Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Zechariah 13:2 - 13:6
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Zec_13:2-6.
2 And it shall be in that day, saith Jehovah of Hosts,
I will cut off the names of the idols from the land,
And they shall be remembered no more;
And also the prophets and the spirit of uncleanness,
Will I cause to pass out of the land.
3 And it shall be, if a man still prophesy,
His father and his mother, who begat him, shall say to him,
Thou shalt not live,
For thou hast spoken a lie in the name of Jehovah;
And his father and his mother, who begat him,
Shall pierce him through in his prophesying.
4 And it shall be in that day the prophets shall be ashamed
Each of his vision in his prophesying;
And shall no more put on a hairy mantle to lie;
5 And [one] shall say, I am not a prophet, I am a husbandman,
For a man has sold me from my youth.
6 And [the other] shall say to him,
What then are these wounds between thy hands?
And he shall say, Those with which I was wounded
In the house of my lovers.
Zec_13:2. I will cut off the names of the idols. The expressions, “to cut off the names,” and “that they be remembered no more,” denote the total extinction of idolatry (cf. Hos_2:17). Of the latter Calvin says, “his meaning is that the hatred of superstition will be so great that the people will shudder at the very name.” Inasmuch as the Jews notoriously after the Captivity shrank from any approach to idol-worship, it has been claimed that this passage shows that the portion of the book to which it belongs was composed prior to the Exile. But the conclusion is not legitimate. Zechariah simply uses the forms of the past in which to depict the future. Idolatry was the common expression of ungodliness in the earlier days of the nation; how could even a post-exilium prophet better set forth the overthrow of false religion in the future than by predicting the oblivion of idols and their names? Köhler indeed deems it possible, on the basis of Rev_9:20; Rev_13:4; Rev_13:15, that gross actual idol-worship may again return, but this would be to interpret an obscure book by one yet obscurer. Possibly the reference may be to that refined idolatry which consists in regarding and serving the creature more than the Creator, and which the New Testament has in view when it declares covetousness to be idolatry (Col_3:5). The prophets must of course be false prophets who spoke without authority, as appears from their association not only with idols but also with the spirit of uncleanness. This latter phrase denotes not merely a pervading principle, but an active, conscious agency, standing in direct contrast with the Spirit of grace (Zec_12:10), which works in its human instruments and leads them to their lying utterances. The false prophets as well as the true were subject to an influence from without (cf. 1Ki_22:21-23, Rev_16:14 with 2Th_2:9-10 and 1Ti_4:2). The completeness of the removal of this form of ungodliness is expressed very energetically in the following verses.
Zec_13:3. If a man still prophesy.… pierce him through. Some infer from the opening words that the mere fact of prophesying will be proof that the man attempting it is a deceiver, since there will be no more prophets (Keil, Köhler), and they refer to Jer_31:33-34, Isa_54:13; but this is an extravagant and needless assumption, for the connection shows plainly enough that Zechariah has in view simply false pretenders to divine inspiration, and the passages quoted by no means imply the final cessation of the spirit of prophecy either in its broad or its narrow sense, as the New Testament plainly shows. The statement in the text rests on Deu_18:20, compared with Zec_13:6-9. The offender shall die, and the first to inflict the sentence shall be his father and his mother, here made more emphatic by the addition, who begat him. Cf. 2Sa_16:11. Several expositors modify the meaning of ãָ÷ַø so as to make it=to bind or scourge (LXX., Peshito, Calmet), but there is no ground whatever for this in the origin or usage of the word, nor does it suit the context.
Zec_13:4. Prophets shall be ashamed.… to lie. The revolution will be so great that these pretenders shall become ashamed of their claims, and strip off the outward token of their occupation. The hairy mantle worn by the prophets (2Ki_1:8) was not a form of ascetic discipline, but a sermo propheticus realis, a symbol of the prophet’s grief for the sins which he was commissioned to reprove. It was an acted parable of repentance. The same remark is true of John the Baptist’s “raiment of camel’s hair and leathern girdle” (Mat_3:4). To lie, i. e., to give themselves the appearance of prophets, and thus impose upon the people. Thus far Zechariah has spoken of those who spoke falsely in the name of the Lord, and Hengstenberg supposes that he now turns to another class of pretenders who spoke in the name of strange gods,—a view which seems required by his interpretation of the last word of Zec_13:6. But no break or transition is apparent in the passage, and there is no necessity for violently introducing a new subject.
Zec_13:5-6. I am not a prophet.… lovers. A dramatic representation of the means by which one of these deceivers endeavors to escape detection. Charged with his crime, he denies it, and claims to have been nothing more than a common tiller of the soil. In support of this claim he asserts that this is no recent circumstance, but that he has been sold from his youth. ÷ָðִä =to acquire, h. buy (Isa_24:2), in Hiphil would naturally=to cause to buy, i. e., to sell. Fürst and others make Hiphil the same as Kal. The sense is the same according to either rendering. There seems to be no reason for considering the verb a denominative from îִ÷ְðֶä , servum facere (Maurer, Köhler). To this denial is opposed the question as to the origin of the scars the accused person bears,—wounds between thy hands, i. e., upon the breast. Cf. 2Ki_9:24, where “between the arms” evidently has this meaning. (In Arabic the cognate phrase, ÐَÜíْäَ íَáَ íْå , occurs frequently, in the sense coram eo.) The questioner considers these gashes upon the person as palpable evidences that the man has wounded himself in connection with idolatrous worship (1Ki_18:28; Tibullus, 1:1:43, respecting the worship of Cybele), and asks an explanation. The reply is that lie received them in the house of his lovers, which some explain as=impure, sinful lovers, i. e., idols (Hengstenberg), in which sense they say that the Piel of àָäַá is always used (which, however, cannot be affirmed of Jer_22:20; Jer_22:22, Lam_1:19); but as the form necessarily signifies only intense affection without regard to quality, I prefer the opinion of those who explain it as=loving friends, and understand the accused person as maintaining that the scars are simply the result of chastisements which he had formerly received when in the house of his relatives. It seems more likely that such a man would resort to an evasion of this kind than that he would make the frank confession involved in the former view.
This verse is commonly applied to the sufferings of Christ, but without any further ground than its mere proximity to that which follows, in which He and his sufferings are clearly predicted” (Henderson). It is quite impossible on any critical ground to vindicate such an application, although Henderson is far astray when he assigns as a reason that “in no tolerable sense could the Jews be called Christ’s lovers or friends,” for it is written (Joh_1:11), “He came unto his own, and his own ( ïἱ ß ̈ äéïé ) received Him not,” and the Apostle (Rom_9:5) speaks of his kinsmen as those "of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came.”
2. The world has often flattered itself that “the false prophet and the unclean spirit” have completely passed away, that science has effectually disposed of superstition, that the progress of education and intelligence has put an end to soothsaying and necromancy. Yet our own generation has completely exploded this flattering dream. The heart of our own enlightened land where the schoolmaster has been abroad for generations, has witnessed the resurrection and diffusion of errors which are usually considered as belonging only to the twilight of civilization. The miserable first king of Israel resorted to the witch of Endor, only after every other door of knowledge had been hopelessly closed against him; but now under the blaze of a completed revelation, with Christ at the right hand of God, and the Holy Spirit promised to all who seek aright, men revive an antiquated delusion and seek for the living to the dead. Nay, many who reject and scoff at the Scriptures, receive with implicit faith what purport to be communications from the ghosts of the departed. It is a fulfillment of the Apostolic declaration (2Ti_4:4), “They who turn away their ears from the truth shall be turned unto fables.” Man stands too close to the unseen world to deny or ignore its existence; his own condition here with its dependence and exposure makes him look wistfully for something higher and better. If that craving is not satisfied legitimately, it will be illegitimately. The alternative to Faith is not unbelief but misbelief. Men must believe something. If they obey the laws of evidence, they will receive the only proven revelation from the invisible world; if not, then all that remains is belief without evidence, that is, superstition. Nor will this be altered if there be a common school, and a printing press, and a scientific association in every hamlet of the land. No culture of the intellect can destroy or smother man’s moral and spiritual nature. The heart, the conscience, the sense of responsibility, will still survive and demand some appropriate nutriment. To offer to these the latest discoveries in physics, is to offer stones instead of bread, or a scorpion instead of a fish. If they do not receive the living oracles of the Spirit of holiness, they fall into the hands of “the spirit of uncleanness,” whose working is with lying wonders and all deceivableuess of unrighteousness in them that perish, because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved (2Th_2:9-10).
3. The energy of moral rebuke in a healthy state of Zion, is well shown in the pictorial representation of the Prophet. In the fifth Book of Moses provision is made for the prompt and severe punishment of any one who should introduce the worship of a false god (Deu_13:6-9). The Jewish commonwealth, being an actual theocracy, idolatry was simply and literally high treason, a blow at the life of the state, and as such a capital crime. Hence no degree of kindred or affection was allowed to exempt any one from denouncing such a criminal. Even a man’s nearest relatives were to be the first to put their hands to his execution when he was found judicially obnoxious to the penalty. Even so, declares Zechariah, in days to come will the parents who naturally cling to a prodigal boy, even when he may be hated and despised by all the world, yet overcome their affection, and themselves thrust through the child who is a lying prophet. The representation is strong, but not exaggerated. Literally understood it is of course impossible. Under the Gospel civil punishments for religious errors have and can have no place. But the underlying thought—intense and absolute loyalty to God—is as appropriate now as it ever was. The religious element in man’s nature is to become dominant, nay supreme. Love to God, like Aaron’s rod, is to swallow up all other affections. Nothing is to come into competition with allegiance to truth and holiness. Our Lord presented the duty with all plainness: “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Mat_10:37). It often happens that the claims of relatives and the claims of Christ come into collision; and when they do, the former must give way. We must choose to displease those whom we most love on earth rather than displease Him who died for us on the cross. This doctrine is quite repulsive to the sentimentalists who exalt the domestic affections to the highest place in human esteem, but it is none the less true, being indeed a simple corollary from the first principle of all religion, that the object of worship is to be loved supremely, and all other beings, however near or dear, subordinately.
4. But this is a very different thing from the self inflicted tortures of the heathen and of all false religionists. The man in the text with “wounds between his hands,” represents a class found in all ages and lands. Clear references to these are found in the Scripture (Deu_14:1; Jer_16:6; Jer_41:5), and an actual instance is seen in the priests of Baal in their contest with Elijah (1Ki_18:28). The custom originated in the uneasy consciousness of guilt and of the necessity for expiation. Men in their blindness conceived that by the merciless punishment of their own bodies they would render a species of satisfaction, and so regain the favor of the offended deities. The folly of this form of worship is well exposed by Seneca (quoted by Augustine, Civ. Dei, vi. 10), and yet it is not so absurd as it would seem. For if a man believes that the gods will exact some suffering for sins, and that by inflicting it upon himself he may forestall their action and get off on cheaper terms, it is not easy to refute him on rationalistic grounds. The difficulty in his case is that conscience is aroused, and yet there is no knowledge of the doctrine of substitution or atonement. Hence even in Christian lands, whenever that doctrine is not understood in its simplicity and fullness, the same thing occurs in a less aggravated form. Fastings and mortifications and penances of various kinds are cheerfully endured as compensations for guilt. It is hard for poor human nature to learn that “the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin.” Yet nothing is clearer in the Scripture than that the will worship which consists in pains and privations, inflicted and endured for their own sake, is most offensive to the Most High. He Himself never sends afflictions unless there is a needs be, and He does not ask us to be other than Himself, Self denial is indeed a large part of the Christian life, but it is self-denial for an object beyond itself—not as satisfaction for sin or a price paid for heaven, but out of love for Christ, as a means of cultivating holiness or of winning souls for the kingdom. Privation borne with such views is indeed an honor and a blessing; but if inflicted for its own sake, it puts even such a transcendent genius as Pascal with his hair shirt and iron pointed girdle, on the same level with the self gashed devotees of Baal, or the forsworn diviner whom Zechariah describes.
Zec_13:4-6 : Sinners shall at last be made to confess their sins and the justice of their punishment; and the bitterest drop in the cup of their agony will be that they have wrung it out for themselves, and that it is all just.
Calvin: Falsehood hast thou spoken in the name of Jehovah. If we rightly consider what this is, it will certainly appear to us more detestable than to kill an innocent man, or to destroy a guest with poison, or to lay violent hands upon one’s own father. The greatest of all crimes does not come up to this horrible and monstrous wickedness.
Jay: Wounded in the house of my friends. There are four kinds of such wounds. (1.) Those arising from their just reprehensions. (2.) Those that result from their sufferings. (3.) Those produced by our being bereaved of them. (4.) Those inflicted by their improper conduct. Again. If the Lord Jesus be the sufferer, He is wounded in the house of his friends, by their negligent conduct—by their selfishness—by their distrust—by their timidity—by their gloomy conduct—by their unholiness. His question is, Is this thy kindness to thy friend?
Footnotes:
Zec_13:2.— äָàָøֶõ . Henderson in both cases renders earth, but needlessly. The statement is a general one, but with a local coloring.
Zec_13:3.— ã÷ø is rendered pierce, in order to show that it is the same word which is used in the famous passage Zec_12:10.
Zec_13:4.—Heng. renders áåֹùׁ îִï , to desist with shame, but the established meaning of the phrase is simply, to be ashamed of. The fem. suffix in äִðָáְàֹúåֹ is a peculiarity of this class of verbs (Green, Heb. Gr., 166, 2).
Zec_13:5.—The singular verb here, following the previous plurals, indicates that one case is selected as an example Noyes renders, “each shall say,” but the prophet can scarcely mean that every one of the false prophets is to make the same form of denial.
Zec_13:5.— äִ÷ְðַðִé has been strangely misconceived. LXX. make it ἐãÝííçóåí ; Vulg., Adam meum exemplum; Pesch. renders as if it came from ÷ָðָà . The E. V. followed Kimchi in deriving the verbal form from îִ÷ְðֶä =small cattle.
Zec_13:6.—The implied subject of “shall say” is, of course, the other interlocutor in the dialogue.
Zec_13:6.— îְàַäֲáַé should be rendered lovers, just as it is in all the other places where it occurs: Lam_1:19, Hos_2:7; Hos_2:9; Hos_2:12, etc.; friends is too weak.