The Lord King Over All the Earth

Zec 14:6-7 Complete salvation. - Zec 14:6. “And it will come to pass on that day, there will not be light, the glorious ones will melt away. Zec 14:7. And it will be an only day, which will be known to Jehovah, not day nor night: and it will come to pass, at evening time it will be light. ” The coming of the Lord will produce a change on the earth. The light of the earth will disappear.

The way in which לא יהיה אור is to be understood is indicated more precisely by יקרות יקפאון. These words have been interpreted, however, from time immemorial in very different ways. The difference of gender in the combination of the feminine יקרות with the masculine verb יקפּאוּן, and the rarity with which the two words are met with, have both contributed to produce the keri יקרות וקפּאון, in which יקרות has either been taken as a substantive formation from קרר, or the reading וקרות with Vav cop.

has been adopted in the sense of cold, and קפּאון (contraction, rigidity) taken to signify ice. The whole clause has then been either regarded as an antithesis to the preceding one, “It will not be light, but (sc. , there will be) cold and ice” (thus Targ. , Pesh. , Symm. , Itala, Luther, and many others); or taken in this sense, “There will not be light, and cold, and ice, i.

e. , no alternation of light, cold, and ice will occur” (Ewald, Umbr. , Bunsen). But there is intolerable harshness in both these views: in the first, on account of the insertion of יהיה without a negation for the purpose of obtaining an antithesis; in the second, because the combination of light, cold, and ice is illogical and unparalleled in the Scriptures, and cannot be justified even by an appeal to Gen 8:22, since light is no more equivalent to day and night than cold and ice are to frost and heat, or summer and winter.

We must therefore follow Hengstenberg, Hofmann, Koehler, and Kliefoth, who prefer the chethib יקפאון, and read it יקפּאוּן, the imperf. kal of קפא. קפא signifies to congeal, or curdle, and is applied in Exo 15:8 to the heaping up of the waters as it were in solid masses. יקרות, the costly or splendid things are the stars, according to Job 31:26, where the moon is spoken of as יקר הולך, walking in splendour.

The words therefore describe the passing away or vanishing of the brightness of the shining stars, answering to the prophetic announcement, that on the day of judgment, sun, moon, and stars will lose their brightness or be turned into darkness (Joe 3:15; Isa 13:10; Eze 32:7-8, Mat 24:29; Rev 6:12). In Zec 14:7 this day is still more clearly described: first, as solitary in its kind; and secondly, as a marvellous day, on which the light dawns at evening time.

The four clauses of this verse contain only two thoughts; each so expressed in two clauses that the second explains the first. יום אחד, unus dies , is not equivalent to tempus non longum (Cocceius, Hengst.) , nor to “only one day, not two or more” (Koehler), but solitary in its kind, unparalleled by any other, because no second of the kind ever occurs (for the use of 'echâd in this sense, compare Zec 14:9, Eze 7:5, Sol 6:9).

It is necessary to take the words in this manner on account of the following clause, “it will be known to the Lord;” i. e. , not “it will be singled out by Jehovah in the series of days as the appropriate one” (Hitzig and Koehler), nor “it stands under the supervision and guidance of the Lord, so that it does not come unexpectedly, or interfere with His plans” (Hengstenberg), for neither of these is expressed in נודע; but simply, it is known to the Lord according to its true nature, and therefore is distinguished above all other days.

The following definition, “not day and not night,” does not mean that “it will form a turbid mixture of day and night, in which there will prevail a mongrel condition of mysterious, horrifying twilight and gloom” (Koehler); but it will resemble neither day nor night, because the lights of heaven, which regulate day and night, lose their brightness, and at evening time there comes not darkness, but light. The order of nature is reversed: the day resembles the night, and the evening brings light.

At the time when, according to the natural course of events, the dark night should set in, a bright light will dawn. The words do not actually affirm that the alternation of day and night will cease (Jerome, Neumann, Kliefoth); but this may be inferred from a comparison of Rev 21:23 and Rev 21:25.

Zec 14:6-7 Complete salvation. - Zec 14:6. “And it will come to pass on that day, there will not be light, the glorious ones will melt away. Zec 14:7. And it will be an only day, which will be known to Jehovah, not day nor night: and it will come to pass, at evening time it will be light. ” The coming of the Lord will produce a change on the earth. The light of the earth will disappear.

The way in which לא יהיה אור is to be understood is indicated more precisely by יקרות יקפאון. These words have been interpreted, however, from time immemorial in very different ways. The difference of gender in the combination of the feminine יקרות with the masculine verb יקפּאוּן, and the rarity with which the two words are met with, have both contributed to produce the keri יקרות וקפּאון, in which יקרות has either been taken as a substantive formation from קרר, or the reading וקרות with Vav cop.

has been adopted in the sense of cold, and קפּאון (contraction, rigidity) taken to signify ice. The whole clause has then been either regarded as an antithesis to the preceding one, “It will not be light, but (sc. , there will be) cold and ice” (thus Targ. , Pesh. , Symm. , Itala, Luther, and many others); or taken in this sense, “There will not be light, and cold, and ice, i.

e. , no alternation of light, cold, and ice will occur” (Ewald, Umbr. , Bunsen). But there is intolerable harshness in both these views: in the first, on account of the insertion of יהיה without a negation for the purpose of obtaining an antithesis; in the second, because the combination of light, cold, and ice is illogical and unparalleled in the Scriptures, and cannot be justified even by an appeal to Gen 8:22, since light is no more equivalent to day and night than cold and ice are to frost and heat, or summer and winter.

We must therefore follow Hengstenberg, Hofmann, Koehler, and Kliefoth, who prefer the chethib יקפאון, and read it יקפּאוּן, the imperf. kal of קפא. קפא signifies to congeal, or curdle, and is applied in Exo 15:8 to the heaping up of the waters as it were in solid masses. יקרות, the costly or splendid things are the stars, according to Job 31:26, where the moon is spoken of as יקר הולך, walking in splendour.

The words therefore describe the passing away or vanishing of the brightness of the shining stars, answering to the prophetic announcement, that on the day of judgment, sun, moon, and stars will lose their brightness or be turned into darkness (Joe 3:15; Isa 13:10; Eze 32:7-8, Mat 24:29; Rev 6:12). In Zec 14:7 this day is still more clearly described: first, as solitary in its kind; and secondly, as a marvellous day, on which the light dawns at evening time.

The four clauses of this verse contain only two thoughts; each so expressed in two clauses that the second explains the first. יום אחד, unus dies , is not equivalent to tempus non longum (Cocceius, Hengst.) , nor to “only one day, not two or more” (Koehler), but solitary in its kind, unparalleled by any other, because no second of the kind ever occurs (for the use of 'echâd in this sense, compare Zec 14:9, Eze 7:5, Sol 6:9).

It is necessary to take the words in this manner on account of the following clause, “it will be known to the Lord;” i. e. , not “it will be singled out by Jehovah in the series of days as the appropriate one” (Hitzig and Koehler), nor “it stands under the supervision and guidance of the Lord, so that it does not come unexpectedly, or interfere with His plans” (Hengstenberg), for neither of these is expressed in נודע; but simply, it is known to the Lord according to its true nature, and therefore is distinguished above all other days.

The following definition, “not day and not night,” does not mean that “it will form a turbid mixture of day and night, in which there will prevail a mongrel condition of mysterious, horrifying twilight and gloom” (Koehler); but it will resemble neither day nor night, because the lights of heaven, which regulate day and night, lose their brightness, and at evening time there comes not darkness, but light. The order of nature is reversed: the day resembles the night, and the evening brings light.

At the time when, according to the natural course of events, the dark night should set in, a bright light will dawn. The words do not actually affirm that the alternation of day and night will cease (Jerome, Neumann, Kliefoth); but this may be inferred from a comparison of Rev 21:23 and Rev 21:25.

Zec 14:8-11 Zec 14:8. “And it will come to pass in that day, that living waters will go out from Jerusalem; by half into the eastern sea, and by half into the western sea: in summer and in winter will it be. Zec 14:9. And Jehovah will be King over all the land; in that day will Jehovah be one, and His name one. Zec 14:10. The whole land will turn as the plain from Geba to Rimmon, south of Jerusalem; and this will be high, and dwell in its place, from the gate of Benjamin to the place of the first gate, to the corner gate, and from the tower of Chananeel to the king’s wine-presses.

Zec 14:11. And men will dwell therein, and there will be no more curse (ban); and Jerusalem will dwell securely. ” The living water which issues from Jerusalem, and pours over the land on both sides, flowing both into the eastern or Dead Sea, and into the hinder (i. e. , western) or Mediterranean Sea (see at Joe 2:20), is, according to Joe 3:18 and Eze 47:1-12, a figurative representation of the salvation and blessing which will flow out of Jerusalem, the centre of the kingdom of God, over the holy land, and produce vigorous life on every hand.

According to Joel and Ezekiel, the water issues from the temple (see at Joe 3:18). Zechariah adds, that this will take place in summer and winter, i. e. , will proceed without interruption throughout the whole year, whereas natural streams dry up in summer time in Palestine. To this blessing there is added the higher spiritual blessing, that Jehovah will be King over all the land, and His name alone will be mentioned and revered.

כּל־הארץ does not mean the whole earth, but, as in Zec 14:8 and Zec 14:10, the whole of the land of Canaan or of Israel, which is bounded by the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean. It by no means follows from this, however, that Zechariah is simply speaking of a glorification of Palestine. For Canaan, or the land of Israel, is a type of the kingdom of God in the full extent which it will have on the earth in the last days depicted here.

Jehovah’s kingship does not refer to the kingdom of nature, but to the kingdom of grace, - namely, to the perfect realization of the sovereignty of God, for which the old covenant prepared the way; whereas the old Israel continually rebelled against Jehovah’s being King, both by its sin and its idolatry. This rebellion, i. e. , the apostasy of the nation from its God, is to cease, and the Lord alone will be King and God of the redeemed nation, and be acknowledged by it; His name alone will be mentioned, and not the names of idols as well.

The earthly soil of the kingdom of God will then experience a change. The whole land will be levelled into a plain, and Jerusalem will be elevated in consequence; and Jerusalem, when thus exalted, will be restored in its fullest extent. יסּב (imperf. kal , not niphal ; see Ges. §67, 5), to change like the plain, i. e. , to change so as to become like the plain.

הערבה is not a plain generally, in which case the article would be used generically, but the plain, so called κατ ̓ ἐξοχήν, the plain of the Jordan, or the Ghor (see at Deu 1:1). The definition “from Geba to Rimmon” does not belong to כּערבה (Umbreit, Neum. , Klief.) , but to כּל־הארץ; for there was no plain between Geba and Rimmon, but only an elevated, hilly country.

Geba is the present Jeba , about three hours to the north of Jerusalem (see at Jos 18:24), and was the northern frontier city of the kingdom of Judah (2Ki 23:8). Rimmon , which is distinguished by the clause “to the south of Jerusalem” from the Rimmon in Galilee, the present Rummaneh to the north of Nazareth (see at Jos 19:13), and from the rock of Rimmon, the present village of Rummon , about fifteen Roman miles to the north of Jerusalem (see Jdg 20:45), is the Rimmon situated on the border of Edom, which was given up by the tribe of Judah to the Simeonites (Jos 15:32; Jos 19:7), probably on the site of the present ruins of Um er Rummanim , four hours to the north of Beersheba (see at Jos 15:32).

To וראמה וגו we must supply as the subject Jerusalem , which has been mentioned just before. ראמה is probably only an outwardly expanded form of רמה from רוּם, like קאם in Hos 10:14. The whole land will be lowered, that Jerusalem alone may be high. This is, of course, not to be understood as signifying a physical elevation caused by the depression of the rest of the land; but the description is a figurative one, like the exaltation of the temple mountain above all the mountains in Mic 4:1.

Jerusalem, as the residence of the God-King, is the centre of the kingdom of God; and in the future this is to tower high above all the earth. The figurative description is attached to the natural situation of Jerusalem, which stood upon a broad mountain ridge, and was surrounded by mountains, which were loftier than the city (see Robinson, Palestine ). The exaltation is a figurative representation of the spiritual elevation and glory which it is to receive.

Moreover, Jerusalem is to dwell on its ancient site (ישׁב תּחתּיה, as in Zec 12:6). The meaning of this is not that the exaltation above the surrounding land will be the only alteration that will take place in its situation (Koehler); but, as a comparison with Jer 31:38 clearly shows, that the city will be restored or rebuilt in its former extent, and therefore is to be completely recovered from the ruin brought upon it by conquest and plunder (Zec 14:1).

The boundaries of the city that are mentioned here cannot be determined with perfect certainty. The first definitions relate to the extent of the city from east to west. The starting-point (for the use of למן, see Hag 2:18) is Benjamin’s gate, in the north wall, through which the road to Benjamin and thence to Ephraim ran, so that it was no doubt the same as Ephraim’s gate mentioned in 2Ki 14:13 and Neh 8:16.

The terminus ad quem , on the other hand, is doubtful, viz. , “to the place of the first gate, to the corner gate. ” According to the grammatical construction, עד־שׁער הפּנּים is apparently in apposition to עד־מקום שׁער הר, or a more precise description of the position of the first gate; and Hitzig and Kliefoth have taken the words in this sense. Only we cannot see any reason why the statement “to the place of the first gate” should be introduced at all, if the other statement “to the corner gate” describes the very same terminal point, and that in a clearer manner.

We must therefore assume, as the majority of commentators have done, that the two definitions refer to two different terminal points; in other words, that they define the extent both eastwards and westwards from the Benjamin’s gate, which stood near the centre of the north wall. The corner gate ( sha‛ar happinnı̄m is no doubt the same as sha‛ar happinnâh in 2Ki 14:13 and Jer 31:38) was at the western corner of the north wall.

“The first gate” is supposed to be identical with שׁער היּשׁנה, the gate of the old (city), in Neh 3:6 and Neh 12:39, and its place at the north-eastern corner of the city. The definitions which follow give the extent of the city from north to south. We must supply מן before מגדּל. The tower of Hananeel (Jer 31:38; Neh 3:1; Neh 12:39) stood at the north-east corner of the city (see at Neh 3:1).

The king’s wine-presses were unquestionably in the king’s gardens at the south side of the city (Neh 3:15). In the city so glorified the inhabitants dwell (ישׁבוּ in contrast to going out as captives or as fugitives, Zec 14:2, Zec 14:5), and that as a holy nation, for there will be no more any ban in the city. The ban presupposes sin, and is followed by extermination as a judgment (cf.

Jos 6:18). The city and its inhabitants will therefore be no more exposed to destruction, but will dwell safely, and have no more hostile attacks to fear (cf. Isa 65:18. and Rev 22:3).

Zec 14:8-11 Zec 14:8. “And it will come to pass in that day, that living waters will go out from Jerusalem; by half into the eastern sea, and by half into the western sea: in summer and in winter will it be. Zec 14:9. And Jehovah will be King over all the land; in that day will Jehovah be one, and His name one. Zec 14:10. The whole land will turn as the plain from Geba to Rimmon, south of Jerusalem; and this will be high, and dwell in its place, from the gate of Benjamin to the place of the first gate, to the corner gate, and from the tower of Chananeel to the king’s wine-presses.

Zec 14:11. And men will dwell therein, and there will be no more curse (ban); and Jerusalem will dwell securely. ” The living water which issues from Jerusalem, and pours over the land on both sides, flowing both into the eastern or Dead Sea, and into the hinder (i. e. , western) or Mediterranean Sea (see at Joe 2:20), is, according to Joe 3:18 and Eze 47:1-12, a figurative representation of the salvation and blessing which will flow out of Jerusalem, the centre of the kingdom of God, over the holy land, and produce vigorous life on every hand.

According to Joel and Ezekiel, the water issues from the temple (see at Joe 3:18). Zechariah adds, that this will take place in summer and winter, i. e. , will proceed without interruption throughout the whole year, whereas natural streams dry up in summer time in Palestine. To this blessing there is added the higher spiritual blessing, that Jehovah will be King over all the land, and His name alone will be mentioned and revered.

כּל־הארץ does not mean the whole earth, but, as in Zec 14:8 and Zec 14:10, the whole of the land of Canaan or of Israel, which is bounded by the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean. It by no means follows from this, however, that Zechariah is simply speaking of a glorification of Palestine. For Canaan, or the land of Israel, is a type of the kingdom of God in the full extent which it will have on the earth in the last days depicted here.

Jehovah’s kingship does not refer to the kingdom of nature, but to the kingdom of grace, - namely, to the perfect realization of the sovereignty of God, for which the old covenant prepared the way; whereas the old Israel continually rebelled against Jehovah’s being King, both by its sin and its idolatry. This rebellion, i. e. , the apostasy of the nation from its God, is to cease, and the Lord alone will be King and God of the redeemed nation, and be acknowledged by it; His name alone will be mentioned, and not the names of idols as well.

The earthly soil of the kingdom of God will then experience a change. The whole land will be levelled into a plain, and Jerusalem will be elevated in consequence; and Jerusalem, when thus exalted, will be restored in its fullest extent. יסּב (imperf. kal , not niphal ; see Ges. §67, 5), to change like the plain, i. e. , to change so as to become like the plain.

הערבה is not a plain generally, in which case the article would be used generically, but the plain, so called κατ ̓ ἐξοχήν, the plain of the Jordan, or the Ghor (see at Deu 1:1). The definition “from Geba to Rimmon” does not belong to כּערבה (Umbreit, Neum. , Klief.) , but to כּל־הארץ; for there was no plain between Geba and Rimmon, but only an elevated, hilly country.

Geba is the present Jeba , about three hours to the north of Jerusalem (see at Jos 18:24), and was the northern frontier city of the kingdom of Judah (2Ki 23:8). Rimmon , which is distinguished by the clause “to the south of Jerusalem” from the Rimmon in Galilee, the present Rummaneh to the north of Nazareth (see at Jos 19:13), and from the rock of Rimmon, the present village of Rummon , about fifteen Roman miles to the north of Jerusalem (see Jdg 20:45), is the Rimmon situated on the border of Edom, which was given up by the tribe of Judah to the Simeonites (Jos 15:32; Jos 19:7), probably on the site of the present ruins of Um er Rummanim , four hours to the north of Beersheba (see at Jos 15:32).

To וראמה וגו we must supply as the subject Jerusalem , which has been mentioned just before. ראמה is probably only an outwardly expanded form of רמה from רוּם, like קאם in Hos 10:14. The whole land will be lowered, that Jerusalem alone may be high. This is, of course, not to be understood as signifying a physical elevation caused by the depression of the rest of the land; but the description is a figurative one, like the exaltation of the temple mountain above all the mountains in Mic 4:1.

Jerusalem, as the residence of the God-King, is the centre of the kingdom of God; and in the future this is to tower high above all the earth. The figurative description is attached to the natural situation of Jerusalem, which stood upon a broad mountain ridge, and was surrounded by mountains, which were loftier than the city (see Robinson, Palestine ). The exaltation is a figurative representation of the spiritual elevation and glory which it is to receive.

Moreover, Jerusalem is to dwell on its ancient site (ישׁב תּחתּיה, as in Zec 12:6). The meaning of this is not that the exaltation above the surrounding land will be the only alteration that will take place in its situation (Koehler); but, as a comparison with Jer 31:38 clearly shows, that the city will be restored or rebuilt in its former extent, and therefore is to be completely recovered from the ruin brought upon it by conquest and plunder (Zec 14:1).

The boundaries of the city that are mentioned here cannot be determined with perfect certainty. The first definitions relate to the extent of the city from east to west. The starting-point (for the use of למן, see Hag 2:18) is Benjamin’s gate, in the north wall, through which the road to Benjamin and thence to Ephraim ran, so that it was no doubt the same as Ephraim’s gate mentioned in 2Ki 14:13 and Neh 8:16.

The terminus ad quem , on the other hand, is doubtful, viz. , “to the place of the first gate, to the corner gate. ” According to the grammatical construction, עד־שׁער הפּנּים is apparently in apposition to עד־מקום שׁער הר, or a more precise description of the position of the first gate; and Hitzig and Kliefoth have taken the words in this sense. Only we cannot see any reason why the statement “to the place of the first gate” should be introduced at all, if the other statement “to the corner gate” describes the very same terminal point, and that in a clearer manner.

We must therefore assume, as the majority of commentators have done, that the two definitions refer to two different terminal points; in other words, that they define the extent both eastwards and westwards from the Benjamin’s gate, which stood near the centre of the north wall. The corner gate ( sha‛ar happinnı̄m is no doubt the same as sha‛ar happinnâh in 2Ki 14:13 and Jer 31:38) was at the western corner of the north wall.

“The first gate” is supposed to be identical with שׁער היּשׁנה, the gate of the old (city), in Neh 3:6 and Neh 12:39, and its place at the north-eastern corner of the city. The definitions which follow give the extent of the city from north to south. We must supply מן before מגדּל. The tower of Hananeel (Jer 31:38; Neh 3:1; Neh 12:39) stood at the north-east corner of the city (see at Neh 3:1).

The king’s wine-presses were unquestionably in the king’s gardens at the south side of the city (Neh 3:15). In the city so glorified the inhabitants dwell (ישׁבוּ in contrast to going out as captives or as fugitives, Zec 14:2, Zec 14:5), and that as a holy nation, for there will be no more any ban in the city. The ban presupposes sin, and is followed by extermination as a judgment (cf.

Jos 6:18). The city and its inhabitants will therefore be no more exposed to destruction, but will dwell safely, and have no more hostile attacks to fear (cf. Isa 65:18. and Rev 22:3).

Zec 14:8-11 Zec 14:8. “And it will come to pass in that day, that living waters will go out from Jerusalem; by half into the eastern sea, and by half into the western sea: in summer and in winter will it be. Zec 14:9. And Jehovah will be King over all the land; in that day will Jehovah be one, and His name one. Zec 14:10. The whole land will turn as the plain from Geba to Rimmon, south of Jerusalem; and this will be high, and dwell in its place, from the gate of Benjamin to the place of the first gate, to the corner gate, and from the tower of Chananeel to the king’s wine-presses.

Zec 14:11. And men will dwell therein, and there will be no more curse (ban); and Jerusalem will dwell securely. ” The living water which issues from Jerusalem, and pours over the land on both sides, flowing both into the eastern or Dead Sea, and into the hinder (i. e. , western) or Mediterranean Sea (see at Joe 2:20), is, according to Joe 3:18 and Eze 47:1-12, a figurative representation of the salvation and blessing which will flow out of Jerusalem, the centre of the kingdom of God, over the holy land, and produce vigorous life on every hand.

According to Joel and Ezekiel, the water issues from the temple (see at Joe 3:18). Zechariah adds, that this will take place in summer and winter, i. e. , will proceed without interruption throughout the whole year, whereas natural streams dry up in summer time in Palestine. To this blessing there is added the higher spiritual blessing, that Jehovah will be King over all the land, and His name alone will be mentioned and revered.

כּל־הארץ does not mean the whole earth, but, as in Zec 14:8 and Zec 14:10, the whole of the land of Canaan or of Israel, which is bounded by the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean. It by no means follows from this, however, that Zechariah is simply speaking of a glorification of Palestine. For Canaan, or the land of Israel, is a type of the kingdom of God in the full extent which it will have on the earth in the last days depicted here.

Jehovah’s kingship does not refer to the kingdom of nature, but to the kingdom of grace, - namely, to the perfect realization of the sovereignty of God, for which the old covenant prepared the way; whereas the old Israel continually rebelled against Jehovah’s being King, both by its sin and its idolatry. This rebellion, i. e. , the apostasy of the nation from its God, is to cease, and the Lord alone will be King and God of the redeemed nation, and be acknowledged by it; His name alone will be mentioned, and not the names of idols as well.

The earthly soil of the kingdom of God will then experience a change. The whole land will be levelled into a plain, and Jerusalem will be elevated in consequence; and Jerusalem, when thus exalted, will be restored in its fullest extent. יסּב (imperf. kal , not niphal ; see Ges. §67, 5), to change like the plain, i. e. , to change so as to become like the plain.

הערבה is not a plain generally, in which case the article would be used generically, but the plain, so called κατ ̓ ἐξοχήν, the plain of the Jordan, or the Ghor (see at Deu 1:1). The definition “from Geba to Rimmon” does not belong to כּערבה (Umbreit, Neum. , Klief.) , but to כּל־הארץ; for there was no plain between Geba and Rimmon, but only an elevated, hilly country.

Geba is the present Jeba , about three hours to the north of Jerusalem (see at Jos 18:24), and was the northern frontier city of the kingdom of Judah (2Ki 23:8). Rimmon , which is distinguished by the clause “to the south of Jerusalem” from the Rimmon in Galilee, the present Rummaneh to the north of Nazareth (see at Jos 19:13), and from the rock of Rimmon, the present village of Rummon , about fifteen Roman miles to the north of Jerusalem (see Jdg 20:45), is the Rimmon situated on the border of Edom, which was given up by the tribe of Judah to the Simeonites (Jos 15:32; Jos 19:7), probably on the site of the present ruins of Um er Rummanim , four hours to the north of Beersheba (see at Jos 15:32).

To וראמה וגו we must supply as the subject Jerusalem , which has been mentioned just before. ראמה is probably only an outwardly expanded form of רמה from רוּם, like קאם in Hos 10:14. The whole land will be lowered, that Jerusalem alone may be high. This is, of course, not to be understood as signifying a physical elevation caused by the depression of the rest of the land; but the description is a figurative one, like the exaltation of the temple mountain above all the mountains in Mic 4:1.

Jerusalem, as the residence of the God-King, is the centre of the kingdom of God; and in the future this is to tower high above all the earth. The figurative description is attached to the natural situation of Jerusalem, which stood upon a broad mountain ridge, and was surrounded by mountains, which were loftier than the city (see Robinson, Palestine ). The exaltation is a figurative representation of the spiritual elevation and glory which it is to receive.

Moreover, Jerusalem is to dwell on its ancient site (ישׁב תּחתּיה, as in Zec 12:6). The meaning of this is not that the exaltation above the surrounding land will be the only alteration that will take place in its situation (Koehler); but, as a comparison with Jer 31:38 clearly shows, that the city will be restored or rebuilt in its former extent, and therefore is to be completely recovered from the ruin brought upon it by conquest and plunder (Zec 14:1).

The boundaries of the city that are mentioned here cannot be determined with perfect certainty. The first definitions relate to the extent of the city from east to west. The starting-point (for the use of למן, see Hag 2:18) is Benjamin’s gate, in the north wall, through which the road to Benjamin and thence to Ephraim ran, so that it was no doubt the same as Ephraim’s gate mentioned in 2Ki 14:13 and Neh 8:16.

The terminus ad quem , on the other hand, is doubtful, viz. , “to the place of the first gate, to the corner gate. ” According to the grammatical construction, עד־שׁער הפּנּים is apparently in apposition to עד־מקום שׁער הר, or a more precise description of the position of the first gate; and Hitzig and Kliefoth have taken the words in this sense. Only we cannot see any reason why the statement “to the place of the first gate” should be introduced at all, if the other statement “to the corner gate” describes the very same terminal point, and that in a clearer manner.

We must therefore assume, as the majority of commentators have done, that the two definitions refer to two different terminal points; in other words, that they define the extent both eastwards and westwards from the Benjamin’s gate, which stood near the centre of the north wall. The corner gate ( sha‛ar happinnı̄m is no doubt the same as sha‛ar happinnâh in 2Ki 14:13 and Jer 31:38) was at the western corner of the north wall.

“The first gate” is supposed to be identical with שׁער היּשׁנה, the gate of the old (city), in Neh 3:6 and Neh 12:39, and its place at the north-eastern corner of the city. The definitions which follow give the extent of the city from north to south. We must supply מן before מגדּל. The tower of Hananeel (Jer 31:38; Neh 3:1; Neh 12:39) stood at the north-east corner of the city (see at Neh 3:1).

The king’s wine-presses were unquestionably in the king’s gardens at the south side of the city (Neh 3:15). In the city so glorified the inhabitants dwell (ישׁבוּ in contrast to going out as captives or as fugitives, Zec 14:2, Zec 14:5), and that as a holy nation, for there will be no more any ban in the city. The ban presupposes sin, and is followed by extermination as a judgment (cf.

Jos 6:18). The city and its inhabitants will therefore be no more exposed to destruction, but will dwell safely, and have no more hostile attacks to fear (cf. Isa 65:18. and Rev 22:3).

Zec 14:8-11 Zec 14:8. “And it will come to pass in that day, that living waters will go out from Jerusalem; by half into the eastern sea, and by half into the western sea: in summer and in winter will it be. Zec 14:9. And Jehovah will be King over all the land; in that day will Jehovah be one, and His name one. Zec 14:10. The whole land will turn as the plain from Geba to Rimmon, south of Jerusalem; and this will be high, and dwell in its place, from the gate of Benjamin to the place of the first gate, to the corner gate, and from the tower of Chananeel to the king’s wine-presses.

Zec 14:11. And men will dwell therein, and there will be no more curse (ban); and Jerusalem will dwell securely. ” The living water which issues from Jerusalem, and pours over the land on both sides, flowing both into the eastern or Dead Sea, and into the hinder (i. e. , western) or Mediterranean Sea (see at Joe 2:20), is, according to Joe 3:18 and Eze 47:1-12, a figurative representation of the salvation and blessing which will flow out of Jerusalem, the centre of the kingdom of God, over the holy land, and produce vigorous life on every hand.

According to Joel and Ezekiel, the water issues from the temple (see at Joe 3:18). Zechariah adds, that this will take place in summer and winter, i. e. , will proceed without interruption throughout the whole year, whereas natural streams dry up in summer time in Palestine. To this blessing there is added the higher spiritual blessing, that Jehovah will be King over all the land, and His name alone will be mentioned and revered.

כּל־הארץ does not mean the whole earth, but, as in Zec 14:8 and Zec 14:10, the whole of the land of Canaan or of Israel, which is bounded by the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean. It by no means follows from this, however, that Zechariah is simply speaking of a glorification of Palestine. For Canaan, or the land of Israel, is a type of the kingdom of God in the full extent which it will have on the earth in the last days depicted here.

Jehovah’s kingship does not refer to the kingdom of nature, but to the kingdom of grace, - namely, to the perfect realization of the sovereignty of God, for which the old covenant prepared the way; whereas the old Israel continually rebelled against Jehovah’s being King, both by its sin and its idolatry. This rebellion, i. e. , the apostasy of the nation from its God, is to cease, and the Lord alone will be King and God of the redeemed nation, and be acknowledged by it; His name alone will be mentioned, and not the names of idols as well.

The earthly soil of the kingdom of God will then experience a change. The whole land will be levelled into a plain, and Jerusalem will be elevated in consequence; and Jerusalem, when thus exalted, will be restored in its fullest extent. יסּב (imperf. kal , not niphal ; see Ges. §67, 5), to change like the plain, i. e. , to change so as to become like the plain.

הערבה is not a plain generally, in which case the article would be used generically, but the plain, so called κατ ̓ ἐξοχήν, the plain of the Jordan, or the Ghor (see at Deu 1:1). The definition “from Geba to Rimmon” does not belong to כּערבה (Umbreit, Neum. , Klief.) , but to כּל־הארץ; for there was no plain between Geba and Rimmon, but only an elevated, hilly country.

Geba is the present Jeba , about three hours to the north of Jerusalem (see at Jos 18:24), and was the northern frontier city of the kingdom of Judah (2Ki 23:8). Rimmon , which is distinguished by the clause “to the south of Jerusalem” from the Rimmon in Galilee, the present Rummaneh to the north of Nazareth (see at Jos 19:13), and from the rock of Rimmon, the present village of Rummon , about fifteen Roman miles to the north of Jerusalem (see Jdg 20:45), is the Rimmon situated on the border of Edom, which was given up by the tribe of Judah to the Simeonites (Jos 15:32; Jos 19:7), probably on the site of the present ruins of Um er Rummanim , four hours to the north of Beersheba (see at Jos 15:32).

To וראמה וגו we must supply as the subject Jerusalem , which has been mentioned just before. ראמה is probably only an outwardly expanded form of רמה from רוּם, like קאם in Hos 10:14. The whole land will be lowered, that Jerusalem alone may be high. This is, of course, not to be understood as signifying a physical elevation caused by the depression of the rest of the land; but the description is a figurative one, like the exaltation of the temple mountain above all the mountains in Mic 4:1.

Jerusalem, as the residence of the God-King, is the centre of the kingdom of God; and in the future this is to tower high above all the earth. The figurative description is attached to the natural situation of Jerusalem, which stood upon a broad mountain ridge, and was surrounded by mountains, which were loftier than the city (see Robinson, Palestine ). The exaltation is a figurative representation of the spiritual elevation and glory which it is to receive.

Moreover, Jerusalem is to dwell on its ancient site (ישׁב תּחתּיה, as in Zec 12:6). The meaning of this is not that the exaltation above the surrounding land will be the only alteration that will take place in its situation (Koehler); but, as a comparison with Jer 31:38 clearly shows, that the city will be restored or rebuilt in its former extent, and therefore is to be completely recovered from the ruin brought upon it by conquest and plunder (Zec 14:1).

The boundaries of the city that are mentioned here cannot be determined with perfect certainty. The first definitions relate to the extent of the city from east to west. The starting-point (for the use of למן, see Hag 2:18) is Benjamin’s gate, in the north wall, through which the road to Benjamin and thence to Ephraim ran, so that it was no doubt the same as Ephraim’s gate mentioned in 2Ki 14:13 and Neh 8:16.

The terminus ad quem , on the other hand, is doubtful, viz. , “to the place of the first gate, to the corner gate. ” According to the grammatical construction, עד־שׁער הפּנּים is apparently in apposition to עד־מקום שׁער הר, or a more precise description of the position of the first gate; and Hitzig and Kliefoth have taken the words in this sense. Only we cannot see any reason why the statement “to the place of the first gate” should be introduced at all, if the other statement “to the corner gate” describes the very same terminal point, and that in a clearer manner.

We must therefore assume, as the majority of commentators have done, that the two definitions refer to two different terminal points; in other words, that they define the extent both eastwards and westwards from the Benjamin’s gate, which stood near the centre of the north wall. The corner gate ( sha‛ar happinnı̄m is no doubt the same as sha‛ar happinnâh in 2Ki 14:13 and Jer 31:38) was at the western corner of the north wall.

“The first gate” is supposed to be identical with שׁער היּשׁנה, the gate of the old (city), in Neh 3:6 and Neh 12:39, and its place at the north-eastern corner of the city. The definitions which follow give the extent of the city from north to south. We must supply מן before מגדּל. The tower of Hananeel (Jer 31:38; Neh 3:1; Neh 12:39) stood at the north-east corner of the city (see at Neh 3:1).

The king’s wine-presses were unquestionably in the king’s gardens at the south side of the city (Neh 3:15). In the city so glorified the inhabitants dwell (ישׁבוּ in contrast to going out as captives or as fugitives, Zec 14:2, Zec 14:5), and that as a holy nation, for there will be no more any ban in the city. The ban presupposes sin, and is followed by extermination as a judgment (cf.

Jos 6:18). The city and its inhabitants will therefore be no more exposed to destruction, but will dwell safely, and have no more hostile attacks to fear (cf. Isa 65:18. and Rev 22:3).

Zec 14:12-15 Punishment of the hostile nations. - Zec 14:12. “And this will be the stroke wherewith Jehovah will smite all the nations which have made war upon Jerusalem: its flesh will rot while it stands upon its feet, and its eyes will rot in their sockets, and its tongue will rot in their mouth. Zec 14:13. And it will come to pass in that day, the confusion from Jehovah will be great among them, and they will lay hold of one another’s hand, and his hand will rise up against the hand of his neighbour.

Zec 14:14. And Judah will also fight at Jerusalem, and the riches of all nations will be gathered together round about, gold and silver and clothes in great abundance. Zec 14:15. And so will be the stroke of the horse, of the mule, of the camel, and of the ass, and of all the cattle, that shall be in the same tents, like this stroke. ” To the description of the salvation there is appended here as the obverse side the execution of the punishment upon the foe, which was only indicated in Zec 14:3.

The nations which made war against Jerusalem shall be destroyed partly by the rotting away of their bodies even while they are alive (Zec 14:12), partly by mutual destruction(Zec 14:13), and partly by Judah’s fighting against them (Zec 14:14). To express the idea of their utter destruction, all the different kinds of plagues and strokes by which nations can be destroyed are grouped together.

In the first rank we have two extraordinary strokes inflicted upon them by God. Maggēphâh always denotes a plague or punishment sent by God (Exo 9:14; Num 14:37; 1Sa 6:4). המק, the inf. abs. hiphil in the place of the finite verb: “He (Jehovah) makes its flesh rot while it stands upon its feet,” i. e. , He causes putrefaction to take place even while the body is alive.

The singular suffixes are to be taken distributively: the flesh of every nation or every foe. To strengthen the threat there is added the rotting of the eyes which spied out the nakednesses of the city of God, and of the tongue which blasphemed God and His people (cf. Isa 37:6). The other kind of destruction is effected by a panic terror, through which the foes are thrown into confusion, so that they turn their weapons against one another and destroy one another, - an occurrence of which several examples are furnished by the Israelitish history (compare Jdg 7:22; 1Sa 14:20, and especially that in 2Ch 20:23, in the reign of Jehoshaphat, to which the description given by our prophet refers).

The grasp of the other’s hand is a hostile one in this case, the object being to seize him, and, having lifted his hand, to strike him dead. Zec 14:14 is translated by Luther and many others, after the Targum and Vulgate, “Judah will fight against Jerusalem,” on the ground that נלחם ב generally signifies “to fight against a person. ” But this by no means suits the context here, since those who fight against Jerusalem are “all the heathen” (Zec 14:2), and nothing is said about any opposition between Jerusalem and Judah.

ב is used here in a local sense, as in Exo 17:8, with נלחם, and the thought is this: Not only will Jehovah smite the enemies miraculously with plagues and confusion, but Judah will also take part in the conflict against them, and fight against them in Jerusalem, which they have taken. Judah denotes the whole of the covenant nation, and not merely the inhabitants of the country in distinction from the inhabitants of the capital.

Thus will Judah seize as booty the costly possessions of the heathen, and thereby visit the heathen with ample retribution for the plundering of Jerusalem (Zec 14:2). And the destruction of the enemy will be so complete, that even their beasts of burden, and those used in warfare, and all their cattle, will be destroyed by the same plague as the men; just as in the case of the ban, not only the men, but also their cattle, were put to death (cf.

Jos 7:24). Moreover, there is hardly any need for the express remark, that this description is only a rhetorically individualizing amplification of the thought that the enemies of the kingdom of God are to be utterly destroyed - namely, those who do not give up their hostility and turn unto God. For the verses which follow show very clearly that it is only to these that the threat of punishment refers.

Zec 14:12-15 Punishment of the hostile nations. - Zec 14:12. “And this will be the stroke wherewith Jehovah will smite all the nations which have made war upon Jerusalem: its flesh will rot while it stands upon its feet, and its eyes will rot in their sockets, and its tongue will rot in their mouth. Zec 14:13. And it will come to pass in that day, the confusion from Jehovah will be great among them, and they will lay hold of one another’s hand, and his hand will rise up against the hand of his neighbour.

Zec 14:14. And Judah will also fight at Jerusalem, and the riches of all nations will be gathered together round about, gold and silver and clothes in great abundance. Zec 14:15. And so will be the stroke of the horse, of the mule, of the camel, and of the ass, and of all the cattle, that shall be in the same tents, like this stroke. ” To the description of the salvation there is appended here as the obverse side the execution of the punishment upon the foe, which was only indicated in Zec 14:3.

The nations which made war against Jerusalem shall be destroyed partly by the rotting away of their bodies even while they are alive (Zec 14:12), partly by mutual destruction(Zec 14:13), and partly by Judah’s fighting against them (Zec 14:14). To express the idea of their utter destruction, all the different kinds of plagues and strokes by which nations can be destroyed are grouped together.

In the first rank we have two extraordinary strokes inflicted upon them by God. Maggēphâh always denotes a plague or punishment sent by God (Exo 9:14; Num 14:37; 1Sa 6:4). המק, the inf. abs. hiphil in the place of the finite verb: “He (Jehovah) makes its flesh rot while it stands upon its feet,” i. e. , He causes putrefaction to take place even while the body is alive.

The singular suffixes are to be taken distributively: the flesh of every nation or every foe. To strengthen the threat there is added the rotting of the eyes which spied out the nakednesses of the city of God, and of the tongue which blasphemed God and His people (cf. Isa 37:6). The other kind of destruction is effected by a panic terror, through which the foes are thrown into confusion, so that they turn their weapons against one another and destroy one another, - an occurrence of which several examples are furnished by the Israelitish history (compare Jdg 7:22; 1Sa 14:20, and especially that in 2Ch 20:23, in the reign of Jehoshaphat, to which the description given by our prophet refers).

The grasp of the other’s hand is a hostile one in this case, the object being to seize him, and, having lifted his hand, to strike him dead. Zec 14:14 is translated by Luther and many others, after the Targum and Vulgate, “Judah will fight against Jerusalem,” on the ground that נלחם ב generally signifies “to fight against a person. ” But this by no means suits the context here, since those who fight against Jerusalem are “all the heathen” (Zec 14:2), and nothing is said about any opposition between Jerusalem and Judah.

ב is used here in a local sense, as in Exo 17:8, with נלחם, and the thought is this: Not only will Jehovah smite the enemies miraculously with plagues and confusion, but Judah will also take part in the conflict against them, and fight against them in Jerusalem, which they have taken. Judah denotes the whole of the covenant nation, and not merely the inhabitants of the country in distinction from the inhabitants of the capital.

Thus will Judah seize as booty the costly possessions of the heathen, and thereby visit the heathen with ample retribution for the plundering of Jerusalem (Zec 14:2). And the destruction of the enemy will be so complete, that even their beasts of burden, and those used in warfare, and all their cattle, will be destroyed by the same plague as the men; just as in the case of the ban, not only the men, but also their cattle, were put to death (cf.

Jos 7:24). Moreover, there is hardly any need for the express remark, that this description is only a rhetorically individualizing amplification of the thought that the enemies of the kingdom of God are to be utterly destroyed - namely, those who do not give up their hostility and turn unto God. For the verses which follow show very clearly that it is only to these that the threat of punishment refers.

Zec 14:12-15 Punishment of the hostile nations. - Zec 14:12. “And this will be the stroke wherewith Jehovah will smite all the nations which have made war upon Jerusalem: its flesh will rot while it stands upon its feet, and its eyes will rot in their sockets, and its tongue will rot in their mouth. Zec 14:13. And it will come to pass in that day, the confusion from Jehovah will be great among them, and they will lay hold of one another’s hand, and his hand will rise up against the hand of his neighbour.

Zec 14:14. And Judah will also fight at Jerusalem, and the riches of all nations will be gathered together round about, gold and silver and clothes in great abundance. Zec 14:15. And so will be the stroke of the horse, of the mule, of the camel, and of the ass, and of all the cattle, that shall be in the same tents, like this stroke. ” To the description of the salvation there is appended here as the obverse side the execution of the punishment upon the foe, which was only indicated in Zec 14:3.

The nations which made war against Jerusalem shall be destroyed partly by the rotting away of their bodies even while they are alive (Zec 14:12), partly by mutual destruction(Zec 14:13), and partly by Judah’s fighting against them (Zec 14:14). To express the idea of their utter destruction, all the different kinds of plagues and strokes by which nations can be destroyed are grouped together.

In the first rank we have two extraordinary strokes inflicted upon them by God. Maggēphâh always denotes a plague or punishment sent by God (Exo 9:14; Num 14:37; 1Sa 6:4). המק, the inf. abs. hiphil in the place of the finite verb: “He (Jehovah) makes its flesh rot while it stands upon its feet,” i. e. , He causes putrefaction to take place even while the body is alive.

The singular suffixes are to be taken distributively: the flesh of every nation or every foe. To strengthen the threat there is added the rotting of the eyes which spied out the nakednesses of the city of God, and of the tongue which blasphemed God and His people (cf. Isa 37:6). The other kind of destruction is effected by a panic terror, through which the foes are thrown into confusion, so that they turn their weapons against one another and destroy one another, - an occurrence of which several examples are furnished by the Israelitish history (compare Jdg 7:22; 1Sa 14:20, and especially that in 2Ch 20:23, in the reign of Jehoshaphat, to which the description given by our prophet refers).

The grasp of the other’s hand is a hostile one in this case, the object being to seize him, and, having lifted his hand, to strike him dead. Zec 14:14 is translated by Luther and many others, after the Targum and Vulgate, “Judah will fight against Jerusalem,” on the ground that נלחם ב generally signifies “to fight against a person. ” But this by no means suits the context here, since those who fight against Jerusalem are “all the heathen” (Zec 14:2), and nothing is said about any opposition between Jerusalem and Judah.

ב is used here in a local sense, as in Exo 17:8, with נלחם, and the thought is this: Not only will Jehovah smite the enemies miraculously with plagues and confusion, but Judah will also take part in the conflict against them, and fight against them in Jerusalem, which they have taken. Judah denotes the whole of the covenant nation, and not merely the inhabitants of the country in distinction from the inhabitants of the capital.

Thus will Judah seize as booty the costly possessions of the heathen, and thereby visit the heathen with ample retribution for the plundering of Jerusalem (Zec 14:2). And the destruction of the enemy will be so complete, that even their beasts of burden, and those used in warfare, and all their cattle, will be destroyed by the same plague as the men; just as in the case of the ban, not only the men, but also their cattle, were put to death (cf.

Jos 7:24). Moreover, there is hardly any need for the express remark, that this description is only a rhetorically individualizing amplification of the thought that the enemies of the kingdom of God are to be utterly destroyed - namely, those who do not give up their hostility and turn unto God. For the verses which follow show very clearly that it is only to these that the threat of punishment refers.

Zec 14:12-15 Punishment of the hostile nations. - Zec 14:12. “And this will be the stroke wherewith Jehovah will smite all the nations which have made war upon Jerusalem: its flesh will rot while it stands upon its feet, and its eyes will rot in their sockets, and its tongue will rot in their mouth. Zec 14:13. And it will come to pass in that day, the confusion from Jehovah will be great among them, and they will lay hold of one another’s hand, and his hand will rise up against the hand of his neighbour.

Zec 14:14. And Judah will also fight at Jerusalem, and the riches of all nations will be gathered together round about, gold and silver and clothes in great abundance. Zec 14:15. And so will be the stroke of the horse, of the mule, of the camel, and of the ass, and of all the cattle, that shall be in the same tents, like this stroke. ” To the description of the salvation there is appended here as the obverse side the execution of the punishment upon the foe, which was only indicated in Zec 14:3.

The nations which made war against Jerusalem shall be destroyed partly by the rotting away of their bodies even while they are alive (Zec 14:12), partly by mutual destruction(Zec 14:13), and partly by Judah’s fighting against them (Zec 14:14). To express the idea of their utter destruction, all the different kinds of plagues and strokes by which nations can be destroyed are grouped together.

In the first rank we have two extraordinary strokes inflicted upon them by God. Maggēphâh always denotes a plague or punishment sent by God (Exo 9:14; Num 14:37; 1Sa 6:4). המק, the inf. abs. hiphil in the place of the finite verb: “He (Jehovah) makes its flesh rot while it stands upon its feet,” i. e. , He causes putrefaction to take place even while the body is alive.

The singular suffixes are to be taken distributively: the flesh of every nation or every foe. To strengthen the threat there is added the rotting of the eyes which spied out the nakednesses of the city of God, and of the tongue which blasphemed God and His people (cf. Isa 37:6). The other kind of destruction is effected by a panic terror, through which the foes are thrown into confusion, so that they turn their weapons against one another and destroy one another, - an occurrence of which several examples are furnished by the Israelitish history (compare Jdg 7:22; 1Sa 14:20, and especially that in 2Ch 20:23, in the reign of Jehoshaphat, to which the description given by our prophet refers).

The grasp of the other’s hand is a hostile one in this case, the object being to seize him, and, having lifted his hand, to strike him dead. Zec 14:14 is translated by Luther and many others, after the Targum and Vulgate, “Judah will fight against Jerusalem,” on the ground that נלחם ב generally signifies “to fight against a person. ” But this by no means suits the context here, since those who fight against Jerusalem are “all the heathen” (Zec 14:2), and nothing is said about any opposition between Jerusalem and Judah.

ב is used here in a local sense, as in Exo 17:8, with נלחם, and the thought is this: Not only will Jehovah smite the enemies miraculously with plagues and confusion, but Judah will also take part in the conflict against them, and fight against them in Jerusalem, which they have taken. Judah denotes the whole of the covenant nation, and not merely the inhabitants of the country in distinction from the inhabitants of the capital.

Thus will Judah seize as booty the costly possessions of the heathen, and thereby visit the heathen with ample retribution for the plundering of Jerusalem (Zec 14:2). And the destruction of the enemy will be so complete, that even their beasts of burden, and those used in warfare, and all their cattle, will be destroyed by the same plague as the men; just as in the case of the ban, not only the men, but also their cattle, were put to death (cf.

Jos 7:24). Moreover, there is hardly any need for the express remark, that this description is only a rhetorically individualizing amplification of the thought that the enemies of the kingdom of God are to be utterly destroyed - namely, those who do not give up their hostility and turn unto God. For the verses which follow show very clearly that it is only to these that the threat of punishment refers.

Zec 14:16-19 Conversion of the heathen. - Zec 14:16. “And it will come to pass, that every remnant of all the nations which came against Jerusalem will go up year by year to worship the King Jehovah of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. Zec 14:17. And it will come to pass, that whoever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King Jehovah of hosts, upon them there will be no rain.

Zec 14:18. And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, then also not upon them; there will be (upon them) the plague with which Jehovah will plague all nations which do not go up to keep the feast of tabernacles. Zec 14:19. This will be the sin of Egypt, and the sin of all the nations, which do not go up to keep the feast of tabernacles. ” The heathen will not be all destroyed by the judgment; but a portion of them will be converted.

This portion is called “the whole remnant of those who marched against Jerusalem” (בּוא על as in Zec 12:9). It will turn to the worship of the Lord. The construction in Zec 14:16 is anacolouthic: כּל־הנּותר, with its further definition, is placed at the head absolutely, whilst the predicate is attached in the form of an apodosis with ועלוּ. The entrance of the heathen into the kingdom of God is depicted under the figure of the festal journeys to the sanctuary of Jehovah, which had to be repeated year by year.

Of the feasts which they will keep there every year (on מדּי, see Delitzsch on Isa 66:23), the feast of tabernacles is mentioned, not because it occurred in the autumn, and the autumn was the best time for travelling (Theod. Mops. , Theodoret, Grot. , Ros.) , or because it was the greatest feast of rejoicing kept by the Jews, or for any other outward reason, but simply on account of its internal significance, which we must not seek for, however, as Koehler does, in its agrarian importance as a feast of thanksgiving for the termination of the harvest, and of the gathering in of the fruit; but rather in its historical allusion as a feast of thanksgiving for the gracious protection of Israel in its wanderings through the desert, and its introduction into the promised land with its abundance of glorious blessings, whereby it foreshadowed the blessedness to be enjoyed in the kingdom of God (see my bibl.

Archäologie , i. p. 414ff.) This feast will be kept by the heathen who have come to believe in the living God, to thank the Lord for His grace, that He has brought them out of the wanderings of this life into the blessedness of His kingdom of peace. With this view of the significance of the feast of tabernacles, it is also possible to harmonize the punishment threatened in Zec 14:17 for neglecting to keep this feast, - namely, that the rain will not be (come) upon the families of the nations which absent themselves from this feast.

For rain is an individualizing expression denoting the blessing of God generally, and is mentioned here with reference to the fact, that without rain the fruits of the land, on the enjoyment of which our happiness depends, will not flourish. The meaning of the threat is, therefore, that those families which do not come to worship the Lord, will be punished by Him with the withdrawal of the blessings of His grace.

The Egyptians are mentioned again, by way of example, as those upon whom the punishment will fall. So far as the construction of this verse is concerned, ולע באה is added to strengthen תעלה and לא עליהם contains the apodosis to the conditional clause introduced with אם, to which יהיה הגּשׁם is easily supplied from Zec 14:17. The positive clause which follows is then appended as an asyndeton: It (the fact that the rain does not come) will be the plague, etc.

The prophet mentions Egypt especially, not because of the fact in natural history, that this land owes its fertility not to the rain, but to the overflowing of the Nile, - a notion which has given rise to the most forced interpretations; but as the nation which showed the greatest hostility to Jehovah and His people in the olden time, and for the purpose of showing that this nation was also to attain to a full participation in the blessings of salvation bestowed upon Israel (cf. Isa 19:19.)

In Zec 14:19 this thought is rounded off by way of conclusion. זאת, this, namely the fact that no rain falls, will be the sin of Egypt, etc. חטּאת, the sin, including its consequences, or in its effects, as in Num 32:23, etc. Moreover, we must not infer from the way in which this is carried out in Zec 14:17-19, that at the time of the completion of the kingdom of God there will still be heathen, who will abstain from the worship of the true God; but the thought is simply this: there will then be no more room for heathenism within the sphere of the kingdom of God.

To this there is appended the thought, in Zec 14:20, Zec 14:21, that everything unholy will then be removed from that kingdom.

Zec 14:16-19 Conversion of the heathen. - Zec 14:16. “And it will come to pass, that every remnant of all the nations which came against Jerusalem will go up year by year to worship the King Jehovah of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. Zec 14:17. And it will come to pass, that whoever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King Jehovah of hosts, upon them there will be no rain.

Zec 14:18. And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, then also not upon them; there will be (upon them) the plague with which Jehovah will plague all nations which do not go up to keep the feast of tabernacles. Zec 14:19. This will be the sin of Egypt, and the sin of all the nations, which do not go up to keep the feast of tabernacles. ” The heathen will not be all destroyed by the judgment; but a portion of them will be converted.

This portion is called “the whole remnant of those who marched against Jerusalem” (בּוא על as in Zec 12:9). It will turn to the worship of the Lord. The construction in Zec 14:16 is anacolouthic: כּל־הנּותר, with its further definition, is placed at the head absolutely, whilst the predicate is attached in the form of an apodosis with ועלוּ. The entrance of the heathen into the kingdom of God is depicted under the figure of the festal journeys to the sanctuary of Jehovah, which had to be repeated year by year.

Of the feasts which they will keep there every year (on מדּי, see Delitzsch on Isa 66:23), the feast of tabernacles is mentioned, not because it occurred in the autumn, and the autumn was the best time for travelling (Theod. Mops. , Theodoret, Grot. , Ros.) , or because it was the greatest feast of rejoicing kept by the Jews, or for any other outward reason, but simply on account of its internal significance, which we must not seek for, however, as Koehler does, in its agrarian importance as a feast of thanksgiving for the termination of the harvest, and of the gathering in of the fruit; but rather in its historical allusion as a feast of thanksgiving for the gracious protection of Israel in its wanderings through the desert, and its introduction into the promised land with its abundance of glorious blessings, whereby it foreshadowed the blessedness to be enjoyed in the kingdom of God (see my bibl.

Archäologie , i. p. 414ff.) This feast will be kept by the heathen who have come to believe in the living God, to thank the Lord for His grace, that He has brought them out of the wanderings of this life into the blessedness of His kingdom of peace. With this view of the significance of the feast of tabernacles, it is also possible to harmonize the punishment threatened in Zec 14:17 for neglecting to keep this feast, - namely, that the rain will not be (come) upon the families of the nations which absent themselves from this feast.

For rain is an individualizing expression denoting the blessing of God generally, and is mentioned here with reference to the fact, that without rain the fruits of the land, on the enjoyment of which our happiness depends, will not flourish. The meaning of the threat is, therefore, that those families which do not come to worship the Lord, will be punished by Him with the withdrawal of the blessings of His grace.

The Egyptians are mentioned again, by way of example, as those upon whom the punishment will fall. So far as the construction of this verse is concerned, ולע באה is added to strengthen תעלה and לא עליהם contains the apodosis to the conditional clause introduced with אם, to which יהיה הגּשׁם is easily supplied from Zec 14:17. The positive clause which follows is then appended as an asyndeton: It (the fact that the rain does not come) will be the plague, etc.

The prophet mentions Egypt especially, not because of the fact in natural history, that this land owes its fertility not to the rain, but to the overflowing of the Nile, - a notion which has given rise to the most forced interpretations; but as the nation which showed the greatest hostility to Jehovah and His people in the olden time, and for the purpose of showing that this nation was also to attain to a full participation in the blessings of salvation bestowed upon Israel (cf. Isa 19:19.)

In Zec 14:19 this thought is rounded off by way of conclusion. זאת, this, namely the fact that no rain falls, will be the sin of Egypt, etc. חטּאת, the sin, including its consequences, or in its effects, as in Num 32:23, etc. Moreover, we must not infer from the way in which this is carried out in Zec 14:17-19, that at the time of the completion of the kingdom of God there will still be heathen, who will abstain from the worship of the true God; but the thought is simply this: there will then be no more room for heathenism within the sphere of the kingdom of God.

To this there is appended the thought, in Zec 14:20, Zec 14:21, that everything unholy will then be removed from that kingdom.

Zec 14:16-19 Conversion of the heathen. - Zec 14:16. “And it will come to pass, that every remnant of all the nations which came against Jerusalem will go up year by year to worship the King Jehovah of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. Zec 14:17. And it will come to pass, that whoever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King Jehovah of hosts, upon them there will be no rain.

Zec 14:18. And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, then also not upon them; there will be (upon them) the plague with which Jehovah will plague all nations which do not go up to keep the feast of tabernacles. Zec 14:19. This will be the sin of Egypt, and the sin of all the nations, which do not go up to keep the feast of tabernacles. ” The heathen will not be all destroyed by the judgment; but a portion of them will be converted.

This portion is called “the whole remnant of those who marched against Jerusalem” (בּוא על as in Zec 12:9). It will turn to the worship of the Lord. The construction in Zec 14:16 is anacolouthic: כּל־הנּותר, with its further definition, is placed at the head absolutely, whilst the predicate is attached in the form of an apodosis with ועלוּ. The entrance of the heathen into the kingdom of God is depicted under the figure of the festal journeys to the sanctuary of Jehovah, which had to be repeated year by year.

Of the feasts which they will keep there every year (on מדּי, see Delitzsch on Isa 66:23), the feast of tabernacles is mentioned, not because it occurred in the autumn, and the autumn was the best time for travelling (Theod. Mops. , Theodoret, Grot. , Ros.) , or because it was the greatest feast of rejoicing kept by the Jews, or for any other outward reason, but simply on account of its internal significance, which we must not seek for, however, as Koehler does, in its agrarian importance as a feast of thanksgiving for the termination of the harvest, and of the gathering in of the fruit; but rather in its historical allusion as a feast of thanksgiving for the gracious protection of Israel in its wanderings through the desert, and its introduction into the promised land with its abundance of glorious blessings, whereby it foreshadowed the blessedness to be enjoyed in the kingdom of God (see my bibl.

Archäologie , i. p. 414ff.) This feast will be kept by the heathen who have come to believe in the living God, to thank the Lord for His grace, that He has brought them out of the wanderings of this life into the blessedness of His kingdom of peace. With this view of the significance of the feast of tabernacles, it is also possible to harmonize the punishment threatened in Zec 14:17 for neglecting to keep this feast, - namely, that the rain will not be (come) upon the families of the nations which absent themselves from this feast.

For rain is an individualizing expression denoting the blessing of God generally, and is mentioned here with reference to the fact, that without rain the fruits of the land, on the enjoyment of which our happiness depends, will not flourish. The meaning of the threat is, therefore, that those families which do not come to worship the Lord, will be punished by Him with the withdrawal of the blessings of His grace.

The Egyptians are mentioned again, by way of example, as those upon whom the punishment will fall. So far as the construction of this verse is concerned, ולע באה is added to strengthen תעלה and לא עליהם contains the apodosis to the conditional clause introduced with אם, to which יהיה הגּשׁם is easily supplied from Zec 14:17. The positive clause which follows is then appended as an asyndeton: It (the fact that the rain does not come) will be the plague, etc.

The prophet mentions Egypt especially, not because of the fact in natural history, that this land owes its fertility not to the rain, but to the overflowing of the Nile, - a notion which has given rise to the most forced interpretations; but as the nation which showed the greatest hostility to Jehovah and His people in the olden time, and for the purpose of showing that this nation was also to attain to a full participation in the blessings of salvation bestowed upon Israel (cf. Isa 19:19.)

In Zec 14:19 this thought is rounded off by way of conclusion. זאת, this, namely the fact that no rain falls, will be the sin of Egypt, etc. חטּאת, the sin, including its consequences, or in its effects, as in Num 32:23, etc. Moreover, we must not infer from the way in which this is carried out in Zec 14:17-19, that at the time of the completion of the kingdom of God there will still be heathen, who will abstain from the worship of the true God; but the thought is simply this: there will then be no more room for heathenism within the sphere of the kingdom of God.

To this there is appended the thought, in Zec 14:20, Zec 14:21, that everything unholy will then be removed from that kingdom.

Zec 14:16-19 Conversion of the heathen. - Zec 14:16. “And it will come to pass, that every remnant of all the nations which came against Jerusalem will go up year by year to worship the King Jehovah of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. Zec 14:17. And it will come to pass, that whoever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King Jehovah of hosts, upon them there will be no rain.

Zec 14:18. And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, then also not upon them; there will be (upon them) the plague with which Jehovah will plague all nations which do not go up to keep the feast of tabernacles. Zec 14:19. This will be the sin of Egypt, and the sin of all the nations, which do not go up to keep the feast of tabernacles. ” The heathen will not be all destroyed by the judgment; but a portion of them will be converted.

This portion is called “the whole remnant of those who marched against Jerusalem” (בּוא על as in Zec 12:9). It will turn to the worship of the Lord. The construction in Zec 14:16 is anacolouthic: כּל־הנּותר, with its further definition, is placed at the head absolutely, whilst the predicate is attached in the form of an apodosis with ועלוּ. The entrance of the heathen into the kingdom of God is depicted under the figure of the festal journeys to the sanctuary of Jehovah, which had to be repeated year by year.

Of the feasts which they will keep there every year (on מדּי, see Delitzsch on Isa 66:23), the feast of tabernacles is mentioned, not because it occurred in the autumn, and the autumn was the best time for travelling (Theod. Mops. , Theodoret, Grot. , Ros.) , or because it was the greatest feast of rejoicing kept by the Jews, or for any other outward reason, but simply on account of its internal significance, which we must not seek for, however, as Koehler does, in its agrarian importance as a feast of thanksgiving for the termination of the harvest, and of the gathering in of the fruit; but rather in its historical allusion as a feast of thanksgiving for the gracious protection of Israel in its wanderings through the desert, and its introduction into the promised land with its abundance of glorious blessings, whereby it foreshadowed the blessedness to be enjoyed in the kingdom of God (see my bibl.

Archäologie , i. p. 414ff.) This feast will be kept by the heathen who have come to believe in the living God, to thank the Lord for His grace, that He has brought them out of the wanderings of this life into the blessedness of His kingdom of peace. With this view of the significance of the feast of tabernacles, it is also possible to harmonize the punishment threatened in Zec 14:17 for neglecting to keep this feast, - namely, that the rain will not be (come) upon the families of the nations which absent themselves from this feast.

For rain is an individualizing expression denoting the blessing of God generally, and is mentioned here with reference to the fact, that without rain the fruits of the land, on the enjoyment of which our happiness depends, will not flourish. The meaning of the threat is, therefore, that those families which do not come to worship the Lord, will be punished by Him with the withdrawal of the blessings of His grace.

The Egyptians are mentioned again, by way of example, as those upon whom the punishment will fall. So far as the construction of this verse is concerned, ולע באה is added to strengthen תעלה and לא עליהם contains the apodosis to the conditional clause introduced with אם, to which יהיה הגּשׁם is easily supplied from Zec 14:17. The positive clause which follows is then appended as an asyndeton: It (the fact that the rain does not come) will be the plague, etc.

The prophet mentions Egypt especially, not because of the fact in natural history, that this land owes its fertility not to the rain, but to the overflowing of the Nile, - a notion which has given rise to the most forced interpretations; but as the nation which showed the greatest hostility to Jehovah and His people in the olden time, and for the purpose of showing that this nation was also to attain to a full participation in the blessings of salvation bestowed upon Israel (cf. Isa 19:19.)

In Zec 14:19 this thought is rounded off by way of conclusion. זאת, this, namely the fact that no rain falls, will be the sin of Egypt, etc. חטּאת, the sin, including its consequences, or in its effects, as in Num 32:23, etc. Moreover, we must not infer from the way in which this is carried out in Zec 14:17-19, that at the time of the completion of the kingdom of God there will still be heathen, who will abstain from the worship of the true God; but the thought is simply this: there will then be no more room for heathenism within the sphere of the kingdom of God.

To this there is appended the thought, in Zec 14:20, Zec 14:21, that everything unholy will then be removed from that kingdom.

Zec 14:20-21 Zec 14:20. “In that day there will stand upon the bells of the horses, Holy to Jehovah; and the pots in the house of Jehovah will be like the sacrificial bowls before the altar. Zec 14:21. And every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to Jehovah of hosts, and all who sacrifice will come and take of them, and boil therein; and there will be no Canaanite any more in the house of Jehovah of hosts in that day.

” The meaning of Zec 14:20 is not exhausted by the explanation given by Michaelis, Ewald, and others, that even the horses will then be consecrated to the Lord. The words קדשׁ ליהוה were engraven upon the gold plate on the tiara of the high priest, in the characters used in engravings upon a seal (Exo 28:36). If, then, these words are (i. e. , are to stand) upon the bells of the horses, the meaning is, that the bells of the horses will resemble the head-dress of the high priest in holiness.

This does not merely express the fact that the whole of the ceremonial law will be abolished, but also that the distinction between holy and profane will cease, inasmuch as even the most outward things, and things having no connection whatever with worship, will be as holy as those objects formerly were, which were dedicated to the service of Jehovah by a special consecration. In Zec 14:20 and Zec 14:21 , the graduated distinction between the things which were more or less holy is brought prominently out.

The pots in the sanctuary, which were used for boiling the sacrificial flesh, were regarded as much less holy than the sacrificial bowls in which the blood of the sacrificial animals was received, and out of which it was sprinkled or poured upon the altar. In the future these pots will be just as holy as the sacrificial bowls; and indeed not merely the boiling pots in the temple, but all the boiling pots in Jerusalem and Judah, which have hitherto been only clean and not holy, so that men will use them at pleasure for boiling the sacrificial flesh.

In this priestly-levitical drapery the thought is expressed, that in the perfected kingdom of God not only will everything without exception be holy, but all will be equally holy. The distinction between holy and profane can only cease, however, when the sin and moral defilement which first evoked this distinction, and made it necessary that the things intended for the service of God should be set apart, and receive a special consecration, have been entirely removed and wiped away.

To remove this distinction, to prepare the way for the cleansing away of sin, and to sanctify once more that which sin had desecrated, was the object of the sacred institutions appointed by God. To this end Israel was separated from the nations of the earth; and in order to train it up as a holy nation, and to secure the object described, a law was given to it, in which the distinction between holy and profane ran through all the relations of life.

And this goal will be eventually reached by the people of God; and sin with all its consequences be cleansed away by the judgment. In the perfected kingdom of God there will be no more sinners, but only such as are righteous and holy. This is affirmed in the last clause: there will be no Canaanite any more in the house of Jehovah. The Canaanites are mentioned here, not as merchants, as in Zep 1:11; Hos 12:8 (as Jonathan, Aquila, and others suppose), but as a people laden with sin, and under the curse (Gen 9:25; Lev 18:24.

; Deu 7:2; Deu 9:4, etc.) , which has been exterminated by the judgment. In this sense, as the expression לא עוד implies, the term Canaanite is used to denote the godless members of the covenant nation, who came to the temple with sacrifices, in outward self-righteousness. As עוד presupposes that there were Canaanites in the temple of Jehovah in the time of the prophet, the reference cannot be to actual Canaanites, because they were prohibited by the law from entering the temple, but only to Israelites, who were Canaanites in heart.

Compare Isa 1:10, where the princes of Judah are called princes of Sodom (Eze 16:3; Eze 44:9). The “house of Jehovah” is the temple, as in the preceding verse, and not the church of Jehovah, as in Zec 9:8, although at the time of the completion of the kingdom of God the distinction between Jerusalem and the temple will have ceased, and the whole of the holy city, yea, the whole of the kingdom of God, will be transformed by the Lord into a holy of holies (see Rev 21:22, Rev 21:27).

Thus does our prophecy close with a prospect of the completion of the kingdom of God in glory. All believing commentators are agreed that the final fulfilment of Zec 14:20 and Zec 14:21 lies before us in Rev 21:27 and Rev 22:15, and that even Zec 12:1-14 neither refers to the Chaldaean catastrophe nor to the Maccabaean wars, but to the Messianic times, however they may differ from one another in relation to the historical events which the prophecy foretels.

Hofmann and Koehler, as well as Ebrard and Kliefoth, start with the assumption, that the prophecy in ch. 12-14 strikes in where the preceding one in ch. 9-11 terminates; that is to say, that it commences with the time when Israel was given up to the power of the fourth empire, on account of its rejection of the good shepherd, who appeared in Christ. Now since Hofmann and Koehler understand by Israel only the chosen people of the old covenant, or the Jewish nation, and by Jerusalem the capital of this nation in Palestine, they find this prophecy in Zec 12:1-14, that when Jehovah shall eventually bring to pass the punishment of the bad shepherd, i.

e. , of the imperial power, with its hostility to God, it will assemble together again in its members the nations of the earth, to make war upon the material Jerusalem and Israel, which has returned again from its dispersion in all the world into the possession of the holy land (Palestine), and will besiege the holy city; but it will there be smitten by Jehovah, and lose its power over Israel.

At that time will Jehovah also bring the previous hardening of Israel to an end, open its eyes to its sin against the Saviour it has put to death, and effect its conversion. But they differ in opinion as to ch. 14. According to Koehler, this chapter refers to a future which is still in the distance - to a siege and conquest of Jerusalem which are to take place after Israel’s conversion, through which the immediate personal appearance of Jehovah will be brought to pass, and all the effects by which that appearance is necessarily accompanied.

According to Hofmann ( Schriftbeweis , ii. p. 610ff.) , Zec 14:1. refers to the same occurrence as Zec 12:2. , with this simple difference, that in Zec 12:1-14 the prophet states what that day, in which the whole of the world of nations attacks Jerusalem, will do with the people of God, and in ch. 14 to what extremity it will be brought. Ebrard and Kliefoth, on the other hand, understand by Israel , with its capital Jerusalem, and the house of David (in Zechariah 12:1-13:6), rebellious Judaism after the rejection of the Messiah; and by Judah with its princes, Christendom.

Hence the prophecy in this section announces what calamities will happen to Israel according to the flesh - that has become rebellious through rejecting the Messiah - from the first coming of Christ onwards, until its ultimate conversion after the fulness of the Gentiles has come in. The section Zec 13:7-9 (the smiting of the shepherd) does not refer to the crucifixion of Christ, because this did not lead to the consequences indicated in Zec 13:8, so far as the whole earth was concerned, but to the “cutting off of the Messiah” predicted in Dan 9:26, the great apostasy which forms the beginning of the end, according to Luk 17:25; 2Th 2:3; 1Ti 4:1, and 1Ti 4:2 Time.

Zec 3:1, and through which Christ in His church is, according to the description in Rev 13:17, so cut off from historical life, that it cannot be anything on earth. Lastly, ch. 14 treats of the end of the world and the general judgment. Of these two views, we cannot look upon either as well founded. For, in the first place, the assumption common to the two, and with which they set out, is erroneous and untenable, - namely, that the prophecy in ch.

12ff. strikes in where the previous one in ch. 9-11 terminated, and therefore that ch. 12-14 is a direct continuation of ch. 9-11. This assumption is at variance not only with the relation in which the two prophecies stand to one another, as indicated by the correspondence in their headings, and as unfolded in Zec 12:1, Zec 12:2, but also with the essence of the prophecy, inasmuch as it is not a historical prediction of the future according to its successive development, but simply a spiritual intuition effected by inspiration, in which only the leading features of the form which the kingdom of God would hereafter assume are set forth, and that in figures drawn from the circumstances of the present and the past.

Again, the two views can only be carried out by forcing the text. If the prophecy in Zec 12:1-14 started with the period when Israel came into power of the Roman empire after the rejection of the Messiah, it could not leap so abruptly to the last days, as Hofmann and Koehler assume, and commence with the description of a victorious conflict on the part of Israel against the nations of the world that were besieging Jerusalem, but would certainly first of all predict, if not the destruction of the Jewish nation by the Romans (which is merely indicated in ch.

11), at all events the gathering together of the Jews, who had been scattered by the Romans over all the world, into Palestine and Jerusalem, before an attack of the nations of the world upon Israel could possibly be spoken of. Moreover, even the difference between Hofmann and Koehler with regard to the relation between Zec 12:1-9 and Zec 14:1-5 shows that the transference of the whole to the last times cannot be reconciled with the words of these sections.

The hypothesis of Koehler, that after the gathering together of Israel out of its dispersion, the nations of the world would make an attack upon Jerusalem in which they would be defeated, and that this conflict would for the first time bring Israel to the recognition of its guilt in putting Christ to death, is at variance with the whole of the prophecy and teaching of both the Old and New Testaments. For, according to these, Israel is not to be gathered together from its dispersion among the nations till it shall return with penitence to Jehovah, whom it has rejected.

But Hofmann’s statement as to the relation between the two sections is so brief and obscure, that it is more like a concealment than a clearing up of the difficulties which it contains. Lastly, when Hofmann correctly observes, that “by the Israel of the heading in Zec 12:1 we can only understand the people of God, in contradistinction to the world of nations, which is estranged from God,” this cannot apply to the unbelieving Jews, who have been given into the power of the last empire on account of their rejection of Christ, or Israel according to the flesh, for that Israel is rejected by God.

The people of God exists, since the rejection of Christ, only in Christendom, which has been formed out of believing Jews and believing Gentiles, or the church of the New Testament, the stem and kernel of which were that portion of Israel which believingly accepted the Messiah when He appeared, and into whose bosom the believing Gentile peoples were received. Ebrard and Kliefoth are therefore perfectly right in their rejection of the Jewish chiliasm of Hofmann and Koehler; but when they understand by the Israel of the heading belonging to ch.

12-14, which we find in Zec 12:1-9, only the unbelieving carnal Israel, and by that in ch. 14 the believing Israel which has been converted to Christ, and also introduce into Zec 12:1-9 an antithesis between Israel and Judah, and then understand by Jerusalem and the house of David in Zec 12:1-14 the hardened Jews, and by Judah, Christendom; and, on the other hand, by Jerusalem and Judah in ch.

14 the Christendom formed of believing Jews and believing Gentiles, - we have already shown at Zec 12:10 that these distinctions are arbitrarily forced upon the text. Our prophecy treats in both parts - Zechariah 12:1-13:6 and ch. 13:7-14:21 - of Israel, the people of God, and indeed the people of the new covenant, which has grown out of the Israel that believed in Christ, and believers of the heathen nations incorporated into it, and refers not merely to the church of the new covenant in the last times, when all the old Israel will be liberated by the grace of God from the hardening inflicted upon it, and will be received again into the kingdom of God, and form a central point thereof (Vitringa, C.

B. Mich. , etc.) , but to the whole development of the church of Christ from its first beginning till its completion at the second coming of the Lord, as Hengstenberg has in the main discovered and observed. As the Israel of the heading (Zec 12:1) denotes the people of God in contradistinction to the peoples of the world, the inhabitants of Jerusalem with the house of David, and Judah with its princes, as the representatives of Israel, are typical epithets applied to the representatives and members of the new covenant people, viz.

, the Christian church; and Jerusalem and Judah, as the inheritance of Israel, are types of the seats and territories of Christendom. The development of the new covenant nation, however, in conflict with the heathen world, and through the help of the Lord and His Spirit, until its glorious completion, is predicted in our oracle, not according to its successive historical course, but in such a manner that the first half announces how the church of the Lord victoriously defeats the attacks of the heathen world through the miraculous help of the Lord, and how in consequence of this victory it is increased by the fact that the hardened Israel comes more and more to the acknowledgment of its sin and to belief in the Messiah, whom it has put to death, and is incorporated into the church; whilst the second half, on the other hand, announces how, in consequence of the slaying of the Messiah, there falls upon the covenant nation a judgment through which two-thirds are exterminated, and the remainder is tested and refined by the Lord, so that, although many do indeed fall and perish in the conflicts with the nations of the world, the remnant is preserved, and in the last conflict will be miraculously delivered through the coming of the Lord, who will come with His saints to complete His kingdom in glory by the destruction of the enemies of His kingdom, and by the transformation and renewal of the earth.

As the believing penitential look at the pierced One (Zec 12:10) will not take place for the first time at the ultimate conversion of Israel at the end of the days, but began on the day of Golgotha, and continues through all the centuries of the Christian church, so did the siege of Jerusalem by all nations (Zec 12:1-9), i. e. , the attack of the heathen nations upon the church of God, commence even in the days of the apostles (cf.

Act 4:25.) , and continues through the whole history of the Christina church to the last great conflict which will immediately precede the return of our Lord to judgment. And again, just as the dispersion of the flock after the slaying of the shepherd commenced at the arrest and death of Christ, and the bringing back of the hand of the Lord upon the small ones at the resurrection of Christ, so have they both been repeated in every age of the Christian church, inasmuch as with every fresh and powerful exaltation of antichristian heathenism above the church of Christ, those who are weak in faith flee and are scattered; but as soon as the Lord shows Himself alive in His church again, they let Him gather them together once more.

And this will continue, according to the word of the Lord in Mat 24:10. , till the end of the days, when Satan will go out to deceive the nations in the four quarters of the earth, and to gather together Gog and Magog to battle against the camp of the saints and the holy city; whereupon the Lord from heaven will destroy the enemy, and perfect His kingdom in the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev).

So far as the relation between Zec 12:2-9 and Zec 14:1-5 is concerned, it is evident from the text of both these passages that they do not treat of two different attacks upon the church of God by the imperial power, occurring at different times; but that, whilst Zec 12:1-14 depicts the constantly repeated attack in the light of its successful overthrow, ch. 14 describes the hostile attack according to its partial success and final issue in the destruction of the powers that are hostile to God.

This issue takes place, no doubt, only at the end of the course of this world, with the return of Christ to the last judgment; but the fact that Jerusalem is conquered and plundered, and the half of its population led away into captivity, proves indisputably that the siege of Jerusalem predicted in ch. 14 must not be restricted to the last attack of Antichrist upon the church of the Lord, but that all the hostile attacks of the heathen world upon the city of God are embraced in the one picture of a siege of Jerusalem.

In the attack made upon Jerusalem by Gog and Magog, the city is not conquered and plundered, either according to Ezekiel 38 and 39, or according to Rev 20:7-9; but the enemy is destroyed by the immediate interposition of the Lord, without having got possession of the holy city. But to this ideal summary of the conflicts and victories of the nations of the world there is appended directly the picture of the final destruction of the ungodly power of the world, and the glorification of the kingdom of God; so that in Zechariah 14 (from vv.

6-21) there is predicted in Old Testament form the completion of the kingdom of God, which the Apostle John saw and described in Revelation in New Testament mode under the figure of the heavenly Jerusalem.

Zec 14:20-21 Zec 14:20. “In that day there will stand upon the bells of the horses, Holy to Jehovah; and the pots in the house of Jehovah will be like the sacrificial bowls before the altar. Zec 14:21. And every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to Jehovah of hosts, and all who sacrifice will come and take of them, and boil therein; and there will be no Canaanite any more in the house of Jehovah of hosts in that day.

” The meaning of Zec 14:20 is not exhausted by the explanation given by Michaelis, Ewald, and others, that even the horses will then be consecrated to the Lord. The words קדשׁ ליהוה were engraven upon the gold plate on the tiara of the high priest, in the characters used in engravings upon a seal (Exo 28:36). If, then, these words are (i. e. , are to stand) upon the bells of the horses, the meaning is, that the bells of the horses will resemble the head-dress of the high priest in holiness.

This does not merely express the fact that the whole of the ceremonial law will be abolished, but also that the distinction between holy and profane will cease, inasmuch as even the most outward things, and things having no connection whatever with worship, will be as holy as those objects formerly were, which were dedicated to the service of Jehovah by a special consecration. In Zec 14:20 and Zec 14:21 , the graduated distinction between the things which were more or less holy is brought prominently out.

The pots in the sanctuary, which were used for boiling the sacrificial flesh, were regarded as much less holy than the sacrificial bowls in which the blood of the sacrificial animals was received, and out of which it was sprinkled or poured upon the altar. In the future these pots will be just as holy as the sacrificial bowls; and indeed not merely the boiling pots in the temple, but all the boiling pots in Jerusalem and Judah, which have hitherto been only clean and not holy, so that men will use them at pleasure for boiling the sacrificial flesh.

In this priestly-levitical drapery the thought is expressed, that in the perfected kingdom of God not only will everything without exception be holy, but all will be equally holy. The distinction between holy and profane can only cease, however, when the sin and moral defilement which first evoked this distinction, and made it necessary that the things intended for the service of God should be set apart, and receive a special consecration, have been entirely removed and wiped away.

To remove this distinction, to prepare the way for the cleansing away of sin, and to sanctify once more that which sin had desecrated, was the object of the sacred institutions appointed by God. To this end Israel was separated from the nations of the earth; and in order to train it up as a holy nation, and to secure the object described, a law was given to it, in which the distinction between holy and profane ran through all the relations of life.

And this goal will be eventually reached by the people of God; and sin with all its consequences be cleansed away by the judgment. In the perfected kingdom of God there will be no more sinners, but only such as are righteous and holy. This is affirmed in the last clause: there will be no Canaanite any more in the house of Jehovah. The Canaanites are mentioned here, not as merchants, as in Zep 1:11; Hos 12:8 (as Jonathan, Aquila, and others suppose), but as a people laden with sin, and under the curse (Gen 9:25; Lev 18:24.

; Deu 7:2; Deu 9:4, etc.) , which has been exterminated by the judgment. In this sense, as the expression לא עוד implies, the term Canaanite is used to denote the godless members of the covenant nation, who came to the temple with sacrifices, in outward self-righteousness. As עוד presupposes that there were Canaanites in the temple of Jehovah in the time of the prophet, the reference cannot be to actual Canaanites, because they were prohibited by the law from entering the temple, but only to Israelites, who were Canaanites in heart.

Compare Isa 1:10, where the princes of Judah are called princes of Sodom (Eze 16:3; Eze 44:9). The “house of Jehovah” is the temple, as in the preceding verse, and not the church of Jehovah, as in Zec 9:8, although at the time of the completion of the kingdom of God the distinction between Jerusalem and the temple will have ceased, and the whole of the holy city, yea, the whole of the kingdom of God, will be transformed by the Lord into a holy of holies (see Rev 21:22, Rev 21:27).

Thus does our prophecy close with a prospect of the completion of the kingdom of God in glory. All believing commentators are agreed that the final fulfilment of Zec 14:20 and Zec 14:21 lies before us in Rev 21:27 and Rev 22:15, and that even Zec 12:1-14 neither refers to the Chaldaean catastrophe nor to the Maccabaean wars, but to the Messianic times, however they may differ from one another in relation to the historical events which the prophecy foretels.

Hofmann and Koehler, as well as Ebrard and Kliefoth, start with the assumption, that the prophecy in ch. 12-14 strikes in where the preceding one in ch. 9-11 terminates; that is to say, that it commences with the time when Israel was given up to the power of the fourth empire, on account of its rejection of the good shepherd, who appeared in Christ. Now since Hofmann and Koehler understand by Israel only the chosen people of the old covenant, or the Jewish nation, and by Jerusalem the capital of this nation in Palestine, they find this prophecy in Zec 12:1-14, that when Jehovah shall eventually bring to pass the punishment of the bad shepherd, i.

e. , of the imperial power, with its hostility to God, it will assemble together again in its members the nations of the earth, to make war upon the material Jerusalem and Israel, which has returned again from its dispersion in all the world into the possession of the holy land (Palestine), and will besiege the holy city; but it will there be smitten by Jehovah, and lose its power over Israel.

At that time will Jehovah also bring the previous hardening of Israel to an end, open its eyes to its sin against the Saviour it has put to death, and effect its conversion. But they differ in opinion as to ch. 14. According to Koehler, this chapter refers to a future which is still in the distance - to a siege and conquest of Jerusalem which are to take place after Israel’s conversion, through which the immediate personal appearance of Jehovah will be brought to pass, and all the effects by which that appearance is necessarily accompanied.

According to Hofmann ( Schriftbeweis , ii. p. 610ff.) , Zec 14:1. refers to the same occurrence as Zec 12:2. , with this simple difference, that in Zec 12:1-14 the prophet states what that day, in which the whole of the world of nations attacks Jerusalem, will do with the people of God, and in ch. 14 to what extremity it will be brought. Ebrard and Kliefoth, on the other hand, understand by Israel , with its capital Jerusalem, and the house of David (in Zechariah 12:1-13:6), rebellious Judaism after the rejection of the Messiah; and by Judah with its princes, Christendom.

Hence the prophecy in this section announces what calamities will happen to Israel according to the flesh - that has become rebellious through rejecting the Messiah - from the first coming of Christ onwards, until its ultimate conversion after the fulness of the Gentiles has come in. The section Zec 13:7-9 (the smiting of the shepherd) does not refer to the crucifixion of Christ, because this did not lead to the consequences indicated in Zec 13:8, so far as the whole earth was concerned, but to the “cutting off of the Messiah” predicted in Dan 9:26, the great apostasy which forms the beginning of the end, according to Luk 17:25; 2Th 2:3; 1Ti 4:1, and 1Ti 4:2 Time.

Zec 3:1, and through which Christ in His church is, according to the description in Rev 13:17, so cut off from historical life, that it cannot be anything on earth. Lastly, ch. 14 treats of the end of the world and the general judgment. Of these two views, we cannot look upon either as well founded. For, in the first place, the assumption common to the two, and with which they set out, is erroneous and untenable, - namely, that the prophecy in ch.

12ff. strikes in where the previous one in ch. 9-11 terminated, and therefore that ch. 12-14 is a direct continuation of ch. 9-11. This assumption is at variance not only with the relation in which the two prophecies stand to one another, as indicated by the correspondence in their headings, and as unfolded in Zec 12:1, Zec 12:2, but also with the essence of the prophecy, inasmuch as it is not a historical prediction of the future according to its successive development, but simply a spiritual intuition effected by inspiration, in which only the leading features of the form which the kingdom of God would hereafter assume are set forth, and that in figures drawn from the circumstances of the present and the past.

Again, the two views can only be carried out by forcing the text. If the prophecy in Zec 12:1-14 started with the period when Israel came into power of the Roman empire after the rejection of the Messiah, it could not leap so abruptly to the last days, as Hofmann and Koehler assume, and commence with the description of a victorious conflict on the part of Israel against the nations of the world that were besieging Jerusalem, but would certainly first of all predict, if not the destruction of the Jewish nation by the Romans (which is merely indicated in ch.

11), at all events the gathering together of the Jews, who had been scattered by the Romans over all the world, into Palestine and Jerusalem, before an attack of the nations of the world upon Israel could possibly be spoken of. Moreover, even the difference between Hofmann and Koehler with regard to the relation between Zec 12:1-9 and Zec 14:1-5 shows that the transference of the whole to the last times cannot be reconciled with the words of these sections.

The hypothesis of Koehler, that after the gathering together of Israel out of its dispersion, the nations of the world would make an attack upon Jerusalem in which they would be defeated, and that this conflict would for the first time bring Israel to the recognition of its guilt in putting Christ to death, is at variance with the whole of the prophecy and teaching of both the Old and New Testaments. For, according to these, Israel is not to be gathered together from its dispersion among the nations till it shall return with penitence to Jehovah, whom it has rejected.

But Hofmann’s statement as to the relation between the two sections is so brief and obscure, that it is more like a concealment than a clearing up of the difficulties which it contains. Lastly, when Hofmann correctly observes, that “by the Israel of the heading in Zec 12:1 we can only understand the people of God, in contradistinction to the world of nations, which is estranged from God,” this cannot apply to the unbelieving Jews, who have been given into the power of the last empire on account of their rejection of Christ, or Israel according to the flesh, for that Israel is rejected by God.

The people of God exists, since the rejection of Christ, only in Christendom, which has been formed out of believing Jews and believing Gentiles, or the church of the New Testament, the stem and kernel of which were that portion of Israel which believingly accepted the Messiah when He appeared, and into whose bosom the believing Gentile peoples were received. Ebrard and Kliefoth are therefore perfectly right in their rejection of the Jewish chiliasm of Hofmann and Koehler; but when they understand by the Israel of the heading belonging to ch.

12-14, which we find in Zec 12:1-9, only the unbelieving carnal Israel, and by that in ch. 14 the believing Israel which has been converted to Christ, and also introduce into Zec 12:1-9 an antithesis between Israel and Judah, and then understand by Jerusalem and the house of David in Zec 12:1-14 the hardened Jews, and by Judah, Christendom; and, on the other hand, by Jerusalem and Judah in ch.

14 the Christendom formed of believing Jews and believing Gentiles, - we have already shown at Zec 12:10 that these distinctions are arbitrarily forced upon the text. Our prophecy treats in both parts - Zechariah 12:1-13:6 and ch. 13:7-14:21 - of Israel, the people of God, and indeed the people of the new covenant, which has grown out of the Israel that believed in Christ, and believers of the heathen nations incorporated into it, and refers not merely to the church of the new covenant in the last times, when all the old Israel will be liberated by the grace of God from the hardening inflicted upon it, and will be received again into the kingdom of God, and form a central point thereof (Vitringa, C.

B. Mich. , etc.) , but to the whole development of the church of Christ from its first beginning till its completion at the second coming of the Lord, as Hengstenberg has in the main discovered and observed. As the Israel of the heading (Zec 12:1) denotes the people of God in contradistinction to the peoples of the world, the inhabitants of Jerusalem with the house of David, and Judah with its princes, as the representatives of Israel, are typical epithets applied to the representatives and members of the new covenant people, viz.

, the Christian church; and Jerusalem and Judah, as the inheritance of Israel, are types of the seats and territories of Christendom. The development of the new covenant nation, however, in conflict with the heathen world, and through the help of the Lord and His Spirit, until its glorious completion, is predicted in our oracle, not according to its successive historical course, but in such a manner that the first half announces how the church of the Lord victoriously defeats the attacks of the heathen world through the miraculous help of the Lord, and how in consequence of this victory it is increased by the fact that the hardened Israel comes more and more to the acknowledgment of its sin and to belief in the Messiah, whom it has put to death, and is incorporated into the church; whilst the second half, on the other hand, announces how, in consequence of the slaying of the Messiah, there falls upon the covenant nation a judgment through which two-thirds are exterminated, and the remainder is tested and refined by the Lord, so that, although many do indeed fall and perish in the conflicts with the nations of the world, the remnant is preserved, and in the last conflict will be miraculously delivered through the coming of the Lord, who will come with His saints to complete His kingdom in glory by the destruction of the enemies of His kingdom, and by the transformation and renewal of the earth.

As the believing penitential look at the pierced One (Zec 12:10) will not take place for the first time at the ultimate conversion of Israel at the end of the days, but began on the day of Golgotha, and continues through all the centuries of the Christian church, so did the siege of Jerusalem by all nations (Zec 12:1-9), i. e. , the attack of the heathen nations upon the church of God, commence even in the days of the apostles (cf.

Act 4:25.) , and continues through the whole history of the Christina church to the last great conflict which will immediately precede the return of our Lord to judgment. And again, just as the dispersion of the flock after the slaying of the shepherd commenced at the arrest and death of Christ, and the bringing back of the hand of the Lord upon the small ones at the resurrection of Christ, so have they both been repeated in every age of the Christian church, inasmuch as with every fresh and powerful exaltation of antichristian heathenism above the church of Christ, those who are weak in faith flee and are scattered; but as soon as the Lord shows Himself alive in His church again, they let Him gather them together once more.

And this will continue, according to the word of the Lord in Mat 24:10. , till the end of the days, when Satan will go out to deceive the nations in the four quarters of the earth, and to gather together Gog and Magog to battle against the camp of the saints and the holy city; whereupon the Lord from heaven will destroy the enemy, and perfect His kingdom in the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev).

So far as the relation between Zec 12:2-9 and Zec 14:1-5 is concerned, it is evident from the text of both these passages that they do not treat of two different attacks upon the church of God by the imperial power, occurring at different times; but that, whilst Zec 12:1-14 depicts the constantly repeated attack in the light of its successful overthrow, ch. 14 describes the hostile attack according to its partial success and final issue in the destruction of the powers that are hostile to God.

This issue takes place, no doubt, only at the end of the course of this world, with the return of Christ to the last judgment; but the fact that Jerusalem is conquered and plundered, and the half of its population led away into captivity, proves indisputably that the siege of Jerusalem predicted in ch. 14 must not be restricted to the last attack of Antichrist upon the church of the Lord, but that all the hostile attacks of the heathen world upon the city of God are embraced in the one picture of a siege of Jerusalem.

In the attack made upon Jerusalem by Gog and Magog, the city is not conquered and plundered, either according to Ezekiel 38 and 39, or according to Rev 20:7-9; but the enemy is destroyed by the immediate interposition of the Lord, without having got possession of the holy city. But to this ideal summary of the conflicts and victories of the nations of the world there is appended directly the picture of the final destruction of the ungodly power of the world, and the glorification of the kingdom of God; so that in Zechariah 14 (from vv.

6-21) there is predicted in Old Testament form the completion of the kingdom of God, which the Apostle John saw and described in Revelation in New Testament mode under the figure of the heavenly Jerusalem.

Person of the Prophet. - The circumstances of Malachi's life are so entirely unknown, that it is a disputed point whether מכלאכי in the heading (Mal 1:1) is the name of a person, or merely an ideal name given to the prophet who foretels the sending of the messenger of Jehovah (מלאכי, Mal 3:1), and whose real name has not been handed down. The lxx rendered the בּיד מלאכי of the heading by ἐν χειρὶ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ, and therefore either had or conjectured as their reading מלאכו : and the Targumist Jonathan , who adds to בּיד מלאכי cujus nomen appellatur Esra scriba , has also taken מלאכי in an ideal sense, and given the statement that Ezra the scribe is the prophetic author of our book, as a conjecture founded upon the spirit and contents of the prophecy.

The notion that Malachi is only an official name is therefore met with in many of the fathers, and has been vigorously defended in the most recent times by Hengstenberg, who follows the lead of Vitringa, whilst Ewald lays it down as an established truth. But the arguments adduced in support of this, especially by Hengstenberg in his Christology , are not conclusive.

The circumstance “that the heading does not contain any further personal description, whether the name of his father or the place of his birth,” is not more striking in our book than in the writings of Obadiah and Habakkuk, which also contain only the name of the prophet in the heading, without any further personal descriptions. It is a striking fact, no doubt, that the lxx and the Targumist have taken the name as an appellative; at the same time, it by no means follows from this “that nothing was known in tradition of any historical person of the name of Malachi,” but simply that nothing certain had been handed down concerning the circumstances of the prophet’s life.

The recollection, however, of the circumstances connected with the personal history of the prophet might easily have become extinct during the period of at least 150 or 200 years which intervened between the lifetime of the prophet and the Alexandrian version of the Old Testament, if his life was not distinguished by any other facts than the prophecies contained in his book. And Jonathan lived, at the earliest, 400 years after Malachi.

That all recollection of the person of Malachi was not lost, however, is evident both from the notice in the Talmud to the effect that Malachi was one of the men of the great synagogue, as Haggai and Zechariah had been, and also from the statements made by Ps. Doroth. , Epiph. , and other fathers, to the effect that he was a Levite of the tribe of Zebulun, and was born in Supha , or Σοφά, or Σοφιρά (see the passages in Koehler, Mal.

pp. 10, 11), although all these statements show that nothing certain was known as to the circumstances of his life. But the principal reason for taking the name not as a nomen proprium , but simply as a name adopted by the prophet for this particular prophecy, is to be found, according to Hengstenberg, in the character of the name itself, viz. , in the fact that it is not formed from מלאך and יהּ = יהוה, and cannot be explained by angelicus .

But neither the one nor the other can be regarded as established. The formation of proper names by adding the termination ־י to appellative nouns is by no means unusual, as the long list of examples of words formed in this manner, given by Olshausen ( Heb. Gramm. 218, b ), clearly shows; and the remark that “this formation only serves to denote descent or occupation” (Hengstenberg) is beside the mark, since it does not apply to such names as גּרמי, זכרי, and others.

The interpretation of the name as a contraction of מלאכיּה, messenger of Jehovah, is quite as possible as this derivation. We have an unquestionably example of a contraction of this kind in אבי in 2Ki 18:2, as compared with אביּה in 2Ch 29:1. And just as the יהּ is there omitted altogether in אבי, so is the other name of God, אל, omitted in פלטי in 1Sa 25:44, which is written פּלטיאל in 2Sa 3:15.

This omission of the name of God is by no means rare. “The Hebrews very often drop the names of God at the end of proper names” (Simonis, p. 11). The formation of such a name as מלאכי would be perfectly analogous to these cases; and no objection whatever can be brought against such a name, since the ־י need not be taken as a suffix of the first person ( my messenger is Jehovah), but is rather to be taken as Yod compaginis , like יחזקיּה formed from יחזקי (for יחזק) and יה, “messenger of Jehovah.

” This name might very well have been given by parents to a son whom God had given them, or sent to them in fulfilment of their wishes. Which of these two derivations deserves the preference, cannot be determined with certainty; at the same time, there is more probability in the latter than in the former, partly because of the obvious play upon His name in the words הנני שׁלח מלאכי (Mal 3:1), and partly because of the Greek form of the name Μαλαχίας in the heading of the book.

Since, then, there is no valid argument that can be brought against the formation of such a name, there is all the more reason for regarding the name in the heading (Mal 1:1) as the real name of the prophet, from the fact that the idea explanation would be without any distinct analogy. “All the prophets whose writings have come down to us in the canon, have given their own names in the headings to their books, that is to say, the names which they received at their birth; and the names of the rest of the prophets of the Old Testament are also their real names” (Caspari, Micha , p.

28). Even in the case of the names Agur (Pro 30:1) and Lemuel (Pro 31:1), which Hengstenberg cites as analogies, it is still doubtful whether the first, Agur the son of Jakeh, is not a historical name; and even if the ideal use of the two were established beyond all doubt, no conclusion could be drawn from a collection of proverbs bearing upon a prophetic writing.

A collection of proverbs is a poetical work, whose ethical or religious truth is not dependent upon the person of the poet. The prophet, on the contrary, has to guarantee the divinity of his mission and the truth of his prophecy by his own name or his own personality. The period of Malachi is also a disputed point, although all are agreed that he lived and prophesied after the captivity.

We may gather from his prophecy, not only that he commenced his prophetic labours after Haggai and Zechariah, since, according to Mal 1:6. and Mal 3:10, the temple had been rebuilt and the temple-worship had been restored for a considerable time, but also, as Vitringa has shown in his Observ. ss. ii. lib. 6, that he did not prophesy till after the first arrival of Nehemiah in Jerusalem, i.

e. , after the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes Longimanus. The chief reason for this is to be found in the agreement between Malachi and Nehemiah (ch. 13), in the reproof administered for the abuses current among the people, and even in the priesthood, - namely, the marriage of heathen wives (compare Mal 2:11. with Neh 13:23.) , and the negligent payment of the tithes (compare Mal 3:8-10 with Neh 13:10-14).

The first of these abuses - namely, that many even of the priests and Levites had taken heathen wives - found its way among the people even on Ezra’s first arrival in Jerusalem; and he succeeded in abolishing it by vigorous measures, so that all Israel put away the heathen wives within three months (Ezr 9:1-15 and 10). But it is evidently impossible to refer the condemnation of the same abuse in Malachi to this particular case, because on the one hand the exhortation to be mindful of the law of Moses (Malachi 3:22), as well as the whole of the contents of our book which are founded upon the authority of the law, apply rather to the time when Ezra had already put forth his efforts to restore the authority of the law (Ezr 7:14, Ezr 7:25-26), than to the previous time; whilst, on the other hand, the offering of unsuitable animals in sacrifice (Mal 1:7.)

, and unfaithfulness in the payment of the tithes and heave-offerings (Mal 3:8), can evidently be only explained on the supposition that Israel had to provide for the necessities of the temple and the support of the persons engaged in the worship; whereas in Ezra’s time, or at any rate immediately after his arrival, as well as in the time of Darius (Ezr 6:9-10), the costs of worship were defrayed out of the royal revenues (Ezr 7:15-17, Ezr 7:20-24). But after the abolition of the heathen marriages by Ezra, and after his reformatory labours as a whole, such breaches of the law could not have spread once more among the people in the short interval between the time of Ezra and the first arrival of Nehemiah, even if Ezra had not continued his labours up to that time, as is evident from Nehemiah 8-10.

Moreover, Nehemiah would no doubt have attacked these abuses at that time, as he did at a later period, if he had detected them. Consequently the falling back into the old sin that had been abolished by Ezra cannot have taken place before the period of Nehemiah’s return to the king’s court, in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes (Neh 13:6). If, therefore, Malachi condemns and threatens with the punishment of God the very same abuses which Nehemiah found in Jerusalem on his second arrival there, and strove most energetically to exterminate, Malachi must have prophesied at that time; but whether immediately before Nehemiah’s second arrival in Jerusalem, or during his presence there, so as to support the reformatory labours of Nehemiah by his prophetic testimony, cannot be decided with certainty.

What Malachi says in Mal 1:8 concerning the attitude of the people towards the Persian governor does not necessarily presuppose a non-Israelitish vicegerent, but might also apply to Nehemiah, since the prophet’s words may be understood as relating to free-will gifts or presents, whereas Nehemiah (Neh 5:14-15) simply says that he has not required from the people the governor’s supplies, and has not burdened them with taxes. The circumstance, however, that Nehemiah finds the abuses still existing in undiminished force, renders the assumption that Malachi had already prophesied improbable, and favours rather the contemporaneous labours of the two; in which case the work of Malachi bore the same relation to that of Nehemiah as the work of Haggai and Zechariah to that of Zerubbabel and Joshua; and the reformatory labours of Nehemiah, which were chiefly of an outward character, were accompanied by the more inward labours of Malachi, as was very frequently the case in the history of Israel; for example, in the case of Isaiah and Hezekiah, or of Jeremiah and Josiah (see Hengstenberg, Christology , iv.

p. 157). 2. The Book of Malachi contains one single prophecy, the character of which is condemnatory throughout. Starting with the love which the Lord has shown to His people (Mal 1:2-5), the prophet proves that not only do the priests profane the name of the Lord by an unholy performance of the service at the altar (Mal 1:6; Mal 2:9), but the people also repudiate their divine calling both by heathen marriages and frivolous divorces (Mal 2:10-16), and by their murmuring at the delay of the judgment; whereas the Lord will soon reveal Himself as a just judge, and before His coming will send His messenger, the prophet Elijah, to warn the ungodly and lead them to repentance, and then suddenly come to His temple as the expected angel of the covenant, to refine the sons of Levi, punish the sinners who have broken the covenant, and by exterminating the wicked, as well as by blessing the godly with salvation and righteousness, make the children of Israel the people of His possession (2:17-4:6).

The contents of the book, therefore, arrange themselves in three sections: Malachi 1:6-2:9, Mal 2:10-16; 2:17-4:6. These three sections probably contain only the leading thoughts of the oral addresses of the prophet, which are so combined as to form one single prophetic address. Throughout the whole book we meet with the spirit which developed itself among the Jews after the captivity, and assumed the concrete forms of Phariseeism and Saduceeism.

The outward or grosser kind of idolatry had been rendered thoroughly distasteful to the people by the sufferings of exile; and its place was taken by the more refined idolatry of dead-work righteousness, and trust in the outward fulfilment of the letter of the divine commands, without any deeper confession of sin, or penitential humiliation under the word and will of God. Because the fulness of salvation, which the earlier prophets had set before the people when restored to favour and redeemed from captivity, had not immediately come to pass, they began to murmur against God, to cherish doubts as to the righteousness of the divine administration, and to long for the judgment to fall upon the Gentiles, without reflecting that the judgment would begin at the house of God (Amo 3:2; 1Pe 4:17).

Malachi fights against this spirit, and the influence of the time in which he lived is apparent in the manner in which he attacks it. This style is distinguished from the oratorical mode of address adopted by the earlier prophets, and not unfrequently rises into a lyrico-dramatical diction, by the predominance of the conversational form of instruction, in which the thought to be discussed is laid down in the form of a generally acknowledged truth, and developed by the alternation of address and reply.

In this mode of developing the thought, we can hardly fail to perceive the influence of the scholastic discourses concerning the law which were introduced by Ezra; only we must not look upon this conversational mode of instruction as a sign of the defunct spirit of prophecy, since it corresponded exactly to the practical wants of the time, and prophecy did not die of spiritual exhaustion, but was extinguished in accordance with the will and counsel of God, as soon as its mission had been fulfilled. Malachi’s language, considering the later period in which he lived and laboured, is still vigorous, pure, and beautiful.

“Malachi,” as Nägelsbach says in Herzog’s Cyclopaedia, “is like a late evening, which brings a long day to a close; but he is also the morning dawn, which bears a glorious day in its womb. ” For the exegetical literature, see my Lehrbuch der Einleitung , p. 318; also Aug. Koehler’s Wiessagungen Maleachi’s erklärt , Erl. 1865. Malachi 1:1-2:9 The Lord has shown love to Israel (Mal 1:2-5), but Israel refuses Him the gratitude which is due, since the priests despise His name by offering bad sacrifices, and thereby cherish the delusion that God cannot do without the sacrifices (Mal 1:6-14).

The people are therefore punished with adversity, and the priesthood with desecration (Mal 2:1-9). Mal 1:1-5 The first verse contains the heading (see the introduction), “The burden of the word of the Lord,” as in Zec 9:1 and Zec 12:1. On massa' (burden), see Nah 1:1. The prophet commences his address in Mal 1:2, by showing the love for which Israel has to thank its God, in order that on the ground of this fact he may bring to the light the ingratitude of the people towards their God.

Mal 1:2. “I have loved you, saith Jehovah; and ye say, Wherein hast Thou loved us? Is not Esau a brother of Jacob? is the saying of Jehovah: and I loved Jacob, Mal 1:3. And I hated Esau, and made his mountains a waste, and his inheritance for jackals of the desert. Mal 1:4. If Edom says, We are dashed to pieces, but will build up the ruins again, thus saith Jehovah of hosts: They will build, but I will pull down: and men will call them territory of wickedness, and the people with whom Jehovah is angry for ever.

Mal 1:5. And your eyes will see it; and ye will say, Great is Jehovah over the border of Israel. ” These four verses form neither an independent address, nor merely the first member of the following address, but the introduction and foundation of the whole book. The love which God has shown to Israel ought to form the motive and model for the conduct of Israel towards its God.

אהב denotes love in its expression or practical manifestation. The question asked by the people, “Wherein hast Thou shown us love? ” may be explained from the peculiarities of Malachi’s style, and is the turn he regularly gives to his address, by way of introducing the discussion of the matter in hand, so that we are not to see in it any intention to disclose the hypocrisy of the people.

The prophet proves the love of Jehovah towards Israel, from the attitude of God towards Israel and towards Edom. Jacob and Esau, the tribe-fathers of both nations, were twin brothers. It would therefore have been supposed that the posterity of both the Israelites and the Edomites would be treated alike by God. But this is not the case. Even before their birth Jacob was the chosen one; and Esau or Edom was the inferior, who was to serve his brother (Gen 25:23, cf.

Rom 9:10-13). Accordingly Jacob became the heir of the promise, and Esau lost this blessing. This attitude on the part of God towards Jacob and Esau, and towards the nations springing from them, is described by Malachi in these words: I (Jehovah) have loved Jacob, and hated Esau. The verbs אהב, to love, and שׂנא, to hate, must not be weakened down into loving more and loving less, to avoid the danger of falling into the doctrine of predestination.

שׂנא, to hate, is the opposite of love. And this meaning must be retained here; only we must bear in mind, that with God anything arbitrary is inconceivable, and that no explanation is given here of the reasons which determined the actions of God. Malachi does not expressly state in what the love of God to Jacob (i. e. , Israel) showed itself; but this is indirectly indicated in what is stated concerning the hatred towards Edom.

The complete desolation of the Edomitish territory is quoted as a proof of this hatred. Mal 1:3 does not refer to the assignment of a barren land, as Rashi, Ewald, and Umbreit suppose, but to the devastation of the land, which was only utterly waste on the western mountains; whereas it was by no means barren on the eastern slopes and valleys (see at Gen 27:39).

Tannōth is a feminine plural form of tan = tannı̄m (Mic 1:8; Isa 13:22, etc.) , by which, according to the Syrio-Aramaean version, we are to understand the jackal. The meaning dwelling-places, which Gesenius and others have given to tannōth , after the lxx and Peshito, rests upon a very uncertain derivation (see Roediger at Ges. Thes. p. 1511). “For jackals of the desert:” i.

e. , as a dwelling-place for these beasts of the desert (see Isa 34:13). It is a disputed point when this devastation took place, and from what people it proceeded. Jahn, Hitzig, and Koehler are of opinion that it is only of the most recent date, because otherwise the Edomites would long ago have repaired the injury, which, according to Mal 1:4, does not appear to have been done.

Mal 1:4, however, simply implies that the Edomites would not succeed in the attempt to repair the injury. On the other hand, Mal 1:2, Mal 1:3 evidently contain the thought, that whereas Jacob had recovered, in consequence of the love of Jehovah, from the blow which had fallen upon it (through the Chaldaeans), Esau’s territory was still lying in ruins from the same blow, in consequence of Jehovah’s hatred (Caspari, Obad.

p. 143). It follows from this, that the devastation of Idumaea emanated from the Chaldaeans. On the other hand, the objection that the Edomites appear to have submitted voluntarily to the Babylonians, and to have formed an alliance with them, does not say much, since neither the one nor the other can be raised even into a position of probability; but, on the contrary, we may infer with the greatest probability from Jer 49:7.

, as compared with Jer 25:9, Jer 25:21, that the Edomites were also subjugated by Nebuchadnezzar. Maurer’s assumption, that Idumaea was devastated by the Egyptians, Ammonites, and Moabites, against whom Nebuchadnezzar marched in the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem, is perfectly visionary. The threat in Mal 1:4, that if Edom attempts to rebuild its ruins, the Lord will again destroy that which is built, is equivalent to a declaration that Edom will never recover its former prosperity and power.

This was soon fulfilled, the independence of the Edomites being destroyed, and their land made an eternal desert, especially from the times of the Maccabees onwards. The construction of אדום as a feminine with תּאמר may be explained on the ground that the land is regarded as the mother of its inhabitants, and stands synecdochically for the population. Men will call them (להן, the Edomites) גּבוּל רשׁעה, territory, land of wickedness, - namely, inasmuch as they will look upon the permanent devastation, and the failure of every attempt on the part of the nation to rise up again, as a practical proof that the wrath of God is resting for ever upon both people and land on account of Edom’s sins.

Person of the Prophet. - The circumstances of Malachi's life are so entirely unknown, that it is a disputed point whether מכלאכי in the heading (Mal 1:1) is the name of a person, or merely an ideal name given to the prophet who foretels the sending of the messenger of Jehovah (מלאכי, Mal 3:1), and whose real name has not been handed down. The lxx rendered the בּיד מלאכי of the heading by ἐν χειρὶ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ, and therefore either had or conjectured as their reading מלאכו : and the Targumist Jonathan , who adds to בּיד מלאכי cujus nomen appellatur Esra scriba , has also taken מלאכי in an ideal sense, and given the statement that Ezra the scribe is the prophetic author of our book, as a conjecture founded upon the spirit and contents of the prophecy.

The notion that Malachi is only an official name is therefore met with in many of the fathers, and has been vigorously defended in the most recent times by Hengstenberg, who follows the lead of Vitringa, whilst Ewald lays it down as an established truth. But the arguments adduced in support of this, especially by Hengstenberg in his Christology , are not conclusive.

The circumstance “that the heading does not contain any further personal description, whether the name of his father or the place of his birth,” is not more striking in our book than in the writings of Obadiah and Habakkuk, which also contain only the name of the prophet in the heading, without any further personal descriptions. It is a striking fact, no doubt, that the lxx and the Targumist have taken the name as an appellative; at the same time, it by no means follows from this “that nothing was known in tradition of any historical person of the name of Malachi,” but simply that nothing certain had been handed down concerning the circumstances of the prophet’s life.

The recollection, however, of the circumstances connected with the personal history of the prophet might easily have become extinct during the period of at least 150 or 200 years which intervened between the lifetime of the prophet and the Alexandrian version of the Old Testament, if his life was not distinguished by any other facts than the prophecies contained in his book. And Jonathan lived, at the earliest, 400 years after Malachi.

That all recollection of the person of Malachi was not lost, however, is evident both from the notice in the Talmud to the effect that Malachi was one of the men of the great synagogue, as Haggai and Zechariah had been, and also from the statements made by Ps. Doroth. , Epiph. , and other fathers, to the effect that he was a Levite of the tribe of Zebulun, and was born in Supha , or Σοφά, or Σοφιρά (see the passages in Koehler, Mal.

pp. 10, 11), although all these statements show that nothing certain was known as to the circumstances of his life. But the principal reason for taking the name not as a nomen proprium , but simply as a name adopted by the prophet for this particular prophecy, is to be found, according to Hengstenberg, in the character of the name itself, viz. , in the fact that it is not formed from מלאך and יהּ = יהוה, and cannot be explained by angelicus .

But neither the one nor the other can be regarded as established. The formation of proper names by adding the termination ־י to appellative nouns is by no means unusual, as the long list of examples of words formed in this manner, given by Olshausen ( Heb. Gramm. 218, b ), clearly shows; and the remark that “this formation only serves to denote descent or occupation” (Hengstenberg) is beside the mark, since it does not apply to such names as גּרמי, זכרי, and others.

The interpretation of the name as a contraction of מלאכיּה, messenger of Jehovah, is quite as possible as this derivation. We have an unquestionably example of a contraction of this kind in אבי in 2Ki 18:2, as compared with אביּה in 2Ch 29:1. And just as the יהּ is there omitted altogether in אבי, so is the other name of God, אל, omitted in פלטי in 1Sa 25:44, which is written פּלטיאל in 2Sa 3:15.

This omission of the name of God is by no means rare. “The Hebrews very often drop the names of God at the end of proper names” (Simonis, p. 11). The formation of such a name as מלאכי would be perfectly analogous to these cases; and no objection whatever can be brought against such a name, since the ־י need not be taken as a suffix of the first person ( my messenger is Jehovah), but is rather to be taken as Yod compaginis , like יחזקיּה formed from יחזקי (for יחזק) and יה, “messenger of Jehovah.

” This name might very well have been given by parents to a son whom God had given them, or sent to them in fulfilment of their wishes. Which of these two derivations deserves the preference, cannot be determined with certainty; at the same time, there is more probability in the latter than in the former, partly because of the obvious play upon His name in the words הנני שׁלח מלאכי (Mal 3:1), and partly because of the Greek form of the name Μαλαχίας in the heading of the book.

Since, then, there is no valid argument that can be brought against the formation of such a name, there is all the more reason for regarding the name in the heading (Mal 1:1) as the real name of the prophet, from the fact that the idea explanation would be without any distinct analogy. “All the prophets whose writings have come down to us in the canon, have given their own names in the headings to their books, that is to say, the names which they received at their birth; and the names of the rest of the prophets of the Old Testament are also their real names” (Caspari, Micha , p.

28). Even in the case of the names Agur (Pro 30:1) and Lemuel (Pro 31:1), which Hengstenberg cites as analogies, it is still doubtful whether the first, Agur the son of Jakeh, is not a historical name; and even if the ideal use of the two were established beyond all doubt, no conclusion could be drawn from a collection of proverbs bearing upon a prophetic writing.

A collection of proverbs is a poetical work, whose ethical or religious truth is not dependent upon the person of the poet. The prophet, on the contrary, has to guarantee the divinity of his mission and the truth of his prophecy by his own name or his own personality. The period of Malachi is also a disputed point, although all are agreed that he lived and prophesied after the captivity.

We may gather from his prophecy, not only that he commenced his prophetic labours after Haggai and Zechariah, since, according to Mal 1:6. and Mal 3:10, the temple had been rebuilt and the temple-worship had been restored for a considerable time, but also, as Vitringa has shown in his Observ. ss. ii. lib. 6, that he did not prophesy till after the first arrival of Nehemiah in Jerusalem, i.

e. , after the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes Longimanus. The chief reason for this is to be found in the agreement between Malachi and Nehemiah (ch. 13), in the reproof administered for the abuses current among the people, and even in the priesthood, - namely, the marriage of heathen wives (compare Mal 2:11. with Neh 13:23.) , and the negligent payment of the tithes (compare Mal 3:8-10 with Neh 13:10-14).

The first of these abuses - namely, that many even of the priests and Levites had taken heathen wives - found its way among the people even on Ezra’s first arrival in Jerusalem; and he succeeded in abolishing it by vigorous measures, so that all Israel put away the heathen wives within three months (Ezr 9:1-15 and 10). But it is evidently impossible to refer the condemnation of the same abuse in Malachi to this particular case, because on the one hand the exhortation to be mindful of the law of Moses (Malachi 3:22), as well as the whole of the contents of our book which are founded upon the authority of the law, apply rather to the time when Ezra had already put forth his efforts to restore the authority of the law (Ezr 7:14, Ezr 7:25-26), than to the previous time; whilst, on the other hand, the offering of unsuitable animals in sacrifice (Mal 1:7.)

, and unfaithfulness in the payment of the tithes and heave-offerings (Mal 3:8), can evidently be only explained on the supposition that Israel had to provide for the necessities of the temple and the support of the persons engaged in the worship; whereas in Ezra’s time, or at any rate immediately after his arrival, as well as in the time of Darius (Ezr 6:9-10), the costs of worship were defrayed out of the royal revenues (Ezr 7:15-17, Ezr 7:20-24). But after the abolition of the heathen marriages by Ezra, and after his reformatory labours as a whole, such breaches of the law could not have spread once more among the people in the short interval between the time of Ezra and the first arrival of Nehemiah, even if Ezra had not continued his labours up to that time, as is evident from Nehemiah 8-10.

Moreover, Nehemiah would no doubt have attacked these abuses at that time, as he did at a later period, if he had detected them. Consequently the falling back into the old sin that had been abolished by Ezra cannot have taken place before the period of Nehemiah’s return to the king’s court, in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes (Neh 13:6). If, therefore, Malachi condemns and threatens with the punishment of God the very same abuses which Nehemiah found in Jerusalem on his second arrival there, and strove most energetically to exterminate, Malachi must have prophesied at that time; but whether immediately before Nehemiah’s second arrival in Jerusalem, or during his presence there, so as to support the reformatory labours of Nehemiah by his prophetic testimony, cannot be decided with certainty.

What Malachi says in Mal 1:8 concerning the attitude of the people towards the Persian governor does not necessarily presuppose a non-Israelitish vicegerent, but might also apply to Nehemiah, since the prophet’s words may be understood as relating to free-will gifts or presents, whereas Nehemiah (Neh 5:14-15) simply says that he has not required from the people the governor’s supplies, and has not burdened them with taxes. The circumstance, however, that Nehemiah finds the abuses still existing in undiminished force, renders the assumption that Malachi had already prophesied improbable, and favours rather the contemporaneous labours of the two; in which case the work of Malachi bore the same relation to that of Nehemiah as the work of Haggai and Zechariah to that of Zerubbabel and Joshua; and the reformatory labours of Nehemiah, which were chiefly of an outward character, were accompanied by the more inward labours of Malachi, as was very frequently the case in the history of Israel; for example, in the case of Isaiah and Hezekiah, or of Jeremiah and Josiah (see Hengstenberg, Christology , iv.

p. 157). 2. The Book of Malachi contains one single prophecy, the character of which is condemnatory throughout. Starting with the love which the Lord has shown to His people (Mal 1:2-5), the prophet proves that not only do the priests profane the name of the Lord by an unholy performance of the service at the altar (Mal 1:6; Mal 2:9), but the people also repudiate their divine calling both by heathen marriages and frivolous divorces (Mal 2:10-16), and by their murmuring at the delay of the judgment; whereas the Lord will soon reveal Himself as a just judge, and before His coming will send His messenger, the prophet Elijah, to warn the ungodly and lead them to repentance, and then suddenly come to His temple as the expected angel of the covenant, to refine the sons of Levi, punish the sinners who have broken the covenant, and by exterminating the wicked, as well as by blessing the godly with salvation and righteousness, make the children of Israel the people of His possession (2:17-4:6).

The contents of the book, therefore, arrange themselves in three sections: Malachi 1:6-2:9, Mal 2:10-16; 2:17-4:6. These three sections probably contain only the leading thoughts of the oral addresses of the prophet, which are so combined as to form one single prophetic address. Throughout the whole book we meet with the spirit which developed itself among the Jews after the captivity, and assumed the concrete forms of Phariseeism and Saduceeism.

The outward or grosser kind of idolatry had been rendered thoroughly distasteful to the people by the sufferings of exile; and its place was taken by the more refined idolatry of dead-work righteousness, and trust in the outward fulfilment of the letter of the divine commands, without any deeper confession of sin, or penitential humiliation under the word and will of God. Because the fulness of salvation, which the earlier prophets had set before the people when restored to favour and redeemed from captivity, had not immediately come to pass, they began to murmur against God, to cherish doubts as to the righteousness of the divine administration, and to long for the judgment to fall upon the Gentiles, without reflecting that the judgment would begin at the house of God (Amo 3:2; 1Pe 4:17).

Malachi fights against this spirit, and the influence of the time in which he lived is apparent in the manner in which he attacks it. This style is distinguished from the oratorical mode of address adopted by the earlier prophets, and not unfrequently rises into a lyrico-dramatical diction, by the predominance of the conversational form of instruction, in which the thought to be discussed is laid down in the form of a generally acknowledged truth, and developed by the alternation of address and reply.

In this mode of developing the thought, we can hardly fail to perceive the influence of the scholastic discourses concerning the law which were introduced by Ezra; only we must not look upon this conversational mode of instruction as a sign of the defunct spirit of prophecy, since it corresponded exactly to the practical wants of the time, and prophecy did not die of spiritual exhaustion, but was extinguished in accordance with the will and counsel of God, as soon as its mission had been fulfilled. Malachi’s language, considering the later period in which he lived and laboured, is still vigorous, pure, and beautiful.

“Malachi,” as Nägelsbach says in Herzog’s Cyclopaedia, “is like a late evening, which brings a long day to a close; but he is also the morning dawn, which bears a glorious day in its womb. ” For the exegetical literature, see my Lehrbuch der Einleitung , p. 318; also Aug. Koehler’s Wiessagungen Maleachi’s erklärt , Erl. 1865. Malachi 1:1-2:9 The Lord has shown love to Israel (Mal 1:2-5), but Israel refuses Him the gratitude which is due, since the priests despise His name by offering bad sacrifices, and thereby cherish the delusion that God cannot do without the sacrifices (Mal 1:6-14).

The people are therefore punished with adversity, and the priesthood with desecration (Mal 2:1-9). Mal 1:1-5 The first verse contains the heading (see the introduction), “The burden of the word of the Lord,” as in Zec 9:1 and Zec 12:1. On massa' (burden), see Nah 1:1. The prophet commences his address in Mal 1:2, by showing the love for which Israel has to thank its God, in order that on the ground of this fact he may bring to the light the ingratitude of the people towards their God.

Mal 1:2. “I have loved you, saith Jehovah; and ye say, Wherein hast Thou loved us? Is not Esau a brother of Jacob? is the saying of Jehovah: and I loved Jacob, Mal 1:3. And I hated Esau, and made his mountains a waste, and his inheritance for jackals of the desert. Mal 1:4. If Edom says, We are dashed to pieces, but will build up the ruins again, thus saith Jehovah of hosts: They will build, but I will pull down: and men will call them territory of wickedness, and the people with whom Jehovah is angry for ever.

Mal 1:5. And your eyes will see it; and ye will say, Great is Jehovah over the border of Israel. ” These four verses form neither an independent address, nor merely the first member of the following address, but the introduction and foundation of the whole book. The love which God has shown to Israel ought to form the motive and model for the conduct of Israel towards its God.

אהב denotes love in its expression or practical manifestation. The question asked by the people, “Wherein hast Thou shown us love? ” may be explained from the peculiarities of Malachi’s style, and is the turn he regularly gives to his address, by way of introducing the discussion of the matter in hand, so that we are not to see in it any intention to disclose the hypocrisy of the people.

The prophet proves the love of Jehovah towards Israel, from the attitude of God towards Israel and towards Edom. Jacob and Esau, the tribe-fathers of both nations, were twin brothers. It would therefore have been supposed that the posterity of both the Israelites and the Edomites would be treated alike by God. But this is not the case. Even before their birth Jacob was the chosen one; and Esau or Edom was the inferior, who was to serve his brother (Gen 25:23, cf.

Rom 9:10-13). Accordingly Jacob became the heir of the promise, and Esau lost this blessing. This attitude on the part of God towards Jacob and Esau, and towards the nations springing from them, is described by Malachi in these words: I (Jehovah) have loved Jacob, and hated Esau. The verbs אהב, to love, and שׂנא, to hate, must not be weakened down into loving more and loving less, to avoid the danger of falling into the doctrine of predestination.

שׂנא, to hate, is the opposite of love. And this meaning must be retained here; only we must bear in mind, that with God anything arbitrary is inconceivable, and that no explanation is given here of the reasons which determined the actions of God. Malachi does not expressly state in what the love of God to Jacob (i. e. , Israel) showed itself; but this is indirectly indicated in what is stated concerning the hatred towards Edom.

The complete desolation of the Edomitish territory is quoted as a proof of this hatred. Mal 1:3 does not refer to the assignment of a barren land, as Rashi, Ewald, and Umbreit suppose, but to the devastation of the land, which was only utterly waste on the western mountains; whereas it was by no means barren on the eastern slopes and valleys (see at Gen 27:39).

Tannōth is a feminine plural form of tan = tannı̄m (Mic 1:8; Isa 13:22, etc.) , by which, according to the Syrio-Aramaean version, we are to understand the jackal. The meaning dwelling-places, which Gesenius and others have given to tannōth , after the lxx and Peshito, rests upon a very uncertain derivation (see Roediger at Ges. Thes. p. 1511). “For jackals of the desert:” i.

e. , as a dwelling-place for these beasts of the desert (see Isa 34:13). It is a disputed point when this devastation took place, and from what people it proceeded. Jahn, Hitzig, and Koehler are of opinion that it is only of the most recent date, because otherwise the Edomites would long ago have repaired the injury, which, according to Mal 1:4, does not appear to have been done.

Mal 1:4, however, simply implies that the Edomites would not succeed in the attempt to repair the injury. On the other hand, Mal 1:2, Mal 1:3 evidently contain the thought, that whereas Jacob had recovered, in consequence of the love of Jehovah, from the blow which had fallen upon it (through the Chaldaeans), Esau’s territory was still lying in ruins from the same blow, in consequence of Jehovah’s hatred (Caspari, Obad.

p. 143). It follows from this, that the devastation of Idumaea emanated from the Chaldaeans. On the other hand, the objection that the Edomites appear to have submitted voluntarily to the Babylonians, and to have formed an alliance with them, does not say much, since neither the one nor the other can be raised even into a position of probability; but, on the contrary, we may infer with the greatest probability from Jer 49:7.

, as compared with Jer 25:9, Jer 25:21, that the Edomites were also subjugated by Nebuchadnezzar. Maurer’s assumption, that Idumaea was devastated by the Egyptians, Ammonites, and Moabites, against whom Nebuchadnezzar marched in the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem, is perfectly visionary. The threat in Mal 1:4, that if Edom attempts to rebuild its ruins, the Lord will again destroy that which is built, is equivalent to a declaration that Edom will never recover its former prosperity and power.

This was soon fulfilled, the independence of the Edomites being destroyed, and their land made an eternal desert, especially from the times of the Maccabees onwards. The construction of אדום as a feminine with תּאמר may be explained on the ground that the land is regarded as the mother of its inhabitants, and stands synecdochically for the population. Men will call them (להן, the Edomites) גּבוּל רשׁעה, territory, land of wickedness, - namely, inasmuch as they will look upon the permanent devastation, and the failure of every attempt on the part of the nation to rise up again, as a practical proof that the wrath of God is resting for ever upon both people and land on account of Edom’s sins.

Person of the Prophet. - The circumstances of Malachi's life are so entirely unknown, that it is a disputed point whether מכלאכי in the heading (Mal 1:1) is the name of a person, or merely an ideal name given to the prophet who foretels the sending of the messenger of Jehovah (מלאכי, Mal 3:1), and whose real name has not been handed down. The lxx rendered the בּיד מלאכי of the heading by ἐν χειρὶ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ, and therefore either had or conjectured as their reading מלאכו : and the Targumist Jonathan , who adds to בּיד מלאכי cujus nomen appellatur Esra scriba , has also taken מלאכי in an ideal sense, and given the statement that Ezra the scribe is the prophetic author of our book, as a conjecture founded upon the spirit and contents of the prophecy.

The notion that Malachi is only an official name is therefore met with in many of the fathers, and has been vigorously defended in the most recent times by Hengstenberg, who follows the lead of Vitringa, whilst Ewald lays it down as an established truth. But the arguments adduced in support of this, especially by Hengstenberg in his Christology , are not conclusive.

The circumstance “that the heading does not contain any further personal description, whether the name of his father or the place of his birth,” is not more striking in our book than in the writings of Obadiah and Habakkuk, which also contain only the name of the prophet in the heading, without any further personal descriptions. It is a striking fact, no doubt, that the lxx and the Targumist have taken the name as an appellative; at the same time, it by no means follows from this “that nothing was known in tradition of any historical person of the name of Malachi,” but simply that nothing certain had been handed down concerning the circumstances of the prophet’s life.

The recollection, however, of the circumstances connected with the personal history of the prophet might easily have become extinct during the period of at least 150 or 200 years which intervened between the lifetime of the prophet and the Alexandrian version of the Old Testament, if his life was not distinguished by any other facts than the prophecies contained in his book. And Jonathan lived, at the earliest, 400 years after Malachi.

That all recollection of the person of Malachi was not lost, however, is evident both from the notice in the Talmud to the effect that Malachi was one of the men of the great synagogue, as Haggai and Zechariah had been, and also from the statements made by Ps. Doroth. , Epiph. , and other fathers, to the effect that he was a Levite of the tribe of Zebulun, and was born in Supha , or Σοφά, or Σοφιρά (see the passages in Koehler, Mal.

pp. 10, 11), although all these statements show that nothing certain was known as to the circumstances of his life. But the principal reason for taking the name not as a nomen proprium , but simply as a name adopted by the prophet for this particular prophecy, is to be found, according to Hengstenberg, in the character of the name itself, viz. , in the fact that it is not formed from מלאך and יהּ = יהוה, and cannot be explained by angelicus .

But neither the one nor the other can be regarded as established. The formation of proper names by adding the termination ־י to appellative nouns is by no means unusual, as the long list of examples of words formed in this manner, given by Olshausen ( Heb. Gramm. 218, b ), clearly shows; and the remark that “this formation only serves to denote descent or occupation” (Hengstenberg) is beside the mark, since it does not apply to such names as גּרמי, זכרי, and others.

The interpretation of the name as a contraction of מלאכיּה, messenger of Jehovah, is quite as possible as this derivation. We have an unquestionably example of a contraction of this kind in אבי in 2Ki 18:2, as compared with אביּה in 2Ch 29:1. And just as the יהּ is there omitted altogether in אבי, so is the other name of God, אל, omitted in פלטי in 1Sa 25:44, which is written פּלטיאל in 2Sa 3:15.

This omission of the name of God is by no means rare. “The Hebrews very often drop the names of God at the end of proper names” (Simonis, p. 11). The formation of such a name as מלאכי would be perfectly analogous to these cases; and no objection whatever can be brought against such a name, since the ־י need not be taken as a suffix of the first person ( my messenger is Jehovah), but is rather to be taken as Yod compaginis , like יחזקיּה formed from יחזקי (for יחזק) and יה, “messenger of Jehovah.

” This name might very well have been given by parents to a son whom God had given them, or sent to them in fulfilment of their wishes. Which of these two derivations deserves the preference, cannot be determined with certainty; at the same time, there is more probability in the latter than in the former, partly because of the obvious play upon His name in the words הנני שׁלח מלאכי (Mal 3:1), and partly because of the Greek form of the name Μαλαχίας in the heading of the book.

Since, then, there is no valid argument that can be brought against the formation of such a name, there is all the more reason for regarding the name in the heading (Mal 1:1) as the real name of the prophet, from the fact that the idea explanation would be without any distinct analogy. “All the prophets whose writings have come down to us in the canon, have given their own names in the headings to their books, that is to say, the names which they received at their birth; and the names of the rest of the prophets of the Old Testament are also their real names” (Caspari, Micha , p.

28). Even in the case of the names Agur (Pro 30:1) and Lemuel (Pro 31:1), which Hengstenberg cites as analogies, it is still doubtful whether the first, Agur the son of Jakeh, is not a historical name; and even if the ideal use of the two were established beyond all doubt, no conclusion could be drawn from a collection of proverbs bearing upon a prophetic writing.

A collection of proverbs is a poetical work, whose ethical or religious truth is not dependent upon the person of the poet. The prophet, on the contrary, has to guarantee the divinity of his mission and the truth of his prophecy by his own name or his own personality. The period of Malachi is also a disputed point, although all are agreed that he lived and prophesied after the captivity.

We may gather from his prophecy, not only that he commenced his prophetic labours after Haggai and Zechariah, since, according to Mal 1:6. and Mal 3:10, the temple had been rebuilt and the temple-worship had been restored for a considerable time, but also, as Vitringa has shown in his Observ. ss. ii. lib. 6, that he did not prophesy till after the first arrival of Nehemiah in Jerusalem, i.

e. , after the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes Longimanus. The chief reason for this is to be found in the agreement between Malachi and Nehemiah (ch. 13), in the reproof administered for the abuses current among the people, and even in the priesthood, - namely, the marriage of heathen wives (compare Mal 2:11. with Neh 13:23.) , and the negligent payment of the tithes (compare Mal 3:8-10 with Neh 13:10-14).

The first of these abuses - namely, that many even of the priests and Levites had taken heathen wives - found its way among the people even on Ezra’s first arrival in Jerusalem; and he succeeded in abolishing it by vigorous measures, so that all Israel put away the heathen wives within three months (Ezr 9:1-15 and 10). But it is evidently impossible to refer the condemnation of the same abuse in Malachi to this particular case, because on the one hand the exhortation to be mindful of the law of Moses (Malachi 3:22), as well as the whole of the contents of our book which are founded upon the authority of the law, apply rather to the time when Ezra had already put forth his efforts to restore the authority of the law (Ezr 7:14, Ezr 7:25-26), than to the previous time; whilst, on the other hand, the offering of unsuitable animals in sacrifice (Mal 1:7.)

, and unfaithfulness in the payment of the tithes and heave-offerings (Mal 3:8), can evidently be only explained on the supposition that Israel had to provide for the necessities of the temple and the support of the persons engaged in the worship; whereas in Ezra’s time, or at any rate immediately after his arrival, as well as in the time of Darius (Ezr 6:9-10), the costs of worship were defrayed out of the royal revenues (Ezr 7:15-17, Ezr 7:20-24). But after the abolition of the heathen marriages by Ezra, and after his reformatory labours as a whole, such breaches of the law could not have spread once more among the people in the short interval between the time of Ezra and the first arrival of Nehemiah, even if Ezra had not continued his labours up to that time, as is evident from Nehemiah 8-10.

Moreover, Nehemiah would no doubt have attacked these abuses at that time, as he did at a later period, if he had detected them. Consequently the falling back into the old sin that had been abolished by Ezra cannot have taken place before the period of Nehemiah’s return to the king’s court, in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes (Neh 13:6). If, therefore, Malachi condemns and threatens with the punishment of God the very same abuses which Nehemiah found in Jerusalem on his second arrival there, and strove most energetically to exterminate, Malachi must have prophesied at that time; but whether immediately before Nehemiah’s second arrival in Jerusalem, or during his presence there, so as to support the reformatory labours of Nehemiah by his prophetic testimony, cannot be decided with certainty.

What Malachi says in Mal 1:8 concerning the attitude of the people towards the Persian governor does not necessarily presuppose a non-Israelitish vicegerent, but might also apply to Nehemiah, since the prophet’s words may be understood as relating to free-will gifts or presents, whereas Nehemiah (Neh 5:14-15) simply says that he has not required from the people the governor’s supplies, and has not burdened them with taxes. The circumstance, however, that Nehemiah finds the abuses still existing in undiminished force, renders the assumption that Malachi had already prophesied improbable, and favours rather the contemporaneous labours of the two; in which case the work of Malachi bore the same relation to that of Nehemiah as the work of Haggai and Zechariah to that of Zerubbabel and Joshua; and the reformatory labours of Nehemiah, which were chiefly of an outward character, were accompanied by the more inward labours of Malachi, as was very frequently the case in the history of Israel; for example, in the case of Isaiah and Hezekiah, or of Jeremiah and Josiah (see Hengstenberg, Christology , iv.

p. 157). 2. The Book of Malachi contains one single prophecy, the character of which is condemnatory throughout. Starting with the love which the Lord has shown to His people (Mal 1:2-5), the prophet proves that not only do the priests profane the name of the Lord by an unholy performance of the service at the altar (Mal 1:6; Mal 2:9), but the people also repudiate their divine calling both by heathen marriages and frivolous divorces (Mal 2:10-16), and by their murmuring at the delay of the judgment; whereas the Lord will soon reveal Himself as a just judge, and before His coming will send His messenger, the prophet Elijah, to warn the ungodly and lead them to repentance, and then suddenly come to His temple as the expected angel of the covenant, to refine the sons of Levi, punish the sinners who have broken the covenant, and by exterminating the wicked, as well as by blessing the godly with salvation and righteousness, make the children of Israel the people of His possession (2:17-4:6).

The contents of the book, therefore, arrange themselves in three sections: Malachi 1:6-2:9, Mal 2:10-16; 2:17-4:6. These three sections probably contain only the leading thoughts of the oral addresses of the prophet, which are so combined as to form one single prophetic address. Throughout the whole book we meet with the spirit which developed itself among the Jews after the captivity, and assumed the concrete forms of Phariseeism and Saduceeism.

The outward or grosser kind of idolatry had been rendered thoroughly distasteful to the people by the sufferings of exile; and its place was taken by the more refined idolatry of dead-work righteousness, and trust in the outward fulfilment of the letter of the divine commands, without any deeper confession of sin, or penitential humiliation under the word and will of God. Because the fulness of salvation, which the earlier prophets had set before the people when restored to favour and redeemed from captivity, had not immediately come to pass, they began to murmur against God, to cherish doubts as to the righteousness of the divine administration, and to long for the judgment to fall upon the Gentiles, without reflecting that the judgment would begin at the house of God (Amo 3:2; 1Pe 4:17).

Malachi fights against this spirit, and the influence of the time in which he lived is apparent in the manner in which he attacks it. This style is distinguished from the oratorical mode of address adopted by the earlier prophets, and not unfrequently rises into a lyrico-dramatical diction, by the predominance of the conversational form of instruction, in which the thought to be discussed is laid down in the form of a generally acknowledged truth, and developed by the alternation of address and reply.

In this mode of developing the thought, we can hardly fail to perceive the influence of the scholastic discourses concerning the law which were introduced by Ezra; only we must not look upon this conversational mode of instruction as a sign of the defunct spirit of prophecy, since it corresponded exactly to the practical wants of the time, and prophecy did not die of spiritual exhaustion, but was extinguished in accordance with the will and counsel of God, as soon as its mission had been fulfilled. Malachi’s language, considering the later period in which he lived and laboured, is still vigorous, pure, and beautiful.

“Malachi,” as Nägelsbach says in Herzog’s Cyclopaedia, “is like a late evening, which brings a long day to a close; but he is also the morning dawn, which bears a glorious day in its womb. ” For the exegetical literature, see my Lehrbuch der Einleitung , p. 318; also Aug. Koehler’s Wiessagungen Maleachi’s erklärt , Erl. 1865. Malachi 1:1-2:9 The Lord has shown love to Israel (Mal 1:2-5), but Israel refuses Him the gratitude which is due, since the priests despise His name by offering bad sacrifices, and thereby cherish the delusion that God cannot do without the sacrifices (Mal 1:6-14).

The people are therefore punished with adversity, and the priesthood with desecration (Mal 2:1-9). Mal 1:1-5 The first verse contains the heading (see the introduction), “The burden of the word of the Lord,” as in Zec 9:1 and Zec 12:1. On massa' (burden), see Nah 1:1. The prophet commences his address in Mal 1:2, by showing the love for which Israel has to thank its God, in order that on the ground of this fact he may bring to the light the ingratitude of the people towards their God.

Mal 1:2. “I have loved you, saith Jehovah; and ye say, Wherein hast Thou loved us? Is not Esau a brother of Jacob? is the saying of Jehovah: and I loved Jacob, Mal 1:3. And I hated Esau, and made his mountains a waste, and his inheritance for jackals of the desert. Mal 1:4. If Edom says, We are dashed to pieces, but will build up the ruins again, thus saith Jehovah of hosts: They will build, but I will pull down: and men will call them territory of wickedness, and the people with whom Jehovah is angry for ever.

Mal 1:5. And your eyes will see it; and ye will say, Great is Jehovah over the border of Israel. ” These four verses form neither an independent address, nor merely the first member of the following address, but the introduction and foundation of the whole book. The love which God has shown to Israel ought to form the motive and model for the conduct of Israel towards its God.

אהב denotes love in its expression or practical manifestation. The question asked by the people, “Wherein hast Thou shown us love? ” may be explained from the peculiarities of Malachi’s style, and is the turn he regularly gives to his address, by way of introducing the discussion of the matter in hand, so that we are not to see in it any intention to disclose the hypocrisy of the people.

The prophet proves the love of Jehovah towards Israel, from the attitude of God towards Israel and towards Edom. Jacob and Esau, the tribe-fathers of both nations, were twin brothers. It would therefore have been supposed that the posterity of both the Israelites and the Edomites would be treated alike by God. But this is not the case. Even before their birth Jacob was the chosen one; and Esau or Edom was the inferior, who was to serve his brother (Gen 25:23, cf.

Rom 9:10-13). Accordingly Jacob became the heir of the promise, and Esau lost this blessing. This attitude on the part of God towards Jacob and Esau, and towards the nations springing from them, is described by Malachi in these words: I (Jehovah) have loved Jacob, and hated Esau. The verbs אהב, to love, and שׂנא, to hate, must not be weakened down into loving more and loving less, to avoid the danger of falling into the doctrine of predestination.

שׂנא, to hate, is the opposite of love. And this meaning must be retained here; only we must bear in mind, that with God anything arbitrary is inconceivable, and that no explanation is given here of the reasons which determined the actions of God. Malachi does not expressly state in what the love of God to Jacob (i. e. , Israel) showed itself; but this is indirectly indicated in what is stated concerning the hatred towards Edom.

The complete desolation of the Edomitish territory is quoted as a proof of this hatred. Mal 1:3 does not refer to the assignment of a barren land, as Rashi, Ewald, and Umbreit suppose, but to the devastation of the land, which was only utterly waste on the western mountains; whereas it was by no means barren on the eastern slopes and valleys (see at Gen 27:39).

Tannōth is a feminine plural form of tan = tannı̄m (Mic 1:8; Isa 13:22, etc.) , by which, according to the Syrio-Aramaean version, we are to understand the jackal. The meaning dwelling-places, which Gesenius and others have given to tannōth , after the lxx and Peshito, rests upon a very uncertain derivation (see Roediger at Ges. Thes. p. 1511). “For jackals of the desert:” i.

e. , as a dwelling-place for these beasts of the desert (see Isa 34:13). It is a disputed point when this devastation took place, and from what people it proceeded. Jahn, Hitzig, and Koehler are of opinion that it is only of the most recent date, because otherwise the Edomites would long ago have repaired the injury, which, according to Mal 1:4, does not appear to have been done.

Mal 1:4, however, simply implies that the Edomites would not succeed in the attempt to repair the injury. On the other hand, Mal 1:2, Mal 1:3 evidently contain the thought, that whereas Jacob had recovered, in consequence of the love of Jehovah, from the blow which had fallen upon it (through the Chaldaeans), Esau’s territory was still lying in ruins from the same blow, in consequence of Jehovah’s hatred (Caspari, Obad.

p. 143). It follows from this, that the devastation of Idumaea emanated from the Chaldaeans. On the other hand, the objection that the Edomites appear to have submitted voluntarily to the Babylonians, and to have formed an alliance with them, does not say much, since neither the one nor the other can be raised even into a position of probability; but, on the contrary, we may infer with the greatest probability from Jer 49:7.

, as compared with Jer 25:9, Jer 25:21, that the Edomites were also subjugated by Nebuchadnezzar. Maurer’s assumption, that Idumaea was devastated by the Egyptians, Ammonites, and Moabites, against whom Nebuchadnezzar marched in the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem, is perfectly visionary. The threat in Mal 1:4, that if Edom attempts to rebuild its ruins, the Lord will again destroy that which is built, is equivalent to a declaration that Edom will never recover its former prosperity and power.

This was soon fulfilled, the independence of the Edomites being destroyed, and their land made an eternal desert, especially from the times of the Maccabees onwards. The construction of אדום as a feminine with תּאמר may be explained on the ground that the land is regarded as the mother of its inhabitants, and stands synecdochically for the population. Men will call them (להן, the Edomites) גּבוּל רשׁעה, territory, land of wickedness, - namely, inasmuch as they will look upon the permanent devastation, and the failure of every attempt on the part of the nation to rise up again, as a practical proof that the wrath of God is resting for ever upon both people and land on account of Edom’s sins.