Notes To Chapter IX. Hebrew Punctuation.
A Summary of the arguments for and against the antiquity and authority of the Vowel Points, is given at the beginning of the Second Vol. of Horne's Introduction to the Study of the Scriptures; from which the following considerations seem most entitled to selection. That the earliest traces of the points are to be found in the tenth century—that many of the oldest manuscripts now extant are without them—that the copies of the Jewish Scriptures now used in the Synagogue and esteemed peculiarly sacred, are without them—that the Samaritan letters which were the same as the Hebrew before the captivity, are without them—and the Samaritan Pentateuch is without them—that there are no traces of them to be found in the shekels (coins) struck by the kings of Israel—that the fathers, particularly Origen and Jerome, who treat of the Hebrew pronunciation, make no mention of them—that all the antient various readings of the Jews regard the letters only, [pg 044] not one of them relates to the vowel points—to which may be added, that there are five vowels in the Hebrew alphabet which are quite sufficient for reading the language, though they may not enable us to determine with precision the antient pronunciation. “These considerations,” says Mr. Horne, “have determined the majority of Hebrew scholars in the present day to reject their authority.” Still we may admit their utility in fixing the pronunciation, and perhaps also in facilitating the construction; but the main objection to them is, that by changing the vowels, they frequently alter the sense, as well as the sound, and that in passages where a Jewish interpretation is particularly open to suspicion. Thus in prophecies relating to the Messiah, both their prejudices and their feelings unfit them for becoming guides to a Christian expositor.
Verse 1. :משא דבר יהוה בארץ חדרך ודמשק מנחתו כי ליהוה עין אדם וכל שבטי ישראל
The heavy burden of the word of the Lord in the land of Hadrach, and Damascus shall be the rest thereof; when the eyes of man, as of all the tribes of Israel, shall be towards the Lord.
These are the words of the translation in our Bible; but the sense of them I must acknowledge my inability to unravel. Of what Damascus is to be the rest, or what period is intimated by the adverb of time when, I am at a loss to discover. The separation of Hadrach and Damascus by the insertion of a comma between them, evidently owes its origin to the supposed necessity for rendering the word מנחתו (or ותחנמ) the rest thereof. But if deriving it from נח (or חנ) or נוח (or חונ) does not afford [pg 045] any intelligible sense, we are naturally led to seek another derivation; and we find one in the verb נחת (or תחנ) to descend or send down, which without violating grammatical construction affords a meaning not only intelligible, but in perfect unison with the context. The Hemantiv מ prefixed, gives the thing sent down, while the suffix ו his, evidently refers to the Lord who sends the vision or denunciation. The English construction, of course, requires it should be rendered his sending down, that is, the Lord's denunciation, against Hadrach and Damascus, as well as the other cities which are mentioned afterwards; for ב here rendered in, may with more propriety be rendered against or upon. The verb נחת (or תחנ) to send down, occurs in Joel iii. 11 and elsewhere: but the writer freely acknowledges that he has no authority for the participial noun with the Hemantiv מ prefixed to signify the thing sent down, or the act of sending down, as the sense seems to require here. He therefore rests this construction solely on the ground of its being grammatically admissible, consonant to analogy, and in accordance with the context, as affording a satisfactory meaning. Let those who are not satisfied with such reasons furnish a better solution of the difficulty. In the next place, there is no necessity for rendering כי (or יכ) when, which more frequently signifies for; and when so rendered, it will be found to connect together the latter and the former part of the verse. For this, we only require to render the dative ל, as it frequently is rendered in Hebrew, as well as Greek and Latin, to denote possession; and the verse will run thus. For the Lord's is, or to the Lord belongs, the eye of man; to wit, the eye of the Seer, who receives the vision, and all the tribes of Israel, whom the vision chiefly [pg 046] concerns. Making the tribes a genitive case, by inserting of before them, is wholly uncalled for by the text.
Verse 2. :וגם חמת תגבל בה צר וצידון כי חכמה מאד
And Hamath also shall border thereby, Tyrus and Sidon though it be very wise.
תגבל (or לבגת) to set bounds to, in the Hiphil, occurs in Exod. xix. 12 & 23.—It here appears to be the Huphal or passive of Hiphil—signifying to be bounded, or to be set bounds to. It is only necessary to remark, that leaving aside the punctuation, the form of the future tense will be identical in both these voices. The sense as it stands is scarcely intelligible. What is meant by border thereby, it is not easy to conceive; but by discarding the points we readily obtain a meaning that is perfectly intelligible. תגבל (or לבגת) may then be rendered in the passive voice, instead of the active, and will signify to be limited, or have bounds set to; and בה (or הב) on or to her, which follows, accords with, and seems to demand its being so rendered. And Hamath also shall have bounds set to her; that is, her growing greatness shall be checked.
Tyre, and also Sidon though she be very wise, חכמה (or המכח), wise, no doubt, means here, worldly wise, or very subtle.
Verse 5. :תרא אשקלון ותירא ועזה ותחיל מאד ועקרון כי הוביש מבטה
Ashkalon shall see and fear, Gaza also, and she shall be very sorrowful, and Ekron for her expectation shall be ashamed.
[pg 047]הוביש (or שיבוה) may be derived either from בוש (or שוב) to be ashamed, or from יבש (or שבי) to dry up, and whither as a plant for want of moisture. The latter seems preferable here, but it is not very material to the sense.
Verse 6. :וישב ממזר באשדוד והכרתי גאון פלשתים
A bastard shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines.
ממזר (or רזממ) may be rendered a stranger, as well as a bastard, αλλογενεις in the Septuagint, which renders the sense more obvious.
And I will cut off the pride of the Philistines. These denunciations appear chiefly directed against the Philistines, in whom pride, avarice, and ambition, are specified as the great offences. The delivery of Ashdod into the hands of a stranger is the judgment pronounced against them in this verse, as the last means of their humiliation. But here the tone of the prophecy changes, and instead of further punishments, we find repeated promises of blessings and mercy; he that is left shall be for our God, and as a Governor in Judah,—and in the verse following—He (the Messiah being manifestly meant here) shall speak peace to the Heathen.—Whence then this change? We are led to seek, and naturally expect to find, some ground for it. And accordingly the next verse unfolds the reason, and explains the occasion of this change in the counsel of Heaven; a change resting not on their own merits, but on Divine Mercy. For such a construction will this verse bear, quite as well as the one usually put upon it; and this [pg 048] construction is far more in unison with the context, than the received one.
Verse 7. :והסרתי דמיו מפיו ושקציו מבין שניו ונשאר גמ-הוא לאלהינו והיה כאלף ביהודה ועקרון כיבוסי
And I will take away his blood from out of his mouth, and his abominations from between his teeth, and he that is left, even he shall be for our God, and he shall be as a Governor in Judah, and Ekron as a Jebusite.
With scarcely any alteration in the translation, the words, even as they stand, admit of a very different acceptation from that in which they are commonly taken; and instead of being a figurative expression, borrowed from the rescuing its prey from the jaws of a lion; in which sense the Jews take it, as a promise to themselves of deliverance from their enemies; the words more literally taken, will convey the promise of mercy and redemption to the remaining Gentiles: whose sin and pollution are to be taken away, who are to be reclaimed to the worship of the true God, and admitted to a full participation in all the blessings, promised to Israel by the coming of the Messiah.
The Gentiles were esteemed polluted by eating things unclean, which were prohibited to the Jews. Certain animals—things strangled—and the blood in particular were among the forbidden food. The new covenant removed this prohibition, thereby taking away the pollution from between his teeth, as it ceased to be a cause of pollution. The command given to St. Peter, Acts x. 14, to kill and eat, where all manner of food was presented to him, was expressly [pg 049] received by him as a command to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, or to admit them into the Messiah's kingdom; and this admission was unaccompanied with any such prohibition, nor was it subsequently given.
Eating things sacrificed to idols was another cause of pollution which the New Covenant removed, by taking away the cause in the abolition of idolatry. This literal fulfilment of the words of the prophecy may, however, be figuratively understood, to foreshew the remission of sins through Christ, and the admission of the Heathen nations to the hopes of everlasting life founded on the Gospel.
The only change required in the English version is to read But, for And, which are expressed alike by the Hebrew ו, and to understand שקציו (or ויצקש) his abominations, in the sense most appropriate to it, as alluding to the worship of idols, and we have the sense already expressed, which perfectly harmonizes with the context. Whereas, taken in the other sense, what becomes of the antithesis? Who is he that is left, that shall be for our God, and as a chief in Judah? Surely it cannot be the Jew, who shall be as a Jew. But the next words are decisive, declaring that Ekron and the Jebusite, both Gentiles, are here intended.
And Ekron as a Jebusite. This mode of rendering leaves, indeed, the force of these words rather ambiguous; but there can be no intelligible sense put upon the כי (or יכ), but that of in like manner as, or, as well as; that is, Ekron as well as the Jebusite, shall both be as Governors in Judah.
Verse 8. :וחניתי לביתי מצבה מעבר ומשב ולא יעבר עליהם עוד נגש כי עתה ראיתי בעיני
[pg 050]And I will encamp about mine house because of the army, because of him that passeth by, and because of him that returneth; and no oppressor shall pass through them any more: for now have I seen with mine eyes.
It is not certain, though probable, from 1 Sam. xxvi. 5-7, that the Jews had entrenched camps; if so, the passage would be clearer by rendering וחניתי (or יתינחו) I will entrench instead of encamp; though the sense is sufficiently obvious, as meaning to afford protection against the army, &c. The house of God, to which protection is promised, is his Temple, figuratively denoting true religion purified from idolatry; the great spiritual adversary constantly warring with Israel, and, as we learn from Scripture, frequently prevailing; which is probably the warfare here alluded to. But if taken literally, this passage conveys the promise that the Messiah's kingdom should put an end to oppression and injustice. The exact import of the expression, for now have I seen with mine eyes, is not very evident; but may imply God's foreseeing the unfitness of the Jews to receive a spiritual Messiah; who, in consequence of their rejection of him, would be given to the Gentiles.
Verse 9. :גילי מאד בת ציון הריעי בת-ירושלם הנה מלכך יבוא לך צדיק ונושע הוא עני ורכב על חמור ועל עיר בן אתנות
Rejoice greatly, Daughter of Zion, shout, oh Daughter of Jerusalem, behold thy King cometh unto thee; he is just and having salvation, lowly and riding upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
[pg 051]There is no ambiguity in the purport of this verse, which is the coming of the Messiah, as all commentators allow; but I can in no wise agree with Lowth and others, that this verse is a rhapsodical digression from the subject of the rest of the chapter, in which the Prophet being wrought up to the highest pitch of enthusiasm, breaks off from the immediate object of his vision to foretel the coming of the Messiah, and then returns back to his former subject. On the contrary, I can see nothing like digression here, but one connected and consistent object throughout; this verse being the keystone of the arch, which binds together those which precede and those which follow it, forming the whole into one united and compact body. Instead of a digression from the subject, I regard this verse as the clue to guide us through the labyrinth, by fixing and determining the subject of all the rest.
Behold thy King cometh unto thee: יבוא (or אובי) is really the future tense, literally shall come, and changing it to the present, cometh, seems unnecessary, if it does not in some degree interfere with the chronological order of the events predicted afterwards.
Just and having salvation. This is certainly an ambiguous rendering of נושע (or עשונ) the past participle of the verb ישע (or עשי) to save, which literally signifies being saved, and the emphatic הוא (or אוה) himself, following it, more strongly marks the sense, as having obtained salvation himself.
Riding on an ass, and a colt, the foal of an ass. The connective ו and, should certainly be rendered here by even, or, to wit, and not by and, which makes it appear that the Messiah was to ride upon two asses.
[pg 052]Verse 11. :גם את בדם בריתך שלחתי אסיריך מבר אין מים בו
As for thee, by the blood of thy covenant, I have sent forth thy prisoners, from the pit wherein is no water.
That the Messiah is apostrophized in these words, cannot, surely, admit of doubt or dispute; and words more forcible, or more pregnant with meaning, upon the Christian's view of them, it is not easy to conceive. שלחתי (or יתחלש) I have sent forth, is really the perfect tense, though written several centuries before the coming of Christ; but it is not at all unusual in prophetic language to use this tense, which represents as already accomplished, what is determined in the Divine purpose, although the fulfilment be still future.
The writer is well aware of a formidable objection presented by the Hebrew punctuation, against the application of this verse to the Messiah, as the pronoun “thee” את (or תא) is by the pointing made to be of the feminine gender. This is one of many instances in which the punctuation tends to embarrass instead of elucidating the subject of the prophecy—instances which have mainly contributed to the determination of the writer to disregard the points. It remains for those who regard them as of paramount authority, to offer a solution of this and other passages equally clear and satisfactory, and equally consistent throughout. If “thee” be meant to apostrophise the daughter of Zion, what blood—what covenant—what prisoners—what pit, are here alluded to? Upon the view here offered, the event foreshewn is the death of the Messiah, an event wholly at variance with the expectations of the Jews, but [pg 053] here distinctly announced, along with the most striking particulars attendant on that event; such as the frustration of the hopes of temporal advantages expected from his coming—the nature of the spiritual blessings which it was really intended to impart; namely, the remission of sins, and the redemption of the Gentile world from idolatry. Along with these is stated the personal character of the Messiah, and the express manner of his coming; not in glory as expected, but in meekness and humility—the peaceful nature of his kingdom—its boundless extent, destined to embrace all nations—yet in apparent contradiction, his death is intimated, but also his resurrection whereby he becomes “the first fruits of them that slept.” These are all clearly intimated in this chapter; and of these, how many have former commentators, with or without the aid of points, been able to make out? At most, only three or four verses, as where he is mentioned as riding into Jerusalem on an ass; and here, according to Blaney, the text requires to be altered, to shew that he was a Saviour, נושע (or עשונ) being saved, being altered into משע (or עשמ) a Saviour; while, according to Lowth, all that here relates to the Messiah is to be regarded as a rhapsodical digression from the subject of the context.
Verse 12. :שובו לבצרון אסירי התקוה גם היום מגיד משנה אשיב לך
Return to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope, even today do I declare that I will repay you double.
Such is the received translation, nor as it now stands, does the sense appear at all ambiguous, signifying, Return to your prison-house until the day of your promised liberation arrives; [pg 054] that is, the day of the Messiah's coming. There can be no doubt who are meant by the prisoners, but the change of number in the personal pronoun, from plural to singular, makes it not improbable that the latter part of this line is addressed to the Messiah, who was apostrophized in the verse preceding. Upon this view the word אסירי (or יריסא) may be rendered, my prisoners, instead of prisoners of hope, which is rather obscure; and התקוה (or הוקתה) as the imperative hithpael of the verb קוה (or הוק) to wait. And the sense will then be as given in the text; Return to the strong hold, my prisoners: wait thou till the day I declare that I will repay thee double.
Verse 13. :כי דרכתי לי יהודה קשת מלאתי אפרים ועררתי בניך ציון על בניך יון ושמתיך כחרב גבור
When 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.
Here כי (or יכ), which signifies for, is rendered when, thus imposing a future signification on the verbs that follow. This has, no doubt, arisen from a supposed allusion to the subsequent wars of Judas Maccabeus. But Ephraim, or the ten tribes, having no share in those wars, militates against that supposition; and it seems more probable that this verse, instead of designating the time when the promised blessing would be conferred upon the Gentiles, here declares the reason why the Messiah could not be sent to them directly and unconditionally; namely, because he was previously promised to Israel. For I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow Ephraim; that is, I have chosen [pg 055] Israel as my people, and appointed them my instruments for the overthrow of paganism. And, accordingly, to the house of Israel he came, and was by some of them received; nor until the great body of that people declined the office, were the Gentiles called in to fill up the ranks, and carry on the spiritual warfare; a warfare which was thenceforward carried on by both in conjunction, for the first Christians still were Jews, though blindness came in part over Israel.
Verse 14. :ויהוה עליהם יראה ויצא כברק חצו ואדני יהוה בשופר יתקע והלך בסערות תימן
And the Lord shall be seen over them, and his arrow shall go forth as the lightning; and the Lord God shall blow the trumpet, and shall go forth with whirlwinds of the South.
This and the following verse evidently contain promises of Divine protection, and of triumphant success; but to whom these promises are given may admit of a question. עליהם (or םהילע) over them, may mean the Jews last spoken of, or the Gentiles mentioned before, or it may apply to both. And if the triumph of true religion over Pagan idolatry be the victory here spoken of, as this was obtained by both in conjunction, during the Apostolic age at least, so both must be included in the promises. Nor can any construction, worthy of the subject, or adequate in dignity and importance, be put upon the expression, the sons of Zion, and the sons of Greece, but that which refers to the religion of each. The triumph of true religion over idolatry was one that affected the whole world, including every country, and extending to every age, and regarding the eternal as well as temporal interests of mankind.
[pg 056]Verse 15. .יהוה צבאות יגן עליהם ואכלו וכבשו אבני קלע ושתו המו כמו יין ומלאו כמזרק כזוית מזבח
And the Lord of hosts shall defend them; and they shall devour, and subdue with sling stones; and they shall drink and make a noise as through wine; and they shall be filled like bowls, and as the corners of the altar.
To take these expressions in the literal sense, as promising to man the grossest of sensual indulgences, would surely be a strange misconstruction of prophetic language; המו (or ומה) which is rendered, and make a noise, is not preceded by the connective ו and; it may, therefore, be simply the personal pronoun they, being the nominative to the verb drink; they shall drink as of wine, &c. Who is intended by the pronoun they, if at all doubtful here, becomes sufficiently clear in the next verse, where it is repeated in a manner that leaves no ambiguity, at least as far as concerns the Gentiles.
Verse 16. :והושיעם יהוה אלהיהם ביום ההוא כצאן עמו כי אבני נזר מתנוססות על אדמתו
And the Lord their God shall save them in that day, as the flock of his people, for they shall be as the stones of a crown, lifted up as an ensign upon his land.
Here the pronoun them, in evident contradistinction with his people, shews that two nations are spoken of; otherwise the passage might be rendered, the Lord God, shall save as a flock, his people. But the antithesis marked by the pronoun them, is rendered still more obvious, if possible, in the next line. For the wall of separation is waving (or tottering) over his land. Such is the literal meaning of the Hebrew, when [pg 057] the words are taken in their primary and ordinary sense. Thus, אבני (or ינבא) in its usual sense means, stones, as the stones of a wall; but in a more remote and figurative sense, precious stones: נזר (or רזנ) in the primary sense, signifies, to separate, or, separation; occurring in this sense ten times at least in Numbers, ch. vi.; but in the secondary or more remote sense, a diadem, which separates or distinguishes the prince from the people: נסס (or ססנ) in the primary sense means to wave to and fro, as a flag, or as a wall before it is blown down by the wind; but, in a secondary sense it signifies, as some understand it here, to glitter or sparkle, as a diamond, when waved or moved. Thus we see the pains taken to avoid the plain and obvious sense of the passage; but the Hebrew scholar will judge for himself.
The concluding verse, in which the prophet breaks forth into expressions of adoration and praise for the goodness of the Lord, well accords with this view of his bounty being unlimited, and extending to all his creatures alike.
The Rabbi's Exposition And Reply, Chapter IX.
As I conclude that the object of the Christian, who thinks he sees in this Prophecy a clear prediction of the coming of Jesus Christ, is to learn in what manner it is expounded by the Jews; it appears to me that the simplest way in which I can reply, will be to lay before him what I conceive to be the proper translation and interpretation. In doing this, it will be unnecessary to offer any further explanation or exposition, beyond what may be given in the form of comment on the translation; while he is at liberty to conclude with regard to those passages, where no comment or explanation [pg 059] is offered, not, assuredly, that I assent to his interpretation, but merely that I acquiesce in the reasons he assigns for my dissent; or that his anticipation of my argument has rendered its repetition superfluous, as is the case in verses 9 and 10. The following is my mode of translating this chapter and expounding it:—
Zechariah, Chapter IX.
Verse 1. The burden of the word of the Lord on the land of Hadrach, and Damascus, his residence; for to the Lord (will be) the eye of man, and (particularly that) of all the tribes of Israel.
This prophecy is directed against a king named Hadrach, and against Damascus his residence. According to some who have visited Syria, there is to this day, near the desert, a village bearing the name of that king, whose inhabitants assert that formerly a large district about it, that constituted a powerful kingdom, was called by the same name.
For to the Lord, saith the prophet, will be the eye of man, agreeably to what he further declareth, [pg 060] that the extermination of the wicked will precede the turning to God, the eyes of the residue of man.
Verse 2. And also (on) Hamath which borders on her; (on) Tyre, and (on) Sidon, though she be very wise. Verse 3. And Tyre did build herself a strong hold, and heaped up silver as dust, and gold as mire of the streets.
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 (God) 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 [pg 061] 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 God, 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 God; 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; [pg 062] 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 God. For, that the promises of God 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 worshipped the calf—Exodus, chap. xxxiii. 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. xxxii. ver. 10.) And, in like manner, may the fulfilment of these promises, and that of others, which follow, respecting the restoration of Israel, be [pg 063] 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 passing and returning, and no oppressor shall pass 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 ass, the foal of an ass.
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, [pg 064] 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 God, 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 God 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.
[pg 065]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. xxxiv. ver. 6.
Verse 16. And the Lord their God 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 [pg 067] each; but there is one circumstance 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, principally 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 [pg 068] 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 Αραος or Αραχος, 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 Αραος 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. [pg 069] cap. 1. “Aradus quoque insula deditur regi. Maritimam tum oram, pleraque longius â mari residentia, rex ejus insulæ Strato possidebat. Quo in fidem accepto, castra movet ad urbem Marathon.” Aradus, like Tyre, was the daughter of Sidon, as stated by Strabo; Εκτισαν αυτην φυγαδες, ὤς φασιν, εκ Σιδόνος. These then, are circumstances 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 מנחתו (or ותחנמ) 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 [pg 070] new light upon the passage, 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 תגבל (or לבגת) as an active verb, “which borders on her,” while Blaney, with me, makes it passive. 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 passage [pg 071] 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 participation 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 [pg 072] tempted to seek their personal safety by flight, and abandon the defence of the city, burned all their shipping 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 perishing in the flames, according to Diod. Sic.: φασὶ δε τοὺς ὔπο τοῦ πυρὸς διαφθαρεντας, συν τοῖς οικετικοῖς σώμασι, γεγονέναι πλεὶους τῶν τετρακισμυρίων. 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 intitled 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 [pg 073] 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 passage, in the sense of which even the Jew acquiesces, though not in the application. יבוסי (or יסובי), 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 [pg 074] 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 God in the government of the world, to leave an interval [pg 075] 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 God,” 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; [pg 076] 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 המו (or ומה) in the same verse, which I have considered as the personal pronoun, “they,” instead of the verb “to make a noise”—I believe the Rabbi's, upon re-considering the passage, to be the more correct translation.
But these verbal differences, however they may interest the Hebrew scholar, are of trivial [pg 077] 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.