Study

The Prophet teaches us again, — that there is no need of helps when God stretches forth his hand to preserve his people; for he is alone abundantly sufficient. And the design of the verse is to show, that the Jews were to learn to acquiesce in God alone, though they might find themselves destitute of every earthly assistance; for when God purposes to save, he needs no help, as we have said; nor does he borrow any, as he by himself is fully sufficient.

But by the word, Tabernacles, the Prophet means, as I think, sheds, such as afforded but partial protection. It is indeed true that tents are called סחות, sachut, in Hebrew; but the same is often meant by the אעלים, aelim, tents, which afforded a temporary accommodation; for they were not strongly built, as it is evident from many passages. I allow that all houses without any difference are sometimes called tabernacles, אהלים, aelim; but the word properly signifies a tent, built as a temporary convenience; for it is said that the fathers dwelt in tents, when they had no fixed habitation.

Let us now see why the Prophet speaks of tents. He may have alluded to their dwelling in the wilderness; but as this may seem too remote, I consider that he simply refers to the tents in which the Jews dwelt when they had entered the land, after their deliverance from Egypt; for they must have been wonderfully protected by the hand of God, inasmuch as they had provoked all their neighbors and kindled the hatred of all against themselves. There were indeed some fortified cities; but for the most part they lived in villages, and the greatest part of the people were no doubt satisfied with their tents or sheds. Hence as the Israelites then had no defense, the Prophet now reminds them, that they were then protected by God alone, in order that they might believe that they should in future be safe and secure, as God would defend them to the end. There is then here an implied comparison between tents and fortified cities; and the Prophet bids them to consider what their fathers had formerly experienced, for God faithfully defended them, even when they were unprotected and exposed to the attacks of their enemies.

He says first, Jehovah will save the tents, etc.; as though he had said, “Know that your fathers were formerly defended by the hand of God, when they did not, as to the greater part of them, dwell in cities, but lived scattered in villages: since God then had been the preserver of his people many ages before a king was made, believe that he will be the same to you hereafter.” But we must yet remember what we said yesterday, — that the Jews who had returned to their country had a promise of God’s help, in order that the Israelites, who were retained by their own sloth in Babylon, might know that they were justly suffering punishment for their ingratitude, because they had not given glory to God, as they ought to have done, by committing themselves to his protection, and thus relying on his defense, so as not to seek other helps from the world: he will then save them, he says, as at the beginning; for as, the particle of similitude, is to be understood here. ¹⁵⁷¹⁵⁷     So is the rendering of the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Vulgate, and adopted by Dathius and Newcome. But the Hebrew, as it is, has been adhered to by Drusius, Marckius, and Henderson; and this is what the context seems to require: for the following words give the reason why the tents of Judah (which mean here the towns and villages of Judah according to Kimchi and to Grotius) were saved “first,” or at first, or in the beginning; and the reason is, — that the honor or the glory of the house of David and of the citizens of Jerusalem might not be magnified above that of Judah. This is clearly the meaning of the verse. The literal rendering is as follows,—
    
   7. But save shall Jehovah the tents of Judah first, That the honor of the house of David, Even the honor of the inhabitant of Jerusalem, May be not magnified above that of Judah.
   The “inhabitant” is the poetical singular. The word rendered “honor” is [תפארת], and in the first instance rendered “[καύχημα] — boasting,” by the Septuagint, and in the second, “[ἔπαρσις] — elevation,” or exaltation; and the Targum give a word of a similar import. But “glory” is the most common rendering: it is that of Marckius, Newcome, and Henderson. — Ed.

He then adds, And hence boast shall not the honor of the house of David and the honor of the citizen of Jerusalem over Judah. This latter clause is added, I think, by way of explanation; and this is evident from the subject itself for God declares, that he would be the protector of the helpless, so that they would be no less victorious than if they possessed many armed soldiers, and were furnished with money and other necessaries to carry on war. For by comparing here the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem with Judah, he has no doubt a regard to this, — that though there was no kingdom and no fortified cities, there would yet be sufficient protection in him alone, so that he could by himself defend the people, though unarmed, and having no swords, nor power, nor any other requisite means. Boast then shall not the house of David: and this seems to have been mentioned designedly, for while they trusted in their own wealth and power, they did not rest on God as they ought to have done.

As then the Jews had been elated with vain pride, while the dignity of the kingdom remained, and while they possessed wealth and warlike instruments, God here reproves this false confidence; for the Jews had thus obscured his gratuitous favor. For however great might have been the treasures collected by David and Solomon, and however formidable they might have been to their enemies and the neighboring nations, they ought yet to have relied on the protection of God alone. Since then earthly helps had inflated their minds, God now reproves their vain conceit, and shows that the condition of the people would be no less happy, when no king sat on the throne, and no aids enlisted for the protection of the people; and therefore he declares, that though exposed to all evils, they should yet be safe and secure, for God would defend them. This is the reason why the Prophet says, that the royal posterity would not glory against Judah, though dwelling in tents, nor the citizens of Jerusalem, who were then as it were the courtiers: for as the royal seat was at Jerusalem, a sort of vain boasting was made by all the citizens. As then all of them despised the inhabitants of the country, when the condition of the city was illustrious, the Prophet says, the posterity of David and Jerusalem shall not hereafter glory against the people of Judah, scattered in the open fields. It then follows —

He goes on with the same subject; and he says that God would be like a shield to protect the Jews. For though the verb יגן, igen, is used here, yet as it is derived from מגן, megen, which means a shield, that metaphor is to be understood here, — even that the Jews, though without power and without warlike instruments, would yet be safe under the protection of God, for he being their shield would be sufficient. And God is here indirectly opposed to all kinds of fortresses which men too anxiously seek, and on which they vainly depend. The Prophet then no doubt claims here for God a power, which in opposition to the whole world, and when no other help appears, would be found sufficient to subdue all enemies and to save his people. Jehovah then shall be, he says, a shield ¹⁵⁸¹⁵⁸     The version of the Septuagint is, “[ὑπερασπιεῖ] — will over-shield,” or hold over the shield. — Ed.

But there seems to be here something inconsistent; for he had said before that the Jews would be safe wherever they lived, though they did not dwell at Jerusalem; but now he confines this promise to the citizens of Jerusalem. The answer to this is plain: We observed yesterday, that the piety of those was commended who had preferred to undergo many and grievous trials in returning home, and then to expose themselves to many dangers, rather than to continue in exile, as in that case they wholly separated themselves from the temple. Now since this was the object of the Prophet, it is no wonder that he one while names the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and that at another time he includes generally all the Jews. And by saying in the last verse, that the citizens of Jerusalem were not to glory against the country people, scattered in the villages, he intended, in adopting this way of speaking, to humble the citizens of Jerusalem, but not to exclude them from the promise made to all: as God then was to be the defender of all, the Prophet returns again to Jerusalem. For as God had chosen there his sanctuary, it is not to be wondered that the place was precious in his sight. But it was yet necessary to take away all pride from the Jews, that they might not, as it has been said, trust in earthly aids and supports. This is the meaning, when he says, the protection of God shall be on the inhabitants of Jerusalem

He now adds — The feeble ¹⁵⁹¹⁵⁹     This is the rendering of the Septuagint, and not of the Hebrew. The stumbling, or stumbler, according to Kimchi, is the right version. “The fallen to decay,” as rendered by Blayney, is not to be admitted. “The stumbling” is the rendering of Drusius, Marckius, and Henderson. It was no doubt the weak or the feeble, but the act which betokens weakness is what the original expresses. — Ed. among them shall be like David. Some give a refined explanation — that as David, who was not trained up for war, and was by no means strong, being, almost a boy, yet slew the proud giant Goliath, so the feeble among the Jews, as they think, will, by God’s power, be made victorious over their enemies. But this seems forced. The Prophet, then, I have no doubt, connects the whole together, and considers David as a king; for when David slew Goliath, he was yet a boy, remarkable for no velour. After he attained the kingdom, he became more eminent, we know, in every way, than all the kings of the earth. It is then this eminence which the Prophet has in view, when he says that the least and the most despised among them would be like David; as though he had said — “They shall all be endued with royal and heroic velour, not only the common people, but even those who seemed to be like women, and who possessed nothing that was manly; they would yet excel as David in heroic velour.”

It then follows — And the whole house of David shall be as angels; that is, the royal posterity shall be remarkable for angelic velour. And it was necessary to add this, that the faithful might not think that the house of David, from which salvation was to be expected, would be reduced to nothing. For whatever had been promised to them might have vanished, were not that promise to stand firm, on which was founded the salvation of the whole people —

“Thy house shall remain for ever.” (Psalm 89:37.)

Now as Zechariah seemed to have cast down and wholly overthrown the royal house, it might have occurred to the minds of the faithful, “whence then shall arise our salvation? for it is certain that without Christ we are wholly lost.” Now Christ was not to come forth, except from the house of David. The Prophet then does here opportunely declare, that the royal house would be most eminent, as though all the men belonging to it were angels. He puts down the word אלהים, aleim, which also means God; but he adds in the same sentence — As the angel of Jehovah before their face ¹⁶⁰¹⁶⁰     Both Genesius and Lee, according to Henderson, deny that angels are ever called [אלהים], though the Septuagint have often rendered the word “angels.” Here the Septuagint introduce the word house “as the house of God;” and the Targum has “princes;” and kings and princes are sometimes called “gods.” But the following lines settles the meaning, as it is evidently an explanation —
    
   8. And the stumbling among them, in that day, Shall be like David, And the house of David like God, Like the angel of Jehovah before them.
   The stumbling or weak was to be strong and valiant like David, and the descendants or David were to be like God, taking the lead and guiding, even like the angel who went before them in the wilderness, who afterwards approved as God manifested in the flesh. — Ed. The Prophet compares here, no doubt, the posterity of David to the angel, who had been the leader of the people and the minister of redemption. That angel we conclude was Christ; for though God then appointed many angels to his people, yet Christ, as it is well known, was their prince and head. The Prophet then bids the Jews here to look for the perpetual aid of God, since in the royal house were not only angels, but even the very leader of the fathers, who had exercised the ineffable power of God in redeeming the people.

We now then perceive the design of the Prophet: The import of the whole is, that God would so undertake the defense and protection of his people, as to be of himself sufficient, without any other aid; and also that the minister of salvation would be in the royal house itself; for as formerly, when their fathers were led out of Egypt, God had exercised his power through an angel, so now he had set over them a Mediator. And in accordance with this meaning he adds, לפניהם, lepeniem, “before their face.” He bids the faithful to attend to the royal house, which was then deprived of all dignity, so that it had no power to help. Nothing indeed was then seen in the posterity of David but what was degrading, and even contemptible; and yet the Prophet bids them to expect salvation from that house, which was so brought down as to possess nothing worthy of being noticed.

We may now ask, when was this prophecy fulfilled? Zechariah does indeed predict great things; but in reviewing all histories, nothing of a corresponding character is to be found. It must nevertheless be observed, that this blessed and happy state ass promised to the Jews, because from them Christ was to arise, and also because Jerusalem was to be the mother of all Churches; for from thence the law was to go forth, and from thence God had determined to send forth the royal scepter, that the son of David might rule over the whole world. Since the case was so, we may now easily understand how the condition of that miserable people would become happier and more glorious than under the rich and flourishing kingdom of David; for Christ would at length come, in whom complete happiness was to be found.

We may now also add this — that though few of the Jews embraced the favor of Christ, and the rest fell away, and thus gave place to the Gentiles, yet however small was the portion of the faithful, still the Prophet does not speak here hyperbolically, for the thing itself is what ought to be regarded; and that the Jews did not enjoy this blessed state, was owing to their own ingratitude; but this detracts nothing from the felicity described here by Zechariah. Let us proceed -