Joshua Cleansed and the Branch Promised

Zec 3:6-10 In these verses there follows a prophetic address, in which the angel of the Lord describes the symbolical action of the re-clothing of the high priest, according to its typical significance in relation to the continuance and the future of the kingdom of God. Zec 3:6. “And the angel of the Lord testified to Joshua, and said, Zec 3:7. Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, If thou shalt walk in my ways, and keep my charge, thou shalt both judge my house and keep my courts, and I will give thee ways among these standing here.

Zec 3:8. Hear then, thou high priest Joshua, thou, and thy comrades who sit before thee: yea, men of wonder are they: for, behold, I bring my servant Zemach (Sprout). Zec 3:9. For behold the stone which I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone are seven eyes: behold I engrave its carving, is the saying of Jehovah of hosts, and I clear away the iniquity of this land in one day.

Zec 3:10. In that day, is the saying of Jehovah of hosts, ye will invite one another under the vine and under the fig-tree. ” In Zec 3:7 not only is the high priest confirmed in his office, but the perpetuation and glorification of his official labours are promised. As Joshua appears in this vision as the supporter of the office, this promise does not apply to Joshua himself so much as to the office, the continuance of which is indeed bound up with the fidelity of those who sustain it.

The promise in Zec 3:7 therefore begins by giving prominence to this condition: If thou wilt walk in my ways, etc. Walking in the ways of the Lord refers to the personal attitude of the priests towards the Lord, or to fidelity in their personal relation to God; and keeping the charge of Jehovah, to the faithful performance of their official duties ( shâmar mishmartı̄ , noticing what has to be observed in relation to Jehovah; see at Lev 8:35).

The apodosis begins with וגם אתּה, and not with ונתתּי. This is required not only by the emphatic 'attâh , but also by the clauses commencing with vegam ; whereas the circumstance, that the tense only changes with venâthattı̄ , and that tâdı̄n and tishmōr are still imperfects, has its simple explanation in the fact, that on account of the gam , the verbs could not be linked together with Vav , and placed at the head of the clauses.

Taken by themselves, the clauses vegam tâdı̄n and vegam tishmōr might express a duty of the high priest quite as well as a privilege. If they were taken as apodoses, they would express an obligation; but in that case they would appear somewhat superfluous, because the obligations of the high priest are fully explained in the two previous clauses. If, on the other hand, the apodosis commences with them, they contain, in the form of a promise, a privilege which is set before the high priest as awaiting him in the future - namely, the privilege of still further attending to the service of the house of God, which had been called in question by Satan’s accusation.

דּין את־בּיתי, to judge the house of God, i. e. , to administer right in relation to the house of God, namely, in relation to the duties devolving upon the high priest in the sanctuary as such; hence the right administration of the service in the holy place and the holy of holies. This limitation is obvious from the parallel clause, to keep the courts, in which the care of the ordinary performance of worship in the courts, and the keeping of everything of an idolatrous nature from the house of God, are transferred to him.

And to this a new and important promise is added in the last clause (ונהתּי וגו). The meaning of this depends upon the explanation given to the word מהלכים. Many commentators regard his as a Chaldaic form of the hiphil participle (after Dan 3:25; Dan 4:34), and take it either in the intransitive sense of “those walking” (lxx, Pesh. , Vulg. , Luth. , Hofm. , etc.)

, or in the transitive sense of those conducting the leaders (Ges. , Hengst. , etc.) But apart from the fact that the hiphil of הלך in Hebrew is always written either הוליך or היליך, and has never anything but a transitive meaning, this view is precluded by the בּין, for which we should expect מבּין or מן, since the meaning could only be, “I give thee walkers or leaders between those standing here,” i.

e. , such as walk to and fro between those standing here (Hofmann), or, “I will give thee leaders among (from) these angels who are standing here” (Hengstenberg). In the former case, the high priest would receive a promise that he should always have angels to go to and fro between himself and Jehovah, to carry up his prayers, and bring down revelations from God, and supplies of help (Joh 1:51; Hofmann).

This thought would be quite a suitable one; but it is not contained in the words, “since the angels, even if they walk between the standing angels and in the midst of them, do not go to and fro between Jehovah and Joshua” (Kliefoth). In the latter case the high priest would merely receive a general assurance of the assistance of superior angels; and for such a thought as this the expression would be an extremely marvellous one, and theבּין would be used incorrectly.

We must therefore follow Calvin and others, who take מהלכין as a substantive, from a singular מהלך, formed after מחצב, מסמר, מזלג, or else as a plural of מהלך, to be pointed מהלכים (Ros. , Hitzig, Kliefoth). The words then add to the promise, which ensured to the people the continuance of the priesthood and of the blessings which it conveyed, this new feature, that the high priest would also receive a free access to God, which had not yet been conferred upon him by his office.

This points to a time when the restrictions of the Old Testament will be swept away. The further address, in Zec 3:8 and Zec 3:9, announces how God will bring about this new time or future. To show the importance of what follows, Joshua is called upon to “hear. ” It is doubtful where what he is to hear commences; for the idea, that after the summons to attend, the successive, chain-like explanation of the reason for this summons passes imperceptibly into that to which he is to give heed, is hardly admissible, and has only been adopted because it was found difficult to discover the true commencement of the address.

The earlier theologians (Chald. , Jerome, Theod. Mops. , Theodoret, and Calvin), and even Hitzig and Ewald, take כּי הנני מביא (for behold I will bring forth). But these words are evidently explanatory of אנשׁי מופת המּה (men of wonder, etc.) Nor can it commence with ūmashtı̄ (and I remove), as Hofmann supposes ( Weiss. u. Erfüll. i. 339), or with Zec 3:9, “for behold the stone,” as he also maintains in his Schriftbeweis (ii.

1, pp. 292-3, 508-9). The first of these is precluded not only by the fact that the address would be cut far too short, but also by the cop. Vav before mashtı̄ ; and the second by the fact that the words, “for behold the stone,” etc. , in Zec 3:9, are unmistakeably a continuation and further explanation of the words, “for behold I will bring forth my servant Zemach,” in Zec 3:9.

The address begins with “thou and thy fellows,” since the priests could not be called upon to hear, inasmuch as they were not present. Joshua’s comrades who sit before him are the priests who sat in the priestly meetings in front of the high priest, the president of the assembly, so that yōshēbh liphnē corresponds to our “assessors. ” The following kı̄ introduces the substance of the address; and when the subject is placed at the head absolutely, it is used in the sense of an asseveration, “yea, truly” (cf.

Gen 18:20; Psa 118:10-12; Psa 128:2; and Ewald, §330, b ). 'Anshē mōphēth , men of miracle, or of a miraculous sign, as mōphēth , τὸ τέρας, portentum, miraculum, embraces the idea of אות, σημεῖον (cf. Isa 8:18), are men who attract attention to themselves by something striking, and are types of what is to come, so that mōphēth really corresponds to τύπος τῶν μελλόντων (see at Exo 4:21; Isa 8:18).

המּה stands for אתּם, the words passing over from the second person to the third on the resuming of the subject, which is placed at the head absolutely, just as in Zep 2:12, and refers not only to רעיך, but to Joshua and his comrades. They are men of typical sign, but not simply on account of the office which they hold, viz. , because their mediatorial priesthood points to the mediatorial office and atoning work of the Messiah, as most of the commentators assume.

For “this applies, in the first place, not only to Joshua and his priests, but to the Old Testament priesthood generally; and secondly, there was nothing miraculous in this mediatorial work of the priesthood, which must have been the case if they were to be mōphēth . The miracle, which is to be seen in Joshua and his priests, consists rather in the fact that the priesthood of Israel is laden with guilt, but by the grace of God it has been absolved, and accepted by God again, as the deliverance from exile shows,” and Joshua and his priests are therefore brands plucked by the omnipotence of grace from the fire of merited judgment (Kliefoth).

This miracle of grace which has been wrought for them, points beyond itself to an incomparably greater and better act of the sin-absolving grace of God, which is still in the future. This is the way in which the next clause, “for I bring my servant Zemach,” which is explanatory of 'anshē mōphēth (men of miracle), attaches itself. The word Tsemach is used by Zechariah simply as a proper name of the Messiah; and the combination ‛abhdı̄ Tsemach (my servant Tsemach) is precisely the same as ‛abhdı̄ Dâvid (my servant David) in Eze 34:23-24; Eze 37:24, or “my servant Job” in Job 1:8; Job 2:3, etc.

The objection raised by Koehler - namely, that if tsemach , as a more precise definition of ‛abhdı̄ (my servant), or as an announcement what servant of Jehovah is intended, were used as a proper name, it would either be construed with the article (הצּמח), or else we should have עבדּי צמח שׁמו as in Zec 6:12 - is quite groundless. For “if poets or prophets form new proper names at pleasure, such names, even when deprived of the article, easily assume the distinguishing sign of most proper names, like bâgōdâh and meshūbhâh in Jeremiah 3” (Ewald, §277, c ).

It is different with שׁמו in Zec 6:12; there shemō is needed for the sake of the sense, as in 1Sa 1:1 and Job 1:1, and does not serve to designate the preceding word as a proper name, but simply to define the person spoken of more precisely by mentioning his name. Zechariah has formed the name Tsemach , Sprout, or Shoot, primarily from Jer 23:5 and Jer 33:15, where the promise is given that a righteous Sprout ( tsemach tsaddı̄q ), or a Sprout of righteousness, shall be raised up to Jacob.

And Jeremiah took the figurative description of the great descendant of David, who will create righteousness upon the earth, as a tsemach which Jehovah will raise up, or cause to shoot up to David, from Isa 11:1-2; Isa 53:2, according to which the Messiah is to spring up as a rod out of the stem of Jesse that has been hewn down, or as a root-shoot out of dry ground. Tsemach , therefore, denotes the Messiah in His origin from the family of David that has fallen into humiliation, as a sprout which will grow up from its original state of humiliation to exaltation and glory, and answers therefore to the train of thought in this passage, in which the deeply humiliated priesthood is exalted by the grace of the Lord into a type of the Messiah.

Whether the designation of the sprout as “my servant” is taken from Isa 52:13 and Isa 53:11 (cf. Isa 42:1; Isa 49:3), or formed after “my servant David” in Eze 34:24; Eze 37:24, is a point which cannot be decided, and is of no importance to the matter in hand. The circumstance that the removal of iniquity, which is the peculiar work of the Messiah, is mentioned in Eze 37:9 , furnishes no satisfactory reason for deducing ‛abhdı̄ tsemach pre-eminently from Isa 53:1-12.

For in Zec 3:9 the removal of iniquity is only mentioned in the second rank, in the explanation of Jehovah’s purpose to bring His servant Tsemach . The first rank is assigned to the stone, which Jehovah has laid before Joshua, etc. The answer to the question, what this stone signifies, or who is to be understood by it, depends upon the view we take of the words עינים ...

על אבן. Most of the commentators admit that these words do not form a parenthesis (Hitzig, Ewald), but introduce a statement concerning הנּה האבן. Accordingly, הנּה האבן וגו is placed at the head absolutely, and resumed in על אבן אחת. This statement may mean, either upon one stone are seven eyes (visible or to be found), or seven eyes are directed upon one stone.

For although, in the latter case, we should expect אל instead of על (according to Psa 33:18; Psa 34:16), שׂים עין על does occur in the sense of the exercise of loving care (Gen 44:21; Jer 39:12; Jer 40:4). But if the seven eyes were to be seen upon the stone, they could only be engraved or drawn upon it. And what follows, הנני מפתּח וגו, does not agree with this, inasmuch as, according to this, the engraving upon the stone had now first to take place instead of having been done already, since hinnēh followed by a participle never expresses what has already occurred, but always what is to take place in the future.

For this reason we must decide that the seven eyes are directed towards the stone, or watch over it with protecting care. But this overthrows the view held by the expositors of the early church, and defended by Kliefoth, namely, that the stone signifies the Messiah, after Isa 28:16 and Psa 118:2, - a view with which the expression nâthattı̄ , “given, laid before Joshua,” can hardly be reconciled, even if this meant that Joshua was to see with his own eyes, as something actually present, that God was laying the foundation-stone.

Still less can we think of the foundation-stone of the temple (Ros. , Hitz.) , since this had been laid long ago, and we cannot see for what purpose it was to be engraved; or of the stone which, according to the Rabbins, occupied the empty place of the ark of the covenant in the most holy place of the second temple (Hofmann); or of a precious stone in the breastplate of the high priest.

The stone is the symbol of the kingdom of God, and is laid by Jehovah before Joshua, by God’s transferring to him the regulation of His house and the keeping of His courts (before, liphnē , in a spiritual sense, as in 1Ki 9:6, for example). The seven eyes, which watch with protecting care over this stone, are not a figurative representation of the all-embracing providence of God; but, in harmony with the seven eyes of the Lamb, which are the seven Spirits of God (Rev 5:6), and with the seven eyes of Jehovah (Zec 4:10), they are the sevenfold radiations of the Spirit of Jehovah (after Isa 11:2), which show themselves in vigorous action upon this stone, to prepare it for its destination.

This preparation is called pittēăch pittuchâh in harmony with the figure of the stone (cf. Eze 28:9, Eze 28:11). “I will engrave the engraving thereof,” i. e. , engrave it so as to prepare it for a beautiful and costly stone. The preparation of this stone, i. e. , the preparation of the kingdom of God established in Israel, by the powers of the Spirit of the Lord, is one feature in which the bringing of the tsemach will show itself.

The other consists in the wiping away of the iniquity of this land. Mūsh is used here in a transitive sense, to cause to depart, to wipe away. הארץ ההיא (that land) is the land of Canaan or Judah, which will extend in the Messianic times over the whole earth. The definition of the time, beyōm 'echâd , cannot of course mean “on one and the same day,” so as to affirm that the communication of the true nature to Israel, namely, of one well pleasing to God, and the removal of guilt from the land, would take place simultaneously (Hofmann, Koehler); but the expression “in one day” is substantially the same as ἐφάπαξ in Heb 7:27; Heb 9:12; Heb 10:10, and affirms that the wiping away of sin to be effected by the Messiah ( tsemach ) will not resemble that effected by the typical priesthood, which had to be continually repeated, but will be all finished at once.

This one day is the day of Golgotha. Accordingly, the thought of this verse is the following: Jehovah will cause His servant Tsemach to come, because He will prepare His kingdom gloriously, and exterminate all the sins of His people and land at once. By the wiping away of all guilt and iniquity, not only of that which rests upon the land (Koehler), but also of that of the inhabitants of the land, i.

e. , of the whole nation, all the discontent and all the misery which flow from sin will be swept away, and a state of blessed peace will ensue for the purified church of God. This is the thought of the tenth verse, which is formed after Mic 4:4 and 1Ki 5:5, and with which the vision closes. The next vision shows the glory of the purified church.

Zec 3:6-10 In these verses there follows a prophetic address, in which the angel of the Lord describes the symbolical action of the re-clothing of the high priest, according to its typical significance in relation to the continuance and the future of the kingdom of God. Zec 3:6. “And the angel of the Lord testified to Joshua, and said, Zec 3:7. Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, If thou shalt walk in my ways, and keep my charge, thou shalt both judge my house and keep my courts, and I will give thee ways among these standing here.

Zec 3:8. Hear then, thou high priest Joshua, thou, and thy comrades who sit before thee: yea, men of wonder are they: for, behold, I bring my servant Zemach (Sprout). Zec 3:9. For behold the stone which I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone are seven eyes: behold I engrave its carving, is the saying of Jehovah of hosts, and I clear away the iniquity of this land in one day.

Zec 3:10. In that day, is the saying of Jehovah of hosts, ye will invite one another under the vine and under the fig-tree. ” In Zec 3:7 not only is the high priest confirmed in his office, but the perpetuation and glorification of his official labours are promised. As Joshua appears in this vision as the supporter of the office, this promise does not apply to Joshua himself so much as to the office, the continuance of which is indeed bound up with the fidelity of those who sustain it.

The promise in Zec 3:7 therefore begins by giving prominence to this condition: If thou wilt walk in my ways, etc. Walking in the ways of the Lord refers to the personal attitude of the priests towards the Lord, or to fidelity in their personal relation to God; and keeping the charge of Jehovah, to the faithful performance of their official duties ( shâmar mishmartı̄ , noticing what has to be observed in relation to Jehovah; see at Lev 8:35).

The apodosis begins with וגם אתּה, and not with ונתתּי. This is required not only by the emphatic 'attâh , but also by the clauses commencing with vegam ; whereas the circumstance, that the tense only changes with venâthattı̄ , and that tâdı̄n and tishmōr are still imperfects, has its simple explanation in the fact, that on account of the gam , the verbs could not be linked together with Vav , and placed at the head of the clauses.

Taken by themselves, the clauses vegam tâdı̄n and vegam tishmōr might express a duty of the high priest quite as well as a privilege. If they were taken as apodoses, they would express an obligation; but in that case they would appear somewhat superfluous, because the obligations of the high priest are fully explained in the two previous clauses. If, on the other hand, the apodosis commences with them, they contain, in the form of a promise, a privilege which is set before the high priest as awaiting him in the future - namely, the privilege of still further attending to the service of the house of God, which had been called in question by Satan’s accusation.

דּין את־בּיתי, to judge the house of God, i. e. , to administer right in relation to the house of God, namely, in relation to the duties devolving upon the high priest in the sanctuary as such; hence the right administration of the service in the holy place and the holy of holies. This limitation is obvious from the parallel clause, to keep the courts, in which the care of the ordinary performance of worship in the courts, and the keeping of everything of an idolatrous nature from the house of God, are transferred to him.

And to this a new and important promise is added in the last clause (ונהתּי וגו). The meaning of this depends upon the explanation given to the word מהלכים. Many commentators regard his as a Chaldaic form of the hiphil participle (after Dan 3:25; Dan 4:34), and take it either in the intransitive sense of “those walking” (lxx, Pesh. , Vulg. , Luth. , Hofm. , etc.)

, or in the transitive sense of those conducting the leaders (Ges. , Hengst. , etc.) But apart from the fact that the hiphil of הלך in Hebrew is always written either הוליך or היליך, and has never anything but a transitive meaning, this view is precluded by the בּין, for which we should expect מבּין or מן, since the meaning could only be, “I give thee walkers or leaders between those standing here,” i.

e. , such as walk to and fro between those standing here (Hofmann), or, “I will give thee leaders among (from) these angels who are standing here” (Hengstenberg). In the former case, the high priest would receive a promise that he should always have angels to go to and fro between himself and Jehovah, to carry up his prayers, and bring down revelations from God, and supplies of help (Joh 1:51; Hofmann).

This thought would be quite a suitable one; but it is not contained in the words, “since the angels, even if they walk between the standing angels and in the midst of them, do not go to and fro between Jehovah and Joshua” (Kliefoth). In the latter case the high priest would merely receive a general assurance of the assistance of superior angels; and for such a thought as this the expression would be an extremely marvellous one, and theבּין would be used incorrectly.

We must therefore follow Calvin and others, who take מהלכין as a substantive, from a singular מהלך, formed after מחצב, מסמר, מזלג, or else as a plural of מהלך, to be pointed מהלכים (Ros. , Hitzig, Kliefoth). The words then add to the promise, which ensured to the people the continuance of the priesthood and of the blessings which it conveyed, this new feature, that the high priest would also receive a free access to God, which had not yet been conferred upon him by his office.

This points to a time when the restrictions of the Old Testament will be swept away. The further address, in Zec 3:8 and Zec 3:9, announces how God will bring about this new time or future. To show the importance of what follows, Joshua is called upon to “hear. ” It is doubtful where what he is to hear commences; for the idea, that after the summons to attend, the successive, chain-like explanation of the reason for this summons passes imperceptibly into that to which he is to give heed, is hardly admissible, and has only been adopted because it was found difficult to discover the true commencement of the address.

The earlier theologians (Chald. , Jerome, Theod. Mops. , Theodoret, and Calvin), and even Hitzig and Ewald, take כּי הנני מביא (for behold I will bring forth). But these words are evidently explanatory of אנשׁי מופת המּה (men of wonder, etc.) Nor can it commence with ūmashtı̄ (and I remove), as Hofmann supposes ( Weiss. u. Erfüll. i. 339), or with Zec 3:9, “for behold the stone,” as he also maintains in his Schriftbeweis (ii.

1, pp. 292-3, 508-9). The first of these is precluded not only by the fact that the address would be cut far too short, but also by the cop. Vav before mashtı̄ ; and the second by the fact that the words, “for behold the stone,” etc. , in Zec 3:9, are unmistakeably a continuation and further explanation of the words, “for behold I will bring forth my servant Zemach,” in Zec 3:9.

The address begins with “thou and thy fellows,” since the priests could not be called upon to hear, inasmuch as they were not present. Joshua’s comrades who sit before him are the priests who sat in the priestly meetings in front of the high priest, the president of the assembly, so that yōshēbh liphnē corresponds to our “assessors. ” The following kı̄ introduces the substance of the address; and when the subject is placed at the head absolutely, it is used in the sense of an asseveration, “yea, truly” (cf.

Gen 18:20; Psa 118:10-12; Psa 128:2; and Ewald, §330, b ). 'Anshē mōphēth , men of miracle, or of a miraculous sign, as mōphēth , τὸ τέρας, portentum, miraculum, embraces the idea of אות, σημεῖον (cf. Isa 8:18), are men who attract attention to themselves by something striking, and are types of what is to come, so that mōphēth really corresponds to τύπος τῶν μελλόντων (see at Exo 4:21; Isa 8:18).

המּה stands for אתּם, the words passing over from the second person to the third on the resuming of the subject, which is placed at the head absolutely, just as in Zep 2:12, and refers not only to רעיך, but to Joshua and his comrades. They are men of typical sign, but not simply on account of the office which they hold, viz. , because their mediatorial priesthood points to the mediatorial office and atoning work of the Messiah, as most of the commentators assume.

For “this applies, in the first place, not only to Joshua and his priests, but to the Old Testament priesthood generally; and secondly, there was nothing miraculous in this mediatorial work of the priesthood, which must have been the case if they were to be mōphēth . The miracle, which is to be seen in Joshua and his priests, consists rather in the fact that the priesthood of Israel is laden with guilt, but by the grace of God it has been absolved, and accepted by God again, as the deliverance from exile shows,” and Joshua and his priests are therefore brands plucked by the omnipotence of grace from the fire of merited judgment (Kliefoth).

This miracle of grace which has been wrought for them, points beyond itself to an incomparably greater and better act of the sin-absolving grace of God, which is still in the future. This is the way in which the next clause, “for I bring my servant Zemach,” which is explanatory of 'anshē mōphēth (men of miracle), attaches itself. The word Tsemach is used by Zechariah simply as a proper name of the Messiah; and the combination ‛abhdı̄ Tsemach (my servant Tsemach) is precisely the same as ‛abhdı̄ Dâvid (my servant David) in Eze 34:23-24; Eze 37:24, or “my servant Job” in Job 1:8; Job 2:3, etc.

The objection raised by Koehler - namely, that if tsemach , as a more precise definition of ‛abhdı̄ (my servant), or as an announcement what servant of Jehovah is intended, were used as a proper name, it would either be construed with the article (הצּמח), or else we should have עבדּי צמח שׁמו as in Zec 6:12 - is quite groundless. For “if poets or prophets form new proper names at pleasure, such names, even when deprived of the article, easily assume the distinguishing sign of most proper names, like bâgōdâh and meshūbhâh in Jeremiah 3” (Ewald, §277, c ).

It is different with שׁמו in Zec 6:12; there shemō is needed for the sake of the sense, as in 1Sa 1:1 and Job 1:1, and does not serve to designate the preceding word as a proper name, but simply to define the person spoken of more precisely by mentioning his name. Zechariah has formed the name Tsemach , Sprout, or Shoot, primarily from Jer 23:5 and Jer 33:15, where the promise is given that a righteous Sprout ( tsemach tsaddı̄q ), or a Sprout of righteousness, shall be raised up to Jacob.

And Jeremiah took the figurative description of the great descendant of David, who will create righteousness upon the earth, as a tsemach which Jehovah will raise up, or cause to shoot up to David, from Isa 11:1-2; Isa 53:2, according to which the Messiah is to spring up as a rod out of the stem of Jesse that has been hewn down, or as a root-shoot out of dry ground. Tsemach , therefore, denotes the Messiah in His origin from the family of David that has fallen into humiliation, as a sprout which will grow up from its original state of humiliation to exaltation and glory, and answers therefore to the train of thought in this passage, in which the deeply humiliated priesthood is exalted by the grace of the Lord into a type of the Messiah.

Whether the designation of the sprout as “my servant” is taken from Isa 52:13 and Isa 53:11 (cf. Isa 42:1; Isa 49:3), or formed after “my servant David” in Eze 34:24; Eze 37:24, is a point which cannot be decided, and is of no importance to the matter in hand. The circumstance that the removal of iniquity, which is the peculiar work of the Messiah, is mentioned in Eze 37:9 , furnishes no satisfactory reason for deducing ‛abhdı̄ tsemach pre-eminently from Isa 53:1-12.

For in Zec 3:9 the removal of iniquity is only mentioned in the second rank, in the explanation of Jehovah’s purpose to bring His servant Tsemach . The first rank is assigned to the stone, which Jehovah has laid before Joshua, etc. The answer to the question, what this stone signifies, or who is to be understood by it, depends upon the view we take of the words עינים ...

על אבן. Most of the commentators admit that these words do not form a parenthesis (Hitzig, Ewald), but introduce a statement concerning הנּה האבן. Accordingly, הנּה האבן וגו is placed at the head absolutely, and resumed in על אבן אחת. This statement may mean, either upon one stone are seven eyes (visible or to be found), or seven eyes are directed upon one stone.

For although, in the latter case, we should expect אל instead of על (according to Psa 33:18; Psa 34:16), שׂים עין על does occur in the sense of the exercise of loving care (Gen 44:21; Jer 39:12; Jer 40:4). But if the seven eyes were to be seen upon the stone, they could only be engraved or drawn upon it. And what follows, הנני מפתּח וגו, does not agree with this, inasmuch as, according to this, the engraving upon the stone had now first to take place instead of having been done already, since hinnēh followed by a participle never expresses what has already occurred, but always what is to take place in the future.

For this reason we must decide that the seven eyes are directed towards the stone, or watch over it with protecting care. But this overthrows the view held by the expositors of the early church, and defended by Kliefoth, namely, that the stone signifies the Messiah, after Isa 28:16 and Psa 118:2, - a view with which the expression nâthattı̄ , “given, laid before Joshua,” can hardly be reconciled, even if this meant that Joshua was to see with his own eyes, as something actually present, that God was laying the foundation-stone.

Still less can we think of the foundation-stone of the temple (Ros. , Hitz.) , since this had been laid long ago, and we cannot see for what purpose it was to be engraved; or of the stone which, according to the Rabbins, occupied the empty place of the ark of the covenant in the most holy place of the second temple (Hofmann); or of a precious stone in the breastplate of the high priest.

The stone is the symbol of the kingdom of God, and is laid by Jehovah before Joshua, by God’s transferring to him the regulation of His house and the keeping of His courts (before, liphnē , in a spiritual sense, as in 1Ki 9:6, for example). The seven eyes, which watch with protecting care over this stone, are not a figurative representation of the all-embracing providence of God; but, in harmony with the seven eyes of the Lamb, which are the seven Spirits of God (Rev 5:6), and with the seven eyes of Jehovah (Zec 4:10), they are the sevenfold radiations of the Spirit of Jehovah (after Isa 11:2), which show themselves in vigorous action upon this stone, to prepare it for its destination.

This preparation is called pittēăch pittuchâh in harmony with the figure of the stone (cf. Eze 28:9, Eze 28:11). “I will engrave the engraving thereof,” i. e. , engrave it so as to prepare it for a beautiful and costly stone. The preparation of this stone, i. e. , the preparation of the kingdom of God established in Israel, by the powers of the Spirit of the Lord, is one feature in which the bringing of the tsemach will show itself.

The other consists in the wiping away of the iniquity of this land. Mūsh is used here in a transitive sense, to cause to depart, to wipe away. הארץ ההיא (that land) is the land of Canaan or Judah, which will extend in the Messianic times over the whole earth. The definition of the time, beyōm 'echâd , cannot of course mean “on one and the same day,” so as to affirm that the communication of the true nature to Israel, namely, of one well pleasing to God, and the removal of guilt from the land, would take place simultaneously (Hofmann, Koehler); but the expression “in one day” is substantially the same as ἐφάπαξ in Heb 7:27; Heb 9:12; Heb 10:10, and affirms that the wiping away of sin to be effected by the Messiah ( tsemach ) will not resemble that effected by the typical priesthood, which had to be continually repeated, but will be all finished at once.

This one day is the day of Golgotha. Accordingly, the thought of this verse is the following: Jehovah will cause His servant Tsemach to come, because He will prepare His kingdom gloriously, and exterminate all the sins of His people and land at once. By the wiping away of all guilt and iniquity, not only of that which rests upon the land (Koehler), but also of that of the inhabitants of the land, i.

e. , of the whole nation, all the discontent and all the misery which flow from sin will be swept away, and a state of blessed peace will ensue for the purified church of God. This is the thought of the tenth verse, which is formed after Mic 4:4 and 1Ki 5:5, and with which the vision closes. The next vision shows the glory of the purified church.

Zec 3:6-10 In these verses there follows a prophetic address, in which the angel of the Lord describes the symbolical action of the re-clothing of the high priest, according to its typical significance in relation to the continuance and the future of the kingdom of God. Zec 3:6. “And the angel of the Lord testified to Joshua, and said, Zec 3:7. Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, If thou shalt walk in my ways, and keep my charge, thou shalt both judge my house and keep my courts, and I will give thee ways among these standing here.

Zec 3:8. Hear then, thou high priest Joshua, thou, and thy comrades who sit before thee: yea, men of wonder are they: for, behold, I bring my servant Zemach (Sprout). Zec 3:9. For behold the stone which I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone are seven eyes: behold I engrave its carving, is the saying of Jehovah of hosts, and I clear away the iniquity of this land in one day.

Zec 3:10. In that day, is the saying of Jehovah of hosts, ye will invite one another under the vine and under the fig-tree. ” In Zec 3:7 not only is the high priest confirmed in his office, but the perpetuation and glorification of his official labours are promised. As Joshua appears in this vision as the supporter of the office, this promise does not apply to Joshua himself so much as to the office, the continuance of which is indeed bound up with the fidelity of those who sustain it.

The promise in Zec 3:7 therefore begins by giving prominence to this condition: If thou wilt walk in my ways, etc. Walking in the ways of the Lord refers to the personal attitude of the priests towards the Lord, or to fidelity in their personal relation to God; and keeping the charge of Jehovah, to the faithful performance of their official duties ( shâmar mishmartı̄ , noticing what has to be observed in relation to Jehovah; see at Lev 8:35).

The apodosis begins with וגם אתּה, and not with ונתתּי. This is required not only by the emphatic 'attâh , but also by the clauses commencing with vegam ; whereas the circumstance, that the tense only changes with venâthattı̄ , and that tâdı̄n and tishmōr are still imperfects, has its simple explanation in the fact, that on account of the gam , the verbs could not be linked together with Vav , and placed at the head of the clauses.

Taken by themselves, the clauses vegam tâdı̄n and vegam tishmōr might express a duty of the high priest quite as well as a privilege. If they were taken as apodoses, they would express an obligation; but in that case they would appear somewhat superfluous, because the obligations of the high priest are fully explained in the two previous clauses. If, on the other hand, the apodosis commences with them, they contain, in the form of a promise, a privilege which is set before the high priest as awaiting him in the future - namely, the privilege of still further attending to the service of the house of God, which had been called in question by Satan’s accusation.

דּין את־בּיתי, to judge the house of God, i. e. , to administer right in relation to the house of God, namely, in relation to the duties devolving upon the high priest in the sanctuary as such; hence the right administration of the service in the holy place and the holy of holies. This limitation is obvious from the parallel clause, to keep the courts, in which the care of the ordinary performance of worship in the courts, and the keeping of everything of an idolatrous nature from the house of God, are transferred to him.

And to this a new and important promise is added in the last clause (ונהתּי וגו). The meaning of this depends upon the explanation given to the word מהלכים. Many commentators regard his as a Chaldaic form of the hiphil participle (after Dan 3:25; Dan 4:34), and take it either in the intransitive sense of “those walking” (lxx, Pesh. , Vulg. , Luth. , Hofm. , etc.)

, or in the transitive sense of those conducting the leaders (Ges. , Hengst. , etc.) But apart from the fact that the hiphil of הלך in Hebrew is always written either הוליך or היליך, and has never anything but a transitive meaning, this view is precluded by the בּין, for which we should expect מבּין or מן, since the meaning could only be, “I give thee walkers or leaders between those standing here,” i.

e. , such as walk to and fro between those standing here (Hofmann), or, “I will give thee leaders among (from) these angels who are standing here” (Hengstenberg). In the former case, the high priest would receive a promise that he should always have angels to go to and fro between himself and Jehovah, to carry up his prayers, and bring down revelations from God, and supplies of help (Joh 1:51; Hofmann).

This thought would be quite a suitable one; but it is not contained in the words, “since the angels, even if they walk between the standing angels and in the midst of them, do not go to and fro between Jehovah and Joshua” (Kliefoth). In the latter case the high priest would merely receive a general assurance of the assistance of superior angels; and for such a thought as this the expression would be an extremely marvellous one, and theבּין would be used incorrectly.

We must therefore follow Calvin and others, who take מהלכין as a substantive, from a singular מהלך, formed after מחצב, מסמר, מזלג, or else as a plural of מהלך, to be pointed מהלכים (Ros. , Hitzig, Kliefoth). The words then add to the promise, which ensured to the people the continuance of the priesthood and of the blessings which it conveyed, this new feature, that the high priest would also receive a free access to God, which had not yet been conferred upon him by his office.

This points to a time when the restrictions of the Old Testament will be swept away. The further address, in Zec 3:8 and Zec 3:9, announces how God will bring about this new time or future. To show the importance of what follows, Joshua is called upon to “hear. ” It is doubtful where what he is to hear commences; for the idea, that after the summons to attend, the successive, chain-like explanation of the reason for this summons passes imperceptibly into that to which he is to give heed, is hardly admissible, and has only been adopted because it was found difficult to discover the true commencement of the address.

The earlier theologians (Chald. , Jerome, Theod. Mops. , Theodoret, and Calvin), and even Hitzig and Ewald, take כּי הנני מביא (for behold I will bring forth). But these words are evidently explanatory of אנשׁי מופת המּה (men of wonder, etc.) Nor can it commence with ūmashtı̄ (and I remove), as Hofmann supposes ( Weiss. u. Erfüll. i. 339), or with Zec 3:9, “for behold the stone,” as he also maintains in his Schriftbeweis (ii.

1, pp. 292-3, 508-9). The first of these is precluded not only by the fact that the address would be cut far too short, but also by the cop. Vav before mashtı̄ ; and the second by the fact that the words, “for behold the stone,” etc. , in Zec 3:9, are unmistakeably a continuation and further explanation of the words, “for behold I will bring forth my servant Zemach,” in Zec 3:9.

The address begins with “thou and thy fellows,” since the priests could not be called upon to hear, inasmuch as they were not present. Joshua’s comrades who sit before him are the priests who sat in the priestly meetings in front of the high priest, the president of the assembly, so that yōshēbh liphnē corresponds to our “assessors. ” The following kı̄ introduces the substance of the address; and when the subject is placed at the head absolutely, it is used in the sense of an asseveration, “yea, truly” (cf.

Gen 18:20; Psa 118:10-12; Psa 128:2; and Ewald, §330, b ). 'Anshē mōphēth , men of miracle, or of a miraculous sign, as mōphēth , τὸ τέρας, portentum, miraculum, embraces the idea of אות, σημεῖον (cf. Isa 8:18), are men who attract attention to themselves by something striking, and are types of what is to come, so that mōphēth really corresponds to τύπος τῶν μελλόντων (see at Exo 4:21; Isa 8:18).

המּה stands for אתּם, the words passing over from the second person to the third on the resuming of the subject, which is placed at the head absolutely, just as in Zep 2:12, and refers not only to רעיך, but to Joshua and his comrades. They are men of typical sign, but not simply on account of the office which they hold, viz. , because their mediatorial priesthood points to the mediatorial office and atoning work of the Messiah, as most of the commentators assume.

For “this applies, in the first place, not only to Joshua and his priests, but to the Old Testament priesthood generally; and secondly, there was nothing miraculous in this mediatorial work of the priesthood, which must have been the case if they were to be mōphēth . The miracle, which is to be seen in Joshua and his priests, consists rather in the fact that the priesthood of Israel is laden with guilt, but by the grace of God it has been absolved, and accepted by God again, as the deliverance from exile shows,” and Joshua and his priests are therefore brands plucked by the omnipotence of grace from the fire of merited judgment (Kliefoth).

This miracle of grace which has been wrought for them, points beyond itself to an incomparably greater and better act of the sin-absolving grace of God, which is still in the future. This is the way in which the next clause, “for I bring my servant Zemach,” which is explanatory of 'anshē mōphēth (men of miracle), attaches itself. The word Tsemach is used by Zechariah simply as a proper name of the Messiah; and the combination ‛abhdı̄ Tsemach (my servant Tsemach) is precisely the same as ‛abhdı̄ Dâvid (my servant David) in Eze 34:23-24; Eze 37:24, or “my servant Job” in Job 1:8; Job 2:3, etc.

The objection raised by Koehler - namely, that if tsemach , as a more precise definition of ‛abhdı̄ (my servant), or as an announcement what servant of Jehovah is intended, were used as a proper name, it would either be construed with the article (הצּמח), or else we should have עבדּי צמח שׁמו as in Zec 6:12 - is quite groundless. For “if poets or prophets form new proper names at pleasure, such names, even when deprived of the article, easily assume the distinguishing sign of most proper names, like bâgōdâh and meshūbhâh in Jeremiah 3” (Ewald, §277, c ).

It is different with שׁמו in Zec 6:12; there shemō is needed for the sake of the sense, as in 1Sa 1:1 and Job 1:1, and does not serve to designate the preceding word as a proper name, but simply to define the person spoken of more precisely by mentioning his name. Zechariah has formed the name Tsemach , Sprout, or Shoot, primarily from Jer 23:5 and Jer 33:15, where the promise is given that a righteous Sprout ( tsemach tsaddı̄q ), or a Sprout of righteousness, shall be raised up to Jacob.

And Jeremiah took the figurative description of the great descendant of David, who will create righteousness upon the earth, as a tsemach which Jehovah will raise up, or cause to shoot up to David, from Isa 11:1-2; Isa 53:2, according to which the Messiah is to spring up as a rod out of the stem of Jesse that has been hewn down, or as a root-shoot out of dry ground. Tsemach , therefore, denotes the Messiah in His origin from the family of David that has fallen into humiliation, as a sprout which will grow up from its original state of humiliation to exaltation and glory, and answers therefore to the train of thought in this passage, in which the deeply humiliated priesthood is exalted by the grace of the Lord into a type of the Messiah.

Whether the designation of the sprout as “my servant” is taken from Isa 52:13 and Isa 53:11 (cf. Isa 42:1; Isa 49:3), or formed after “my servant David” in Eze 34:24; Eze 37:24, is a point which cannot be decided, and is of no importance to the matter in hand. The circumstance that the removal of iniquity, which is the peculiar work of the Messiah, is mentioned in Eze 37:9 , furnishes no satisfactory reason for deducing ‛abhdı̄ tsemach pre-eminently from Isa 53:1-12.

For in Zec 3:9 the removal of iniquity is only mentioned in the second rank, in the explanation of Jehovah’s purpose to bring His servant Tsemach . The first rank is assigned to the stone, which Jehovah has laid before Joshua, etc. The answer to the question, what this stone signifies, or who is to be understood by it, depends upon the view we take of the words עינים ...

על אבן. Most of the commentators admit that these words do not form a parenthesis (Hitzig, Ewald), but introduce a statement concerning הנּה האבן. Accordingly, הנּה האבן וגו is placed at the head absolutely, and resumed in על אבן אחת. This statement may mean, either upon one stone are seven eyes (visible or to be found), or seven eyes are directed upon one stone.

For although, in the latter case, we should expect אל instead of על (according to Psa 33:18; Psa 34:16), שׂים עין על does occur in the sense of the exercise of loving care (Gen 44:21; Jer 39:12; Jer 40:4). But if the seven eyes were to be seen upon the stone, they could only be engraved or drawn upon it. And what follows, הנני מפתּח וגו, does not agree with this, inasmuch as, according to this, the engraving upon the stone had now first to take place instead of having been done already, since hinnēh followed by a participle never expresses what has already occurred, but always what is to take place in the future.

For this reason we must decide that the seven eyes are directed towards the stone, or watch over it with protecting care. But this overthrows the view held by the expositors of the early church, and defended by Kliefoth, namely, that the stone signifies the Messiah, after Isa 28:16 and Psa 118:2, - a view with which the expression nâthattı̄ , “given, laid before Joshua,” can hardly be reconciled, even if this meant that Joshua was to see with his own eyes, as something actually present, that God was laying the foundation-stone.

Still less can we think of the foundation-stone of the temple (Ros. , Hitz.) , since this had been laid long ago, and we cannot see for what purpose it was to be engraved; or of the stone which, according to the Rabbins, occupied the empty place of the ark of the covenant in the most holy place of the second temple (Hofmann); or of a precious stone in the breastplate of the high priest.

The stone is the symbol of the kingdom of God, and is laid by Jehovah before Joshua, by God’s transferring to him the regulation of His house and the keeping of His courts (before, liphnē , in a spiritual sense, as in 1Ki 9:6, for example). The seven eyes, which watch with protecting care over this stone, are not a figurative representation of the all-embracing providence of God; but, in harmony with the seven eyes of the Lamb, which are the seven Spirits of God (Rev 5:6), and with the seven eyes of Jehovah (Zec 4:10), they are the sevenfold radiations of the Spirit of Jehovah (after Isa 11:2), which show themselves in vigorous action upon this stone, to prepare it for its destination.

This preparation is called pittēăch pittuchâh in harmony with the figure of the stone (cf. Eze 28:9, Eze 28:11). “I will engrave the engraving thereof,” i. e. , engrave it so as to prepare it for a beautiful and costly stone. The preparation of this stone, i. e. , the preparation of the kingdom of God established in Israel, by the powers of the Spirit of the Lord, is one feature in which the bringing of the tsemach will show itself.

The other consists in the wiping away of the iniquity of this land. Mūsh is used here in a transitive sense, to cause to depart, to wipe away. הארץ ההיא (that land) is the land of Canaan or Judah, which will extend in the Messianic times over the whole earth. The definition of the time, beyōm 'echâd , cannot of course mean “on one and the same day,” so as to affirm that the communication of the true nature to Israel, namely, of one well pleasing to God, and the removal of guilt from the land, would take place simultaneously (Hofmann, Koehler); but the expression “in one day” is substantially the same as ἐφάπαξ in Heb 7:27; Heb 9:12; Heb 10:10, and affirms that the wiping away of sin to be effected by the Messiah ( tsemach ) will not resemble that effected by the typical priesthood, which had to be continually repeated, but will be all finished at once.

This one day is the day of Golgotha. Accordingly, the thought of this verse is the following: Jehovah will cause His servant Tsemach to come, because He will prepare His kingdom gloriously, and exterminate all the sins of His people and land at once. By the wiping away of all guilt and iniquity, not only of that which rests upon the land (Koehler), but also of that of the inhabitants of the land, i.

e. , of the whole nation, all the discontent and all the misery which flow from sin will be swept away, and a state of blessed peace will ensue for the purified church of God. This is the thought of the tenth verse, which is formed after Mic 4:4 and 1Ki 5:5, and with which the vision closes. The next vision shows the glory of the purified church.

Zec 3:6-10 In these verses there follows a prophetic address, in which the angel of the Lord describes the symbolical action of the re-clothing of the high priest, according to its typical significance in relation to the continuance and the future of the kingdom of God. Zec 3:6. “And the angel of the Lord testified to Joshua, and said, Zec 3:7. Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, If thou shalt walk in my ways, and keep my charge, thou shalt both judge my house and keep my courts, and I will give thee ways among these standing here.

Zec 3:8. Hear then, thou high priest Joshua, thou, and thy comrades who sit before thee: yea, men of wonder are they: for, behold, I bring my servant Zemach (Sprout). Zec 3:9. For behold the stone which I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone are seven eyes: behold I engrave its carving, is the saying of Jehovah of hosts, and I clear away the iniquity of this land in one day.

Zec 3:10. In that day, is the saying of Jehovah of hosts, ye will invite one another under the vine and under the fig-tree. ” In Zec 3:7 not only is the high priest confirmed in his office, but the perpetuation and glorification of his official labours are promised. As Joshua appears in this vision as the supporter of the office, this promise does not apply to Joshua himself so much as to the office, the continuance of which is indeed bound up with the fidelity of those who sustain it.

The promise in Zec 3:7 therefore begins by giving prominence to this condition: If thou wilt walk in my ways, etc. Walking in the ways of the Lord refers to the personal attitude of the priests towards the Lord, or to fidelity in their personal relation to God; and keeping the charge of Jehovah, to the faithful performance of their official duties ( shâmar mishmartı̄ , noticing what has to be observed in relation to Jehovah; see at Lev 8:35).

The apodosis begins with וגם אתּה, and not with ונתתּי. This is required not only by the emphatic 'attâh , but also by the clauses commencing with vegam ; whereas the circumstance, that the tense only changes with venâthattı̄ , and that tâdı̄n and tishmōr are still imperfects, has its simple explanation in the fact, that on account of the gam , the verbs could not be linked together with Vav , and placed at the head of the clauses.

Taken by themselves, the clauses vegam tâdı̄n and vegam tishmōr might express a duty of the high priest quite as well as a privilege. If they were taken as apodoses, they would express an obligation; but in that case they would appear somewhat superfluous, because the obligations of the high priest are fully explained in the two previous clauses. If, on the other hand, the apodosis commences with them, they contain, in the form of a promise, a privilege which is set before the high priest as awaiting him in the future - namely, the privilege of still further attending to the service of the house of God, which had been called in question by Satan’s accusation.

דּין את־בּיתי, to judge the house of God, i. e. , to administer right in relation to the house of God, namely, in relation to the duties devolving upon the high priest in the sanctuary as such; hence the right administration of the service in the holy place and the holy of holies. This limitation is obvious from the parallel clause, to keep the courts, in which the care of the ordinary performance of worship in the courts, and the keeping of everything of an idolatrous nature from the house of God, are transferred to him.

And to this a new and important promise is added in the last clause (ונהתּי וגו). The meaning of this depends upon the explanation given to the word מהלכים. Many commentators regard his as a Chaldaic form of the hiphil participle (after Dan 3:25; Dan 4:34), and take it either in the intransitive sense of “those walking” (lxx, Pesh. , Vulg. , Luth. , Hofm. , etc.)

, or in the transitive sense of those conducting the leaders (Ges. , Hengst. , etc.) But apart from the fact that the hiphil of הלך in Hebrew is always written either הוליך or היליך, and has never anything but a transitive meaning, this view is precluded by the בּין, for which we should expect מבּין or מן, since the meaning could only be, “I give thee walkers or leaders between those standing here,” i.

e. , such as walk to and fro between those standing here (Hofmann), or, “I will give thee leaders among (from) these angels who are standing here” (Hengstenberg). In the former case, the high priest would receive a promise that he should always have angels to go to and fro between himself and Jehovah, to carry up his prayers, and bring down revelations from God, and supplies of help (Joh 1:51; Hofmann).

This thought would be quite a suitable one; but it is not contained in the words, “since the angels, even if they walk between the standing angels and in the midst of them, do not go to and fro between Jehovah and Joshua” (Kliefoth). In the latter case the high priest would merely receive a general assurance of the assistance of superior angels; and for such a thought as this the expression would be an extremely marvellous one, and theבּין would be used incorrectly.

We must therefore follow Calvin and others, who take מהלכין as a substantive, from a singular מהלך, formed after מחצב, מסמר, מזלג, or else as a plural of מהלך, to be pointed מהלכים (Ros. , Hitzig, Kliefoth). The words then add to the promise, which ensured to the people the continuance of the priesthood and of the blessings which it conveyed, this new feature, that the high priest would also receive a free access to God, which had not yet been conferred upon him by his office.

This points to a time when the restrictions of the Old Testament will be swept away. The further address, in Zec 3:8 and Zec 3:9, announces how God will bring about this new time or future. To show the importance of what follows, Joshua is called upon to “hear. ” It is doubtful where what he is to hear commences; for the idea, that after the summons to attend, the successive, chain-like explanation of the reason for this summons passes imperceptibly into that to which he is to give heed, is hardly admissible, and has only been adopted because it was found difficult to discover the true commencement of the address.

The earlier theologians (Chald. , Jerome, Theod. Mops. , Theodoret, and Calvin), and even Hitzig and Ewald, take כּי הנני מביא (for behold I will bring forth). But these words are evidently explanatory of אנשׁי מופת המּה (men of wonder, etc.) Nor can it commence with ūmashtı̄ (and I remove), as Hofmann supposes ( Weiss. u. Erfüll. i. 339), or with Zec 3:9, “for behold the stone,” as he also maintains in his Schriftbeweis (ii.

1, pp. 292-3, 508-9). The first of these is precluded not only by the fact that the address would be cut far too short, but also by the cop. Vav before mashtı̄ ; and the second by the fact that the words, “for behold the stone,” etc. , in Zec 3:9, are unmistakeably a continuation and further explanation of the words, “for behold I will bring forth my servant Zemach,” in Zec 3:9.

The address begins with “thou and thy fellows,” since the priests could not be called upon to hear, inasmuch as they were not present. Joshua’s comrades who sit before him are the priests who sat in the priestly meetings in front of the high priest, the president of the assembly, so that yōshēbh liphnē corresponds to our “assessors. ” The following kı̄ introduces the substance of the address; and when the subject is placed at the head absolutely, it is used in the sense of an asseveration, “yea, truly” (cf.

Gen 18:20; Psa 118:10-12; Psa 128:2; and Ewald, §330, b ). 'Anshē mōphēth , men of miracle, or of a miraculous sign, as mōphēth , τὸ τέρας, portentum, miraculum, embraces the idea of אות, σημεῖον (cf. Isa 8:18), are men who attract attention to themselves by something striking, and are types of what is to come, so that mōphēth really corresponds to τύπος τῶν μελλόντων (see at Exo 4:21; Isa 8:18).

המּה stands for אתּם, the words passing over from the second person to the third on the resuming of the subject, which is placed at the head absolutely, just as in Zep 2:12, and refers not only to רעיך, but to Joshua and his comrades. They are men of typical sign, but not simply on account of the office which they hold, viz. , because their mediatorial priesthood points to the mediatorial office and atoning work of the Messiah, as most of the commentators assume.

For “this applies, in the first place, not only to Joshua and his priests, but to the Old Testament priesthood generally; and secondly, there was nothing miraculous in this mediatorial work of the priesthood, which must have been the case if they were to be mōphēth . The miracle, which is to be seen in Joshua and his priests, consists rather in the fact that the priesthood of Israel is laden with guilt, but by the grace of God it has been absolved, and accepted by God again, as the deliverance from exile shows,” and Joshua and his priests are therefore brands plucked by the omnipotence of grace from the fire of merited judgment (Kliefoth).

This miracle of grace which has been wrought for them, points beyond itself to an incomparably greater and better act of the sin-absolving grace of God, which is still in the future. This is the way in which the next clause, “for I bring my servant Zemach,” which is explanatory of 'anshē mōphēth (men of miracle), attaches itself. The word Tsemach is used by Zechariah simply as a proper name of the Messiah; and the combination ‛abhdı̄ Tsemach (my servant Tsemach) is precisely the same as ‛abhdı̄ Dâvid (my servant David) in Eze 34:23-24; Eze 37:24, or “my servant Job” in Job 1:8; Job 2:3, etc.

The objection raised by Koehler - namely, that if tsemach , as a more precise definition of ‛abhdı̄ (my servant), or as an announcement what servant of Jehovah is intended, were used as a proper name, it would either be construed with the article (הצּמח), or else we should have עבדּי צמח שׁמו as in Zec 6:12 - is quite groundless. For “if poets or prophets form new proper names at pleasure, such names, even when deprived of the article, easily assume the distinguishing sign of most proper names, like bâgōdâh and meshūbhâh in Jeremiah 3” (Ewald, §277, c ).

It is different with שׁמו in Zec 6:12; there shemō is needed for the sake of the sense, as in 1Sa 1:1 and Job 1:1, and does not serve to designate the preceding word as a proper name, but simply to define the person spoken of more precisely by mentioning his name. Zechariah has formed the name Tsemach , Sprout, or Shoot, primarily from Jer 23:5 and Jer 33:15, where the promise is given that a righteous Sprout ( tsemach tsaddı̄q ), or a Sprout of righteousness, shall be raised up to Jacob.

And Jeremiah took the figurative description of the great descendant of David, who will create righteousness upon the earth, as a tsemach which Jehovah will raise up, or cause to shoot up to David, from Isa 11:1-2; Isa 53:2, according to which the Messiah is to spring up as a rod out of the stem of Jesse that has been hewn down, or as a root-shoot out of dry ground. Tsemach , therefore, denotes the Messiah in His origin from the family of David that has fallen into humiliation, as a sprout which will grow up from its original state of humiliation to exaltation and glory, and answers therefore to the train of thought in this passage, in which the deeply humiliated priesthood is exalted by the grace of the Lord into a type of the Messiah.

Whether the designation of the sprout as “my servant” is taken from Isa 52:13 and Isa 53:11 (cf. Isa 42:1; Isa 49:3), or formed after “my servant David” in Eze 34:24; Eze 37:24, is a point which cannot be decided, and is of no importance to the matter in hand. The circumstance that the removal of iniquity, which is the peculiar work of the Messiah, is mentioned in Eze 37:9 , furnishes no satisfactory reason for deducing ‛abhdı̄ tsemach pre-eminently from Isa 53:1-12.

For in Zec 3:9 the removal of iniquity is only mentioned in the second rank, in the explanation of Jehovah’s purpose to bring His servant Tsemach . The first rank is assigned to the stone, which Jehovah has laid before Joshua, etc. The answer to the question, what this stone signifies, or who is to be understood by it, depends upon the view we take of the words עינים ...

על אבן. Most of the commentators admit that these words do not form a parenthesis (Hitzig, Ewald), but introduce a statement concerning הנּה האבן. Accordingly, הנּה האבן וגו is placed at the head absolutely, and resumed in על אבן אחת. This statement may mean, either upon one stone are seven eyes (visible or to be found), or seven eyes are directed upon one stone.

For although, in the latter case, we should expect אל instead of על (according to Psa 33:18; Psa 34:16), שׂים עין על does occur in the sense of the exercise of loving care (Gen 44:21; Jer 39:12; Jer 40:4). But if the seven eyes were to be seen upon the stone, they could only be engraved or drawn upon it. And what follows, הנני מפתּח וגו, does not agree with this, inasmuch as, according to this, the engraving upon the stone had now first to take place instead of having been done already, since hinnēh followed by a participle never expresses what has already occurred, but always what is to take place in the future.

For this reason we must decide that the seven eyes are directed towards the stone, or watch over it with protecting care. But this overthrows the view held by the expositors of the early church, and defended by Kliefoth, namely, that the stone signifies the Messiah, after Isa 28:16 and Psa 118:2, - a view with which the expression nâthattı̄ , “given, laid before Joshua,” can hardly be reconciled, even if this meant that Joshua was to see with his own eyes, as something actually present, that God was laying the foundation-stone.

Still less can we think of the foundation-stone of the temple (Ros. , Hitz.) , since this had been laid long ago, and we cannot see for what purpose it was to be engraved; or of the stone which, according to the Rabbins, occupied the empty place of the ark of the covenant in the most holy place of the second temple (Hofmann); or of a precious stone in the breastplate of the high priest.

The stone is the symbol of the kingdom of God, and is laid by Jehovah before Joshua, by God’s transferring to him the regulation of His house and the keeping of His courts (before, liphnē , in a spiritual sense, as in 1Ki 9:6, for example). The seven eyes, which watch with protecting care over this stone, are not a figurative representation of the all-embracing providence of God; but, in harmony with the seven eyes of the Lamb, which are the seven Spirits of God (Rev 5:6), and with the seven eyes of Jehovah (Zec 4:10), they are the sevenfold radiations of the Spirit of Jehovah (after Isa 11:2), which show themselves in vigorous action upon this stone, to prepare it for its destination.

This preparation is called pittēăch pittuchâh in harmony with the figure of the stone (cf. Eze 28:9, Eze 28:11). “I will engrave the engraving thereof,” i. e. , engrave it so as to prepare it for a beautiful and costly stone. The preparation of this stone, i. e. , the preparation of the kingdom of God established in Israel, by the powers of the Spirit of the Lord, is one feature in which the bringing of the tsemach will show itself.

The other consists in the wiping away of the iniquity of this land. Mūsh is used here in a transitive sense, to cause to depart, to wipe away. הארץ ההיא (that land) is the land of Canaan or Judah, which will extend in the Messianic times over the whole earth. The definition of the time, beyōm 'echâd , cannot of course mean “on one and the same day,” so as to affirm that the communication of the true nature to Israel, namely, of one well pleasing to God, and the removal of guilt from the land, would take place simultaneously (Hofmann, Koehler); but the expression “in one day” is substantially the same as ἐφάπαξ in Heb 7:27; Heb 9:12; Heb 10:10, and affirms that the wiping away of sin to be effected by the Messiah ( tsemach ) will not resemble that effected by the typical priesthood, which had to be continually repeated, but will be all finished at once.

This one day is the day of Golgotha. Accordingly, the thought of this verse is the following: Jehovah will cause His servant Tsemach to come, because He will prepare His kingdom gloriously, and exterminate all the sins of His people and land at once. By the wiping away of all guilt and iniquity, not only of that which rests upon the land (Koehler), but also of that of the inhabitants of the land, i.

e. , of the whole nation, all the discontent and all the misery which flow from sin will be swept away, and a state of blessed peace will ensue for the purified church of God. This is the thought of the tenth verse, which is formed after Mic 4:4 and 1Ki 5:5, and with which the vision closes. The next vision shows the glory of the purified church.

Zec 3:6-10 In these verses there follows a prophetic address, in which the angel of the Lord describes the symbolical action of the re-clothing of the high priest, according to its typical significance in relation to the continuance and the future of the kingdom of God. Zec 3:6. “And the angel of the Lord testified to Joshua, and said, Zec 3:7. Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, If thou shalt walk in my ways, and keep my charge, thou shalt both judge my house and keep my courts, and I will give thee ways among these standing here.

Zec 3:8. Hear then, thou high priest Joshua, thou, and thy comrades who sit before thee: yea, men of wonder are they: for, behold, I bring my servant Zemach (Sprout). Zec 3:9. For behold the stone which I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone are seven eyes: behold I engrave its carving, is the saying of Jehovah of hosts, and I clear away the iniquity of this land in one day.

Zec 3:10. In that day, is the saying of Jehovah of hosts, ye will invite one another under the vine and under the fig-tree. ” In Zec 3:7 not only is the high priest confirmed in his office, but the perpetuation and glorification of his official labours are promised. As Joshua appears in this vision as the supporter of the office, this promise does not apply to Joshua himself so much as to the office, the continuance of which is indeed bound up with the fidelity of those who sustain it.

The promise in Zec 3:7 therefore begins by giving prominence to this condition: If thou wilt walk in my ways, etc. Walking in the ways of the Lord refers to the personal attitude of the priests towards the Lord, or to fidelity in their personal relation to God; and keeping the charge of Jehovah, to the faithful performance of their official duties ( shâmar mishmartı̄ , noticing what has to be observed in relation to Jehovah; see at Lev 8:35).

The apodosis begins with וגם אתּה, and not with ונתתּי. This is required not only by the emphatic 'attâh , but also by the clauses commencing with vegam ; whereas the circumstance, that the tense only changes with venâthattı̄ , and that tâdı̄n and tishmōr are still imperfects, has its simple explanation in the fact, that on account of the gam , the verbs could not be linked together with Vav , and placed at the head of the clauses.

Taken by themselves, the clauses vegam tâdı̄n and vegam tishmōr might express a duty of the high priest quite as well as a privilege. If they were taken as apodoses, they would express an obligation; but in that case they would appear somewhat superfluous, because the obligations of the high priest are fully explained in the two previous clauses. If, on the other hand, the apodosis commences with them, they contain, in the form of a promise, a privilege which is set before the high priest as awaiting him in the future - namely, the privilege of still further attending to the service of the house of God, which had been called in question by Satan’s accusation.

דּין את־בּיתי, to judge the house of God, i. e. , to administer right in relation to the house of God, namely, in relation to the duties devolving upon the high priest in the sanctuary as such; hence the right administration of the service in the holy place and the holy of holies. This limitation is obvious from the parallel clause, to keep the courts, in which the care of the ordinary performance of worship in the courts, and the keeping of everything of an idolatrous nature from the house of God, are transferred to him.

And to this a new and important promise is added in the last clause (ונהתּי וגו). The meaning of this depends upon the explanation given to the word מהלכים. Many commentators regard his as a Chaldaic form of the hiphil participle (after Dan 3:25; Dan 4:34), and take it either in the intransitive sense of “those walking” (lxx, Pesh. , Vulg. , Luth. , Hofm. , etc.)

, or in the transitive sense of those conducting the leaders (Ges. , Hengst. , etc.) But apart from the fact that the hiphil of הלך in Hebrew is always written either הוליך or היליך, and has never anything but a transitive meaning, this view is precluded by the בּין, for which we should expect מבּין or מן, since the meaning could only be, “I give thee walkers or leaders between those standing here,” i.

e. , such as walk to and fro between those standing here (Hofmann), or, “I will give thee leaders among (from) these angels who are standing here” (Hengstenberg). In the former case, the high priest would receive a promise that he should always have angels to go to and fro between himself and Jehovah, to carry up his prayers, and bring down revelations from God, and supplies of help (Joh 1:51; Hofmann).

This thought would be quite a suitable one; but it is not contained in the words, “since the angels, even if they walk between the standing angels and in the midst of them, do not go to and fro between Jehovah and Joshua” (Kliefoth). In the latter case the high priest would merely receive a general assurance of the assistance of superior angels; and for such a thought as this the expression would be an extremely marvellous one, and theבּין would be used incorrectly.

We must therefore follow Calvin and others, who take מהלכין as a substantive, from a singular מהלך, formed after מחצב, מסמר, מזלג, or else as a plural of מהלך, to be pointed מהלכים (Ros. , Hitzig, Kliefoth). The words then add to the promise, which ensured to the people the continuance of the priesthood and of the blessings which it conveyed, this new feature, that the high priest would also receive a free access to God, which had not yet been conferred upon him by his office.

This points to a time when the restrictions of the Old Testament will be swept away. The further address, in Zec 3:8 and Zec 3:9, announces how God will bring about this new time or future. To show the importance of what follows, Joshua is called upon to “hear. ” It is doubtful where what he is to hear commences; for the idea, that after the summons to attend, the successive, chain-like explanation of the reason for this summons passes imperceptibly into that to which he is to give heed, is hardly admissible, and has only been adopted because it was found difficult to discover the true commencement of the address.

The earlier theologians (Chald. , Jerome, Theod. Mops. , Theodoret, and Calvin), and even Hitzig and Ewald, take כּי הנני מביא (for behold I will bring forth). But these words are evidently explanatory of אנשׁי מופת המּה (men of wonder, etc.) Nor can it commence with ūmashtı̄ (and I remove), as Hofmann supposes ( Weiss. u. Erfüll. i. 339), or with Zec 3:9, “for behold the stone,” as he also maintains in his Schriftbeweis (ii.

1, pp. 292-3, 508-9). The first of these is precluded not only by the fact that the address would be cut far too short, but also by the cop. Vav before mashtı̄ ; and the second by the fact that the words, “for behold the stone,” etc. , in Zec 3:9, are unmistakeably a continuation and further explanation of the words, “for behold I will bring forth my servant Zemach,” in Zec 3:9.

The address begins with “thou and thy fellows,” since the priests could not be called upon to hear, inasmuch as they were not present. Joshua’s comrades who sit before him are the priests who sat in the priestly meetings in front of the high priest, the president of the assembly, so that yōshēbh liphnē corresponds to our “assessors. ” The following kı̄ introduces the substance of the address; and when the subject is placed at the head absolutely, it is used in the sense of an asseveration, “yea, truly” (cf.

Gen 18:20; Psa 118:10-12; Psa 128:2; and Ewald, §330, b ). 'Anshē mōphēth , men of miracle, or of a miraculous sign, as mōphēth , τὸ τέρας, portentum, miraculum, embraces the idea of אות, σημεῖον (cf. Isa 8:18), are men who attract attention to themselves by something striking, and are types of what is to come, so that mōphēth really corresponds to τύπος τῶν μελλόντων (see at Exo 4:21; Isa 8:18).

המּה stands for אתּם, the words passing over from the second person to the third on the resuming of the subject, which is placed at the head absolutely, just as in Zep 2:12, and refers not only to רעיך, but to Joshua and his comrades. They are men of typical sign, but not simply on account of the office which they hold, viz. , because their mediatorial priesthood points to the mediatorial office and atoning work of the Messiah, as most of the commentators assume.

For “this applies, in the first place, not only to Joshua and his priests, but to the Old Testament priesthood generally; and secondly, there was nothing miraculous in this mediatorial work of the priesthood, which must have been the case if they were to be mōphēth . The miracle, which is to be seen in Joshua and his priests, consists rather in the fact that the priesthood of Israel is laden with guilt, but by the grace of God it has been absolved, and accepted by God again, as the deliverance from exile shows,” and Joshua and his priests are therefore brands plucked by the omnipotence of grace from the fire of merited judgment (Kliefoth).

This miracle of grace which has been wrought for them, points beyond itself to an incomparably greater and better act of the sin-absolving grace of God, which is still in the future. This is the way in which the next clause, “for I bring my servant Zemach,” which is explanatory of 'anshē mōphēth (men of miracle), attaches itself. The word Tsemach is used by Zechariah simply as a proper name of the Messiah; and the combination ‛abhdı̄ Tsemach (my servant Tsemach) is precisely the same as ‛abhdı̄ Dâvid (my servant David) in Eze 34:23-24; Eze 37:24, or “my servant Job” in Job 1:8; Job 2:3, etc.

The objection raised by Koehler - namely, that if tsemach , as a more precise definition of ‛abhdı̄ (my servant), or as an announcement what servant of Jehovah is intended, were used as a proper name, it would either be construed with the article (הצּמח), or else we should have עבדּי צמח שׁמו as in Zec 6:12 - is quite groundless. For “if poets or prophets form new proper names at pleasure, such names, even when deprived of the article, easily assume the distinguishing sign of most proper names, like bâgōdâh and meshūbhâh in Jeremiah 3” (Ewald, §277, c ).

It is different with שׁמו in Zec 6:12; there shemō is needed for the sake of the sense, as in 1Sa 1:1 and Job 1:1, and does not serve to designate the preceding word as a proper name, but simply to define the person spoken of more precisely by mentioning his name. Zechariah has formed the name Tsemach , Sprout, or Shoot, primarily from Jer 23:5 and Jer 33:15, where the promise is given that a righteous Sprout ( tsemach tsaddı̄q ), or a Sprout of righteousness, shall be raised up to Jacob.

And Jeremiah took the figurative description of the great descendant of David, who will create righteousness upon the earth, as a tsemach which Jehovah will raise up, or cause to shoot up to David, from Isa 11:1-2; Isa 53:2, according to which the Messiah is to spring up as a rod out of the stem of Jesse that has been hewn down, or as a root-shoot out of dry ground. Tsemach , therefore, denotes the Messiah in His origin from the family of David that has fallen into humiliation, as a sprout which will grow up from its original state of humiliation to exaltation and glory, and answers therefore to the train of thought in this passage, in which the deeply humiliated priesthood is exalted by the grace of the Lord into a type of the Messiah.

Whether the designation of the sprout as “my servant” is taken from Isa 52:13 and Isa 53:11 (cf. Isa 42:1; Isa 49:3), or formed after “my servant David” in Eze 34:24; Eze 37:24, is a point which cannot be decided, and is of no importance to the matter in hand. The circumstance that the removal of iniquity, which is the peculiar work of the Messiah, is mentioned in Eze 37:9 , furnishes no satisfactory reason for deducing ‛abhdı̄ tsemach pre-eminently from Isa 53:1-12.

For in Zec 3:9 the removal of iniquity is only mentioned in the second rank, in the explanation of Jehovah’s purpose to bring His servant Tsemach . The first rank is assigned to the stone, which Jehovah has laid before Joshua, etc. The answer to the question, what this stone signifies, or who is to be understood by it, depends upon the view we take of the words עינים ...

על אבן. Most of the commentators admit that these words do not form a parenthesis (Hitzig, Ewald), but introduce a statement concerning הנּה האבן. Accordingly, הנּה האבן וגו is placed at the head absolutely, and resumed in על אבן אחת. This statement may mean, either upon one stone are seven eyes (visible or to be found), or seven eyes are directed upon one stone.

For although, in the latter case, we should expect אל instead of על (according to Psa 33:18; Psa 34:16), שׂים עין על does occur in the sense of the exercise of loving care (Gen 44:21; Jer 39:12; Jer 40:4). But if the seven eyes were to be seen upon the stone, they could only be engraved or drawn upon it. And what follows, הנני מפתּח וגו, does not agree with this, inasmuch as, according to this, the engraving upon the stone had now first to take place instead of having been done already, since hinnēh followed by a participle never expresses what has already occurred, but always what is to take place in the future.

For this reason we must decide that the seven eyes are directed towards the stone, or watch over it with protecting care. But this overthrows the view held by the expositors of the early church, and defended by Kliefoth, namely, that the stone signifies the Messiah, after Isa 28:16 and Psa 118:2, - a view with which the expression nâthattı̄ , “given, laid before Joshua,” can hardly be reconciled, even if this meant that Joshua was to see with his own eyes, as something actually present, that God was laying the foundation-stone.

Still less can we think of the foundation-stone of the temple (Ros. , Hitz.) , since this had been laid long ago, and we cannot see for what purpose it was to be engraved; or of the stone which, according to the Rabbins, occupied the empty place of the ark of the covenant in the most holy place of the second temple (Hofmann); or of a precious stone in the breastplate of the high priest.

The stone is the symbol of the kingdom of God, and is laid by Jehovah before Joshua, by God’s transferring to him the regulation of His house and the keeping of His courts (before, liphnē , in a spiritual sense, as in 1Ki 9:6, for example). The seven eyes, which watch with protecting care over this stone, are not a figurative representation of the all-embracing providence of God; but, in harmony with the seven eyes of the Lamb, which are the seven Spirits of God (Rev 5:6), and with the seven eyes of Jehovah (Zec 4:10), they are the sevenfold radiations of the Spirit of Jehovah (after Isa 11:2), which show themselves in vigorous action upon this stone, to prepare it for its destination.

This preparation is called pittēăch pittuchâh in harmony with the figure of the stone (cf. Eze 28:9, Eze 28:11). “I will engrave the engraving thereof,” i. e. , engrave it so as to prepare it for a beautiful and costly stone. The preparation of this stone, i. e. , the preparation of the kingdom of God established in Israel, by the powers of the Spirit of the Lord, is one feature in which the bringing of the tsemach will show itself.

The other consists in the wiping away of the iniquity of this land. Mūsh is used here in a transitive sense, to cause to depart, to wipe away. הארץ ההיא (that land) is the land of Canaan or Judah, which will extend in the Messianic times over the whole earth. The definition of the time, beyōm 'echâd , cannot of course mean “on one and the same day,” so as to affirm that the communication of the true nature to Israel, namely, of one well pleasing to God, and the removal of guilt from the land, would take place simultaneously (Hofmann, Koehler); but the expression “in one day” is substantially the same as ἐφάπαξ in Heb 7:27; Heb 9:12; Heb 10:10, and affirms that the wiping away of sin to be effected by the Messiah ( tsemach ) will not resemble that effected by the typical priesthood, which had to be continually repeated, but will be all finished at once.

This one day is the day of Golgotha. Accordingly, the thought of this verse is the following: Jehovah will cause His servant Tsemach to come, because He will prepare His kingdom gloriously, and exterminate all the sins of His people and land at once. By the wiping away of all guilt and iniquity, not only of that which rests upon the land (Koehler), but also of that of the inhabitants of the land, i.

e. , of the whole nation, all the discontent and all the misery which flow from sin will be swept away, and a state of blessed peace will ensue for the purified church of God. This is the thought of the tenth verse, which is formed after Mic 4:4 and 1Ki 5:5, and with which the vision closes. The next vision shows the glory of the purified church.

Zec 4:1-3 Zec 4:1. “And the angel that talked with me returned and waked me, like a man who is waked out of his sleep. ” After the prophet has seen four visions one after another, probably with very short intervals, and has heard the marvellous interpretation of them, he is so overpowered by the impression produced by what he has seen and heard, that he falls into a state of spiritual exhaustion resembling sleep, just as Peter and his companions were unable to keep awake at the transfiguration of Christ (Luk 9:32).

He has not only fallen back into the state of ordinary human consciousness, but his ordinary spiritual consciousness was so depressed that he resembled a man asleep, and had to be waked out of this sleep-like state by the mediating angel, in order to be qualified for further seeing. It is evident from the expression ויּשׁב (and he returned) that the angelus interpres had left the prophet after the termination of the previous visions, and now came back to him again.

The fresh vision which presents itself to his spiritual intuition, is described according to its principal features in Zec 4:2 and Zec 4:3. Zec 4:2. “And he said to me, What seest thou? And I said, I see, and behold a candlestick all of gold, and its oil-vessel up above it, and its seven lamps upon it, seven pipes each for the lamps upon the top of it. Zec 4:3.

And two olive trees (oil trees) by it, one to the right of the oil-vessel, and one to the left of it. ” The second ויאמר ( chethib ) in Zec 4:2 might, if necessary, be explained in the way proposed by L. de Dieu, Gusset. , and Hofmann, viz. , by supposing that the mediating angel had no sooner asked the prophet what he saw, than he proceeded, without waiting for his answer, to give a description himself of what was seen.

But this is at variance with the analogy of all the rest of the visions, where the visions seen by the prophet are always introduced with ראיתי or ואראה followed by והנּה (cf. Zec 1:8; Zec 2:1, Zec 2:5; Zec 5:1; Zec 6:1), and it remains quite inflexible; so that we must accept the keri ואמר, which is adopted by the early translators, and found in many codd. , as being the true reading, and pronounce ויאמר a copyist’s error.

On the combination מנורת זהב כּלּהּ, in which the last two words are construed as a relative clause in subordination to menōrath , see Ewald, §§332, c . The visionary candlestick, all of gold, with its seven lamps, is unquestionably a figurative representation of the seven-branched golden candlestick in the tabernacle, and differs from this only in the three following additions which are peculiar to itself: (1) That is has its gullâh (גּלּהּ for גּלּתה, with the feminine termination resolved; cf.

Hos 13:2, and Ewald, §257, d ), i. e. , a can or round vessel for the oil, which was omitted altogether from the candlestick of the holy place, when the lamps were filled with oil by the priests, “at the top of it” (על־ראשׁהּ); (2) That it had seven mūtsâqōth (pipes) each for the lamps, that is to say, tubes through which the oil poured from the gullâh into the lamps, or was conducted to them, whereas the candlestick of the tabernacle had no pipes, but only seven arms ( qânı̄m ), for the purpose of holding the lamps, which of course could not be wanting in the case of the visionary candlestick, and are merely omitted from the description as being self-evident.

The number of the pipes is also a disputed point, viz. , whether שׁבעה ושׁבעה means seven and seven, i. e. , fourteen, or whether it is to be taken distributively, seven each for the lamps, i. e. , seven for each lamp, and therefore forty-nine for the seven. The distributive view is disputed by Hitzig and Koehler as at variance with the usage of the language: the former proposing to alter the text, so as to obtain seven pipes, i.

e. , one for each lamp; and the latter, on the other hand, assuming that there were fourteen pipes, and inferring from the statement “seven and seven,” instead of fourteen, that the second seven are to be sought in a different place from the first, that is to say, that the first seven led from the oil-vessel to the seven different lamps, whilst the second seven connected the seven lamps with one another, which would have been a very strange and perfectly useless provision.

But there is no foundation whatever for the assertion that it is at variance with the usage of the language. For although a distributive relation is certainly expressed as a rule by the simple repetition of the number without any connecting Vav , such passages as 2Sa 21:20 and 1Ch 20:6 show quite indisputably that the repetition of the same number with the Vav cop.

between is also to be taken distributively. When, for example, it is stated in 2Sa 21:20, with regard to the hero of Gath, that the fingers of his hands and the fingers (toes) of his feet were “ shēsh vâshēsh , four-and-twenty in number,” it is evident that shēsh vâshēsh cannot mean “six and six,” because six and six do not make twenty-four; and a division of the shēsh between the hands and feet is also untenable, because his two hands had not six fingers on them, but twelve, and so his two feet had not six toes on them, but twelve.

Consequently shēsh vâshēsh must be taken distributively: the fingers of his (two) hands and the toes of his (two) feet were six each; for it is only 2 + 2 (= 4) x 6 that can give 24. This is shown still more clearly in 1Ch 20:6 : “and his fingers were shēsh vâshēsh , four-and-twenty. ” It is in this distributive sense, which is thus thoroughly established, so far as the usage of the language is concerned, that שׁבעה ושׁבעה מוּץ is to be taken: seven pipes each for the lamps, i.

e. , forty-nine for the seven lamps; inasmuch as if fourteen pipes were meant, it would be impossible to imagine any reason why “seven and seven” should be written instead of fourteen. And we cannot be shaken in this conviction, either by the objection “that if there was any proportion between the pipes and the size of the oil-vessel, such a number of pipes could not possibly (?)

spring from one oil-can” (Koehler), or by the statement that “forty-nine would be quite as much at variance with the original as fourteen, since that had only one pipe for every lamp” (Hitzig). For the supposed original for the pipes had no existence, inasmuch as the Mosaic candlestick had no pipes at all; and we can form no opinion as to the possibility of forty-nine pipes issuing from one oil-vessel, because we have no information as to the size either of the oil-vessel or of the pipes.

(3) The third peculiarity in the visionary candlestick consists in the olive trees on the right and left of the oil-vessel, which supplied it with oil, and whose connection with the candlestick is first described in Zec 4:12. These three additions which were made to the golden candlestick seen by Zechariah, as contrasted with the golden candlestick of the tabernacle, formed the apparatus through which it was supplied with the oil required to light it continually without the intervention of man.

Zec 4:1-3 Zec 4:1. “And the angel that talked with me returned and waked me, like a man who is waked out of his sleep. ” After the prophet has seen four visions one after another, probably with very short intervals, and has heard the marvellous interpretation of them, he is so overpowered by the impression produced by what he has seen and heard, that he falls into a state of spiritual exhaustion resembling sleep, just as Peter and his companions were unable to keep awake at the transfiguration of Christ (Luk 9:32).

He has not only fallen back into the state of ordinary human consciousness, but his ordinary spiritual consciousness was so depressed that he resembled a man asleep, and had to be waked out of this sleep-like state by the mediating angel, in order to be qualified for further seeing. It is evident from the expression ויּשׁב (and he returned) that the angelus interpres had left the prophet after the termination of the previous visions, and now came back to him again.

The fresh vision which presents itself to his spiritual intuition, is described according to its principal features in Zec 4:2 and Zec 4:3. Zec 4:2. “And he said to me, What seest thou? And I said, I see, and behold a candlestick all of gold, and its oil-vessel up above it, and its seven lamps upon it, seven pipes each for the lamps upon the top of it. Zec 4:3.

And two olive trees (oil trees) by it, one to the right of the oil-vessel, and one to the left of it. ” The second ויאמר ( chethib ) in Zec 4:2 might, if necessary, be explained in the way proposed by L. de Dieu, Gusset. , and Hofmann, viz. , by supposing that the mediating angel had no sooner asked the prophet what he saw, than he proceeded, without waiting for his answer, to give a description himself of what was seen.

But this is at variance with the analogy of all the rest of the visions, where the visions seen by the prophet are always introduced with ראיתי or ואראה followed by והנּה (cf. Zec 1:8; Zec 2:1, Zec 2:5; Zec 5:1; Zec 6:1), and it remains quite inflexible; so that we must accept the keri ואמר, which is adopted by the early translators, and found in many codd. , as being the true reading, and pronounce ויאמר a copyist’s error.

On the combination מנורת זהב כּלּהּ, in which the last two words are construed as a relative clause in subordination to menōrath , see Ewald, §§332, c . The visionary candlestick, all of gold, with its seven lamps, is unquestionably a figurative representation of the seven-branched golden candlestick in the tabernacle, and differs from this only in the three following additions which are peculiar to itself: (1) That is has its gullâh (גּלּהּ for גּלּתה, with the feminine termination resolved; cf.

Hos 13:2, and Ewald, §257, d ), i. e. , a can or round vessel for the oil, which was omitted altogether from the candlestick of the holy place, when the lamps were filled with oil by the priests, “at the top of it” (על־ראשׁהּ); (2) That it had seven mūtsâqōth (pipes) each for the lamps, that is to say, tubes through which the oil poured from the gullâh into the lamps, or was conducted to them, whereas the candlestick of the tabernacle had no pipes, but only seven arms ( qânı̄m ), for the purpose of holding the lamps, which of course could not be wanting in the case of the visionary candlestick, and are merely omitted from the description as being self-evident.

The number of the pipes is also a disputed point, viz. , whether שׁבעה ושׁבעה means seven and seven, i. e. , fourteen, or whether it is to be taken distributively, seven each for the lamps, i. e. , seven for each lamp, and therefore forty-nine for the seven. The distributive view is disputed by Hitzig and Koehler as at variance with the usage of the language: the former proposing to alter the text, so as to obtain seven pipes, i.

e. , one for each lamp; and the latter, on the other hand, assuming that there were fourteen pipes, and inferring from the statement “seven and seven,” instead of fourteen, that the second seven are to be sought in a different place from the first, that is to say, that the first seven led from the oil-vessel to the seven different lamps, whilst the second seven connected the seven lamps with one another, which would have been a very strange and perfectly useless provision.

But there is no foundation whatever for the assertion that it is at variance with the usage of the language. For although a distributive relation is certainly expressed as a rule by the simple repetition of the number without any connecting Vav , such passages as 2Sa 21:20 and 1Ch 20:6 show quite indisputably that the repetition of the same number with the Vav cop.

between is also to be taken distributively. When, for example, it is stated in 2Sa 21:20, with regard to the hero of Gath, that the fingers of his hands and the fingers (toes) of his feet were “ shēsh vâshēsh , four-and-twenty in number,” it is evident that shēsh vâshēsh cannot mean “six and six,” because six and six do not make twenty-four; and a division of the shēsh between the hands and feet is also untenable, because his two hands had not six fingers on them, but twelve, and so his two feet had not six toes on them, but twelve.

Consequently shēsh vâshēsh must be taken distributively: the fingers of his (two) hands and the toes of his (two) feet were six each; for it is only 2 + 2 (= 4) x 6 that can give 24. This is shown still more clearly in 1Ch 20:6 : “and his fingers were shēsh vâshēsh , four-and-twenty. ” It is in this distributive sense, which is thus thoroughly established, so far as the usage of the language is concerned, that שׁבעה ושׁבעה מוּץ is to be taken: seven pipes each for the lamps, i.

e. , forty-nine for the seven lamps; inasmuch as if fourteen pipes were meant, it would be impossible to imagine any reason why “seven and seven” should be written instead of fourteen. And we cannot be shaken in this conviction, either by the objection “that if there was any proportion between the pipes and the size of the oil-vessel, such a number of pipes could not possibly (?)

spring from one oil-can” (Koehler), or by the statement that “forty-nine would be quite as much at variance with the original as fourteen, since that had only one pipe for every lamp” (Hitzig). For the supposed original for the pipes had no existence, inasmuch as the Mosaic candlestick had no pipes at all; and we can form no opinion as to the possibility of forty-nine pipes issuing from one oil-vessel, because we have no information as to the size either of the oil-vessel or of the pipes.

(3) The third peculiarity in the visionary candlestick consists in the olive trees on the right and left of the oil-vessel, which supplied it with oil, and whose connection with the candlestick is first described in Zec 4:12. These three additions which were made to the golden candlestick seen by Zechariah, as contrasted with the golden candlestick of the tabernacle, formed the apparatus through which it was supplied with the oil required to light it continually without the intervention of man.

Zec 4:1-3 Zec 4:1. “And the angel that talked with me returned and waked me, like a man who is waked out of his sleep. ” After the prophet has seen four visions one after another, probably with very short intervals, and has heard the marvellous interpretation of them, he is so overpowered by the impression produced by what he has seen and heard, that he falls into a state of spiritual exhaustion resembling sleep, just as Peter and his companions were unable to keep awake at the transfiguration of Christ (Luk 9:32).

He has not only fallen back into the state of ordinary human consciousness, but his ordinary spiritual consciousness was so depressed that he resembled a man asleep, and had to be waked out of this sleep-like state by the mediating angel, in order to be qualified for further seeing. It is evident from the expression ויּשׁב (and he returned) that the angelus interpres had left the prophet after the termination of the previous visions, and now came back to him again.

The fresh vision which presents itself to his spiritual intuition, is described according to its principal features in Zec 4:2 and Zec 4:3. Zec 4:2. “And he said to me, What seest thou? And I said, I see, and behold a candlestick all of gold, and its oil-vessel up above it, and its seven lamps upon it, seven pipes each for the lamps upon the top of it. Zec 4:3.

And two olive trees (oil trees) by it, one to the right of the oil-vessel, and one to the left of it. ” The second ויאמר ( chethib ) in Zec 4:2 might, if necessary, be explained in the way proposed by L. de Dieu, Gusset. , and Hofmann, viz. , by supposing that the mediating angel had no sooner asked the prophet what he saw, than he proceeded, without waiting for his answer, to give a description himself of what was seen.

But this is at variance with the analogy of all the rest of the visions, where the visions seen by the prophet are always introduced with ראיתי or ואראה followed by והנּה (cf. Zec 1:8; Zec 2:1, Zec 2:5; Zec 5:1; Zec 6:1), and it remains quite inflexible; so that we must accept the keri ואמר, which is adopted by the early translators, and found in many codd. , as being the true reading, and pronounce ויאמר a copyist’s error.

On the combination מנורת זהב כּלּהּ, in which the last two words are construed as a relative clause in subordination to menōrath , see Ewald, §§332, c . The visionary candlestick, all of gold, with its seven lamps, is unquestionably a figurative representation of the seven-branched golden candlestick in the tabernacle, and differs from this only in the three following additions which are peculiar to itself: (1) That is has its gullâh (גּלּהּ for גּלּתה, with the feminine termination resolved; cf.

Hos 13:2, and Ewald, §257, d ), i. e. , a can or round vessel for the oil, which was omitted altogether from the candlestick of the holy place, when the lamps were filled with oil by the priests, “at the top of it” (על־ראשׁהּ); (2) That it had seven mūtsâqōth (pipes) each for the lamps, that is to say, tubes through which the oil poured from the gullâh into the lamps, or was conducted to them, whereas the candlestick of the tabernacle had no pipes, but only seven arms ( qânı̄m ), for the purpose of holding the lamps, which of course could not be wanting in the case of the visionary candlestick, and are merely omitted from the description as being self-evident.

The number of the pipes is also a disputed point, viz. , whether שׁבעה ושׁבעה means seven and seven, i. e. , fourteen, or whether it is to be taken distributively, seven each for the lamps, i. e. , seven for each lamp, and therefore forty-nine for the seven. The distributive view is disputed by Hitzig and Koehler as at variance with the usage of the language: the former proposing to alter the text, so as to obtain seven pipes, i.

e. , one for each lamp; and the latter, on the other hand, assuming that there were fourteen pipes, and inferring from the statement “seven and seven,” instead of fourteen, that the second seven are to be sought in a different place from the first, that is to say, that the first seven led from the oil-vessel to the seven different lamps, whilst the second seven connected the seven lamps with one another, which would have been a very strange and perfectly useless provision.

But there is no foundation whatever for the assertion that it is at variance with the usage of the language. For although a distributive relation is certainly expressed as a rule by the simple repetition of the number without any connecting Vav , such passages as 2Sa 21:20 and 1Ch 20:6 show quite indisputably that the repetition of the same number with the Vav cop.

between is also to be taken distributively. When, for example, it is stated in 2Sa 21:20, with regard to the hero of Gath, that the fingers of his hands and the fingers (toes) of his feet were “ shēsh vâshēsh , four-and-twenty in number,” it is evident that shēsh vâshēsh cannot mean “six and six,” because six and six do not make twenty-four; and a division of the shēsh between the hands and feet is also untenable, because his two hands had not six fingers on them, but twelve, and so his two feet had not six toes on them, but twelve.

Consequently shēsh vâshēsh must be taken distributively: the fingers of his (two) hands and the toes of his (two) feet were six each; for it is only 2 + 2 (= 4) x 6 that can give 24. This is shown still more clearly in 1Ch 20:6 : “and his fingers were shēsh vâshēsh , four-and-twenty. ” It is in this distributive sense, which is thus thoroughly established, so far as the usage of the language is concerned, that שׁבעה ושׁבעה מוּץ is to be taken: seven pipes each for the lamps, i.

e. , forty-nine for the seven lamps; inasmuch as if fourteen pipes were meant, it would be impossible to imagine any reason why “seven and seven” should be written instead of fourteen. And we cannot be shaken in this conviction, either by the objection “that if there was any proportion between the pipes and the size of the oil-vessel, such a number of pipes could not possibly (?)

spring from one oil-can” (Koehler), or by the statement that “forty-nine would be quite as much at variance with the original as fourteen, since that had only one pipe for every lamp” (Hitzig). For the supposed original for the pipes had no existence, inasmuch as the Mosaic candlestick had no pipes at all; and we can form no opinion as to the possibility of forty-nine pipes issuing from one oil-vessel, because we have no information as to the size either of the oil-vessel or of the pipes.

(3) The third peculiarity in the visionary candlestick consists in the olive trees on the right and left of the oil-vessel, which supplied it with oil, and whose connection with the candlestick is first described in Zec 4:12. These three additions which were made to the golden candlestick seen by Zechariah, as contrasted with the golden candlestick of the tabernacle, formed the apparatus through which it was supplied with the oil required to light it continually without the intervention of man.

Zec 4:4-7 The interpretation of this vision must therefore be founded upon the meaning of the golden candlestick in the symbolism of the tabernacle, and be in harmony with it. The prophet receives, first of all, the following explanation, in reply to his question on this point: Zec 4:4. “And I answered and spake to the angel that talked with me, What are these, my lord?

Zec 4:5. And the angel that talked with me answered and said to me, Knowest thou not what these are? And I said, No, my lord. Zec 4:6. Then he answered and spake to me thus: This is the word of Jehovah to Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, and not by power, but by my Spirit, saith Jehovah of hosts. Zec 4:7. Who art thou, O great mountain before Zerubbabel? Into a plain!

And He will bring out the top-stone amidst shoutings, Grace, grace unto it! ” The question addressed by the prophet to the mediating angel, “What are these? ” ( mâh 'ēlleh , as in Zec 2:2) does not refer to the two olive trees only (Umbreit, Kliefoth), but to everything described in Zec 4:2 and Zec 4:3. We are not warranted in assuming that the prophet, like every other Israelite, knew what the candlestick with its seven lamps signified; and even if Zechariah had been perfectly acquainted with the meaning of the golden candlestick in the holy place, the candlestick seen by him had other things beside the two olive trees which were not to be found in the candlestick of the temple, viz.

, the gullâh and the pipes for the lamps, which might easily make the meaning of the visionary candlestick a doubtful thing. And the counter-question of the angel, in which astonishment is expressed, is not at variance with this. For that simply presupposes that the object of these additions is so clear, that their meaning might be discovered from the meaning of the candlestick itself.

The angel then gives him the answer in Zec 4:6 : “This (the vision as a symbolical prophecy) is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: Not by might,” etc. That is to say, through this vision Zerubbabel is informed that it - namely, the work which Zerubbabel has taken in hand or has to carry out - will not be effected by human strength, but by the Spirit of God.

The work itself is not mentioned by the angel, but is referred to for the first time in Zec 4:7 in the words, “He will bring out the top-stone,” and then still more clearly described in the word of Jehovah in Zec 4:9 : “The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house (the temple), and his hands will finish it. ” It by no means follows from this that the candlestick, with its seven lamps, represented Zerubbabel’s temple (Grotius, Hofmann); for whilst it is impossible that the candlestick, as one article of furniture in the temple, should be a figurative representation of the whole temple, what could the two olive trees, which supplied the candlestick with oil, signify with such an interpretation?

Still less can the seven lamps represent the seven eyes of God (Zec 4:10), according to which the candlestick would be a symbol of God or of the Spirit (Hitzig, Maurer, Schegg). The significance of the candlestick in the holy place centred, as I have shown in my biblische Archäologie (i. p. 107), in its seven lamps, which were lighted every evening, and burned through the night.

The burning lamps were a symbol of the church or of the nation of God, which causes the light of its spirit, or of its knowledge of God, to shine before the Lord, and lets it stream out into the night of a world estranged from God. As the disciples of Christ were called, as lights of the world (Mat 5:14), to let their lamps burn and shine, or, as candlesticks in the world (Luk 12:35; Phi 2:15), to shine with their light before men (Mat 5:16), so as the church of the Old Testament also.

The correctness of this explanation of the meaning of the candlestick is placed beyond all doubt by Rev 1:20, where the seven λυχνίαι, which John saw before the throne of God, are explained as being the seven ἐκκλησίαι, which represent the new people of God, viz. , the Christian church. The candlestick itself merely comes into consideration here as the stand which carried the lamps, in order that they might shine, and as such was the divinely appointed form for the realization of the purpose of the shining lamps.

In this respect it might be taken as a symbol of the kingdom of God on its formal side, i. e. , of the divinely appointed organism for the perpetuation and life of the church. But the lamps received their power to burn from the oil, with which they had to be filled before they could possibly burn. Oil, regarded according to its capacity to invigorate the body and increase the energy of the vital spirits, is used in the Scriptures as a symbol of the Spirit of God, not in its transcendent essence, but so far as it works in the world, and is indwelling in the church; and not merely the anointing oil, as Kliefoth supposes, but also the lamp oil, since the Israelites had no other oil than olive oil even for burning, and this was used for anointing also.

And in the case of the candlestick, the oil comes into consideration as a symbol of the Spirit of God. There is no force in Kliefoth’s objection - namely, that inasmuch as the oil of the candlestick was to be presented by the people, it could not represent the Holy Spirit with its power and grace, as coming from God to man, but must rather represent something human, which being given up to God, is cleansed by God through the fire of His word and Spirit; and being quickened thereby, is made into a shining light.

For, apart from the fact that the assumption upon which this argument is founded - namely, that in the oil of the candlestick the Spirit of God was symbolized by the altar fire with which it was lighted - is destitute of all scriptural support, since it is not mentioned anywhere that the lamps of the candlestick were lighted with fire taken from the altar of burnt-offering, but it is left quite indefinite where the light or fire for kindling the lamps was to be taken from; apart, I say, from this, such an argument proves too much ( nimium, ergo nihil ), because the anointing oil did not come directly from God, but was also presented by the people. Supposing, therefore, that this circumstance was opposed to the symbolical meaning of the lamp oil, it would also be impossible that the anointing oil should be a symbol of the Holy Ghost, since not only the oil, but the spices also, which were used in preparing the anointing oil, were given by the people (Exo 25:6).

We might indeed say, with Kliefoth, that “the oil, as the fatness of the fruit of the olive tree, is the last pure result of the whole of the vital process of the olive tree, and therefore the quintessence of its nature; and that man also grows, and flourishes, and bears fruit like an olive tree; and therefore the fruit of his life’s fruit, the produce of his personality and of the unfolding of his life, may be compared to oil. ” But it must also be added (and this Kliefoth has overlooked), that the olive tree could not grow, flourish, and bear fruit, unless God first of all implanted or communicated the power to grow and bear fruit, and then gave it rain and sunshine and the suitable soil for a prosperous growth.

And so man also requires, for the production of spiritual fruits of life, not only the kindling of this fruit by the fire of the word and Spirit of God, but also the continued nourishment and invigoration of this fruit through God’s word and Spirit, just as the lighting and burning of the lamps are not effected simply by the kindling of the flame, but it is also requisite that the oil should possess the power to burn and shine. In this double respect the candlestick, with its burning and shining lamps, was a symbol of the church of God, which lets the fruit of its life, which is not only kindled but also nourished by the Holy Spirit, shine before God.

And the additions made to the visionary candlestick indicate generally, that the church of the Lord will be supplied with the conditions and requirements necessary to enable it to burn and shine perpetually, i. e. , that the daughter of Zion will never fail to have the Spirit of God, to make its candlestick bright. (See at Zec 4:14.) There is no difficulty whatever in reconciling the answer of the angel in Zec 4:6 with the meaning of the candlestick, as thus unfolded according to its leading features, without having to resort to what looks like a subterfuge, viz.

, the idea that Zec 4:6 does not contain an exposition, but passes on to something new, or without there being any necessity to account, as Koehler does, for the introduction of the candlestick, which he has quite correctly explained (though he weakens the explanation by saying that it applies primarily to Zerubbabel), namely, by assuming that “it was intended, on the one hand, to remind him what the calling of Israel was; and, on the other hand, to admonish him that Israel could never reach this calling by the increase of its might and the exaltation of its strength, but solely by suffering itself to be filled with the Spirit of Jehovah. ” For the candlestick does not set forth the object after which Israel is to strive, but symbolizes the church of God, as it will shine in the splendour of the light received through the Spirit of God.

It therefore symbolizes the future glory of the people of God. Israel will not acquire this through human power and might, but through the Spirit of the Lord, in whose power Zerubbabel will accomplish the work he has begun. Zec 4:7 does not contain a new promise for Zerubbabel, that if he lays to heart the calling of Israel, and acts accordingly, i. e. , if he resists the temptation to bring Israel into a free and independent position by strengthening its external power, the difficulties which have lain in the way of the completion of the building of the temple will clear away of themselves by the command of Jehovah (Koehler).

For there is not the slightest intimation of any such temptation as that supposed to have presented itself to Zerubbabel, either in the vision itself or in the historical and prophetical writings of that time. Moreover, Zec 4:7 has not at all the form of a promise, founded upon the laying to heart of what has been previously mentioned. The contents of the verse are not set forth as anything new either by נאם יהוה (saith Jehovah), or by any other introductory formula.

It can only be a further explanation of the word of Jehovah, which is still covered by the words “saith Jehovah of hosts” at the close of Zec 4:6. The contents of the verse, when properly understood, clearly lead to this. The great mountain before Zerubbabel is to become a plain, not by human power, but by the Spirit of Jehovah. The meaning is given in the second hemistich: He (Zerubbabel) will bring out the top-stone.

והוציא (is not a simple preterite, “he has brought out the foundation-stone” (viz. , at the laying of the foundation of the temple), as Hengstenberg supposes, but a future, “he will bring out,” as is evident from the Vav consec. , through which הוציא is attached to the preceding command as a consequence to which it leads. Moreover, אבן הראשׁה does not mean the foundation-stone, which is called אבן פּנּה, lit.

, corner-stone (Job 38:6; Isa 28:16; Jer 51:26), or ראשׁ פּנּה, the head-stone of the corner (Psa 118:22), but the stone of the top, i. e. , the finishing or gable stone (הראשׁה with raphe as a feminine form of ראשׁ, and in apposition to האבן). הוציא, to bring out, namely out of the workshop in which it had been cut, to set it in its proper place in the wall.

That these words refer to the finishing of the building of the temple which Zerubbabel had begun, is placed beyond all doubt by Zec 4:9. The great mountain, therefore, is apparently “a figure denoting the colossal difficulties, which rose up mountain high at the continuation and completion of the building of the temple. ” Koehler adopts this explanation in common with “the majority of commentators.

” But, notwithstanding this appearance, we must adhere to the view adopted by the Chald. , Jerome, Theod. Mops. , Theodoret, Kimchi, Luther, and others, that the great mountain is a symbol of the power of the world, or the imperial power, and see no difficulty in the “unwarrantable consequence” spoken of by Koehler, viz. , that in that case the plain must be a symbol of the kingdom of God (see, on the contrary, Isa 40:4).

For it is evident from what follows, that the passage refers to something greater than this, namely to the finishing of the building of the temple that has already begun, or to express it briefly and clearly, that the building of the temple of stone and wood is simply regarded as a type of the building of the kingdom of God, as Zec 4:9 clearly shows. There was a great mountain standing in the way of this building of Zerubbabel’s - namely the power of the world, or the imperial power - and this God would level to a plain.

Just as, in the previous vision, Joshua is introduced as the representative of the high-priesthood, so here Zerubbabel, the prince of Judah, springing from the family of David, comes into consideration not as an individual, but according to his official rank as the representative of the government of Israel, which is now so deeply humbled by the imperial power. But the government of Israel has no reality or existence, except in the government of Jehovah.

The family of David will rise up into a new royal power and glory in the Tsemach , whom Jehovah will bring forth as His servant (Zec 3:8). This servant of Jehovah will fill the house of God, which Zerubbabel has built, with glory. In order that this may be done, Zerubbabel must build the temple, because the temple is the house in which Jehovah dwells in the midst of His people.

On account of this importance of the temple in relation to Israel, the opponents of Judah sought to throw obstacles in the way of its being built; and these obstacles were a sign and prelude of the opposition which the imperial power of the world, standing before Zerubbabel as a great mountain, will offer to the kingdom of God. This mountain is to become a plain.

What Zerubbabel the governor of Judah has begun, he will bring to completion; and as he will finish the building of the earthly temple, so will the true Zerubbabel, the Messiah, Tsemach , the servant of Jehovah, build the spiritual temple, and make Israel into a candlestick, which is supplied with oil by two olive trees, so that its lamps may shine brightly in the world. In this sense the angel’s reply gives an explanation of the meaning of the visionary candlestick.

Just as, according to the economy of the Old Testament, the golden candlestick stood in the holy place of the temple before the face of Jehovah, and could only shine there, so does the congregation, which is symbolized by the candlestick, need a house of God, that it may be able to cause its light to shine. This house is the kingdom of God symbolized by the temple, which was to be built by Zerubbabel, not by human might and power, but by the Spirit of the Lord.

In this building the words “He will bring forth the top-stone” find their complete and final fulfilment. The finishing of this building will take place תּשׁאות חן חן להּ, i. e. , amidst loud cries of the people, “Grace, grace unto it. ” תּשׁאות is an accusative of more precise definition, or of the attendant circumstances (cf. Ewald, §204, a ), and signifies noise, tumult, from שׁוא = שׁאה, a loud cry (Job 39:7; Isa 22:2).

The suffix לּהּ refers, so far as the form is concerned, to האבן הראשׁה, but actually to habbayith , the temple which is finished with the gable-stone. To this stone (so the words mean) may God direct His favour or grace, that the temple may stand for ever, and never be destroyed again.