As I conclude that the object of the Christian, who thinks he sees in this
Prophecy a clear prediction of the coming of Jesus Christ, is to learn in
what manner it is expounded by the Jews; it appears to me that the
simplest way in which I can reply, will be to lay before him what I
conceive to be the proper translation and interpretation. In doing this,
it will be unnecessary to offer any further explanation or exposition,
beyond what may be given in the form of comment on the translation; while
he is at liberty to conclude with regard to those passages, where no
comment or explanation is offered, not, assuredly, that I assent to _his_
interpretation, but merely that I acquiesce in the reasons he assigns for
my dissent; or that his anticipation of my argument has rendered its
repetition superfluous, as is the case in verses 9 and 10. The following
is my mode of translating this chapter and expounding it:—
Zechariah, Chapter IX.
Verse 1. _The burden of the word of the Lord on the land of Hadrach, and
Damascus, his residence; for to the Lord (will be) the eye of man, and
(particularly that) of all the tribes of Israel._
This prophecy is directed against a king named Hadrach, and against
Damascus his residence. According to some who have visited Syria, there is
to this day, near the desert, a village bearing the name of that king,
whose inhabitants assert that formerly a large district about it, that
constituted a powerful kingdom, was called by the same name.
_For to the Lord_, saith the prophet, _will be the eye of man_, agreeably
to what he further declareth, that the extermination of the wicked will
precede the turning to God, the eyes of the residue of man.
Verse 2. _And also (on) Hamath which borders on her; (on) Tyre, and (on)
Sidon, though she be very wise._ Verse 3. _And Tyre did build herself a
strong hold, and heaped up silver as dust, and gold as mire of the
streets._
The burden of the Lord is also touching Hamath, which was bordering on the
former; also Tyre, and Sidon, which thought herself very wise; yet her
wisdom availed her nothing, as was also foretold by Ezekiel, chap. xxvii.
ver. 32.
Verse 4. _Behold the Lord will make her poor, and smite her power in the
sea, and she shall be devoured with fire._ Verse 5. _Ashkelon shall see it
and fear; Gaza also, and she shall be very sorrowful. Ekron also, for he
(God) has made ashamed her expectation: and the king shall perish from
Gaza: and Ashkelon shall not remain._ Verse 6. _And a foreigner shall
dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut of the pride of the Philistines._
All the foregoing is known from history to have been already accomplished,
through the conquests of Alexander the Macedonian; who also destroyed the
fleet of Tyre, and smote her power on the sea. Among others also, it is
said, Ekron shall be very sorrowful, since her hope was blasted; Tyre, on
which she solely confided, being destroyed.
Verse 7. _And when I shall have taken away his blood out of his mouth, and
his abominations from between his teeth; then even he shall remain for our
God, and he shall be as a chief in Judah, and Ekron like Jebusi._
Now the prophet continues to predict, what is yet to be accomplished, that
after their filth and pollution shall have been taken away, a remnant of
them also will be to God; each of whom will not be inferior even to a
chief in Judah, and Ekron will be in a manner as holy as Jebusi, which is
Jerusalem. See Joshua, chap. xviii. ver. 28.
This, and all that is connected with it, to the end of the following
chapter, may refer to a remoter period, to which the mind of the prophet
was suddenly transported; or these events may have been intended,
immediately after the overthrow of these nations, to have followed under
one of the princes of Judah, who was already joined by a part of Ephraim;
and the whole of whom would have been gathered under his banners, were not
this delayed on account of their having acted contrary to the will of God.
For, that the promises of God are conditional, and sometimes delayed, if
those to whom they were made, render themselves undeserving of them,
appears in many instances. See Zech. chap. viii. ver. 14-16. Jeremiah,
chap. xviii. ver. 9-10. Among other instances, may be cited what took
place with our ancestors, who went out of Egypt. The land of Canaan
promised to Abraham (Genesis, chap. xv. ver. 16.) was again promised to
them, even after their having worshipped the calf—Exodus, chap. xxxiii.
ver. 1.—yet, for their frequent rebellions, was the fulfilment of this
promise finally delayed to another generation. (Numb. chap. xiv. ver. 23.)
Nay, it even appears that it would have been retracted, or at least
delayed many generations, but for the intercession of Moses. (Exod. chap.
xxxii. ver. 10.) And, in like manner, may the fulfilment of these
promises, and that of others, which follow, respecting the restoration of
Israel, be delayed, in consequence of the wickedness of our people,
exciting the displeasure of the Lord.
Verse 8. _And I will encamp about my house (to protect) against an army,
against one passing and returning, and no oppressor shall pass over them
any more: for now have I seen it with my eyes._
Now have I seen it with mine eyes, means having graciously turned his
particular attention to them, as is similarly expressed in Exod. chap. ii.
ver. 25.
Ver. 9. _Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion, shout, daughter of Jerusalem,
behold thy King shall come unto thee just, and he being saved, humble and
riding upon an ass, the foal of an ass._
Ver. 10. _And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from
Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall speak peace
unto nations; and his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the
river to the end of the earth._
Verse 11. _Also thou, by the blood of thy covenant, I have sent away thy
prisoners out of the pit, wherein is no water._
By the blood of the covenant, apparently, is meant that related in Exod.
chap. xxiv. ver. 8. A pit without water means a land of captivity.
Verse 12. _Return ye to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope, even to-day
__(I)__ declare __(THAT)__ I will render double unto thee._
The prisoners are to return and shelter in this strong hold.
Verse 13. _For I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow Ephraim, and
raised up thy sons, Oh Zion! against thy sons, Oh Greece! and made thee as
the sword of a mighty man._
Judah and Ephraim are represented as warlike instruments in the hand of
God, the sword, and the bow which he bends, and fills his hand with;
similar to the expression in 2 Kings, chap. ix. ver. 24.
Verse 14. _And the Lord shall be seen over them, and his arrow shall go
forth as lightning; and the Lord God shall blow the trumpet, and shall go
forth with the whirlwinds of the South._
Verse 15. _The Lord of hosts shall defend them; and they shall devour, and
subdue the sling stones; and noisily drink (their blood) as wine; and they
shall be filled as a bowl, as the corners of an altar._
The prophet in derision here compares their enemies to sling-stones,
contrasted with which in verse 16 that follows, Israel is compared to
precious stones; and of whom it was before said that they were the sword
in the hand of the Lord, to be filled with the blood of their relentless
persecutors. See also Isaiah, chap. xxxiv. ver. 6.
Verse 16. _And the Lord their God will save them, his people as a flock,
for as the stones of a crown shall they be glittering upon his land._
Verse 17. _For how great is his goodness, and how great is his beauty! The
young men he will make as fruitful as corn, and the maids as wine._
Remarks On The Rabbi’s Exposition.
Were I candidly to express my sentiments, I might say, perhaps, that the
Rabbi’s answer had disappointed me, being neither so full nor so forcible
as I expected; but if he, as a Jew, be satisfied, it is not for me as a
Christian to complain. There are, moreover, certain points of coincidence
in our translation, in which the acquiescence of the Rabbi, as a
distinguished Hebrew scholar, is truly gratifying; while there are also
some points of disagreement, in which I am inclined to relinquish my own
in favour of the Rabbi’s translation. I propose briefly to advert to each;
but there is one circumstance that first deserves to be noticed, and
which, however singular it may appear, might yet have been expected. It is
this, that wherever I have ventured to differ from Christian commentators,
there I am also at issue with the Rabbi. Now, having formerly stated that
our received translation is chiefly founded on the Masoretic punctuation,
which is Jewish, a coincidence was naturally to be looked for between the
Jew’s exposition, and that which is in a great measure borrowed from it.
And accordingly such is the case, the Jew’s exposition differing from that
of our own commentators, principally on those points where the latter
discover allusions to Christ. These, the Jew, of course, no where finds.
Now, what the Jew no where perceives, and the Christian only here and
there, as it were incidentally, I maintain to be wholly and solely the
subject of these chapters. This is, at least, a broad and well marked line
of distinction: but here I unfortunately stand alone, having Christian as
well as Jew opposed to me. Even the Jew allows that the subject of the
latter part of this prophecy is the Messiah and his kingdom; but if Christ
be the Messiah, as the Christian must admit, then is Christianity his
kingdom, and the subject of the prophecy. So much for the state of the
question.
The first point of disagreement between us is unconnected with the
punctuation, and is one of little importance to the question, beyond what
it may derive from the concurrence of my opponents. The Rabbi and Dr.
Blaney agree in regarding Hadrach in the first verse, as the name of a
prince, instead of a city or state. The Rabbi gives no authority for his
opinion, and Dr. Blaney supports his by the conjecture that Rehob, spoken
of in 2 Sam. viii. 3, who is by Josephus named Αραος or Αραχος, may be the
prince alluded to. Now since the avowed reason for resorting to this
supposition is the want of a city of this name, I would venture to
suggest, that Aradus bears quite as much resemblance to Hadrach as Αραος
does; and to Aradus was annexed a considerable district of country, which
was precisely the first conquered by Alexander, when he invaded Syria, as
appears by the following citation from Quintus Curtius, lib. 4. cap. 1.
“Aradus quoque insula deditur regi. Maritimam tum oram, pleraque longius â
mari residentia, rex ejus insulæ Strato possidebat. Quo in fidem accepto,
castra movet ad urbem Marathon.” Aradus, like Tyre, was the daughter of
Sidon, as stated by Strabo; Εκτισαν αυτην φυγαδες, ὤς φασιν, εκ Σιδόνος.
These then, are circumstances which add weight to the supposition that
Aradus may be here intended; but still it is no more than conjecture, and
as such, _quod valet, valeat_.
In the same verse, the Rabbi’s rendering of מנחתו (or ותחנמ) _his
residence_, must, of course, stand or fall with the previous question,
Whether Hadrach be the name of a man or a city? If it be that of a prince,
whose residence was Damascus, I have only to observe, that no such person
appears to have resided there at the time the prophet wrote, and this is
the only time that can accord with the Rabbi’s translation.
With regard to the last line of this verse, which the Rabbi renders nearly
in the same manner as our commentators, _for to the Lord will be the eye
of man_, &c. I can only say, that he does not appear to me to have thrown
any new light upon the passage, the sense remaining as vague and obscure
as before. But let the reader judge for himself.
In verse 2nd, the Rabbi agreeing with Lowth, renders תגבל (or לבגת) as an
active verb, “_which borders on her_,” while Blaney, with me, makes it
passive. If, by Hadrach, be intended the district of country extending
inland from the town of Aradus, this would lead us directly to Epiphania,
which was the lesser Hamath; and this expression might be meant to
distinguish it from the greater Hamath, the modern Antioch; but the Rabbi
does not acquiesce in this meaning of Hadrach; and, upon the whole, I see
no sufficient reason to relinquish my own mode of rendering.
In verse 4th, the Rabbi’s translation, “_Behold the Lord will make her
poor_,” I certainly prefer to that of our version, namely, “_shall cast
her out_;” but his explanation of the remainder of this verse, “_and smite
her power in the sea, and she shall be devoured with fire_,” appears less
satisfactory than that of Dr. Blaney, which I have adopted from him. The
Rabbi explains the accomplishment of this passage by Alexander’s defeating
the fleet of the Tyrians, and burning their city; but such an
interpretation is hardly borne out by history; a few occasional skirmishes
by sea, and a partial conflagration, after the city was taken, being the
utmost that took place. And accordingly this verse has been otherwise
explained by Lowth, who understands the “_smiting her power in the sea_,”
as referring to the insular situation of new Tyre; but Dr. Blaney, by a
mode of rendering fully warranted by the Hebrew text, applies these words
to Sidon, where they received their accomplishment in a manner strikingly
peculiar. The difference of translation consists in reading—“_For she_
(Sidon) _has built Tyre, a fortress for herself_,” instead of “_For Tyre
has built a fortress for herself_;” thus applying the expressions which
follow to Sidon, instead of Tyre; which, however, is not thereby excluded
from a full participation in the burden of the prophecy, evidently
denounced against both. In regard to Sidon, the fulfilment was as
follows:—When besieged by Artaxerxes Ochus, some years earlier than the
siege of Tyre by Alexander, the Sidonians, lest individuals might be
tempted to seek their personal safety by flight, and abandon the defence
of the city, burned all their shipping in the first instance; and, when,
by the cowardly treachery of their king, the enemy was admitted within
their walls; they then set fire to their houses, and consumed their city,
their families, their wealth, and themselves; no less than forty thousand
perishing in the flames, according to Diod. Sic.: φασὶ δε τοὺς ὔπο τοῦ
πυρὸς διαφθαρεντας, συν τοῖς οικετικοῖς σώμασι, γεγονέναι πλεὶους τῶν
τετρακισμυρίων. Lib. 16. cap. 45.
In verse 5. The fate of Gaza and its governor, who was dragged round the
city by Alexander, in imitation of Achilles, though noticed by Lowth, is
disregarded by Blaney, for what reason I know not, since this seems as
well intitled to notice as any other literal fulfilment of prophecy.
In verse 7th, the Rabbi’s acquiescence in the meaning of the words, “_when
I have taken away his blood out of his mouth and his pollution from
between his teeth_;” as signifying, literally, the taking away of sin and
pollution, is highly important to the Christian exposition, for it
intimates the first and greatest benefit we derive from the coming of the
Messiah. That the Rabbi does not so understand it, as alluding to the
remission of sins through Christ, is not to be wondered at; but it does
seem singular that Lowth and Blaney should have disregarded or
misunderstood so remarkable a passage, in the sense of which even the Jew
acquiesces, though not in the application. יבוסי (or יסובי), according to
the Rabbi, means Jerusalem, that is, “_Ekron shall be as Jerusalem_.” Now
the Jebusites were the original inhabitants of Jerusalem, it is true; but
why the prophet should here use the word Jebusi for Jerusalem, and here
only, is rather unaccountable, and I cannot but prefer the translation I
have given.
In verses 8, 9, 10, there is no material disagreement between us either in
the translation or the interpretation. Here Jew and Christian agree in
applying these verses to the coming of the Messiah. The only question
between us is, whether Christ be the Messiah, which the Rabbi, of course,
denies.
Verse 11. In the words, “_By the blood of thy covenant_,” &c. it was not
to be expected that the Rabbi would see any intimation of a covenant for
the redemption of mankind, sealed with the blood of Christ; though we
might have looked for it in Dr. Blaney. The application of this and the
two preceding verses to Christianity, was so clearly perceived, and so
ably expounded by Lowth, that we only wonder he should have confined that
view to these three verses, considering them as a digression, when by
extending the same principle of interpretation to other parts of the
prophecy, he might have found a clue to the solution of many difficulties.
The want of this clue obliges Dr. Blaney to come to the same conclusion as
the Rabbi, that the remaining part of the prophecy is still
unaccomplished; a conclusion which I am compelled most strenuously to
oppose. To the Jew, the suspension of the fulfilment of this prophecy
would be almost equivalent to that of all others; for the Messiah’s
kingdom is alike the subject of all, and if this one be unaccomplished,
then must they all be so. To the Jew then, I would say—Is this consonant
with the previous ordinations of God in the government of the world, to
leave an interval of more than two thousand years, without the fulfilment
of prophecy, which is to mankind, the most convincing of all proofs of his
Divine superintendance and control over human affairs? To Dr. Blaney, on
the other hand, who conceives that “since our Saviour’s appearance on
earth, nothing has happened to the Jewish nation in any degree answerable
to what is here predicted; no return from captivity, no victories, no
successes,” &c.; to him I would say, why may not “_the children of the
promise_” be here included as well as “_the children of the flesh?_” The
first Christians were Jews, the apostles and disciples were Jews, while
the converted Gentiles were no less styled, “_Israelites by adoption_;”
and so they are continually called in prophetic language. If then the
terms, “_Sons of Zion_” and “_Israel of God_,” be _not less_ applicable to
those who received Christ for their Messiah, than to those who rejected
him; we cannot surely say with Dr. Blaney, that there have been no return
from captivity, no victories, no successes, since the coming of Christ;
for it will hardly be maintained that redemption from the bondage of sin
is no return from captivity; that the triumph of Christianity over
paganism is no victory, and the rapid propagation of the Gospel no
success.
In verse 12, “_The strong hold_,” which is evidently the same as the
prison-house, called in the preceding verse, “_the pit without water_,”
and which the Rabbi allows to be a state of captivity, is here, somewhat
abruptly, transformed into a place of shelter and protection.
Verse 15. The Rabbi’s idea, that the prophet here uses the term
“_sling-stones_,” in derision, as an appellative for the enemies of
Israel, while he applies to themselves, in the next verse, the term
“_precious stones_,” appears to me, I must acknowledge, somewhat novel;
and as I dispute that translation of the next verse altogether, so I
cannot acquiesce in such an explanation of this. With regard to the
rendering of המו (or ומה) in the same verse, which I have considered as
the personal pronoun, “_they_,” instead of the verb “_to make a noise_”—I
believe the Rabbi’s, upon re-considering the passage, to be the more
correct translation.
But these verbal differences, however they may interest the Hebrew
scholar, are of trivial importance, as regarding the grand question
between us, namely, whether the accomplishment of the predictions
contained in this chapter, ceases before we arrive at verse 9, which is
admitted to announce the coming of the Messiah. Upon this point, then, I
plead the general issue. If I succeed in shewing that every part of the
prophecy in the following chapters, as well as the present, has been
clearly accomplished in the leading events of the history of Christianity,
I gain my cause. If I fail to do so, let the verdict go for the Jew.