(20-23) The Fifth Utterance.-The promise of verses 6-9 is enlarged. The heathen powers shall be consumed one of another, but the line of Zerubbabel shall stand secure, and be a witness to Jehovah's faithfulness. Here, as in verses 6-9, the only satisfactory interpretation is that Haggai was charged with a predictionpurposely vague and indistinct in character-of the extension of God's kingdom by the Christian dispensation. Zerubbabel," the descendant of David, includes in himself Him who was according to the flesh his lineal descendant. Just in the same way in older prophecy "David" is himself identified with that Messiah in whom the glories of the Davidic house were to culminate. (See Ps. lxxxix. 19, and comp. Jennings and Lowe, Commentary, Introd. to Ps. lxxxix.) It appears as unnecessary to find a literal fulfilment of the prediction of

66

to Zerubbabel.

chariots, and those that ride in them; and the horses and their riders shall come down, every one by the sword of his brother. (23) In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the LORD, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith the LORD of hosts.

the overthrow of the world-powers, "every one by the sword of his brother," as of the utterance (repeated from verse 6), "I will shake the heavens and the earth." It is true that the empires of Babylon, Persia, Syria, and Greece each in its turn declined and passed away. But in the Roman Empire the world-power was as strongly represented as ever, when Christ came on earth. It was to succumb later on to moral, not to material force. Nothing, in fact, can be extracted from these passages beyond a dim presage of the heathen kingdoms being pervaded by the moral influence of the Christian Church.

(23) Signet.-On the figure of the signet-ring spplied to one on whom confidence and affection are bestowed, see Song of Solomon viii. 6; Jer. xxii. 24.

ΤΟ

CHAPTERS I.-VIII.

I. The Prophet.-He describes himself as "Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo," which can only mean-(LXX., Jerome, and Cyril are in error)— that he was the grandson of the latter. But in Ezra v. 1, vi. 14, he is called "the son of Iddo." Similarly, Laban, the grandson of Nahor, is called his son (Gen. xxix. 5); and Jehu is in 2 Kings ix. 14 called "the son of Jehoshaphat, the son of Nimshi," while in verse 20 he is styled simply "the son of Nimshi." The supposition, therefore, that the words" son of Berechiah" (Zech. i. 1) are an interpolation borrowed from Isa. viii. 2, where "Zechariah, the son of Jeberechiah," is mentioned, is superfluous. The conjecture, too, that the Book of Zechariah is made up of the writings of three distinct prophets-Zechariah son of Iddo, Zechariah son of Jeberechiah, and Uriah, fellow-witness of the latter (Isa. viii. 2)—though ingenious, is but based on the erroneous idea that Zech. ix.-xiv. cannot be of post-exilian authorship. In Ezra v. 1, 2, Zechariah is mentioned as prophesying, in conjunction with Haggai, during the time of Jeshua, the son of Josedech (the high priest). A certain Iddo is reckoned as among the heads of priests (and Levites) who came up with Zerubbabel (Neh. xii. 1—4); and again, a Zechariah is spoken of as the lineal representative of Iddo, and one of the heads of the priestly houses in the days of Joiakim, the successor of Jeshua (Neh. xii. 12-16). It may be not unreasonably assumed that this is Zechariah the Prophet, and that this Iddo is his grandfather. From these materials we may fairly deduce that (1) Zechariah was a young man when he entered upon his office; (2) that his father died early, and was, perhaps, never head of his house, which would account for his being passed over by Ezra; (3) that Zechariah, like Jeremiah and Ezekiel, was a priest as well as a prophet. The first of these deductions is sufficient to dispose of the fables of Epiphanius, Dorotheus, and Hesychius (see Köhler, Einleitung; Wright, Introduction), that Zechariah was an old man at the time of the return from the captivity, and that he had already foretold to Shealtiel the birth of Zerubbabel, and to Cyrus his victory over Cræsus, &c. The second of these fables is also contradicted by the fact that Zerubbabel was not the actual son of Shealtiel, but of his brother Pedaiah (1 Chron. iii. 19). Shealtiel seems to have died without male issue, and Pedaiah to have taken his deceased brother's wife in accordance with Deut. xxv. 5-10. Zerubbabel, or Sheshbazzar, seems to have been the son of this Levirate marriage.

The name Zechariah is compounded of the stem záchôr, "to remember," and Yah, the first half of the Holy Name (see Notes on Exod. xv. 2, xvii. 16; Ps. lxviii.), and probably means Yah remembers." Some, however, take it as meaning "who remembers Yah." (Comp. Munσideos and Tiuóleos.) Jerome explains it as

III. Contents of Chapters i.-viii.-These chapters consist of three distinct prophetic utterances : viz., (1) chap. i. 1—6; (2) chaps. i. 7—vi. 15; (3) chaps. vii, and viii.

(1) Chap. i. 1-6.-A declaration of the prophet's mission, and an earnest exhortation to the people to turn unto the Lord, that He might turn unto them, together with a warning not to fall into that error of neglect of God's word which had proved so fatal to their fathers.

(2) Chap. i. 7-vi. 15.-A series of seven visions, with two appendices, chaps. ii. 6-13, vi. 9-15. Some commentators have maintained that these visions were not, even subjectively, seen by the prophet; but that he deliberately sets forth his experience under the similitude of dreams, as Bunyan does in the Pilgrim's Progress. But it seems to us, from the prophet's words, to be imperative to regard these visions as subjectively, though perhaps not objectively, visible to him, just as one would naturally so regard the visions of Amos (chaps. vii.-ix.).

First Vision (chap. i. 7-17).—The horsemen among the myrtles. This vision was intended to convey to the prophet the truth that, though as yet there may be little sign of God's "overthrowing the kingdoms" (Haggai ii. 22), yet He, with His allwatchful eye, was scanning the horizon, and preparing to fulfil His word.

Second Vision (chap. i. 18-21).-The four horses and four workmen indicate that God would continue to remove the hostility of the Persians, even as He had already broken the power of the Assyrians, Egyptians, and Babylonians.

Third Vision (chap. ii. 1—5).—The man with the measuring line. The enlargement and perfect security of the people of God. An appendix (chap. ii. 6-13) prophetic of the ingathering of the nations in the days of BRANCH, the Messiah.

Fourth Vision (chap. iii.)—Joshua, the high priest, arraigned before the angel of the Lord. The forgiveness of the sins of the priesthood, and of the .people, whose representative he was.

Fifth Vision (chap. iv.).—The candlestick with the two olive-trees. The diffusion of God's grace by means of His two channels-the priesthood and civil power. It contains a promise (verse 9) that Zerubbabel's hands should finish the building of the Temple. Sixth Vision (chap. v. 1—11.)—The flying roll, and the woman in the ephah, denoting the curse on sinners, and the banishment of sin. Seventh Vision (chap. vi. 1-8).—The four chariots. God's judgments on the nations. An appendix (chap. vi. 9-15), the crowning of Joshua, which foreshadows the two-fold office of BRANCH, as king and priest. A probable lacuna in the text.

(3) Chaps. vii., viii.--The inquiry concerning the fasts. The prophet's rebuke of the people for their formalism. The answer to their inquiry, in the form of a promise that their fasts should be turned into feasts.

CHAPTERS IX.-XIV.

Mede (who died in 1638) was the first to doubt the genuineness of this second part of the book. He was led to do so on observing that in Matt. xxvii. 9, a passage, which is certainly a quotation from Zech. xi. 12, 13, is ascribed to Jeremiah. On further investigation, he conceived that he found internal evidence in support of his theory that these chapters were of an earlier date than the age of Zechariah. Since that time the question has been continually discussed by scholars of many nations, with such inconsistent results that chapters ix. xiv. have been ascribed to various times, ranging between 772 B.C. (Hitzig) and 330 (Böttcher).

We need not here attach any weight to the supposed external authority of St. Matthew in the matter. (See the New Testament Commentary, in loc.) But the question of internal evidence-first, with regard to style, secondly, with respect to historical standpoint demands careful investigation. At the same time the reader will do well to bear in mind Pusey's weighty remark: "It is obvious that there must be some mistake either in the tests applied, or in their application, which admits of a variation of at least 450 years."

Seeing that the preponderance of authority appeared to be subversive of the view that the latter chapters were of as late a date as the age of Zechariah, we came to the special study of the subject with a certain inclination to accept the hypothesis that this portion is of pre-exilian origin. But we have since felt compelled to abandon this theory. We now proceed to put before the reader the process of reasoning which has led us to our present conclusions. We shall print the arguments of the impugners of the integrity of the book in italics, and give our answer to each objection.

I. Arguments against the genuineness of chaps. ix.-xiv.: (A) from style, (B) from the historical standpoint.

A. DIFFERENCE OF STYLE BETWEEN ZECH.i.-Viii. AND ix. xiv.

1. Zech. i. 7—vi. 8 consists almost entirely of visions, while in chaps. ix.-xiv. there are none.

Ans. When the prophet saw visions, he related them; when he did not see any. he could not do so. There is no reason in the nature of things why God should not at one time reveal His will to a prophet in visions, and at another by other means. Thus, as a fact, Amos has only visions in the second part, and none in the first; and so, too, Isaiah and Ezekiel related visions when they saw

them, but at other times they delivered their oracles in a different manner. Moreover, chaps. vii. and viii. do not consist of visions, and the genuineness of these chapters has not been called in question.

2. The angel-interpreter and Satan disappear from chaps. ix. xiv.

Ans. And so they do from chaps. vii. and viii, simply because they were actors, the one in the whole series of visions, and the other in one portion of it.

3. The seven eyes, as a symbol of God's Providence, disappear from chaps. ix.-xiv.

Ans. True; but a writer is not compelled to use continually a certain symbol, because he happens to have done so on a former occasion. Moreover, a very similar expression, "for now have I seen it with mine eyes,” is actually used in chap. ix. 8. (Comp. chap. ix. 5.)

4. Exact dates are given many times in the former chapters, but none in the latter.

Ans. Similarly, we find dates prefixed to other visions, such as Isa. vi. 1; Ezek. i. 1—3, viii. 1, 2, xl. 1, 2; and dates are frequently found in the prophets, where answers are recorded as given by Divine command to inquiries addressed to them.

5. In chaps. i-viii. introductory formulas constantly occur, which are not found in the concluding siz chapters.

Ans. So, too, Hosea uses introductory formulas in the first five chapters of his book, which are wanting in the last nine chapters; and yet no doubt is entertained of the integrity of that book.

6 a. The style of chaps. i.-viii. is utterly different to that of chaps. ix.—xiv.

Ans. So is that of Hos. i.-iii. different to that of chaps. iv.-xiv; and the style of Ezek. iv., v. is totally different to that of chaps. vi., vii., or of chaps. xxvii., xxviii.

B. The style of the first eight chapters is prosaic, feeble, poor, while that of the remaining six is poetic, weighty, concise, glowing (Rosenmüller). Böttcher, on the other hand, says: In comparison with the lifeless language of these chapters (ix.—xiv.), as to which we cannot at all understand how any cun have removed them into so early pre-exile times, the Psalms attributed to the time of the Maccabees are amazingly fresh."

Ans. When critics so disagree as to the respective merits of the styles of the two sections, it seems hardly worth while to consider the argument. We will merely remark that neither sweeping statement is correct. When the prophet is describing a vision, or giving an answer to questions propounded, he naturally writes in the language best suited to his purpose, viz., prose. But when he comes to speak of the distant future, he natur. ally rises to a loftier style of diction; and this is the case even in the earlier chapters, when occasion requires: e.g., chaps. ii. 10-17, vi. 12, 13. (See further, under The Integrity of the whole Book, 7.) Further, the argument from style must be, indeed, very strong to enable us to affirm that this chapter is by one author, and that by another. And even when the evidence appears most forcible to the propounder of the theory, facts may come to light which will prove it to be utterly fallacious. Thus an acute German has found reasons why the Laws of Plato should not be Plato's, and yet Jowett (Translations of Plato's Dialogues, vol. iv. 1) has shown them to be undoubtedly genuine by four sets of facts: (1) from twenty citations of them by Aristotle, who must have been intimate with Plato for some seventeen years; (2) by the allusion of Isocrates, writing two or three years after the composition of the Laws;