Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Zechariah 6:9 - 6:9
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The series of visions closes with a symbolical transaction, which is closely connected with the substance of the night-visions, and sets before the eye the figure of the mediator of salvation, who, as crowned high priest, or as priestly king, is to build the kingdom of God, and raise it into a victorious power over all the kingdoms of this world, for the purpose of comforting and strengthening the congregation. The transaction is the following: Zec 6:9. “And the word of Jehovah came to me thus: Zec 6:10. Take of the people of the captivity, of Cheldai, of Tobijah, and of Jedahyah, and go thou the same day, go into the house of Josiah the son of Zephaniah, whither they have come from Babel; Zec 6:11. And take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Jozadak the high priest.” By the introduction, “The word of the Lord came to me,” the following transaction is introduced as a procedure of symbolical importance. It is evident from Zec 6:10 and Zec 6:11 that messengers had come to Jerusalem from the Israelites who had been left behind in Babel, to offer presents of silver and gold, probably for supporting the erection of the temple, and had gone to the house of Josiah the son of Zephaniah. The prophet is to go to them, and to take silver and gold from them, to have a crown made for Joshua the high priest. The construction in Zec 6:10 and Zec 6:11 is somewhat broad and dragging. The object is wanting to the inf. absol. לָקוֹחַ, which is used instead of the imperative; and the sentence which has been begun is interrupted by וּבָאתָ וגו, so that the verb which stands at the head is resumed in the וְלָקַחְתָּ of Zec 6:11, and the sentence finished by the introduction of the object. This view is the simplest one. For it is still more impracticable to take לָקוֹחַ in an absolute sense, and either supply the object from the context, or force it out by alterations of the text (Hitzig). If, for example, we were to supply as the object, “that which they are bringing,” this meaning would result: “accept what they are bringing, do not refuse it,” without there being any ground for the assumption that there had been any unwillingness to accept the presents. The alteration of מֵחֶלְדַּי into מַחֲמַדַּי, “my jewels,” is destitute of any critical support, and מֵחֶלְדַּי is defended against critical caprice by the לְחֵלֶם in Zec 6:14. Nor can מֵאֵת הַגּוֹלָה be taken as the object to לָקוֹחַ, “take (some) from the emigration,” because this thought requires מִן, and is irreconcilable with מֵאֵת, “from with.” Haggōlâh, lit., the wandering into exile, then those who belong to the wandering, or to the exiled, not merely those who are still in exile, but very frequently also those who have returned from exile. This is the meaning here, as in Ezr 4:1; Ezr 6:19, etc. Mecheldai is an abbreviation for מֵאֵת חֶלְדַּי. Cheldai, Tobiyah, and Yedahyah, were the persons who had come from Babylon to bring the present. This is implied in the words אֲשֶׁר בָּאוּ מב, whither they have come from Babel. אֲשֶׁר is an accus. loci, pointing back to בֵּית. We are not warranted in interpreting the names of these men symbolically or typically, either by the circumstance that the names have an appellative meaning, like all proper names in Hebrew, or by the fact that Cheldai is written Chēlem in Zec 6:14, and that instead of Josiah we have there apparently chēn. For chēn is not a proper name (see at Zec 6:14), and chēlem, i.e., strength, is not materially different from Cheldai, i.e., the enduring one; so that it is only a variation of the name, such as we often meet with. The definition “on that day” can only point back to the day mentioned in Zec 1:7, on which Zechariah saw the night-visions, so that it defines the chronological connection between this symbolical transaction and those night-visions. For, with the explanation given by C. B. Michaelis, “die isto quo scil. facere debes quae nunc mando,” the definition of the time is unmeaning. If God had defined the day more precisely to the prophet in the vision, the prophet would have recorded it. Zechariah is to have given to him as much of the silver and gold which they have brought with them as is required to make ‛ătârōth. The plural ‛ătârōth does indeed apparently point to at least two crowns, say a silver and a golden one, as C. B. Michaelis and Hitzig suppose. But what follows cannot be made to harmonize with this. The prophet is to put the ‛ătârōth upon Joshua's head. But you do not put two or more crowns upon the head of one man; and the indifference with which Ewald, Hitzig, and Bunsen interpolate the words זְרוּבָבֶל וּבְרֹאשׁ after בְּרֹאשׁ, without the smallest critical authority, is condemned by the fact that in what follows only one wearer of a crown is spoken of, and in Zec 6:13, according to the correct interpretation, there is no “sharp distinction made between the priest and the Messiah.” The plural ‛ătârōth denotes here one single splendid crown, consisting of several gold and silver twists wound together, or rising one above another, as in Job 31:36, and just as in Rev 19:12 (ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ διαδήματα πολλά) Christ is said to wear, not many separate diadems, but a crown consisting of several diadems twisted together, as the insignia of His regal dignity.