e. g. Zeph. 2: 12, "also ye Cushites, slain of my sword are they" (D). Ezek. 28: 22, "Behold, I come upon thee, Sidon, and glorify myself in thee, and they shall experience, that I am the Lord, when I in her," &c. Jer. 74. The second shows the reason, wherefore Joshua and his colleagues are in. This lies in the appearing of the antitype. For if this is not real, then the type also ceases. This antitype, the Messiah, is designated by a twofold appellation. First, my servant, as Is. 42: 1, 49: 3, 5, 50: 10, 52: 13, 53: 11, Ezek. 34:23, 24. Then Пy, sprout. This latter name designates the early obscurity of the Messiah; he will not resemble a proud tree, but a sprout, which gradually grows up and becomes a tree. This appears from the comparison of the parallel passages already collected, p. 5, &c. Among these, Zechariah, to judge according to his relation to these prophets elsewhere, in all probability had before his eyes especially those of Jeremiah (23: 5, 33: 15.) and Ezekiel. It is unnecessary to suppose, with several interpreters, that sprout here stands for sprout of David. The expression rather designates, in general, the early obscurity of the Messiah, not as Is. 11: 1, especially his origin from the fallen family of David, which is indeed a necessary consequence of the former. The assertion of Quenstedt is erroneous; "germen est nomen originis et filiationis,- semper respectum habet ad id, cujus est germen." In Is. 53: 2, also, without respect to his descent, in order to designate his original obscurity, the Messiah is called a tender shoot, pa in opposition to a stately tree. Calvin: "comparat Christum surculo, quia de nihilo, ut ita dicam oriri visus est, propterea quod principium ejus contemptibile fuit. Quid enim obtinuit excellentiæ Christus in mundo, quum natus est, quomodo auspicatus est regnum suum? et quomodo initiatus est suo sacerdotio?" The Seventy render ny by avatoλn, which, however, they have not employed, as several interpreters erroneously suppose, in the sense of "a rising light," but, as Jerome, on chap. 6:12, rightly perceived, in that of a sprout. In this sense they employ avatoin (τov άyçoũ) Ez. 16:7, 17: 10; the verb y is alternately rendered by them ἀνατέλλειν, ἐξανατέλλειν, φυεῖν, ἀναφυεῖν, and βλαστάνειν, Jer. 33 15. They translate nx by Blaoròs, as does Symm. also, 23: 5, by pháornua, (comp. Mark exercitt. misc., p. 160 sq.) That by "the servant of the Lord, Branch," the Messiah was intended, was the prevailing opinion of the older Jews. The Chaldee paraphrases "behold I bring my servant the ,הא אנא מיתי ית עבדי משיחא דיתגלי piss of a rank. This to the apply Joshua is spoken The sum of de cant be such as were site in a liget his socis, and, gener- 37. These from these sessions was then e. g. Zeph. 2: 12, "also ye Cushites, slain of my sword are they" (D). Ezek. 28: 22, "Behold, I come upon thee, Sidon, and glorify myself in thee, and they shall experience, that I am the Lord, when I in her," &c. Jer. 7:4. The second shows the reason, wherefore Joshua and his colleagues are nin. This lies in the appearing of the antitype. For if this is not real, then the type also ceases. This antitype, the Messiah, is designated by a twofold appellation. First, my servant, as Is. 42: 1, 49: 3, 5, 50: 10, 52: 13, 53: 11, Ezek. 34:23, 24. Then Пy, sprout. This latter name designates the early obscurity of the Messiah; he will not resemble a proud tree, but a sprout, which gradually grows up and becomes a tree. This appears from the comparison of the parallel passages already collected, p. 5, &c. Among these, Zechariah, to judge according to his relation to these prophets elsewhere, in all probability had before his eyes especially those of Jeremiah (23: 5, 33: 15.) and Ezekiel. It is unnecessary to suppose, with several interpreters, that sprout here stands for sprout of David. The expression rather designates, in general, the early obscurity of the Messiah, not as Is. 11: 1, especially his origin from the fallen family of David, which is indeed a necessary consequence of the former. The assertion of Quenstedt is erroneous; "germen est nomen originis et filiationis, semper respectum habet ad id, cujus est germen." In Is. 53: 2, also, without respect to his descent, in order to designate his original obscurity, the Messiah is called a tender shoot, par in opposition to a stately tree. Calvin: "comparat Christum surculo, quia de nihilo, ut ita dicam oriri visus est, propterea quod principium ejus contemptibile fuit. Quid enim obtinuit excellentia Christus in mundo, quum natus est, quomodo auspicatus est regnum suum? et quomodo initiatus est suo sacerdotio?" The Seventy render nos by avaτohn, which, however, they have no employed, as several interpreters erroneously suppose, in the s of "a rising light," but, as Jerome, on chap. 6:12 ceived, in that of a sprout. In this sense they (Tou aygou) Ez. 16: 7, 17: 10; the verb nox is a by them ανατέλλειν, ἐξανατέλλειν, φυεῖν, ἀναφτεί στ 33: 15. They translaté nnx by Blu 5, by pháornua, (comp. Mark exercitt mis "the servant of the L the prevailing opinion It is, however, peculiar to Zechariah, that he designates the most special concern of God for the stone by the resting of his seven eyes upon it. It that he had here in view the symbolic repreappears, sentations of the Babylonians or Persians. That similar figurative designations were employed, particularly by the Persians, appears from the fact, that certain confidential servants of the king were called opakuoì Saoiléws; comp. Suidas and Hesychius s. v., Brisson. de reg. Pers. princ. p. 264 sq.; a designation probably borrowed from their theology, as the whole Persian kingdom was supposed to be a visible representation of the heavenly kingdom of Ormuz, of whom the king was the representative, (comp. Beiträge, 1, p. 125 sq.) It is further to be inquired, what is meant by the stone, to which the seven eyes are directed. It is almost unanimously supposed by the older interpreters to be the Messiah. But this is contradicted by "which I have laid before Joshua," whereby the stone appears as something already present only to be ornamented hereafter, as also by, "I will grave it." Others suppose it to be the foundation stone of the temple; but we do not perceive how this was to be graved. The correct view is rather, that the unhewn stone, to be polished and graven by the Lord, is an image of the Theocracy, and its seat, the temple, signifying its present low condition, and its future glorification by the Lord. The stone is then with entire propriety described as lying before Joshua, since, as had been said, v. 7, the chief oversight of the Theocracy, at that time, devolved upon him. The polishing and graving of the rough, precious stone, (comp. Exod. 28: 9, 11, 21, 36, 39, 40,) consists preeminently in the sending of the Messiah, though without excluding the earlier mercies of God. According to the cotemporary prophecy of Haggai, chap. 2: 7-10, the second temple was to be filled with glory, and made more illustrious than the first, through him. D'nin nne, to open openings, to grave. The verb win, elsewhere intrans. recedere, here transitive. This land, Judea, which, although the deliverance from sin to be effected by the Messiah should extend further, even over the whole heathen world, is here alone mentioned, because in this whole prediction the prophet aims only to comfort the troubled minds of his people. The expression, "in one day," where day stands for the shortest portion of time, implies, that the removal of sin, to be effected by the Messiah, would not be continually repeated, like that accomplished by the typical priesthood, but completed in a single action. V. 10. "At that time ye shall call one to another, to the vine and to the fig tree!" So translates correctly De Dieu, Crit. Saer. More feebly others; "Ye shall invite one another under." The words contain an image of the rest, peace, and prosperity, (“ summa et lætissima tranquillitas in amœna omnium copia," De Dieu,) which would be a consequence of the forgiveness of sins procured by the Messiah. 5. The Candlestick with the Two Olive Trees. Chap. 4. Between this and the preceding vision a pause is to be supposed. The angelus interpres had withdrawn for a time from the prophet, and the latter, his ecstasy having ceased, had recovered his ordinary condition of mind. Jerome: "Quotiescunque humana fragilitas suæ relinquitur imbecillitati, deus a nobis et angelorum ejus auxilium abire credendum est," “And the angel who conversed with me," - it is said, v. 1,· "returned and awoke me, as a man who is awakened from sleep." We have here the deepest designation of the condition of the prophets while prophesying (comp. Vol. I. p. 217), in comparison with their ordinary state. They stand related to each other as sleep to being awake. The ordinary condition, in which, given up to sensible impressions, we are unable to raise the spiritual eye to the contemplation of what is divine, is that of spiritual sleep; the ecstasy on the contrary, when the senses are at rest, and the whole of our conscious agency ceases, and the images of divine things are represented in the soul as in a pure and smooth mirror, is a state of spiritual watchfulness. This sense, which is the only true one, Cyril alone among all the interpreters has perceived, who remarks: "Our condition, in comparison with that of the angels, is to be regarded as a state of sleep." The rest, as Theodoret, Jerome, Vitringa, have been led astray by their erroneous preconceived opinions respecting the condition of the prophets while prophesying. (Comp. Vol. I. p. 217.) They suppose the prophet was so absorbed in the contemplation of the vision, chap. 3, as to need the admonition of the angelus interpres to attend to the new scene which presented itself. But this supposition is untenable, since it leaves out of view," and the angel returned," and indeed makes his going away to be without meaning, |