The burden of the Lord is also touching Hamath, which was bordering on the former; also Tyre, and Sidon, which thought herself very wise; yet her wisdom availed her nothing, as was also foretold by Ezekiel, chap. xxvii.

ver. 32.

Verse 4. _Behold the Lord will make her poor, and smite her power in the sea, and she shall be devoured with fire._ Verse 5. _Ashkelon shall see it and fear; Gaza also, and she shall be very sorrowful. Ekron also, for he (G.o.d) has made ashamed her expectation: and the king shall perish from Gaza: and Ashkelon shall not remain._ Verse 6. _And a foreigner shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut of the pride of the Philistines._

All the foregoing is known from history to have been already accomplished, through the conquests of Alexander the Macedonian; who also destroyed the fleet of Tyre, and smote her power on the sea. Among others also, it is said, Ekron shall be very sorrowful, since her hope was blasted; Tyre, on which she solely confided, being destroyed.

Verse 7. _And when I shall have taken away his blood out of his mouth, and his abominations from between his teeth; then even he shall remain for our G.o.d, and he shall be as a chief in Judah, and Ekron like Jebusi._

Now the prophet continues to predict, what is yet to be accomplished, that after their filth and pollution shall have been taken away, a remnant of them also will be to G.o.d; each of whom will not be inferior even to a chief in Judah, and Ekron will be in a manner as holy as Jebusi, which is Jerusalem. See Joshua, chap. xviii. ver. 28.

This, and all that is connected with it, to the end of the following chapter, may refer to a remoter period, to which the mind of the prophet was suddenly transported; or these events may have been intended, immediately after the overthrow of these nations, to have followed under one of the princes of Judah, who was already joined by a part of Ephraim; and the whole of whom would have been gathered under his banners, were not this delayed on account of their having acted contrary to the will of G.o.d.

For, that the promises of G.o.d are conditional, and sometimes delayed, if those to whom they were made, render themselves undeserving of them, appears in many instances. See Zech. chap. viii. ver. 14-16. Jeremiah, chap. xviii. ver. 9-10. Among other instances, may be cited what took place with our ancestors, who went out of Egypt. The land of Canaan promised to Abraham (Genesis, chap. xv. ver. 16.) was again promised to them, even after their having wors.h.i.+pped the calf-Exodus, chap. x.x.xiii.

ver. 1.-yet, for their frequent rebellions, was the fulfilment of this promise finally delayed to another generation. (Numb. chap. xiv. ver. 23.) Nay, it even appears that it would have been retracted, or at least delayed many generations, but for the intercession of Moses. (Exod. chap.

x.x.xii. ver. 10.) And, in like manner, may the fulfilment of these promises, and that of others, which follow, respecting the restoration of Israel, be delayed, in consequence of the wickedness of our people, exciting the displeasure of the Lord.

Verse 8. _And I will encamp about my house (to protect) against an army, against one pa.s.sing and returning, and no oppressor shall pa.s.s over them any more: for now have I seen it with my eyes._

Now have I seen it with mine eyes, means having graciously turned his particular attention to them, as is similarly expressed in Exod. chap. ii.

ver. 25.

Ver. 9. _Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion, shout, daughter of Jerusalem, behold thy King shall come unto thee just, and he being saved, humble and riding upon an a.s.s, the foal of an a.s.s._

Ver. 10. _And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall speak peace unto nations; and his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the river to the end of the earth._

Verse 11. _Also thou, by the blood of thy covenant, I have sent away thy prisoners out of the pit, wherein is no water._

By the blood of the covenant, apparently, is meant that related in Exod.

chap. xxiv. ver. 8. A pit without water means a land of captivity.

Verse 12. _Return ye to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope, even to-day __(I)__ declare __(THAT)__ I will render double unto thee._

The prisoners are to return and shelter in this strong hold.

Verse 13. _For I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, Oh Zion! against thy sons, Oh Greece! and made thee as the sword of a mighty man._

Judah and Ephraim are represented as warlike instruments in the hand of G.o.d, the sword, and the bow which he bends, and fills his hand with; similar to the expression in 2 Kings, chap. ix. ver. 24.

Verse 14. _And the Lord shall be seen over them, and his arrow shall go forth as lightning; and the Lord G.o.d shall blow the trumpet, and shall go forth with the whirlwinds of the South._

Verse 15. _The Lord of hosts shall defend them; and they shall devour, and subdue the sling stones; and noisily drink (their blood) as wine; and they shall be filled as a bowl, as the corners of an altar._

The prophet in derision here compares their enemies to sling-stones, contrasted with which in verse 16 that follows, Israel is compared to precious stones; and of whom it was before said that they were the sword in the hand of the Lord, to be filled with the blood of their relentless persecutors. See also Isaiah, chap. x.x.xiv. ver. 6.

Verse 16. _And the Lord their G.o.d will save them, his people as a flock, for as the stones of a crown shall they be glittering upon his land._

Verse 17. _For how great is his goodness, and how great is his beauty! The young men he will make as fruitful as corn, and the maids as wine._

Remarks On The Rabbi's Exposition.

Were I candidly to express my sentiments, I might say, perhaps, that the Rabbi's answer had disappointed me, being neither so full nor so forcible as I expected; but if he, as a Jew, be satisfied, it is not for me as a Christian to complain. There are, moreover, certain points of coincidence in our translation, in which the acquiescence of the Rabbi, as a distinguished Hebrew scholar, is truly gratifying; while there are also some points of disagreement, in which I am inclined to relinquish my own in favour of the Rabbi's translation. I propose briefly to advert to each; but there is one circ.u.mstance that first deserves to be noticed, and which, however singular it may appear, might yet have been expected. It is this, that wherever I have ventured to differ from Christian commentators, there I am also at issue with the Rabbi. Now, having formerly stated that our received translation is chiefly founded on the Masoretic punctuation, which is Jewish, a coincidence was naturally to be looked for between the Jew's exposition, and that which is in a great measure borrowed from it.

And accordingly such is the case, the Jew's exposition differing from that of our own commentators, princ.i.p.ally on those points where the latter discover allusions to Christ. These, the Jew, of course, no where finds.

Now, what the Jew no where perceives, and the Christian only here and there, as it were incidentally, I maintain to be wholly and solely the subject of these chapters. This is, at least, a broad and well marked line of distinction: but here I unfortunately stand alone, having Christian as well as Jew opposed to me. Even the Jew allows that the subject of the latter part of this prophecy is the Messiah and his kingdom; but if Christ be the Messiah, as the Christian must admit, then is Christianity his kingdom, and the subject of the prophecy. So much for the state of the question.

The first point of disagreement between us is unconnected with the punctuation, and is one of little importance to the question, beyond what it may derive from the concurrence of my opponents. The Rabbi and Dr.

Blaney agree in regarding Hadrach in the first verse, as the name of a prince, instead of a city or state. The Rabbi gives no authority for his opinion, and Dr. Blaney supports his by the conjecture that Rehob, spoken of in 2 Sam. viii. 3, who is by Josephus named ??a?? or ??a???, may be the prince alluded to. Now since the avowed reason for resorting to this supposition is the want of a city of this name, I would venture to suggest, that Aradus bears quite as much resemblance to Hadrach as ??a??

does; and to Aradus was annexed a considerable district of country, which was precisely the first conquered by Alexander, when he invaded Syria, as appears by the following citation from Quintus Curtius, lib. 4. cap. 1.

"Aradus quoque insula deditur regi. Maritimam tum oram, pleraque longius a mari residentia, rex ejus insulae Strato possidebat. Quo in fidem accepto, castra movet ad urbem Marathon." Aradus, like Tyre, was the daughter of Sidon, as stated by Strabo; ??t?sa? a?t?? f??ade?, ?? fas??, e? S?d????.

These then, are circ.u.mstances which add weight to the supposition that Aradus may be here intended; but still it is no more than conjecture, and as such, _quod valet, valeat_.

In the same verse, the Rabbi's rendering of ????? (or ?????) _his residence_, must, of course, stand or fall with the previous question, Whether Hadrach be the name of a man or a city? If it be that of a prince, whose residence was Damascus, I have only to observe, that no such person appears to have resided there at the time the prophet wrote, and this is the only time that can accord with the Rabbi's translation.

With regard to the last line of this verse, which the Rabbi renders nearly in the same manner as our commentators, _for to the Lord will be the eye of man_, &c. I can only say, that he does not appear to me to have thrown any new light upon the pa.s.sage, the sense remaining as vague and obscure as before. But let the reader judge for himself.

In verse 2nd, the Rabbi agreeing with Lowth, renders ???? (or ????) as an active verb, "_which borders on her_," while Blaney, with me, makes it pa.s.sive. If, by Hadrach, be intended the district of country extending inland from the town of Aradus, this would lead us directly to Epiphania, which was the lesser Hamath; and this expression might be meant to distinguish it from the greater Hamath, the modern Antioch; but the Rabbi does not acquiesce in this meaning of Hadrach; and, upon the whole, I see no sufficient reason to relinquish my own mode of rendering.

In verse 4th, the Rabbi's translation, "_Behold the Lord will make her poor_," I certainly prefer to that of our version, namely, "_shall cast her out_;" but his explanation of the remainder of this verse, "_and smite her power in the sea, and she shall be devoured with fire_," appears less satisfactory than that of Dr. Blaney, which I have adopted from him. The Rabbi explains the accomplishment of this pa.s.sage by Alexander's defeating the fleet of the Tyrians, and burning their city; but such an interpretation is hardly borne out by history; a few occasional skirmishes by sea, and a partial conflagration, after the city was taken, being the utmost that took place. And accordingly this verse has been otherwise explained by Lowth, who understands the "_smiting her power in the sea_,"

as referring to the insular situation of new Tyre; but Dr. Blaney, by a mode of rendering fully warranted by the Hebrew text, applies these words to Sidon, where they received their accomplishment in a manner strikingly peculiar. The difference of translation consists in reading-"_For she_ (Sidon) _has built Tyre, a fortress for herself_," instead of "_For Tyre has built a fortress for herself_;" thus applying the expressions which follow to Sidon, instead of Tyre; which, however, is not thereby excluded from a full partic.i.p.ation in the burden of the prophecy, evidently denounced against both. In regard to Sidon, the fulfilment was as follows:-When besieged by Artaxerxes Ochus, some years earlier than the siege of Tyre by Alexander, the Sidonians, lest individuals might be tempted to seek their personal safety by flight, and abandon the defence of the city, burned all their s.h.i.+pping in the first instance; and, when, by the cowardly treachery of their king, the enemy was admitted within their walls; they then set fire to their houses, and consumed their city, their families, their wealth, and themselves; no less than forty thousand peris.h.i.+ng in the flames, according to Diod. Sic.: fas? de t??? ?p? t??

p???? d?af?a?e?ta?, s?? t??? ???et????? s?as?, ?e?????a? p?e???? t??

tet?a??s?????. Lib. 16. cap. 45.

In verse 5. The fate of Gaza and its governor, who was dragged round the city by Alexander, in imitation of Achilles, though noticed by Lowth, is disregarded by Blaney, for what reason I know not, since this seems as well int.i.tled to notice as any other literal fulfilment of prophecy.

In verse 7th, the Rabbi's acquiescence in the meaning of the words, "_when I have taken away his blood out of his mouth and his pollution from between his teeth_;" as signifying, literally, the taking away of sin and pollution, is highly important to the Christian exposition, for it intimates the first and greatest benefit we derive from the coming of the Messiah. That the Rabbi does not so understand it, as alluding to the remission of sins through Christ, is not to be wondered at; but it does seem singular that Lowth and Blaney should have disregarded or misunderstood so remarkable a pa.s.sage, in the sense of which even the Jew acquiesces, though not in the application. ????? (or ?????), according to the Rabbi, means Jerusalem, that is, "_Ekron shall be as Jerusalem_." Now the Jebusites were the original inhabitants of Jerusalem, it is true; but why the prophet should here use the word Jebusi for Jerusalem, and here only, is rather unaccountable, and I cannot but prefer the translation I have given.

In verses 8, 9, 10, there is no material disagreement between us either in the translation or the interpretation. Here Jew and Christian agree in applying these verses to the coming of the Messiah. The only question between us is, whether Christ be the Messiah, which the Rabbi, of course, denies.

Verse 11. In the words, "_By the blood of thy covenant_," &c. it was not to be expected that the Rabbi would see any intimation of a covenant for the redemption of mankind, sealed with the blood of Christ; though we might have looked for it in Dr. Blaney. The application of this and the two preceding verses to Christianity, was so clearly perceived, and so ably expounded by Lowth, that we only wonder he should have confined that view to these three verses, considering them as a digression, when by extending the same principle of interpretation to other parts of the prophecy, he might have found a clue to the solution of many difficulties.

The want of this clue obliges Dr. Blaney to come to the same conclusion as the Rabbi, that the remaining part of the prophecy is still unaccomplished; a conclusion which I am compelled most strenuously to oppose. To the Jew, the suspension of the fulfilment of this prophecy would be almost equivalent to that of all others; for the Messiah's kingdom is alike the subject of all, and if this one be unaccomplished, then must they all be so. To the Jew then, I would say-Is this consonant with the previous ordinations of G.o.d in the government of the world, to leave an interval of more than two thousand years, without the fulfilment of prophecy, which is to mankind, the most convincing of all proofs of his Divine superintendance and control over human affairs? To Dr. Blaney, on the other hand, who conceives that "since our Saviour's appearance on earth, nothing has happened to the Jewish nation in any degree answerable to what is here predicted; no return from captivity, no victories, no successes," &c.; to him I would say, why may not "_the children of the promise_" be here included as well as "_the children of the flesh?_" The first Christians were Jews, the apostles and disciples were Jews, while the converted Gentiles were no less styled, "_Israelites by adoption_;"

and so they are continually called in prophetic language. If then the terms, "_Sons of Zion_" and "_Israel of G.o.d_," be _not less_ applicable to those who received Christ for their Messiah, than to those who rejected him; we cannot surely say with Dr. Blaney, that there have been no return from captivity, no victories, no successes, since the coming of Christ; for it will hardly be maintained that redemption from the bondage of sin is no return from captivity; that the triumph of Christianity over paganism is no victory, and the rapid propagation of the Gospel no success.

In verse 12, "_The strong hold_," which is evidently the same as the prison-house, called in the preceding verse, "_the pit without water_,"

and which the Rabbi allows to be a state of captivity, is here, somewhat abruptly, transformed into a place of shelter and protection.

Verse 15. The Rabbi's idea, that the prophet here uses the term "_sling-stones_," in derision, as an appellative for the enemies of Israel, while he applies to themselves, in the next verse, the term "_precious stones_," appears to me, I must acknowledge, somewhat novel; and as I dispute that translation of the next verse altogether, so I cannot acquiesce in such an explanation of this. With regard to the rendering of ??? (or ???) in the same verse, which I have considered as the personal p.r.o.noun, "_they_," instead of the verb "_to make a noise_"-I believe the Rabbi's, upon re-considering the pa.s.sage, to be the more correct translation.

But these verbal differences, however they may interest the Hebrew scholar, are of trivial importance, as regarding the grand question between us, namely, whether the accomplishment of the predictions contained in this chapter, ceases before we arrive at verse 9, which is admitted to announce the coming of the Messiah. Upon this point, then, I plead the general issue. If I succeed in shewing that every part of the prophecy in the following chapters, as well as the present, has been clearly accomplished in the leading events of the history of Christianity, I gain my cause. If I fail to do so, let the verdict go for the Jew.

ZECHARIAH ON THE MESSIAH'S KINGDOM. INTERPRETATION: CHAPTER X.