Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Zechariah 9:9 - 9:10
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Zec_9:9-10
9 Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion,
Shout, daughter of Jerusalem,
Behold, thy king cometh to thee,
Just and saved is He,
Afflicted and riding upon an ass,
Even upon a colt, the she-asses’ foal,
10 And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim,
And the horse from Jerusalem,
And the battle-bow shall be cut off;
And he shall speak peace to the nations,
And his dominion shall be from sea to sea,
And from the river to the ends of the earth.
Zec_9:9. Rejoice. The value of this blessing is expressed by a summons to joy in view of it. Cocceius justly says, that the summons itself contains a prophecy. Daughter of Zion, see on Zec_2:7-10. The Prophet says, Behold! as if he saw the animating spectacle, thy king—not any ruler, but thine, i. e., the one long promised and expected (Psalms 45, 82.), he who alone is thy king, in the highest sense of the word.
This king is described by four features of character and condition: (1.) Just. The leading virtue in a king, and hence emphasized in the Messianic utterances (Isa_11:3-5; Jer_23:5; Psa_45:6-7). (2.) Saved. ðåֹùָׁõ is rendered actively by all the ancient versions (Luther, Grotius, Marckius, Henderson); but the participle is Niphal which, although it may be reflexive, is never active save in verbs which have no Kal form. Calvin, Cocceius, and most of the moderns, give the passive rendering. A tertium quid has been sought by Hengstenberg, Keil, and others, in the sense endued with salvation, but for this I can see no authority in the passages quoted (Deu_33:29; Psa_33:16). Pressel follows Fürst in rendering victorious, which is arbitrary. Nor is there here an exigentia loci, as Henderson claims; for the king is saved not for his own sake only, but for his people’s, and the blessing, therefore, is not a personal one, but extends to all his subjects. Thus the passive suits the connection. (3.) Afflicted, òָðִé . The root òָðָä =to be bowed down, in its primary sense, of bowed by outward circumstances=afflicted, gives the adjective found here, but in the secondary sense of inwardly bowed, gives the adjective òָðָå =meek, patient, lowly. While there is a constant tendency of the two significations to pass into each other, yet the distinction is generally maintained, and òָðִé is found coupled with ëàֹá , ãַì , àֶáéåֹï . The E. V. is sustained by the LXX. ( ðñáý ̈ ò ), Targum, Kimchi, and most of the moderns, who cannot see the relevancy of this feature to the character of a triumphant king. But our king triumphs through suffering. His crown springs out of his cross. Hence we agree with the Vulgate (pauper), Aben Esra, Calvin, Cocceius, Hengstenberg, Tholuck, Keil, in considering this one word as summing up the elaborate picture of suffering contained in Isaiah 53. It is true, Matthew (Mat_21:5) apparently sustains the other view, but he merely quotes the LXX as he found it, without endorsing its absolute accuracy in all particulars. Besides, he omits two of the traits mentioned, and dwells only on the last one, for the sake of which his quotation was manifestly made. (4.) Biding upon an ass. Lit., “upon an ass, even upon a young ass, a foal of she-asses.” The åְ is epexegetical, just as it is in 1Sa_17:40, “in a shepherd’s bag, even in a scrip.” àֲúֹëåֹú is simply the plural of species. Gen_21:7 : “who would have said that Sarah should give children suck?” Yet Sarah had but one child. In this case the youthfulness of the animal is emphasized, since the expression implies that it was one not yet ridden, but still running behind the she-asses. But what does this trait mean? Many affirm that it points to the peaceful character of the king, as set forth in the next verse. But this does not account for the marked emphasis given to the youth of the animal. It is better therefore (Hengstenberg, Keil, etc.) to regard it as a token of poverty and meanness. The ass was indeed ridden by distinguished persons in the early days of Israel when horses were not used at all; but after the time of Solomon no instance occurs of its being employed on state occasions. That this king should ride not upon a horse but upon an ass, and that an untrained foal, indicated how far he should be from possessing any worldly splendor. The close correspondence between this account and our Lord’s entry into Jerusalem is well known; and Matthew (Mat_21:4) and John (Joh_12:15) speak of the latter as a fulfillment of the former. And while it is true, as Vitringa says, that the prophecy would have been fulfilled in Christ, even if He had not made his entry into Jerusalem in this manner; still it is apparent that our Lord designedly framed the correspondence which we observe, and that he intended thus to embody the thought which lies at the basis of the whole passage, namely, that the king Messiah would rise through lowliness and suffering, to might and glory, and would conquer the world not by arms but by suffering and dying.
Zec_9:10. This verse describes the character and extent of the Messiah’s kingdom. And I will cut off, etc. Not only will this king extend his reign by peaceful methods, but all the instruments of war will be effectually removed from his people. The chariot, the horse, and the battle-bow are merely specifications, standing for the whole class of offensive weapons, which are to be cut off. This last word is the one used above (Zec_9:6) in reference to the pride of the Philistines, and denotes extermination. Both passages rest upon Mic_5:10-11. The Lord will take away all the outward defenses upon which a carnal reliance is placed. The occurrence of the word Ephraim here does not prove that this prophecy was written before the exile, but only that Zechariah uses the familiar designation of the different parts, of the country which still survived after the separation of the two kingdoms had ceased. See mention of Israel in Zec_8:13. the post exilium origin of which is admitted by all. Speak peace, not that He will teach peace, nor command peace, nor speak peacefully, but that He will speak peace, and that effectually, accomplishing by a single word what worldly kings bring about only by force of arms (cf. Psa_72:6-7; Mic_5:5). He will do so not merely to the covenant people, but to the nations at large. This point is farther expanded in the boundaries assigned to his sway. From sea to sea, etc. The expressions are borrowed from the statement of Israel’s “bounds” in Exo_23:31, whence some (Eichhorn, Hitzig) have inferred that they mean simply the restoration of the earthly Israel to its widest geographical limits. But there are changes in the phraseology which compel a different view. Instead of saying, from one particular sea to another, Zechariah leaves out all qualifying epithets and even the articles, so that the first clause must mean, from any one sea to any other, even the most distant, or from any sea around to the same point again. The other clause will mean, from the Euphrates, or from any other river as a terminus a quo, to the ends of the earth. ðָäָøֹ with the article always means the Euphrates, and probably does so here, but an equivalent sense may be gained by the alternative rendering given above. What is meant is that the kingdom should be strictly universal. Our passage is a reproduction of Psa_72:8.
The History of the Interpretation. The early Jewish authorities held that the Messiah is the subject. Thus the Book of Zohar, “On this account it is said of Messiah, Lowly and riding upon an ass.” The same view is given by Joshua ben Levi, Saadias-Gaon, and others. The testimonies may be found in Wetstein on Mat_21:4. Jarchi, known among the Jews as the prince of Commentators, declares that “it is impossible to interpret it of any other than the Messiah.” In the twelfth century other opinions prevailed. One found in the Bab. Talmud evaded the difficulty by saying, “If the Israelites are worthy, the Messiah will come with the clouds of heaven (Dan_7:13); if they are unworthy, he will come poor and riding upon an ass (Zec_9:9).” Another resorted to the device of two Messiahs, one of whom should be suffering, and the other, triumphant. Yet manifestly it is one and the same person who is described by the Prophet as uniting in himself the extremes of majesty and humiliation,—a combination which on the New Testament view of the case is intelligible and self-consistent, but on any other quite impossible. Alien-Ezra refuted the opinion of Rabbi Moses, the priest who referred the prophecy to Nehemiah, but himself went as far astray by interpreting it of Judas Maccabæus. There were those, however, who adhered to the Messianic interpretation, and resorted to strange expedients to get rid of the implication of weakness and lowliness. One of these was the fable that the ass created at the end of the six days of creation was the same which Abraham saddled when he went to offer Isaac, and which Moses set his wife and sons upon when he came out of Egypt; and that this distinguished animal was to bear the Messiah. Another was that the ass of King Messiah should be of an hundred colors. The more intelligent expositors (Kimchi, Abarbanel, et al.) explained the reference to the ass as a sign of humility. It is supposed that this prophecy in some way gave rise to the foolish statement of Tacitus, that the Jews consecrated the image of an ass in the inmost shrine of their temple, and hence probably arose the calumny upon the early Christians, who were often confounded with the Jews, that they worshipped an ass’s head,—a fable which Tertullian takes the trouble to confute (Ad Nationes, i. 11).
Among Christians the reference to Christ was uniform until the time of Grotius, who asserted that its first and literal application was to Zerubbabel, but that in a higher sense it referred to our Saviour. This view “excited universal displeasure, and called forth a host of replies, the first of which was written by Bochart.” Such a view refutes itself. Later, the rationalists felt themselves pressed by the same difficulty as the Jews. They could easily account on natural principles for the anticipation of a Messiah in glory, but were quite unable in this way to explain the prophecy of a suffering Messiah. They therefore resorted to the Jewish evasions, and sought for somebody else than Christ as the subject. Bauer chose Simon Maccabæus; Paulus, John Hyrcanus; Forberg, King Uzziah. But the most (Eichhorn, Gesenius, Ewald, etc.) devised the theory of an ideal Messiah, maintaining that this and all other similar prophecies arose simply from the vague expectation that there would appear in the future some great deliverer springing from the Davidic line, who after enduring great personal trials would institute a righteous government, restore the nation to its old prosperity, and overcome its unjust oppressors. So that what the New Testament considers a distinct prediction of the Messiah is merely a patriotic dream. For a thorough refutation of this preposterous theory, see Hengstenberg’s Christology, Appendix Zechariah 5 : For a brief outline, see Theological and Moral, 3.
2. What other kings accomplish by force, Zion’s king effects without weapons or armies. Our Lord told Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world.” Pilate in surprise said to Him, “Thou art a king then?” Jesus answered, “Thou sayest [the truth], for I am a king. To this end was I born and for this cause came I into the world, that I might bear witness to the truth; every one that is of the truth heareth my voice” (Joh_18:37). Truth, the revealed truth of God, is the only weapon this great conqueror employs, and yet with it He has built up the mightiest kingdom the earth has ever seen. It was an unconscious prophecy when the inscription over his cross, This is the King of the Jews, was recorded in three languages, indicating the comprehensive and far-reaching extent of the spiritual monarchy thus founded. Christ’s followers in different ages have been slow to learn the lesson, and have often invoked the secular arm, but always to their own damage. They that take the sword shall perish by the sword. But the weapons which are not carnal are mighty through God. They have pulled down many a stronghold, have dismantled many an intellectual fortress, and time and again have brought the world’s best thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.
3. The “later criticism” altogether denies the existence of Messianic prophecies in the sense in which the historical Church has from the beginning held that they were contained in the Scriptures. This school maintains that what is called the Messianic idea arises out of the dissatisfaction which men in every age have had with the existing condition of things. Deeming the continuance of this inconsistent with the benevolence of God, they instinctively longed and looked for a regeneration of humanity, when all things would be restored to the state originally designed by the Creator. Hence the classic expectation of a golden age. Moreover, every man is dissatisfied with his own moral condition as well as with that of the race. He is weak and imperfect. He does not live in harmony with what he knows to be true and right. Thence arises the ideal of a perfect man, of one whose whole mode of thought, feeling, and action is in accordance with the highest and purest truth. This is the idea of the Messiah of God. But as no such Messiah is to be found within or around us, it is natural to look for Him in the same future in which we expect the regeneration of society. And the more so as we know by observation how much the advancement of the race has depended upon the appearance from time to time of single persons distinguished by lofty endowments. Now this Messianic idea was developed in a very high degree among the Jews, because they had more of the general spirit of prophecy than other nations. The Hebrew Prophet was a man of genius, enthusiasm, and intense moral energy. His pure reason, illumined of God, enabled him to understand the character of the divine government and foresee events hidden from common eyes. His exalted imagination and sensitive conscience presented to him the visions of God. Thus he foresaw not only the general triumph of truth and the exaltation of Israel, but also the means by which these were to be obtained, namely, the Messiah, which term sometimes means a Jewish King, at others the Jewish people, and in a third class of instances, the better portion of that people. But these predictions were always in their nature subjective; their authors neither had nor thought they had any objective revelation made to them of actions or events in the life of any future historical person. They were great and excellent men, but not directly inspired nor infallible. And all their sayings can be easily explained by the actings of their own minds according to the time and the circumstances in which they were placed.
A detailed refutation of this ingenious argument would be beyond the limits of a Commentary. It is enough to say that the parallel instituted between Ethnic and Hebrew views on the subject does not hold. The former were mere scattered, vague, and individual suggestions respecting the future, and even these, there is good reason for supposing, were mere echoes of the voice of the Old Testament or traditions from the primeval revelation which filtered down through the ages. Among the Hebrews, on the contrary, the idea of the Messiah was the central thought of their Scriptures and the organizing basis of their national existence. The statement of it begins with the protevangelium in Genesis, and passes with a closer definition and a greater development through Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, Ezekial, Daniel, Haggai, and Zechariah, and at last terminates with Malachi, who closed the Hebrew Canon. What was at first a promise to the race, limits itself in succession to a nation, to a tribe, to a family. The person set forth is described in turn as a prophet, as a priest, as a king, or as a combination of any two, or of all three, of these characters; and sometimes as in a state of great humiliation and suffering, and again, as in a position of the greatest power and glory. And the writers all with one consent speak of the conception not as a suggestion of their own minds, but as a disclosure from without or rather from above. Their common formula is, Thus saith the Lord. And it is not possible to reconcile their honesty with the view that they were uttering merely subjective notions. Moreover, the origin and continuance of the nation are traced to the divine purpose of sending a Messiah. For this Abraham was called from Ur of the Chaldees, the line of his posterity carefully preserved, Israel kept in Egypt, afterwards put in possession of the promised land, the Mosaic economy instituted, priests and kings and prophets raised up, the nation long maintained, then exiled, and then restored. Their theocratic constitution was not owing to a blind and odious particularism, but was the result of God’s wisdom in choosing one race to be the depository of the truth and blessing destined one day to be coextensive with the race. The Jews were trustees for the whole human family. It pleased God to make a gradual and thorough preparation through a long tract of ages for the full and final revelation of his grace. The seed of Abraham was simply the means by which this preparation was accomplished. On this view of their history, all its parts and features are easily understood, and are seen to constitute merely successive stages in the development of God’s purpose to bring many sons unto glory through a captain of salvation. On any other view it is a mystery which baffles all thought and comprehension. But what was a mystery before the coming of Christ is an “open secret” under the Gospel, and the key which fits all the wards of the lock must be the right one. “The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” The remarkable correspondence between his life, words, and works, and the hints and promises and types and predictions of the Old Testament, indicate beyond question to any unprejudiced person, a presiding mind which coördinated the two Testaments, and brought about that wondrous harmony of theme and tone which is wholly unexampled in all human literature. And this Messiah objectively revealed is not only the link between the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek, but the one great thought which gives purpose, symmetry, and consistency to the entire scheme of the Old Testament.
Zec_9:10. War will cease on the earth only when wickedness ceases, and wickedness will cease only when Christ’s universal empire begins.
Wordsworth: It is remarkable that St. John’s narrative of the triumphal entry of Christ, riding into Jerusalem on the foal of an ass, is immediately followed by the mention of an incident in the history: “Certain Greeks wished to see Jesus.” The entry itself was like a vision of the coming of the Gentile world to Jesus; these Greeks were its first fruits.
Jno. Newton: Messiah is king of Zion. Happy the subjects who dwell under his shadow. He rules them not with the rod of iron by which He bruises and breaks the power of his enemies, but with his golden sceptre of love. He reigns by his own right, and by their full and free consent, in their hearts. He reigns upon a throne of grace to which they at all times have access, and from whence they receive the pardon of all their sins, grace to help in time of need, and a renewed supply answerable to all their wants, cares, services, and conflicts.
Footnotes:
Zec_9:9.—“Shout,” E. V., is the exact rendering of äָøִéòִé , which means, to make a load noise; whether of joy or sorrow depends upon the context.
Zec_9:9.— ìָêְ . Not only to thee, but for thee, for thy good. Cf. Isa_9:5.
Zec_9:9.—The E. V., foal of an ass, by making the last noun a singular instead of a plural, misses the emphasis laid upon the youth of the animal as one not yet old enough to go by itself.