their 
enemies. If, then, the sling-stones are the enemies of Israel, wc have found 
the object to iSsn. 

VOL. III. 2 E 



434 MESSIANIC PKEDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

of reeling. It is not physical deration which is intended either 
there or in the passage before us, but rise and prosperity. The 
expression " rising u-p" explains the reference to the stones of 
the crown, and shows in what respect the children of Israel are 
described as spiritual crown jewels. The suffix in irioiK, like 
that in "iay, refers to the Lord, and not to the people, who are 
spoken of just before in the plural. The fact that it is in the 
Lord's own land that the Israelites are to attain to this splen- 
dour, constitutes both the cause and guarantee of its continu- 
ance, and also heightens their dignity and prosperity. 

Ver. 17. " For lioiv great is his goodness, lioiv great his beauty! 
Corn maketh young men, and neio wine maidens, to shoot forth." 

The suffix in "iaits and i'?; is supposed by many commenta- 
tors to refer to the people. Schmeider, for example, interprets 
the clause thus, "for what goodness they possess, and what 
beauty ! " But there is no ground whatever for assuming that 
there is any such irregularity as this ; the suffix in inonx, which 
occurs immediately before, refers to the Lord. It is by no 
means out of place that the prophet should utter an exclama- 
tion of wonder, and praise the goodness which the Lord had 
shewn to his people, and the beauty in which He had manifested 
himself; in fact this explanation gives a much finer sense than 
the other. It is also confirmed by the parallel passage in Jer. 
xxxi. 12, " they come and shout on the heights of Zion, and 
flow together to the goodness of Jehovah, to the luheat, and the 
new ivine, and the oil," which agrees so perfectly with the pas- 
sage before us, that we might imagine it to have been actually 
employed by Zechariah. Compare also ver. 14, "my people 
shall be satisfied with my goodness ;" and Ps. xxxi. 20, " how 
great is thy goodness, which thou hast laid up for them that fear 
thee." For nin» did, which always means the goodness of the 
Lord, compare the remarks on Ps. xxv. 7, and xxvii. 13. The 
beauty of the Lord in this passage tallies exactly with his loveli- 
ness in chap. xi. 7. Beauty is attributed to the Messiah in the 
Song of Solomon i. 16, Ps. xlv. 3, and Is. xxxiii. 17 (see vol. ii. 
p. 157). Corn and new wine are mentioned here as particular 
examples of the blessings of God ; vide Deut. xxxiii. 28, " in a 
land of corn and new wine," and Ps. iv. 8. Wherever there is 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. X. 1. 435 

a superabundance of both of these, the population rapidly in- 
creases. There is a similar statement in Ps. Ixxii. 16, " there 
will be a superabundance of corn in the land .... and 
they of the city will flourish like the grass of the earth." Young 
men and maidens are mentioned, to heighten the picture of life 
and prosperity. 



CHAP. X, 



Ver. 1. " Ask ye of the Lord rain in the time of the latter 
rain ; the Lord creates lightnings and gives them, shoioers of 
rain, to every one grass in his field." 

The division of the chapters is unfortunate. This verse is 
closely connected with the preceding one. A mistaken notion 
of the meaning of the imperative " ask," has led the majority of 
commentators, to regard it as the commencement of a fresh train 
of thought, and not as a continuation of the foregoing prediction. 
But the direction to ask, simply expresses the readiness of God 
to grant their requests. It is equivalent to "ye need only ask ; 
a request is all that is required." The word )^^^ is used in 
precisely the same sense in chap. ix. 12. Compare 1 Kings iii. 
5, " God said to Solomon, ask, what shall I give thee ;" also 2 
Kings ii. 9 and Ps. ii. 8. After this appeal, in which the pro- 
mise is indirectly involved, the prophet immediately returns to a 
direct announcement of the promise itself, as in chap. ix. 12. — " A t 
the time of the latter rain " is merely a particular form of expres- 
sion for the general idea, " at the time when ye require rain ;" 
we are not warranted, therefore, in drawing the conclusion 
that the latter rain was more necessary than the early rain, for 
bringing the crops to maturity. In other passages, e.g. , Joel ii. 
23, the two are connected. The prophet had Deut. xi. 13 — 15 
before his mind, " if ye shall hearken diligently to my command- 
ments, .... I will give you the rain of your land in his 
season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather 
in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil ; and I will give gra.^s 



436 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

upon thy field for thy cattle ;"^ and in part he has adopted the 
same words. The rain is singled out as one example of the 
whole mass of blessings. The lightnings are mentioned as its 
precursors. Compare Jer. x. 13, " who turneth lightnings into 
rain ;" and Ps. cxxxv. 7. 

Ver. 2. " For the teraphim spoke falsely , and the soothsayers 
saio a lie, and the dreams speak deceit, they comfort vainly ; 
therefore they broke up like a flock, they are troubled, because 
they have no shepherd." 

'3 (for) does not refer to ver. 1 merely, but to the whole tenor 
of the divine promises contained in the previous announcement, 
" I will have compassion upon my people, and will abundantly 
bless them ; for they have fallen into deep distress, because they 
have forsaken me, and been led astray by false predictions." Hence 
'3 indicates the reason why God would interpose, — namely, the 
misery and helplessness of the nation, which he would never 
forsake, " because of the covenant sealed with blood." That the 
prophet refers to things which had taken place in past times, 
when speaking of the cause of the existing misery, is evident 
from the fact that he first of all uses the preterite twice, and, 
after he has thus sufficiently indicated his meaning, proceeds 
to employ the present, "they speak, they comfort." The same 
conclusion follows still more decisively from the fact, that in his 
description of the consequences of their infatuated confidence, "^y^^ 
points most unmistakeably to the Babylonian captivity. The 
causes must, therefore, belong to a still earlier period. Lastly, 
a comparison of the parallel passages in Jeremiah and Ezekiel 
confirms our opinion that the prophet is speaking of past times. 
He points to the fact that their threats had been fulfilled. 
Compare, for example, Jer. xxvii. 9 : " hearken not to your pro- 
phets, nor to your soothsayers, nor to your dreamers, nor to your 
astrologers, nor to your sorcerers, who say to you, Ye shall not 
serve the king of Babylon ;" chap. xxix. 8, " let not your pro- 
phets and your soothsayers deceive you, neither hearken to the 
di-eams, which ye dream ;" and Ezek. xxi. 34, xxii. 28. Shortly 



1 A comparison of this passage, on which ours is founded, shows that 
Hitzig is wrong in supposing that srj? includes corn as well. At the same 
time the verbal allusion to the passage in Deuteronomy naturally leads us 
to supply the rest. 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. X. 2. 437 

before the captivity, in the most calamitous period in the history 
of the nation, and during^ the captivity itself, there rose up a 
larger number of false prophets, both in Jerusalem and among 
the exiles, than had ever appeared before ; and the readiness 
with which the people listened to them, was one of the principal 
causes of their misery. By predicting nothing but prosperity 
and deliverance, they counteracted the impressions previously 
made by the reproofs and threatening announcements of the 
true prophets, whom they attempted to hold up as gloomy fana- 
tics ; and by this means they kept the people from repentance, 
without which there could be no deliverance. Jeremiah (in 
chap, xxiii.) charges the priests and false prophets with filling 
the whole land with crimes and curses through their sin. " They 
strengthen (he says in ver. 14) the hands of evil doers, that 
none doth return from his wickedness." " From the prophets of 
Jerusalem (he says again in ver. 15) is profaneness gone forth 
into all the land." — The teraphim, as we may gather from the 
other passages on which this is founded, are regarded as false 
comforters, who open up bright prospects in a future which is 
really dark.^ — nSoSn. is not to be connected with K^^rij as a 
noun in the construct state, partly on account of the accents, and 
partly also because of the parallelism, which requires that nI'^D 
should be combined with ])^ and ii'P.Vi'. It is also wrong to render 
nSaSq " dreamers!' It is evident from Jer. xxvii. 9, that the 
ordinary meaning, dreams, is to be retained in this passage also. 
The dreams are personified and represented as speaking. — 

1 That the teraphim were intermediate deities, who assisted to penetrate 
the future, has already been remarked on the notes on Hosea iii. 4. Accord- 
ing to Hdvernick (on Ezek. xxi. 20) they were exclusively household gods. 
But this is disproved by the fact, that protection and blessings in general are 
never attributed to the teraphim, but only deliverance in circumstances of 
perplexity and distress, and that, in every case in which we are specially in- 
formed what their worshippers expected them to do, revelations of the 
unknown are the only things referred to (compare Ezek. xxi. 2(3). Laban, 
who is the first person that we meet with in possession of teraphim, is ear- 
nestly employed in discovering secrets by supernatural means (Gen. xxx. 27). 
By divination he discovers that Jehovah blesses him for Jacob's sake. The 
spot where Jacob buried the teraphim and the amulets, is called in Judg. ix. 
37 "the oak of the diviners." That teraphim were employed to obtain an 
insight into the future, is also evident from the fact, that ephods and teraphim 
are classed together in Hos. iii. 4, Judg. xvii. 5. (Compare the Beitrage 3. 
p. 94.) In the present instance the teraphim are simply introduced as false 
comforters, as the earlier passages clearly show. 



4.38 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

I?.->y, therefore, — namely, because they had given themselves up 
to these lying prophets, who had so confirmed them in their 
false security, as to keep them from repentance, the indispensable 
condition of all blessings.— The " breaking up" of the sheep is 
the opposite to " lying down in green pastures, by the side of 
still waters," spoken of in Ps. xxiii. 2. There is an allusion here 
to the people being carried away captive into Babylon (compare 
Micah ii. 10). The difference between the preterite ^VDJ and the 
future liy should not be overlooked. The first refers to the 
consequences of their foolish trust in lies, which had already 
been experienced in times gone by ; the latter to such as were 
still felt in the days of the prophet himself, and would continue 
to be experienced until the time of the happy predicted consum- 
mation. — The term shepherds is usually applied to the rulers by 
the two prophets, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, with whom Zechariah 
is generally most closely connected (compare Jer. iii. 15, xxiii. 
1 ; vol. ii., p. 403.) That this is the sense, in which the expres- 
sion is employed here, is evident from ver. 3. Judah had no 
shepherd, because it had no native king from the time that the 
family of David ceased to rule. The foreign princes, who called 
themselves shepherds, were in reality devouring wolves. It is 
very obvious, that the contents of this verse can only be under- 
stood from the circumstances of Zechariah's own times. The 
captivity was at an end, but the people of God still groaned 
under oppression, which had its origin in the fact, that the native 
government had been overthrown. 

Ver. 3. " My anger hums against the shepherds, and I to ill 
visit the goats ; for the Lord of Sabaoth visits his flock, the 
house of Judah, and makes them like his state-horse in the 
battle." 

The miserable condition of the nation and its want of a 
shepherd were represented in the previous verse as the conse- 
quence of its own sins ; but notwithstanding this, the Lord pro- 
mises here that he will deliver it from its evil rulers, the instru- 
ments employed in its punishment, who were equally deserving 
of punishment themselves. That the shepherds and goats are 
the heathen rulers, who obtained dominion over Judah when the 
ijative government was suppressed (ver. 2), is evident from the 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. X. 4. 439 

contrast so emphatically pointed out in ver. 4, where particular 
prominence is given to the fact, that the new rulers, whom God 
was about to appoint, would be taken from the midst of the 
nation itself. (On the shepherds and goats compare Is. xiv. 9.) 
'3 introduces tlie reason, why punishment would be inflicted on 
the wicked rulers, — namely, the tender care of the Lord for his 
people, and his determination to deliver them from their misery. 
They are his flock ; therefore he can no longer endure that they 
should be oppressed by wicked shepherds. The house of Judah 
is mentioned as the central point of the kingdom of God. We 
perceive, from what follows, that the promise also applies to the 
other tribes, who were to gather around Judah. In the war, 
which the Lord would wage against the oppressors of his people, 
Judah was to be his state-horse, his richly caparisoned battle- 
horse ; just as in the previous chapter Judah is called his bow, 
and Ephraim his arrow. A state-horse is one specially selected, 
such as an earthly king is accustomed to ride in battle, stately 
by nature and ornamented with splendid clothes and other costly 
trappings. 

Ver. 4. " Out of him the corner-stone, out of him the peg, 
out of him the loar-hoiv, out of him luill every ruler come forth 
together." 

The suffix in I^'^d must be understood as referring to Judah, 
not to God. This is sufficiently evident from the passage in 
Jeremiah on which this is based, " and its strong man (collective) 
shall be from itself, and its ruler shall proceed from the midst 
of it" (Jer. XXX. 21). The meaning is this : having attained to 
perfect freedom by the help of the Lord, who gives success to 
their arms, they will now receive rulers and officers from among 
themselves, and a military force of their own ; and whereas they 
were formerly a prey to strange conquerors, they will now terrify 
even foreign nations. The opposite of what Zechariah here 
prophesies of Judah is predicted of Babylon by Jeremiah (li. 
26) : " they shall not take of thee a stone for a corner, nor a 
stone for a foundation," on which Miclicielis correctly observes : 
" the sense of the passage is that there would no longer be any 
member of the Chaldean race who would be a support, i.e., a 
king or ruler, of the republic." The corner stone is used in Ps. 
cxviii. 22 as an emblem of regal dignity. The figure of a peg 



440 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

has been very well expounded by LowtJi (on Isaiah xxii, 23). 
It is a common custom in the east to fit up the inside of the 
apartments with rows of large nails or pegs, which are built into 
the walls (see Ghardin, in Harmar's Beohachtungen 3. p. 49). 
On these firm nails, which are beautifully made, it is the custom 
to hang up all kinds of household furniture. They serve, there- 
fore, as a very appropriate image of the men, who are the props 
and defenders of the entire republic. The war-boiv is mentioned 
here, as one particular example, to denote military forces or mili- 
tary stores in general. 

According to the general idea, the word ^J'iJ is applied here 
to the 7-ule7^ in a good sense. But the passages adduced in proof 
of this are not conclusive. In Is. iii. 5, 12, it is evidently used 
of tyrannical rulers ; and in Is. Ix. 17 (" I make thine ofiicers 
peace and thy rulers righteousness") there is an allusion to 
former tyrannical oppressors, as the clause immediately preced- 
ing (" for brass I will bring gold, and for iron silver") clearly 
shows. But there is not the least ground for departing from the 
usual meaning in the passage before us ; provided we regard the 
harshness and severity, implied in the word, as directed not 
against the covenant nation itself, but against its foes. There is 
a similar passage in Is. xiv. 2, " they shall take them captives, 
whose captives they were, and they shall rule over their op- 
pressors." This explanation is favoured by the natural way in 
which it leads to the verse which follows. 

Ver. 5. "And they became like heroes, treading down the 
mire of the streets in the battle ; and they fight, for the Lord is 
loith them, and the riders of the horses are put to shame." 

By many the first clause is rendered, " like heroes treading 
down (their enemies) in the mire of the streets." The latter is 
supposed to be selected as a specific example of the hindrances 
and difficulties which the covenant nation would overcome by 
great perseverance. But in addition to the tameness of this 
explanation, the parallel passage (Micah vii. 10) furnishes a 
sufficient proof that it is incorrect. The mire of the streets is 
used there as a figure, representing tlie enemies themselves ; the 
only difference being, that in Micah they are compared to the 
mire (" my eyes behold mine enemy, she shall be for a treading 
down like the mire of the streets"), whereas Zechariah, whose 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. X. 6. 441 

imagery is of a bolder kind, speaks of them directly as the mire. 
This rendering is confirmed by chap. ix. 15, " they tread down 
sling-stones." — cp is used intransitively in this verse ; literally 
" they tread down, or tread about, upon the mire of the streets." 
The intransitive meaning is indicated even by the form of the 
word. The participial form Dip is not an unusual contraction 
of the transitive participle, but a participial form of the intran- 
sitive Kal. This is apparent from the fact that it is only used 
in connection with intransitive verbs, e.g. ii'ia, ■''i^», oip. In 
PQ^i. , they make war, there is an antithesis intended to the 
passive state, which has hitherto characterised the covenant 
people, their unresisting oppression. From despised slaves they 
are now changed, by the help of the Lord, into brave warriors. On 
the other hand those who have hitherto oppressed them, the proud 
horsemen of the enemies, are covered with shame and confusion. 
The character of the concluding antithesis shows that l^'sn 
should be rendered as an intransitive, as it has been in all the 
early translations, and as it must be at chap. ix. .5 and ver. 11 of 
the present chapter. The cavalry is also specially mentioned in 
Dan. xi. 40 as the main strength of the Grecian rulers of Syria, 
especially of Antiochus Epiphanes. There is no ground what- 
ever for interpreting this verse as referring " to the spiritual 
conflicts and victories of the just and gentle king, and his holy 
nation," as Schmieder has done, although all the outward con- 
flicts of the people of God were types of the spiritual conflicts, 
which are more in conformity with its true nature. The whole 
context points to an outward conflict ; and from the evident 
connection between this passage and Daniel, it cannot be set 
aside. 

Ver. 6. '^ And I strengthen the house of Judah, and hestoio 
salvation upon the house of Joseph, and I make them dwell, for 
I have compassion upon them, and they shall he, as if I had not 
cast them off, for I am the Lord their God and luill hearken 
to them."^ 



1 The connection, in which this promise stands to the circumstances of 
Zechariah's times, has been excellently explained by Calvin as follows : 
" Zechariah carries out the same doctrine, — namely, that this work of redemp- 
tion, of which the Jews beheld the commencement, would not be a partial 
one, since the Lord would eventually fultil, what He had already begun 



442 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

The term dioell is used emphatically here. Hitherto the 
members of the covenant nation, though in their own land, had 
been like strangers and had lived under foreign dominion. But 
now their oppressors will be conquered and expelled, and they 
will become its real inhabitants and possessors, as in the days 
before the captivity. We have here a compendium of Ezek. 
xxxvi. 11, "I make you dwell, as in your olden time, and do 
you good, as in your past days." 

Ver. 7. " And Epliraim becomes like a hero, and their heart 
rejoices as with wine, and their sons see it and rejoice, their heart 
rejoices in the Lord." 

The prophet had occupied himself first of all with Judah, the 
centre of the people of God. In ver. 6 he proceeds to speak of 
Judah and Ephraim together. In this verse and those which 
follow he fixes his attention peculiarly upon Ephraim, which 
looked in the prophet's day like a withered branch, that had 
been severed from the vine. He first promises, that descend- 
ants of the citizens of the former kingdom of the ten tribes 
will also take part in the glorious conflict, and then announces 
the return of the ten tribes from their exile, which was to be the 

to accomplish. It was impossible that the Jews should rest contented with 
the mere beginnings, which hardly constituted a hundredth part of the pro- 
mises of God. The prophet, therefore, urges the Jews to wait patiently 
until the fulness of time has arrived, when the Lord will show, that he is 
not partially only, but altogether the redeemer of his people." D^nSsi^'Vi 
is thought by Kimchi and Abenezra to be a mixed form compounded of 
Dinh'^'n (the Hiphil of ^^^) and D'nnti'Sn (from ai^'*) ; and the majority of 
expositors have adopted their opinion. By means of this artificial com- 
bination the prophet is supposed to express in one word, what Jeremiah 
takes a whole sentence to say, — viz., "and I vpill bnng them back to 
this place and make them dwell safely." The idea is, no doubt, favoured by 
the evident efibrts which Zechariah makes to express his meaning briefly, as 
compared with the parallel passages in the earlier prophets. And, although 
there is no other example of a composite word of this description, there 
would be nothing very remarkable in its occurrence here, especially when 
we consider the age in which Zechariah lived. There is another fact, how- 
ever, which proves that they are nearer the truth, who assume that Zecha- 
riah employed this anomalous form in the place of the regular D»n3\£'Sn 
by an interchange of the verbs ij?, and 'S, which was well understood in 
this later age, and in it alone. It would be quite out of place to speak of 
returning here ; the description of this could not properly begin before verse 
8. The prophet is speaking here of Judah and Israel together. But Judah 
had already returned. It is only to Israel, the greater portion of which was 
still in exile, that a return is afterwards promised. 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. X. 8. 443 

condition of their participating in the battle. The full and ear- 
nest manner in which the prophet treats of Ephrairn, can only 
be explained, as Calvin himself perceived, from the peculiar 
circumstances of the times in which he lived. If the predictions 
of earlier prophets, with reference to Judah, were now but 
beginning to be fulfilled, and therefore needed to be renewed, 
lest the nation should think itself deceived, much more was this 
the case with regard to Ephraim. The great body of its mem- 
bers were still in exile, though a very small fraction of them had 
joined the children of Judah on their return (see Jahn Archao- 
logie ii. 1 p. 236 sqq.), and there was therefore but little in 
existing circumstances to support the hopes of that grand restora- 
tion, which, according to the declaration by the prophets, was one 
day to occur. The fact, that the children of the Ephraimites 
were to share in their prosperity, was a proof that it could not ■ 
be transient in its character. 

Ver. 8. " / loill hiss for them and gather them, for I have 
redeemed them, and they increase as they did increase." 

But how can Ephraim take part in the battle, which is to be 
fought in the holy land (chap. ix. 16), the centre of which is 
Zion (ix. 13) ? Ephraim, for the most part, is still in exile. The 
Lord anticipates this difficulty, and says that Ephraim is to 
return from the land of its exile. This actually occurred to a 
great extent before the commencement of the Maccabean wars ; 
and there were others, who were induced to return by the great 
improvement which took place, in the condition of the nation at 
that time. 

When the kingdom of the ten tribes was destroyed, the great 
obstacle to the reunion of Israel and Judah was taken out of the 
way. The division had originally taken place for the most part 
on political grounds, and by these it had been principally sus- 
tained. The religious element had been merely subservient. 
We may perceive how strong was the impulse of the Israelites 
to coalesce in religious matters, from the fact that all the Israel- 
itish kings, to whatever dynasty they belonged, despaired of over- 
coming the impulse by purely political means, and therefore 
endeavoured to counteract it by the maintenance of an Israelitish 
national religion. But, notwithstanding this, they were unable 



444 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

to prevent the whole of the truly religious part of the nation, 
which gathered round the prophets, from constantly lamenting, 
the separation, or to guard against frequent emigrations to Judah, 
especially at the time, when the Lord glorified himself in the 
kingdom of David. — But when the kingdom of the ten tribes 
was broken up, the artificial wall of partition fell to the ground. 
And the one reason, which continued for a long time to prevent 
any outward amalgamation, — namely, the great distance between 
them, ceased to exist when Judah also was carried into exile. 
The hearts of the children of Judah were softened by affiiction, and 
they drew near with feelings of love to their brethren, whom 
they found in the midst of the same affliction. Hence Judah 
became in its captivity the centre, around which the whole 
Church of God gathered together once more. As the members 
of the ten tribes had become more thoroughly settled in the land 
of their exile, it was but natural that only a comparatively small 
number should return at first. The effect of this was, that 
Judah became still more decidedly the central point of the whole 
nation, which was henceforth called by its name. The erection 
of the new temple necessarily tended to strengthen the union. 
The eyes of the Israelites, who were still in exile, were certainly 
directed towards it, quite as much as those of the children of 
Judah. They saw clearly enougli, that the temple, with all its 
appurtenances, was the only thing which could sustain the 
Israelitish feeling of nationality. Great crowds flocked to 
Judea when the new colony had established itself there, espe- 
cially in the period between Nehemiah and the Maccabees, 
about which so little is known. Even those who stayed behind 
connected themselves closely with the temple, sent their presents, 
and made pilgrimages thither. — Hence, according to the view 
here given, no one need trouble himself to make further inquiries 
about the dwelling-place of the ten tribes. Josephus and the 
4th Book of Ezra are very poor authorities, on which to found 
the opinion that they exist somewhere as a distinct people. 
Such an opinion is inconsistent with prophecy, and particularly 
with the predictions before us. It is also irreconcileable with 
the large number of Jews, who lived partly in Judea, and partly 
in the Diaspora. It is also at variance with 2 Chr. xxxiv. 9. 
from which it is evident that, after the overthrow of the Israel- 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. X. 9. 445 

itish state, the remnant of the Israelites, which was still left in 
the land, entered into religious fellowship with Judah. And 
what is true of those, who were left behind, will equally apply to 
the exiles. Jeremiah xli. 5 — 18 also shows the fallacy of the 
idea. That the inhabitants of Canaan in the time of Christ did 
not all belong to the tribe of Judah, but on the contrary era- 
braced all the twelve tribes, is evident from the fact that the 
people are called " our twelve tribes" in Acts xxvi. 7, and also 
from Luke ii. 36. The utter fruitlessness of every attempt, 
which has been made to discover the ten tribes, is sufficient of 
itself, in the present state of geographical science, to prove that 
it is quite a mistake, to suppose that the ten tribes have any 
separate existence, and that they must, in fact, be included in 
the great body of the Jews, to the whole of which the tribe of 
Judah, as being spiritually the strongest part, has given both its 
character and name. — The hissing refers to Is. vii. 18, where 
the Lord is described as hissing for the bee, which is in the land 
of Assyria. There is a parallel passage, so far as the meaning 
is concerned, jn Hos. xi. 11, " they shall tremble as a bird out 
of Egypt, as a dove out of the land of Assyria, and 1 cause them 
to dwell in their houses, saith the Lord." — / have redeemed 
them ; this is to be understood as referring to the decision of 
God. When once this had been formed, nothing could hinder 
it from being carried into execution, la"^ points back to Ezek. 
xxxvi. 11. 

Ver. 9. " And I sow them cimong the nations, and in the dis- 
tant laiids they will remember me, and they live loith their 
children and return." 

The future ^^'^^^^ refers to the existing state of things, to 
that which had already occurred, and would occur still further. 
yiT never means to scatter, but always to sow, and where sowing 
is spoken of in connection with men, it invariably denotes increase 
(compare the note on Hos. i. 4, ii. 24, 25). See also Jer, xxxi. 
27, " behold the days come, that I will sow the house of Israel, 
and the house of Judah, with the seed of men and with the seed 
of cattle." The expression " ye are sown" in Ezek. xxxvi. 9 is 
thus explained in ver. 10. : " I multiply men among you." Thus 
the same thing, which had formerly taken place in Egypt, is 
repeated in the captivity of Ephraim : " the more they afflicted 



446 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

them the more they multiplied and grew" (Ex. i. 12). The pas- 
sage, rightly interpreted, presupposes that Ephraim was already 
among the nations. The assumption, that there was no outward 
obstacle to their return, also points to the time of Zechariah. — In 
the words " and they live" we have an allusion, in a single word, 
to the figure, which Ezekiel has so beautifully carried out in chap. 
xxxvii. (compare for example ver. 14). The words " loith their 
children" which have so frequently been misinterpreted, are used 
here, as well as in ver. 7, to show that the blessing would not be 
a transient one. This is obvious from the parallel passage in Ezek. 
xxxvii. 25, " and they shall dwell in the land, that I have given 
to Jacob my servant, they, and their children, and their children's 
children for ever." 

Ver. 10. ^^ And I bring them hack out of the land of Egypt, 
and out of Assyria will 1 gather them, and to the land of Gilead 
and Lebanon will I bring them, and they shall find no room." 

Some difficulty has been caused to the expositors by the refer- 
ence made to Egypt in this passage, as one of the countries, out 
of which the exiles were to be brought back ; whereas there is 
nothing in history to lead us to the conclusion, that the members 
of the kingdom of the ten tribes were ever taken to Egypt. By 
the majority it is supposed that, when the kingdom was de- 
stroyed by the Assyrians, many of the citizens saved themselves 
from being forcibly carried away by flying to Egypt. But a 
comparison of ver. 11 evidently shows, that the Egyptians are 
to be regarded as tyrannical oppressors of the Israelites, quite as 
much as the Assyrians. We have no other alternative, there- 
fore, than to assume, that Egypt is mentioned here, as being the 
first country, in which the Israelites endured a cruel bondage 
(compare Is. liii. 4, "my people went down to Egypt, first that 
they might sojourn there, and Assyria oppressed them without 
cause"), and consequently that it is used as a figurative represen- 
tation of the countries, in which the members of the ten tribes 
were living in exile at the time of the prophet, and would still 
continue to live. 

We have an introduction to this mode of representation in such 
passages as Is. x. 24, " my people, that dwellest in Zion, be 
not afraid of the Assyrian, he shall smite thee with a rod, and 
shall lift up his staff against thee after the manner of Egypt." 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. X. 10. 447 

With the custom, which so generally prevailed among the pro- 
phets, as well as the poets, of putting the object of comparison 
in the place of the thing compared, the transition was very- 
easy, from such a passage as this, to the figure adopted by the 
prophet. We cannot exactly bring forward analogous ex- 
amples ;^ but we can cite passages, in which Egupt is spoken of 
in precisely the same sense as here. The most striking are 
Hosea viii. 13 and ix. 3. It is obvious enough, that the countries, 
into which the Israelites were to be carried away captive, are 
only figuratively described as Egypt, a land, in which the 
Israelites endured their first bondage, and whither the prophets, 
who invariably looked upon the Assyrians as the people from 
whom danger was to be anticipated, could never for a moment 
have thought of representing them as being led captive again 
(see vol. i., p. 218). Still it is very remarkable that in chap. ix. 
6, where the prophet carries out the figure still farther, he 
should speak of Memphis, as the city in which the Israelites 
were to find their grave. — If it may be regarded as an established 
fact, that Zechariah does not mean Egypt itself in this passage, 
Assyria also, which is associated with it both here and in ver. 
1 1 , must mean something more than the empire which was called 
by that name. This must also be a figurative term, employed 
to denote the kingdoms, in which the Israelites were living in 
exile at the time of the prophet, and where they were still to 
remain. The proof of this, however, does not entirely invali- 
date the argument, which has been founded upon the passage 
before us, against the integrity of Zechariah. The question 
still remains, how could a prophet, living after the captivity, 
select the Egyptians and Assyrians as the types of the oppres- 
sors of his nation, and pass over the Chaldeans, who had be- 
come its most destructive foes ? This difficulty would be an 
inseparable one, if the tribe of Judah alone were intended, 
or even the covenant nation as a whole. For example, when 
we find in Is. xxvii. 13 a passage to this effect, " they shall 
come, which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and 
the outcasts in the land of Egypt, and shall worship the Lord 
in the holy mountain at Jerusalem;" although Egypt and 
Assyria are both of them used as types in this passage, as Oese- 
1 Compare the remarks on chap. v. 10, and Hosea i. 4, vol. i. p. 190 sqq. 



448 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

7iius has correctly observed (" Egj'pt and Assyria are mentioned 
here in the place of the different countries of the world, into 
which the Jews are scattered"), yet Kleinert is quite right 
in bringing it forward as a proof, that the whole section 
(chap. xxiv. — xxvii.) is genuine, and was composed before the 
captivity (see his Aechtheit des Jesaias, i. p. 317 sqq.). And 
so again, when we find Egypt and Assyria mentioned in chap, 
xix. 23 sqq. as the two nations, which were most bitterly opposed 
to the covenant people and to each other, and which would 
nevertheless be most intimately allied to the covenant nation and 
to each other in the days of the Messiah by their common wor- 
ship of the Lord, and would live in friendly intercourse one with 
another, the authenticity of the passage is sufficiently established. 
But, in the case before us, the difficulty is only an apparent 
one. The prophet is speaking of the Ephraimites alone. Now 
for them Egypt and Assyria had really been not only the most 
dangerous, but the only foes ; and therefore they alone, and not 
the Chaldeans, who found their kingdom already destroyed, were 
fitted to be the types of their enemies generally. In this respect 
Zechariah stood upon precisely the same standpoint as Hosea, 
who prophesied in chap. xi. 11, with reference to the Israelites, 
that they would return from Egypt and Assyria. Moreover, the 
prophet had evidently in his mind the passages which we have 
already quoted, and in which Egypt and Assyria are classed 
together in exactly the same relation. 

The " land of Gilead and Lebanon" does not denote the whole 
of the promised land, as most commentators suppose, but that 
portion of it which formerly belonged to the ten tribes. This 
was divided into two parts, the country beyond the Jordan, (the 
land of Grilead), and the country on this side of the Jordan, 
which extended to the Lebanon, and is therefore appropriately 
called by its name. — They shall find no room ; in consequence of 
the increase which is to take place in the lands of their exile, 
according to the announcement in ver. 9. 

Ver. 11. '^ And the Lord poises through the sea, the affliction, 
and smites the waves in the sea, and all the floods of the Nile 
are put to shame, and the pride of Assyria is brought down, 
and the sceptre of Egypt will depart." 

The deliverance already effected for the covenant nation in 



ZECHARIAH, CHAP. X. 11. 449 

past times was a pledge of the future also. Nothing, therefore, 
was more natural than that the prophets should recal the past 
in their descriptions of the future. This is frequently done, past 
and future being placed side by side by way of comparison (see 
for example, Is. li. 9). But they just as frequently employed 
the past as a simple type of the future, and transferred to the 
latter all the details connected with the former. Thus Jeremiah 
(chap. xxxi. 2) says, " thus saith the Lord, the people which are 
left of the sword find grace in tlie ivilderness : the Lord goeth 
to bring Israel to rest ;" in other words, just as the Lord formerly 
had compassion on his people in the wilderness, and led the 
remnant to Canaan, so will he have compassion on them in their 
present affliction, and lead them back to their own land. (See 
also Hosea ii. 16, 17). But there is something peculiarly re- 
markable in Is. xi, 15, 16, which Zechariah has evidently 
imitated, the nominative to "i?v is the Lord, who still con- 
tinues to go through the sea at the head of the Israelites, and 
smites down his proud enemies, the roaring waves of the sea. 
" He goes through the field of floods, a conquering hero." We 
find a complete parallel in Ps. cxiv., where the sea flees and 
Jordan turns back in fear, when they see the Lord marching at 
the head of the Israelites. There was no necessity expressly to 
name the Lord, who was always present to the minds of the pro- 
phets, since He alone could perform such deeds, and He was the 
sole deliverer of his people. There is a perfect analogy in Is. ii. 
4, and Micah iv. 3. Commentators differ as to the meaning of 
■"i7?f. The view taken by G. B. Michaelis is undoubtedly the 
correct one, namely that nnv is to be taken as a noun in apposi- 
tion, " he goes through the sea, the affliction." Hence it was 
not merely a rude adherence to the letter, at variance alike with 
analogy and the nature of prophecy, which led the Jewish inter- 
preters to explain this passage as announcing a miraculous pas- 
sage of the Israelites through the straits between Byzantium and 
Chalcedon (as Jerome informs us that they did) ; it was a misin- 
terpretation of the passage itself Moreover the explanation 
given by Jonathan (signs and wonders shall be done for them, 
as they were formerly done for their fathers in the sea") shows 
that the error was not shared by all the Jews. The article in 

VOL. III. • 2 F 



450 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 

D^a points to one particular sea, the gulf of Arabia, the one 
through which the Israelites had already been led. Compare Is. 
xi. 15, " the Lord smites with a curse the tongue of the Egyp- 
tian sea." The words, " he smites the loaves in the sea," are 
founded upon a personification of the waves, as the enemy to be 
subdued by God. In the expression " oil the floods of the Nile 
are put to shame" there is an evident allusion to the passage 
through the Jordan. But this comparatively small river is not 
sufficient for the prophet, he mentions the Nile instead, as Isaiah 
in chap. xi. 15 refers to the Euphrates. We have already shown 
that Assyria and Egypt in the concluding clause are merely 
referred to as types of the tyrannical rulers of Israel generally, 
on account of their having been its most powerful oppressors in 
past times.^ As parallel passages we may mention Is. x. 27, 
xiv. 25, ix. 3. 

Ver. 12. " And I strengthen them in the Lord,, and they slmll 
walk in his name, saith the Lord." 

By the walking, here, we are to understand, as both the con- 
text and parallelism show, not merely their conduct but their fate. 
The name of the Lord is a comprehensive expression denoting 
his glory as manifested in history. The Lord will still maintain 
his ancient hoQour in his treatment of his own people. 

1 Bleek (p. 272) infers from this passage, that the prophecy belongs to a pe- 
riod when Assyria and Egypt were the two leading powers in the neighbour- 
hood of the Israelitish nation. But the words " the sceptrQ of Egypt 
will depart " are opposed to this view. Israel had never been under the 
sceptre of Egypt since the time of Moses. 



END OF VOLUME THIRD. 



{l/