1. Please note that when the author discusses words in the original biblical languages, this series uses the general rather than the scholarly method of transliteration.
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.