(3) by the references of the comic poet Alexis, a younger contemporary of Plato; (4) by the unanimous voice of later antiquity.

B. THE HISTORICAL STANDPOINT.-Those who impugn the integrity of the Book of Zechariah on historical grounds may be divided into two classes. (1) Those who ascribe chaps. ix.-xiv. to one author, and (2) those who attribute chaps. ix.―xi. to one author, and chaps. xii.-xiv. to another; or who imagine that they discover the traces of three different pens in chaps. ix. xiv. We will discuss the integrity of chaps. ix.-xiv. further on. At present we will content ourselves with disposing of the difference with regard to historical standpoint which has been urged in the two sections i.—viii. and ix.-xiv. generally. The particular passages in which such a difference has been urged we shall discuss in our Notes on those passages, viz., ix. 1-8, ix. 9-17, x. 2, x. 3—12, xi. 1—3, xi. 14, xii. 1—9, xii. 11, xiv. 5, xiv. 1-21.

1a. In chaps. ix.—xiv. the historical standpoint is entirely changed. In chaps. i-viii. the prophet is continually mentioning the rebuilding of the Temple, and the re-inhabiting of Jerusalem; but in chaps ix.xiv. he is occupied with quite different matters.

Ans. This is true, for the latter chapters were (we have good reason for supposing) written many years after the former, when the rebuilding of the Temple was a fait accompli, and when those abuses of the Temple-service, which so vexed the righteous spirit of Malachi, had not yet crept in. It would not, we suppose, be imagined strange if a Parisian, writing in 1871, spoke much of the siege of Paris, while, when writing in 1881, he said nothing whatever about that event, but was engrossed with the affairs of Tunis, and the possibility of eventual collision with other Powers. The case of Zechariah is still stronger, for not ten, but probably some forty years, intervened between the delivery of the prophecies of chaps. i.— viii., and those of chaps. ix.-xiv.

B. In the former chapters he mentions his contemporaries, such as Joshua and Zerubbabel, but not so in the latter portion.

Ans. In the former chapters he was chiefly occupied in contemporary events; in the latter he speaks of a more distant future, which none of his contemporaries would live to see. This difference of subject-matter accounts, also, for the occurrence of such expressions as "in that day," "the people round about," in the latter chapters, which are not found in the former.

2. Chap. ix. 1-8 is so like to Amos i. and ii. 1-6, &c., that it seems impossible that two prophecies so similar should have been uttered at periods so wide apart.

Ans. There is this much of resemblance between the two passages: viz., that in both Damascus, Tyre, Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Ekron are threatened. But here the similarity ceases, and the great dissimilarity becomes apparent. (a) In Amos, Edom, Ammon, and Moab are included, but not so in Zechariah. And this is most natural, for, while in the time of Uzziah these were still powerful nations, on the return from the captivity they were so weak, that when in the time of Nehemiah "Sanballat and Tobiah, and the Arabians and the Ammonites and the Ashdodites" all conspire to hinder the Jews from rebuilding the Wall of Jerusalem, it was found sufficient to repel them that half of the returned exiles should stand to arms, while the other half went on with the work of building. (8) Amos expressly states that Aram-Damascus should be carried away to Kir, while there is no such intimation

in Zech. ix. (7) The style of the two passages is not similar. That of Amos i.-ii. 6 is of a marked character, but we find no echo of that style in Zech. ix. 1–8. (8) In Amos ii. 4—6, Judah and Israel are threatened equally with the other nations, and looked on equally with the other people there mentioned as separate governments. But in Zech. ix. 8 God's "house" is promised special protection (see further in our Notes), and in verse 13 "Judah" and "Ephraim" are used as parallel terms.

Thus we see that the arguments in favour of the preexilian authorship of these chapters, whether urged on the score of style or of historical reference, fall to the ground. On the other hand, there is, we will show, strong internal testimony to the truth of the opposite opinion.

II. Internal Evidence in Favour of the Post-exilian Origin of chaps. ix.—xiv.—1. The writer of chaps. ix. xiv. shows such a familiarity with the writings of the later prophets as appears to some reconcilable only with the supposition that he wrote at a date posterior to them: e.g., the Deutero-Isaiah.1 Compare

Similarly Zechariah, in chaps. i.-viii., exhibits the same familiarity with the later prophetic books which we have shown to be a characteristic of chaps. ix.—xiv. Compare, for example:

Chap. ii. 6 with Isa, xlviii. 20, or with Isa. lii. 11 and Jer. li. 6, 9.
Chap. ii. 9, 11, and chap. iv. 9, with Ezek. vi. 7, 10, xxxix. 10, &c.
Chaps. iii. 8, vi. 12, with Jer. xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15 (Isa. iv. 2).
Chap. vi. 15 with Jer. xvii. 24.

Chap. vii. 5-10 with Isa. lviii. 3-7.
Chap. vii. 9 with Ezek. xviii. 8 and Jer. vii. 5-7, xxii. 3.
Chap. vii. 12 Ezek. xi. 19.
Chap. vii. 13
Chap. vii. 14
Chap. viii. 3
Chap. viii. 4
Chap. viii. 6
Chap. viii. 7
Chap. viii. 8

Jer. xi. 11.

Jer. xvi. 13, &c.

Jer. xxxi. 23.

Isa. lxv. 20.

199

Isa. xliii. 6. Isa. xlviii. 1.

Jer. xxxii. 17, 27.

1 See Introduction to Isaiah. Should the so-called DeuteroIsaiah (chaps. xl.-end) be eventually shown to be by the same author as Isa. i.-xxxix., our argument would not be injured, since the references to the other prophets mentioned afterwards are in themselves sufficient. Further, most critics who regard Zech. ix.-xiv. as pre-exilian, consider Isa. xl.-end as contemporaneous with the later prophets.

This argument seemed so convincing to De Wette that, after having in the first three editions of his Introduction declared for two authors, he felt compelled to change his mind, and in his fourth edition admitted the post-exilian origin of chaps. ix.-xiv., and even the possibility of their having been written by Zechariah. We are not, however, prepared to regard this argument as conclusive. We own the difficulty that there is in computing the exact weight due to the argument derived from the consideration of parallel passages, and concur with Cheyne's pertinent remarks on the subject (The Prophecies of Isaiah, vol. ii., p. 210): "The argument from parallel passages is sometimes much overrated. How prone we are to fancy an imitation where there is none, has been strikingly shown by Munro's parallel between the plays of Shakspeare and Seneca (Journal of Philology, vol. vi., Camb. 1876, pp. 70-72); and even when an imitation on one side or the other must be supposed, how difficult it is to choose between the alternatives! A recent revolution of opinion among patristic students may be a warning to us not to be too premature in deciding such questions. It has been the custom to argue from the occurrence of almost identical sentences in the Octavius of Minucius Felix and the Apologeticum of Tertullian, that Minucius must have written later than the beginning of the third century, on the ground that a brilliant genius like Tertullian's cannot have been such a servile imitator as the hypothesis of the priority of Minucius would imply. But Adolf Ebert seems to have definitely proved that Tertullian not only made use of Minucius, but did not even understand his author rightly.”

sons

2. In no way can they be so consistently interpreted as by supposing them to have been written after the This is especaptivity (as will be seen in our Notes). cially the case with regard to the mention of the " of Greece" (chap. ix. 13), which can refer to no event of which we have cognizance before the time of Alexander or of the Maccabees; and with regard to the prophecies contained in chaps. xii.-xiv., they would be simply untrue if uttered in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.

We conclude, therefore, that the last six chapters are, equally with the first eight, of post-exilian origin. We come next to the question of—

III. The Integrity of chapters ix.—xiv.— The theory, which Bunsen has called one of the triumphs of modern criticism, that chaps. ix.—xi. and chaps. xii.-xiv. are the work of two different prophets : viz., chaps. ix.-xi. that of a contemporary of Isaiah, perhaps Zechariah son of Jeberechiah (Isa. viii. 2), and chaps. xii.--xiv., possibly that of Urijah son of Shemaiah (Jer. xxvi. 20-23), falls to the ground with the establishment of the post-exilian origin of the whole section. Archbishop Newcome, who originated this theory, concluded that chaps. ix.—xi. were written much earlier than the time of Jeremiah, and before the captivity of the tribes; but was not so positive as his followers with regard to the pre-exilian authorship of chaps. xii.-xiv., though he thinks the mention of idols (xiii. 2) to be in favour of that supposition. We must therefore discuss a little more fully what have been termed the grounds for separating chaps. xii.- xiv. from chaps. ix.—xi.

(1) Chap. xi. has a distinct introductory formula. But since this formula is the same as that of chap. ix. 1, and that a formula which recurs only in Mal. i. 1, this argument tends rather in the other direction.

(2) The former chapters speak of Israel and Judah,

but the latter do not mention " Israel." On the contrary, chap. xii. 1 states that the whole of the following prophecy is concerning " Israel."

66

(3) In the former, Syrians, Phoenicians, Philistine, and Greeks are mentioned, but Assyrians and Egyptians described as the most powerful. These chapters belong therefore to early times. We have shown in our Notes that the manner in which the Greeks are here described as enemies of Israel fixes the date of these chapters to the post-exilian period. Egypt and Assyria are spoken of (x. 10) as the nations who had carried off the people. and whence they were to be brought back, while in ve. 11 the stereotyped language of former prophets is eridently used in a figurative sense.

(4) The anticipations of the two prophets are diffa. ent. The first trembles for Ephraim, but for Judah be has no fear. On the contrary, Ephraim and Judah are included equally in the promised protection.

66

(5) The second prophet does not mention the northern kingdom, but is full of alarm for Judah, and sees the enemy laying siege to Jerusalem. Ephraim" does not denote the northern kingdom" in chaps. ix.-ri (see Notes). If Jerusalem was to be besieged at any time after its rebuilding, there is no reason why the same prophet who spoke before in general terms of wars, should not afterwards speak more particularly a siege. In prophesying concerning a siege of Jeruss lem it is only natural that Judah, in which tribe it partly stood, should be especially mentioned. More over, as we remarked above, the section is expressly addressed to all " Israel."

66

(6) Difference of style: "And it shall come to pass" does not occur in chaps. ix.-xi.; "in that day," which occurs so often in chaps. xii.-xiv., occurs only once in chaps. ix.-xi., and saith the Lord' occurs only twice in chaps. ix.—xi. There are also favourite e pressions in chaps. xii.-xiv., such as "all peoples, "all nations round about,"" family of Egypt," &c. This is true, but chaps. xii.-xiv. are admitted by all be a separate section, delivered probably on a different occasion to the former section, and pointing on the whole to a much further distant future. These facts are quite sufficient to account for such very slight differences of style.

IV. The Integrity of the whole Book.We now proceed to adduce some arguments to prove that there is sufficient correspondence between chaps -viii. and ix-xiv. to justify us, in default of ị positive evidence to the contrary, in regarding the whole book as the work of one prophet.

1. Both portions exhibit, as we have shown, an ex tensive acquaintance with the writings of the later prophets.

2. They both exhibit also an extensive acquaintance with the earlier books: thus, in chap. i. 4-6, chap. vii. 12, reference is made to "the former prophets generally :

Chap. ii. 12 (E. V. 8) recalls the thought, though not the phrase ology, of Ps. xvii. 8.

Chaps. iii. 8, vi. 12, allude to Isa. iv. 2, as well as to Jer. xxiii and xxxiii. 15.

Chap. iii. 10 is from Mic. iv. 4.

Chap. vi. 13 evidently refers to Ps. cx. 4.
Chap. viii. 8 recalls Hos. ii. 21 (E V. 19).
Chap. viii. 20-22 in substance may be compared with M
iv. 1, 2, Isa. ii. 2, 3.

And in the second part :

Chap. ix. 1-8 bears some resemblance to Amos i. 3, ii. 6, Chap. ix. 10 (first half) is borrowed from Mic. v. 10, and (second half) from Ps. lxxii. 8.

Chap. xiii. 2 is a quotation from Hos. ii. 17 or Mic. v. 12 (comp. Isa. ii. 18, 20); and ver. 9, from Hos. ii. 20 (E. V.

Comp. also chap. ix. 16 with Isa. xi. 12.

Chap. x. 12 with Mic. iv. 5.

Chap. x. 10-12 with Isa. xi. 15, xiv. 25, x. 24-27, xxx. 31, &c. Chap. xii. 8 with Joel iv. 10.

Chap. xii. 10

Chap. xiv. 3

Chap. xiv. 6, 7 xxx. 26.

Chap. xiv. 8
Chap. xiv. 11
Chap. xiv. 20
Chap. xiv. 21

Joel iii. 1, 2.

Isa. xxxiv. 1-4.

Amos v. 18, 20, Joel iv. (E.V. iii.) 15, Isa.

Isa. xi. 9, ii. 3, Mic. iv. 2.

Amos ix. 13-15.

Isa. xxiii. 18.

Isa. iv. 3, xxxv. 8, Joel iv. (E.V. iii.)17, &c. But we cannot lay much stress on this argument, since prophets, belonging as they did in most cases to a school, were in all probability acquainted with the works of their predecessors.

66

66

3. In both portions the whole people are similarly styled "the house of Israel, and the house of Judah (chap. viii. 13); or, "house of Judah, and house of Joseph" (chap. x. 6); or Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem" (chap. i. 19); or Judah and Ephraim" (chap. ix. 13); or Judah and Israel" (chap. xi. 14). And in both portions (see the above reference), as was done by Jer. (chaps. xxiii. 6, 1. 20) and Ezek. (chap. xxxvii. 16— 19), a future is promised to the re-united Israel-Judah.

66

In

4. In both parts (chaps. ii. 9, 11, and xi. 11) we have the prototype of our Lord's saying (John xiv. 29): “ And now I have told you before it come to pass, that when it is come to pass ye might believe" (John xiii. 19, xvi. 4). In both (chaps. viii. 10, xi. 6) internal discord is directly attributed to God's Providence. both (chaps. viii. 12, x. 1) the prophet promises God's gifts of the produce of the earth. In both (chaps. ii. 10, ix. 9) he bids Jerusalem burst out for joy. The only king of Israel mentioned in either portion is the Messiah (chaps. vi. 12, 13, ix. 9).

5. Both portions are written in pure Hebrew, free from Aramaisms. Both (chaps. vii. 14, ix. 8) contain the expression "passes to and fro," in the sense of “all inhabitants," which elsewhere occurs only in Ezek. xxxv. 7. (But we must be careful not to lay too much stress on this latter argument, since, if more Biblical Hebrew were extant, the expression would probably occur often.)

are,

6. In both parts alike may be observed the habit of dwelling on the same thought or word-e.g., in chaps. ii. 14, 15, vi. 10, vi. 12, 13, viii. 4, 5, viii. 23, xi. 7, xiv. 10, 11, xiv. 4, xiv. 5. In both the whole and its parts for emphasis, mentioned together-e.g., in chaps. v. 4, x. 4, and x. 11, we have " every family apart," and then in verses 12, 13 the specification. And as an outcome of this fulness of diction we find, in each, instances of one fundamental idea expanded into the unusual number of five parallel clauses, e.g. :Chap. vi. 13

7. So far from looking upon the difference between the contents of the first eight and of the last six chapters as a sign of difference of authorship, we consider that the high-flown poetic language and imagery and deep prophetic insight of the latter chapters are just such as might have been expected, in his later years, from one who, in his youth, saw and related the mysterious series of visions contained in the former portion. For, as with other gifts of the Spirit, so with the gift of prophecy: we may well suppose that God gives to a man in accordance with that which he hath, and not according to that which he hath not. When, therefore, the seer, who even in his youth was found worthy of such mysterious revelations, had spent many years in communion with God, and meditation on the promises revealed by "the former prophets"-the deep things of God-it seems only in accordance with our experience of the workings of Divine Providence that he should, in after life, become the recipient of the stupendous revelations contained in the concluding chapters.

66

Thus the internal evidence of the two portions has been shown to be on the whole in favour of the integrity of the Book of Zechariah. It remains only to state that there is no external evidence (except that which originally led to a doubt on the subject) to the contrary. (1) In the Jewish Canon Zechariah is the eleventh in the book called "the twelve." The books of the Hebrew Scriptures have usually in MSS.*_no headings; but after each of the prophets, whether major or minor, three lines are usually, according to rule,† left empty, and then the next prophet is written. Thus between Haggai and Zechariah three lines ought to be left, just as between Jeremiah and Ezekiel. But between Zech. viii. and ix.‡ there is but an open section" (pārāshah pethūchāh), like that between chaps. vii. and viii., denoting merely that the matter which follows is not so closely connected with what precedes, as would have been denoted by there being only a "closed section" (pārāshāh sethumah) left between: as, for instance, between Zech. ix. 8, 9. Thus the very manner in which the book is written, when the laws on the subject are observed, points-from a negative, if not from a positive, point of view-to there being no doubt in the opinion of the Synagogue as to its integrity. (2) Neither in Rabbinical or Patristic writings, nor in the ancient versions, is there any trace known to us of a doubt having, in early times, been entertained on the subject. On the contrary, chap. xi. 1 is distinctly ascribed to "Zechariah son of Iddo" (Talmud Babli, Yoma 39a). While, on the other hand, Rabbi Akivah, in a remarkable piece of exegesis (Talmud Babli, Maccoth 24b), identifies Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah with the author of Zech. viii. 4, although he is perfectly aware that Zechariah prophesied during the time of the Second Temple. At the same time it must be observed that the so-called "external evidence of the Jewish Canon" has, by previous writers, been much too strongly stated; for it must not be forgotten that

In the Cambridge MS. of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, marked Add. 465, a scribe of the latter half of the fourteenth century has supplied running titles to the various books, according to the Jewish divisions. At the end of this MS. there is, for the purpose, as is expressly stated, of ready reference in controversy with Christians, a table of the Christian divisions of the books, in a hand not later than the early part of the fourteenth century; and a later scribe still has adopted the ordinary Christian divisions, and added them to the MS. throughout.

+ Tur and Shulchan ‘Ārūc, Yoreh De'ah, § 283.

These remarks will apply equally to the case of Isa. xxxix. and xl.

66

the fact that a passage occurs in a book ascribed to a certain prophet is not looked on by the Jews as absolute proof that it was pronounced by him (Talmud Babli, Baba Bathra 14). Thus Rabbi Simon, of the third and fourth centuries (Vayyikra Rabbah, xv. 2), ascribes Isa. viii. 19, 20, to Beeri (father of Amos), and says these verses were not written in a separate book, because there was not enough to constitute one. Again, in Maccoth 24 the verse Mic. iii. 12 is ascribed, without remark, to Urijah the priest, the co-witness with Zechariah son of Jeberechiah (Isa. viii. 2). Whatever people may think of the critical value of these rabbinical statements, they are most significant as pointing to an acknowledged tradition of the Synagogue with regard to the manner of putting together the canonical books. If, therefore, it should be thought that Zech. xi. 1-3, and xiii. 7—9 have no apparent connection with the context in the places in which they stand, it would be quite admissible to suppose them to be fragments, say of Ezekiel and Jeremiah respectively, which had not been included in those books, and which were now inserted in the prophecies of Zechariah to prevent their becoming lost. With regard to the Minor Prophets in particular, Rabbi Shelomoh Yitzchaki (or Rashi, the great Jewish traditionalist of the eleventh century) says, in his commentary on Talmud Babli, Baba Bathra 15: As for the Twelve, since their prophecies were short, the prophets did not themselves write each his own book. But, when Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi came, and said that the spirit of prophecy was on the point of ceasing (for they were the last of the prophets), they arose and wrote down their own prophecies, and combined therewith short prophecies, and made them into one large book, in order that they should not be lost on account of their brevity." By which he means that they took the nine other" Minor Prophets," as we call them, and combined them with their own prophecies into one book. His words leave room also for the theory which we have propounded above, that small fragments of prophecies, which had not yet been embodied in the prophetic writings, may have been included in the Minor Prophets." Such is the tradition. It need not be taken as implying that Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were actual contemporaries (indeed it appears probable -see Introduction to Malachi-that Malachi prophesied some fifty years after the time of Zechariah's latest ductions), but merely that the prophets of the postexilian period formed their own prophecies and the smaller works of earlier prophets into one book. This tradition is in itself probable, and in so far as concerns the late redaction of even the older books of "the Twelve," is corroborated by the following minute piece of internal evidence. The Massóreth tells us that with the exception of the passage Song of Songs iv. 4 (on the date of which see Introduction), the name David is written fully (i.e., with a yod between the v and the d) only in three passages of Kings, one of Ezekiel, and throughout the Minor Prophets (viz., in Hosea, Amos, and Zechariah, in which only it occurs). Thus the spelling of the name David, even in the early

66

pro

books, Hosea and Amos, agrees with the tradition that they were edited, so to speak, at a late date.

The voice of antiquity is thus unanimous in accepting the last six chapters, without question, as the work Zechariah, the contemporary of Haggai, equally wi the first eight.

In conclusion: seeing that external evidence h nothing to say against the integrity of the book, azi that internal evidence (from style and contents is rather in favour of it than otherwise, we conclude the the whole book called Zechariah is probably by Zechariah, grandson of Iddo.

V. Probable Date of Zechariah ix.-xiv.Prophets, we hold, are by Divine inspiration enabled to foretell events. Therefore it is not necessary t suppose that these chapters were written after the events to which we suppose them to refer. But, t the other hand, prophets (except with regard to the Messianic times, which were ever present in anticipa tion) cannot be supposed to speak of things which ar not more or less pointed to by "the signs of the times (Matt. xvi. 3). If they did so, they could not expect to command an audience; for why should people be elpected to listen to what could have no interest fr them? Accordingly, in fixing the date of these pro phecies, we have two guides: it must not be so late that Zechariah could not be still alive, nor so early that the Jews could have as yet had no occasion to fear the Greeks. Supposing Zechariah to have been ab twenty-one years of age in the second year of Daris (520), he would have been little over fifty soon afte the battle of Marathon (490), nor much over sixty whet the Persians sustained their great naval defeat Salamis (480). It will be easily perceived how, a hearing of the victories of the Greeks over their Persi protectors, the Jews would begin to tremble lest the Greeks, confounding them with the Phoenicians-whee fleets had been requisitioned by the Persians for subjugation of the rebellious Ionians—should wr their vengeance on the Holy Land as well as the se board. At this time, then-about 489 or 479 B.C.seems to us probable that Zechariah was commissioned to encourage his nation with promises of God's e tinued protection, and with hopes for the time to come.

-

VI. Contents of Zechariah ix. ix., x. Doom of adjacent nations. The struggles, eventual triumph and security, of Israel. Iz coming of the King (chap. ix. 9, sqq.). xi. [xiii. 7—9 (P)]. The storm threatens the shepherds Rejection of the Good Shepherd. Door d the foolish shepherd.

xii. 1-9. Struggles of Israel with the nations. xiii. 1-4. Zeal against prophets in general. xii. 10-14. Mourning over Him whom they pierced. xiii. 5, 6. General disclaiming of prophetic powers. [xiii. 7-9 (P)].

xiv. "The last things," as seen in the light of the old dispensation.

CHAPTER I.) In the eighth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word of the LORD unto

saith the LORD of hosts; 'Turn ye now from your evil ways, and from your evil doings: but they did not hear, nor

pleasure.

66

(1-6) On the four-and-twentieth day of the sixth month of the second year (B.C. 520) of Darius Hystaspis, the re-building of the Temple had been resumed (Haggai i. 15); and in the seventh month, on the twentyfirst of that month, the prophet Haggai had foretold the latter glory of this house shall be greater than its former" (Haggai ii. 9); and now, but a few weeks later, Zechariah receives his mission. He is commanded to exhort the people to avoid such punishments as fell on their fathers, and to make themselves worthy of the glory which should be revealed, by turning unto the Lord with sincere repentance.

(1) The prophet is (in spite of the accents), no doubt, to be referred to Zechariah. (See further in my Hebrew Student Commentary.) LXX., πpòs Zaxapíar τὸν τοῦ Βαραχίου υἱὸν ̓Αδδὼ τὸν προφήτην, in which υἱὸν appears to be a corruption of vioù, caused by the common Greek collocation τὸν τοῦ . . . υἱὸν.

(2) Your fathers.-This verse contains the word of the Lord addressed directly to and through the prophet, who is included among those addressed in the pronoun "your fathers." It gives the ground on which the exhortation to repentance is founded.

(3) Unto them-i.e., to the prophet's contemporaries, whose fathers are spoken of in the preceding verse. Turn ye

.. and I will turn.-These words need not imply any special backsliding on the part of the people since the commencement of the re-building of the Temple, when the Lord had declared that He was "with them" (Haggai i. 13, ii. 4); but, rather, that the more sincerely they turned unto Him, the more gloriously would His merciful intentions be revealed to them, and fulfilled in them. Still, it may be seen from Haggai ii. 14-17, how great need they had of repentance. "Zechariah comes forth like John the Baptist, and begins his preaching with a call to repentance, and warns the people by the history of their fathers that no spiritual privileges will profit them without holiness, but rather will aggravate their guilt, and increase their condemnation if they disobey God"

(5) Your fathers, where are they? and the prophets, do they live for ever? (6) But my words and my statutes, which I commanded my servants the prophets, did they not take hold of your fathers? and they returned and said, 'Like as the LORD of hosts thought to do unto us, according to our ways, and according to our doings, so hath he dealt with us.

(5) Fathers prophets.-To show the evil result of the obstinate disobedience of their fathers, the prophet asks, “Your fathers, where are they?"i.e., they are perished through their iniquity. To this the people answer, "But the prophets, do they live [or did they go on living] for ever?"-i.e., the prophets, who did not sin, they are dead too; so what is your argument worth?

(6) My words.-True, says the prophet, both your fathers and the former prophets are dead; "but" for all that, the words of the prophets were actually fulfilled in your fathers, as they themselves confessed. This is the interpretation of these verses given by Rav (second to third century A.D.) in Talmud Babli, Synhedrin, 105a. Another view of the passage is that it is equivalent to "The light of prophecy is dying out; while ye have the light, walk as children of the light.' But such an interpretation destroys the prophet's argument. My statutes.-Better, my decrees, as in Zeph. ii. 2. LXX. introduce ". receive ye," after " "my decrees." After "I command," they introduce "by my spirit," probably from chap. vii. 12.

Take hold of.-Better, as marg., overtake. LXX., οἳ κατελάβοσαν may be a corruption of οὐ κατελάβοσαν. (Comp. Lam. i. 12.)

Returned.-Better, turned: i.e., repented. The same word is used in verse 3. LXX., wrongly, kal ἀπεκρίθησαν, “ answered.”

Like as the Lord of hosts thought to do -So Jeremiah confessed in Lam. ii. 17. Zechariah had no doubt those words of Jeremiah in his mind at the time.