Jerusalem Without Walls and the Lord Within Her

Zec 2:6-9 The prophecy commences thus in Zec 2:6-9 : Zec 2:6. “Ho, ho, flee out of the land of the north, is the saying of Jehovah; for I spread you out as the four winds of heaven, is the saying of Jehovah. Zec 2:7. Ho, Zion, save thyself, thou that dwellest with the daughter Babel. Zec 2:8. For thus saith Jehovah of hosts, After glory hath he sent me to the nations that have plundered you; for whoever toucheth you, toucheth the apple of His eye.

Zec 2:9. For, behold, I swing my hand over them, and they become a spoil to those who served them; and ye will see that Jehovah of hosts hath sent me. ” The summons to flee out of Babylon, in Zec 2:6 and Zec 2:7, is addressed to the Israelites, who are all included in the one name Zion in Zec 2:7; and shows that the address which follows is not a simple continuation of the promise in Zec 2:4 and Zec 2:5, but is intended both to explain it, and to assign the reason for it.

The summons contains so far a reason for it, that the Israelites are directed to flee out of Babylon, because the judgment is about to burst upon this oppressor of the people of God. The words nūsū , flee, and himmâletı̄ , save thyself or escape, both point to the judgment, and in Zec 2:9 the judgment itself is clearly spoken of. the land of the north is Babylon (cf.

Jer 1:14; Jer 6:22; Jer 10:22; and for the fact itself, Isa 48:20). The reason for the exclamation “Flee” is first of all given in the clause, “for like the four winds have I spread you out,” not “dispersed you” (Vulg. , C. B. Mich. , Koehler). For apart from the fact that pērēs almost always means to spread out, and has the meaning to disperse at the most in Psa 68:15 and Eze 17:21, this meaning is altogether unsuitable here.

For if Israel had been scattered like the four winds, it would of necessity have been summoned to return, not only from the north, but from all quarters of the globe (Hitzig, Kliefoth). Moreover, we should then have לארבּע, into the four winds; and the method suggested by Koehler for reconciling כּארבּע with his view, viz. , by assuming that “like the four winds” is equivalent to “as chaff is pounded and driven away from its place by the four winds,” according to which the winds would be mentioned in the place of the chaff, will hardly meet with approval.

The explanation is rather that the perfect pērastı̄ is used prophetically to denote the purpose of God, which had already been formed, even if its realization was still in the future. To spread out like the four winds is the same as to spread out just as the four winds spread out to all quarters of the globe. Because God has resolved upon spreading out His people in this manner, they are to flee out of Babel, that they may not suffer the fate of Babel.

That this thought lies at the foundation of the motive assigned, is evident from the further reasons assigned for the summons in Zec 2:8 and Zec 2:9. Zion stands for the inhabitants of Zion, namely the people of God, who are for the time being still yōshebheth bath Bâbel , dwelling with the daughter Babel. As Zion does not mean the city or fortress of Jerusalem, but the inhabitants, so the “daughter Babel” is not the city of Babylon or country of Babylonia personified, but the inhabitants of Babel; and ישׁב is construed with the accusative of the person, as in Psa 22:4 and 2Sa 6:2.

What Jehovah states in explanation of the twofold call to flee out of Babel, does not commence with Zec 2:9 (Ewald), or with כּי הנּגע in Zec 2:8 (Koehler), but with אחר כּבוד וגו. The incorrectness of the two former explanations is seen first of all in the fact that כּי only introduces a speech in the same manner as ὅτι, when it follows directly upon the introductory formula; but not, as is here assumed, when a long parenthesis is inserted between, without the introduction being resumed by לאמר.

And secondly, neither of these explanations furnishes a suitable meaning. If the words of God only followed in Zec 2:9, עליהם in the first clause would be left without any noun to which to refer; and if they commenced with כּי הנּגע (for he that toucheth), the thought “he that toucheth you,” etc. , would assign no reason for the call to flee and save themselves.

For if Israel is defended or valued by God as a pupil of the eye, there can be no necessity for it to flee. And lastly, it is impossible to see what can be the meaning or object of the parenthesis, “After glory hath He sent me,” etc. If it treated “of the execution of the threat of punishment upon the heathen” (Koehler), it would be inserted in an unsuitable place, since the threat of punishment would not follow till afterwards.

All these difficulties vanish if Jehovah’s words commence with 'achar kâbhōd (after glory), in which case shelâchanı̄ (He hath sent me) may be very simply explained from the fact that the address is introduced, not in a direct form, but indirectly: Jehovah says, He has sent me after glory. The sender is Jehovah, and the person sent is not the prophet, but the angel of the Lord.

Achar kâbhōd : behind glory, after glory; not however “after the glory of success” (Hitzig, Ewald, etc.) , still less “with a glorious commission,” but to get glory upon the heathen, i. e. , to display the glory of God upon the heathen through the judgment by which their power is broken, and the heathen world is made to serve the people of God. The manner in which the next two clauses, commencing with kı̄ (for), are attached, is the following: The first assigns the subjective motive; that is to say, states the reason why God has sent him to the heathen, namely, because they have plundered His people, and have thereby touched the apple of His eye.

בּבת עין, the apple of the eye (lit. , the gate, the opening in which the eye is placed, or more probably the pupil of the eye, pupilla , as being the object most carefully preserved), is a figure used to denote the dearest possession or good, and in this sense is applied to the nation of Israel as early as Deu 32:10. The second explanatory clause in Zec 2:9 adds the practical ground for this sending after glory.

The speaker is still the angel of the Lord; and his acting is identical with the acting of God. Like Jehovah, he swings his hand over the heathen nations which plundered Israel (cf. Isa 11:15; Isa 19:16), and they become (והיוּ expressing the consequence), i. e. , so that they become, booty to the Israelites, who had previously been obliged to serve them (cf.

Isa 14:2). In what way the heathen would serve Israel is stated in Zec 2:11. By the execution of this judgment Israel would learn that Jehovah had sent His angel, namely to execute upon the heathen His saving purposes for Israel. This is the meaning of these words, not only here and in Zec 2:11, but also in Zec 4:9 and Zec 6:15, where this formula is repeated, not however in the sense imagined by Koehler, namely that he had spoken these words in consequence of a command from Jehovah, and not of his own accord, by which the “sending” is changed into “speaking.

”

Zec 2:6-9 The prophecy commences thus in Zec 2:6-9 : Zec 2:6. “Ho, ho, flee out of the land of the north, is the saying of Jehovah; for I spread you out as the four winds of heaven, is the saying of Jehovah. Zec 2:7. Ho, Zion, save thyself, thou that dwellest with the daughter Babel. Zec 2:8. For thus saith Jehovah of hosts, After glory hath he sent me to the nations that have plundered you; for whoever toucheth you, toucheth the apple of His eye.

Zec 2:9. For, behold, I swing my hand over them, and they become a spoil to those who served them; and ye will see that Jehovah of hosts hath sent me. ” The summons to flee out of Babylon, in Zec 2:6 and Zec 2:7, is addressed to the Israelites, who are all included in the one name Zion in Zec 2:7; and shows that the address which follows is not a simple continuation of the promise in Zec 2:4 and Zec 2:5, but is intended both to explain it, and to assign the reason for it.

The summons contains so far a reason for it, that the Israelites are directed to flee out of Babylon, because the judgment is about to burst upon this oppressor of the people of God. The words nūsū , flee, and himmâletı̄ , save thyself or escape, both point to the judgment, and in Zec 2:9 the judgment itself is clearly spoken of. the land of the north is Babylon (cf.

Jer 1:14; Jer 6:22; Jer 10:22; and for the fact itself, Isa 48:20). The reason for the exclamation “Flee” is first of all given in the clause, “for like the four winds have I spread you out,” not “dispersed you” (Vulg. , C. B. Mich. , Koehler). For apart from the fact that pērēs almost always means to spread out, and has the meaning to disperse at the most in Psa 68:15 and Eze 17:21, this meaning is altogether unsuitable here.

For if Israel had been scattered like the four winds, it would of necessity have been summoned to return, not only from the north, but from all quarters of the globe (Hitzig, Kliefoth). Moreover, we should then have לארבּע, into the four winds; and the method suggested by Koehler for reconciling כּארבּע with his view, viz. , by assuming that “like the four winds” is equivalent to “as chaff is pounded and driven away from its place by the four winds,” according to which the winds would be mentioned in the place of the chaff, will hardly meet with approval.

The explanation is rather that the perfect pērastı̄ is used prophetically to denote the purpose of God, which had already been formed, even if its realization was still in the future. To spread out like the four winds is the same as to spread out just as the four winds spread out to all quarters of the globe. Because God has resolved upon spreading out His people in this manner, they are to flee out of Babel, that they may not suffer the fate of Babel.

That this thought lies at the foundation of the motive assigned, is evident from the further reasons assigned for the summons in Zec 2:8 and Zec 2:9. Zion stands for the inhabitants of Zion, namely the people of God, who are for the time being still yōshebheth bath Bâbel , dwelling with the daughter Babel. As Zion does not mean the city or fortress of Jerusalem, but the inhabitants, so the “daughter Babel” is not the city of Babylon or country of Babylonia personified, but the inhabitants of Babel; and ישׁב is construed with the accusative of the person, as in Psa 22:4 and 2Sa 6:2.

What Jehovah states in explanation of the twofold call to flee out of Babel, does not commence with Zec 2:9 (Ewald), or with כּי הנּגע in Zec 2:8 (Koehler), but with אחר כּבוד וגו. The incorrectness of the two former explanations is seen first of all in the fact that כּי only introduces a speech in the same manner as ὅτι, when it follows directly upon the introductory formula; but not, as is here assumed, when a long parenthesis is inserted between, without the introduction being resumed by לאמר.

And secondly, neither of these explanations furnishes a suitable meaning. If the words of God only followed in Zec 2:9, עליהם in the first clause would be left without any noun to which to refer; and if they commenced with כּי הנּגע (for he that toucheth), the thought “he that toucheth you,” etc. , would assign no reason for the call to flee and save themselves.

For if Israel is defended or valued by God as a pupil of the eye, there can be no necessity for it to flee. And lastly, it is impossible to see what can be the meaning or object of the parenthesis, “After glory hath He sent me,” etc. If it treated “of the execution of the threat of punishment upon the heathen” (Koehler), it would be inserted in an unsuitable place, since the threat of punishment would not follow till afterwards.

All these difficulties vanish if Jehovah’s words commence with 'achar kâbhōd (after glory), in which case shelâchanı̄ (He hath sent me) may be very simply explained from the fact that the address is introduced, not in a direct form, but indirectly: Jehovah says, He has sent me after glory. The sender is Jehovah, and the person sent is not the prophet, but the angel of the Lord.

Achar kâbhōd : behind glory, after glory; not however “after the glory of success” (Hitzig, Ewald, etc.) , still less “with a glorious commission,” but to get glory upon the heathen, i. e. , to display the glory of God upon the heathen through the judgment by which their power is broken, and the heathen world is made to serve the people of God. The manner in which the next two clauses, commencing with kı̄ (for), are attached, is the following: The first assigns the subjective motive; that is to say, states the reason why God has sent him to the heathen, namely, because they have plundered His people, and have thereby touched the apple of His eye.

בּבת עין, the apple of the eye (lit. , the gate, the opening in which the eye is placed, or more probably the pupil of the eye, pupilla , as being the object most carefully preserved), is a figure used to denote the dearest possession or good, and in this sense is applied to the nation of Israel as early as Deu 32:10. The second explanatory clause in Zec 2:9 adds the practical ground for this sending after glory.

The speaker is still the angel of the Lord; and his acting is identical with the acting of God. Like Jehovah, he swings his hand over the heathen nations which plundered Israel (cf. Isa 11:15; Isa 19:16), and they become (והיוּ expressing the consequence), i. e. , so that they become, booty to the Israelites, who had previously been obliged to serve them (cf.

Isa 14:2). In what way the heathen would serve Israel is stated in Zec 2:11. By the execution of this judgment Israel would learn that Jehovah had sent His angel, namely to execute upon the heathen His saving purposes for Israel. This is the meaning of these words, not only here and in Zec 2:11, but also in Zec 4:9 and Zec 6:15, where this formula is repeated, not however in the sense imagined by Koehler, namely that he had spoken these words in consequence of a command from Jehovah, and not of his own accord, by which the “sending” is changed into “speaking.

”

Zec 2:6-9 The prophecy commences thus in Zec 2:6-9 : Zec 2:6. “Ho, ho, flee out of the land of the north, is the saying of Jehovah; for I spread you out as the four winds of heaven, is the saying of Jehovah. Zec 2:7. Ho, Zion, save thyself, thou that dwellest with the daughter Babel. Zec 2:8. For thus saith Jehovah of hosts, After glory hath he sent me to the nations that have plundered you; for whoever toucheth you, toucheth the apple of His eye.

Zec 2:9. For, behold, I swing my hand over them, and they become a spoil to those who served them; and ye will see that Jehovah of hosts hath sent me. ” The summons to flee out of Babylon, in Zec 2:6 and Zec 2:7, is addressed to the Israelites, who are all included in the one name Zion in Zec 2:7; and shows that the address which follows is not a simple continuation of the promise in Zec 2:4 and Zec 2:5, but is intended both to explain it, and to assign the reason for it.

The summons contains so far a reason for it, that the Israelites are directed to flee out of Babylon, because the judgment is about to burst upon this oppressor of the people of God. The words nūsū , flee, and himmâletı̄ , save thyself or escape, both point to the judgment, and in Zec 2:9 the judgment itself is clearly spoken of. the land of the north is Babylon (cf.

Jer 1:14; Jer 6:22; Jer 10:22; and for the fact itself, Isa 48:20). The reason for the exclamation “Flee” is first of all given in the clause, “for like the four winds have I spread you out,” not “dispersed you” (Vulg. , C. B. Mich. , Koehler). For apart from the fact that pērēs almost always means to spread out, and has the meaning to disperse at the most in Psa 68:15 and Eze 17:21, this meaning is altogether unsuitable here.

For if Israel had been scattered like the four winds, it would of necessity have been summoned to return, not only from the north, but from all quarters of the globe (Hitzig, Kliefoth). Moreover, we should then have לארבּע, into the four winds; and the method suggested by Koehler for reconciling כּארבּע with his view, viz. , by assuming that “like the four winds” is equivalent to “as chaff is pounded and driven away from its place by the four winds,” according to which the winds would be mentioned in the place of the chaff, will hardly meet with approval.

The explanation is rather that the perfect pērastı̄ is used prophetically to denote the purpose of God, which had already been formed, even if its realization was still in the future. To spread out like the four winds is the same as to spread out just as the four winds spread out to all quarters of the globe. Because God has resolved upon spreading out His people in this manner, they are to flee out of Babel, that they may not suffer the fate of Babel.

That this thought lies at the foundation of the motive assigned, is evident from the further reasons assigned for the summons in Zec 2:8 and Zec 2:9. Zion stands for the inhabitants of Zion, namely the people of God, who are for the time being still yōshebheth bath Bâbel , dwelling with the daughter Babel. As Zion does not mean the city or fortress of Jerusalem, but the inhabitants, so the “daughter Babel” is not the city of Babylon or country of Babylonia personified, but the inhabitants of Babel; and ישׁב is construed with the accusative of the person, as in Psa 22:4 and 2Sa 6:2.

What Jehovah states in explanation of the twofold call to flee out of Babel, does not commence with Zec 2:9 (Ewald), or with כּי הנּגע in Zec 2:8 (Koehler), but with אחר כּבוד וגו. The incorrectness of the two former explanations is seen first of all in the fact that כּי only introduces a speech in the same manner as ὅτι, when it follows directly upon the introductory formula; but not, as is here assumed, when a long parenthesis is inserted between, without the introduction being resumed by לאמר.

And secondly, neither of these explanations furnishes a suitable meaning. If the words of God only followed in Zec 2:9, עליהם in the first clause would be left without any noun to which to refer; and if they commenced with כּי הנּגע (for he that toucheth), the thought “he that toucheth you,” etc. , would assign no reason for the call to flee and save themselves.

For if Israel is defended or valued by God as a pupil of the eye, there can be no necessity for it to flee. And lastly, it is impossible to see what can be the meaning or object of the parenthesis, “After glory hath He sent me,” etc. If it treated “of the execution of the threat of punishment upon the heathen” (Koehler), it would be inserted in an unsuitable place, since the threat of punishment would not follow till afterwards.

All these difficulties vanish if Jehovah’s words commence with 'achar kâbhōd (after glory), in which case shelâchanı̄ (He hath sent me) may be very simply explained from the fact that the address is introduced, not in a direct form, but indirectly: Jehovah says, He has sent me after glory. The sender is Jehovah, and the person sent is not the prophet, but the angel of the Lord.

Achar kâbhōd : behind glory, after glory; not however “after the glory of success” (Hitzig, Ewald, etc.) , still less “with a glorious commission,” but to get glory upon the heathen, i. e. , to display the glory of God upon the heathen through the judgment by which their power is broken, and the heathen world is made to serve the people of God. The manner in which the next two clauses, commencing with kı̄ (for), are attached, is the following: The first assigns the subjective motive; that is to say, states the reason why God has sent him to the heathen, namely, because they have plundered His people, and have thereby touched the apple of His eye.

בּבת עין, the apple of the eye (lit. , the gate, the opening in which the eye is placed, or more probably the pupil of the eye, pupilla , as being the object most carefully preserved), is a figure used to denote the dearest possession or good, and in this sense is applied to the nation of Israel as early as Deu 32:10. The second explanatory clause in Zec 2:9 adds the practical ground for this sending after glory.

The speaker is still the angel of the Lord; and his acting is identical with the acting of God. Like Jehovah, he swings his hand over the heathen nations which plundered Israel (cf. Isa 11:15; Isa 19:16), and they become (והיוּ expressing the consequence), i. e. , so that they become, booty to the Israelites, who had previously been obliged to serve them (cf.

Isa 14:2). In what way the heathen would serve Israel is stated in Zec 2:11. By the execution of this judgment Israel would learn that Jehovah had sent His angel, namely to execute upon the heathen His saving purposes for Israel. This is the meaning of these words, not only here and in Zec 2:11, but also in Zec 4:9 and Zec 6:15, where this formula is repeated, not however in the sense imagined by Koehler, namely that he had spoken these words in consequence of a command from Jehovah, and not of his own accord, by which the “sending” is changed into “speaking.

”

Zec 2:6-9 The prophecy commences thus in Zec 2:6-9 : Zec 2:6. “Ho, ho, flee out of the land of the north, is the saying of Jehovah; for I spread you out as the four winds of heaven, is the saying of Jehovah. Zec 2:7. Ho, Zion, save thyself, thou that dwellest with the daughter Babel. Zec 2:8. For thus saith Jehovah of hosts, After glory hath he sent me to the nations that have plundered you; for whoever toucheth you, toucheth the apple of His eye.

Zec 2:9. For, behold, I swing my hand over them, and they become a spoil to those who served them; and ye will see that Jehovah of hosts hath sent me. ” The summons to flee out of Babylon, in Zec 2:6 and Zec 2:7, is addressed to the Israelites, who are all included in the one name Zion in Zec 2:7; and shows that the address which follows is not a simple continuation of the promise in Zec 2:4 and Zec 2:5, but is intended both to explain it, and to assign the reason for it.

The summons contains so far a reason for it, that the Israelites are directed to flee out of Babylon, because the judgment is about to burst upon this oppressor of the people of God. The words nūsū , flee, and himmâletı̄ , save thyself or escape, both point to the judgment, and in Zec 2:9 the judgment itself is clearly spoken of. the land of the north is Babylon (cf.

Jer 1:14; Jer 6:22; Jer 10:22; and for the fact itself, Isa 48:20). The reason for the exclamation “Flee” is first of all given in the clause, “for like the four winds have I spread you out,” not “dispersed you” (Vulg. , C. B. Mich. , Koehler). For apart from the fact that pērēs almost always means to spread out, and has the meaning to disperse at the most in Psa 68:15 and Eze 17:21, this meaning is altogether unsuitable here.

For if Israel had been scattered like the four winds, it would of necessity have been summoned to return, not only from the north, but from all quarters of the globe (Hitzig, Kliefoth). Moreover, we should then have לארבּע, into the four winds; and the method suggested by Koehler for reconciling כּארבּע with his view, viz. , by assuming that “like the four winds” is equivalent to “as chaff is pounded and driven away from its place by the four winds,” according to which the winds would be mentioned in the place of the chaff, will hardly meet with approval.

The explanation is rather that the perfect pērastı̄ is used prophetically to denote the purpose of God, which had already been formed, even if its realization was still in the future. To spread out like the four winds is the same as to spread out just as the four winds spread out to all quarters of the globe. Because God has resolved upon spreading out His people in this manner, they are to flee out of Babel, that they may not suffer the fate of Babel.

That this thought lies at the foundation of the motive assigned, is evident from the further reasons assigned for the summons in Zec 2:8 and Zec 2:9. Zion stands for the inhabitants of Zion, namely the people of God, who are for the time being still yōshebheth bath Bâbel , dwelling with the daughter Babel. As Zion does not mean the city or fortress of Jerusalem, but the inhabitants, so the “daughter Babel” is not the city of Babylon or country of Babylonia personified, but the inhabitants of Babel; and ישׁב is construed with the accusative of the person, as in Psa 22:4 and 2Sa 6:2.

What Jehovah states in explanation of the twofold call to flee out of Babel, does not commence with Zec 2:9 (Ewald), or with כּי הנּגע in Zec 2:8 (Koehler), but with אחר כּבוד וגו. The incorrectness of the two former explanations is seen first of all in the fact that כּי only introduces a speech in the same manner as ὅτι, when it follows directly upon the introductory formula; but not, as is here assumed, when a long parenthesis is inserted between, without the introduction being resumed by לאמר.

And secondly, neither of these explanations furnishes a suitable meaning. If the words of God only followed in Zec 2:9, עליהם in the first clause would be left without any noun to which to refer; and if they commenced with כּי הנּגע (for he that toucheth), the thought “he that toucheth you,” etc. , would assign no reason for the call to flee and save themselves.

For if Israel is defended or valued by God as a pupil of the eye, there can be no necessity for it to flee. And lastly, it is impossible to see what can be the meaning or object of the parenthesis, “After glory hath He sent me,” etc. If it treated “of the execution of the threat of punishment upon the heathen” (Koehler), it would be inserted in an unsuitable place, since the threat of punishment would not follow till afterwards.

All these difficulties vanish if Jehovah’s words commence with 'achar kâbhōd (after glory), in which case shelâchanı̄ (He hath sent me) may be very simply explained from the fact that the address is introduced, not in a direct form, but indirectly: Jehovah says, He has sent me after glory. The sender is Jehovah, and the person sent is not the prophet, but the angel of the Lord.

Achar kâbhōd : behind glory, after glory; not however “after the glory of success” (Hitzig, Ewald, etc.) , still less “with a glorious commission,” but to get glory upon the heathen, i. e. , to display the glory of God upon the heathen through the judgment by which their power is broken, and the heathen world is made to serve the people of God. The manner in which the next two clauses, commencing with kı̄ (for), are attached, is the following: The first assigns the subjective motive; that is to say, states the reason why God has sent him to the heathen, namely, because they have plundered His people, and have thereby touched the apple of His eye.

בּבת עין, the apple of the eye (lit. , the gate, the opening in which the eye is placed, or more probably the pupil of the eye, pupilla , as being the object most carefully preserved), is a figure used to denote the dearest possession or good, and in this sense is applied to the nation of Israel as early as Deu 32:10. The second explanatory clause in Zec 2:9 adds the practical ground for this sending after glory.

The speaker is still the angel of the Lord; and his acting is identical with the acting of God. Like Jehovah, he swings his hand over the heathen nations which plundered Israel (cf. Isa 11:15; Isa 19:16), and they become (והיוּ expressing the consequence), i. e. , so that they become, booty to the Israelites, who had previously been obliged to serve them (cf.

Isa 14:2). In what way the heathen would serve Israel is stated in Zec 2:11. By the execution of this judgment Israel would learn that Jehovah had sent His angel, namely to execute upon the heathen His saving purposes for Israel. This is the meaning of these words, not only here and in Zec 2:11, but also in Zec 4:9 and Zec 6:15, where this formula is repeated, not however in the sense imagined by Koehler, namely that he had spoken these words in consequence of a command from Jehovah, and not of his own accord, by which the “sending” is changed into “speaking.

”

Zec 2:10-11 The daughter Zion is to rejoice at this sending of the angel of the Lord. Zec 2:10. “Exult and rejoice, O daughter Zion: for, behold, I come, and dwell in the midst of thee, is the saying of Jehovah. Zec 2:11. And many nations will attach themselves to Jehovah in that day, and become a people to me: and I dwell in the midst of thee; and thou wilt know that Jehovah of hosts hath sent me to thee.

” The daughter Zion, or the church of the Lord, delivered out of Babel, is to rejoice with joy, because her glorification is commencing now. The Lord comes to her in His angel, in whom are His name (Exo 23:21), and His face (Exo 33:14), i. e. , the angel of His face (Isa 63:9), who reveals His nature, to dwell in the midst of her. This dwelling of Jehovah, or of His angel, in the midst of Zion, is essentially different from the dwelling of Jehovah in the Most Holy Place of His temple.

It commences with the coming of the Son of God in the flesh, and is completed by His return in glory (Joh 1:14 and Rev 21:3). Then will many, or powerful, nations, attach themselves to Jehovah, and become His people (cf. Zec 8:20-21; Isa 14:1). This kingdom of God, which has hitherto been restricted to Israel, will be spread out and glorified by the reception of the heathen nations which are seeking God (Mic 4:2).

The repetition of the expression, “I dwell in the midst of thee,” merely serves as a stronger asseveration of this brilliant promise; and the same remark applies to the repetition of וידעתּ וגו (and thou shalt now): see at Zec 2:13. Jerusalem will thereby receive the expansion shown to the prophet in Zec 2:4; and through the dwelling of God in the midst of her, the promise in Zec 2:5 will also be fulfilled.

The next verse refers to this.

Zec 2:10-11 The daughter Zion is to rejoice at this sending of the angel of the Lord. Zec 2:10. “Exult and rejoice, O daughter Zion: for, behold, I come, and dwell in the midst of thee, is the saying of Jehovah. Zec 2:11. And many nations will attach themselves to Jehovah in that day, and become a people to me: and I dwell in the midst of thee; and thou wilt know that Jehovah of hosts hath sent me to thee.

” The daughter Zion, or the church of the Lord, delivered out of Babel, is to rejoice with joy, because her glorification is commencing now. The Lord comes to her in His angel, in whom are His name (Exo 23:21), and His face (Exo 33:14), i. e. , the angel of His face (Isa 63:9), who reveals His nature, to dwell in the midst of her. This dwelling of Jehovah, or of His angel, in the midst of Zion, is essentially different from the dwelling of Jehovah in the Most Holy Place of His temple.

It commences with the coming of the Son of God in the flesh, and is completed by His return in glory (Joh 1:14 and Rev 21:3). Then will many, or powerful, nations, attach themselves to Jehovah, and become His people (cf. Zec 8:20-21; Isa 14:1). This kingdom of God, which has hitherto been restricted to Israel, will be spread out and glorified by the reception of the heathen nations which are seeking God (Mic 4:2).

The repetition of the expression, “I dwell in the midst of thee,” merely serves as a stronger asseveration of this brilliant promise; and the same remark applies to the repetition of וידעתּ וגו (and thou shalt now): see at Zec 2:13. Jerusalem will thereby receive the expansion shown to the prophet in Zec 2:4; and through the dwelling of God in the midst of her, the promise in Zec 2:5 will also be fulfilled.

The next verse refers to this.

Zec 2:12-13 “And Jehovah will take possession of Judah as His portion in the holy land, and will yet choose Jerusalem. Zec 2:13. Be still, all flesh, before Jehovah; for He has risen up out of His holy habitation. ” The first hemistich of Zec 2:12 rests upon Deu 32:9, where Israel, as the chosen nation, is called the chēleq and nachălâh of Jehovah. This appointment of Israel to be the possession of Jehovah will become perfect truth and reality in the future, through the coming of the Lord.

Yehūdâh is Judah as delivered, i. e. , the remnant of the whole of the covenant nation. This remnant, after being gathered out of Babel, will dwell upon holy ground, or in a holy land, as the possession of the Lord. The holy land is the land of Jehovah (Hos 9:3); but this is not to be set down without reserve as identical with Palestine. On the contrary, every place where Jehovah may be is holy ground (cf.

Exo 3:5); so that even Palestine is only holy when the Lord dwells there. And we must not limit the idea of the holy land in this passage to Palestine, because the idea of the people of God will be so expanded by the addition of nation nations, that it will not have room enough within the limits of Palestine; and according to Deu 32:4, even Jerusalem will no longer be a city with limited boundaries.

The holy land reaches just as far as the nations, which have become the people of Jehovah by attaching themselves to Judah, spread themselves out over the surface of the earth. The words “choose Jerusalem again” round off the promise, just as in Zec 1:17; but in Zec 2:13 the admonition is added, to wait in reverential silence for the coming of the Lord to judgment, after Hab 2:20; and the reason assigned is, that the judgment will soon begin.

נעור, niphal of עוּר (compare Ewald, §140, a ; Ges. §72, Anm. 9), to wake up, or rise up from His rest (cf. Psa 44:24). מעון קדשׁו, the holy habitation of God, is heaven, as in Deu 26:15; Jer 25:30. The judgment upon the heathen world-power began to burst in a very short time. When Babylon revolted against the king of Persia, under the reign of Darius, a great massacre took place within the city after its re-capture, and its walls were destroyed, so that the city could not rise again to its ancient grandeur and importance.

Compare with this the remark made in the comm. on Haggai, concerning the overthrow of the Persian empire and those which followed it. We have already shown, what a groundless hypothesis the opinion is, that the fulfilment was interrupted in consequence of Israel’s guilt; and that as the result of this, the completion of it has been deferred for centuries, or even thousands of years.

Zec 2:12-13 “And Jehovah will take possession of Judah as His portion in the holy land, and will yet choose Jerusalem. Zec 2:13. Be still, all flesh, before Jehovah; for He has risen up out of His holy habitation. ” The first hemistich of Zec 2:12 rests upon Deu 32:9, where Israel, as the chosen nation, is called the chēleq and nachălâh of Jehovah. This appointment of Israel to be the possession of Jehovah will become perfect truth and reality in the future, through the coming of the Lord.

Yehūdâh is Judah as delivered, i. e. , the remnant of the whole of the covenant nation. This remnant, after being gathered out of Babel, will dwell upon holy ground, or in a holy land, as the possession of the Lord. The holy land is the land of Jehovah (Hos 9:3); but this is not to be set down without reserve as identical with Palestine. On the contrary, every place where Jehovah may be is holy ground (cf.

Exo 3:5); so that even Palestine is only holy when the Lord dwells there. And we must not limit the idea of the holy land in this passage to Palestine, because the idea of the people of God will be so expanded by the addition of nation nations, that it will not have room enough within the limits of Palestine; and according to Deu 32:4, even Jerusalem will no longer be a city with limited boundaries.

The holy land reaches just as far as the nations, which have become the people of Jehovah by attaching themselves to Judah, spread themselves out over the surface of the earth. The words “choose Jerusalem again” round off the promise, just as in Zec 1:17; but in Zec 2:13 the admonition is added, to wait in reverential silence for the coming of the Lord to judgment, after Hab 2:20; and the reason assigned is, that the judgment will soon begin.

נעור, niphal of עוּר (compare Ewald, §140, a ; Ges. §72, Anm. 9), to wake up, or rise up from His rest (cf. Psa 44:24). מעון קדשׁו, the holy habitation of God, is heaven, as in Deu 26:15; Jer 25:30. The judgment upon the heathen world-power began to burst in a very short time. When Babylon revolted against the king of Persia, under the reign of Darius, a great massacre took place within the city after its re-capture, and its walls were destroyed, so that the city could not rise again to its ancient grandeur and importance.

Compare with this the remark made in the comm. on Haggai, concerning the overthrow of the Persian empire and those which followed it. We have already shown, what a groundless hypothesis the opinion is, that the fulfilment was interrupted in consequence of Israel’s guilt; and that as the result of this, the completion of it has been deferred for centuries, or even thousands of years.

Zec 3:1-4 In this and the following visions the prophet is shown the future glorification of the church of the Lord. Zec 3:1. “And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan stood at his right hand to oppose him. Zec 3:2. And Jehovah said to Satan, Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan; and Jehovah who chooseth Jerusalem rebuke thee.

Is not this a brand saved out of the fire? Zec 3:3. And Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. Zec 3:4. And he answered and spake to those who stood before him thus: Take away the filthy garments from him. And he said to him, Behold, I have taken away thy guilt from thee, and clothe thee in festal raiment. Zec 3:5. And I said, Let them put a clean mitre upon his head.

Then they put the clean mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of Jehovah stood by. ” The subject to ויּראני is Jehovah, and not the mediating angel, for his work was to explain the visions to the prophet, and not to introduce them; nor the angel of Jehovah, because he appears in the course of the vision, although in these visions he is sometimes identified with Jehovah, and sometimes distinguished from Him.

The scene is the following: Joshua stands as high priest before the angel of the Lord, and Satan stands at his (Joshua’s) right hand as accuser. Satan ( hassâtân ) is the evil spirit so well known from the book of Job, and the constant accuser of men before God (Rev 12:10), and not Sanballat and his comrades (Kimchi, Drus. , Ewald). He comes forward here as the enemy and accuser of Joshua, to accuse him in his capacity of high priest.

The scene is therefore a judicial one, and the high priest is not in the sanctuary, the building of which had commenced, or engaged in supplicating the mercy of the angel of the Lord for himself and the people, as Theodoret and Hengstenberg suppose. The expression עמד לפני furnishes no tenable proof of this, since it cannot be shown that this expression would be an inappropriate one to denote the standing of an accused person before the judge, or that the Hebrew language had any other expression for this.

Satan stands on the right side of Joshua, because the accuser was accustomed to stand at the right hand of the accused (cf. Psa 109:6). Joshua is opposed by Satan, however, not on account of any personal offences either in his private or his domestic life, but in his official capacity as high priest, and for sins which were connected with his office, or for offences which would involve the nation (Lev 4:3); though not as the bearer of the sins of the people before the Lord, but as laden with his own and his people’s sins.

The dirty clothes, which he had one, point to this (Zec 3:3). But Jehovah, i. e. , the angel of Jehovah, repels the accuser with the words, “Jehovah rebuke thee;... Jehovah who chooseth Jerusalem. ” The words are repeated for the sake of emphasis, and with the repetition the motive which led Jehovah to reject the accuser is added. Because Jehovah has chosen Jerusalem, and maintains His choice in its integrity (this is implied in the participle bōchēr ).

He must rebuke Satan, who hopes that his accusation will have the effect of repealing the choice of Jerusalem, by deposing the high priest. For if any sin of the high priest, which inculpated the nation, had been sufficient to secure his removal or deposition, the office of high priest would have ceased altogether, because no man is without sin. גּער, to rebuke, does not mean merely to nonsuit, but to reprove for a thing; and when used of God, to reprove by action, signifying to sweep both him and his accusation entirely away.

The motive for the repulse of the accuser is strengthened by the clause which follows: Is he (Joshua) not a brand plucked out of the fire? i. e. , one who has narrowly escaped the threatening destruction (for the figure, see Amo 4:11). These words, again, we most not take as referring to the high priest as an individual; nor must we restrict their meaning to the fact that Joshua had been brought back from captivity, and reinstated in the office of high priest.

Just as the accusation does not apply to the individual, but to the office which Joshua filled, so do these words also apply to the supporter of the official dignity. The fire, out of which Joshua had been rescued as a brand, was neither the evil which had come upon Joshua through neglecting the building of the temple (Koehler), nor the guilt of allowing his sons to marry foreign wives (Targ.

, Jerome, Rashi, Kimchi): for in the former case the accusation would have come too late, since the building of the temple had been resumed five months before (Hag 1:15, compared with Zec 1:7); and in the latter it would have been much too early, since these misalliances did not take place till fifty years afterwards. And, in general, guilt which might possibly lead to ruin could not be called a fire; still less could the cessation or removal of this sin be called deliverance out of the fire.

Fire is a figurative expression for punishment, not for sin. The fire out of which Joshua had been saved like a brand was the captivity, in which both Joshua and the nation had been brought to the verge of destruction. Out of this fire Joshua the high priest had been rescued. But, as Kliefoth has aptly observed, “the priesthood of Israel was concentrated in the high priest, just as the character of Israel as the holy nation was concentrated in the priesthood.

The high priest represented the holiness and priestliness of Israel, and that not merely in certain official acts and functions, but so that as a particular Levite and Aaronite, and as the head for the time being of the house of Aaron, he represented in his own person that character of holiness and priestliness which had been graciously bestowed by God upon the nation of Israel. ” This serves to explain how the hope that God must rebuke the accuser could be made to rest upon the election of Jerusalem, i.

e. , upon the love of the Lord to the whole of His nation. The pardon and the promise do not apply to Joshua personally any more than the accusation; but they refer to him in his official position, and to the whole nation, and that with regard to the special attributes set forth in the high priesthood - namely, its priestliness and holiness. We cannot, therefore, find any better words with which to explain the meaning of this vision than those of Kliefoth.

“The character of Israel,” he says, “as the holy and priestly nation of God, was violated - violated by the general sin and guilt of the nation, which God had been obliged to punish with exile. This guilt of the nation, which neutralized the priestliness and holiness of Israel, is pleaded by Satan in the accusation which he brings before the Maleach of Jehovah against the high priest, who was its representative.

A nation so guilty and so punished could no longer be the holy and priestly nation: its priests could no longer be priests; nor could its high priests be high priests any more. But the Maleach of Jehovah sweeps away the accusation with the assurance that Jehovah, from His grace, and for the sake of its election, will still give validity to Israel’s priesthood, and has already practically manifested this purpose of His by bringing it out of its penal condition of exile.

” After the repulse of the accuser, Joshua is cleansed from the guilt attaching to him. When he stood before the angel of the Lord he had dirty clothes on. The dirty clothes are not the costume of an accused person (Drus. , Ewald); for this Roman custom was unknown to the Hebrews. Dirt is a figurative representation of sin; so that dirty clothes represent defilement with sin and guilt (cf.

Isa 64:5; Isa 4:4; Pro 30:12; Rev 3:4; Rev 7:14). The Lord had indeed refined His nation in its exile, and in His grace had preserved it from destruction; but its sin was not thereby wiped away. The place of grosser idolatry had been taken by the more refined idolatry of self-righteousness, selfishness, and conformity to the world. And the representative of the nation before the Lord was affected with the dirt of these sins, which gave Satan a handle for his accusation.

But the Lord would cleanse His chosen people from this, and make it a holy and glorious nation. This is symbolized by what takes place in Zec 3:4 and Zec 3:5. The angel of the Lord commands those who stand before Him, i. e. , the angels who serve Him, to take off the dirty clothes from the high priest, and put on festal clothing; and then adds, by way of explanation to Joshua, Behold, I have caused thy guilt to pass away from thee, that is to say, I have forgiven thy sin, and justified thee (cf.

2Sa 12:13; 2Sa 24:10), and clothe thee with festal raiment. The inf. abs. halbēsh stands, as it frequently does, for the finite verb, and has its norm in העברתּי (see at Hag 1:6). The last words are either spoken to the attendant angels as well, or else, what is more likely, they are simply passed over in the command given to them, and mentioned for the first time here.

Machălâtsōth , costly clothes, which were only worn on festal occasions (see at Isa 3:22). ; They are not symbols of innocence and righteousness (Chald.) , which are symbolized by clean or white raiment (Rev 3:4; Rev 7:9); nor are they figurative representations of joy (Koehler), but are rather symbolical of glory. The high priest, and the nation in him, are not only to be cleansed from sin, and justified, but to be sanctified and glorified as well.

Zec 3:1-4 In this and the following visions the prophet is shown the future glorification of the church of the Lord. Zec 3:1. “And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan stood at his right hand to oppose him. Zec 3:2. And Jehovah said to Satan, Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan; and Jehovah who chooseth Jerusalem rebuke thee.

Is not this a brand saved out of the fire? Zec 3:3. And Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. Zec 3:4. And he answered and spake to those who stood before him thus: Take away the filthy garments from him. And he said to him, Behold, I have taken away thy guilt from thee, and clothe thee in festal raiment. Zec 3:5. And I said, Let them put a clean mitre upon his head.

Then they put the clean mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of Jehovah stood by. ” The subject to ויּראני is Jehovah, and not the mediating angel, for his work was to explain the visions to the prophet, and not to introduce them; nor the angel of Jehovah, because he appears in the course of the vision, although in these visions he is sometimes identified with Jehovah, and sometimes distinguished from Him.

The scene is the following: Joshua stands as high priest before the angel of the Lord, and Satan stands at his (Joshua’s) right hand as accuser. Satan ( hassâtân ) is the evil spirit so well known from the book of Job, and the constant accuser of men before God (Rev 12:10), and not Sanballat and his comrades (Kimchi, Drus. , Ewald). He comes forward here as the enemy and accuser of Joshua, to accuse him in his capacity of high priest.

The scene is therefore a judicial one, and the high priest is not in the sanctuary, the building of which had commenced, or engaged in supplicating the mercy of the angel of the Lord for himself and the people, as Theodoret and Hengstenberg suppose. The expression עמד לפני furnishes no tenable proof of this, since it cannot be shown that this expression would be an inappropriate one to denote the standing of an accused person before the judge, or that the Hebrew language had any other expression for this.

Satan stands on the right side of Joshua, because the accuser was accustomed to stand at the right hand of the accused (cf. Psa 109:6). Joshua is opposed by Satan, however, not on account of any personal offences either in his private or his domestic life, but in his official capacity as high priest, and for sins which were connected with his office, or for offences which would involve the nation (Lev 4:3); though not as the bearer of the sins of the people before the Lord, but as laden with his own and his people’s sins.

The dirty clothes, which he had one, point to this (Zec 3:3). But Jehovah, i. e. , the angel of Jehovah, repels the accuser with the words, “Jehovah rebuke thee;... Jehovah who chooseth Jerusalem. ” The words are repeated for the sake of emphasis, and with the repetition the motive which led Jehovah to reject the accuser is added. Because Jehovah has chosen Jerusalem, and maintains His choice in its integrity (this is implied in the participle bōchēr ).

He must rebuke Satan, who hopes that his accusation will have the effect of repealing the choice of Jerusalem, by deposing the high priest. For if any sin of the high priest, which inculpated the nation, had been sufficient to secure his removal or deposition, the office of high priest would have ceased altogether, because no man is without sin. גּער, to rebuke, does not mean merely to nonsuit, but to reprove for a thing; and when used of God, to reprove by action, signifying to sweep both him and his accusation entirely away.

The motive for the repulse of the accuser is strengthened by the clause which follows: Is he (Joshua) not a brand plucked out of the fire? i. e. , one who has narrowly escaped the threatening destruction (for the figure, see Amo 4:11). These words, again, we most not take as referring to the high priest as an individual; nor must we restrict their meaning to the fact that Joshua had been brought back from captivity, and reinstated in the office of high priest.

Just as the accusation does not apply to the individual, but to the office which Joshua filled, so do these words also apply to the supporter of the official dignity. The fire, out of which Joshua had been rescued as a brand, was neither the evil which had come upon Joshua through neglecting the building of the temple (Koehler), nor the guilt of allowing his sons to marry foreign wives (Targ.

, Jerome, Rashi, Kimchi): for in the former case the accusation would have come too late, since the building of the temple had been resumed five months before (Hag 1:15, compared with Zec 1:7); and in the latter it would have been much too early, since these misalliances did not take place till fifty years afterwards. And, in general, guilt which might possibly lead to ruin could not be called a fire; still less could the cessation or removal of this sin be called deliverance out of the fire.

Fire is a figurative expression for punishment, not for sin. The fire out of which Joshua had been saved like a brand was the captivity, in which both Joshua and the nation had been brought to the verge of destruction. Out of this fire Joshua the high priest had been rescued. But, as Kliefoth has aptly observed, “the priesthood of Israel was concentrated in the high priest, just as the character of Israel as the holy nation was concentrated in the priesthood.

The high priest represented the holiness and priestliness of Israel, and that not merely in certain official acts and functions, but so that as a particular Levite and Aaronite, and as the head for the time being of the house of Aaron, he represented in his own person that character of holiness and priestliness which had been graciously bestowed by God upon the nation of Israel. ” This serves to explain how the hope that God must rebuke the accuser could be made to rest upon the election of Jerusalem, i.

e. , upon the love of the Lord to the whole of His nation. The pardon and the promise do not apply to Joshua personally any more than the accusation; but they refer to him in his official position, and to the whole nation, and that with regard to the special attributes set forth in the high priesthood - namely, its priestliness and holiness. We cannot, therefore, find any better words with which to explain the meaning of this vision than those of Kliefoth.

“The character of Israel,” he says, “as the holy and priestly nation of God, was violated - violated by the general sin and guilt of the nation, which God had been obliged to punish with exile. This guilt of the nation, which neutralized the priestliness and holiness of Israel, is pleaded by Satan in the accusation which he brings before the Maleach of Jehovah against the high priest, who was its representative.

A nation so guilty and so punished could no longer be the holy and priestly nation: its priests could no longer be priests; nor could its high priests be high priests any more. But the Maleach of Jehovah sweeps away the accusation with the assurance that Jehovah, from His grace, and for the sake of its election, will still give validity to Israel’s priesthood, and has already practically manifested this purpose of His by bringing it out of its penal condition of exile.

” After the repulse of the accuser, Joshua is cleansed from the guilt attaching to him. When he stood before the angel of the Lord he had dirty clothes on. The dirty clothes are not the costume of an accused person (Drus. , Ewald); for this Roman custom was unknown to the Hebrews. Dirt is a figurative representation of sin; so that dirty clothes represent defilement with sin and guilt (cf.

Isa 64:5; Isa 4:4; Pro 30:12; Rev 3:4; Rev 7:14). The Lord had indeed refined His nation in its exile, and in His grace had preserved it from destruction; but its sin was not thereby wiped away. The place of grosser idolatry had been taken by the more refined idolatry of self-righteousness, selfishness, and conformity to the world. And the representative of the nation before the Lord was affected with the dirt of these sins, which gave Satan a handle for his accusation.

But the Lord would cleanse His chosen people from this, and make it a holy and glorious nation. This is symbolized by what takes place in Zec 3:4 and Zec 3:5. The angel of the Lord commands those who stand before Him, i. e. , the angels who serve Him, to take off the dirty clothes from the high priest, and put on festal clothing; and then adds, by way of explanation to Joshua, Behold, I have caused thy guilt to pass away from thee, that is to say, I have forgiven thy sin, and justified thee (cf.

2Sa 12:13; 2Sa 24:10), and clothe thee with festal raiment. The inf. abs. halbēsh stands, as it frequently does, for the finite verb, and has its norm in העברתּי (see at Hag 1:6). The last words are either spoken to the attendant angels as well, or else, what is more likely, they are simply passed over in the command given to them, and mentioned for the first time here.

Machălâtsōth , costly clothes, which were only worn on festal occasions (see at Isa 3:22). ; They are not symbols of innocence and righteousness (Chald.) , which are symbolized by clean or white raiment (Rev 3:4; Rev 7:9); nor are they figurative representations of joy (Koehler), but are rather symbolical of glory. The high priest, and the nation in him, are not only to be cleansed from sin, and justified, but to be sanctified and glorified as well.

Zec 3:1-4 In this and the following visions the prophet is shown the future glorification of the church of the Lord. Zec 3:1. “And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan stood at his right hand to oppose him. Zec 3:2. And Jehovah said to Satan, Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan; and Jehovah who chooseth Jerusalem rebuke thee.

Is not this a brand saved out of the fire? Zec 3:3. And Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. Zec 3:4. And he answered and spake to those who stood before him thus: Take away the filthy garments from him. And he said to him, Behold, I have taken away thy guilt from thee, and clothe thee in festal raiment. Zec 3:5. And I said, Let them put a clean mitre upon his head.

Then they put the clean mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of Jehovah stood by. ” The subject to ויּראני is Jehovah, and not the mediating angel, for his work was to explain the visions to the prophet, and not to introduce them; nor the angel of Jehovah, because he appears in the course of the vision, although in these visions he is sometimes identified with Jehovah, and sometimes distinguished from Him.

The scene is the following: Joshua stands as high priest before the angel of the Lord, and Satan stands at his (Joshua’s) right hand as accuser. Satan ( hassâtân ) is the evil spirit so well known from the book of Job, and the constant accuser of men before God (Rev 12:10), and not Sanballat and his comrades (Kimchi, Drus. , Ewald). He comes forward here as the enemy and accuser of Joshua, to accuse him in his capacity of high priest.

The scene is therefore a judicial one, and the high priest is not in the sanctuary, the building of which had commenced, or engaged in supplicating the mercy of the angel of the Lord for himself and the people, as Theodoret and Hengstenberg suppose. The expression עמד לפני furnishes no tenable proof of this, since it cannot be shown that this expression would be an inappropriate one to denote the standing of an accused person before the judge, or that the Hebrew language had any other expression for this.

Satan stands on the right side of Joshua, because the accuser was accustomed to stand at the right hand of the accused (cf. Psa 109:6). Joshua is opposed by Satan, however, not on account of any personal offences either in his private or his domestic life, but in his official capacity as high priest, and for sins which were connected with his office, or for offences which would involve the nation (Lev 4:3); though not as the bearer of the sins of the people before the Lord, but as laden with his own and his people’s sins.

The dirty clothes, which he had one, point to this (Zec 3:3). But Jehovah, i. e. , the angel of Jehovah, repels the accuser with the words, “Jehovah rebuke thee;... Jehovah who chooseth Jerusalem. ” The words are repeated for the sake of emphasis, and with the repetition the motive which led Jehovah to reject the accuser is added. Because Jehovah has chosen Jerusalem, and maintains His choice in its integrity (this is implied in the participle bōchēr ).

He must rebuke Satan, who hopes that his accusation will have the effect of repealing the choice of Jerusalem, by deposing the high priest. For if any sin of the high priest, which inculpated the nation, had been sufficient to secure his removal or deposition, the office of high priest would have ceased altogether, because no man is without sin. גּער, to rebuke, does not mean merely to nonsuit, but to reprove for a thing; and when used of God, to reprove by action, signifying to sweep both him and his accusation entirely away.

The motive for the repulse of the accuser is strengthened by the clause which follows: Is he (Joshua) not a brand plucked out of the fire? i. e. , one who has narrowly escaped the threatening destruction (for the figure, see Amo 4:11). These words, again, we most not take as referring to the high priest as an individual; nor must we restrict their meaning to the fact that Joshua had been brought back from captivity, and reinstated in the office of high priest.

Just as the accusation does not apply to the individual, but to the office which Joshua filled, so do these words also apply to the supporter of the official dignity. The fire, out of which Joshua had been rescued as a brand, was neither the evil which had come upon Joshua through neglecting the building of the temple (Koehler), nor the guilt of allowing his sons to marry foreign wives (Targ.

, Jerome, Rashi, Kimchi): for in the former case the accusation would have come too late, since the building of the temple had been resumed five months before (Hag 1:15, compared with Zec 1:7); and in the latter it would have been much too early, since these misalliances did not take place till fifty years afterwards. And, in general, guilt which might possibly lead to ruin could not be called a fire; still less could the cessation or removal of this sin be called deliverance out of the fire.

Fire is a figurative expression for punishment, not for sin. The fire out of which Joshua had been saved like a brand was the captivity, in which both Joshua and the nation had been brought to the verge of destruction. Out of this fire Joshua the high priest had been rescued. But, as Kliefoth has aptly observed, “the priesthood of Israel was concentrated in the high priest, just as the character of Israel as the holy nation was concentrated in the priesthood.

The high priest represented the holiness and priestliness of Israel, and that not merely in certain official acts and functions, but so that as a particular Levite and Aaronite, and as the head for the time being of the house of Aaron, he represented in his own person that character of holiness and priestliness which had been graciously bestowed by God upon the nation of Israel. ” This serves to explain how the hope that God must rebuke the accuser could be made to rest upon the election of Jerusalem, i.

e. , upon the love of the Lord to the whole of His nation. The pardon and the promise do not apply to Joshua personally any more than the accusation; but they refer to him in his official position, and to the whole nation, and that with regard to the special attributes set forth in the high priesthood - namely, its priestliness and holiness. We cannot, therefore, find any better words with which to explain the meaning of this vision than those of Kliefoth.

“The character of Israel,” he says, “as the holy and priestly nation of God, was violated - violated by the general sin and guilt of the nation, which God had been obliged to punish with exile. This guilt of the nation, which neutralized the priestliness and holiness of Israel, is pleaded by Satan in the accusation which he brings before the Maleach of Jehovah against the high priest, who was its representative.

A nation so guilty and so punished could no longer be the holy and priestly nation: its priests could no longer be priests; nor could its high priests be high priests any more. But the Maleach of Jehovah sweeps away the accusation with the assurance that Jehovah, from His grace, and for the sake of its election, will still give validity to Israel’s priesthood, and has already practically manifested this purpose of His by bringing it out of its penal condition of exile.

” After the repulse of the accuser, Joshua is cleansed from the guilt attaching to him. When he stood before the angel of the Lord he had dirty clothes on. The dirty clothes are not the costume of an accused person (Drus. , Ewald); for this Roman custom was unknown to the Hebrews. Dirt is a figurative representation of sin; so that dirty clothes represent defilement with sin and guilt (cf.

Isa 64:5; Isa 4:4; Pro 30:12; Rev 3:4; Rev 7:14). The Lord had indeed refined His nation in its exile, and in His grace had preserved it from destruction; but its sin was not thereby wiped away. The place of grosser idolatry had been taken by the more refined idolatry of self-righteousness, selfishness, and conformity to the world. And the representative of the nation before the Lord was affected with the dirt of these sins, which gave Satan a handle for his accusation.

But the Lord would cleanse His chosen people from this, and make it a holy and glorious nation. This is symbolized by what takes place in Zec 3:4 and Zec 3:5. The angel of the Lord commands those who stand before Him, i. e. , the angels who serve Him, to take off the dirty clothes from the high priest, and put on festal clothing; and then adds, by way of explanation to Joshua, Behold, I have caused thy guilt to pass away from thee, that is to say, I have forgiven thy sin, and justified thee (cf.

2Sa 12:13; 2Sa 24:10), and clothe thee with festal raiment. The inf. abs. halbēsh stands, as it frequently does, for the finite verb, and has its norm in העברתּי (see at Hag 1:6). The last words are either spoken to the attendant angels as well, or else, what is more likely, they are simply passed over in the command given to them, and mentioned for the first time here.

Machălâtsōth , costly clothes, which were only worn on festal occasions (see at Isa 3:22). ; They are not symbols of innocence and righteousness (Chald.) , which are symbolized by clean or white raiment (Rev 3:4; Rev 7:9); nor are they figurative representations of joy (Koehler), but are rather symbolical of glory. The high priest, and the nation in him, are not only to be cleansed from sin, and justified, but to be sanctified and glorified as well.

Zec 3:1-4 In this and the following visions the prophet is shown the future glorification of the church of the Lord. Zec 3:1. “And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan stood at his right hand to oppose him. Zec 3:2. And Jehovah said to Satan, Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan; and Jehovah who chooseth Jerusalem rebuke thee.

Is not this a brand saved out of the fire? Zec 3:3. And Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. Zec 3:4. And he answered and spake to those who stood before him thus: Take away the filthy garments from him. And he said to him, Behold, I have taken away thy guilt from thee, and clothe thee in festal raiment. Zec 3:5. And I said, Let them put a clean mitre upon his head.

Then they put the clean mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of Jehovah stood by. ” The subject to ויּראני is Jehovah, and not the mediating angel, for his work was to explain the visions to the prophet, and not to introduce them; nor the angel of Jehovah, because he appears in the course of the vision, although in these visions he is sometimes identified with Jehovah, and sometimes distinguished from Him.

The scene is the following: Joshua stands as high priest before the angel of the Lord, and Satan stands at his (Joshua’s) right hand as accuser. Satan ( hassâtân ) is the evil spirit so well known from the book of Job, and the constant accuser of men before God (Rev 12:10), and not Sanballat and his comrades (Kimchi, Drus. , Ewald). He comes forward here as the enemy and accuser of Joshua, to accuse him in his capacity of high priest.

The scene is therefore a judicial one, and the high priest is not in the sanctuary, the building of which had commenced, or engaged in supplicating the mercy of the angel of the Lord for himself and the people, as Theodoret and Hengstenberg suppose. The expression עמד לפני furnishes no tenable proof of this, since it cannot be shown that this expression would be an inappropriate one to denote the standing of an accused person before the judge, or that the Hebrew language had any other expression for this.

Satan stands on the right side of Joshua, because the accuser was accustomed to stand at the right hand of the accused (cf. Psa 109:6). Joshua is opposed by Satan, however, not on account of any personal offences either in his private or his domestic life, but in his official capacity as high priest, and for sins which were connected with his office, or for offences which would involve the nation (Lev 4:3); though not as the bearer of the sins of the people before the Lord, but as laden with his own and his people’s sins.

The dirty clothes, which he had one, point to this (Zec 3:3). But Jehovah, i. e. , the angel of Jehovah, repels the accuser with the words, “Jehovah rebuke thee;... Jehovah who chooseth Jerusalem. ” The words are repeated for the sake of emphasis, and with the repetition the motive which led Jehovah to reject the accuser is added. Because Jehovah has chosen Jerusalem, and maintains His choice in its integrity (this is implied in the participle bōchēr ).

He must rebuke Satan, who hopes that his accusation will have the effect of repealing the choice of Jerusalem, by deposing the high priest. For if any sin of the high priest, which inculpated the nation, had been sufficient to secure his removal or deposition, the office of high priest would have ceased altogether, because no man is without sin. גּער, to rebuke, does not mean merely to nonsuit, but to reprove for a thing; and when used of God, to reprove by action, signifying to sweep both him and his accusation entirely away.

The motive for the repulse of the accuser is strengthened by the clause which follows: Is he (Joshua) not a brand plucked out of the fire? i. e. , one who has narrowly escaped the threatening destruction (for the figure, see Amo 4:11). These words, again, we most not take as referring to the high priest as an individual; nor must we restrict their meaning to the fact that Joshua had been brought back from captivity, and reinstated in the office of high priest.

Just as the accusation does not apply to the individual, but to the office which Joshua filled, so do these words also apply to the supporter of the official dignity. The fire, out of which Joshua had been rescued as a brand, was neither the evil which had come upon Joshua through neglecting the building of the temple (Koehler), nor the guilt of allowing his sons to marry foreign wives (Targ.

, Jerome, Rashi, Kimchi): for in the former case the accusation would have come too late, since the building of the temple had been resumed five months before (Hag 1:15, compared with Zec 1:7); and in the latter it would have been much too early, since these misalliances did not take place till fifty years afterwards. And, in general, guilt which might possibly lead to ruin could not be called a fire; still less could the cessation or removal of this sin be called deliverance out of the fire.

Fire is a figurative expression for punishment, not for sin. The fire out of which Joshua had been saved like a brand was the captivity, in which both Joshua and the nation had been brought to the verge of destruction. Out of this fire Joshua the high priest had been rescued. But, as Kliefoth has aptly observed, “the priesthood of Israel was concentrated in the high priest, just as the character of Israel as the holy nation was concentrated in the priesthood.

The high priest represented the holiness and priestliness of Israel, and that not merely in certain official acts and functions, but so that as a particular Levite and Aaronite, and as the head for the time being of the house of Aaron, he represented in his own person that character of holiness and priestliness which had been graciously bestowed by God upon the nation of Israel. ” This serves to explain how the hope that God must rebuke the accuser could be made to rest upon the election of Jerusalem, i.

e. , upon the love of the Lord to the whole of His nation. The pardon and the promise do not apply to Joshua personally any more than the accusation; but they refer to him in his official position, and to the whole nation, and that with regard to the special attributes set forth in the high priesthood - namely, its priestliness and holiness. We cannot, therefore, find any better words with which to explain the meaning of this vision than those of Kliefoth.

“The character of Israel,” he says, “as the holy and priestly nation of God, was violated - violated by the general sin and guilt of the nation, which God had been obliged to punish with exile. This guilt of the nation, which neutralized the priestliness and holiness of Israel, is pleaded by Satan in the accusation which he brings before the Maleach of Jehovah against the high priest, who was its representative.

A nation so guilty and so punished could no longer be the holy and priestly nation: its priests could no longer be priests; nor could its high priests be high priests any more. But the Maleach of Jehovah sweeps away the accusation with the assurance that Jehovah, from His grace, and for the sake of its election, will still give validity to Israel’s priesthood, and has already practically manifested this purpose of His by bringing it out of its penal condition of exile.

” After the repulse of the accuser, Joshua is cleansed from the guilt attaching to him. When he stood before the angel of the Lord he had dirty clothes on. The dirty clothes are not the costume of an accused person (Drus. , Ewald); for this Roman custom was unknown to the Hebrews. Dirt is a figurative representation of sin; so that dirty clothes represent defilement with sin and guilt (cf.

Isa 64:5; Isa 4:4; Pro 30:12; Rev 3:4; Rev 7:14). The Lord had indeed refined His nation in its exile, and in His grace had preserved it from destruction; but its sin was not thereby wiped away. The place of grosser idolatry had been taken by the more refined idolatry of self-righteousness, selfishness, and conformity to the world. And the representative of the nation before the Lord was affected with the dirt of these sins, which gave Satan a handle for his accusation.

But the Lord would cleanse His chosen people from this, and make it a holy and glorious nation. This is symbolized by what takes place in Zec 3:4 and Zec 3:5. The angel of the Lord commands those who stand before Him, i. e. , the angels who serve Him, to take off the dirty clothes from the high priest, and put on festal clothing; and then adds, by way of explanation to Joshua, Behold, I have caused thy guilt to pass away from thee, that is to say, I have forgiven thy sin, and justified thee (cf.

2Sa 12:13; 2Sa 24:10), and clothe thee with festal raiment. The inf. abs. halbēsh stands, as it frequently does, for the finite verb, and has its norm in העברתּי (see at Hag 1:6). The last words are either spoken to the attendant angels as well, or else, what is more likely, they are simply passed over in the command given to them, and mentioned for the first time here.

Machălâtsōth , costly clothes, which were only worn on festal occasions (see at Isa 3:22). ; They are not symbols of innocence and righteousness (Chald.) , which are symbolized by clean or white raiment (Rev 3:4; Rev 7:9); nor are they figurative representations of joy (Koehler), but are rather symbolical of glory. The high priest, and the nation in him, are not only to be cleansed from sin, and justified, but to be sanctified and glorified as well.