Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub
[merged small][ocr errors]

.עצת שָׁלום tation of

trary, a still greater number of interpreters, (Jerome, Mark, Michaelis, &c.,) refer the phrase, “between both," to the two offices or persons of high priest and king united in the Messiah. This latter interpretation is clearly to be preferred. The objection, that the king was not expressly mentioned in the foregoing context, is of no importance, as the Messiah had been plainly enough designated as a king. The distinction between him as king and as high priest is the less strange, since a reference to the earlier Theocracy plainly lies at the foundation, where the two offices united in the Messiah were administered by two persons. Mark cites as analogous, the distinction between the inward and outward, the old and the new man. It is decisive in favor of this interpretation, that only according to it do the words stand in an apposite relation to the chief object of the whole prophecy, the union of the kingly and the high-priestly office in the Messiah ; but, in addition to this, the two must necessarily be the last mentioned, so that only according to the false reference of the suff. in 1xon can Jehovah be regarded as belonging to them. - A second difference occurs in the interpre

After Jerome, (" Et consilium pacificum erit inter utrumque, ut nec regale fastigium sacerdotalem deprimat dig. nitatem, nec sacerdotii dignitas regale fastigium, sed in unius gloria domini Jesu utrumque consentiat,'') several, as Michaelis, (Bene eis convenict suavis inter utrumque concordia erit") refer these words to the harmony of these two offices united in the Messiah, in contrast with the discordance which often formerly occurred to the injury of the Theocracy, when they were administered by different persons. Others, on the contrary, take bibe as gen. objecti: consilium de pace comparanda, conferenda, conservanda. This interpretation is plainly the true one. The first takes 17}. , sel, deliberation,” in the sense “ disposition,” which is entirely untenable. Altogether similar is Is. 53: 5, pika 2017, “ the chastisement, which has our peace for its object,” and Zech. 8: 16, Upv dih davr, which Jerome rightly explains : " Hoc est judicium pacis, ut propositum juder habeat pacificare discordes, juxta illud Evangelii : Beati pacifici.” The prophet, therefore, represents the Messiah as king, and the Messiah as high priest, devising the best method and way to secure peace and prosperity to the covenant people. If at the present time the common effort of Zerubbabel and Joshua, which was only a feeble type, to promote the best interests of the Theocracy, had been attended with happy results, what

coun

might be expected when the true high priest and the true king, the Messiah, should strive with anxious care for this object, when he should employ all the means which these two dignities united in himself supplied.

V. 14. “ And the crowns shall be to Helem, and to Tobijah, and to Jedaiah, and to Hen, the son of Zephaniah, for a memorial in the temple of the Lord.The prophet here proceeds to explain the other point of the symbolic action, the circumstance that the material of the crown had been received from the deputies and representatives of the Jews, who dwelt far from their native land, The crown should be to these for a memorial, not, as is shown by what follows, on account of their personal, but their typical quality, so far as each one at the sight of the crowns would call to mind, that those, who had consecrated them, in reality and name typified the heathen, who hereafter, as they had done now, hastening from distant lands, would make every effort with the greatest readiness in order to adorn the temple, to promote the kingdom of God. — Whether the action here commanded to the prophet in vision was afterwards actually performed by him outwardly is extremely doubtful, however positively Hülsemann (Vir Zemach, in the Thes. Theol. Phil. I., p. 1005 sqq.) asserts it. Certainly the account of the Talmudist, (Middoth 3, 8,) respecting the place, where the crown was hung up in the temple, can prove nothing. The opposite opinion is in a measure favored by v. 11, where the prophet, who was hardly a goldsmith, is commanded to make the crowns, which can indeed, if necessary, be understood of causing them to be made. A far stronger argument, however, is drawn from the prevailing fondness of Zechariah for what is internal, which, in his case, as in that of Ezekiel, awakens a prejudice against the outward representation, which can be set aside only by weighty reasons, and especially from the analogy of the other symbolic action, chap. 11, which was certainly performed only in inward contemplation, to which also all the remaining visions of this portion were confined.

V. 15.“ And they that are far off shall come and build in the temple of the Lord; and ye shall know that the Lord of Hosts hath sent me unto you, and if ye will hearken to the voice of the Lord your God, so

How the participation of those who were distant, the heathen in distant lands, comp. 2:11, 8: 20, Is. 60: 9, 10, and other passages, in the building of the temple is to be understood, needs no particular illustration after what has been said respecting the building of the temple by the Messiah. If we looked merely at

as

.עֲצַת שָׁלוֹם tation of

trary, a still greater number of interpreters, (Jerome, Mark, Michaelis, &c.,) refer the phrase, “ between both," to the two offices or persons of high priest and king united in the Messiah. This latter interpretation is clearly to be preferred. The objection, that the king was not expressly mentioned in the foregoing context, is of no importance, as the Messiah had been plainly enough designated

a king. The distinction between him as king and as high priest is the less strange, since a reference to the earlier Theocracy plainly lies at the foundation, where the two offices united in the Messiah were administered by two persons. Mark cites as analogous, the distinction between the inward and outward, the old and the new man.

It is decisive in favor of this interpretation, that only according to it do the words stand in an apposite relation to the chief object of the whole prophecy, the union of the kingly and the high-priestly office in the Messiah; but, in addition to this, the two must necessarily be the last mentioned, so that only according to the false reference of the suff. in ixo? can Jehovah be regarded as belonging to them. A second difference occurs in the interpre

nyy. After Jerome, (" Et consilium pacificum erit inter utrumque, ut nec regale fastigium sacerdotalem deprimat dignitatem, nec sacerdotii dignitas regale fastigium, sed in unius gloria domini Jesu utrumque consentiat,"') several, as Michaelis, (" Bene eis convenict suavis inter utrumque concordia erit) refer these words to the harmony of these two offices united in the Messiah, in contrast with the discordance which often formerly occurred to the injury of the Theocracy, when they were administered by different persons. Others, on the contrary, take diy as gen. objecti : consilium de pace comparanda, conferenda, conservanda. This interpretation is plainly the true one. The first takes 1787, "counsel, deliberation," in the sense “disposition,” which is entirely unten able. Altogether similar is Is. 53: 5, pika noin, “ the chastisement, which has our peace for its object," and Zech. 8: 16, HOD V DÍLN Onur, which Jerome rightly explains : " Hoc est judicium pacis, ut propositum judex habeat pacificare discordes, juxta illud Evangelii : Beati pacifici." The prophet, therefore, represents the Messiah as king, and the Messiah as high priest, devising the best method and way to secure peace and prosperity to the covenant people. If at the present time the common effort of Zerubbabel and Joshua, which was only a feeble type, to promote the best interests of the Theocracy, had been attended with happy results, what

might be expected when the true high priest and the true king, the Messiah, should strive with anxious care for this object, when he should employ all the means which these two dignities united in himself supplied.

V. 14. “ And the crowns shall be to Helem, and to Tobijah, and to Jedaiah, and to Hen, the son of Zephaniah, for a memorial in the temple of the Lord.The prophet here proceeds to explain the other point of the symbolic action, the circumstance that the material of the crown had been received from the deputies and representatives of the Jews, who dwelt far from their native land, The crown should be to these for a memorial, not, as is shown by what follows, on account of their personal, but their typical quality, so far as each one at the sight of the crowns would call to mind, that those, who had consecrated them, in reality and name typified the heathen, who hereafter, as they had done now, hastening from distant lands, would make every effort with the greatest readiness in order to adorn the temple, to promote the kingdom of God. Whether the action here commanded to the prophet in vision was afterwards actually performed by him outwardly is extremely doubtful, however positively Hülsemann (Vir Zemach, in the Thes. Theol. Phil.I., p. 1005 sqq.) asserts it. Certainly the account of the Talmudist, (Middoth 3, 8,) respecting the place, where the crown was hung up in the temple, can prove nothing. The opposite opinion is in a measure favored by v. 11, where the prophet, who was hardly a goldsmith, is commanded to make the crowns, which can indeed, if necessary, be understood of causing them to be made. A far stronger argument, however, is drawn from the prevailing fondness of Zechariah for what is internal, which, in his case, as in that of Ezekiel, awakens a prejudice against the outward representation, which can be set aside only by weighty reasons, and especially from the analogy of the other symbolic action, chap. 11, which was certainly performed only in inward contemplation, to which also all the remaining visions of this portion were confined.

V. 15." And they that are far off shall come and build in the temple of the Lord; and ye shall know that the Lord of Hosts hath sent me unto you, and if ye will hearken to the voice of the Lord your God, so " How the participation of those who were distant, the heathen in distant lands, comp. 2:11, 8: 20, Is. 60: 9, 10, and other passages, in the building of the temple is to be understood, needs no particular illustration after what has been said respecting the building of the temple by the Messiah. If we looked merely at

.....

[ocr errors]

this passage, we might be induced to take the words, “and ye shall know," &c., as words of the prophet; but the comparison of chap. 2:9, 11, and chap. 4:9, where they are spoken by the angel of the Lord, through whom the prophet receives his revelations, shows, that here also they belong to him; and this supposition is the more natural, since the prophet, v. 12, expressly introduces as speaking Jehovah of Hosts, as the angel of the Lord in the former passage also is called. The result, the active participation of the heathen in building up the kingdom of God, should in the future furnish a proof of the divine origin of both the symbolical and the verbal prediction. The last words have been erroneously understood in various ways, Jerome.Fient autem omnia, quæ promissa sunt, si dominum audire voluerint, et acta pænitentia in bonis operibus manserint." Theodoret : Ταύτα δε, φησιν, έσται, και το προσήκον δέξεται πέρας, εάν υμείς τους θείοις υπακούσητε λόγοις. According to this, the appearing of the Messiah, and especially the participation of the heathen in his kingdom, are connected with a condition, the faithfulness of the covenant people ; but this is without example, and absurd. To avoid this difficulty, others, as Mark, refer 777! merely to the immediately preceding declaration : “ This, – viz. that ye will see from the result that I have been sent by God, — will come

if

ye will obey the Lord.” But this removes the difficulty only in appearance. For, “ye shall know,” is in substance i. q.

ye shall have opportunity to know;" and was true even of those who wilfully shut their eyes. But the omission of the pronoun should of itself have led the interpreters to another explanation, to the supposition of an aposiopesis, which gives a peculiarly emphatic sense. Comp. similar examples, besides the entirely analogous one in Zechariah himself, chap. 7:7,2 Sam. 2: 27,5:8; in the New Testament, e. g. Luke, 13:9; κάν μεν ποιήση καρπόν, ει δε μήγε, eis to uélloy &xxbyens avrny. Weiner, Gramm. Aufl. 3, p. 478. And this is the more natural, as it is one of the peculiarities of Zechariah, to use 7777! far ostener than any other prophet as a mere prelude. “ If ye will hearken to the voice of the Lord, so,ye shall have a part in all these blessings, so will the Messiah deliver you from sin as your high priest, and make you happy as your king.” With this earnest word of admonition the angel of the Lord closes at the same time this particular revelation, and the whole connected series of revelations, which, in this memorable night, he imparts to the people through our prophet.

to pass

« FöregåendeFortsätt »