XIV.
THE DAY OF THE LORD.
The eleventh book of the minor prophets is acknowledged on all sides to be the most difficult of all the prophets. Jews (Talmudists, cabbalists, and literalists) and Christians (fathers, orthodox divines, and rationalists) are all loud in their complaints with regard to the difficulties of interpreting this book. But, difficult as are all the preceding Chapter s, this chapter surpasses them all in obscurity. It is a chapter which seems to defy all historical explanation. We show in our Notes that the mention of “the earthquake in the days of Hezekiah, king of Judah,” gives no secure trace of the date of the delivery of this prophecy; and before proceeding, we may observe that Ewald’s idea, that Zechariah 14:14 indicates that Judah is to take up arms against Jerusalem, is entirely erroneous. We may also dismiss as hardly worthy of notice literal interpretations of Zechariah 14:4; Zechariah 14:8; Zechariah 14:16, &c. But even when we have dismissed these preliminary difficulties, which come upon us from without, we have done but little to clear the way for a lucid interpretation of this chapter. (1) If we suppose the writer to have prophesied before the captivity of Judah, we are met by the following difficulties. Other prophets, who uttered their oracles before the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, always — while, with our prophet, they foretold the salvation of a part of the nation (see Zechariah 14:2) — spoke clearly of a deportation of the people, and a subsequent return, but of neither of these does our prophet say anything. He says nothing of deportation, and Zechariah 14:10-11 are the only ones that could, even by an immense stretch of imagination, be interpreted to refer to a return from captivity. Nor, again, can Zechariah 14:8-9 be fairly interpreted of the state of things at any period of Jewish history, either before the captivity or after the return. Witness the whole of the prophecy of Malachi to the contrary. (2) If we, on the other hand, suppose the prophet to be speaking of some catastrophes which were to take place after the return from the captivity, to what historical events could he have referred? An extract from Josephus, given in our Note on Zechariah 14:2, shows that if the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus was the subject of his prophecy, he was woefully deceived in his anticipations. But we cannot, from a priori considerations, suppose that he did literally refer to so distant an event. For though we hold that a prophet might foretell distant events, when there were already indications on the political horizon of coming storms — so that Zechariah, in his latter days, might well have foretold the victories of the Maccabees over the Greeks — and though a prophet might, through being imbued with the traditions of his order, foretell, hundreds of years before the event, circumstances in connection with the advent of the Messiah, we cannot imagine that a prophet could, when the Greeks were only just becoming of importance in the East, foresee, and in any way consciously foretell, the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. Compelled, then, by the lack of any historical fulfilment, and guided by the highly figurative language of the whole chapter, we decide to interpret it entirely in a figurative and Messianic sense. The prophet, amid the corruptions of his age, perceives that it is only by passing through the furnace of affliction that his nation can become sufficiently purified to be fit recipients of the spiritual blessings which the whole prophetic school, in one stream of unbroken continuity, had foretold should be the portion of Israel in the days of the Messiah. He foresaw the glorious Messianic “day” — he rejoiced to see that day; “he saw it, and was glad.” But what he sees, he sees from the Old Testament point of view. The greatest affliction that had as yet visited the nation was the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (comp. Josephus. Bel. Jud. x.), and accordingly, after the analogy of this catastrophe, the prophet draws the picture of the troubles which should precede the advent of the Messiah. It is true that there is here no definite reference to the Messiah, the spirit in which this chapter is conceived being that of the Psalms of the Theophany (96-99). God is here, as there, to appear in person to fight the battles of His people. But none the less, on that account, are those Psalms and this prophecy Messianic. The two ideas, viz., that of the reign of God Himself, and that of the reign of His anointed, run in parallel, and sometimes even in converging lines, but they never actually meet in the Old Testament. It remained for the Gospel revelation to show how the reign of Jehovah and that of the ideal David were to be combined in one Person. The prophet, in this chapter, by faith and inspiration, foresees, with no degree of uncertainty, that the day will come when Jehovah shall be One, and His name One; but the manner was not revealed until “these last days” to the Christian Church, while the complete fulfilment of this prophecy, and the full consummation of that day, will not take place until (1 Corinthians 15:28) God shall be all in all, and (Revelation 11:15) the kingdoms of this world shall have become the kingdom of the Lord and of His Christ.