with the prophet; and this last is the true (interpretation).*

"How long wilt thou not have mercy upon Jerusalem -As long as the Gentile nations are at rest, (Israel) cannot go forth from captivity, nor, until the destruction of Babylon. And, behold! the subject of this vision was long past at the time when he saw it; but the angel shows him the past, in order to let him see that the prosperity of Babylon and its desolation were all from God, blessed be He, through the mediation of the conducting angels,† and that they were employed in promoting the welfare of Israel; and that the three remaining kingdoms and their fall should also be from God, according to what he had shown him of the Babylonian monarchy, which was past.

66

Against which thou hast had just indignation these threescore and ten years."-If these words refer to the past, as we have interpreted, then the seventy years refer to the kingdom of Babylon, and the indignation was that which existed during the whole time of Nebuchadnezzar. Or, the seventy years may have been mentioned in reference to the time of the vision, which was in the second year of Darius; at which time the seventy years were complete for the desolation of Jerusalem. For although this vision was in the month Shevat, and they had begun to build in Kislev, § nevertheless the indignation still continued, and during all the time of the building the city, they were at war with their enemies.

*Kimchi is here wrong in supposing that the angel who spake with Zechariah is called "the angel of the Lord." But this interpretation, though wrong, is very important, as showing Kimchi's decided opinion, that the angel who stood among the myrtle-trees, is not identical with the angelus interpres who speaks with him. (Compare Hengsbenberg's Christologie, part ii., p. 22.)

+ Compare what is said in verse 8, and also chap. ii. 3, and the

note.

About our January.

About our November.

f

13. "And the Lord answered. . . . words, comforts," -The governing word is omitted. The absolute form, is to be interpreted as if it were Den, "words of comfort;" or may be an adjective, and this is the fact.

14. "And the angel said to me." -The good words which God, blessed be He, spake to him, he spake to me, that I might proclaim them in the ears of Israel to comfort them.

15. "I am sore displeased

heathen at ease,"

that is, as is said above, "Sitteth still, and is at rest.”

"I was a little displeased.”—I was a little displeased with Israel, so as to carry them captive from their land, and this word, a "little," is put in contrast to what they (the Gentiles) had done to Israel after their captivity.

"Helped forward the affliction" by doing them evil, more than enough, and so it is said in Isaiah, “I was wroth with my people, I profaned my inheritance, and delivered them into thy hand, but thou showedst them no mercy; upon the ancient hast thou heavily laid thy yoke." (Isaiah xlvii. 6.)

16. "Therefore thus saith the Lord"

, the Kethib has a at the end, like

and a line (a dwelling).

The Keri is without the (p). The word signifies a building line, a cord, which they stretch over the row of bricks.

17. "Cry yet — through good shall be spread abroad."-On account of the abundance of good and prosperity that they shall have, they shall be spread abroad; that is to say, the inhabited part shall increase. O has pathach, and is from a dageshed conjugation.† * And so our translators have rendered it. Michaelis, in the notes to his Hebrew Bible, leaves the matter doubtful. Gesenius, in his Lexicon, decides that D is a substantive, and refers to Isaiah lvii. 18; i, “And I will restore comforts unto him." To which opinion Rosenmüller also subscribes in his Scholia. The Septuagint agrees with Kimchi and the English; it has Λόγους παρακλητικούς.

It is Pihel.

9

OBSERVATIONS ON CHAPTER I.

'78, THE ANGEL, OR MESSENGER OF The Lord.

FROM Kimchi's commentary on the 8th and 12th verses of this chapter, it appears that he considered the person designated "The angel of the Lord," as nothing more than one of the many angels to whom he supposes that the governance and guidance of this lower world is committed. It has been repeatedly proved by Christian writers that this Being is none other than the Son of God. The latest writers in this country are Mr. Faber in his "Horæ Mosaicæ,"* and Dr. Pye Smith, in his work on the Messiah; but as their works were not written with a special reference to the Jewish controversy, and as the question is one of general importance, it may not be out of place to offer a few remarks on the character of the angel or messenger of the Lord.

Kimchi evidently took the word T, as signifying "angel," and therefore decides that he is one of that class of heavenly beings commonly designated by that name. But the first and original meaning of the word is " messenger," in which sense it is frequently applied to men as well as to heavenly beings. In Gen. xxxii. 1. 3 (Heb. ii. 4) it occurs in both senses. "And Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God, ie, met him.” "And Jacob sent messengers, ?, before him to Esau

his brother." The word itself, therefore, decides nothing as to the nature of the messenger; so far as that is concerned, he may be a man, or he may be a heavenly being, but if a heavenly being, it decides nothing as to the order to which he belongs, whether to the living creatures de

* Not having access to this work, I cannot give the reference. Dr. Pye Smith treats this subject in vol. i. pp. 333.

scribed in Ezekiel, or to the Seraphim mentioned in Isaiah, or to others.

The next question is, How are the two words in, to be translated? Some Christians wish to translate "The angel Jehovah." But this is plainly against the punctuation, and if persons pretend to disregard the points, then we must add against the consonants also. If the two words are to be taken in apposition, without regard to the points, the translation must be "An angel or a messenger, Jehovah." If he were used in the be absolute form with reference to THE LORD, we should expect that it would have the article before it, as 7 has uniformly, so that the form 77, the Lord, is never applied to any created being. Besides, the words do occur in Scripture elsewhere, where i must be taken as the genitive case, as "The priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his

-for he is the mes כִּי מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת הוּא ,mouth

senger of the Lord of Hosts." (Mal. iii. 7.)

The modern Jews, on the other hand, translate "An angel of the Lord," and in this our translators have occasionally followed them, as in Judges ii. 1, “An angel of the Lord, b, came up from Gilgal: but there is nothing in the words to compel us to adopt this translation. As far as they are concerned, we may with equal propriety translate "The angel of the Lord." It cannot be urged that has not got the article, for it is in regimen, and the general rule is, that nouns in regimen do not take the article, but are made definite by the following genitive, and the Jews themselves will admit that must be translated "The God 2, "The mountain of the house;' "The temple of the Lord." It is true that in this case the general rule is, that the definite article should be prefixed to the genitive; but here that cannot be the case, for never, in any case, receives an

of Israel;" and

הֵיכַל יְהוָה

article. Suppose, then, that the sacred writers wished to express that is to be translated definitely, "The angel of the Lord," what means could they have taken ? They could not have put the article before 78, for that would have made "The angel Jehovah.” They could not prefix it to in, for, as we have said, that does not admit of it. There remained one other course possible, and that was, never to use the expression in the plural of angels, but always in the singular, so as to indicate that one person, and one only, is intended. But have they done this? Yes, uniformly: in the whole Bible, and in the great variety of styles which occurs, we

66

Angels of * מַלְאֲכֵי יְהוָה never once find the expression

the Lord," but uniformly the singular, ninas, to point out that there is only one of heavenly beings to whom this title belongs. It would be folly, or something worse, to say that this is fortuitous. The uniformity of the practice by all the sacred writers implies design, and teaches that there is but one person thus called, and that therefore the true translation is, "The angel of the Lord."

The only plausible objection that can be urged is, that though we do not find in the plural "The angels of the Lord," we do find the expression, " Angels of God." We might urge in reply, that there is a great difference between the words and, but this is not necessary, as this very objection will serve as an additional confirmation to the foregoing argument. We have already said, that a word governing a genitive case does not take the article, and that the rule therefore is, if the article is wanted, to prefix it to the genitive case, if the genitive be a word that admits of the article.

is a אֱלֹהִים Now

word that admits the article. When, therefore, the sacred writers wished to say definitely "The angel of God,"

and this they ,מַלְאַךְ הָאֱלֹהִים they could express it by

have done, as in Gen. xxxi. 11, "And the angel of God, , spake unto me in a dream." And again,