1. I am thankful to P. R. Ackroyd for drawing my attention to this book; P. R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 1.
2. E. W. Heaton, Everyday Life in Old Testament Times (New York: Scribner, 1956), 26.
3. For debate over whether Jerusalem fell in 587 or 586 B.C. see G. Galil, The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah (SHANE 9; Leiden: Brill, 1996); G. Galil, “The Babylonian Calendar and the Chronology of the last Kings of Judah,” Bib 72 (1991): 367–78; A. R. Green, “The Chronology of the Last Days of Judah: Two Apparent Discrepancies,” JBL 101 (1982): 52–73.
4. N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God 2; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 661.
5. R. F. Harper, “Inscription of a Clay Cylinder of Nabonidus,” in ABL, ed. R. F. Harper (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1901), 163–68, with slight revisions.
6. For details of this history see further H. W. F. Saggs, The Might That Was Assyria, rev. ed. (London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1984); idem, The Greatness That Was Babylon: A Survey of the Ancient Civilization of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley, rev. ed. (London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1988); P. A. Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. (Yale Near Eastern Researches 10; New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1989); J. Boardman et al., eds., Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean c. 525 to 479 B.C., 2d ed. (CAH 4; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988); J. Boardman et al., eds., The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries B.C. (CAH 3/2: Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991); I. Gershevitch, S. I. Grossman, and H. S. G. Darke, The Cambridge History of Iran: The Median and Achamenian Periods (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993); P. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, trans. P. T. Daniels (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002).
7. ANET, 315–16, with minor revisions.
8. On the veracity of this claim see M. J. Boda, “Terrifying the Horns: Persia and Babylon in Zechariah 1:7–6:15,” CBQ 67 (2005): forthcoming.
9. The first is written in Hebrew, the second in Aramaic. The first is more like a modern press release, while the second is the legal memorandum in the Persian archives; H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985), 6–7; also more recently, idem, “Exile and After: Historical Study,” in The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches, ed. D. W. Baker and B. T. Arnold (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 236–65.
10. T. C. Young, “The Consolidation of the Empire and Its Limits of Growth under Darius and Xerxes,” in CAH, 4:54; A. Kuhrt, “Babylonia from Cyrus to Xerxes,” in CAH, 4:129.
11. In the Cyrus Cylinder Cyrus declares: “Without any battle, he made him enter his own town Babylon, sparing Babylon any calamity.”
12. See R. Albertz, “Darius in Place of Cyrus: The First Edition of Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40.1–52.12) in 521 B.C.E.,” JSOT 27 (2003): 371–88 on Darius and restoration; cf. Boda, “Horns.”
13. Yehud is the name given to the Persian period province that comprised the core of the old kingdom of Judah (southern kingdom). The term “governor” (peḥah) is difficult to define in the Persian system, see Briant, Cyrus, 65–67, 484–85, 601–2. Drawing from biblical and archaeological sources recent research has demonstrated a continuous line of governors in Yehud from the outset of Persian hegemony; cf. C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25b; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1987); H. G. M. Williamson, “The Governors of Judah under the Persians,” TynBul 39 (1988): 59–82; D. S. Vanderhooft, “New Evidence Pertaining to the Transition from Neo-Babylonian to Achaemenid Administration in Palestine,” in Yahwism After the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era, ed. B. Becking and R. Albertz (Studies in Theology and Religion 5; Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2003), 231–33.
14. K. G. Hoglund, Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Mission of Ezra and Nehemiah (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992).
15. Cf. Boda, “Reading,” 277–91; E. M. Meyers, “The Shelomith Seal and Aspects of the Judean Restoration: Some Additional Reconsiderations,” ErIsr 18 (1985): 33*–38*.
16. M. J. Boda, “From Fasts to Feasts: The Literary Function of Zechariah 7–8,” CBQ 65 (2003): 403–4.
17. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, xlv.
18. See the review of literature in A. E. Hill, “Dating Second Zechariah: A Linguistic Reexamination,” HAR 6 (1982): 105–34, and P. L. Redditt, “Nehemiah’s First Mission and the Date of Zechariah 9–14,” CBQ 56 (1994): 664–78.
19. Paul D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 280–401 (esp. 291).
20. Hill, “Dating,” 105–34. The statistical research found in Y. T. Radday and D. Wickmann, “Unity of Zechariah Examined in the Light of Statistical Linguistics,” ZAW 87 (1975): 30–55, suggests that at least part of Zech. 9–14 (at least chs. 9–11) could have arisen from the same source as chs. 1–8. However, this was seriously challenged in S. L. Portnoy and D. L. Petersen, “Biblical Texts and Statistical Analysis: Zechariah and Beyond,” JBL 103 (1984): 11–21, who concluded that chs. 1–8, 9–11, and 12–14 all evidence different literary styles.
21. Boda, “Fasts to Feasts,” 390–407.
22. Boda, “Reading,” 277–91.
23. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 8–9.
24. For this last aspect see B. Halpern, “The Ritual Background of Zechariah’s Temple Song,” CBQ 40 (1978): 167–90.
25. See, e.g., A. R. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel (Cardiff: Univ. of Wales Press, 1962); cf. M. J. Boda, “From Complaint to Contrition: Peering Through the Liturgical Window of Jer 14,1–15,4,” ZAW 113 (2001): 186–97.
26. See M. J. Boda, “Oil, Crowns and Thrones: Prophet, Priest and King in Zechariah 1:7–6:15,” JHS 3 (2001): Art. 10.
27. See Boda, “Fasts to Feasts,” 390–407.
28. Boda, “Reading,” 277–91.
29. E.g., L. H. Brockington, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther (NCB; Greenwood, S.C.: Attic, 1969), 53; J. Bright, A History of Israel, 4th ed. (Louisville: Westminister John Knox, 2000), 366 n. 360.
30. H. G. T. Mitchell, J. M. P. Smith, and J. A. Brewer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), 43.
31. S. Talmon, “Ezra and Nehemiah,” in IDBSup, 391.
32. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 10.
33. There is evidence that the Persians did appoint leadership from among the ancient ruling houses of subjugated nations, e.g., Cicilia, Cyprus, Phoenicia; see Briant, Cyrus, 64, 488–90, 952.
34. Williamson, “Governors,” 59–82; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 14.
35. Cf. R. DeVaux, Ancient Israel, 2 vols. (New York: Darton, Longman, & Todd, 1961), 2:372–76; D. I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 633–48. Koch explains the absence of the title “high priest” in Ezra-Nehemiah on sociological grounds: “vehement quarrels among the priesthood of the Second Temple about the time of Ezra”; K. Koch, “Ezra and Meremoth: Remarks on the History of the High Priesthood,” in ‘Shaarei Talmon’: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. M. Fishbane, E. Tov, and W. W. Fields (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 109. Eskenazi explains this on literary grounds, claiming that the book of Ezra “promotes the centrality of the community by persistently subsuming leaders to the community”; T. C. Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 48–53, 136.
36. For these figures see C. E. Carter, The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period (JSOTSup; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999).
37. See the recent work of Randall Tan, who advocates “composition criticism” instead of “redaction criticism”; R. K. J. Tan, “Recent Developments in Redaction Criticism: From Investigation of Textual Prehistory Back to Historical-Grammatical Exegesis?” JETS 44 (2001): 599–614.
38. See M. J. Boda, “Zechariah: Master Mason or Penitential Prophet?” in Yahwism After the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era, ed. B. Becking and R. Albertz (Studies in Theology and Religion 5; Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2003), 49–69.
39. Cf. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 179–80; T. Pola, “Form and Meaning in Zechariah 3,” in Yahwism After the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era, ed. B. Becking and R. Albertz (Studies in Theology and Religion 5; Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2003), 156–67.
40. Boda, “Oil,” Article 10.
41. For details see Boda, “Fasts to Feasts,” 390–407.
42. The first may be a collection of prophecies.
43. See Boda, “Reading,” 282–97. Floyd, building on the earlier work of Weis, argues that this phrase is a genre marker that designates this material as an interpretation of an earlier section of prophecy (i.e., Zech. 1–8 for chs. 9–11 and chs. 1–11 for chs. 12–14); cf. R. Weis, “A Definition of the Genre Maśśaʾ, in the Hebrew Bible” (Ph.D., Claremont Graduate School, 1986); M. H. Floyd, Minor Prophets, Part 2 (FOTL 22; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000); esp. idem, “The Maśśaʾ, As a Type of Prophetic Book,” JBL 121 (2002): 401–22.
44. Also see the superb work of Redditt, “Nehemiah’s First Mission and the Date of Zechariah 9–14,” 664–78, the influence of which will be seen in my reflection on the development of this part of Zechariah.
45. The switch between first and third person in 9:1–8, 14–17 is not odd; one can see this in 9:1–8, where there is a move from third person (9:1–4) to first person (9:6–8) and then in 9:14–17 back to third person.
46. Often translated “behold,” but untranslated in the NIV.
47. See further D. R. Jones, “Fresh Interpretation of Zechariah 9–11,” VT 12 (1962): 241–59.
48. E. J. C. Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of Watchers and Apocalyptic (OtSt 35 Leiden: Brill, 1996), 220.
49. For details of this argument see Boda, “Fasts to Feasts,” 390–407.
50. See Boda, “Penitential Prophet,” 49–69.
51. Barton has traced approaches to ancient prophecy current in Judaism and Christianity in the Second Temple period (from the Exile to the end of the New Testament period). He isolates four basic “modes” of reading the prophets: as ethical instruction, as foreknowledge of the present day, as revelation of the divine plan of history, and as theologian and mystic. His second and third categories are similar to my “foretelling” mode, while his first and fourth are similar to “forthtelling”; J. Barton, Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel After the Exile (London: Darton Longman, & Todd, 1986).
52. Compare Gen. 1 with 7:11–8:5. In Gen. 1 God creates “form,” fills this form, and commissions humanity. In 7:11–24 God removes the form that destroys the life and then after sending a “wind” (8:1; same Heb. word as “spirit” of 1:2), reestablishes the form (8:2–14) before refilling that form (8:15–22), and then recommissions humanity (9:1–7).
53. E. R. Achtemeier, Preaching from the Old Testament (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1989), 25; cf. D. L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: A Study of the Theological Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, rev. ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1991); C. J. H. Wright, Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1995).
54. See esp. E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM, 1985), 61–119; G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986); N. T. Wright, Victory; S. McKnight, A New Vision for Israel: The Teaching of Jesus in National Context (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). Sanders concludes: “Jesus intended Jewish restoration” (p. 116).
55. As Sanders notes, “Jesus shared the world-view that I have called ‘Jewish restoration eschatology.’ The key facts are his start under John the Baptist, the call of the twelve, his expectation of a new (or at least renewed) temple, and the eschatological setting of the work of the apostles (Gal. 1:2; Rom. 11:11–13, 25–32; 15:15–19),” but also that “neither he nor his disciples thought that the kingdom would be established by force of arms. They looked for an eschatological miracle”; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 326.
56. Cf. L. Ryken, J. C. Wilhoit, and T. Longman, “Restoration,” in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 250–51; I. M. Duguid, “Exile,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. D. Alexander and B. S. Rosner (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 477–78; see W. J. Webb, Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus As the Context for 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1 (JSNTSup 85; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993); D. L. Bock, “The Trial and Death of Jesus in N. T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God,” in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N. T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God, ed. C. Newman (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 101–25; S. Hafemann, “Paul and the Exile of Israel in Galatians 3–4,” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Conceptions, ed. J. M. Scott (JSJSup 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 329–71.
57. Paul uses similar language and motifs to describe the movement of Gentiles from outside Israel into the new Israel of God in Eph. 2:12, 19, but this should not be confused with the enduring exilic motif for the church in relationship to the world.
58. E.g., D. E. Holwerda, Jesus and Israel: One Covenant or Two? (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1995); M. H. Woudstra, “Israel and the Church: A Case for Continuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. J. S. Feinberg (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1988), 221–38.
59. E.g., H. Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970); J. S. Feinberg, “Hermeneutics of Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. J. S. Feinberg (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1988), 109–28; J. E. Walvoord, Armageddon, Oil and the Middle East Crisis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990). Blaising represents new trends in dispensational theology, although his use of the work of Sanders, Wright, and McKnight to bolster his arguments is not appropriate; C. A. Blaising, “The Future of Israel as a Theological Question,” JETS 44 (2001): 435–50.
60. For similar approaches to this issue see H. K. LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation (AUMSR 13; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews Univ. Press, 1983); S. Motyer, Israel in the Plan of God (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1989); Holwerda, Jesus and Israel; and G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 103–9, 200–201.
61. Earlier in the letter (Rom. 2:28–29) Paul has used similar language to speak of true Israel. Being a true Israelite is a matter of the heart, not lineage.
62. However, Scripture does not tell us the specific timing and means of this renewal among ethnic Israel.
63. B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (London: SCM, 1961), 70.
64. Wright, Victory, 500; cf. 483–84 (esp. n. 94), 499–500, 520–21.
65. See ibid., 615–24, esp. 622, where Wright cites the intertestamental evidence of 1 En. 1:3–4, 9; T. Mos. 10:1, 3, 7; 12:13; Jub 1:26–28; 11Q19 (11Q Templea) 29:3–9; cf. R. L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study (JSNTSup 62; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), ch. 7. This is not true of all Jews in this period, as has been argued by G. I. Davies, “The Presence of God in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Doctrine,” in Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel, ed. W. Horbury (JSNTSup 48; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 32–36; see esp. the evidence of Matt. 23:21.
66. For Zechariah a key human response to God’s promised restoration is the call to flee from Babylon, which is being judged (Zech. 2:6–8). Wright (Victory, 358) has argued that this language is picked up in Christ’s message of Mark 13 and applied to the Jerusalem of his day.
67. Ibid., 433–34.
68. Cf. Beasley-Murray, Jesus, 170–71, 332.
69. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 111; Beasley-Murray, Jesus, 332.
70. For these see Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 111.
71. The book of Revelation draws heavily on Zech. 1–6, but in some cases this appears to be nothing more than just using the images to express a future vision (e.g., Zech. 4:10 / Rev. 5:6: the lamb on the throne had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth; Zech. 6:1–3 / Rev. 6:2: white, red, black, pale horses sent out to bring God’s judgment; Zech. 6:5 / Rev. 7:1–4: angels at four corners of world, preventing wind from blowing until the 144,000 could be sealed on their foreheads for protection—all tribes; Zech. 4:11–14 / Rev. 11:4: two olive trees as prophets; Zech. 3:1 / Rev. 12:9 / 20:2: Satan).
72. This fact has been documented in great detail by many scholars sources: esp. by C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952), 64–67, 72–74; Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 110–37; F. F. Bruce, “The Book of Zechariah and the Passion Narrative,” BJRL 43 (1960–1961); F. F. Bruce, This Is That: The New Testament Development of Some Old Testament Themes (Exeter: Paternoster, 1968), 100–14; R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission (London: Tyndale, 1971); J. Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 154–64, 196–98, 207–13; Wright, Victory, 344–45, 358; and C. Evans, “Aspects of Exile and Restoration in the Proclamation of Jesus and the Gospels,” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Conceptions, ed. J. M. Scott (SJSJ 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 327; idem, “Jesus and Zechariah’s Messianic Hope,” in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, ed. C. A. Evans and B. D. Chilton (NTTS 28.2; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 373–88. See further lists in M. J. Boda, Haggai-Zechariah Research: A Bibliographic Survey (Tools for Biblical Studies; Leiden: DEO Publishing, 2003).
73. Black also suggests an allusion in John 19:34 in the flow of blood and “water” from Jesus’ pierced side; M. C. Black, “The Rejected and Slain Messiah Who Is Coming with His Angels: The Messianic Exegesis of Zechariah 9–14 in the Passion Narratives” (Ph.D., Emory University, 1990), 238.
74. See Wright: “The force of the setting then seems to be that this was Jesus’ paradoxical retelling of the great story found in Zechariah 14: in predicting Jerusalem’s last great struggle, the ‘coming’ of YHWH, and the final arrival of the divine kingdom, he was acting to fulfil, in his own reinterpreted fashion, the prophecy of Zechariah”; Wright, Victory, 345.
75. On the attribution of this prophecy in Matthew to Jeremiah see Bruce, “Passion Narrative,” 341.
76. See other possible connections: Zech. 14:4 and Matt. 17:20; Mark 11:23; Zech. 11:6 and Mark 9:31; Zech. 9:11 and Mark 14:24; Zech. 9:14 and Matt. 24:31; Zech. 12:3 and Luke 21:24.
77. Black, “Rejected and Slain Messiah,” 234, 237.
78. Ibid., 239.
79. See esp. Wright, Victory, 586–87.
80. Black, “Rejected and Slain Messiah,” 243. As Black notes: “The reader is nonetheless encouraged to form in his/her mind a picture of the eschatological drama by which Yahweh will restore his people and bring the nations to himself” (p. 240).
81. Ibid., 245.
82. Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 72–73.
83. Notice, e.g., how in his depiction of future judgment, Jesus uses language similar to Zech. 14:5 (Matt. 25:31; cf. 1 Thess. 3:13).
84. Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 74.
85. One may see in the destruction of Jerusalem the fulfillment of Rev. 1:7, but this can hardly be the case for Rev. 20–22.
86. J. P. Sweet, “Maintaining the Testimony of Jesus: The Suffering of Christians in the Revelation of John (and Use of Zech 12–14 in the NT),” in Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament: Studies Presented to G. M. Styler, ed. W. Horbury (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1981), 112; see the more general comments of W. Harrelson, “Messianic Expectations at the Time of Jesus,” SLJT 32 (1988): 40: “As to specific content, the books of Revelation and Hebrews show the closest connections with the eschatology of Ezekiel and Zechariah.”
87. Notice the vigorous debate over the use of the Old Testament in the Dutch (Gereformeerde) church between “redemptive historical” and “example” preaching; cf. S. Greidanus, Sola Scriptura: Problems and Principles in Preaching Historical Texts (Toronto: Wedge, 1970).
88. See E. P. Clowney, Preaching and Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961); idem, “Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures,” in The Preacher and Preaching, ed. S. T. Logan (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1986), 163–91; idem, The Unfolding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the Old Testament (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988).
1. See Ezra 2:64–69; Neh. 7:66–72; cf. debate between J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 95, and H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985), 38, on the financial resources of this early Persian period community.
2. See M. J. Boda, “Haggai: Master Rhetorician,” TynBul 51 (2000): 295–304.
3. R. A. Mason, Preaching the Tradition: Homily and Hermeneutics After the Exile (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990), 286 n. 6; cf. J. W. Whedbee, “A Question-Answer Schema in Haggai 1: The Form and Function of Haggai 1:9–11,” in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor, ed. G. A. Tuttle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 184–94.
4. So Whedbee, “Question-Answer,” 192; cf. E. H. Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 25.
5. Cf. Mason, Preaching, 192; M. J. Boda, Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9 (BZAW 277; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 137–39.
6. Contra P. L. Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (NCB; London: M. Pickering/HarperCollins, 1995), 18; J. G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1972), 44–45; cf. P. A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 52.
7. See Ezek. 12:21–25, 26–28; 18:1–4 for similar prophetic rhetoric.
8. Cf. Verhoef, Haggai, 56; D. L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM, 1984), 47.
9. R. G. Hammerton-Kelly, based on Ezek. 37:24–28; 40–43, concludes: “Rebuilding was a betrayal of the eschatological hope” (“The Temple and the Origins of Jewish Apocalyptic,” VT 20 [1970]: 12).
10. See comments on Zech. 1:7–17 and 7:1–14.
11. See Boda, “Haggai,” 295–304.
13. The nominal form is used for a roof in 1 Kings 6:15; so O. H. Steck, “Zu Haggai 1 2–11,” ZAW 83 (1971): 362; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8. However, in 1 Kings 7:7 the interior paneling of a building is the referent (paneled with cedar), so Petersen, Haggai, 48.
14. The use of this leitmotif “house” is masterful in 2 Sam. 7, where “house” is used to refer to palace (7:1, 2), to temple (7:5, 7, 13), and to dynasty (7:11, 16).
15. The use of this term “paneled” (with cedar) comes to represent the decadence of the Davidic dynasty (cf. Jer. 22:14).
16. Following Whedbee (“Question-Answer,” 184–94), who correctly sees the word “ways” as referring to past activity, not future activity. This view is bolstered by recognizing that when the phrase “consider” (“set your hearts on”) is used later in Haggai (Hag. 2:15–19) and takes into account past and future, the word “ways” is dropped; contra Redditt, Haggai, 20; Petersen, Haggai, 51; H. G. T. Mitchell, J. M. P. Smith, and J. A. Brewer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), 47. They see the second appearance as introducing the imperatives in 1:8 (future action), based on the view that the clause “This is what the LORD Almighty says” is an introductory phrase, not a concluding one. But this view fails to take into account that Hag. 1:7a is introducing a declaration: “Give careful thought to your ways.”
17. This list reflects C. E. Carter’s conclusion from the material evidence of the Persian period that “a monied economy” existed “alongside of a traditional in-kind, taxation system”; see his The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period (JSOTSup; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 283.
18. With H. W. Wolff, Haggai: A Commentary (CC; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), 30; contra R. Alden, “Haggai,” in EBC, ed. F. E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 7:581, who says: “These people were unable to drown their sorrows because of the inadequate vintage.”
19. It can carry silver (Gen. 42:35), money (Prov. 7:20), myrrh (Song 1:13), a life (1 Sam. 25:29), or even sins (Job 14:17).
20. Cf. E. R. Achtemeier, Nahum–Malachi (IBC; Atlanta: John Knox, 1986), 99; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 122 n. 6; D. R. Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (BibOr 16; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964), 28. They consider these “futility curses.”
21. See D. R. Hillers, Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1969), 120–42; E. W. Nicholson, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986); R. E. Clements, Old Testament Prophecy: From Oracles to Canon (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996).
22. See Boda, “Haggai,” 295–304.
23. Merrill, Haggai, 26.
24. Cf. Ezra 3:7, which refers to the same event.
25. Some commentators make connections from this reference to the glorification of Yahweh to the glory of God that indwelt the temple (Ezek. 11:23), based on the shared root kbd in Hebrew; see Merrill, Haggai, 27; Verhoef, Haggai, 68; C. Stuhlmueller, Rebuilding with Hope: A Commentary on the Books of Haggai and Zechariah (ITC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 20–21. However, in this particular context the glory is not the spiritual presence of Yahweh in the temple, but the praise of Yahweh; cf. Petersen, Haggai, 51. Petersen (ibid.) appropriately comments: “None of the Niph’al uses of this verb which refer to Yahweh entail his cultic presence. Instead, they signify Yahweh’s gaining prestige or revenge. Haggai is therefore speaking of glory, Yahweh’s having greater prestige now that the house is finished and not of the sanctification of his house.”
26. Note that there are three references to “house” in Hag. 1:9.
27. See R. P. Carroll, “Eschatological Delay in the Prophetic Tradition,” ZAW 94 (1982): 47–58, esp. 56, who shows that Haggai explains the delay in prophetic fulfillment by pointing to the behavior of the people.
28. Using the verbs nšp and nšb, rather than npḥ as in Hag. 1:9. Cf. Verhoef, Haggai, 70–71.
29. Wolff, Haggai, 48; W. A. M. Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8 (Assen: van Gorcum, 1967), 188; Steck, “Zu Haggai 1 2–11,” 371.
30. Cf. esp. J. I. Packer, M. C. Tenney, and W. White, eds. The Bible Almanac (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1980), 195–96, 265; see “Dew” in M. C. Tenney, ed. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 2:118; Alden, “Haggai,” 582; Redditt, Haggai, 22.
31. The same progression is evident in the creation account of Gen. 1: heavens/earth, inhabitable land, vegetation, animal/human life.
32. Notice how Ackroyd intertwines these themes of temple and community in his review of the presentation of the restoration in Haggai and Zechariah; P. R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 153–217.
33. Clearly Haggai has in mind the Sinaitic form of blessing/cursing. Mitchell confirms this by showing that while the content of the Abrahamic blessing was descendants, fame, dominion, God’s presence, the content of the Sinai blessing was fertility of domesticated animals and crops; see C. W. Mitchell, The Meaning of BRK “to bless” in the Old Testament (SBLDS 95; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 29, 36 (though Mitchell does not do justice to this theme in Haggai).
34. These other reasons are summarized by W. C. Kaiser, A Biblical Approach to Personal Suffering (Chicago: Moody, 1982). The list includes retributive suffering (Deut. 30:19), educational or disciplinary suffering (Job 36:10, 15; 33:16; Prov. 3:11; 13:24; 15:5; Heb. 12:7), vicarious suffering (Isa. 53:5; 42:1–4; 49:4; 50:6; 52:13–53:12), empathetic suffering (Gen. 6:5–6; Ex. 32:14; Judg. 2:15; 1 Sam. 15:11; Isa. 63:9; Hos. 11:8; Rom. 12:15; 2 Cor. 2:4), doxological suffering (Gen. 45:4, 5, 7; 50:20; John 9:3), evidential or testimonial suffering (Job 1–2), revelational suffering (Hosea; Jeremiah); eschatological or apocalyptic suffering (Daniel, Revelation).
35. Cf. I. Nowell, “The Narrative Context of Blessing in the Old Testament,” in Blessing and Power, ed. M. Collins and D. Power (Concilium; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1985), 3–12.
36. C. C. Westermann, Blessing in the Bible and the Life of the Church, trans. K. Crim, (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 47–49.
37. Mitchell, The Meaning of BRK, 28–36.
38. Westermann (Blessing, 77) comments on Gal. 3: “Here we have a conscious and emphatic transformation of the Old Testament concept of blessing. In the fulfillment of the promise, the blessing of God was transformed into God’s saving deeds in Christ.”
39. See Kaiser’s excellent critique of this movement and review of this biblical-theological theme in his “The Old Testament Promise of Material Blessings and the Contemporary Believer,” TrinJ 9 n.s. (1988): 151–70.
40. Achtemeier plays this down considerably; Achtemeier, Nahum–Malachi, 99; idem, Preaching from the Minor Prophets: Texts and Sermon Suggestions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 107–11.
41. Kaiser, “Material Blessings,” 162.
42. See Time (December 8, 1997).
43. See W. Brueggemann, “The Costly Loss of Lament,” JSOT 36 (1986): 57–71; idem, “The Formfulness of Grief,” Int 31 (1977): 267–74; idem, The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary (Augsburg Old Testament Studies; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984); W. Brueggemann and P. D. Miller, The Psalms and the Life of Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995).
44. M. J. Boda, “The Priceless Gain of Penitence: From Communal Lament to Penitential Prayer in the ‘Exilic’ Liturgy of Israel,” HBT 25 (2003): 51–75.
45. See Packer for the grip of hedonism in our lives and the influence it has on our spirituality; J. I. Packer, Hot Tub Religion (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1987), 67–101. Similarly, Foster identifies the hold of money on our evangelical culture; R. Foster, Money, Sex and Power (New York: Harper and Row, 1985), 19–87.
46. A. W. Tozer, Worship: The Missing Jewel in the Evangelical Church (Harrisburg, Pa.: Christian Publications, 1961), 12.
47. This emphasis on the pleasure and glory of God is the focus of John Piper’s splendid book, The Pleasures of God (Portland: Multnomah, 1991). Surprisingly, he does not touch on Hag. 1.
48. See J. Piper’s work on missions and his work on preaching, Let the Nations Be Glad: The Supremacy of God in Missions (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993); idem, The Supremacy of God in Preaching (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990). In the first he argues that the ultimate goal of missions is not the salvation of human souls but the glorification of God. In the second he urges preachers to preach about God and his glory, a practice that is intensely practical insofar as it offers the only hope for the intense problems of our people today.
49. Piper, Nations, 219.
50. E. H. Peterson, Run with the Horses: The Question for Life at its Best (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1983), 42–43.
1. There has been much discussion over the origin of what I have identified as the “subscription” in Hag. 1:15b. Many see here the date for a “misplaced” oracle in 2:15–19, but there is no textual support for this. I agree with Redditt that 1:15 is an inclusion device, bracketing the entire section; Redditt, Haggai, 23. However, I disagree with his attempt to lop off the end of 1:15b and use it for 2:1. This would disrupt the inclusion pattern used here in which 1:1 uses the order Year-Month-Day and then 1:15 uses the order Day-Month-Year.
2. R. Mason (Preaching, 192) notes this emergence of the people and explains it this way: “Perhaps the reason the people are not so described in 1:1 is that it was only by their disobedience to God’s word through his ‘messenger,’ described in 1:12–14, that they proved themselves to be truly the remnant of prophetic promise”; see also his “The Purpose of the ‘Editorial Framework’ of the Book of Haggai,” VT 27 (1977): 418.
3. Mason, “Purpose,” 418.
4. Hasel traces this remnant theme through the prophets: Isa. 10:20–22; 11:11, 16; 28:5; 37:4, 31, 32; 46:3; Jer. 23:3; 31:7; Mic. 2:12; 5:6, 7; 7:18; Zeph. 2:7, 9; 3:13; but also in the expectation of the Persian period community (Ezra 9:14; Zech. 8:11); G. F. Hasel, The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah, 3d ed. (AUMSR 5; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews Univ. Press, 1980).
5. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 332–33.
6. Cf. Verhoef, Haggai, 83.
7. See Mason, Preaching, 193.
8. Westermann (Blessing, 34) has noted the intimate connection between blessing and temple, drawing these two important themes in our passage together beautifully: “The temple is properly the place for bestowal of blessing (1 Kings 8). Blessing flows forth from the cultic acts in the temple upon the people and the land. Groups of pilgrims and processions go to the temple in order to obtain blessing for themselves and their families, for their cattle and their fields. If the temple should be destroyed and the worship there be ended, then the source of blessing for the land is cut off. This is shown by Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple (1 Kings 8), by the proclamations of the prophet Haggai, and above all by the psalms of blessing and the psalms of pilgrimage (Ps. 65; 115:12–15; 128:5; 129:8; 132, etc.).” See also Ps. 84, a psalm of pilgrimage to the temple that repeats the word blessing three times, connecting blessing with life in and journey toward the temple.
9. Boda, Praying; J. H. Newman, “Nehemiah 9 and the Scripturalization of Prayer in the Second Temple Period,” in The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders (JSNTSup 154; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 112–23; idem, Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism (SBLEJL 14; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999).
10. D. M. Lloyd-Jones, Revival (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1987), 310.
1. Although the year is not mentioned in Hag. 2:1, the assumption is that the events are still in the second year of Darius’s reign (cf. 2:10).
2. See the Original Meaning section of the introduction for the argument that the events of Ezra 3 are contemporaneous with the events of Haggai.
3. Merrill identifies the year of this event as 960 B.C., 440 years earlier (Merrill, Haggai, 36).
4. Cf. P. R. Ackroyd, “Two Old Testament Historical Problems of the Early Persian Period,” JNES 17 (1958): 13–27.
5. Ezra 5:1–6:15, esp. 6:8, 13–14. By this point Darius has firm control of the empire, although there are some rebellions yet to come in the following years (Egypt); for past and present research see J. Kessler, “The Second Year of Darius and the Prophet Haggai,” Transeuphratene 5 (1992): 63–84. The vision of upheaval in Haggai is one linked to God’s initiative rather than to a popular uprising. This does not deny that the upheavals of the recent past would have been on the minds of the original audience and thus important to understanding the imagery in this passage (see Smith, Micah-Malachi, 158).
6. See my criticism of the atomizing approach of Wolff, Haggai, 72, in Boda, “Haggai,” 296 n.2.
7. Petersen, Haggai, 64–66. Merrill (Haggai, 37) identifies the strong links to the language of Isaiah but sees Haggai as drawing on Isaiah rather than on the priestly oracle tradition.
8. This genre has often been called “Installation to Office,” but because of its use in different contexts than an installation, Mason rightly makes it more general by entitling it “Encouragement for a Task” (see his Preaching, 193–94). Cf. R. B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles (WBC 15; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987), 4–5; H. G. M. Williamson, “The Accession of Solomon in the Book of Chronicles,” VT 26 (1976): 351–61; R. Braun, “Solomon, the Chosen Temple Builder: The Significance of 1 Chronicles 22, 28, and 29 for the Theology of Chronicles,” JBL 95 (1976): 581–90, esp. 586–88; D. J. McCarthy, “An Installation Genre?” JBL 90 (1971): 31–41; cf. Petersen, Haggai, 66.
9. Cf. W. VanGemeren, “Oracles of Salvation,” in Cracking Old Testament Codes: A Guide to Interpreting the Literary Genres of the Old Testament, ed. D. B. Sandy and J. R. L. Giese (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 139–55.
10. The NIV is slightly misleading at this point by using the phrase “Ask them.” This translates leʾmor (lit., saying), which is just a marker picking up the main verb “speak” (ʾamar) at the beginning of Hag. 2:2. Therefore, this word is introducing the entire prophetic message, not just the questions of 2:3.
11. Haggai’s question does not offer us a clue to whether he was an exile or remained in Palestine during the Babylonian period (Redditt, Haggai, 24; contra Baldwin, Haggai, 28). His rhetoric suggests that he had not seen the temple (Merrill, Haggai, 20).
12. See Verhoef, Haggai, 96, 105.
13. Petersen, Haggai, 64. Mitchell notes this rhetorical device as well; H. G. T. Mitchell, J. M. P. Smith, and J. A. Brewer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), 60.
14. See Boda, “Haggai,” 295–304.
15. See Hag. 1:5; 2:15, especially after Haggai’s dialogical style. This serves as a transition marker in prayers (e.g., Neh. 9:32) and prophetic speeches (e.g., Jer. 26:12–13; 27:4–7). See Boda, Praying, 29–30.
16. Note its use in contexts where Israelites are entering battle (Josh. 1:7, 9; 10:25; 2 Sam. 10:12).
17. There is no object for the verb ʿaśah (“and work”). Meyers and Meyers see the object as the initial phrase in Hag. 2:5, but Verhoef’s suggestion that the implied object is melaʾkah (“work,” as in 1:14) is superior; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 98; Verhoef, Haggai, 98.
18. Petersen, Haggai, 67; on 2:6, ki is untranslated in the NIV.
19. Contra Wolff, who interprets this Spirit as the prophetic spirit residing in Haggai; Wolff, Haggai, 80. Petersen is stretching things to connect this reference to God’s work of stirring up the spirit of the leaders and community in 1:14, for the spirit in that context is human, not divine; Petersen, Haggai, 65. Verhoef, Stuhlmueller, Mason, and Baldwin all identify a link here between 2:5 and the cloud in the desert; cf. Verhoef, Haggai, 100–101; Stuhlmueller, Rebuilding, 26; Mason, Preaching, 193; Baldwin, Haggai, 47. Mason demonstrates how the Heb. participle used here (NIV “remains”) is also used of the pillar of cloud in Exodus (e.g., Ex. 33:10); R. A. Mason, The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1977), 20; cf. L. Sabourin, “The Biblical Cloud: Terminology and Traditions,” BTB 4 (1974): 290–311; R. J. Sklba, “ ‘Until the Spirit from on High is Poured Out on Us’ (Isa 32:15): Reflections on the Role of the Spirit in the Exile,” CBQ 46 (1984): 1–17.
20. B. S. Childs, “The Enemy from the North and the Chaos Tradition,” JBL 78 (1959): 187–98; Mason, Haggai, 20; H. F. van Rooy, “Eschatology and Audience: The Eschatology of Haggai,” OTE 1 (1988): 59. Most would not make a distinction between revelation and battle, but I do not want to impose the holy war concept onto Yahweh’s appearance at Sinai. Childs notes that “very early in Israel’s history the verb became associated with the theophany of Yahweh, when he revealed his power over the creation in a quaking or shaking of the earth (Judg. 5:4; Ps. 18:8). In both these instances the reference to the Sinai theophany is apparent”; Childs, “Enemy,” 189.
21. Kessler notes the flow of the Hebrew grammar at this point (“Shaking,” 159–66). The second use of rʿš is a waw consecutive perfect, denoting a second sequence dependent either logically or temporally on the first.
22. Heb. ḥemdat is a feminine singular noun, but the verb “will come” is plural. Because the LXX translates this with ta eklekta (“choice things”), some interpreters have changed ḥemdat to ḥamudot, the plural form of this noun. There is no need, however, for this emendation, for it is common to combine a feminine singular with a plural verb when speaking of abstract concepts (GKC §145b; §145e, although GKC is inconsistent here and seeks to revocalize this word in Hag. 2:7).
23. Wolff, Haggai, 81; Petersen, Haggai, 68.
24. Verhoef, Haggai, 103.
25. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 53; Mason, Preaching, 188. Stuhlmueller and Merrill see in this an allusion to the temple of Solomon that was furnished by tribute (2 Sam. 8:7–8, 10–11; 1 Kings 7:51; 1 Chron. 29:3–5); see Stuhlmueller, Rebuilding, 30; Merrill, Haggai, 40.
26. H. Wolf, “ ‘The Desire of All Nations’ in Haggai 2:7: Messianic or Not?” JETS 19 (1976): 101: “the only glory said to ‘fill the temple’ in Scripture is the shekinah cloud itself.”
27. Many have seen here only the material definition of glory: e.g., Verhoef, Haggai, 104; R. T. Siebeneck, “Messianism of Aggeus and Proto-Zacharias,” CBQ 19 (1957): 315; Petersen, Haggai, 68; Stuhlmueller, Rebuilding, 30; or only the spiritual definition of glory: e.g., Merrill, Haggai, 41; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 54. This latter aspect has also been construed as the presence of the Messiah; see C. Feinberg, “Haggai,” in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, ed. C. F. Pfeiffer and E. F. Harrison (Chicago: Moody, 1962), 893. We have identified here a wordplay connoting both material and spiritual definitions; cf. Merrill, Haggai, 40–41; Mason, Preaching, 188; Mason, Haggai, 21; D. A. Smith, “Haggai,” in The Broadman Bible Commentary, Volume 7: Hosea-Malachi, ed. C. J. Allen (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 302. The emphasis, however, is on the material as an expression of the spiritual with no messianic overtones in the text itself; contra Wolf, “Desire,” 101.
28. Similar to Baldwin, Haggai, 48; see Mitchell, Smith, and Brewer, Haggai, 63. Verhoef makes this point in the commentary but translates similar to NIV; Verhoef, Haggai, 91–109.
29. Merrill, Haggai, 41 n.16; Baldwin, Haggai, 49. Some appeal to a wordplay between Jerusalem and the Heb. word šalom (“peace”; cf. also Deut. 12:5; 2 Kings 22:16–20; Jer. 7:3, 7, 20). Moreover, Haggai describes the temple as “the LORD’s house” (Hag. 1:2, 9, 14), “this house” (2:3, 7, 9a); “the house” (1:8); “the LORD’s temple” (2:15, 18), and not “this place.” But the most natural referent for “this place” in 2:9b is the place that precedes it in 2:9a, which also uses the demonstrative “this” (“this present house”). Furthermore, “this place” is used as a synonym for the temple in 1 Kings 8:29–30; 2 Chron. 6:20–21, 38, 40; 7:12; cf. Wolff, Haggai, 83.
30. Many recent scholars have shown connections between the focus on the temple in the Persian period community and a similar focus seen in Mesopotamian communities in which temples served an important economic function; cf. M. J. Boda, “Majoring on the Minors: Recent Research on Haggai and Zechariah,” Currents in Biblical Research 2 (2003): 33–68. This may have influenced Haggai’s preaching and produced sociological conditions conducive to the rebuilding of the temple.
31. Wolff, Haggai, 83. The LXX adds a phrase here: “and peace of soul for the strengthening of all who help to build this temple,” displaying an attempt to reinterpret this in terms of spiritual rather than material blessing. Cf. P. R. Ackroyd, “Some Interpretive Glosses in the Book of Haggai,” JJS 7 (1956): 164–65.
32. J. I. Durham, “Shalom and the Presence of God,” in Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honor of Gwynne Henton Davies, ed. J. I. Durham and J. R. Porter (Richmond, Va.: Knox, 1970), 272–93.
33. Achtemeier, Preaching from the Minor Prophets, 110.
34. There has been some disagreement over whether the presence of God was recognized by Second Temple Judaism as having returned to the temple. On one side of this issue are researchers like N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God 2; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 615–24, esp. 622, and R. L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study (JSNTSup 62; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991), ch. 7, who see longing for the return of God’s presence in texts like 1 En. 1:3–4, 9; T. Mos. 10:1, 3, 7; 12:13; Jub. 1:26–28; 11Q19 (11Q Templea) 29:3–9. On the other side are researchers like G. I. Davies, “The Presence of God in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Doctrine,” in Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel, ed. W. Horbury (JSNTSup 48; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991), 32–36, who has highlighted evidence in favor of a perceived return. Note esp. the testimony of Matt. 23:21.
35. D. M. Howard, “The Transfer of Power from Saul to David in 1 Sam 16:13–14,” JETS 32 (1989): 473, 483.
36. See E. M. Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 129–85, esp. 155–59; T. C. Young, “The Consolidation of the Empire and Its Limits of Growth under Darius and Xerxes,” in Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean c. 525 to 479 B.C., ed. J. Boardman et al. (CAH 4: Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988), 53–66; T. M. Bolin, “The Temple of YHWH at Elephantine and Persian Religious Policy,” in The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms, ed. D. Edelman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 127–42; P. R. Bedford, “Early Achaemenid Monarchs and Indigenous Cults: Towards the Definition of Imperial Policy,” in Religion in the Ancient World: New Themes and Approaches, ed. M. Dillon (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1996), 17–39.
37. Cf. M. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 44–45.
38. Commentators are generally agreed that the writer of Hebrews is relying on the LXX form of Hag. 2:6; see H. W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 380; P. Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 686, although three modifications are made to this text through which the writer seeks to stress that in “contrast to Sinai, where the earth alone was shaken, the future shaking will extend to heaven as well”; W. L. Lane, Hebrews 9–13 (WBC 47B; Dallas: Word, 1991), 478–80; cf. R. M. Wilson, Hebrews (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 233. Some also recognize that the writer of Hebrews also has Hag. 2:20–23 in mind with the reference to “kingdom” in Heb. 12:29; cf. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 364; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 484.
39. On this contrast in Heb. 12:18–29, see esp. T. Long, Hebrews (IBC; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 136–41. Buchanan makes the interesting observation that Heb. 1:1–12:29 is “a unified homily centered around the one text of Ps. 110, which the author quoted from time to time. He never quoted the whole Psalm, but, by alluding to one verse, he presumed that the reader understood the rest of the Psalm,” an intertextual technique I have noted elsewhere; see M. J. Boda, “Reading Between the Lines: Zechariah 11:4–16 in Its Literary Contexts,” in Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion and Zechariah 9–14, ed. M. J. Boda and M. H. Floyd (JSOTSup 304; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 277–91. It is interesting that Ps. 110 is clearly drawn from the Zion tradition (Davidic-Melchizedekian) and refers to the defeat of the nations by a royal figure. The contrast in Hebrews, therefore, may be between Sinai and its priesthood, on the one side, and Zion and its royal priesthood, on the other. In Heb. 12 this argument comes to its conclusion.
40. The precise referent of this shaking is a matter of great debate, ranging from the destruction of Jerusalem, to the events of Christ’s passion, to a future eschatological event; Attridge, Hebrews, 382. The latter appears to be in view here, as Bruce, Hebrews, 364.
41. Although the message in Haggai largely focused on encouragement to continue the monumental task of rebuilding, the message in Hebrews shifts to a warning that believers must continue lest they be judged: “The promise expressed through the citation of the biblical text is that those who reject the new covenant revelation will receive the same summary judgment as those who disregarded the revelation given at Sinai. The citation of the text expresses the pastoral concern for the threat of apostasy within the community in 12:14–29” (see Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 480–81).
42. J. E. Orr, The Second Evangelical Awakening: An Account of the Second Worldwide Evangelical Revival Beginning in the Mid-nineteenth Century (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1955); J. E. Orr, Evangelical Awakenings in Africa (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1975).
43. See, e.g., W. R. Shenk, “The Southern Baptists Restructure to Reach the Unreached Peoples,” Missions Frontiers Bulletin (July–October, 1997), 15–18.
44. W. R. Shenk, “Mission, Renewal and the Future of the Church,” International Bulletin for Missionary Research (October, 1997), 154–59.
1. See my review of this research in Boda, “Majoring,” 33–68. These links to ancient Near Eastern customs are not surprising because it was the Persian emperor who commissioned the rebuilding of the temple in the first place. By this I am not suggesting that Israelite religion is syncretistic; only that there were certain generic customs that accompanied the rebuilding of temples, which were used by the Israelites in their project; see B. Halpern, “The Ritual Background of Zechariah’s Temple Song,” CBQ 40 (1978): 180–81: “The complex is distinctively monotheistic in its nuance. There is no hint of the pagan Mesopotamian worldview.”
2. See esp. Zech. 4:6–10, in which Zerubbabel is involved in a ceremony connected with the foundation laying in which allusion is made to a special stone. This is an important corrective to Dumbrell, “Kingship,” 33–42, who ignores the importance of royal hope in the later Babylonian and Persian Period; see H. G. M. Williamson, “Eschatology in Chronicles,” TynBul (1977): 115–54.
3. Pfeill has written what is unquestionably the best review of the issue, demonstrating how this theory of Rothstein became a working assumption among scholars of Haggai until reexamination revealed its bankruptcy; R. Pfeil, “When Is a Gôy a ‘Goy’? The Interpretation of Haggai 2:10–19,” in A Tribute to Gleason Archer, ed. J. Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and R. F. Youngblood (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 261–78; J. W. Rothstein, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja: Studien zur Sacharja-prophetie und zur jüdischen geschichte im ersten nachexilischen Jahrhundert (BWAT 8; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1910). The influence of Rothstein’s theory is displayed in Wolff’s commentary on Haggai, which places the interpretation of Hag. 2:15–19 after that of 1:1–14; Wolff, Haggai, 57–68.
4. A turning point was K. Koch, “Haggais unreines Volk,” ZAW 79 (1967): 52–66, followed by H. G. May, “ ‘This People’ and ‘This Nation’ in Haggai,” VT 18 (1968): 190–97, and T. N. Townsend, “Additional Comments on Haggai II 10–19,” VT 18 (1968): 559–60. More recent work has been offered by Pfeil, “Gôy,” 261–78; D. R. Hildebrand, “Temple Ritual: A Paradigm for Moral Holiness in Haggai II 10–19,” VT 39 (1989): 154–68; E. R. Wendland, “Temple Site or Cemetery?—A Question of Perspective,” Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics 5 (1992): 37–85.
5. See bibliography in Boda, Praying, 29–30.
6. Rothstein’s displacement of Hag. 2:10–14 from 2:15–19 led him to the conclusion that the terms “this people” and “this nation” in 2:14 were referring to the enemies of the project (for him, Samaritans) depicted in Ezra 4:1–5, rather than the people themselves. Besides the arguments already noted for the unity of the passage above, there is ample support from the rest of the Heb. canon that Jews could be referred to as “this people” and “this nation” (see comments on Hag. 2:14).
7. See Boda, “Haggai,” 295–304.
8. For more on this see R. DeVaux, Ancient Israel, 2 vols. (New York: Darton-Longman-Todd, 1961), 1:154, 2:354.
9. The prophets cite abuse of this priestly duty in their indictments (Mic. 3:11; Jer. 18:18; Ezek. 7:26; 22:26; Zeph. 3:4), linking it to the profanation of God’s name.
10. See E. M. Meyers, “The Use of Tôrâ in Haggai 2:11 and the Role of the Prophet in the Restoration Community,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 69–76; also M. A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 297.
11. Petersen (Haggai, 74) notes that the common lexical opposites are holy/profane (qodeš/ḥol) and clean/unclean (ṭahor/ṭameʾ; cf. Lev. 10:10–11), but he justifies the word pair used in Hag. 2 on the basis of a typology in which holy and unclean are the two opposite extremes: “Of these notions, qōdeš (holiness) and ṭāmēʾ (impurity) are the truly powerful forces. The middle terms do not entail such power and represent something akin to neutral states. Neither cleanness or profaneness per se are typically capable of passing on their qualities.” This appears a bit too rigid, especially when the contrast holiness/uncleanness (qōdeš/ṭumʾah) is found in a passage connected with the second scenario in 2:13.
12. See Petersen, Haggai, 76; Petersen (p. 71) highlights especially the word “stew” (nazid, found elsewhere only in Gen. 25:29; 2 Kings 4:38).
13. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 297; cf. D. R. Hildebrand, “Temple Ritual: A Paradigm for Moral Holiness in Haggai II 10–19,” VT 39 (1989): 160; Merrill, Haggai, 46.
14. Here expressed euphemistically by the Hebrew word nepeš (body; also Num. 5:2; 9:6, 7, 10), a shortened form of nepeš met (dead body, Num. 6:6).
15. D. P. Wright, “Unclean and Clean (OT),” ABD, 6:730: “The most severe of all the permitted impurities is the human corpse, called the ‘father of the fathers of uncleanness’ in later rabbinic tradition”; cf. idem, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987).
16. Hildebrand, “Temple Ritual,” 161; Fishbane agrees in Biblical Interpretation, 297.
17. Fishbane wisely noted this: “In effect, the prophet is only concerned with the second of these two questions. He depends on a negative reply to the first question in order to set up a positive answer to the second”; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 297; contra Sim who wants both scenarios to impact on the final message; R. J. Sim, “Notes on Haggai 2:10–21,” Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics 5 (1992): 29–33.
18. See A. Cody, “When Is the Chosen People Called a gôy?” VT 14 (1964): 1–6; K. Koch, “Haggais unreines Volk,” ZAW 79 (1967): 52–66; H. G. May, “ ‘This People’ and ‘This Nation’ in Haggai,” VT 18 (1968): 190–97; R. J. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), 46–52; and esp. Hildebrand, “Temple Ritual,” 154–68, whose article provides the statistics for the following remarks.
19. The only reference to a foreign people comes in Isa. 23:13 (Babylon).
20. The ratio of negative to positive reveals this trend both for “this people” (10 vs. 2 in Isaiah, e.g., Isa. 6:9–10; 8:6–12; 25:4 in Jeremiah, e.g., 14:10–11) and for “this nation” (6 vs. 0 in the Old Testament).
21. Although the word pair “people/nation” does appear elsewhere for Israel (Deut. 4:6; Ps. 33:12; Isa. 1:4; 9:2–3; Jer. 33:24; Zeph. 2:9), only in Ex. 33:12–13 and Hag. 2:14 does it appear together with the demonstrative “this.”
22. E.g., Beuken, Haggai, 73; R. A. Mason, “Prophets of the Restoration,” in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition, ed. R. Coggins, A. Phillips, and M. Knibb (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982), 144; Verhoef, Haggai, 120.
23. E.g., Redditt, Haggai, 28; Petersen, Haggai, 83.
24. See LXX for the moral view. Wolff, Haggai, 88: “Because of their morning profits (?). They will suffer pains because of their wickedness. And you ‘hate in the gates those who reprove’ ”; cf. Ackroyd, who concludes that the intention of the glossator is to argue that “the rebuilding must be accompanied by moral reformation”; Ackroyd, “Glosses,” 165–66. The ritual failure view is based either on Ex. 29:36–37 or Ezek. 43:18–25; cf. Petersen, Haggai, 84. The temple ruin view reveals an allegorizing tendency in that the temple ruin is compared to a “corpse.” This is obviously an overzealous attempt to connect the second legal scenario to the final speech; Sim, “Notes,” 33.
25. Verhoef, Haggai, 120; May, “This People,” 190–97.
26. Usually the LXX translates this phrase as “from this day backward” (e.g., 1 Sam. 16:13; 30:25). Clark links it to “give careful thought” rather than “I will bless you”; D. J. Clark, “Problems in Haggai 2:15–19,” BT 34 (1983): 432.
27. See Boda, “Haggai,” 295–304.
28. The phrase in the NIV “consider how things were” in Hag. 2:15 is not represented in the Heb. text, but is an attempt to smooth over the rhetorical swing from future to past. Some have repointed the MT at the beginning of 2:16 (mihyotam: “from being to them”) to mah-heyitem (“how was it to you” = “how did you fare?”); Petersen, Haggai, 86; Hildebrand, “Temple Ritual,” 157; Merrill, Haggai, 49. Note that the LXX does indicate a question here and may have mistranslated it, “What sort of people were you?”
29. See Petersen, Haggai, 90.
30. There is some speculation over what each term refers to in v. 16 (cf. Isa. 63:3). The text has first yeqeb (NIV “wine vat”) and then purah (NIV possibly “measures”). There is general consensus that the word yeqeb refers to the vat that collects the wine; cf. Petersen, Haggai, 86. The word purah, however, is interpreted as a kind of measurement in many of the versions (e.g., LXX, Vulgate). This, however, is not the sense suggested in Isa. 63:3 (NIV “winepress”); thus it is commonly identified as a word describing either the entire area of winemaking or the pressing chamber; cf. Petersen, Haggai, 86; Merrill, Haggai, 50; Verhoef, Haggai, 126. In this case either a preposition (mem) has dropped out (a result of assimilation with the end of the Heb. word for fifty, ḥamiššim) or the word functions as an adverbial accusative. In either case the translation should be: “When anyone went to a wine vat to draw fifty (measures) from the winepress, there were only twenty.”
31. Petersen, Haggai, 90.
32. Hildebrand, “Temple Ritual,” 165, sees here an expectation.
33. Petersen’s approach to Hag. 2:16 leads him to the view that 2:17 does not refer to cause but rather to further experience of difficulty; Petersen, Haggai, 90–93.
34. Clark, “Haggai 2:15–19,” 434; Hildebrand, “Temple Ritual,” 165; Petersen, Haggai, 91.
35. J. Nogalski incorrectly sees in blight, mildew, hail the problem of “too much water, not of a drought” and thus identifies Hag. 2:17 as an insertion which enhances Haggai’s connection to the Book of the Twelve; Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 227.
36. This phrase begins with the preposition lemin, which has been variously interpreted. The lamed is probably just introducing this phrase as a further delineation of the previous phrase: “namely”; Wolff, Haggai, 59; Verhoef, Haggai, 111; KB 465; BDB 483. Merrill, however, sees this lamed as “to” completing “from . . . to” in this verse; Merrill, Haggai, 53.
37. Clark outlines the basic options for this initial question and argues for the one we have here. However, in contrast to us, he thinks this question functions as a positive encouragement (“Consider the present, since you started to rebuild the temple, the Lord has given enough rain to soften the earth and allow you to plant the seed for next year’s harvest”); Clark, “Haggai 2:15–19,” 432–39. See Hildebrand, who notes how appropriate this message is for mid-December rather than three months earlier; Hildebrand, “Temple Ritual,” 168.
38. The NIV inserts the understood “you” which does not appear in the Heb. text. This final statement is extremely abrupt and stands out as an oddity for it does not have the expected accusative. Merrill (Haggai, 56) argues that this abrupt style prepares the way for the speech to Zerubbabel in 2:20–23. I propose that it functions as creative rhetoric, driving home the main point of the section after building towards it in 2:15–19a.
39. Laato has noted the importance of pronouncements of blessing in Mesopotamian rebuilding ceremonies and in Hag. 2:19; A. Laato, “Zachariah 4,6b–10a and the Akkadian Royal Building Inscriptions,” ZAW 106 (1994): 60, 64–65. G. A. Anderson (Sacrifices, 91–126) notes a link between temple building and fertility, although I disagree with his conclusion of a Canaanite background to Hag. 2.
40. T. Longman, Immanuel in Our Place: Seeing Christ in Israel’s Worship (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2001), 75.
41. For these various sacrifices and their fulfillment in the New Testament in and through Christ and the church, see V. Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Brentwood, Tenn.: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991), 41–49; A. E. Hill, Enter His Courts with Praise: Old Testament Worship for the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 119–20; R. T. Beckwith, “Sacrifice,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. D. Alexander and B. S. Rosner (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 754–62; Longman, Immanuel, 77–115.
42. See esp. Beckwith, “Sacrifice,” 759–61.
43. See Boda, “Haggai,” 295–304.
44. Such suffering may be a result of fallenness (whether physical diseases or opposition to Christ’s claims), but also may be related to God’s greater purposes; see Bridging Contexts section of Hag. 1:1–11.
45. For this see recent literature on Psalms as a book: James Luther Mays, “The Place of Torah Psalms in the Psalter,” JBL 106 (1987): 3–12; W. Brueggemann, “Bounded by Obedience and Praise: The Psalms as Canon,” JSOT 50 (1991): 63–92; J. C. McCann and N. R. McCann, A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms As Torah (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1993); G. H. Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985); idem, Psalms (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002).
46. See M. J. Evans, “Blessing/Curse,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. D. Alexander and B. S. Rosner (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 401.
1. See Original Meaning section for 2:10–19.
2. Merrill (Haggai, 56) explains the abruptness of the declaration in 2:19, “I will bless you,” by saying that this blessing is expressed in the eschatological hope of 2:20–23. Although he may have a point in the flow of the passage, this abruptness can be explained in terms of creative rhetoric of 2:10–23 (see comments on 2:10–19).
3. Kessler, “Darius,” 63–84.
4. See G. Sauer, “Serubbabel in der Sicht Haggais und Sacharjas,” in Das ferne und nahe Wort: Festschrift Leonhard Rost, ed. F. Maass (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967), 202–3, who notes this connection to Ps. 2 as well as to Ps. 110.
5. Note the similar connection between theophany, temple, and subjugation of the nations in Ps. 48 and 68.
6. Wolff, Haggai, 104.
7. Because this gloss for this verb is not exclusively related to Sodom and Gomorrah, Petersen may be correct when he argues that this verb is drawn from the tradition of oracles against nations rather than that of Sodom and Gomorrah; Petersen, Haggai, 98.
8. The phrase represented by “royal thrones” in Heb. is lit. “the throne of kingdoms.” Some have argued that the use of the singular “throne” with the plural “kingdoms” is a veiled reference to the Persian hegemony over the many kingdoms of the world at this point in history; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 67; cf. Wolff, Haggai, 103, for others. This, however, is probably an example of a Heb. idiom in which a singular is used with the plural to express a compound idea; Verhoef, Haggai, 144; Wolff, Haggai, 103; Petersen, Haggai, 100; GKC 124§p-r.
9. In Jer. 51:20–21 this vocabulary is used to represent the power of a nation.
10. Cf. Beuken, who lists Isa. 32:19; Jer. 13:18; 48:15; Lam. 1:9; Ezek. 26:16; 30:6 to show that “fall” (yarad) means “go down to the underworld,” a sense seen in the Exodus tradition as well (Ex. 15:5); Beuken, Haggai, 80 n. 1. Verhoef notes Isa. 34:7 and Jer. 48:15 as examples where yarad is used to refer to the death of animals and humans in battle contexts; Verhoef, Haggai, 145.
11. Petersen, Haggai, 101; Wolff, Haggai, 103; Verhoef, Haggai, 145.
12. Petersen, Haggai, 101.
13. There are surprising connections between this section and the end of Ezekiel, which envisions the return of God’s people after exile (Ezek. 36–37) in a scenario where “my servant David” (37:24) plays a key role and is intimately linked to “my sanctuary” (37:26–28). The defeat of the nations in chs. 38–39 is followed then by a vision of a new temple (chs. 40–48). Haggai 2:20–23 combines these same elements: defeat of the nations, appointment of a Davidic ruler, rebuilding of a sanctuary.
14. Petersen with Beyse and Wolff argue correctly that one need not set up an either-or choice between ancient Israelite tradition and contemporary Persian history. Although the former provided the vocabulary, the latter would have an effect on the audience who heard this message. By this, however, we are not saying that Haggai’s message is meant as a call to rebellion, contra L. Waterman, “The Camouflaged Purge of Three Messianic Conspirators,” JNES 13 (1954): 73–78; cf. Petersen, Haggai, 101; K.-M. Beyse, Serubbabel und die Königserwartungen der Propheten Haggai und Sacharja: Eine historische und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Arbeiten zur Theologie 1/48; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1972), 55–56; Wolff, Haggai, 103.
15. The “Day of Yahweh” is developed throughout prophetic literature as that time when God will defeat his foes; cf. G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962), 2:119–23.
16. Gen. 24:7 and Josh. 24:3 (Abraham); Ex. 6:7 and Deut. 4:20 (Israelites); Num. 3:12 (Levites); 2 Sam. 7:8 (David); 2 Kings 2:3 (Elijah’s death); 14:21 (Azariah); 23:30 (Jehoahaz); Amos 7:15 (Amos).
17. Contra W. H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period (JSOTSup 304; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000). Rose argues that the terminology used here is not restricted to Davidic tradition. Although this is true for each term isolated from the other, it is the combination of these terms that restricts the allusion to the Davidic tradition.
18. 2 Sam. 3:18; 7:5, 8; 1 Kings 11:32, 34, 36; 1 Chron. 17:4; 2 Chron. 32:16; Ps. 78:70; 89:3; 132:10.
19. Verhoef, Haggai, 146.
20. So Wolff, Haggai, 105: Gen. 13:16; 1 Kings 19:2; Hos. 2:3. Thus it is not a simile but a construction of appointment.
21. Meyers and Meyers (Haggai, 70) may have a point when they claim that this word is used when referring to the choice of a dynasty, esp. because it is used at the choice of Saul (1 Sam. 10:24) and David (2 Sam. 6:21).
22. Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 327.
23. E.g., Waterman, “Purge,” 73–78; see recent review of this in Kessler, “Darius,” 63–84.
24. D. Coupland, Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture (New York: St. Martin’s, 1991); idem, Life After God (New York: Pocket, 1995).
25. Coupland, Generation X, 139.
26. S. Kierkegaard, Either/Or: A Fragment of Life (New York: Penguin, 1992), 49.
1. Meyers and Meyers read too much into this omission by positing a rhetorical intention, linking it to the desire of an editor to join Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 together as a literary whole and to its central position in all the dates of the combined corpus; C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25b; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1987), 90.
2. All of the dates in Haggai precede those in Zechariah, except for those in Hag. 2:10–23, which occur in the month after the first date in Zec. 1:1, but two months prior to the second date in Zech. 1:7.
3. See M. J. Boda, “Zechariah: Master Mason or Penitential Prophet,” in Yahwism After the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era, ed. B. Becking and R. Albertz (Studies in Theology and Religion 5; Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2002), 49–69.
4. See ibid.; see also R. A. Werline, Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism: The Development of a Religious Institution (SBLEJL 13; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998); M. J. Boda, Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9 (BZAW 277; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999); R. J. Bautch, Developments in Genre Between Post-Exilic Penitential Prayers and the Psalms of Communal Lament (SBLABS; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003).
5. Werline, Penitential Prayer, 2.
6. H. Gunkel and J. Begrich (Introduction to Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel [Mercer Library of Biblical Studies; Macon, Ga.: Mercer Univ. Press, 1998], 82–85) and E. Lipinski (La liturgie pénitentielle dans la Bible; vol. 52, Lectio divina [Paris: Les éditions du Cerf, 1969], 27–35) linked these to days of fasting and lament in the preexilic times.
7. Neh. 9:29 = Zech. 7:11 (stubbornly they turned their backs); Neh. 9:30 = Zech. 7:12 (by his Spirit through the earlier prophets); Neh. 9:34 = Zech. 1:4; 7:11 (refused to pay attention); Neh. 9:35 = Zech. 1:4, 6 (turn from your evil ways).
8. Applegate also notes the similarity between the question of the angel of the Lord in Zech. 1:12 and “the sort of lament an individual or community might bring to a prophet to seek the Lord’s answer”; J. Applegate, “Jeremiah and the Seventy Years in the Hebrew Bible,” in The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception; Le livre de Jérémie et sa réception, ed. A. H. W. Curtis and T. Römer (BETL 128; Leuven: University, 1997), 103; cf. M. J. Boda, “From Complaint to Contrition: Peering Through the Liturgical Window of Jer 14,1–15,4,” ZAW 113 (2001): 186–97.
9. Cf. M. J. Boda, “Haggai: Master Rhetorician,” TynBul 51 (2000): 295–304. In contrast to Haggai, Zechariah is deeply conscious of his link to the prophetic tradition of old (compare Zech. 1:4–6 with 7:7, 12).
10. D. L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM, 1984), 110.
11. For the first view see BHS; for the second see W. Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 1–8, Sacharja 9–14, Maleachi (KAT 13; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1976).
12. See Boda (Praying the Tradition, 47–54) for this feature and its theological foundation.
13. In Heb. one way of expressing intensity is to repeat a finite verb with the same root in the infinitive or a nominal version of that root.
14. B. E. Baloian, Anger in the Old Testament (American University Studies Series VII, Theology and Religion 99; New York: Lang, 1992).
15. Gerard Van Groningen, “
,” TWOT, § 2058, 2:808.
17. See also Mal. 3:7, where there is no disjuncture between the personal, relational, and the ethical.
18. See Boda, “Penitential Prophet,” 49–69.
19. Ibid.
20. See ibid.; also M. J. Boda, “The Priceless Gain of Penitence: From Communal Lament to Penitential Prayer in the ‘Exilic’ Liturgy of Israel,” HBT 25 (2003): 51–75.
21. See Werline’s Penitential Prayer for the use of penitential prayer in this period.
22. Also note the repeated description of God as One who punishes to the third and fourth generation (Ex. 20:5; 34:7; Num. 14:18; Deut. 5:9); on this see esp. J. S. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup 196; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995).
23. See esp. the example of Manasseh in 2 Chron. 33.
24. See Boda, “Priceless Gain,” 51–75.
25. The two key figures were originally J. F. MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), and Z. C. Hodges, Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989). However, see more recently C. C. Bing, Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response (Burleson, Tex.: Grace Life, 1992), and M. Horton, ed., Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992).
26. G. T. Smith, Beginning Well: Christian Conversion and Authentic Transformation (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 167.
27. See Boda, “Priceless Gain,” 51–75.
28. See the summary of Walter Kaiser’s survey of the biblical theology of suffering in the Bridging Contexts Section of Hag. 1:1–11. Here we are speaking only of educational/disciplinary suffering.
29. Boda, “Priceless Gain,” 51–75.
30. On the importance and use of Scripture in prayers of this period, see Boda, Praying the Tradition; J. H. Newman, “Nehemiah 9 and the Scripturalization of Prayer in the Second Temple Period,” in The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders (JSNTSup 154 Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 112–23; idem, Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism (SBLEJL 14; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999).
1. For details of the argument to follow see M. J. Boda, “Terrifying the Horns: Persia and Babylon in Zechariah 1:7–6:15,” CBQ 67 (2005): forthcoming.
2. Clark expresses this well: “if we say that the first horse was ‘red’, we immediately make him sound strange and improbable”; D. J. Clark, “The Case of the Vanishing Angel,” BT 33 (1982): 216.
3. Horses were important to the Persians, who used them extensively; see M. A. Littauer and J. H. Crouwel, Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near East (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 144–60, and Herodotus, who wrote that Persians were taught three things: to use the bow, to ride a horse, and to speak the truth (The Histories 1.136). The Jews of this time saw horses used in war, but also in the messenger service of Darius; see Littauer and Crouwel, Wheeled Vehicles, 158, and Herodotus, The Histories 8.98. Horses reappear at the end of this vision series (Zech. 6:1–8) and ultimately feature prominently in apocalyptic literature (cf. Rev. 6:1–8; 19:11–21). In full-blown apocalyptic (e.g., Revelation) the colors take on symbolic character, but this should not be assumed here.
4. See A. Brenner, Colour Terms in the Old Testament (JSOTSup 21; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1982), 80.
5. Brenner identifies this as a secondary term, related to the primary color denoted by ʾadom (ibid., 114–15). Its presence here in a list alongside ʾadom shows that it cannot be subsumed under it but is distinct from it. See R. P. Gordon, “An Inner-Targum Corruption (Zech I 8),” VT 25 (1975): 216–21, for a review of the approaches of the ancient versions to this difficult word. Also W. D. McHardy, “The Horses in Zechariah,” in In Memoriam: Paul Kahle, ed. M. Black and G. Fohrer (BZAW 103; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1968), 174–79.
6. Meyers and Meyers (Haggai, 113) describe the terrain of this month in Palestine as red-white.
7. So Clark, “Case,” 217.
8. Ibid.
9. Thus Petersen (Haggai, 136) sees here the cosmic deep over which the angel is hovering; cf. Ex. 15:5; Neh. 9:11; Job 41:31; Ps. 68:22; 69:2, 15; 88:6; 107:24; Jonah 2:4; Mic. 7:19; Zech. 10:11.
10. See Clark, “Case,” 213–18, for the many options, which range from one to three angels. My conclusion on this matter is similar to Clark’s, although I propose other reasons.
11. W. C. Kaiser, Zechariah (ComC 21; Dallas: Word, 1992), 305.
12. For this connection see both Janet E. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 (JSOTSup 150; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 184, and Applegate, “Jeremiah and the Seventy Years,” 103. Tollington also notes similarity to the prophetic oracles of Jeremiah (Jer. 4:14, 21; 23:26; 31:22; 47:5; cf. 1 Kings 18:21; Ex. 10:3; Num. 14:27; 1 Sam. 16:1; Hos. 8:5) and Isa. 6:11. See discussion of penitential prayer in the Original Meaning section of 1:1–6; cf. Boda, “Complaint,” 186–97; idem, “Penitential Prophet,” 49–69.
13. See M. A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 479–85.
14. For an argument for a precise seventy years from 609–539 B.C., see R. E. Winkle, “Jeremiah’s Seventy Years for Babylon: A Re-assessment (Part I: The Scriptural Data),” AUSS 25 (1987): 201–14; idem, “Jeremiah’s Seventy Years for Babylon: A Re-assessment (Part II: The Historical Data),” AUSS 25 (1987): 289–99.
15. L. L. Grabbe, “Another Look at the Gestalt of ‘Darius the Mede,’ ” CBQ 50 (1988): 198–213; W. H. Shea, “Darius the Mede in His Persian-Babylonian Setting,” AUSS 29 (1991): 235–57; B. E. Colless, “Cyrus the Persian as Darius the Mede in the Book of Daniel,” JSOT 56 (1992): 113–26; Boda, “Horns.”
16. Cf. E. Lipinski, “Recherches sur le livre de Zacharie,” VT 20 (1970): 39.
17. Winkle has convincingly shown that the intention of Jeremiah, Chronicles, and Daniel is to define an exact period with a precise ending date; Winkle, “Jeremiah’s Seventy Years: Part I,” 201–14, and “Jeremiah’s Seventy Years: Part II,” 289–99.
18. The NIV “I was only a little angry” is to be preferred. Some have translated “little” in terms of duration (thus related to the question “how long?”), but this should be seen as an adverb of degree, contrasting God’s “great” anger toward the nations (“I am very angry”).
19. For various approaches to the contrast between Zech. 1:1–6 and 1:7–21 see Applegate, “Jeremiah and the Seventy Years,” 104–5. I do not agree with Applegate’s approach that we have here a theodicy that shifts responsibility for the severity of the Exile from Yahweh to the nations.
20. There has been much debate over the connections between Ezekiel and Zechariah. Hanson, MacKay, and Hamerton-Kelly identify Zechariah closely with Ezekiel; P. D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 249; C. Mackay, “Zechariah in Relation to Ezekiel 40–48,” EvQ 40 (1968): 197–210; R. G. Hammerton-Kelly, “The Temple and the Origins of Jewish Apocalyptic,” VT 20 (1970): 14; see recently S. S. Tuell, “Haggai-Zechariah: Prophecy after the Manner of Ezekiel,” in SBLSP 2000 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 263–86. Petersen presents eight contrasts between the corpora; Petersen, Haggai, 116–20. Cook treads the via media by listing the long list of connections while remaining sensitive to the differences; S. L. Cook, Prophecy and Apocalypticism: The Postexilic Social Setting (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 148–53.
21. Cf. W. VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990).
22. Niditch is esp. sensitive to the historical transformation of the vision form in Israelite history; S. Niditch, The Symbolic Vision in Biblical Tradition (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983); cf. B. O. Long, “Reports of Visions Among the Prophets,” JBL 95 (1976): 353–65.
23. For further discussion of the context and form of apocalyptic, see Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic; J. J. Collins, ed., Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre (Semeia 14; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979); Cook, Prophecy and Apocalypticism; for bibliography see F. J. Murphy, “Apocalypses and Apocalypticism: The State of the Question,” CurBS 2 (1994): 147–180; M. J. Boda, “Majoring on the Minors: Recent Research on Haggai and Zechariah,” CurBR 2 (2003): 33–68.
24. N. K. Gottwald, The Hebrew Bible: A Socio-Literary Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 584.
25. P. R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 39–49.
26. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (Charlotte, N.C.: Commission, 1976), 51 (letter 8).
27. This does not mean that we can spend our lives in lament indefinitely, for God’s desire is ultimately the expression of praise as he saves us from our predicaments and restores us to health. Note the repeating refrain in Ps. 42–43: “Why are you downcast, O my soul? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and my God” (42:5, 11; 43:5); see the introduction to W. Brueggemann, The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary (Augsburg Old Testament Studies: Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984).
28. W. A. VanGemeren, “Psalms,” EBC, 5:567.
29. J. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. J. T. McNeill and F. L. Battles (LCC 20; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 709.
30. W. Brueggemann, “The Costly Loss of Lament,” JSOT 36 (1986): 57–71; repr. in The Psalms and the Life of Faith, ed. P. D. Miller (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 98–111; note also my caution, however, in Boda, “Priceless Gain,” 51–75.
1. For fuller argument and interaction with other views, see Boda, “Horns.”
2. M. J. Dahood, Psalms (AB 16–17; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966), 2:354.
3. Although the animals are not mentioned, they are clearly in view. In the second explanation of the angel in Zech. 1:21, the angel refers to “the nations who lifted up their horns.”
4. G. Müller, Autobiography of George Müller (New Kensington, Pa.: Whitaker House, 1984); R. Steer, George Müller: Delighted in God (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1975).
5. For up-to-date information, see www.idop.org.
1. Petersen, Haggai, 68.
2. For the view that this is the man with the measuring line, see, e.g., H. G. T. Mitchell, J. M. P. Smith, and J. A. Brewer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), 115. For the view that this is Zechariah, see, e.g., E. H. Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 115. A third option is that the surveyor is the angel of the Lord; see F. D. Lindsey, “Zechariah,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1983–1985).
3. See T. C. Young, “The Consolidation of the Empire and Its Limits of Growth Under Darius and Xerxes,” in Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean c. 525 to 479 B.C., ed. J. Boardman et al. (CAH 4; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988), 65. Young argues that Cyrus’s “empire” was nothing “more than just regions collected and held together by military force” and that Darius transcended Cyrus through “the actual creation, for the first time, of a real empire: a governmental structure based on the army, on certain classes of the society whose loyalty was to the throne and not to some geographical region, and on the charisma, intelligence and moral fortitude of one man, Darius” (p. 63).
4. Here is yet another connection to Ezekiel’s vision of the rebuilt temple. However, this passage has a different focus: Zechariah expands the vision to the entire city, not merely the temple.
5. Cf. Petersen, Haggai, 171; Young, “Consolidation,” 102; D. Stronach, Pasargadae. A Report on the Excavations Conducted by the British Institute of Persian Studies from 1961 to 1963 (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1978). Although Darius did not abandon Pasargadae, he built his own special city, Persepolis; Young, “Consolidation,” 46; M. Mallowan, “Cyrus the Great,” in The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 2—The Median and Achaemenian Periods, ed. I. Gershevitch (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985), 396.
6. In addition Young notes that Pasargadae was “laid out much like an encampment . . . a ‘tent city’ translated into stone”; T. C. Young, “The Early History of the Medes and the Persians and the Achaemenid Empire to the Death of Cambyses,” in Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean c. 525 to 479 B.C., ed. J. Boardman et al. (CAH 4; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988), 44. In light of the desert motifs in Zech. 2:1–5 this may explain the connection to Pasargadae.
7. Notice how the captors of Israel in exile demanded “songs of Zion” and how difficult it was to sing such happy songs (Ps. 137).
1. See Long, “Reports,” 353–65, for the use of oracles within visions.
2. See Petersen’s comments (Haggai, 185): “They clearly breathe a spirit different from that of the visionary cycle.” However, Petersen goes too far in seeing this section as “a disparate series of utterances,” esp. considering Zech. 2:6–9 and 10–13 both contain the formula “then you will know that the LORD Almighty has sent me to you” and the construction “Daughter of Babylon/Zion.”
3. See the commentary introduction; Boda, “Horns.” Notice how Darius seeks to follow in the footsteps of Cyrus by affirming his actions (see Ezra 5:1–6:15; cf. 1:1–11), something that fits Darius’s drive for legitimacy; cf. M. M. Waters, “Darius and the Achaemenid Line,” Ancient History Bulletin 10 (1996): 11–18.
4. There are also close verbal connections between this oracle and the last night vision in Zech. 6:1–8: “the four winds/spirits of heaven” (2:6; 6:5); “the land of the north” (2:6; 6:6, 8 [2x]).
5. Possibly also Isa. 18:1; Jer. 47:6; cf. Petersen, Haggai, 173; J. G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1972), 108.
6. As does Merrill, Haggai, 119.
7. An allusion to the four winds will find its way into the vision series at Zech. 6:1–8 (see comments).
8. Petersen, Haggai, 175.
9. See B. Halpern, “The Ritual Background of Zechariah’s Temple Song,” CBQ 40 (1978): 168–69.
10. Cf. Isa. 48:16; 61:1; Jer. 25:17; 26:12, 15; 42:21. This term šlḥ (“send”) is often associated with the calling of a prophet paralleling the paradigmatic calling of Moses (see Ex. 3:10; Isa. 6:8; Jer. 1:7; Ezek. 2:3–4).
11. Ezekiel uses the formula: “then they will know that a prophet has been among them” (Ezek. 2:5; 33:33), which is similar in theme but different in vocabulary.
12. This concern for the authority of prophecy may reflect a perception of crisis over the validity of the prophetic word in the early Persian period, a trend also seen in the book of Haggai, see Boda, “Haggai,” 295–304.
13. Although a different word in Heb., the theme is synonymous.
14. Baldwin, Haggai, 109; T. Chary, Aggeé-Zacharie, Malachie (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1969), 70, cf. Ex. 11:5; Ps. 73:24; Eccl. 12:2.
15. Mitchell, Smith, and Brewer, Haggai, 141–42.
16. C. J. L. Kloos, “Zech. II 12: Really a Crux Interpretum?” VT 25 (1975): 729–36.
17. Clearly this point is debated as some see Magog as a reference to eschatological nations, others to nations north of Israel. Ezekiel is located in exile in the heartland of the Babylonian empire. Although he delivers oracles against many of the nations, the one exception is Babylon. Long ago, Boehmer saw in the word Magog a code for Babel, produced by shifting the Hebrew consonantal order by one letter and reversing the order: Thus “b-b” becomes “b-g” in the Hebrew alphabet and “l” becomes “m”; J. Boehmer, “Wer ist Gog von Magog? Ein Beitrag zur Auslegung des Buches Ezechiel,” ZWT 40 (1897): 321–55. This is a modification of the well-known Atbash system used in Jeremiah, where Sheshach in Jer. 25:26; 51:41 and Leb Kamai in 51:1 are coded names for Babylon.
18. Cf. K. M. Heim, “The Personification of Jerusalem and the Drama of Her Bereavement in Lamentations,” in Zion, City of Our God, ed. R. S. Hess and G. J. Wenham (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 129–69.
19. Although used in earlier eras, the final form of the Psalms of Ascent is most likely linked to the return to the land; cf. P. Satterthwaite, “Zion in the Songs of Ascents,” in Zion, City of Our God, ed. R. S. Hess and G. J. Wenham (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 105–28.
20. See E. R. Follis, “Zion, Daughter of,” ABD, 6:1103.
21. Ibid.; cf. L. Ryken, J. C. Wilhoit, and T. Longman, eds. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 980–81; see esp. E. R. Follis, “The Holy City As Daughter,” in Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, ed. E. R. Follis (JSNTSup 40; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 173–84, who draws on the sociological position of women—“associated with stability, with the building up of society, with nurturing the community at its very heart and center.”
22. B. C. Ollenburger, Zion, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult (JSOTSup 41; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 146.
23. Ibid., 46–47.
24. Cf. A. Petitjean, Les oracles du Proto-Zacharie: Un programme de restauration pour la communauté juive après l’exil (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1969), 133–35.
25. Cf. Ollenburger, Zion, who links Zion and kingship.
26. This is not an imperative and so does not designate a third section in the oracle.
27. Halpern, “Ritual Background,” 167–90, argues that the verb (“roused himself”) suggests divine warrior activity (Judg. 5:12; Isa. 14:8–10; 51:9; 52:1; Jer. 6:22; 25:32; 50:41; 51:11; cf. Isa. 42:10–13).
28. Cf. Merrill, Haggai, 128; Baldwin, Haggai, 112.
29. See Petersen, Haggai, 185.
30. Ackroyd, Exile, 31–38; see the later evidence of the Murashu family, ANET, 221.
31. See, e.g., the ancient Code of Hammurabi, which sees the role of law “that the strong might not oppress the weak” (ANET, 164; see ANET, 164–98 for various ancient law codes).
32. See D. J. A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1978), for this tripartite structure and how it provides the shape of the Pentateuch as a whole.
33. See J. H. Bavinck, An Introduction to the Science of Missions, trans. D. H. Freeman (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1960); D. Senior and C. Stuhlmueller, The Biblical Foundations for Mission (London: SCM, 1983); W. C. Kaiser, Mission in the Old Testament: Israel As a Light to the Nations (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000).
34. On this see C. J. H. Wright, Living As the People of God: The Relevance of Old Testament Ethics (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983); idem, Walking in the Ways of the Lord: The Ethical Authority of the Old Testament (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1995).
35. God redeems people, but this does not mean that the effects of their sin is eliminated: e.g., divorces, children, credit ratings, legal records.
1. On the unity of this passage, see M. J. Boda, “Oil, Crowns and Thrones: Prophet, Priest and King in Zechariah 1:7–6:15,” JHS 3 (2001): Art. 10; also printed in Currents in Biblical and Theological Dialogue (2001), ed. J. K. Stafford (Winnipeg: St. John’s College, Univ. of Manitoba, 2002), 89–106.
2. For details on this vision and its relationship to Zech. 1–8 (esp. 6:9–15) and to history, see ibid.
3. Cf. 1:20, where the same verb (“showed”) is used in reference to Yahweh.
4. See N. A. Tidwell, who traces a divine council genre defined as “a narrative event in the heavenly council on an occasion when that council is gathered to make some fateful decision concerning the affairs of men” (cf. 1 Kings 22:19–21; Isa. 6:1–13; Job 1–2); N. L. A. Tidwell, “Waʾomar (Zech 3:5) and the Genre of Zechariah’s Fourth Vision,” JBL 94 (1975): 343–55.
5. This combination is also used to depict priestly service before God (Deut. 10:8; 18:7), but other indications in Zech. 3 ultimately favor the legal context.
6. For a review of the process of sacral legal proceedings, see H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 60–150: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 1:53–54.
7. Some have suggested human enemies of Joshua within the Jewish community or the Persian administration, but the divine court is clearly in view (cf. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 184–85). Others see the enemies as both human and spiritual, that is, human enemies are in the background and the Adversary is the spiritual representation of their attacks to show God’s rejection of the enemies (see P. L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven: Satan in the Hebrew Bible [HSM 43; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988], 149). Barker sees tension between Levitical priests who served in Jerusalem in exile, while Allan identifies it as tension between North and South priests; cf. M. Barker, “The Two Figures in Zechariah,” HeyJ 18 (1977): 33–46; N. Allan, “The Identity of the Jerusalem Priesthood During the Exile,” HeyJ 23 (1982): 268–69. These views, however, are based on a view of sociological fracture in the early Persian community. Others see here the devil of the New Testament, but there is no reason to infuse the New Testament theology of Satan into Zech. 3, as the expression used here (haśśaṭan) is a title (“the Adversary”), not a proper name (“Satan”). This may indicate that the Satan of New Testament theology began in this role in the heavenly court. The role is not in itself an “evil” role, any more than a prosecuting attorney in Western courts is “evil.” See further Day, Adversary.
8. This rhetoric of “choice” (baḥar + b) in connection with Jerusalem is unique to Zechariah. Elsewhere the expression is used of God’s choice of David and Israel; cf. Petersen, Haggai, 191.
9. Cf. Petersen, Haggai, 194–96.
10. Suggested also by the references to God’s choice of “Jerusalem” and the allusion to the Exile in v. 2.
11. See D. Winton Thomas, “A Note on 
in Zechariah iii 4,” JTS 33 (1931–32): 279–80; J. C. VanderKam, “Joshua the High Priest and the Interpretation of Zechariah 3,” CBQ 53 (1991): 553–70. Most translations (including the NIV) place the final phrase in the future tense, but the infinitive absolute in this phrase relies on the previous verb for its sense, in this case a perfect (“I have taken away”; see LXX). The temptation to translate this in the future is because of the “clothed him” in v. 5. However, this reference may be a general statement bringing closure to the clothing process (“and so they clothed him”), or may serve literary purposes; so Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 192.
12. It should be noted that these two words are both related to the same Heb. root, ṣnp.
13. For more on this, see M. Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 165–74.
14. So Petersen, Haggai, 198.
15. This verb is found in legal contexts elsewhere in the Old Testament to refer to the testimony of witnesses (Deut. 4:26; 30:19; 31:28; 1 Kings 21:10, 13; Ps. 50:7; Jer. 32:10, 25, 44; Mal. 2:14). It is, however, difficult to see how the angel’s speech could be interpreted as such testimony both in terms of its content as well as its place in the legal proceedings.
16. See W. H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period (JSOTSup 304; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000); idem, “Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period,” in Yahwism After the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era, ed. B. Becking and R. Albertz (Studies in Theology and Religion 5; Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2003), 168–85; Boda, “Oil,” Art. 10.
17. Thus, as VanderKam has suggested, it removes Joshua one step from the divine council, for he is “given individuals who have direct access to the divine presence” and intimates: “In fact, the promise may refer to the ongoing presence of people such as Zechariah” (VanderKam, “Joshua,” 560).
18. The technical nature of this phrase in such contexts becomes clear in 2 Kings 6:1, where Elisha’s disciples refer to their meeting place as “the place where we sit before you.” So also in Ezek. 33:31 (cf. 8:1; 14:1; 20:1) it refers to the prophet declaring the word of the Lord to the elders of Israel in exile.
19. See K. G. Friebel, Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts (JSOTSup 283; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 27–31.
20. So also Isa. 8:18 for Isaiah and his children.
21. Friebel, Sign-Acts, 14. Friebel identifies Zech. 6:9–15 as a sign-act (p. 14 n. 5); so also Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 338; Hanson, Dawn, 256. For this form see esp. G. Fohrer, Die symbolische Handlungen der Propheten, 2d ed. (ATANT 54; Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1968), 18; K. Friebel, “A Hermeneutical Paradigm for Interpreting Prophetic Sign-Actions,” Didaskalia 12/2 (2001): 25–45; M. J. Boda, “Reading Between the Lines: Zechariah 11:4–16 in Its Literary Contexts,” in Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion and Zechariah 9–14, ed. M. J. Boda and M. H. Floyd (JSOTSup 304; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 277–91.
22. Zech. 3:8–10 contain a series of clauses all beginning with the particle ki: “ ‘Listen, O high priest Joshua and your associates seated before you, [ki] who are men symbolic of things to come: [ki hinneh] I am going to bring my servant, the Branch. See [ki hinneh], the stone I have set in front of Joshua! There are seven eyes on that one stone, and I will engrave an inscription on it,’ says the LORD Almighty, ‘and I will remove the sin of this land in a single day.’ ” This particle has a diverse semantic range and can be translated (among other ways) as causal (“because/for”) or emphatic (“indeed”). The first instance with ki alone is most likely causal, providing the reason why Joshua should listen. The next two, however, with the adjoining Hebrew particle hinneh (often translated “behold”), are probably emphatic and structure the sign-act interpretation into two sections, one about the coming of ṣemaḥ and the other about the removal of sin.
23. The translation for ṣemaḥ is traditionally “Branch.” This is inappropriate and represents an imposition of the imagery of Isa. 11:1 (where neṣer, “Branch,” is used). See the thorough argument on this issue by Rose (Zemah, 91–120). The word ṣemaḥ refers to vegetation but will merely be transliterated in this commentary.
24. This Davidic descendant is called “my servant” (Jer. 33:21), just as David was (2 Sam. 3:18; 7:5).
25. For detailed argument see Boda, “Oil,” Art. 10.
26. Cf. van der Woude, “Zion,” 245.
27. See Lipinski, “Recherches,” 25–55; van der Woude, “Zion,” 237–248; VanderKam, “Joshua,” 553–70.
28. See VanderKam, “Joshua,” 563–64.
29. To do this they translate the word “eyes” as “springs” (another legitimate gloss for the Heb. word) and see the “engraving” as an “opening” in the rock from which water pours forth.
30. A metaphorical use of “eye” similar to “sparkle of wine” (Prov. 23:31), “gleam of bronze” (Ezek. 1:4), or “face of the land” (Ex. 10:5; Num. 22:5); cf. Baldwin, Haggai, 117.
31. Petersen, Haggai, 211–12.
32. As VanderKam has argued (“Joshua,” 553–70), there are seven “eyes,” which is a dual in Heb., and thus it can be taken as seven pairs of eyes.
33. Interestingly the lead term in the high priestly confession is this word that appears to be a general term for the guilt, with the following two words, more specific terms, for the acts that led to the guilt (Lev. 16:21). This is confirmed in the following verse when the other two terms disappear and our term remains (16:22; NIV, “sins”).
34. The intransitive occurrences of this Heb. verb express removal in strong terms, often in a negative way to refer to someone not leaving a place (Ex. 13:22; 33:11; Num. 14:44; Josh. 1:8; Judg. 6:18; Isa. 22:25; 46:7; 54:10; 59:21; Jer. 17:8; 31:36; etc.). For a superb discussion of the terms for bearing and removing sin in the priestly literature see B. J. Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 3–21.
35. Cf. also 2 Kings 18:31, where Sennacherib promises prosperity to those who will rebel against Hezekiah.
36. That the promise of God’s indwelling in Zech. 2 prepares the way for the focus on sin and rituals connected with its removal is confirmed in Schwartz’s discussion of the vocabulary and rituals connected to the “bearing” and “removal” of sin in priestly texts. Schwartz has shown that dealing with sin was essential to accommodate God’s presence with the people: “They must be driven away, so that the divine Presence will not be driven away. Maintaining the welfare of the community, ensuring the continued abiding Presence of the Lord, is paramount”; Schwartz, “Bearing of Sin,” 21.
37. See D. W. Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel (OTM; Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000).
38. See Boda, “Complaint,” 186–97.
39. See Boda, “Oil,” Art. 10.
40. See Boda, “Complaint,” 186–97.
41. The promises are placed on Zerubbabel, but Haggai speaks of him as a symbol of someone yet to come within his line (see comments on Hag. 2:20–23).
42. Also Boda, “Reading,” 277–91.
43. See Smith’s review of these issues, esp. in the Holiness movement in Smith, Beginning Well, 194–203.
44. See esp. E. P. Clowney, “Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures,” in The Preacher and Preaching, ed. S. T. Logan (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1986), 191. See esp. his chart on p. 179, in which he distinguishes clearly between allegorizing, moralizing, and redemptive-historical preaching.
45. S. E. Fowl and L. G. Jones, Reading in Communion: Scripture and Ethics in Christian Life (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 102.
1. For this see Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 448–49.
2. For detailed argument see Boda, “Oil,” Art. 10.
3. For the first, e.g., Merrill, Haggai, 146; the second, e.g., Petersen, Haggai, 216.
4. It also appears in the account of the temple construction in 1 Kings 7:49//2 Chron. 4:7, but there ten lampstands are created for the area outside the Most Holy Place (cf. 1 Chron. 28:15, although see 2 Chron. 13:11).
5. This is difficult to see in the NIV text, which does not translate the final phrase of Zech. 4:2. This final phrase repeats the phrase “at the top,” which in turn modifies “the bowl” earlier in the verse. Thus, both the bowl and the lights are said to be “at/on the top” (lit., “on its head”).
6. For other views of the shape of this article see R. North, “Zechariah’s Seven-Spout Lampstand,” Bib 51 (1970): 183–206, and Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 227–77. Meyers and Meyers draw in archaeological evidence of kernoi, which were tubular vessels for pouring liquids; they equate these with the gullah (“bowl”) of 4:2.
7. The preposition beyad (“beside”) is here taken as instrumental, “through.” See Hag. 1:1; 2:1; Zech. 7:7, 12; cf. Petersen, Haggai, 235–36.
8. The two sections ultimately evince two interpretations. This approach contrasts that of van der Woude who sought for an interpretation for each part of the lampstand: lampstand (temple mountain), bowl (temple building), lamps (eyes of the Lord), olives (two sons of fresh oil); A. S. van der Woude, “Zion as Primeval Stone in Zechariah 3 and 4,” in Text and Context: Old Testament and Semitic Studies for F. C. Fensham, ed. W. Claassen, (JSOTSup 48; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), 239. This is wrapped up in his assumption that the oracle is part of the interpreting angel’s response to the prophet. He, interestingly, does not find an interpretation of the elements in 4:12.
9. Baldwin, Haggai, 123.
10. For a list of the many scholars who have seen the menorah as symbolic of God’s presence, as well as other options, including the worshiping community and the temple and cult, see W. H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period (JSOTSup 304; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000) 179; S. Niditch, Symbolic Vision in the Biblical Tradition (HSM 30; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983), 104. Strand suggests Zerubbabel—in a wordplay on the “lamp” imagery associated with David’s line (2 Sam. 21:17); K. A. Strand, “The Two Olive Trees of Zechariah 4 and Revelation 11,” AUSS 20 (1982): 257–61.
11. Cf. Petersen, Haggai, 230. Strand (“Olive Trees,” 259) links them to two pillars in Solomon’s temple.
12. See R. T. Siebeneck, “Messianism of Aggeus and Proto-Zacharias,” CBQ 19 (1957): 321. Van der Woude (“Zion,” 239–40) modified the traditional view, identifying these two figures as the “expected messianic king and high priest of 6.13.”
13. Thus, many have seen the mention of Joshua and Zerubbabel in Zech. 3–4 as evidence of the identity of these two individuals; see Merrill, Haggai, 155.
14. Cf. Strand, “Olive Trees,” 257–61; Petersen, Haggai, 230; contra Rudolph, Haggai, 107–8; R. A. Mason, The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1977), 48; Baldwin, Haggai, 124; Merrill, Haggai, 155. Redditt has noted that šemen is used in a similar phrase (son of šemen, as here son of yiṣhar) in Isa. 5:1 and there designates “very fertile”; P. L. Redditt, “Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the Night Visions of Zechariah,” CBQ 54 (1992): 251. He proposes that the image is of olive trees sated with oil. Even if this constituted an allusion to anointing rituals, Strand has wisely observed that the olive trees are “sons of oil” because they furnish oil, not because they have received or been anointed with oil; cf. Strand, “Olive Trees,” 258.
15. This combination also occurs in 3:1, but there it is difficult to determine if the adversary is standing beside the angel of the Lord or beside Joshua. Notice also the similar construction in the prophetic call of Isaiah in Isa. 6:1–2: ʿamad + maʿal for the position of the seraphim.
16. See Rose for detailed evidence on these combinations; Rose, Zemah, 177–207.
17. Note that when elements of this vision are taken up in Rev. 11, these two individuals are clearly seen as prophetic, not royal or priestly, figures; cf. Strand, “Olive Trees,” 257–61; M. G. Kline, “By My Spirit,” Kerux 9/3 (1994): 27–29. Rose identifies them as angelic beings; Rose, Zemah, 177–207.
18. Haggai also bears witness to two phases in the work. The community begins work in Hag. 1:12–15 and is encouraged by the prophet to finish that preliminary work in 2:1–9. However, the foundation laying does not occur until a few months later (2:10–23; see esp. 2:18), revealing that the preliminary work involved clearing the rubble. Haggai, however, only records one ritual—the second one of foundation laying.
19. This view stands in contrast to those who interpret the mountain metaphorically either generally as the difficulties of this period or specifically as human adversaries: e.g., the high priest (with “mighty mountain” [har-haggadol] playing on high priest [hakkohen haggadol]), a Persian official, the Babylonians (cf. Jer. 51:25), other opposition (as Ezra 4:2, 4); cf. Petersen, Haggai, 239; E. Sellin, “Noch einmal der Stein des Sacharja,” ZAW 48 (1942/43): 70; L. G. Rignell, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja: Eine exegetische Studie (Lund: Gleerup, 1950); Baldwin, Haggai, 121. Van der Woude (“Zion,” 237–48), based on a Phoenician inscription, argues for any mythological mountain that competes with the glory of Mount Zion.
20. The term here is haʾeben haroʾšah (“the stone, the head”). Some see this as a completion stone, such as a capstone; e.g., Baldwin, Haggai, 121; Merrill, Haggai, 160. However, here we adopt the view of those in the following footnote who see it as the first stone drawn from the rubble of the previous temple.
21. The theme of blessing and grace is found in the rituals surrounding Mesopotamian rebuilding rituals, and there are examples of liturgical shouts to the royal figure, cf. A. Laato, “Zachariah 4,6b–10a and the Akkadian Royal Building Inscriptions,” ZAW 106 (1994): 60–61. Van der Woude (“Zion,” 237–48) follows the ancient translations (LXX, Vulgate, Syriac), which see the Heb. word translated “shouts” here as “splendour” (from a different Heb. root).
22. Cf. R. S. Ellis, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia (Yale Near Eastern Researches; New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1968), 101–2; Halpern, “Ritual Background,” 167–90; D. L. Petersen, “Zerubbabel and Jerusalem Temple Reconstruction,” CBQ 36 (1974): 366–72; Laato, “Zachariah 4,6b–10a,” 53–69; see full bibliography in M. J. Boda, Haggai-Zechariah Research: A Bibliographic Survey (Tools for Biblical Studies; Leiden: DEO Publishing, 2003). The translation “plumb line” is based on early versions of the Old Testament, but the Heb. text does not use the word for “plumb line.” Rather, it has “the stone of tin” (haʾeben habbedil), the second term of which is used for an alloy. Baldwin traces bedil to the Heb. root badal, which means “to separate” and thus sees the stone as the “separated stone” or the “chosen stone”; Baldwin, Haggai, 122. Van der Woude interprets this as an allusion to Zion (Temple Mount) as the primeval mountain, in this case called “ ‘Separation,’ because the primeval mountain separated cosmos from chaos for the first time”; van der Woude, “Zion,” 243.
23. See Isa. 28:16, where the laying of the first stone is called “laying a foundation” (same verb as here). Obviously this involved more than one stone. Although the royal figure often was said to lay the foundation in ancient Near East rituals, this was only the beginning of the foundation laying process; see Ellis, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia, 31–32.
24. Metals are associated with foundation laying rituals, as Ellis pointed out (ibid., 31, 102–4, 140). These metals enhanced the value of the building and the validity of the ceremonies connected with its construction (cf. Isa. 54:11). Tin was used in tablets deposited in foundations. This practice is stopped in later Assyrian kings and not used by Neo-Babylonian rulers. However, in Persian times the practice revives.
25. Cf. D. M. Howard, “The Transfer of Power from Saul to David in 1 Sam 16:13–14,” JETS 32 (1989): 473–83.
26. See Boda, “Haggai,” 295–304, on the rhetorical technique of this speech in Haggai.
27. See VanGemeren, Interpreting, 18–39.
28. Boda, “Haggai,” 295–304.
29. Cf. Howard, “Transfer,” 473–83; W. Ma, “The Spirit (RUAH) of God in Isaiah 1–39,” Asian Journal of Theology 3 (1989): 580–95; W. Hildebrandt, An Old Testament Theology of the Spirit of God (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995); L. J. Wood, The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976); R. J. Sklba, “ ‘Until the Spirit from on High Is Poured Out on Us’ (Isa 32:15): Reflections on the Role of the Spirit in the Exile,” CBQ 46 (1984): 1–17.
30. R. B. Gaffin, Perspectives on Pentecost: New Testament Teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979); W. Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Eastbourne: Kingsway, 1988); idem, ed. Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996).
31. The term “my witnesses” in Acts 1:8 has been linked to the words of Isa. 43:10, 12; 44:8, where it is used of the witness of Israel among the nations in opposition to idolatry. This may have prophetic overtones (Rev. 11:3) and may explain the paralleling of “servant” and “witness” in reference to Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles in Acts 26:16. See Bruce, who notes links to Isa. 43:10; 44:28 and Luke 24:48, and Haenchen who notes the many uses of “witness” in Acts relating to the apostles (Acts 1:8, 22; 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39, 41; 13:31), Paul (22:15; 26:16), and Stephen (22:20). The subject, interestingly, of this witness is Jesus’ resurrection and the context is Israel and the Gentiles. See F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 103; E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 143 n. 8.
32. For an elongated treatment of the issue of the Spirit’s role in the Christian’s life at conversion and beyond with discussion of differences between traditions, see Smith, Beginning Well, 190–203.
33. See J. R. McQuilkin, Understanding and Applying the Bible, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), or G. D. Fee and D. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 3d ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003).
34. I am thankful to my friend Philip Ryken (Tenth Presbyterian, Philadelphia) for suggestions on this great stream in the Protestant preaching tradition. Among the many I have read, see esp.: C. Bridges, The Christian Ministry, with an Inquiry into the Causes of its Inefficiency (Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1830), 50–63; C. H. Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students (Lynchburg, Va.: Old Time Gospel Hour, 1875), 2–22; D. M. Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971), 304–25; A. W. Tozer, The Divine Conquest (Harrisburg, Pa.: Christian Publications, 1950), 64–93; E. M. Bounds, Preacher and Prayer (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1952).
35. James Flavel, The Works of James Flavel (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1968), 6:573–74.
36. Cited in Bridges, Christian Ministry, 21.
37. A. G. Azurdia III, Spirit Empowered Preaching: The Vitality of the Holy Spirit in Preaching (Ross-Shire, UK: Mentor, 1998), 27.
1. That these two visions are to be read together as a unit is suggested by the appearance of the verb šwb (NIV “again”) at Zech. 5:1 and 6:1, but not in 5:5.
2. Notice how the Sabbath commandment functions as a linchpin between the two realms of relationship, instructing the people to keep it “holy” as a “Sabbath to the LORD your God,” but also as a day to keep one from oppressing one’s family, servants, or animals.
3. Some interpret the first vision (vv. 1–4) as a general call to both of these relationships (each side of the scroll covering one of the two relationships), while others interpret the second vision (vv. 5–11) as a continuation of the focus of the first on injustice. See further below.
4. On this see J. Blenkinsopp, “The Mission of Udjahorresnet and Those of Ezra and Nehemiah,” JBL 106 (1987): 409–21; J. L. Berquist, Judaism in Persia’s Shadow: A Social and Cultural Approach (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1995), 137–39; and vigorous debate on this issue in J. W. Watts, ed. Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch (SBLSymS 17; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001).
5. Cf. V. H. Matthews, “The Social Context of Law in the Second Temple Period,” BTB 28 (1998): 7–15.
6. Baldwin, Haggai, 126.
7. The difficulty of these economic conditions is reflected at many points in Haggai (Hag. 1:5–6, 9–11; 2:15–19). Zech. 8:9–13 reveals the socially fracturing effect of economic stress in this period. This focus on social injustice is the main thrust of Zechariah’s sermon on the fasting tradition in Zech. 7–8 (cf. 7:8–10; 8:16–17, 19b).
8. So unusual is this image that the Septuagint translates this term as drepanon (“sickle”).
9. The Hebrew idiom mizzeh . . . mizzeh is a spatial idiom for describing two sides or ends (Ex. 25:19; 26:13; 32:15 [tablets of the testimony]; 37:8; 38:15; Num. 22:24; Josh. 8:22, 33; 1 Sam. 14:4; 17:3; 23:26; 2 Sam. 2:13; 1 Kings 10:19, 20; Ezek. 45:7; 47:7, 12; 48:21; 2 Chron. 9:18, 19; 25), not a logical connector (on the one hand, on the other hand), as some have claimed.
10. So also Merrill, Haggai, 168; Chary, Aggeé-Zacharie, Malachie, 1000; Rignell, Nachtgesichte, 185; contra Mason, Haggai, 57, who links to Ezekiel’s scroll (Ezek. 2:10). Note that a scroll is important to Jeremiah’s prophetic revelation in Jer. 36, a passage clearly in mind in the prose sermon of Zech. 7–8, which also confronts social injustice in the Persian period.
11. On the various views, see esp. Mitchell, Smith, and Brewer, Haggai, 169; Mason, Haggai, 57; Halpern, “Ritual Background,” 178–79; Jeremias, Nachgesichte, 189; Merrill, Haggai, 166; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 281; J. D. Douglas, “Tabernacle,” in New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1982). Baldwin, Haggai, 126, raises some questions about these dimensions.
12. Halpern, “Ritual Background,” 179.
13. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 281.
14. This connection to the dimensions of the temple are important for those who see the rebuilding project as the driving force behind the night visions. The most ardent supporters of this interpretation recently have been Halpern, “Ritual Background,” 178–79, and Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 280. Chary notes that since ch. 4 was concerned with the temple, so also must ch. 5; Chary, Aggeé-Zacharie, Malachie, 99. Cf. my critique of these attempts in Boda, “Penitential Prophet,” 49–69.
15. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 280–81, and Merrill, Haggai, 166–67, argue that this approach is not mutually exclusive from the first.
16. Redditt, Haggai, 72.
17. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 281.
18. Merrill, Haggai, 167.
19. See D. N. Freedman, “The Flying Scroll in Zechariah 5:1–4,” in Studies in Near Eastern Culture and History, ed. J. Bellamy (Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Center for Near Eastern and North African Studies, 1990), 42–48, and his calculations.
20. So also Petersen, Haggai, 247: “It is equally difficult to explain what meaning that might have for the vision, the more so since the temple plays virtually no role in Zechariah’s vision”; cf. Baldwin, Haggai, 126.
21. See Boda, “Penitential Prophet,” 49–69. Meyers and Meyers reflect this distraction when they use this vision to claim that “concomitant with the idea of abundance is the notion that temple rebuilding promotes social order,” and “the temple restoration, as inaugurated by a refoundation ceremony, will affect all facets of life”; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 284, 293.
22. There is some debate over whether the phrase “over the whole land” refers particularly to the province of Yehud or universally to the entire earth. Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible it is used in both ways (more limited regions in Deut. 11:25; 1 Sam. 30:16; 2 Sam. 18:8; the cosmos in Gen. 1:29; 7:3; 8:9; 11:4, 8, 9). Elsewhere in the night visions “the whole land” is used in the more universal sense (Zech. 1:11; 4:14; 6:5); if this is true here in 5:3, it means that Zechariah sees implications for the Jewish community wherever they may be.
23. There may be a play on words here between the scroll (megillah) and the curse (haʾalah); cf. Petersen, Haggai, 246; C. Stuhlmueller, Rebuilding with Hope: A Commentary on the Books of Haggai and Zechariah (ITC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 91.
24. See H. C. Brichto, The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible (SBLMS 13; Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1968).
25. The only other context in which these two terms appear is Gen. 24:41, in the context of a covenant oath between Abraham and his servant.
26. So similarly Petersen, Haggai, 245; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 286. The NIV, along with Baldwin and Merrill, takes this term in a figurative way as “to be cleaned out” (“banished”), similar to Isa. 3:26; Baldwin, Haggai, 127; Merrill, Haggai, 170. However, the connections to Num. 5:19 prohibit this translation.
27. Notice how elsewhere when “swearing” and “falsely” appear together, one also finds references to someone cheating and/or oppressing another (Gen. 21:23; Lev. 5:12, 14; 19:12; Jer. 5:2; 7:9; Mal. 3:5).
28. Cf. Petersen, Haggai, 250 n. 259. The language of “swearing” in Ex. 20:7//Deut. 5:11 is different from that in Lev. 19:12 and Zech. 5:4. See Huffmon’s work on vocabulary connected with the third and ninth commandment: H. B. Huffmon, “The Fundamental Code Illustrated: The Third Commandment,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 363–71. Zech. 5 and Lev. 19 show that one cannot draw firm lines between the third and ninth commandments as he does for they combine vocabulary from both commands.
29. There may be an allusion here to Jer. 7:9, where stealing and perjury are also paralleled in a sermon connected to the critique of temple practices.
30. Cf. Redditt, Haggai, 72.
31. See also Zech. 1:14–17; 2:9; 3:6–10.
32. These two verbs are used in the Heb. idiom for the regular activity of humanity: “going out . . . coming in” (see Ps. 121:8; Zech. 8:10; cf. 2 Sam. 3:25; 1 Kings 15:17).
33. Elsewhere only used of Joshua (Josh. 8:9), when he remained for the night at the center of the military camp of Israel (the place of greatest protection for the commander).
34. Cf. Lev. 14:45 for combination of timbers and stones as the totality of a house in context of destruction.
35. A poetic image in which the part stands for the whole.
36. So also Merrill, Haggai, 170. Notice the use of “house” as the focus of punishment and judgment by Mesopotamian kings in Ezra 6:11; Dan. 2:5; 3:29. It is also found in ancient Near Eastern treaties; cf. Petersen, Haggai, 251.
37. J. Murray, “Law in the New Testament,” in The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 721–23.
38. See Fee and Stuart, Read, 135–47, esp. 147.
39. Considerable work has been done recently on the approach of Second Temple Judaism to the law. In particular, Sanders’s “covenant nomism” stresses the main themes we have identified in our reading of the Old Testament theology of law; cf. S. McKnight, A New Vision for Israel: The Teaching of Jesus in National Context (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 197–237. Similar appreciation of law is well documented in the work of Reformed theologians (e.g., see Murray, “Law,” 721–23).
40. J. E. Hartley, “Tôrâ,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, and B. K. Waltke (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 1:405.
41. See M. Duggan, The Covenant Renewal in Ezra-Nehemiah (Neh 7:72b–10:40): An Exegetical, Literary, and Theological Study (SBLDS 164; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001).
42. See Boda, Praying; Newman, “Nehemiah 9,” 112–23.
43. H. E. Clem, “Megilloth,” ABD, 4:680. Notice also how much of the New Testament functioned originally as letters that were read to congregations.
44. See D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992); K. J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, The Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998).
45. For this see Fowl and Jones, Reading in Communion.
46. James H. Cone, “Theology’s Great Sin,” paper given at American Academy of Religion, Denver, Colo. (Nov. 19, 2001).
1. For this see Petersen, Haggai, 255–59; M. Barker, “The Evil in Zechariah,” HeyJ 19 (1978): 23; Stuhlmueller, Rebuilding, 92; Merrill, Haggai, 174; Baldwin, Haggai, 128 (although she also embraces the second approach on p. 129); recently D. Rudman, “Zechariah 5 and the Priestly Law,” SJOT 14 (2000): 194–206.
2. In Mic. 6:10–11 the words rašaʿ and rešaʿ are also present, possibly the source of the word rišʿah (“wickedness”) in Zech. 5:8.
3. For this see Mitchell, Smith, and Brewer, Haggai, 173–74; S. Marenof, “Note Concerning the Meaning of the Word ‘Ephah,’ Zechariah 5:5–11,” AJSL 48 (1931–32): 264–67; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 296–316; Mason, Haggai, 58; Redditt, Haggai, 75; Floyd, “Evil,” 51–68.
4. Even the proponents of the social injustice approach see the ultimate function of this basket as sacred; e.g., Petersen, Haggai, 262. Notice Rudman, “Zechariah 5,” 205: “While there may not be any explicit connection with idolatry in the contents of the ephah, it would seem that there certainly is a cultic flavour to the ‘house’ which is built for it.”
5. Elsewhere this word is used in very general terms (Deut. 25:2; Isa. 9:17; Mal. 1:4; 3:15, 18). In Ezek. 18:20, 27 the meaning is general but is linked more specifically to idolatry and injustice (18:1–17; cf. 33:12, 19).
6. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 296.
7. Although the flying scroll of Zech. 5:1–4 seems to fit better in an outdoors context, it is perhaps appropriate to the sanctuary, where the covenant document was stored in the ark. Notice how in 5:3 the scroll is “going out” and in 5:4 God promises to “send it out” (same verb in Hiphil, “cause to go out”). This seems to be future action, and the source of this scroll would be God’s sanctuary.
8. The preexilic ephah was about ten litres, but the Persian period ephah, influenced by the Babylonian metrological system, was much larger, about thirty-six litres; cf. R. Fuller, “
,” NIDOTTE, 1:385.
9. They were also used to carry grain offerings into the sanctuary (Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 296), but the presence of a “weight” on top of the container shows it has been borrowed from the scale area.
10. Cf. Floyd, “Evil,” 51–68; Merrill, Haggai, 172–73. Merrill says “their eye” is an abbreviation for the longer phrase in Zech. 4:10.
11. Barker, “Evil,” 22.
12. See, e.g., Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 297. This is similar to the KJV’s “resemblance”; cf. M. Bic, Die Nachtgeschichte des Sacharja: Eine Auslegung von Sacharja 1–6 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1964), 56.
13. Rignell, Nachtgesichte, 191; D. R. Jones, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi: Introduction and Commentary (Torch Bible Commentaries; London: SCM, 1962), 83.
14. So Petersen, Haggai, 256; Baldwin, Haggai, 128; Redditt, Haggai, 73.
15. So Petersen, Haggai, 256.
16. See Gen. 29:2–3, where a stone covered a well. In this scenario one has to take “talent weight” back to its supposed root of “round” and argue that it means “a round thing.”
17. Note the use of the term “stone” here with the word “lead” (which is a metal) and parallel to the term “talent weight” (which is never used elsewhere of a lid). This means that “stone” is being used here in its technical sense of “weight.”
18. For the connection to idolatry see M. Delcor, “La vision de la femme dans l’Epha de Zach, 5:5–11 à la lumière de la littérature hittite,” RHR 187 (1975): 137–45.
19. Notice the double use of the word “pushed” (šalak, “to throw, shove”). The lead stone is placed “over its mouth,” that is, the opening of the measuring basket that is closest the referent, not the mouth of the woman.
20. These match depictions of angelic beings in the Bible (cf. Isa. 6). Floyd (“Evil,” 51–68) sees these beings as contrasting the cherubim that form God’s throne in the temple.
21. This is sometimes a challenge in Heb., in which the word for “spirit” and “wind” is the same (ruʾaḥ), and some say expresses double entendre, see Merrill, Haggai, 175.
22. See Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 307.
23. So, e.g., Rudman, “Zechariah 5,” 204.
24. Tammuz was a Mesopotamian god whose death was commemorated by mourning and possibly the source of seasonal change. One of the goddesses with which he was associated was Ishtar, which may explain why Ezek. 8 was influential on Zechariah’s vision.
25. Boda, “Horns,” forthcoming.
26. It is interesting that the folk etymology of “Babylon” was that it meant “the gate of the gods,” even if this is rejected as the true etymology by Assyriologists; Merrill, Haggai, 176.
27. The identical construction is used in both Zech. 5:11 and Ezra 3:3.
28. Millard has noted this in his review of names on ostraca and seals of the Assyrian period: Out of 1200 names, 557 are combined with yhwh (Yahweh), 77 with ʾel (God), 35 with other deities; A. Millard, “The History of Israel Against the Background of Ancient Near Eastern Religious History,” in From Ancient Sites of Israel: Essays on Archaeology, History and Theology in Memory of A. Saarisalo, ed. T. Eskola and E. Junkkaala (Helsinki: Theological Institute of Finland, 1998), 101–17. Cf. J. H. Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions (HSS 31; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986); M. S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990); S. Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah (HSM 46; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992); J. Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (JSOTSup 265; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).
29. E. Stern, “Religion in Palestine in the Assyrian and Persian Periods,” in The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times, ed. B. Becking and M. C. A. Korpel (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 244–53, esp. 247–48.
30. Queen of Heaven is probably Ishtar, Babylonian goddess of love and fertility (cf. 2 Kings 21; 23:4–14).
31. See Ackroyd, Exile, 39–49. For Isaiah’s reaction to idolatry see Isa. 40:18–20; 41:6–7; 46:5–7.
32. See Stern, “Religion,” 255; H. Niehr, “Religio-Historical Aspects of the ‘Early Post-Exilic’ Period,” in The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times, ed. B. Becking and M. C. A. Korpel (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 240.
33. M. Smith, “Jewish Religious Life in the Persian Period,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism: Volume One: Introduction: The Persian Period, ed. W. Davies and L. Finkelstein (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1984), 219–78; Ackerman, Green Tree; and Niehr, “Aspects,” 228–44, argue for enduring idolatrous practices into the Persian period. E. J. Bickerman, “The Diaspora: The Babylonian Captivity,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism: Volume One: Introduction: The Persian Period, 162–88, suggests a transitional period until 480 B.C. Stern, “Religion,” 245–55, argues for radical discontinuity between Babylonian and Persian period practices.
34. Boda, “Penitential Prophet”, 49–69.
35. H. Cox, Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-First Century (Reading, Mass.: Perseus, 1995), 299.
36. Unfortunately I could not find the bibliographical details of this book.
37. Cox, Fire from Heaven, 305.
38. By expressing this concern I risk Cox’s label of “fundamentalism,” which he sees as the other major response to the collapse of modernity and the institutional church (ibid., 300–304).
39. See also M. Dawn, Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down: A Theology of Worship for the Turn-of-the-Century Culture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), and S. Morgenthaler, Worship Evangelism: Inviting Unbelievers into the Presence of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999).
1. Tidwell and Halpern both note divine council connections in visions 1, 4, 5, 8, thus the envelope (1, 8) and central (4, 5) visions; Tidwell, “Waʾomar,” 343–55; Halpern, “Ritual Background,” 167–90.
2. See Boda, “Horns.”
3. This is typical of apocalyptic literature, where the human is played down at the expense of the divine, a feature that may be related to political savvy in a volatile international environment.
4. Mountain imagery is connected with El, Baal, Anat, and Mot in the Ugaritic texts; see R. J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (HSM 4; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1972), 132. The most prominent is Mount Zaphon, which is clearly linked to Baal and appears in connection with Jerusalem in Ps. 48:2 (57–79). In one Ugaritic text the Mount of El is identified as “the meeting of the (divine) council” (42).
5. By this we are not suggesting syncretism, something about which Zechariah is extremely vexed in the preceding vision (Zech. 5:5–11). Rather, the Israelites used common religious imagery sometimes as we do in the West when we speak of heaven as “up” and hell as “down,” or with a specific polemic in mind, that is, to show Yahweh’s sovereignty. Thus, Ps. 29 has many links to Canaanite poems honoring Baal, but these terms are used of Yahweh for polemical as well as liturgical ends. See F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1973), 151–56.
6. “Bronze” is used regularly in the Old Testament as an image of strength (Deut. 28:23; Judg. 16:21; 2 Chron. 33:11; 36:6; Jer. 1:18; 52:11; Lam. 3:7).
7. For the use of horses and chariots in Persian battles see Littauer and Crouwel, Wheeled Vehicles, 144–60.
8. For an excellent review of research on divine warrior imagery see T. Longman and D. G. Reid, God Is a Warrior (SOTBT; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995); P. D. Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1973), 105; also G. von Rad, Holy War in Ancient Israel, trans. M. J. Dawn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990). Interestingly God is pictured in the Old Testament utilizing chariots/horses (2 Kings 6:17) and also wind (Ex. 14:21), cf. Longman and Reid, Warrior, 42–43; Ryken, Wilhoit, and Longman, DBI, 210–13.
9. One may be tempted to relate color with function because of Rev. 6:1–8, but Zech. 6:1–8 does not offer the same guidance as Revelation, even though Revelation may have drawn on the night visions; cf. Strand, “Olive Trees,” 257–61; idem, “An Overlooked Old Testament Background to Revelation 11:1,” AUSS 22 (1984): 317–32.
10. Ps. 19:7 says the sun makes a circuit from one “end” of the heavens to the other; this seems analogous to the “ends of the earth” in Isa. 40:28; 41:5, 9; Job 28:24; cf. Ryken, Wilhoit, and Longman, eds. DBI, 952: “to picture all winds together emphasizes the totality of God’s sovereign dominion.”
11. Note how 1 Kings 22:19–23 depicts spirits standing before God to accomplish his will (cf. Job 1:6; 2:1).
12. See further Ryken, Wilhoit, and Longman, eds. DBI, 951–52, on the positive and negative role for wind. As Creator, Yahweh uses wind according to his pleasure (Ps. 135:7; 148:8; Jer. 10:13; 51:16). To describe the outpouring of God’s wrath in 587 B.C. the prophets use wind imagery (Jer. 4:11–13; 18:17; Ezek. 13:13).
13. Cf. Baldwin, Haggai, 131; Petersen, Haggai, 263–64; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 326.
14. This “so-called ‘independent relative’ clause” can be used in a verbal or verbless clause. See Gen. 7:23, “those with him,” Num. 22:6, “the one whom you bless,” and esp. 2 Kings 6:16, “More are they who are with us”; cf. IBHS, §19.3c.
15. Cf. Merrill, Haggai, 186.
16. The LXX matches the Hebrew MT, while the Vulgate has “behind the east.”
17. Both involve slight emendations; Petersen, Haggai, 264. West is sometimes represented by the preposition “behind.” It reveals a Semitic mindset about establishing directions as one faces east. Thus, east is represented by qedem, from qadam (“to come or be in front of”); south is represented by teman, from yamin (“right, right hand”); and west by yam (“sea”) or negeb (“Negev,” for south).
18. Merrill suggests that in the end north and south covers the four compass points, since one must go north in Palestine to head east and south to head west; Merrill, Haggai, 185–86.
19. So also Ezra 1:1–4 (cf. 2 Chron. 36) emphasizes the divine superintendence of Cyrus’s ascendancy. See also Ezra 6:14b, where the command of God is paralleled with the decrees of the Persian emperors.
20. See Petersen, Haggai, 271; cf. Rudolph, Haggai, 125.
21. See K. N. Foster, Binding and Loosing: Exercising Authority over the Dark Powers (Harrisburg, Pa.: Christian Publications, 1998), 249–67; T. Longman, Daniel (NIVAC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1999), 249–51.
22. Something confirmed by archaeological discoveries in Babylon; cf. ANET, 308.
23. R. W. Klein, Israel in Exile: A Theological Interpretation (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 38–39, 111–12.
24. Note C. S. Keener, Revelation (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 406; and D. E. Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb: A Commentary on Revelation (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2001), 243–44, who link the image of Babylon to Rome and yet see more. However, Gentry links it to Jerusalem; K. L. Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation, 2d ed. (Bethesda, Md.: International Scholars Publications, 1996); idem, He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillenial Eschatology, 2d ed. (Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1997), 391–96.
25. Notice the pattern of divine warfare in the Bible and ancient Near East highlighted by Longman and Reid: 1. Warfare; 2. Victory; 3. Kingship; 4. House building; 5. Celebration. Following victory in war comes kingship; Longman and Reid, Warrior, 83–88.
26. See esp. Longman and Reid, Warrior; and C. Sherlock, The God Who Fights: The War Tradition in the Holy Scripture (Rutherford Studies in Contemporary Theology 6; Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen, 1993).
27. This is the concern of Jeremiah in his day. Based on a false conclusion from Isaiah’s teaching (Isa. 1:8), the people had assumed that Jerusalem was inviolable; that is, no one would or could take it because of the Lord’s presence and promise (Jer. 7:4; cf. Ps. 48).
28. See Ryken, Wilhoit, and Longman, eds. DBI, 250–51.
29. There has been considerable debate over the appropriateness of the cry of vengeance for the Christian believer. See: J. G. Vos, “The Ethical Problem of the Imprecatory Psalms,” WTJ 4 (1942): 123–38; C. S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1958), 20–33; M. Chalmers, “Imprecations in the Psalms,” in Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation, ed. W. C. Kaiser (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972), 113–32; J. C. Laney, “A Fresh Look at the Imprecatory Psalms,” BSac 138 (1981): 35–45; W. Brueggemann, Praying the Psalms (Winona, Minn.: Saint Mary’s, 1993), 67–80; J. C. McCann and N. R. McCann, A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms As Torah (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993), 112–24; G. Pauls, “The Imprecations of the Psalmists: A Study of Psalm 54,” Direction 22 (1993): 75–86; A. M. Harman, “The Continuity of the Covenant Curses in the Imprecations of the Psalter,” RTR 54 (1995): 65–72
1. See Redditt, “Zerubbabel,” 76.
2. For detailed analysis of this section of Zechariah, see Boda, “Oil,” Art. 10.
3. Friebel, Sign-Acts, 14. Friebel identifies Zech. 6:9–15 as a sign-act; so also Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 338; Hanson, Dawn, 256. For this form see esp. R. M. Hals, Ezekiel (FOTL 19 Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 355; Fohrer, Handlungen, 18; Friebel, “Hermeneutical Paradigm,” 25–45.
4. Cf. Boda, “Oil,” Art. 10; idem, “From Fasts to Feasts: The Literary Function of Zechariah 7–8,” CBQ 65 (2003): 390–407.
5. Without this explanation, one is left looking for someone else to build the temple and either identify Jesus Christ as ultimate Davidic Son building the temple, the church, or a third temple in the eschatological age; Baldwin, Haggai, 137.
6. See Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 339–46, for an extended discussion.
7. A. Demsky, “The Temple Steward Josiah ben Zephaniah,” IEJ 31 (1981): 100–103. Another suggestion is that this is an expression meaning: “into the kindness of the son of Zephaniah”; Merrill, Haggai, 202.
8. A later Tobiah, an Ammonite official with close links with the Jerusalem temple, is well known for his opposition to Nehemiah (Neh. 12:10; 13:4, 7).
9. See Ezra 1:4, 6, 11; 2:68–69; 7:15–18; 8:24–34.
10. This began as early as 605 B.C. (see Dan. 1) and continued through deportations in 597 and 587 B.C. and beyond. It is uncertain from this text whether Josiah was ever in exile. Clearly he is distinguished from the three other individuals because he already has a “house”; if he did return, it was in an earlier wave.
11. The Heb. text is more energetic than even this translation for it repeats the verb “go” twice and infuses the redundant pronoun and adverbial phrase: “Go, yourself, on that day, go.” Such energy may display concern for the safety of this precious cargo in a volatile period in Yehud’s history (see Zech. 8:9–11).
12. Cf. Petersen, Haggai, 273–74; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 338, on this rhetorical technique, although I think Petersen’s link between this rhetoric and fund-raising techniques is misguided.
14. There has been considerable controversy over both the number of crowns referred to in this vision. For my approach see Boda, “Oil,” n.58.
15. For the translation of ṣemaḥ and the inappropriateness of “Branch,” see Original Meaning section of Zech. 3.
16. The LXX did not see Joshua as king for rather than translating “he will be a priest on his throne,” it produces “there will be a priest on his right hand.”
17. Cf. Baldwin, Haggai, 136; Merrill, Haggai, 197–201.
18. J. Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten übersetzt und erklärt, 2d ed. (Berlin: Reimer, 1893), 185; also J. Wellhausen, “Zechariah,” in Encyclopaedia Biblica, ed. T. K. Cheyne and J. S. Black (New York: Macmillan, 1903), 5390–95.
19. Petersen, Haggai; Redditt, “Zerubbabel,” 252–53; idem, Haggai, 76–79.
20. Hanson, Dawn, 256.
21. Barker, “Two Figures,” 33–46.
22. For the use of this phrase in the Old Testament see Boda, “Oil,” n.45.
23. When used with the verb “grow” (ṣamaḥ), “from his place” refers to the place from which something grows (Gen. 2:9; Ex. 10:5; Job 5:6; 8:19; Ps. 85:11). For this and other views see Boda, “Oil,” n.50.
24. There are slight differences between Zech. 6:9–15 and Jer. 23, 33 in that Zechariah’s presentation transforms the actions of ṣemaḥ (grow, build) from passive (God is the subject) to active (Branch is the subject) and focuses the building on the temple rather than city and province; cf. D. K. Stuart, “The Prophetic Ideal of Government in the Restoration Era,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison, ed. A. Gileadi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 283–92.
25. This is the only other place in the Old Testament where the combination “sit . . . rule . . . throne” appears.
26. This struggle is reflected as far back as the LXX, which translates here that the priest is seated at the right hand of the royal figure. See B. A. Mastin, “A Note on Zechariah VI 13,” VT 26 (1976): 113–16.
27. Cf. Petersen, Haggai, 278.
28. See further Boda, “Oil,” n.62, and great reviews of the Queen Mother by L. S. Schearing, “Queen,” ABD, 4:585–86, and N. A. Andreasen, “The Role of the Queen Mother in Israelite Society,” CBQ 45 (1983): 179–94.
29. These crowns will function as “residual reminders,” that is, “the sensory nonverbal items which resulted directly from the original actions but persisted after the communication event had been fully completed”; Friebel, Sign-Acts, 459–60.
30. Friebel (ibid., 26) highlights the importance of witnesses in sign-acts (Jer. 19:1, 10; 32:12; 43:9; Ezek. 4:12; 12:3, 4, 5, 6, 7; 21:11; 37:20).
31. See how this word “send” appears regularly in the calls of prophets, often in conjunction with “go”: Ex. 3:10–11; Isa. 6:8–9; Jer. 1:7; Ezek. 2:1–4.
32. This is not, then, an “ethical” warning, as suggested by Baldwin, Haggai, 138. This conclusion fits Friebel’s argument that sign-acts were not only oriented to the future but also shaped behavior and fit into contingent prophecy, offering “advice to the people of how they should respond to the circumstances, not predictive of how they would respond” (Jer. 27; Ezek. 21); Friebel, Sign-Acts, 51–57; cf. Friebel, “Hermeneutical Paradigm,” 25–45.
33. See John Kessler, “Diaspora and Homeland in the Early Achaemenid Period: Community, Geography and Demography in Zech 1–8,” in New Approaches to the Persian Period, ed. Jon L. Berquist (Semeia Studies; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden: Brill, 2005).
34. See further J. H. Elliott, The Elect and the Holy: An Exegetical Examination of I Peter 2:4–10 and the Phrase basileion hierateuma (NovTSup 12; Leiden: Brill, 2000); idem, 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; New York: Doubleday, 2000).
1. Although the section in which this allusion is found (Zech. 8:9–13), it is drawn from or refers to an earlier prophetic utterance by Zechariah; see Boda, “Fasts to Feasts,” 390–407.
2. See Boda, “Penitential Prophet,” 49–69.
3. Notice the link between the seventy years and the practice of fasting and prayer liturgy in Dan. 9:1–4, which is interestingly also set in the period of a king named Darius and, as here, includes a rebuke that discipline will continue because of the presence of sin in the community (9:20–24).
4. See Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 380.
5. For redactional levels in Zech. 7–8 see Boda, “Fasts to Feasts,” 390–407.
6. See Boda, “Fasts to Feasts,” 390–407.
7. See in this vein, Stuhlmueller, Rebuilding, 102; Petersen, Haggai, 282. Stuhlmueller concludes: “Israel’s aspirations are no longer to center upon kingship and its earthly domain but upon the temple and its priesthood.”
8. See Boda, “Penitential Prophet,” 60 n. 38.
9. Ezra 2:28 (par. Neh. 7:32) attests to a Jewish community at Bethel in the early Persian period. The archaeological record has been much debated. All agree that Bethel was spared in the Babylonian invasion of 597–596 B.C., but the precise date of its demise in the sixth century is uncertain, with dates ranging from 570 to 500 B.C. The site was rejuvenated in the mid-fifth century B.C. (cf. Carter, Emergence, 124–26).
10. The name Sharezer is a Mesopotamian name, but his declaration that he has been fasting for so many years reveals his strong adherence to Yahwism.
11. E. W. Conrad, Zechariah (Readings; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 133–34, 138.
12. See the comments on the Torah ruling of Hag. 2:10–14.
13. A. R. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel (Cardiff: University of Wales, 1962); R. J. Tournay, Seeing and Hearing God with the Psalms: The Prophetic Liturgy of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (JSOTSup 118; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991); cf. Boda, “Complaint,” 192.
14. See H. Huffmon, “Priestly Divination in Israel,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth, ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns/ASOR, 1983), 355–59.
15. This is a more general word for separation from the unholy and separation to God for holy purposes; see the Nazirite custom (Num. 6; Judg. 13). Its connection to fasting comes through the Nazirites abstaining from certain kinds of foods.
16. Bakah is a more general term for weeping, either in a positive sense (Gen. 33:4) or, more commonly, negative (Gen. 21:16; Ex. 2:6), while sapad is restricted to mourning rites and lamentation (Jer. 49:3; 14:13), but is often linked with bakah (Gen. 23:2; 2 Sam. 1:12; Ezek. 24:16; Mic. 1:8–10). Nazar is an elusive term, used elsewhere to refer to separation from something, thus in the Nazirite vow the individual is to separate from or abstain from certain liquids (Num. 6:3), but it can refer to other types of separation (see Lev. 15:31; 22:2; Ezek. 14:7). In contrast, ṣum refers exclusively to abstaining from food (2 Sam. 12:16–17; Est. 4:16).
17. This is generally accepted by biblical scholars. See Ackroyd, Exile, 207 n. 122.
18. It is difficult to determine if the Babylonians breached the wall first, following which the king and his troops (holed up in the palace) fled through the break in the wall (Jer. 39:1–10), or whether the king and his army broke through the wall during the night to escape the famine (2 Kings 25:3–7; Jer. 52:6–11).
19. There is some evidence of a mourning ritual (although no fasting is mentioned) in the seventh month already in place prior to Gedaliah’s assassination (Jer. 41:1, 4–6) which had as its destination the “house of the LORD.” This may have replaced the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16), which without temple personnel and structure would have been difficult to practice. The assassination of Gedaliah would have given another reason to mourn and fast on this day.
20. The legislation for the Day of Atonement in Lev. 16 uses the term nazar found also in Zech. 7:3 in the mouth of the delegation. This probably refers to fasting and in the legislation is linked to the issue of sin to avert disaster for the community.
21. See recent work on these compositions and settings in Boda, Praying; idem, “Priceless Gain,” 51–75; Werline, Penitential Prayer; R. J. Bautch, Developments in Genre Between Post-Exilic Penitential Prayers and the Psalms of Communal Lament (SBLABS; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003).
22. See Boda, “Complaint,” 186–97; cf. Isa. 58.
23. This is made explicit in Neh. 9:3 (Torah as written entity) and Dan. 9:2 (Jeremiah as written book), and implicitly through the anthological use of the Torah in all the Persian period prayers. Cf. Boda, Praying, 30–32; Newman, “Nehemiah 9,” 112–23; Newman, Praying.
24. For the festal interpretation see Redditt; Haggai, 82; for normal nourishment, see Baldwin Haggai, 144.
25. Where Isaiah uses the images of eating and drinking to accentuate a lack of repentance by the people of Judah. Instead of engaging in penitential rites (weeping, tearing out hair, and wearing sackcloth) as God instructed, they are fulfilling their appetites and accepting their destiny: “Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die.”
26. Carter gives a picture of the socioeconomic extent and prosperity of the province of Yehud; C. E. Carter, The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period (JSOTSup 294; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 249–324.
27. Cf. Petersen, Haggai, 289–291.
28. Isa. 1:23 reveals that bribes could pervert justice in Israel, tipping the courts in favor of the rich over the poor like the widow and fatherless.
29. One sees how abhorrent the nation has become when God even rejects widows and orphans in Isa. 9:17.
30. This vulnerability is vividly displayed in the book of Ruth in which Naomi represents both widow and alien in Ruth 1. This explains the depth of her pain and fear of the future.
31. See Carter, Emergence, 285; cf. Neh. 5; Hag. 1–2; Zech. 8:10–12.
32. Thus, Yahweh “plans disaster” on the disobedient: Jer. 26:3 (“the disaster I was planning”); cf. 29:11; 36:3. Notice the way in which Micah plays with this phrase to announce judgment: The people plan disaster (Mic. 2:1) and thus God will plan disaster for them (2:3).
33. So Baldwin, Haggai, 154.
34. Only used elsewhere of people in Isa. 6:10 (cf. 59:1 for God).
35. The LXX translates šamir as apeithe (“disobedient”), the Vulgate as admas (“hard”), showing that neither understood this as a rock.
36. As Petersen aptly expresses: “This notion of spirit enables the prophets to be viewed as direct agents of the deity: to reject them is to reject the deity”; Petersen, Haggai, 293.
37. So Merrill and also Baldwin who says that this is “not uncommon in the prophets,” Baldwin, Haggai, 148; Merrill, Haggai, 215–16.
38. Isa. 29:6; 40:24; 41:16; Jer. 23:19; 30:23.
39. Cf. Petersen, Haggai, 148; Merrill, Haggai, 216.
40. See Petersen, Haggai, 295 and H. Huffmon, “The Treaty Background of Hebrew yadaʾ,” BASOR 181 (1966): 331–37.
41. See Clines’s (Theme) excellent view on the themes of the Pentateuch arranged around the three promises to Abraham: promise of covenant, seed, and land.
42. In the Heb. text the word “pleasant” is the penultimate word in the text followed by the word “desolate.”
43. This has been noted by several scholars, including W. A. M. Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8 (Assen: van Gorcum, 1967), 129–32; Petitjean, Oracles, 348, 349; Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, trans. M. Greenberg (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960), 210 n. 17. Baldwin suggests that underlying Neh. 9:30 and Zech. 7:12 may be a well-known psalm; Baldwin, Haggai, 147.
44. Boda, “Penitential Prophet,” 49–69.
45. This is also seen in the New Testament. No one would question that Christ’s death on the cross is a redemptive-historical event that is unique and nonrepeatable. Nevertheless, this same event is also used in the New Testament to call Christians to appropriate modes of behavior (e.g., 1 Peter 2:21–25).
46. See Boda, Praying, 71–72.
47. Luke 18:12. Notice the practice of Anna in Luke 2:36–38, who fasts at the temple awaiting the Messiah. This account follows Simeon, who is “waiting for the consolation of Israel” (2:25). For views of exile and restoration, see J. M. Scott, ed. Exile: Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Conceptions (JSJSup 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997); idem, Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Conceptions (JSJSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 2000).
48. N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God 2; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 433–34.
49. In the early church fasting was also used when consecrating individuals for service (Acts 13:1–3; 14:23).
50. See further J. Chryssavgis, Repentance and Confession in the Orthodox Church (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox, 1988). The theology of repentance within biblical as well as Christian traditions is the focus of a forthcoming book for Liturgical Press that I am editing along with Gordon T. Smith, the result of a two-year consultation at the Society of Biblical Literature/American Academy of Religion. See also the forthcoming volume of A. Firey, ed., A New History of Penance (Leiden: Brill, 2005).
51. For this I am indebted to the superb work on the Puritans in W. R. Hastings, “Repentance in the Evangelical Theological Heritage” (Master’s Thesis, Regent College, 1992), 101; cf. T. Watson, The Doctrine of Repentance (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1987; reprint of 1668).
52. As Tozer longed for decades ago: A. W. Tozer, Worship: The Missing Jewel in the Evangelical Church (Harrisburg, Pa.: Christian Publications, 1961).
53. Although the church in which I grew up was not a “liturgical” church, we could predict the order of service each week with the same cadence of invocation, hymns, pastoral prayer, Scripture reading, offering (with singing of the doxology), sermon, and closing hymn.
54. See, e.g., E. B. Szekely, The Essene Gospel of Peace: Book One (San Diego: Academy of Creative Links, 1981); S. Meyerowitz, Juice Fasting and Detoxification (Summertown: Book Publishing Company, 1999); S. K. Fines, Spiritual Fasting: Creating Light Through Cleansing (Canada: 2001); S. Gabbay, Nourishing the Body Temple: Edgar Cayce’s Approach to Nutrition (Virginia Beach, Va.: A.R.E., 1999); C. L’Esperance, The Ancient Cookfire: How to Rejuvenate Body and Spirit Through Seasonal Foods and Fasting (Santa Fe, N.M.: Bear & Company Publishing, 1998).
55. See further, D. R. Smith, Fasting: A Neglected Discipline (Fort Washington, Pa.: Christian Literature Crusade, 1954); A. Wallis, God’s Chosen Fast: A Spiritual and Practical Guide to Fasting (London: Victory, 1968); J. F. Wimmer, Fasting in the New Testament: A Study in Biblical Theology (New York: Paulist, 1982); R. J. Foster, Celebration of Discipline, rev. ed. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1988), 47–61; E. L. Towns, Fasting for Spiritual Breakthrough: A Guide to Nine Biblical Fasts (Ventura, Calif.: Regal, 1996); J. Piper, A Hunger for God: Desiring God through Fasting and Prayer (Wheaton: Crossway, 1997).
56. See J. Muddiman, “Fast, Fasting,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 2:773–76.
57. I am thankful to my older brother, Matt, for jogging my memory of this event in our lives.
58. M. Buchanan, “Go Fast and Live: Hunger as Spiritual Discipline,” Christian Century (Feb. 28, 2001), 19.
59. For two works that use Zech. 7–8 as a call to justice, see N. E. Williams, “Looking Backward, Living Forward,” Witness 69 (1986): 18; W. Wink, “Standing on the Rock of the Impossible: From Zechariah 8 Through History to Recent Events—and Hope,” Church and Society 85 (1995): 3–9.
60. On this see esp. R. J. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: A Biblical Study (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1977) and the response of D. Chilton, Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators (Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1982).
61. A great example of this is the work of W. Rauschenbusch in the early twentieth century, considered the father of the social gospel. His reworking of the doctrine of atonement in sociological terms does “injustice” to the biblical doctrine (see his A Theology for the Social Gospel [Nashville: Abingdon, 1917]). However, his emphasis on the prophetic calls for social justice are accurate and necessary for the church today.
62. Consider the case study of the Christian & Missionary Alliance, which began with a great emphasis on the social aspect of the gospel but ultimately lost this. This is highlighted by N. Magnuson, Salvation in the Slums: Evangelical Social Work, 1865–1920 (ATLA Monograph Series 10; Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1977); J. V. Dahms, “The Social Interest and Concern of A. B. Simpson,” in The Birth of a Vision, ed. D. F. Hartzfeld and C. Nienkirchen (Beaverlodge, Alta.: Buena Book Services, 1986), 49–74; D. J. Evearitt, Body and Soul: Evangelism and the Social Concern of A. B. Simpson (Camp Hill, Pa.: Christian Publications, 1994); idem, “The Social Gospel vs. Personal Salvation: A Late Nineteenth-Century Case Study—Walter Rauschenbusch and A. B. Simpson,” in Alliance Academic Review, ed. E. Cuccaro (Camp Hill, Pa.: Christian Publications, 1997), 1–18. It is interesting that Rauschenbusch and Simpson served the same community in New York City.
63. For this movement see G. North, An Introduction to Christian Economics (no city: The Craig, 1973); D. Chilton, Paradise Restored: A Biblical Theology of Dominion (Fort Worth, Tex.: Dominion, 1985); G. North and G. Demar, Christian Reconstruction: What It Is, What It Isn’t (Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991), and responses by H. W. House and T. Ice, Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? (Portland, Ore.: Multnomah, 1988); W. S. Barker and W. R. Godfrey, eds. Theonomy: A Reformed Critique (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990);M. G. Moriarty, The New Charismatics: A Concerned Voice Responds to Dangerous New Trends (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 160–89.
64. See M. R. Gornik, “Between Resurrection and Reconciliation: The Story of New Song Community Church,” in Planting and Growing Urban Churches: From Dream to Reality, ed. H. M. Conn (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 235–43; N. Harper, “Baltimore: New Song Community Church,” in Urban Churches, Vital Signs: Beyond Charity Toward Justice, ed. N. Harper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 11–18; M. R. Gornik and N. Castellanos, “How to Start a Christian Community Development Ministry,” in Restoring At-Risk Communities, ed. J. M. Perkins (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 220; M. Gornik, To Live in Peace: Biblical Faith and the Changing Inner City (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).
65. For many other examples see the case studies in Harper, Urban Churches.
1. Boda, “Fasts to Feasts,” 309–407.
2. The reference to the “the countries of the east and the west” (Zech. 8:7) only makes sense if this oracle is spoken in Jerusalem. The skepticism assumed in 8:6 may suggest that Zechariah spoke it after he communicated the first night vision to his community.
3. The only difference is that the words “for Jerusalem” are left out.
4. The Heb. phrases are arranged in ABBA fashion: “I am zealous for Jerusalem (A) with great zeal (B), and with great wrath (B′) I am zealous for her (A′)”; cf. Baldwin, Haggai, 149.
5. In these squares, earlier prophets had seen destruction for the people, esp. the children (Jer. 9:20; Lam. 2:11, 12; Amos 5:16). Cf. Petersen, Haggai, 300–301.
6. Carter, Emergence.
7. Ibid.; see also Neh. 11:1, which reflects the problem of settlement in Jerusalem.
8. Although Zechariah refers to the people “at that time,” he is obviously speaking to those in his own period.
9. Baldwin, Haggai, 150.
10. hinni + the participle of yašaʿ + prep. min.
11. The reference to the “north” is a designation for Mesopotamian peoples who, because of the desert, always arrived in Israel from the north. Jeremiah’s idiom focuses attention on those in Mesopotamia, while leaving room also for those in other areas by adding phrases like “all the countries where he had banished them” (Jer. 16:15; 23:8), “the ends of the earth” (31:8).
12. Notice the use of the word ʾemet to depict the city in 8:3 (NIV “truth”).
13. The only formula used is “declares the LORD Almighty” at the end of v. 11, which comes at the juncture between past and future.
14. So also Petersen links this to the refoundation ceremony; Petersen, Haggai, 305. Zechariah clearly distinguishes between “now” (Zech. 8:9; lit., “in these days”) and “that time” (v. 10).
15. The reference to “every man against his neighbor” in Heb. means this is internal strife between one’s own people, not external attack from enemies. Elsewhere God “sent” (NIV “turned”) external punishments against Israel (nations, 2 Kings 24:2; plagues, Ezek. 28:23), but here he uses internal methods (cf. Isa. 19:2).
16. Cf. Carter, Emergence.
17. Contra NIV, which interprets this phrase as an idiom—“the seed will grow well.”
19. See also Deut. 33:28, where grain, new wine, and dew are signs of blessing.
20. This cannot be seen in the NIV. In the Heb., “let your hands be strong” is the first phrase in Zech. 8:9 following “This is what the LORD Almighty says” (8:9).
21. The connection between temple rebuilding and social justice is seen in Mesopotamian ceremonies; cf. J. A. Bewer, “Ancient Babylonian Parallels to the Prophecies of Haggai,” AJSL 35 (1919): 128–33.
22. Note that the focus in 8:1–8 is on urban prosperity, while 8:9–13 develops the prosperity of rural Yehud.
23. E.g., F. Hartman, Zechariah: Israel’s Messenger of the Messiah’s Triumph (Bellmawr, N.J.: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1994); R. B. Gifford, Zechariah: The Gift of Vision (Deeper Life Pulpit Commentary; Camp Hill, Pa.: Christian Publications, 1998).
24. See M. W. Elliott, “Remnant,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. D. Alexander and B. S. Rosner (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2000), 723–26; and esp. G. F. Hasel, The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah, 3d ed. (AUMSR 5; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews Univ. Press, 1980).
25. F. Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols and The Anti-Christ, trans. R. J. Hollingdale (New York: Penguin Books, 1990), 52.
26. Paul W. Hoon, Integrity of Worship (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971), 141. I am grateful to Ravi Zacharias for drawing my attention to this quote, found in A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 162.
1. See Boda, “Fasts to Feasts,” 390–407. For an explanation of the historical context of this dialogue, see 7:1–14 (Original Meaning).
2. See Boda, “Penitential Prophet,” 49–69; cf. Boda, Praying.
3. Petersen, Haggai, 309–10.
4. C. Westermann, Prophetic Oracles of Salvation in the Old Testament (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991).
5. Petersen (Haggai, 310–11) notes Ex. 24:3 and the regular appearance of this vocabulary in the Deuteronomic tradition; cf. M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 65, 152, 261, 304, 336.
6. NIV, “to each other” in Zech. 8:16; “against your neighbor” in v. 17.
7. Hosea declares God’s hatred of the people’s activity at Gilgal (idolatry, 9:15). Jer. 44:1–6 links the fall of Jerusalem to God’s hatred of idolatry. Amos 5:18–27 mentions God’s hatred in connection with both idolatry and justice. Other references to God’s hatred in the prophets are linked to injustice (Isa. 61:8; Mal. 2:16). The last one is esp. interesting because of its link to the injustice of women and children as already seen in Zech. 7:9–10. Notice how this is attacked in relation to festal activity (2:13).
8. The NIV unfortunately masks this by adding the word “again” in 8:18, which is not in the Heb. text, and by adding the phrase “to me” in 8:1, which is also not present. Notice how 7:8 uses “to Zechariah.”
9. “The Prophet has maintained that the time for fasting is over and the time of feasting is imminent”; Petersen, Haggai, 314.
10. Cf. E. H. Merrill, “Pilgrimage and Procession: Motifs of Israel’s Return,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison, ed. A. Gileadi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 261–72.
11. E.g., Merrill, Haggai, 233–36; Hartman, Zechariah, 73–82; Gifford, Zechariah: The Gift of Vision, 137–68.
12. Similar to how the first destruction marked a major transition in redemptive history.
13. C. J. H. Wright, “The Ethical Authority of the Old Testament: A Survey of Approaches,” TynBul 43 (1992): 227–28; idem, Walking in the Ways of the Lord: The Ethical Authority of the Old Testament; idem, Deuteronomy (NIBCOT; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996); idem, “Old Testament Ethics: A Missiological Perspective,” Catalyst 26.2 (2000; available at http://catalystresources.org/issues/262wright.html); cf. B. A. Strawn, “The X-Factor: Revisioning Biblical Holiness,” Asbury Theological Journal 54 (1999): 79–81.
14. Wright, “Missiological Perspective,” online source.
15. T. Campolo, The Kingdom of God Is a Party (Waco: Word, 1990), 3–9.
16. On this story see A. W. Tozer, Wingspread: A. B. Simpson—A Study in Spiritual Altitude (Harrisburg, Pa.: Christian Publications, 1943); A. E. Thompson, A. B. Simpson: His Life and Work (Harrisburg, Pa.: Christian Publications, 1960); R. K. Niklaus, J. S. Sawin, and S. J. Stoesz, All for Jesus: God at Work in the Christian and Missionary Alliance over One Hundred Years (Camp Hill, Pa.: Christian Publications, 1986).
17. Dahms, “Social Interest”; cf. Evearitt, Body and Soul; idem, “Social Gospel,” 1–18.
18. Magnuson, Slums, 178.
19. On social transformation see further H. M. Conn and M. Ortiz, Urban Ministry: The Kingdom, the City and the People of God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 340–57.
20. This statement by Aristides, a philosopher from Athens speaking before the emperor Hadrian, is widely available on the Internet: e.g., see “Christian Quotations of the Day” at Oct. 22, 2002, http://cqod.gospelcom.net/cqod0210.htm. The full text is available at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/aristides-kay.html.
1. On the divine warrior image in the Bible and ancient Near East see G. von Rad, Holy War in Ancient Israel, trans. M. J. Dawn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990); S.-M. Kang, Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East (BZAW 177; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989); C. Sherlock, The God Who Fights: The War Tradition in the Holy Scripture (Rutherford Studies in Contemporary Theology 6; Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen, 1993); T. Longman and D. G. Reid, God Is a Warrior (SOTBT; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995).
2. Suggestions range from the period of the Neo-Assyrian empire, e.g., E. G. H. Kraeling, “The Historical Situation in Zechariah 9:1–10,” AJSL 14 (1924–25): 24–33; A. Malamat, “The Historical Setting of Two Biblical Prophecies on the Nations,” IEJ 1 (1950–51): 149–59; to that of the Greeks, e.g., H. G. T. Mitchell, J. M. P. Smith, and J. A. Brewer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), 258–60; K. Elliger, “Ein Zeugnis aus der jüdischen Gemeinde im Alexanderjahr 332 vor Christi,” ZAW 62 (1949–50): 63–115; M. Delcor, “Les allusions a’ Alexandre le Grand dans Zach 9:1–8,” VT 1 (1951): 110–24.
3. M. J. Boda, “Reading Between the Lines: Zechariah 11:4–16 in its Literary Contexts,” in Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion and Zechariah 9–14, ed. M. J. Boda and M. H. Floyd (JSOTSup 304; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 277–91.
4. For this see Boda and Floyd, eds. Bringing Out the Treasure (see previous note) and Boda, “From Fasts to Feasts,” CBQ 67 (2005): forthcoming. Differences in literary styles of these chapters are most likely related to divergent genres rather than to authors (see the introduction).
5. On these various cities see the excellent article by C. Meyers, “Foreign Places, Future World: Toponyms in the Eschatology of Zechariah 9,” in Avraham Malamat Volume, ed. S. Ahituv and B. A. Levine (Eretz Israel 24; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993), 164*–172*. She treats this list as evidence of territorial claim rather than as a military campaign, although in my opinion these two aspects cannot be separated. Schellenberg sees these cities as “within the ideal borders of the Promised Land (Numbers 34)”; A. F. Schellenberg, “One in the Bond of War: The Unity of Deutero-Zechariah,” Didaskalia 12/2 (2001): 106.
6. See I. Eph’al, “Syria-Palestine under Achaemenid Rule,” in Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean c. 525 to 479 B.C., ed. J. Boardman et al. (CAH 4; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988), 154–55; M. Hengel, “The Political and Social History of Palestine from Alexander to Antiochus III (333–187 B.C.E.),” in The Cambridge History of Judaism—Volume Two: The Hellenistic Age, ed. W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989), 43.
7. Besides being a traditional enemy of Israel, Phoenicians were key to Persian hegemony of the ancient Near East with their naval expertise. Their ships contributed to the Persian war effort against the Greeks.
8. Meyers and Meyers compare here Ps. 18:42//2 Sam. 22:43, where the psalmist uses the same comparison (“as dust . . . as dirt of the streets”) to refer to the utter devastation of one’s enemies; Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 101. This, however, does not take into account the verb ṣabar, which refers to heaping up a large quantity (Gen. 41:35, 49; Ex. 8:10) with special focus on riches (Job 27:16; Ps. 39:7).
9. Meyers and Meyers (ibid., 104) note that the absence of Gath in prophetic lists is not surprising, considering its close ties with Israel (esp. during the time of David) and its inclusion in Israel (2 Chron. 11:5–12).
10. E. Stern, The Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538–332 B.C.E. (Warminster/Jerusalem: Aris and Phillips/Israel Exploration Society, 1982), 243–44; cf. Petersen, Haggai, 52.
11. Notice how Isa. 23:5 also uses this word “writhe” when speaking of Egypt’s reaction to the fall of Tyre.
12. It is possible that the “pride” here refers to the king of Ashdod (see Zech. 10:11, where pride and scepter are parallel). See Amos 1:8, where one may suggest the reading “king” (the one who sits in Ashdod); cf. Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 111. The word here for “foreigner” refers in Deut. 23:3 to a person of mixed race, who was banned from the assembly of Israel.
13. See, e.g., Deut. 29:16; 1 Kings 11:5, 7; 2 Kings 23:13, 24; 2 Chron. 15:8; Isa. 66:3; Jer. 4:1; 7:30; Ezek. 5:11; Dan. 9:27; Hos. 9:10; Nah. 3:6. The only reference that is not linked to idolatry is Nah. 3:6.
14. Another example of late use of ban ideology (“ban as God’s portion”) according to S. Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1993), 28–55, esp. 54. Sherlock traces the link between the ban and idolatry (see Deut. 7; 13:15; 20:16–18); cf. Sherlock, God Who Fights, 47–105, 240.
15. Hobbs highlights among the evidence for early reconciliation of Philistines, the appointment of Ittai of Gath as general under David (2 Sam. 15:10ff.; 18:2–12); T. R. Hobbs, “The Language of Warfare in Zechariah 9–14,” in After the Exile: Essays in Honour of Rex Mason, ed. J. Barton and D. J. Reimer (Macon, Ga.: Mercer Univ. Press, 1996), 123; cf. Meyers, “Foreign Places,” 169*.
16. Schellenberg argues that in the mythic pattern of the ancient Near East “the arrival of the god at his temple is a sign that he has won the victory and established his kingdom”; Schellenberg, “One,” 106.
17. So P. LaMarche, Zacharie IX–XIV: Structure littéraire et messianisme (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1961), 42.
18. This is a typical rhetorical move in Heb. literature. One can see this, for example, throughout Isa. 40–55, Lam. 1–2, and even in Zech. 2. Meyers and Meyers see the use of feminine imagery as a rhetorical strategy emphasizing helplessness; Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 138.
19. Contrast C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, “The Future Fortunes of the House of David: The Evidence of Second Zechariah,” in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. A. Beck (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 207–22; A. Leske, “Context and Meaning of Zechariah 9:9,” CBQ 62 (2000): 663–78.
20. See E. M. Meyers, “Messianism in First and Second Zechariah and the End of Biblical Prophecy,” in ‘Go to the Land I Will Show You’: Studies in Honor of Dwight W. Young, ed. J. E. Coleson and V. H. Matthews (Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 4; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 134–36,142; so also the allusion in Zech. 9:10 to Ps. 72:8, a psalm linked in the superscription to the Davidic line. Cf. Meyers and Meyers, “Future Fortunes,” 210: “couched in Davidic, royal language”; and F. Laubscher, “The King’s Humbleness in Zechariah 9:9. A Paradox?” JNSL 18 (1992): 130.
21. See Boda, “Reading,” 277–91.
22. Cf. Boda, “Oil,” Art. 10.
23. See M. Lind, Yahweh Is a Warrior: The Theology of Warfare in Ancient Israel (Kitchener, Ont.: Herald, 1980), 171–72.
24. Kang notes this trend in the ancient Near East and the Old Testament (Ps. 24:8; 47:3–4); Kang, Divine War, 197–98.
25. Lind, Yahweh Is a Warrior, 172.
26. See esp. I. Duguid, “Messianic Themes in Zechariah 9–14,” in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts, ed. P. E. Satterthwaite (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995), 268. Thus these verses with their tone of humility and peace are not in tension with the surrounding divine warrior sections. The king’s role was submission and trust in God. On royal humility see Kraeling, “Historical Situation,” 30.
27. Laubscher sees ṣadiq as the characteristic of one who upholds ṣedeq, “the ideal order”; Laubscher, “Humbleness,” 131–32.
28. In this we are following the more difficult reading of the Heb. tradition rather than the ancient versions, which suggest an active participle (“Savior”). See also Kraeling, “Historical Situation,” 30; Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 126; Redditt, Haggai, 114; and esp. Duguid, “Messianic Themes,” 267 n. 268. On this suffering image of the king, see R. B. Crotty, “The Suffering Moses of Deutero-Zechariah,” Colloquium 14 (1982): 44–45, although his connection to Moses is a stretch.
29. Laubscher relates this humility to the relationship of the king to God; Laubscher, “Humbleness,” 131.
30. This link to humility is not universally accepted. It is true that mules were used in war and that Yadin has concluded that they were “more suited than horses to battle in hill country” (2 Sam. 13:29; 18:9); Y. Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands: In the Light of Archaeological Study, 2 vols. (New York: McGraw-Hill., 1963), 2:287. Laubscher claims that because donkeys were associated with kings, the author could not be indicating lowly status; Laubscher, “Humbleness,” 130. His argument, however, ignores the possibility that this was indeed the intention for its use with kings in the first place. Hobbs follows Eilberg-Schwartz in seeing in this image the domination of the king over the nations (donkey); Hobbs, “Language,” 124–25; H. Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of Israelite Religion and Ancient Judaism (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana Univ. Press, 1990), 127–28. Their connection between aliens and donkeys, however, is weak. On the metaphorical level, Eilberg-Schwartz falls into the fallacy that James Barr (on the lexical level) called “illegitimate totality transfer,” that is, reading every possible meaning into one instant of the word or image, J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University, 1961), 217–18; cf. E. A. Nida, “The Implications of Contemporary Linguistics for Biblical Scholarship,” JBL 91 (1972): 86.
31. So Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 501–2; Duguid, “Messianic Themes,” 267; D. Krause, “The One Who Comes Unbinding the Blessing of Judah: Mark 11.1–10 As a Midrash on Genesis 49.11, Zechariah 9.9, and Psalm 118.25–26,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders (JSNTSup 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 147. Menken shows how John 12:15 reveals an awareness of this link between Gen. 49:10–11 and Zech. 9; M. J. J. Menken, “The Quotations from Zech 9,9 in Mt 21,5 and in Jn 12,15,” in John and the Synoptics, ed. A. Denaux (BETL 101; Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press, 1992), 576.
32. The text here suggests that the royal figure is on one animal with the parallel lines denoting the same beast. Matt. 21:1–7, however, cites this passage as the basis for Christ requesting two beasts for his procession into Jerusalem. For various proposals see R. Bartnicki, “Das Zitat von Zach 9:9–10 und die Tiere im Bericht von Matthäus über dem Einzug Jesu in Jerusalem (Mt 21:1–11),” NovT 18 (1976): 161–66; see Menken for view that this is a Matthean link to 2 Sam. 16:1–4; Menken, “Quotations,” 571–74.
33. Notice how later kings use horses and chariots (Jer. 17:25). For the ancient Near Eastern evidence see Lipinski, “Recherches,” 51–52; also J. Sasson, “Ass,” in IDBSup, 72–73; Laubscher, “Humbleness,” 126–27.
34. Duguid, “Messianic Themes,” 268.
35. See Yadin, Art.
36. Meyers and Meyers (“Future Fortunes,” 211–12) also see this in ancient Near Eastern literature. One should not miss the key contrast that the king here does not win a military victory with God, but rather God does this alone.
37. See also Amos 8:12 (and possibly Mic. 7:12), where “sea to sea” is a merism for “everywhere.”
38. So also Meyers, “Messianism,” 135; Duguid, “Messianic Themes,” 266–67; K. J. Larkin, The Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study of the Formation of a Mantological Wisdom Anthology (CBET 6; Kampen: Kok, 1994), 75.
39. See esp. M. Saebø, “From Empire to World Rule: Some Remarks on Psalms 72.8; 89.26; Zechariah 9.10b,” in On the Way to Canon: Creative Tradition History in the Old Testament, ed. M. Saebø, (JSOTSup 191; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 129–30.
40. “Waterless pit” is used for Jeremiah in Jer. 38:6, but not “prisoner.” Some see the lack of water as positive (water could have drowned them); Petersen, Zechariah 9–14, 60; Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 141; some as negative (no drinking water); Baldwin, Haggai, 168. Most likely the water is not the issue.
41. See Petersen, Zechariah 9–14, 60; Baldwin, Haggai, 167.
42. The imperative “return” at the beginning of Zech. 9:12 agrees with the word “prisoners.”
43. The Heb. pronoun here is feminine singular, as is “Daughter of Zion . . . Daughter of Jerusalem” in v. 9.
44. Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 144.
45. Notice how Ephraim often signifies the entire northern kingdom (e.g., Isa. 7:2, 5, 8, 9, 17; 11:13).
46. The fact that the Babylonians placed their provincial capital in Mizpah after the fall of Jerusalem is suggestive of the magnitude of destruction in Jerusalem (2 Kings 25). Even in the time of Nehemiah the low population in Jerusalem was a serious problem (Neh. 7; 11). Cf. C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, “Demography and Diatribes: Yehud’s Population and the Prophecy of Second Zechariah,” in Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays in Honor of Philip J. King, ed. M. D. Coogan, J. C. Exum, and L. E. Stager (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 268–85, for concern over population in Zech. 9–14 and the early Persian Period.
47. The Heb. constructions here are also used in 2 Kings 9:24; Jer. 51:3. Based on Akkadian expressions, S. Paul demonstrates how the term “bow” does double duty in this verse, as represented in the NIV (“bow . . . it”); S. M. Paul, “A Technical Expression from Archery in Zechariah ix 13a,” VT 39 (1989): 495–97.
48. K. G. Hoglund, Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Mission of Ezra and Nehemiah (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992).
49. See R. Weis, “A Definition of the Genre Maśśaʾ in the Hebrew Bible” (Ph.D., Claremont Graduate School, 1986), 183–85.
50. Javan is the same term as Greece in Zech. 9:13.
51. See Schellenberg, “One,” 107.
52. Here we have an instance of double entendre, for the word “roar” was also associated with the shouts of enemies against their oppressors (Ps. 46:6; 83:2; Jer. 50:42; 51:55).
53. See, e.g., Ex. 27:3; 38:3; Num. 4:14; 7:13, 19; 1 Kings 7:40, 45, 50; 2 Kings 12:14; 25:15; Neh. 7:69; Jer. 52:18–9; Zech. 14:20.
54. On this see Hobbs, who cites Isa. 9:5; 66:24; Hobbs, “Language,” 110.
55. See Mitchell, Smith, and Brewer, Haggai, 260, who see it influenced by the Battle of Issus, while still looking to the future.
56. See, e.g., Crotty, “Suffering in Deutero-Zechariah,” 54: “Zechariah ix–xiv is set in an apocalyptic context. It must be read against the background of the end-message of history”; Meyers, “Foreign Places,” 165*: “not directed towards specific events of the past or expected events of the immediate future. Rather, all are projected into the eschatological future.”
57. See C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952); Bartnicki, “Das Zitat von Zach 9:9–10,” 161–66; Menken, “Quotations,” 571–78; M. C. Black, “The Rejected and Slain Messiah Who Is Coming with His Angels: The Messianic Exegesis of Zechariah 9–14 in the Passion Narratives” (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1990).
58. In this I depart from Duguid, who claims that “Jesus overflows the categories of Zechariah 9:9”; Duguid, “Messianic Themes,” 277. Zech. 9:9–10 refer to Christ’s role as Davidic ruler while 9:1–8 refer to his role as Yahweh. Through the mystery of the Incarnation we see the uniting of both divine and Davidic rule (see Rom. 1:4).
59. Sherlock, God Who Fights, 243.
60. Ibid., 244.
61. H. K. LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation (AUMSR 13; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews Univ. Press, 1983), 138.
62. This balance between northern and southern issues is highlighted by LaMarche, Zacharie IX–XIV, 42. See also Schellenberg, “One,” 107, on the unity of tribes in Zech. 9–10.
63. A. W. Tozer, Born After Midnight (Harrisburg, Pa.: Christian Publications, 1963), 11.
64. A. W. Tozer, The Divine Conquest (Harrisburg, Pa.: Christian Publications, 1950), 90.
65. See the attempt by B. Whitesel and K. R. Hunter, A House Divided: Bridging the Generation Gap in Your Church (Nashville: Abingdon, 2000), who suggest a “tri-generational” model, that is, “a holistic congregation with three distinct generational sub-congregations peacefully co-existing under one roof, one name, and one leadership core” (p. 83). With each “sub-congregation” possessing a distinct shepherd (pastor), lay shepherding team, ministries, and artistic expression (pp. 90–91), it appears that strategy accentuates rather than “bridges” the generation gap. The community of God throughout the ages is clearly intergenerational. This generation gap has been emphasized in recent years through distinct worship styles, and several authors have offered suggestions on blending worship. See D. T. Benedict and C. K. Miller, Contemporary Worship for the 21st Century: Worship or Evangelism (Nashville: Discipleship Resources, 1994), 96–104; R. E. Webber, Blended Worship: Achieving Substance and Relevance in Worship (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996); idem, Empowered by the Holy Spirit: A Study in the Ministries of Worship (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1998), 28–34; M. Thielen, Ancient Modern Worship: A Practical Guide to Blending Worship Styles (Nashville: Abingdon, 2000).
66. On this see Ortiz’s practical guide to recovering the diversity of the church in M. Ortiz, One New People: Models for Developing a Multiethnic Church (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996). One serious hurdle to ethnically diverse churches in North America is the pervasive nature of the “homogenous unit principle” within evangelical missiology. The positive side of this principle is that it reminds us that people should be able to hear the gospel in their own cultural forms (language, worship style, etc.). The negative side is that it can promote racism and division in the church. One can discern this tension in Ken Fong’s manual for ministry: K. U. Fong, Pursuing the Pearl: A Comprehensive Resouce for Multi-Asian Ministry (Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson, 1999), 3–8; cf. H. M. Conn and M. Ortiz, Urban Ministry: The Kingdom, the City and the People of God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 313–39.
1. Floyd notes similarity between the address to Judah (Zech. 10:3b–5) and Ephraim (10:6–12) in the verb “to strengthen” and the noun “mighty ones,” but wisely notes the distinctions: Judah is victorious in struggle for good leadership, Ephraim is gathered and brought home; Floyd, Minor Prophets, 477.
2. See M. Saebø, Sacharja 9–14: Untersuchungen von Text und Form (WMANT 34; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 205; R. A. Mason, “Some Examples of Inner Biblical Exegesis in Zech. IX–XIV,” in Studia Evangelica Vol. VII: Papers Presented to the 5th International Congress on Biblical Studies Held at Oxford, 1973, ed. E. A. Livingstone (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 126; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1982), 344–45.
3. R. C. Dentan, “Zechariah 9–14,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick (New York: Abingdon, 1956), 6:1098–99.
4. Stuhlmueller, Rebuilding, 130; Redditt, Haggai, 118; Floyd, Minor Prophets, 467.
5. So Hanson, Dawn, 324–26; Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 181.
6. See esp. the battle between Yahweh and Baal in the Elijah narratives. Yahweh withholds rain from Israel in order to embarrass Baal and his followers. In the climactic scene in 1 Kings 18 the test focuses on the ability to send down fire from heaven (lightning), and once Baal is defeated rain returns to the land.
7. The verb “ask” (šaʾal) elsewhere refers to a prophetic or priestly inquiry of God or idols, but usually the preposition bet introduces God (see, e.g., Judg. 20:18, 23, 27; 1 Sam. 10:22; 22:1, 13, 15; 23:2, 14; 2 Sam. 2:1; 5:19, 23), while here the preposition min is used. This preposition is normally used for asking someone for something (Ex. 3:22; 11:2), though it is used in Ps. 2:8; 21:5; 27:4 for a request of God. The reference in Zech. 10:1 does not appear, then, to have a prophetic inquiry in mind.
8. The initial imperative (“ask”) is addressed to an unknown group, possibly those who wander like sheep (NIV “people”) in 10:2, but more likely the “shepherds” of 10:3.
9. Van der Toorn’s review of the ancient Near Eastern evidence concludes that terapim could refer either to household gods or to ancestral worship, but the analysis of Old Testament evidence convinces him that it refers to images of dead ancestors, esp. as one compares Deut. 18:11 with 2 Kings 23:24, where “dead” and terapim stand in the same place; K. van der Toorn, “The Nature of the Biblical Teraphim in the Light of the Cuneiform Evidence,” CBQ 52 (1990): 203–22; so also Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 184–87. Consulting and venerating ancestors was a key feature in the worship of Canaan; cf. M. J. Boda, “Ideal Sonship in Ugarit,” UF 25 (1994): 9–24.
10. See van der Toorn, “Teraphim,” 203–22.
11. Identical: Jer. 14:6 “pasture” = Zech. 10:1 “plants”; Jer. 14:14 “lies” = Zech. 10:2 “lie”; Jer. 14:4 “rain” = Zech. 10:1 “rain”; Jer. 14:5 “in the field” = Zech. 10:1 “of the field”; same Heb. root: Jer. 14:14 “divinations” = Zech. 10:2 “diviners”; Jer. 14:14 “visions” = Zech. 10:2 “visions.” See R. A. Mason, “The Use of Earlier Biblical Material in Zechariah 9–14: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis,” in Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion and Zechariah 9–14, ed. M. J. Boda and M. H. Floyd (JSOTSup 304; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 63–69; idem, “Examples,” 345; R. Nurmela, Prophets in Dialogue: Inner-Biblical Allusions in Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14 (Åbo: Åbo Akademi University, 1996), 114–19; R. F. Person, Second Zechariah and the Deuteronomic School (JSOTSup 167; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 107–8.
12. See Boda, “Complaint to Contrition,” 186–97.
13. So in an Egyptian text prior to 2000 B.C. a god-king delivers Egypt as a herdsmen of all men (ANET, 443). So also Hammurabi claims he is a shepherd (ANET, 164).
14. It is interesting that this term is applied to foreign royal figures in Isa. 14:9, evidence that may suggest that the reference to “male goats” here is a subtle allusion to Persian overlords. Meyers and Meyers sees the image of shepherds/male goats as referring to “two tiers of human leadership”; Meyers and Meyers, “Future Fortunes,” 213.
15. See Boda, “Reading,” 277–91.
16. So also Merrill, Haggai, 272.
17. The NIV follows most interpreters by translating “them,” a reference to Judah. Leske uses this to bolster his argument for a corporate interpretation of the royal hope in Zech. 9–14; Leske, “Zechariah 9:9,” 673–74.
18. The translation “cornerstone” is not appropriate here because when it refers to this elsewhere, it is linked to the Heb. term for “stone” (ʾeben): see Job 38:6; Isa. 28:16; Jer. 51:26.
19. For play on Ps. 118:22 and allusion to kingship, see Mason, “Use,” 79–80; Meyers and Meyers, “Future Fortunes,” 214.
20. Meyers and Meyers, “Future Fortunes,” 214–15.
21. See Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 202.
22. See Mason, “Use,” 82–83. Egyptian kings used the title “he who repels the nine bows,” in which the bows were hostile kings.
23. A Heb. technique that Meyers and Meyers call “reverse gapping”; Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 199.
24. The NIV follows the suggestion of BHS and evidence of Syriac; cf. Petersen, Zechariah 9–14, 74; Baldwin, Haggai, 174. However, see Meyers and Meyers, who follow the MT and cite a similar list followed by “together” in Jer. 31:8; Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 203–4.
25. It is often combined with the term ḥayil (as Josh. 10:7), but not always (Josh. 10:2). It is difficult to tell whether a “mighty man” is a general term for military personnel or a technical term for a foot soldier. This term is associated usually with those who carry hand weapons (shield, sword, bow, sling, spear), wear protective clothing (helmets, coats of armor), and proceed on foot (1 Sam. 2:4; 2 Sam. 1:21, 22; 23:8; 1 Chron. 8:40; 12:1–2, 8; 2 Chron. 17:17; 26:12; Joel 2:7). It is less clear in contexts that contain lists whether this is a summary term or not (Ps. 33:16–17; Jer. 46:9; 50:36–37; Ezek. 39:20; Amos 2:14–16). Ps. 45:3–5 is the one context that pictures a “mighty man” (here the king) on a horse.
26. For this term “overthrow” see Ps. 44:7; 53:5 (NIV, “put to shame”).
27. See Leske, “Zechariah 9:9,” 674 n. 30.
28. Ibid., 673–74, esp. 674 n. 30; Mason, Haggai, 100; Hanson, Dawn, 331.
29. See further, P. C. Craigie, The Problem of War in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978); Lind, Yahweh Is a Warrior; von Rad, Holy War; Longman and Reid, Warrior.
30. Leske, “Zechariah 9:9,” 674.
31. See Boda, Praying the Tradition; idem, “Complaint,” 187–97; idem, “Priceless Gain,” 51–75; R. A. Werline, Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism: The Development of a Religious Institution (SBLEJL 13; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998); J. H. Newman, Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism (SBLEJL 14; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999); R. J. Bautch, Developments in Genre Between Post-Exilic Penitential Prayers and the Psalms of Communal Lament (SBLABS; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003).
32. See N. Mendecki, “Deuterojesajanischer und Ezechielischer Einfluss auf Sach 10:8–10,” Kairos 27 (1985): 340.
33. “Gather”: Deut. 30:3–4; Neh. 1:9; Ps. 106:47; 107:3; Isa. 11:12; 43:5; 49:18; 54:7; 56:8; 60:4; Jer. 23:3; 29:14; 31:8; 31:10; 32:37; Ezek. 11:17; 20:34, 41; 28:25; 34:13; 36:24; 37:21; 39:27; Hos. 2:2; Mic. 2:12; 4:6; Zeph. 3:19, 20; “redeem”: Isa. 35:10; 51:11; Jer. 31:11 (used of the Exodus in Deut. 7:8; 9:26; 13:6; 15:15; 21:8; 24:18; 2 Sam. 7:23//1 Chron. 17:21; Neh. 1:10; Ps. 78:42; Mic. 6:4).
34. Many have emended the Heb. zaraʿ (“plant”) to zarah (“scatter, winnow”) because the latter often appears in contexts concerned with restoration. Winnowing occurs at the end of the growing season, when farmers separate the wheat from the chaff and the chaff is scattered. After planting, of course, the seed takes root.
35. For this see Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 216.
36. The same Heb. idiom is also found in Josh. 17:16.
37. Meyers and Meyers, “Demography,” 271; cf. Mendecki, “Einfluss,” 341.
38. See Carter, Emergence.
39. Assyria’s exile of the Israelites is often linked to Egypt’s enslavement of them (Isa. 10:24; 11:16; 52:4).
40. The reference to people in “Assyria” when Mesopotamia was now ruled by Persia is not odd. Not only is Assyria a traditional area of Mesopotamia, it was the name for the area when the Israelites were taken into exile. The Jewish community at Elephantine in “Egypt” may have originated in the northern kingdom; Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 220.
41. Mendecki, “Einfluss,” 342, claims that Gilead is mentioned first because it was the first area deported.
42. There is an allusion to the Israelite Exodus tradition here, expressed as a polemic against Canaanite myth; Hanson, Dawn, 332; Petersen, Zechariah 9–14, 78; Merrill, Haggai, 279.
43. The verbs “pass through” and “subdue” are both masculine singular forms.
44. Cf. 2 Kings 19:24; Job 28:10; Isa. 7:18; 19:6; 33:21; Ezek. 29:10; Dan. 12:5–7. This word usually refers to the “Nile,” but is merely the term “stream.”
45. See Merrill, Haggai, 282.
46. R. Foster, You Can Understand Bible Prophecy (Cincinnati: United Church of God, 1999); R. Foster, J. Patton, J. R. Schroeder, and D. Treybig, The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy (Cincinnati: United Church of God, 2001). Note especially the strong influence of the Worldwide Church of God under Herbert W. and Garner T. Armstrong in the past century, who identified the ten lost tribes with Europeans and North Americans.
47. See, e.g., H. M. Bracken, “Bishop Berkeley’s Messianism,” in Millenarianism and Messianism in English Literature and Thought 1650–1800 (Publications from the Clark Library Professorship, UCLA 10; Leiden: Brill, 1988); C. H. Gordon, “The Ten Lost Tribes,” in Hebrew and the Bible in America (Brandeis Series in American Jewish History, Culture and Life; Hanover, N.H.: Univ. of New England Press, 1993), 61–69.
48. An article in The Asianage (July 17, 1999) reports the following: The Israeli interior ministry has given its approval in principle to ultra-orthodox rabbi Eliyahu Avishayil’s plans to bring to Israel 3,000 Shinlung tribesmen from the Indo-Burmese border. According to him, the Shinlung live like Jews and are probably descended from one of Israel’s ten lost tribes.
49. Note the booklet from 1932 entitled, “Who Are The Japanese? ‘An address given by Prof. E. Odlum, M.A., B.Sc., in the Oak Room, Hotel Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C., on March 28th, 1932.’ ”
50. E.g., F. P. Miller, Zechariah and Jewish Renewal: From Gloom to Glory (Lithonia, Ga.: Moellerhaus, 1992).
51. See, of course, the classic work of Calvin on Zech. 10:6, J. Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets (Calvin’s Commentaries 13–15; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989).
52. G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 112.
53. Interestingly, the Qumran community also saw themselves as the remnant of Israel, esp. in their division into twelve tribes led by twelve chiefs (1QSa 1.27–2.1).
54. See also LaRondelle, Israel of God, 145.
55. See the importance and power of this principle in Leighton Ford’s The Power of Story (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1994).
1. On this see Boda, “Reading,” 277–91.
2. See H. W. Wolff, “Der Aufruf zur Volksklage,” ZAW 76 (1964): 48–56; Floyd, Minor Prophets, 627–28.
3. Anadiplosis is a catchword technique in which a word or root from one verse is carried over into the next verse. This is seen esp. in the Psalms of Ascent. See, e.g., Ps. 121: help (v. 1) . . . help (v. 2); watches/slumber (v. 3) . . . watches/slumber (v. 4); shade (v. 5) . . . shade (v. 6); harm (v. 6) . . . harm (v. 7); watch (v. 7) . . . watch (v. 8).
4. Hanson identifies this as royal procession imagery, similar to Ps. 24:7–10; Hanson, Dawn, 335. Floyd highlights the significance of this ancient urban image here, which envisions a “directive of a sentry to guards below to open the gates at the approach of friendly troops”; Floyd, Minor Prophets, 482.
5. The use of Lebanon to signify the temple is common in midrashic literature but is not used in the Old Testament; contra Ryken, Wilhoit, and Longman, DBI, 499; cf. Larkin, Eschatology, 102–3.
6. See Amos 2:9, where cedars are linked to great height and oaks to great strength; in Ezek. 27:5–6 cedars from Lebanon make the mast (height), while oaks of Bashan make the oars (strength) for the ship of Tyre.
7. Cf. Baldwin, Haggai, 178; contra Petersen, Zechariah 9–14, 83.
8. The best guess is that this refers to the pastures since it is shepherds who are wailing.
9. D. R. Jones, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi: Introduction and Commentary (Torch Bible Commentaries; London: SCM, 1962), 149; Baldwin, Haggai, 178; Mason, “Use,” 74; Stuhlmueller, Rebuilding, 132; Person, Second Zechariah and the Deuteronomic School, 111, 124; Larkin, Eschatology, 101, 103; Nurmela, Prophets in Dialogue, 133–36.
10. See also Boda, “Reading,” 277–91.
11. See Original Meaning section of Zech. 6:9–15.
12. Baldwin, Haggai, 179.
13. Redditt has linked this historically to the oppression in Neh. 5, but there, of course, the oppression is not seen as an act of God’s judgment, while here it is; P. L. Redditt, “Nehemiah’s First Mission and the Date of Zechariah 9–14,” CBQ 56 (1994): 664–78.
14. See E. Power, “The Shepherd’s Two Rods in Modern Palestine and in Some Passages of the Old Testament,” Bib 9 (1928): 434–42.
15. See Mitchell for a list of the many possibilities; Mitchell, Smith, and Brewer, Haggai, 306.
16. This phrase is common in prophetic literature to bolster the authenticity of the prophetic word: see comments on Zech. 6:9–15.
17. Carter, Emergence, 283.
18. Whether one makes the argument based on the value of a slave in Ex. 21:32 or based on general ancient Near Eastern evidence. For Sumerian possibilities see E. Reiner, “Thirty Pieces of Silver,” JAOS 88 (1968): 186–90; on an Akkadian text from Tel el Amarna see Lipinski, “Recherches,” 53–55; cf. Larkin, Eschatology, 130. Baldwin, however, builds a case for this as a significant sum, based on Nehemiah’s comment in Neh. 5:15 that the governors had gathered forty shekels from the people, which was oppressive; Baldwin, Haggai, 184. Moreover, the reference to the slave in Ex. 21:32 may be showing a high value the Torah placed on human life.
19. On the basis of these prophetic passages, Delcor and Baldwin argue that the silver will become an idol; M. Delcor, “Deux passages difficiles: Zach 12:11 et 11:13,” VT 3 (1953): 76–77; Baldwin, Haggai, 185.
20. Contra NIV. For this see the form in Isa. 8:5 where clearly “again” (ʿod) refers to God’s speech; cf. Ezek. 8:13; Hos. 3:1. Notice in 2 Kings 4:6 when “again” (ʿod) refers to the exhortation that follows it.
21. A similar construction occurs in 1 Sam. 17:40, where David places his stones into a “shepherd’s bag” (keli haroʿim). Zech. 11:15 is most likely a more general reference to the equipment of the shepherd.
22. See Boda, “Reading,” 277–91.
23. Mason, “Use,” 115–16; D. A. Witt, “Zechariah 12–14: Its Origins, Growth and Theological Significance” (Ph.D., Vanderbilt University, 1991), 60; Nurmela, Prophets in Dialogue, 136–46.
24. See Boda, “Oil,” Art. 10.
25. Boda, “Reading,” 277–91.
26. Ibid.
27. See Floyd, Minor Prophets, 649.
28. The only other places where this term means “worthless” are Job 13:4 and Jer. 14:14. The latter case, however, can also be linked to idolatrous behavior.
29. Notice the severity of the result: “completely withered . . . totally blinded,” expressions formed by building up words from the same root in Heb.
30. See K. G. Friebel, “A Hermeneutical Paradigm for Interpreting Prophetic Sign-Actions,” Didaskalia 12/2 (2001): 25–45; cf. idem, Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts (JSOTSup 283; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999).
31. See M. J. Boda, “Zechariah: Master Mason or Penitential Prophet?” in Yahwism After the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era, ed. B. Becking and R. Albertz (Studies in Theology and Religion 5; Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2003), 49–69, and various articles in Boda and Floyd, eds. Treasure.
32. N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God 2; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 584.
33. See further Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 38–39.
34. G. Genette, Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree, trans. C. Newman and C. Doubinsky (Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska Press, 1997); Boda, “Reading,” 277–91.
35. See B. D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (The Contraversions Series; Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1998).
36. Mason, “Use,” 208; cf. Person, Second Zechariah and the Deuteronomic School, 201.
37. R. North, “Prophecy to Apocalyptic Via Zechariah,” in Congress Volume: Uppsala, 1971, ed. H. Nyberg (VTSup 22; Leiden: Brill, 1972), 51; cf. Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 44–45.
38. E. Martens, “Reaching for a Biblical Theology of the Whole Bible,” in Reclaiming the Old Testament: Essays in Honour of Waldemar Janzen, ed. G. Zerbe (Winnipeg: CMBC Publications, 2001), 101.
39. See Boda, “Reading,” 277–91.
40. This does not make Judas the “good shepherd” of Zech. 11:4–16; rather, it highlights the fact that money was also used to relieve Jesus as the “good shepherd” of his duties, that is, through betrayal and delivery to the political authorities.
41. Cf. Boda, “Reading,” 277–91.
42. Tom Beaudoin notes how for this new generation, “Suffering Has a Religious Dimension” and “Ambiguity Is Central to Faith.” See T. Beaudoin, Virtual Faith: The Irreverent Spiritual Quest of Generation X (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998), 96–142.
1. On Zech. 13:7–9 and its role in chs. 12–14, see comments on 13:7–9.
2. For a superb review of various approaches to the structure of this passage see E. J. C. Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of Watchers and Apocalyptic (OtSt 35; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 116–20; but also Petersen, Zechariah 9–14, 109–10; Redditt, Haggai, 128–32; Floyd, Minor Prophets, 495.
3. This form precedes “on that day” with an untranslated Heb. verb (hayah).
4. In the wisdom context it is used to explain why one cannot contest God’s sovereign will (9:14) or to encourage people to turn to God for help (5:8).
5. Smith suggests this is an allusion to the Persian army and cites Herodotus 7.60–99; Smith, Micah-Malachi, 273.
6. Merrill, Haggai, 313; Redditt, Haggai, 129; Floyd, Minor Prophets, 519; Tigchelaar, Prophets, 120–21.
7. See further W. McKane, “Poison, Trial by Ordeal and the Cup of Wrath,” VT 30 (1980): 474–92.
8. Tigchelaar, Prophets, 120.
9. See Petersen, Zechariah 9–14, 112; Redditt, Haggai, 132; Mason, “Use,” 145–46, although Mason goes too far in linking this term to the proper order of the cultus in the Second Temple.
10. Nearly every time “horse” and “rider” are linked in the Old Testament, they refer to a military scene: Ex. 15:1, 21; 2 Kings 9:18–19; 18:23; Job 39:18; Isa. 36:8; Jer. 6:23; 50:42; 51:21; Ezek. 23:6, 12, 23; 38:15; Hos. 14:3; Amos 2:15; Hab. 3:8; Hag. 2:22; Zech. 1:8. In some cases it denotes a royal image, which is most likely a subset of the military sense, as Ezek. 23:6, 12, 23 shows (see Est. 6:8, 9, 11; 8:10; Jer. 17:25; 22:4).
11. Interestingly Deut. 28:28 is not related to a military engagement.
12. On the importance of the Zion tradition in Lamentations see Boda, “Priceless Gain,” 51–75.
13. Merrill argues against equating this reference with the third person of the Trinity; Merrill, Haggai, 318.
14. So also Tigchelaar, who notes: “This spirit effects two complementary aspects: being favourable and asking someone to look in favour”; Tigchelaar, Prophets, 124–25. Ap-Thomas misses these two aspects by interpreting the “and” as signaling an explanation: “a spirit of favour, or rather, of supplication for favour”; D. R. Ap-Thomas, “Some Aspects of the Root ḤNN in the Old Testament,” JSS 2 (1957): 128–48.
15. The LXX offers an interesting perspective on the Heb. text here at the word “pierced” (daqar). We find here the verb katorcheomai, a word not found elsewhere in the LXX. This has typically been translated as “treated spitefully,” thus taking this piercing as metaphorical for the Israelites’ treatment of God and displaying the uncomfortability of the ancient translators with a reference to the death of God. It is interesting, however, that at three places in the LXX the Heb. verb raqad (“to stamp about/dance”) is translated with orcheomai (1 Chron. 15:29; Eccl. 3:4; Isa. 13:21). Furthermore, in Eccl. 3:4 this “dancing” is the opposite of “mourning” (sapad), the very next Heb. term in Zech. 12:10 (Jerome also suggested that the LXX had a text with raqad, see M. Delcor, “Un probleme de critique textuelle et d’exegèse: Zach 12:10,” RB 58 [1951]: 189–99). Thus, what is in view here is “those who danced will mourn for him as one mourns for. . . .”
16. Some have interpreted this as a reference to child sacrifice related to the siege of the city in 12:1–9, similar to 2 Kings 3:27, where Mesha’s son is sacrificed to stop the siege; Petersen, Zechariah 9–14, 121. Interestingly, in the sacrifice of Isaac stress is laid on the special character of Isaac as the “only son” (Gen. 22:1–2). The difficulty with this interpretation is that Zech. 12 emphasizes God’s salvation of Jerusalem.
17. Merrill, Haggai, 324.
18. Delcor, “Deux passages difficiles: Zach 12:11 et 11:13,” 70–73.
19. See S. Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah (HSM 46; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 79–93, esp. 89–91; J. Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (JSOTSup 265; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 71.
20. Similar rites were connected with the cult of Tammuz in the Mesopotamian context (see Ezek. 8:14).
21. See Merrill, Haggai, 323.
22. So similarly Witt, “Zechariah 12–14”, 48.
23. A similar technique is used in Ps. 48:2, in which Mount Zion is compared to the “heights of Zaphon,” the dwelling place of Baal and the highest mountain in Syria. For other examples see Day, Gods and Goddesses, 91–127.
24. See discussion in Mason, “Use,” 160–67. M. Dahood, “A Note on the Third Person Suffix -y in Hebrew,” UF 4 (1972):163–64, argues that no emendation is needed, suggested that ʿly is a variant of ʿlyw.
25. See the excellent discussion in Mason, “Use,” 160–67.
26. Suggestions range from Uriah, Josiah, Gedeliah, Jeremiah, Zerubbabel, Onias III, Simon Maccabeus, Judas Maccabeus.
27. See Otzen, Studien, 173–83. This explains the reference to “me” as an oral piece from the ritual.
28. See further Petersen, Zechariah 9–14, 121; Mason, “Use,” 163–64.
29. See GKC §144p; Merrill, Haggai, 320. This use of “him” may have arisen because of the construction of the phrase “the one whom they have pierced.”
30. For this metaphorical approach see Delcor, “Un problème,” 189–99; Merrill, Haggai, 320; cf. Prov. 12:18, so possible reason for LXX and Vulgate.
31. This separation may be reflected in 2 Chron. 35:25, which refers to lamenting male and female singing groups. Certainly women played a special role separate from men in mourning rituals, see Jer. 9:17–26. This gender separation is picked up in the m. Sukk. 51–52.
32. Smith, Micah-Malachi, 277; Stuhlmueller, Rebuilding, 149.
33. See Num. 4 for the responsibilities of the various sons of Levi and of the Kohathites.
34. See the similar phrase (lit.) “well of living water” in Gen. 26:19; Song 4:15.
35. It is interesting that the term for “fountain” (maqor) here is also used for the flow of fluids connected with childbirth and menstruation (Lev. 12:7; 20:18; Prov. 5:18), fluids that also brought impurity (niddah) because of their connection to death (Lev. 12:2, 5; 15:19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 33; Lam. 1:17; Ezek. 18:6; 22:10). However, the “fountain” in this case caused the impurity, while in Zech. 13:1 the “fountain” brings cleansing.
36. E.g., Floyd, Minor Prophets, 528.
37. E.g., Conrad, Zechariah, 184; Tigchelaar, Prophets, 127.
38. So also Otzen, Studien, 195.
39. See, e.g., Mason, “Use,” 168–69; Baldwin, Haggai, 195; Redditt, Haggai, 134.
40. See Tigchelaar, who cites Jer. 23:9–40 and Deut. 13; Tigchelaar, Prophets, 131.
41. The same construction (“remove from”) is used in 1 Kings 15:12 for expelling male prostitutes who served alongside idols.
42. Cf. Mason, who links this to Jeremiah’s vision of a new covenant in which there will be no need for teaching the word of God since all will know God; Mason, “Use,” 170.
43. Note how this narrative follows the account of the prophet Balaam and when the narrative resumes in Num. 31, reference is made to the death of Balaam and to the idolatrous affair at Peor. This may account for the idolatry-prophecy connection in Zech. 13:1–6.
44. The noun form (bošet) of this verb “ashamed” (bwš) is used throughout the prophetic literature to refer to the worship of Baal (Hos. 9:10; Jer. 3:24; 11:13).
45. Floyd, Minor Prophets, 532–33.
46. This last phrase has been a great challenge to translators and interpreters. The NIV translation is based on a change to the word divisions in the Heb. text, based on the fact that the particular form of the verb here (qanah in the Hiphil) is not attested elsewhere. Other suggestions include allusions to illicit seduction (Petersen, Zechariah 9–14, 107) and hallucinatory activity (H. L. Ginsberg, “The Oldest Record of Hysteria with Physical Stigmata, Zech. 13:2–6,” in Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. Y. Avishur and J. Blau [Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein, 1978], 23–27) among others, but these are unnecessary once the connection to Cain is recognized; see Floyd, Minor Prophets, 533.
47. It is also possible that these two Genesis sibling traditions are referring to deception (Jacob/Esau) and murder (Cain/Abel), the second being an allusion to Zech. 12:10 and the piercing of God or his representative.
48. Redditt, Haggai, 136; Floyd, Minor Prophets, 533.
49. So Mason, Haggai, 122; Baldwin, Haggai, 197; Petersen, Zechariah 9–14, 127; Witt, “Zechariah 12–14”, 53.
50. Interestingly, Jer. 5:7 contains the verb often used for pagan ritual cutting, but here it is often translated as “gather together” (NIV “throng”). If this is another reference to ritual practice, it would show the connection between idolatry, prostitution, and cutting ritual; see Ackerman, Green Tree, 88–89.
51. See D. Mathewson, “Revelation in Recent Genre Criticism: Some Implications for Interpretation,” TrinJ ns13 (1992): 193–213, for a superb review of the study of apocalyptic. For more detailed discussion of the definition and interpretation of apocalyptic, see J. J. Collins, ed., Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre (Semeia 14; Missoula., Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979); idem, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1984); S. L. Cook, Prophecy and Apocalypticism: The Postexilic Social Setting (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995); P. D. Hanson, Old Testament Apocalyptic (Interpreting Biblical Texts; Nashville: Abingdon, 1987); D. S. Jacobsen, Preaching in the New Creation: The Promise of New Testament Apocalyptic Texts (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999).
52. J. J. Collins, “Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre,” in Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre, ed. J. J. Collins (Semeia 14; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979), 9.
53. Cf. Hanson, Apocalyptic, 35–38. For the key role of prophetic literature, see D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964); idem, Divine Disclosure: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); idem, Prophecy and Apocalyptic Dream: Protest and Promise (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994). Even Collins says: “Postexilic prophecy undoubtedly supplied some of the codes and raw materials utilized by the later apocalypses”; Collins, Imagination, 26. This does not preclude, however, the influence of other key streams represented in the Old Testament, esp. that of the wisdom tradition. The emphasis on interpretations of mysterious symbols and numbers has often been linked to the wisdom tradition of Babylon, esp. as represented in Daniel; see Larkin, Eschatology; Hanson, Apocalyptic, 26.
54. There is a growing uneasiness with linking apocalyptic to oppression, with many scholars opting for the term “crisis”; see Hanson, Apocalyptic, 29; J. J. Collins, Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature (FOTL 20; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 22.
55. As Carroll so poignantly stated: “It is not easy to differentiate between prophetic discourses and apocalyptic language”; R. P. Carroll, “Deportation and Diasporic Discourses in the Prophetic Literature,” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Conceptions, ed. J. M. Scott (JSJSup 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 63–85; cf. D. C. Olson, “Jeremiah 4.5–31 and Apocalyptic Myth,” JSOT 73 (1997): 81–107. Petersen identifies Zech. 9–14 as prophetic literature, not apocalyptic; Petersen, Zechariah 9–14, 24, esp. n. 65.
56. So similarly in Zech. 1–6 we find visionary experiences with otherworldly guides and a cosmic dimension. However, the items encountered in these visions are drawn from the natural world and interpreted, and lacking from these visions is the “characteristic worldview”; Collins, Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 20. One can discern similar visionary experiences in prophetic literature; cf. S. Niditch, The Symbolic Vision in Biblical Tradition (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983). To call this “proto-apocalyptic” only means that the prophetic style found here later combines with other stylistic features to create apocalyptic.
57. Collins, Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 22.
58. See Russell, Prophecy, 110–21.
59. Esp., but not limited to, the dispensational traditions.
60. G. R. Beasely-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 341–42.
61. Collins, Imagination, 32.
62. See Jacobsen, Preaching, 61.
63. See M. L. King, “Our God is Marching On,” in A Testament of Hope, ed. J. M. Washington (San Francisco: Harper, 1986), 230; A. A. Boesak, Comfort and Protest: Reflections on the Apocalypse of John of Patmos (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987); E. Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision of a Just World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991); P. Richard, Apocalypse (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1995), cited in Jacobsen, Preaching, xii–xiv; cf. A. Y. Collins, Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 15–16.
64. See Mathewson, “Revelation,” 193–213.
65. Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 72–73; see also Wright, Victory, and the heated debate between Wright and Allison; D. C. Allison, “Jesus and the Victory of Apocalyptic,” in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N. T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God, ed. C. Newman (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 126–41; N. T. Wright, “In Grateful Dialogue: A Response,” in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel, 244–77.
66. See J. Piper, The Supremacy of God in Preaching (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990).
67. See Boda, “Priceless Gain,” 51–75.
68. C. Swindoll, The Tale of the Tardy Oxcart And 1,501 Other Stories (Nashville: Word, 1998), 565.
69. N. Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (New York: Penguin, 1986).
1. Mason, “Use,” 129–30.
2. See Mitchell, Smith, and Brewer, Haggai, 316–17; Hanson, Dawn, 368–69.
3. See, e.g., Plöger, who points out how Zech. 13:7–9 acts as development on vv. 1–6 and transition to ch. 14; O. Plöger, Theocracy and Eschatology, trans. S. Rudman (Oxford: Blackwell, 1968), 87. Baldwin and Petersen integrate vv. 7–9 into chs. 12–14 to the point that 13:7–9 serves as a further elaboration of 12:1–13:6; Baldwin, Haggai, 197; Petersen, Zechariah 9–14, 129.
4. The root is the same in each passage, but the stem is different: 2 Sam. 23:18 (Polel); Isa. 13:17 and Jer. 50:9 (Hiphil), Zech. 13:7 (Qal). But Joel 3:9 does show that the Qal can be used in the same way as the Hiphil.
5. See 2 Sam. 23:18: “raised . . . killed”; Isa. 13:17–18: “stir up . . . strike down”; cf. Jer. 50:9–10.
6. The word in Jer. 49:20; 50:45 is a noun of the same root as the participle here in Zech. 13:7. When the verb appears elsewhere, it refers to becoming insignificant (Job 14:21, “brought low”; Jer. 30:19, “disdained”).
7. In the Heb. text this section is cast in the third-person singular rather than plural, as in NIV: “He will call on my name and I will answer him; I will say, ‘He is my people,’ and he will say, ‘The LORD is my God.’ ” Obviously the statement “he is my people” shows that this singular form signifies the voice of the people as a whole.
8. In Ezek. 44:10–16 Ezekiel contrasts the “Levites” in general with the Levitical Zadokite clan. What disqualified the non-Zadokite clans was syncretistic behavior.
9. G. F. Hasel, The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah, 3d ed. (AUMSR 5; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews Univ. Press, 1980); L. Ryken, J. C. Wilhoit, and T. Longman, “Remnant,” in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 703–4.
10. See, W. J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants (Nashville: Nelson, 1984).
11. After the fall of humanity, covenant is necessary to structure the relationship between God and humanity.
12. See D. J. A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1978).
13. Notice also Jer. 33:14–26, which shows the enduring nature of the Davidic covenant.
1. See Boda, “Reading,” 277–91.
2. Hanson sees here “the most advanced example of apocalyptic” and traces the structure of the ancient conflict myth on Zech. 14: Threat (vv. 1–2), conflict and victory (v. 3), theophany and procession (vv. 4–5), peace (vv. 6–8), manifestation of Yahweh’s universal reign (vv. 9–11), covenant curses (vv. 12–15), procession of the nations (vv. 16–19), sacrifice and banquet (vv. 20–21); Hanson, Dawn, 372; see also Schellenberg, “One,” 111–13. By contrast P. L. Redditt, “Zechariah 9–14, Malachi, and the Redaction of the Book of the Twelve,” in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts, ed. J. W. Watts and P. R. House (JSOTSup 235; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 137, and Floyd, Minor Prophets, 557, see here a prophecy of salvation; cf. C. Westermann, Prophetic Oracles of Salvation in the Old Testament (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 195–96, 211–12.
3. Witt, for instance, suggests three stages: Stage 1 (Zech. 14:1–11, pessimistic, conflict with cultic leadership in Jerusalem), Stage 2 (vv. 2b, 3ab, 12–15, more positive view of Jerusalem, cult, and leadership), Stage 3 (vv. 16–21, enlarge theme of holiness, round off unit): “In this final form of chapter 14, the focus has completely shifted from an extreme polemic attack against Jerusalem to an affirmation of the cleansing and renewing action of Yahweh to be anticipated at the end of history”; Witt, “Zechariah 12–14”, 93–94.
4. Clark, “Skeleton,” 64–80.
5. Floyd, Minor Prophets, 544 (see Zech. 14:1–5, 6–7, 8–12, 13–21).
6. See LaMarche for his view on 14:1–15: a = vv. 1–2a; b = vv. 2a–b; c = vv. 3–5; d = v. 6; e = v. 7a; d’ = vv. 7b–8; c’ = vv. 9–10a; b’ = vv. 10b–11; a’ = vv. 12–15; LaMarche, Zacharie IX–XIV, 11.
7. Petersen identifies ten vignettes in his montage (Zech. 14:1–3, 4–5, 6–7, 8, 9, 10–11, 12+15, 13–14, 16–19, 20–21); Petersen, Zechariah 9–14, 137–39. Saebø tags it as sui generis (unique); Saebø, Sacharja 9–14, 66, 282, 307–9; cf. Witt, “Zechariah 12–14,” 65.
8. This comment does not allow the interpreter to discredit the later canonical form in favor of an earlier oral or written kernel.
9. Notice the striking similarity to the awkward interjection at 12:2.
10. See below for the discussion of the final phrase of 14:5, “with him,” which reads in the Heb. text, “with you.”
11. In this it is similar to 12:2–13:6.
12. Meyers and Meyers, “Future Fortunes,” 222.
13. Mason notes that close similarities between Joel and Zech. 14 (similarities in vocabulary and style as well as content of the day of Yahweh, threat against Jerusalem, the phrase “Lord my God”) “suggest that they may have originated in circles which showed at least some aspects in common”; Mason, “Use,” 174–75.
14. Notice Amos 7:17 (“your land”) has, as Zech. 14:1, the construction “your xxx” to signify the plundered possession; cf. K. R. Schaefer, “The Ending of the Book of Zechariah: A Commentary,” RB 100 (1993): 171.
15. Witt, “Zechariah 12–14”, 78; K. R. Schaefer, “Zechariah 14: A Study in Allusion,” CBQ 57 (1995): 68.
16. The differences between the percentages in 13:7–9 and 14:2 should not be magnified. Both refer to significant discipline for the people.
17. When the Heb. preposition b (NIV “against”) follows the verb “fight” (laḥam) in the Heb. Bible, it usually denotes the opponent (Ex. 1:10; 14:25; 17:9; Num. 21:1, 23, 26; Judg. 1:3, 5, 8, 9; etc.). However, it can also denote the location of the battle (1 Kings 20:25; 2 Chron. 35:22) or the means of defeat (Jer. 21:5, “with an outstretched hand”).
18. There is no need to separate vv. 4–5 from vv. 1–3 because the focus in vv. 4–5 is on theophany rather than battle (so Petersen, Zechariah 9–14, 142). Theophany is an important aspect of divine warrior scenes. For the effect of the divine warrior on creation, see Miller, The Divine Warrior, 140–41.
19. Mason, “Use,” 176–78.
20. See 2 Sam. 15:32, which shows that the Mount of Olives was used for worship.
21. See F.-M. Abel, “ʾAṣal in Zechariah xiv, 5,” RB 45 (1936): 385–400.
22. See RSV and Baldwin, Haggai, 202.
23. A journey east of Jerusalem places a person in the environs of the desert of Judah. With its abundance of caves and dearth of water, it was a safe haven from armies.
24. Merrill, Haggai, 350; Schellenberg, “One,” 112.
25. The NIV, along with most modern versions, follow the LXX at this point, which has “with him.”
26. Baldwin, Haggai, 202–3.
27. This could also be a reference to Judah as a whole; Mason, Haggai, 126; Leske, “Zechariah 9:9,” 677.
28. The Kethib is the verbal form (“to congeal”), while the Qere is the nominal form (“congelation”).
29. Cf. Merrill, Haggai, 351; Redditt, Haggai, 141; Petersen, Zechariah 9–14, 145; Floyd, Minor Prophets, 546.
30. Many see this as a reference to a future day (only God knows when this day will come), cf. Redditt, Haggai, 141; Merrill, Haggai, 351. Others see this as a scribal gloss, cf. Witt, “Zechariah 12–14”, 68; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 46–48. Floyd translates this as “familiar,” thus a day only familiar to God who dwells in perpetual light; Floyd, Minor Prophets, 547. However, our interpretation is suggested by the theme of the return to the first day of creation, when only God was there.
31. Merrill (Haggai, 351) sees this as chaos out of creation (a sign of judgment), which leads to re-creation.
32. Even Hezekiah’s tunnel, built to bring water from the Gihon within the city walls, was not enough to provide for the city.
33. See Clifford on the cosmic mountain motif in the ancient Near East and life-giving waters, which may explain Zech. 14:10 and the raising of Jerusalem; R. J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (HSM 4; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1972), 51, 102, 158–60.
34. Janzen highlights the link between kingship and water (cf. Isa. 6–7; 8:8; 23–24; cf. Ps. 66:4–5; 72:8; 89:26; also Joel 3:17–21); Janzen, “Shema,” 298 n. 19.
35. See Leske, “Zechariah 9:9,” 677.
36. Meyers and Meyers, “Future Fortunes,” 221.
37. Notice how this kind of destruction was also required for Israelite cities who participated in idolatry (Deut. 13:12–18, esp. v. 15, 17).
38. Because of the use of identical vocabulary in 14:2 and 12, these opponents are apparently the same ones who attacked Jerusalem in 14:2.
39. Such panic is found elsewhere in plague (1 Sam. 5:9, 11) and military settings (Deut. 7:23; 1 Sam. 14:20; 2 Chron. 15:5; Isa. 22:5).
40. While in Zech. 14:3 the combination of laḥam (“fight”) with the preposition b was interpreted as adversative (“to fight against”), here the same combination should be taken as locative (“to fight at”). There is precedence for both in the Old Testament.
41. The point of v. 18 is that Egypt, which is not seriously affected by a lack of rain because of its reliance on the Nile for agriculture, will be judged also by a plague, as in days of old.
42. Merrill, Haggai, 365. The Heb. term for “bells” is only found here in the Heb. Bible.
43. Redditt, Haggai, 144; Petersen, Zechariah 9–14, 160; Mason, “Use,” 91; Witt, “Zechariah 12–14,” 91.
44. Mason, “Use,” 195; Mason, Haggai, 133. Leske and Hanson see here an attack on the priesthood at the Jerusalem temple; Hanson, Dawn, 387–88; Leske, “Zechariah 9:9,” 677.
45. Merrill sees this as an ethnic reference and suggests that even Canaanites will be allowed in the holy temple precincts: “There is, in that sense, no longer a Canaanite, for all alike will be the people of YHWH”; Merrill, Haggai, 366; see a similar line of thought in Floyd, Minor Prophets, 556. Considering the festal and temple context of these verses, the other gloss for this word is more likely.
46. See esp. P. B. Duff, “The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of the Greco-Roman King: Mark’s Account of Jesus’ Entry Into Jerusalem,” JBL 111 (1992): 55–71; cf. R. M. Grant, “The Coming of the Kingdom,” JBL 67 (1948): 297–303; C. F. Evans, “I Will Go Before You into Galilee,” JTS ns 5 (1954): 3–18; C. Roth, “The Cleansing of the Temple and Zechariah xiv 21,” NovT 4 (1960): 174–81. Bruce notes a connection between Zech. 14 and John’s account of the cleansing of the temple in John 2; F. F. Bruce, “The Book of Zechariah and the Passion Narrative,” BJRL 43 (1960–61): 167–90.
47. See Sherlock’s excellent account of these two modes; Sherlock, God Who Fights, 218, 243.
48. L. G. McClung, “ ‘Try to Get People Saved’: Revisiting the Paradigm of an Urgent Pentecostal Missiology,” in The Globalization of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel, ed. M. W. Dempster, B. D. Klaus, and D. Petersen (Oxford: Regnum, 1999), 35.
49. F. M. DuBose, ed. Classics of Christian Missions (Nashville: Broadman, 1979), 289–300.
50. DuBose, ed. Classics, 291.
51. Ibid., 92–93.
52. See esp. Thompson, A. B. Simpson; M. J. Boda, “The Christian and Missionary Alliance,” in An Encyclopedia of Religions in the United States, ed. W. B. Williamson (New York: Crossroads/Continuum, 1992), 64–67.
53. Tozer, Wingspread, 103.
54. G. E. McGraw, “The Doctrine of Sanctification in the Published Writings of Albert Benjamin Simpson” (Ph.D., New York University, 1986), 580, see 577–82.
55. Cf. Cox, Fire from Heaven. For Pentecostal missiology see P. A. Pomerville, The Third Force in Missions: A Pentecostal Contribution to Contemporary Mission Theology (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1985); McClung, “Pentecostal Missiology,” 30–51; L. G. McClung, ed., Azusa Street and Beyond: Pentecostal Missions and Church Growth in the Twentieth Century (South Plainfield, N.J.: Bridge, 1986). For the related charismatic movement, see its global culture in K. Poewe, Charismatic Christianity As a Global Culture (Studies in Comparative Religion; Columbia, S.C.: Univ. of South Carolina Press, 1994), and the call to missiology in E. K. Pousson, Spreading the Flame: Charismatic Churches and Missions Today (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992); D. Shibley, A Force in the Earth: The Charismatic Renewal and World Evangelism (Altamonte Springs, Fla.: Creation House, 1989).
56. For the global culture of Pentecostalism see W. J. Hollenweger, Pentecostalism: Origins and Developments Worldwide (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997); M. W. Dempster, B. D. Klaus, and D. Petersen, eds., The Globalization of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel (Oxford: Regnum, 1999), 127–260.
57. As Hollenweger wrote in 1997: “By the year 2000 85–90 percent of the Christians in the Third World will be Pentecostal/Charismatic”; Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 289.
58. Pomerville, Third Force, 79.
59. McClung, “Pentecostal Missiology,” 36. In his earlier review of Pentecostal missiological practice he placed two principles at the forefront: emphasis on the Holy Spirit and worship: “It should be noted from the outset, however, that the very heartbeat of Pentecostal missions is their experience with the power and Person of the Holy Spirit. . . . Pentecostal worship allows the participant to be involved in a personal and direct way with the manifestation of God among His people in the congregation,” L. G. McClung, “Spontaneous Strategy of the Spirit: Pentecostal Missionary Practices,” in Azusa Street and Beyond, 72–73.
60. An example of this is the ALPHA program that began in England but has now spread throughout North America.