I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will

bricks instead of stones.'

על אבן אחת to take

remove the iniquity of that land in one day.

But the question still remains: how are we can it mean 66 on each stone"? It is quite possible that it may, for the Prophet could not have written nyaw by nyaw (the ordinary distributive phrase'), since that would have denoted seven different eyes on each stone. But, why did he not use another form of distributive, which would have avoided the repetition,

which would have been quite ,על כל אבן ואבן שבעה עינים .viz

admissible (comp. Esth. ii. 11, iii. 14, iv. 3, viii. 11, 1 Chron. xxviii. 14-18)? This objection can only be answered by calling attention to the fact, that in iv. 2, xii. 12 he does not use the more ordinary distributives. But, should it be thought that this interpretation is not satisfactorily supported by usage, we propose another, and render : "Behold the stones, which I have laid before Jehoshua, upon one particular stone [are] seven eyes." For this use of the numeral "one" comp. xiv. 7. Practically this latter is much the same interpretation, as that adopted by most commentators, viz. that the Prophet speaks of some particular stone (be it the foundation stone which had been laid in the time of Cyrus, or the stone on which the Ark had formerly stood, or the head-stone, or chief corner stone); but, we have, we think, explained to our readers the reason why he said " on one stone" instead of "on this stone," while others have evaded the difficulty.— Observe that here (as in iv. 10) y is construed with a masc. numeral. The expression patteach is used of engraving precious stones (Ex. xxviii. 9), gold (ibid. ver. 36), and of carved work (Ps. lxxiv. 6), or sculpture (2 Chron. ii. 13). On the accentuation of umashti see note on i. 3, on the absence of metheg see Excurs. II. 1, note. It is impossible to take "And I will remove, &c." as the sentence engraved on the stone, as many have done; for such an inscription could not possibly commence with vāv conversive and the Perfect. Job xix. 25, "Yet I know, my Vindicator liveth" is in no sense a parallel case (see Delitzsch in loc.).

10 In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man

Versions.

his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree.

Hin'ní m'phattéach pittucháḥ, LXX. idov ¿yw opúσow ẞółpov, either reading "an opening," or "a trench.”—Aq. διαγλύφω ἀνοίγματα αὐτῆς.—Symm. γλύψω γὰρ τὴν γλυφὴν avтou. Syr. "I will open its gates."-For umashti LXX. has κai Yŋλapnow, confounding "to remove" (generally "to give way") with

Verse 10.

"to grope after."

The verb qārā' in the sense of "calling a person to one," is very frequently followed by of the person called, e. g. Ex. xii. 31 vayyiqrá l'mōshéh ulaàharón “and he called Moses and Aaron." On ísh lorē'éhū see note on vii. 10.—El-táchath "to under" is a constructio prægnans, denoting "to come and sit under."

iii. 6-10. Remarks.

The Angel of the LORD now proclaims to Joshua a fourfold promise: (a) the confirmation of his official authority, and the elevation of his own spiritual nature; (6) the mission of the Saviour; (7) God's providential care for the House, which was being rebuilt; (8) the peace and prosperity of the nation. Observe in ver. 7 the introverted parallelism 66 if thou wilt walk...and keep," ‚”“then shalt thou...keep...places to walk.” “Walk in my ways" refers to personal holiness, "keep my charge" to the faithful discharge of his official duties. So, on the other hand, "judge my house" and "keep my courts" refers to his spiritual authority as high priest, and “walks among those that stand by" denotes spiritual access among the angels of God's supernal courts.-Though Zerubbabel is certainly called "my servant" (Hag. ii. 23), the use of the participle, "behold I bring" renders it impossible to interpret the expression "my servant Branch" of him. It can only be referred to the promised Saviour of Israel, or “Branch of the LORD " (Is. iv. 2), a "Righteous Branch,' "Branch of Righteousness" (Jer. xxiii. 5), “a Righteous-one my servant" (Is. liii. 12), "my servant David" (Ezek. xxxiv. 23). See further Remarks on chap. vi. 11-15, and comp. Remarks on ii. 14—17.—On ver. 9 refer back to the notes. EWALD supposes the "seven eyes " to have been engraved on the stone, and thinks that they represent the seven Spirits (Rev. i. 4). But, it seems in every way best to understand the seven eyes as denoting God's special, yet all-embracing Providence, which is being directed towards the stone to watch and protect it. Various symbolical meanings have been given to the stones. The only one of them, which is at all reasonable, is this, that it typified the Messiah (comp. Ps. cxviii. 22, Is. xxviii. 16). But, we prefer the interpretation which we gave above in the notes.-"In one day" cannot refer to the day of Golgotha" (HENGSTENBERG), for how could ver. 10 be applied to that day? How could xii. 10 sqq., and ii. 9, 10, be possibly referred to the same event? The meaning seems to be simply this, that the completion of the work of rebuilding would be the seal of the people's forgiveness, and restoration to favour.-The wording of ver. 10 is a reminiscence of 1 Kings iv. 25, Mic. iv. 4, &c. It is a renewal of the promise contained in Jer. xxxiii. 6, and a declaration of its speedy fulfilment.

CHAPTER IV.

me, as a man that is wakened out of his sleep,

AND

ND the angel that talked with me came again, and waked

FOURTH VISION. THE GOLDEN CANDLESTICK.

On the form vayyáshobh see notes on iii. 5. The simplest rule for deciding the vocalization of a word with a suffix, like '', is the following: when by the addition of a suffix

Verse 1.
Words.

(or accentuated syllable) the accent is drawn towards the end of a word, count back three vowels from this new accentuated syllable (both inclusive), and remove (a) the third vowel if it can be removed; if it cannot, remove (B) the second; (7) in some cases none of the vowels can be removed. E.g. (a) The Imperf. Hiph. of ¬ is ¬ ya1ér, when the suffix is added the accent falls on ...rénī: now yā is the third syllable from ré, therefore remove the qāmāç and put sh'va, and you get chāphés plur. ' chaphēçím. (B) † tnappéç "thou wilt break in pieces," when it takes the suffix ém, cannot lose the third vowel from the accent, viz. pathach, because it is supported by dagesh, therefore remove the second vowel çērē, and you get, and similarly all Pres. Partic. Qal which have ō in the

, similarly

:

first syllable (which is characteristic of the Partic. and is immoveable) lose the second vowel, as ōmed plur. by 'òm'dím.

instance of (y) take cōcábh plur.

note on ii. 3.—¬iy" is the Niph. Imper. of

.

As an

i còcābhím, and comp.

(of the form of Dip), the chiriq under the yud being changed into çere by way of compensation, since they cannot be doubled. Since "sleep" comes from Rt., it loses its first vowel when it takes a suffix, comp. T

66

(עוד

thus

congregation," y, while "testimony" (which comes from retains its vowel, thus iny. Consequently there is no difference between sh'nāthố "his sleep" from shẽnáth, and sh'nāthố “his year from shānáh.

2 And said unto me, What seest thou? And I said, I have looked,

and behold a candlestick all of gold, with a bowl upon the top of

The Cethibh seems to have arisen from the fact that the words, which follow, ra'íthi vhinnéh, which generally mean Words and "I looked, and behold!" are more appropriate to narration, than as the answer to the question: What seest thou? As

Verse 2.

constructions.

אני ראה lo ! I see, or* הנה ראיתי answer we should have expected

(v. 1) "I see." The “vayyómer” of the Cethibh must be looked on as parenthetical, thus: "I looked (said he) and behold," &c., comp. v. 6, 8, and the common introduction in Arabic of qāla “said he” in narration. Taking the Qri "and I said," we must understand ra'íthi vhinnéh in the sense of "I see, and lo," &c.- "its bowl" might be explained

as from a am. λeyó., or as standing for n

as

λεγό.

But, apart from considera

tions of the difficulty of explaining, I regard (with the He rphūyah) as the right reading. For, it will be observed that things which must of necessity belong to a candlestick such as "top," or which belonged to the Candlestick of the Tabernacle, viz. "the seven lamps," are marked by the pronon. suff. to denote that they were proper to it, "its top," "its seven lamps," but, when other points are mentioned which would not naturally have been expected, such as the "pipes," the "olive-trees," the "spouts," they are without the pron. suff. Now this "bowl" was not a thing to have been expected: not a thing, in fact, which could be called "its bowl." Therefore, in accordance with some MSS., we read "and a bowl." For the absol. form of numeral before a defined substantive comp. (Josh. vi. 4)

שבעת הנרות (2 .for the constr. (Numb. viii ; שבעה שופרות היובל

دو

—Shibh'áh v'shibh'áh mùçãqóth lannēróth, it has been disputed whether two numerals joined by can be distributive, i. e. whether these words can denote " seven pipes apiece to the lamps.' It is certain that this is not the usual construction, we should rather have expected shibh'áh mùçãgóth shibh'áh mùçãqóth lannēróth (or l'nér echád), comp. Is. vi. 2. But 2 Sam. xxi. 20 has been aptly cited to the contrary, the passage

ויהי איש... ואצבעת ידיו ואצבעות רגליו שש ושש עשרים : runs

Dy which should be rendered "and there was a man who had six fingers to each hand, and six toes to each foot, twenty-four in all."

it, and his seven lamps thereon, and seven pipes to the seven lamps,

which are upon the top thereof:

In 1 Chron. xx. 6 the same passage occurs, but with the following variation, that the words "hands and feet" are not mentioned, it simply

Now, those who dispute ואצבעתיו שש ושש עשרים וארבע says

the distributive sense of www say, that "six and six" means that his hands had 6+ 6 = 12, and his feet had 6+ 6 = 12, total 24. That is to say, they divide the 24 fingers and toes into two groups of 12 fingers, and 12 toes, each of which groups is represented by www. But in giving this explanation they overlook the fact that they take www. which means 6 + 6, as equivalent to "6+6 apiece," viz. to hands and feet 12 apiece. They do, in fact, read www as equivalent to VW) VV VV) (see notes on iii. 9). Kalisch and C. H. H. Wright apply this theory to the yay before us, and say that it means

that the seven lamps had two pipes apiece, viz. 14 in all. But their

application of the theory is illogical. The seven lamps are already mentioned, as in the other case were (according to that theory) the two groups, viz. of fingers, and of toes. Distributing 12 to each of the two groups gives 24. Similarly, distributing 7+7 pipes to each of the seven lamps gives 98 pipes, not 14. To have expressed (according to their theory) two pipes to each lamp, we must have had after the men

i.e ומוצקותם אחד ואחד ארבעה עשר (מספר) tion of seven lamps

66

"and their pipes were 1+1 (=2 apiece), 14 in number." Koehler' avoids this blunder by saying that the number is seven and seven," not 14, because one group of seven pipes was for supplying the lamps from the reservoir, and the other group of seven to connect the seven lamps. But, unless the two outer ones are to be connected, it takes only six pipes to connect seven lamps.-Finally, we have not the slightest hesitation in interpreting any as "seven apiece" (so too Arnswald).

Versions and y

emendations.

For ra'ithi LXX. gives upaka, while for "ní ro'éh (v. 2) it has yo op. LXX. does not express a suffix with gulláh, but says simply καὶ τὸ λαμπάδιον ἐπάνω αὐτῆς, but this is no proof that they did not read the word with a suffix, since for they give Auxvоι éτávш avтns. Nor does the Syr. express the suffix in either case.-LXX. Syr. Vulg. E.V. Ewald &c. get over the difficulty

kat erra,שבעה by cancelling the first שבעה ושבעה of the expression

ἐπαρυστρίδες τοῖς λύχνοις τοῖς ἐπάνω αὐτῆς. Hitzig, on the other hand,

1 Die Nachexilischen Propheten, II. 141.