An Amicable Controversy with a Jewish Rabbi, on The Messiah's Coming Part 6

_Out of him came forth the corner, out of him the nail, out of him the battle bow, out of him every oppressor together._

The words _corner_, _nail_, and _oppressor_, must be rather perplexing to the English reader, nor can the Hebrew scholar be certain of the precise meaning of each, though their general import is obvious enough. Thus ???

(or ???) _corner_, signifies in the root to _turn_, and as the _corner stone_ is a guide to the builder in laying the others, it comes to signify a guide or leader. So ??? (or ???), _a nail_, signifies one on whom others depend. And ???? (or ????), _an oppressor_, like the Greek t??a????, signifies generally, _a prince_, as well as a _tyrant_. Thus these terms are each of them equivalent to a _chief_ or _leader_.

The verb ??? (or ???), which follows, may be either past or future, but the latter accords best with the context, as in the proposed translation.

_Out of him shall come forth the corner-stone, __ out of him the nail, out of him the battle bow, out of him every leader together._

Verse 8. ????? ???.-_I will hiss for them._

The word _hiss_, does not to the English reader convey the correct meaning here. In many parts of Europe, and, probably, in some of Asia, the common made of call is by a shrill sound, very different from either a hiss or a whistle. In some countries it is effected by pressing the tongue against the teeth with the lips open, and sounding the letters-tsz. In others, it is usual to begin with the lips compressed, and without closing the teeth, thus making the sound of the letters psh-but in both, the sibilant sound predominates, and is heard to a considerable distance, while its peculiarity instantly attracts attention from all that are within hearing; and this is no doubt the sense of the term, as here used. The Hebrew closely resembles, and probably gives the etymology of the English word, _shriek_. (See Parkhurst.)

Verse 11. :???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????

_And he shall pa.s.s through the sea with affliction, and shall smite the waves of the sea._

This mode of rendering gives a turn to the sense of the pa.s.sage, which is wholly uncalled for, if not unwarranted by the original: which would be more literally translated: _And affliction shall come over the sea_, &c.

But the Jew's mode of rendering is equally correct, and better accords with the context, thus: _He shall cause trouble to pa.s.s in the sea, and shall smite the waves of the sea._ The latter expression amplifying and explaining the former.

What is meant by the expressions, the sea, the isles, and the land, is a point of no small importance. In prophetic language, the sea and the isles always signify the western Gentiles, or European nations; while the land signifies Palestine, or the Jewish nation. The Hebrew word ?? (or ??) means either the sea or the west. As the sea extends along the whole western coast of Syria, sea and west came to be used synonymously. And as the European nations lay beyond the sea they obtained the name of the isles, or the isles of the Gentiles, as they are called in Gen. x. 5. Mr.

Lowth observes, on Isa. xi. 11. "The islands, in the prophetic style, seem particularly to denote the western parts of the world, or the European nations; the west being often called the sea in the Scripture language."

Thus, "_causing affliction, or trouble, to come over the sea_," and "_smiting the waves of it_," signify, as the Jew rightly explains, to cause confusion and dismay among the Gentile nations of the west.

Verse 11. :?????? ?? ?????? ????

_And all the deeps of the river shall dry up._

That rivers are meant, in prophetic language, to represent the people residing on their borders, appears in various pa.s.sages. See Isa, viii. 7.

"_Now, therefore, behold the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river strong and many, even the king of a.s.syria and all his glory._" In like manner, the drying up of the Euphrates, is spoken of under the sixth vial in the Revelations, in allusion to the nations bordering upon that river.

THE RABBI'S REPLY, AND THE AUTHOR'S REMARKS UPON IT. CHAPTER X.

Contending, as the Jew does, that no part of the prophecy relating to the Messiah's kingdom, has yet been accomplished, he cannot reasonably be expected to offer a particular interpretation of what, according to his view, is still unfulfilled. And, accordingly, his remarks on this chapter are restricted to an occasional correction of the received translation, and a few short explanatory notes; while his reply to my exposition, if reply it can be called, may be comprised in one short sentence, namely, that he considers the whole unaccomplished, and rejects altogether the spiritual exposition, admitting none but the literal.

In answer to this, I have to observe, that the literal acceptation, has already, in some instances, been shewn to be impossible; and will, hereafter, be so in many more; while the figurative exposition offered, is in perfect accordance with the style and language of prophecy in general, and is uniform and consistent throughout.

As I fully acquiesce in the Rabbi's corrections, and in the only instance where we differ, have adopted his view in preference to my own, it is wholly unnecessary to offer his translation at length; but an objection which he makes to my exposition of verses 3rd and 4th of the last chapter, I feel called upon to notice.

In those verses, I adopted the view of Dr. Blayney, that the destruction _by fire_, there denounced, applies to Sidon rather than to Tyre.

The common version, "_For Tyre has built herself a fortress_," being rendered by him, "_For she_ (Sidon) _has built herself a fortress, Tyre_;"

the Sidonians being thus made the immediate object of denunciation, who are allowed to have been the builders of Tyre, which was thence called the daughter of Sidon.

Now the Jew's objection is founded upon collateral prophecies, in which the burden cannot, as here, be shifted from Tyre to Sidon, the former being distinctly named in these; and in some, the precise mode of destruction specified, namely, by fire: Thus, in Amos i. 10, "_I will send a fire upon the wall of Tyrus, which shall devour the palaces thereof:_"

see also Isa. xxiii., in which the whole burden is expressly on Tyre; and again, Ezek. xxvii. 32, "_and in their wailing, they shall take up a lamentation for thee, and lament over thee, saying, What city is like Tyrus, like the destroyed in the midst of the sea?_"

These, and similar pa.s.sages, would, no doubt, be fatal to the exposition of Dr. Blayney, could they be shewn to foretel one and the same event; but against this, there are, what appear to me, conclusive objections. Two of these prophets not only wrote long before the time of Zechariah, but before the destruction of Old Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar, which was therefore most likely to be the object of their predictions, and not New Tyre, which, at that time was not in existence, being built after Old Tyre was demolished; this then appears conclusive against the objection drawn from what occurs in Amos and Isaiah. With regard to Ezekiel, the case is somewhat different, and the answer must rest on other grounds.

Ezekiel did write much nearer to the time in question, and commentators appear undecided whether some of his predictions refer to the destruction of Old or New Tyre, or to both; for if he uttered this prophecy before the siege of Old Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar, which can hardly admit of doubt, when he says, chap. xxvi. 7, "Behold I will bring upon Tyrus, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon;" still the expression of "_the destroyed in the midst of the sea_," does seem peculiarly applicable to the insular situation of New Tyre. But if it be granted that the siege of this latter, by Alexander, be intimated in that remarkable expression; yet Ezekiel no where, that I can find, specifies _fire_ as the peculiar agent of destruction; therefore, it cannot be inferred from any thing he says, that in Zechariah's prophecy, which appears to be directed against both Tyre and Sidon, this particular mode of destruction may not apply to Sidon, as the text certainly warrants that interpretation. Thus I see no reason to relinquish Dr. Blayney's view, which I should give up with the more reluctance, as I have so rarely been able to go along with that learned commentator; while this exposition appeared to me a very happy solution of a difficulty presented by the received translation.

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

It was before stated, that we should find in its proper place, due notice taken of the pride and worldly-mindedness which led the Jews to reject the Messiah, as he offered no temporal advantages; and of their forfeiting thereby all claim to the blessings which his kingdom was calculated to afford. We are now come to that place. The introduction to this chapter announces the frustration of their hopes of worldly greatness built upon the promised Messiah; and distinctly states what portion of their nation would be blinded by such motives, and what portion would be exempt from them. The rulers, the rich, and the great are declared to be those who would mislead the flock; while the poor and the humble are stated to be those who would recognise the hand of G.o.d in his works, and perceive that this was the word of the Lord.

At the time of Christ's coming, it is unquestionable, that a very general expectation prevailed among the Jews, that the period for their Messiah's appearance was arrived; but so remote was the character of Jesus from what they expected in their prince, and so different were the advantages he offered from what they had hoped to obtain, that the majority of the people willingly yielded to the persuasion of their interested rulers, that he was not the promised Messiah; and thus the misguided flock for the most part entered into the views of their priests and rulers, and rejected Christ.

The motives for this rejection are manifest even to this day, in the backwardness of Israel to relinquish the hopes of a temporal Messiah, and in their blindness to the benefits offered them by a spiritual one; although the consequence has. .h.i.therto been to them the loss of even the temporal advantages they previously enjoyed, instead of the attainment of others which they expected. Small, however, in the Christian's estimation, are these, in comparison with their loss, in a spiritual point of view, or their loss of the especial favour of Heaven; which from that time has not only withheld from them any further revelations, but, as we conceive, has even blinded them to the true spiritual import of those previously vouchsafed. Thus, in whatever light we view it, whether spiritually or politically, the humiliation of Israel from that time to the present, has been abundantly manifest; as declared in the prophecy, under the metaphor of the fall of the loftiest trees, the pride of the forest.

_Open thy doors, O Lebanon! that the fire may devour thy cedars. Howl, fir-tree, for the cedar is fallen, because the mighty is spoiled. Howl, O ye oaks of Bashan, for the forest of the vintage is come down. There is a voice of the howling of the shepherds, for their glory is spoiled. A voice of the roaring of young lions, for the pride of Jordan is spoiled._

This language is highly figurative, no doubt; yet is it interspersed with expressions, which almost preclude the possibility of its misapplication; for _the cedars of Lebanon_, and _the oaks of Bashan_, are next, by a change of metaphor, called, _the shepherds of the flock_; and soon after, dropping the metaphor entirely, it appears that they are the rich and the great, who sacrifice their flock to avarice and ambition. Their hopes, however, were frustrated, in the appearance of a spiritual, instead of a temporal prince, and an exultation over their disappointed ambition forms the exordium to this chapter, which may be explained as follows:-

Literally, the shepherds are supposed to howl for the loss of their rich pastures on mount Carmel, the forest of the vintage; and the lions to roar for the loss of their covert, the thickets on the banks of Jordan, the pride of the river, which, with other trees, are doomed to destruction; but the figurative meaning is, that the priests and rulers of Israel should be disappointed of their hopes of worldly greatness at the Messiah's coming, and be deprived, under the new dispensation, of their power and influence.

The lamentation over their frustrated hopes, is next coupled with expressions of compa.s.sion for their misguided flock, whom they had doomed to the slaughter; that is, by depriving them of _the life which is in Christ_. This flock, the prophet is commanded to feed.

_Thus saith the Lord my G.o.d. Feed the flock of the slaughter, whose possessors slay them, and hold themselves not guilty. And they that sell them say, Blessed be the Lord for I am rich. And their own shepherds pity them not._

Avarice is thus foreshewn to be the vice which would lead the priests to reject Christ; the sending of whom is next declared to be the last act of Divine interposition in behalf of Israel; those who reject him being thenceforward left to themselves.

_For I will no more pity the inhabitants of the land, saith the Lord, but, lo! I will deliver the men every one into his neighbour's hand, and into the hand of his shepherd, and they shall smite the land, and out of their hand I will not deliver them._

But while further interposition is thus denied to those who reject Christ, being the rich and the great; spiritual food is expressly promised to those who receive him, who were the poor and the meek.

_But I will feed the flock of the slaughter, even you, O poor of the flock._

The food here promised to those who are willing to receive it, cannot be any other than spiritual food; that is, the knowledge to discern truth from falsehood, and the grace to make a proper election between right and wrong. To the poor, this was given, of whom Christ declared that "_Theirs was the kingdom of Heaven_:" to the rich it was not given, of whom he declared, "_That it was easier for a camel to pa.s.s through the eye of a needle_," than for them to enter his kingdom.

We now come to the events to which this introductory matter is intended to lead us; and to render the prophetic annunciation the more impressive, it is typically represented by actions, as well as expressed by words. This is the most important part of the prophecy; that on which it may be said that the whole interpretation hinges. And yet it is here that the Christian is at fault, and that the Jew expects a certain triumph: nor without reason, when our ablest commentators disagree, or even acknowledge the difficulties to be insurmountable. Whether they are removed by the proposed exposition, the reader must decide; and to enable him to do so, we shall state them as briefly as possible.

The events alluded to will, with the Christian, scarcely admit of doubt, for the pa.s.sage before us is cited in the Gospel of Matthew, though by some error, it is there ascribed to Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. But were the citation in question even supposed to be a marginal note, which had found its way into the text in transcribing, still the purport of the prophecy would be not the less manifest, for the connection of this with the context, and the unity of the whole, sufficiently declare the subject.

The events foreshewn, are the death of Christ; the dissolution of the old, and the founding of the new covenant; the rejection of this latter by the great body of the Jewish nation, and their immediate forfeiture of the benefits it affords; with other circ.u.mstances attending these events, such as the betrayal of Christ for thirty pieces of silver; the employment of this money in the purchase of the potter's field; the separation of the Jews, who rejected Christ, from those who received him; and the evils entailed upon those who, having rejected the true, followed after false Messiahs. These are the circ.u.mstances shadowed forth in the prophecy; but to give a consistent explanation of every part of it, and to shew the exact adaptation of the events to the prediction, const.i.tute the difficulty.

The typical actions of the prophet, consist in his taking two staves, or crooks; first affixing to each of them a significant denomination, and then breaking them in succession; accompanying this action with explanations, declaratory of the purport of his doing so. Yet is the whole highly mystical, and in parts so obscure, that Dr. Blayney acknowledges he cannot solve these difficulties; an avowal that would have been rendered unnecessary, had his predecessor Lowth been more successful. Their failure seems chiefly to have arisen from their misconceiving, in the first place, whom the prophet here personates in the character of the shepherd; and, in the next, what the staves are intended to represent; for the general purport of the whole, is rightly understood by both to be an allusion to the death of Christ, and the completion of his mission. Accordingly, Lowth supposes the shepherd to personate the Messiah, as the shepherd of his flock. But the Messiah is throughout the person spoken of, rather than the speaker, as will presently appear. Blayney also considers the prophet as a type of the Messiah; but supposes him sometimes to speak in his own name, as being himself the shepherd. Not to dwell on the want of consistency in this change of character, its avowed inadequacy to furnish the solution required, is alone a sufficient refutation of it.

That the prophet is the actual speaker is clear, but he speaks in the name of the Almighty, as is distinctly declared three times at least in the present chapter. The great Shepherd is then no other than G.o.d himself; and all mankind are his flock. Who are the staves, or crooks, we have next to inquire.