# comment

text:
<p>Indeed, who despises the day of small things?- Both the faithless Jews and the mocking local peoples considered the temple so far rebuilt to be "as nothing" (<a href='B:440 2:3'>Hag 2:3</a>). Zerubbabel was being urged to rebuild it according to the grand plans given in Ezekiel 40-48, obeying the precepts laid out there, and then Yahweh would come and dwell in it. But those small beginnings were not to be despised; they were a beginning, and instead of condemning the Jews for not having built it according to the plan of Ezekiel 40-48, instead God sees the cup half full rather than half empty, and urges them to go on from those small beginnings to greater fulfilment. The question as to who has despised those small things may beg the answer: ’Not God. Even though you didn’t do as I asked you, go on from that start to do greater things’. Really His gentle approach is similar to how we may talk to children as they initially fail to fulfil a task. See on Hag. 2:3.</p><p>For these seven shall rejoice, and shall see the plumb line in the hand of Zerubbabel. These are the eyes of Yahweh, which run back and forth through the whole earth- See on :6; <a href='B:300 1:11-12'>Jer 1:11-12</a>; <a href='B:450 1:10-11'>Zec 1:10-11</a>. The entire strength [seven as completeness] of the Angelic eyes of God would rejoice with Zerubbabel when the temple was built as commanded, using a plumb line to measure and build the edifice according to the regulations in Ezekiel 40-48. No wonder the whole of Haggai is an encouragement to Zerubbabel and Joshua to live up to their potential. The builders need fear no opposition; the Angel eyes of God were running throughout the eretz promised to Abraham, through all of it, the whole of it, including the areas governed by far superior powers, and as explained in earlier visions, they had prepared the whole area for the Kingdom to be restored in Judah. To run is an idiom for response to God’s word (e.g. <a href='B:340 12:4'>Dan 12:4</a>; <a href='B:420 2:2'>Hab 2:2</a>). The Angels were going out to fulfil the word of restoration; but it still required the freewill response of Zerubbabel and the Jews. The people did "rejoice" at the rebuilding of the temple (s:w. <a href='B:150 6:22'>Ezr 6:22</a>; <a href='B:160 12:43'>Neh 12:43</a>). But this was but an incipient fulfilment of the far greater joy envisaged here.</p>


text:
<p>Then I asked him, What are these two olive trees on the right side of the lampstand and on the left side of it?- These were the obvious, major difference with the Mosaic candlestick. Typically a candlestick required human care to fill it with oil. But this system had a source of oil in two olive trees. There was apparently a silence, because Zechariah has to ask again in :12, and is told in :13 that he ought to have figured it for himself. And we see here a principle; sometimes there is a Divine silence in response to our prayers and situations, or to our requests to understand and see the meaning attached to even. And that silence is intended to elicit from us the answer from our own reflections. Knowledge of God isn’t just dished up on a plate in the Bible. We need to work things out for ourselves, as God knows that this is the way to really learn anything.</p>


text:
<p>I asked him the second time, What are these two olive branches, which are beside the two golden spouts, that pour the golden oil out of themselves?- As noted on :11, there was an initial lack of response which was designed so that Zechariah would work it out himself. He is therefore somewhat rebuked for not getting it himself. His slowness to perceive is perhaps the more rebuked because one interpretation of the two sources of oil is that they referred to himself and Haggai, who were providing the prophetic word and the articulation of God’s Spirit to enable God’s people to function as the candlestick to the world around them. Zechariah’s focus in the second question was upon the tubes which took the oil from the trees, appearing as branches leading from spouts. The oil appeared golden because it was going into the golden candlestick; the gold of God’s people Judah was to be a function of the golden oil going into them.</p>


text:
<p>He answered me, Don’t you know what these are? I said, No, my lord- As noted on :11,12, this rebuke was because the Divine silence after the first enquiry was intended to elicit in Zechariah an understanding. This in broader terms is one reason for the Divine silences in our lives. The rebuke was the more necessary if the pipes, the conduit of the Spirit, were representative of Haggai and Zechariah, the prophets at the time.</p>


text:
<p>Then he said, These are the two anointed ones- I have suggested on :12,13 that they refer to Haggai an Zechariah, who as prophets were the vehicle of the Spirit’s articulation to Judah the candlestick. But perhaps they were specifically represented by the pipes or spouts, and the actual trees were Joshua and Zerubbabel. Or perhaps the other way around; the trees were Haggai and Zechariah, the source of the Spirit, and Joshua and Zerubbabel were to be the conduit of the Spirit to Israel. Hence Haggai’s prophecy is specifically and solely addressed to those two men; see on Hag 11.</p><p>Joshua and Zerubbabel were both anointed or commissioned to be the king and priest of the restored Kingdom. Joshua anointed is the same idea in Greek as ’Jesus Christ’. He failed in this calling, and so the prophecies were reapplied and fulfilled in the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. The reference is to Joshua and Zerubbabel. The whole ‘lightstand’ depended upon these two anointed ones, these providers of oil, and the fact they both in various ways failed to deliver true faith and spirituality meant that the victory over the world which the vision also prophesied could not come about; the final fulfilment had to come through the Lord Jesus, who was the ultimate Priest (cp. Joshua-Jesus) and Prince of Judah (cp. Zerubbabel). This prophecy could have been fulfilled at the restoration; but when we read in <a href='B:730 11:4'>Rev 11:4</a> that “These are the two olive trees and the two candlesticks”,&nbsp; the Lord is saying that now He has redefined and rescheduled the fulfilment of that vision in a latter day context.</p><p>Who stand by the Lord of the whole earth- The olive trees stood either side of the candlestick. And yet the candlestick is presented as a person. I suggest that the gold candlestick was the purified, return exiles (<a href='B:310 4:2'>Lam 4:2</a>), who were intended to bear lordship over the entire eretz promised to Abraham. The leadership were therefore incidental to the centre of the vision and candlestick system, which was the people of Judah themselves who were to be the light and lords of the whole earth, the entire eretz promised to Abraham, including Babylon and Persia.</p><p>But the symbology is mixed. The various elements here all also represent Angels. By responding to the word of restoration, Zerubbabel, Joshua, Haggai, Zechariah and the obedient masses were all represented by things which otherwise refer to the Angels. They would be identified together with those who had practically enabled all this to happen. Hence the seven Angelic eyes of :10 were to rejoice together with Zerubbabel when he completed the temple as specified.</p><p>The olive trees "are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth". The "Lord of the whole earth" is the Angel of <a href='B:450 3:1'>Zec 3:1</a> (making "the God of the earth" in <a href='B:730 11:4'>Rev 11:4</a> also an Angel?). The olive trees actually stand by the candlestick, thus making the whole arrangement of bowl, branches, pipes and lamps represent the workings of the one Angel- in the same way as the Angel of Jesus in Revelation 1 can somehow stand in the midst of a candlestick.</p><p>The olive being a symbol of leadership (in <a href='B:70 9:8'>Jdg 9:8</a>&nbsp; the olive tree was the first tree to be thought of as a national leader), it would be fitting&nbsp; that&nbsp; they&nbsp; represented Joshua and Zerubbabel. However, there is a definite allusion to the Angel cherubim here. "Within the oracle he made two cherubims of olive tree" (<a href='B:110 6:23'>1Ki 6:23</a>); "and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two (olive tree) cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony" (<a href='B:20 25:22'>Exo 25:22</a>). If the olive trees are like the Cherubim, then "the Lord of the whole earth" of <a href='B:450 4:4'>Zec 4:4</a> which was between them connects with the ark- the Angel that dwelt over the ark, between the Cherubim:&nbsp; <a href='B:60 3:11-13'>Jos 3:11-13</a> also makes the connection between the ark and the "Lord of all the earth". The candlestick therefore represents the Angel co-ordinating the restoration, as well as the other "seven" Angels in His control. This shows the close association between the Angel-cherubim and Joshua and Zerubbabel. Thus from the Angelic inspiration of these two men, the spirit was supplied to the candlestick through the gold pipes- the faith they showed and their prayers supplied the spirit which enabled the seven lamp Angels to act. However, the close link between the two olive trees and the Cherubim Angels once again shows that the ultimate impetus to our faith, prayers and spirituality comes from God’s spirit in the Angels rather than from any personal inspiration we may feel. This idea of the flow of the spirit, enabling God’s action through the Angels as a result of&nbsp; our prayers, is found elsewhere: "This shall turn to my salvation, through your prayer, and the supply of the spirit of Jesus Christ" (Php_1:19); "... how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit ("good things", <a href='B:470 7:11'>Mat 7:11</a>) to them that ask Him?" (<a href='B:490 11:13'>Luk 11:13</a>). Thus in the vision of the seven lamps, the prayers and faith of Joshua and Zerubbabel were the oil, the spirit that was supplied to activate the seven lamp Angels that went to and fro in the land of Israel preparing the way for the restoration. However, the olive trees were "sons of oil" (AVmg)- they were anointed with the&nbsp; oil initially. Is this a dim foreshadowing of the birth of the spirit ("sons of oil")? The men of the olive trees were sons of the spirit word through their belief in the word of God concerning the restoration. The olive branches emptied the golden oil out of themselves- if we are to have the same victory of&nbsp; faith as Joshua and Zerubbabel, we have to in the same way pour ourselves out in prayer and golden faith. The amount of oil flowing into the bowl determined the amount flowing out of it to the lamp Angels, seeing that there was a constant flow of the oil in the vision. Thus the amount and intensity of our prayers and spirituality affect how brightly the Angels burn in their zeal to fulfil our requests. Notice too the power of the prayers of a small minority of God’s people. But the envisaged situation didn’t come about. The two olive branches which feed the bowl were replaced by Christ, the one branch (<a href='B:450 3:8'>Zec 3:8</a>; <a href='B:450 6:12'>Zec 6:12</a>), who would provide the Spirit in abundance so that the true spiritual temple could be built- "the branch... shall grow up out of His place, and He shall build the temple of the Lord" (<a href='B:450 6:12'>Zec 6:12</a>).</p><p>We can however translate: "Against the Lord of the whole earth", which was a common title of Darius. This would provide more evidence that here we have a prophecy of overthrowing the Persian empire. See on Zech. 1:13. The two anointed ones could refer to the Angels Michael and Gabriel, who in turn represented Joshua and Zerubbabel.</p>


text:
<p>Then again I lifted up my eyes, and saw, and behold, a flying scroll- The previous visions have spoken of how the rebuilding work faced opposition from the adversaries ["satan"] of both apostate Jews amongst the exiles, and from the local Gentiles. We know that in practice, those ’satans’ derailed the envisaged and possible restoration of the Kingdomat that time. This vision now deals with this in more detail.</p><p>Hag. 2:14 had spoken of how the returnees were unclean; and this could preclude God's plan to restore the Kingdom. But here Zechariah prophesies soon afterwards of how even this problem of uncleanness could be resolved. This vision of Zech. 5 speaks of the banishment of sin and sinners from Judah and back to Babylonia.  </p>


text:
<p>He said to me, What do you see? I answered, I see a flying scroll; its length is twenty cubits, and its breadth ten cubits- Zechariah’s vision of the flying scroll indicates the extent of Judah’s weakness. The size and proportion of it was unreal for a scroll- "twenty cubits long and ten cubits wide" is about 10 meters by 5 meters. This disproportion was obviously to draw attention to something- and we find that the size of the temple porch / entrance in Solomon’s temple was exactly of this size (<a href='B:110 6:3'>1Ki 6:3</a>). This was where God’s word was read from. And yet the scroll is described as entering into "the house of the thief" (<a href='B:450 5:4'>Zec 5:4</a>). Nehemiah records how the poor returnees were abused and effectively thieved from by the wealthy. And the Lord Jesus lamented how God’s house had become "a den of thieves". But there’s another reference to this 20 x 10 cubits size. The cherubim over the ark were ten cubits high and their wings were 5 cubits long, and one wing pointed back, whilst the other pointed forward, to touch the wing of the other cherub. Thus each cherub occupied a space 10 cubits high and 10 cubits across; and the two cherubim over the ark thus occupied a space 20 cubits long and 10 cubits wide- exactly the size of the flying scroll. The fact the scroll ’flies’ invites us to make another connection with the cherubim, flying / hovering as it were over the ark. Yet this shekinah glory is changed in the vision into a curse. This is how very displeased God was with what was being done by those who returned- His presence and glory were no longer there, only a curse upon them. Effectively, the returnees had turned God’s temple into a parody of the Babylonian temples; see on :6,8,9.</p>


text:
<p>Then he said to me, This is the curse that goes out over the surface of the whole land- The Angelic eyes of God had been going over the "whole land" preparing it for the great potential, of God’s Kingdom being reestablished in Judah. But over the whole land there was sin. What had been declared a holy land through the imputation of righteousness by God’s grace (see on <a href='B:450 2:12'>Zec 2:12</a>) was in fact very sinful.</p><p>For everyone who steals shall be cut off according to it on the one side; and everyone who swears falsely shall be cut off according to it on the other side- The scroll was written on both sides, just as the tables of the covenant were (<a href='B:20 32:15'>Exo 32:15</a>). The two of the ten commandments mentioned here as being broken were the third and eighth; which according to Jewish tradition were written on different sides of the tables. The idea would be that Judah had broken covenant relationship with Yahweh by disobeying the most basic of the ten commandments. They were stealing and searing falsely just as they had done before the captivity (s:w. <a href='B:300 7:9'>Jer 7:9</a>; <a href='B:350 4:2'>Hos 4:2</a>). There were ’false swearers’ amongst the returned exiles (s:w. <a href='B:460 3:5'>Mal 3:5</a>). False swearing may not simply refer to perjury; it is defined in <a href='B:300 5:2'>Jer 5:2</a> and often as meaning to swear both by Yahweh and by other gods, thereby making their oath by Yahweh a false oath.</p>


text:
<p>I will cause it to go out, says Yahweh of Armies, and it will enter into the house of the thief, and into the house of him who swears falsely by My name; and it will remain in the midst of his house- Nehemiah records how the poor returnees were abused and effectively thieved from by the wealthy; and <a href='B:450 8:17'>Zec 8:17</a> later alludes to thIsa. And the Lord Jesus lamented how God’s house had become "a den of thieves". The houses of the Jews were as corrupt as the house of God they had rebuilt, although it was not according to the principles and pattern commanded them in Ezekiel 40-48; those prophecies often command that the previous temple abuses were not to be repeated in the new house of God. But they were.</p><p>And will destroy it with its timber and its stones- This is the fate of a house which had been dwelt in by lepers (<a href='B:30 14:45'>Lev 14:45</a>). The house of Judah had previously been condemned as a leprous house, and now they had returned to the land they were no better. For all God’s enthusiastic grace to forgive them, as described previously in Zechariah.</p>


text:
<p>Then the angel who talked with me came forward, and said to me, Lift up now your eyes, and see what is this that is appearing- The command to lift up the prophetic eyes and see is a repeat of what Ezekiel was told, when he was invited to lift up his eyes and see the apostacy of Judah within the temple (<a href='B:330 8:5'>Eze 8:5</a>; <a href='B:330 8:16'>Eze 8:16</a>). Zechariah would have perceived the similarity. He was being given an insight into how sinful were the returned exiles.</p>


text:
<p>I said, What is it? He said, This is the ephah basket that is appearing- See on :2. The ephah measure was representative of the measure of their sin. And they had changed the weights of the ephah to deceive their brethren:&nbsp; The winged pseudo-cherubim of :9 carry this "ephah" back to Babylon. The Sumerian word for one of the Babylonian ziggurats, a shrine to a goddess, was e’pa, the same Hebrew word as translated "epha" (C:L. & E:M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2004) p. 296). The foreign woman in the vision wishes to return to Babylon and build a house / temple there. The terrible picture that will appear is that the apostate Jews who had returned ostensibly to rebuild Yahweh’s temple in Zion were really the spiritual "daughter of Babylon" and would return to Babylon to build an idol temple there.</p><p>He said moreover, This is their appearance in all the land- "Appearance" translates the word for "eye". The Angelic eyes of God ran to and fro in the land (<a href='B:450 4:10'>Zec 4:10</a>). And this is what they saw all over- sinful Jews.</p>


text:
<p>(And behold, a talent of lead was lifted up); and this is a woman sitting in the midst of the ephah basket- They had changed the weights of the ephah to deceive their brethren (<a href='B:370 8:5'>Amo 8:5</a>). This apparently minor sin was seen by God as being as heavy as lead. Judah, the woman, had been weighed by God in judgment and found wanting. This was why all the great potential prophecies of earlier visions would not in fact come true at that time.</p>


text:
<p>He said, This is Wickedness!- The woman is simply called "wickedness". Judah had previously been characterized as a wicked woman who was punished with captivity in Babylon, and now she is still unreformed (<a href='B:290 1:21'>Isa 1:21</a>; <a href='B:300 2:20'>Jer 2:20</a>; <a href='B:330 23:1-49'>Eze 23:1-49</a> and throughout Hosea 1-3). Is there not here a hint that the essence of Judah’s failure was in their marriage to foreign women, perhaps even their own wives were from Babylon and wanted to return there. Marriage to Gentiles is stressed in Ezra 10 and <a href='B:160 13:23-27'>Neh 13:23-27</a> as the epitome of Judah’s sin. Even the four sons of Joshua the High Priest had married Gentiles (<a href='B:150 10:18'>Ezr 10:18</a>). The Hebrew word translated "wickedness" is harisha- an anagram of ’Asherah’. She is presented as a goddess- in that the foreign women are always associated with the idols they served. We know that the first temple was destroyed because of the Asherah entering the temple (<a href='B:120 23:4-7'>2Ki 23:4-7</a>; <a href='B:110 15:13'>1Ki 15:13</a>). And it seems Judah never learnt that lesson. <a href='B:450 13:2'>Zec 13:2</a> is clear that there was idol worship throughout the land amongst the returned exiles.</p><p>And he threw her down into the midst of the ephah basket; and he put the weight of lead on its mouth- It was as if the due weight had been reached, and now it was closed and being sent back to Babylon. Judah, the woman, was entrapped in her own sins. This is the same idea as the previous inhabitants of Canaan reaching a certain level of sin after which they were to be thrown out of the land (<a href='B:10 15:16'>Gen 15:16</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then lifted I up my eyes, and saw, and behold, there were two women, and the wind was in their wings. Now they had wings like the wings of a stork, and they lifted up the ephah basket between earth and the sky- The two female winged creatures who remove the ephah to Babylon are surely parodies of the Angel cherubim; see on :2. Note how the Angel ’comes forth’ (<a href='B:450 5:5'>Zec 5:5</a>), and then the winged women are here described as ’going forth’ with the same Hebrew word. The glory of God was simply not there, whereas <a href='B:330 48:20'>Eze 48:20</a> and often in Zechariah it was predicted that it would be, if they built and operated the temple according to the commands of Ezekiel 40-48. Who was it who caused the apostate Jews to be thrown out of their land and removed to Babylon? Perhaps the two women propelled by the wind / spirit were the prophets Haggai and Zechariah who were now denouncing them and pronouncing this judgment upon them. Perhaps we are to understand the ’chasing away’ of the apostate Jews by Nehemiah as&nbsp; meaning they were chased off back to Babylon (<a href='B:160 13:28'>Neh 13:28</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then I said to the angel who talked with me, Where are these carrying the ephah basket to?- If it were not for Zechariah’s questions, his desire to understand, we would not have the explanations. The prophets, like the Angels, desired to look into the words they spoke, there was implied an intellectual process of struggle to understand (<a href='B:670 1:12'>1Pe 1:12</a>). We are seekers of God; we will never understand all, and the desire to understand is itself built into our spiritual experience</p>


text:
<p>He said to me, To build her a house in the land of Shinar. When it is prepared, she will be set there in her own place- "Shinar" is the title used for Babylon here because of the connections with building Babel, a building condemned by God. It could be that this prophecy concerning the wickedness in the land of Judah somehow returning to Babylon and there building a temple is a reference to how Zerubbabel was to re-direct his energies into building a corrupted house for himself on his return to Babylon, a pseudo-temple. He was personally criticized for building a ceiled house for himself in Judah rather than focusing upon rebuilding God’s house (<a href='B:440 1:3-4'>Hag 1:3-4</a>). So it seems the apostate Jews returned to Babylon and built a temple there to their gods. It was built in Babylon upon her own “base”, the same word used in <a href='B:150 3:3'>Ezr 3:3</a> about the altar being established upon its own “base” in Zion.</p><p>Nelson’s Bible Dictionary comments: “For some mysterious reason, Zerubbabel is not mentioned in connection with the Temple dedication. Neither is he mentioned after this time”. The reason seems to be that he returned to Babylon. R:K. Harrison in the Zondervan Encyclopedia mentions that “a 6th century AD Jewish chronicle preserved the tradition that Zerubbabel returned to Babylonia after 515 BC and succeeded his father Shealtiel as the prince of the exiled remnant there”. He chose to be a prince in Babylon’s Kingdom, the kingdoms of men, rather than in the Kingdom of God. And so many have followed his decision in the centuries since, thus frustrating what could have been for them and many others within their influence. Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, 11:3) records that “Zorobabel, who had been made governor of the Jews that had been in captivity, came to Darius from Jerusalem, for there had been an old friendship between him and the king”. He was friendly with the King of Babylon, and chose to follow where this lead rather than friendship with the Almighty. Compare this with how the ‘friendliness’ of a boss or worldly friend has lead so many into promotions or situations where they walk away from doing the work which God intended for them. And such huge potential was and is thereby wasted.</p>


text:
<p>Again I lifted up my eyes, and saw- The Hebrew has: "I turned [the word used also for repentance] and lifted up my eyes". After the exposure of Judah’s sin in the preceding vision, Zechariah repents, as it were, for the situation. Just as Daniel and Ezra sought to, identifying themselves with God’s sinful people. From now on in Zechariah, the visions appeal for repentance, interspersed with visions of the restored Kingdom that was even then possible. There is mention of the judgment to come upon the surrounding nations, whose idolatry clearly influenced the returning exiles. And the prophecy concludes with the picture of final judgment upon Judah in the last days, leading up to the return of the Lord Jesus to reestablish God’s Kingdom in Judah for ever. The amazing potential for Zechariah’s generation had been explained in chapters 1-3, but it wasn’t realized by them. But the prophetic word was to come finally true in the work and coming of the Lord Jesus.</p><p>And behold, four chariots- Zechariah 1 opens the prophecy with a vision of three kinds of horses- red, white and speckled. These represented the powers which had subdued the land of Judah and left it in the desolate state it was at the time of Zechariah (<a href='B:450 1:12'>Zec 1:12</a>). It’s tempting to interpret them as Assyria, Babylon and Medo-Persia; or perhaps Babylon, Media and Persia. Straight away, we read of four horns, representing the powers who had desolated God’s people; and how they would be destroyed by the carpenters, surely looking forward to the carpenter Messiah. And the vision of Zechariah 6 has four and not three kinds of horses- red, black, white and speckled, although only three of them were used at the time (see on :6). This may be Zechariah’s way of saying that because of Israel’s inability to fulfil the required spiritual preconditions, as stated clearly in chapter 5, the longer version of the prophetic program was going to come into play. Although as always, there is the distinct message of hope, that finally God’s triumphant purpose with Israel shall come to realization. The chariots are Angels (:5); the world empires were directly under their control, as taught in the vision of Daniel 2.</p><p>This vision follows on from the judgment of chapter 5 against the sinners amongst the returned exiles. They were to be sent back to Babylon. This vision of the chariots may be saying that the Angels who had controlled the previous judges of Judah were now again called into action; they would pursue the sinful Jews to wherever they went to, be it to Egypt or Babylon, and judge them. That is the immediate sense of the vision, although it also means that the longer term judgments were to also come into operation before the reestablishment of God’s Kingdom as the mountain of <a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a>.</p><p>Came out from between two mountains; and the mountains were mountains of brass- It has been said that Judah rejected idolatry on their return from Babylon. I submit that the Biblical evidence is different, as expounded throughout chapter 5; see on <a href='B:450 13:2'>Zec 13:2</a>. They mixed pagan thinking with their form of Judaism, and although physical idols were later rejected by them, the results of this idolatry by the early returnees influenced Judaism permanently. Thus <a href='B:450 6:1'>Zec 6:1</a> pictures Yahweh’s cherubim, Angelic chariots coming out from between two bronze mountains. In the ancient Near East there was the common idea that the sun god appeared each morning in his chariot from between two mountains (See C:L. & E:M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2004) p. 319 for documentation). Zechariah’s point [as is the point of Psalms 19, which uses the same images] is that it is the God of Israel who is the God of the sun, and not Shamash or some such similar deity of men’s imagination. But the exiles clearly needed this reminder; we remember how only a generation or so before, Ezekiel found them worshipping the sun god in Yahweh’s temple (<a href='B:330 8:5'>Eze 8:5</a>). And earlier, Josiah had removed the "chariots of the sun" from the temple mount (<a href='B:120 23:11'>2Ki 23:11</a>). Yet it seems that the Jews’ desire to mix Yahweh’s temple with the sun god was still just as strong even after the exiles returned.</p><p>The two brass mountains of Zechariah 6 are from where the horses / judgments issue forth- towards the north and south of Israel. The mountains must therefore be in central Israel; the reference could be to the valley of Jehoshaphat. I suggest the mountains in view are both in Jerusalem- the Mount of Olives and Mount Zion, in between which is what was called the valley of Jehoshaphat. These mountains and that valley are from where God’s latter day judgments proceed (<a href='B:360 3:2'>Joe 3:2</a>; <a href='B:360 3:16'>Joe 3:16</a>; <a href='B:450 14:14'>Zec 14:14</a>). The envisaged judgments upon the apostate Jews and Gentiles at Zechariah’s time didn’t fully happen because so many preconditions weren’t met; but they will come in the last days. Or it may be that they are the two mountains formed by the cleavage of the Mount of Olives predicted in <a href='B:450 14:4'>Zec 14:4</a>, at which time “half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half toward the south”. This would connect with the horses / chariots going out towards the north and south here in Zechariah 6. Any difficulties with exact chronology may be accounted for by the suggestion that the meaning and nature of time will change in the time around the Lord’s coming, as I have outlined at length in The Last Days.</p>


text:
<p>In the first chariot were red horses; in the second chariot black horses- The vision in Revelation 6 of horses going forth to bring judgment is clearly alluding to the similar vision in <a href='B:450 1:8-12'>Zec 1:8-12</a>; <a href='B:450 6:1-8'>Zec 6:1-8</a>. Chariots of horses recall the cherubim visions of Ezekiel, and suggest Angelic activity controlling the entities on earth which they represented in the court of heaven. The horses of Zechariah 1 are those nations who have trampled up and down the earth / land of Israel, subduing it until it is quiet. The chariots / horses of Zechariah 6 are the Angel cherubim representatives of those nations, who are sent out against them in judgment. Such judgment is portended in Zechariah 1 also, where straight after the vision of the horses we read of the four horns who have abused Israel being cut off by the carpenter Messiah of Israel. Significantly, there is an Angel stationed with the horses in the valley from which they emerge, as if to show that the judgments upon the land were Angelically controlled; Israel was not at the hands of chance human evil, indeed the horses report back to the Angel. This sets the scene for the horses / chariots of chapter 6 going out in judgment against those nations and the apostate Jews influenced by them of the preceding vision in chapter 5.</p>


text:
<p>In the third chariot white horses; and in the fourth chariot dappled horses, all of them powerful- The particular significance of the colours may not be that important; they could represent death, famine, disease etc. ; or they could simply be references to the various world powers represented. Zechariah, like us, wanted a detailed explanation of the colour scheme, but the answer was that they represent the Angels (:4,5).</p>


text:
<p>Then I asked the angel who talked with me, What are these, my lord?- Zechariah, like us, wanted a detailed explanation of the colour scheme, but the answer was that they represent the Angels (:4,5). No specific interpretation is given. The colours may simply have been to visually differentiate them.</p>


text:
<p>The angel answered me, These are the four spirits of the sky- see on :4; <a href='B:450 1:8-11'>Zec 1:8-11</a>. The four horses / chariots are understood by most commentators to have connection with the four metals and beasts of Daniel’s prophecies. Their connection with the four winds / spirits of the Heavens recalls the way that the four beasts of Daniel 7 arise as a result of the same four winds / spirits / Angels being active. That is the simple takeaway lesson- that our world is not out of control, but all is carefully orchestrated towards the final consummation in the establishment of God’s Kingdom in Judah.</p><p>These things didn’t come to term in Zechariah’s days as they could have done, but they will in the last days. I have explained elsewhere that the four metals and beasts of Daniel’s prophecies refer to powers that will dominate the land and people of Israel in the last days, whatever historical application they may have had. The metals and beasts all exist together in the last days, because they are all judged together at the coming of Christ to earth.</p><p>Which go forth from standing before the Lord of all theearth-</p><p>The horse riders of Revelation 6 are clearly based on this vision in Zechariah 6, and they would therefore be Angels. <a href='B:450 6:5'>Zec 6:5</a> describes the horses as "standing before the lord of the whole earth"- the mighty Angel of the Cherubim that stands for the land (earth) of Israel, perhaps Michael. In <a href='B:450 1:8'>Zec 1:8</a> they are behind Him, although He then sends them out to survey the state of the land of Israel. They return to Him, reporting that "we have walked to and fro throughout the earth (land), and behold, all the earth sitteth still and is at rest". Is there any reason to doubt that these Angels literally walked about in the land, albeit unseen, perhaps at a similar speed to which we walk? They walked "to and fro" because it is not in their ability to know the exact situation of a country just from a cursory glance. The comment of the Angel on this was: "I am very sore displeased with the heathen that are at ease" (<a href='B:450 1:15'>Zec 1:15</a>)- that were sitting at rest in God’s land. This scenario is similar to that in 1 Kings 22, where Angels come and go from God, reporting back information and receiving commands, showing how much the Angel in the myrtle trees, "the Lord of all the earth" (land), was a representation of God Himself.</p><p>’Chariots’ and the ’cherubim’ are linguistically connected, and thus also connected in Biblical usage- e. g. "He rode upon a cherub (chariot)" (<a href='B:230 18:10'>Psa 18:10</a>). The number four has links with the Angel cherubim; John Thomas interprets these "four (chariot) spirits of the Heavens" (6:5) as the same as the four faces of the cherubim. The whole vision is full of Angelic language. "The chariots of God are... thousands of Angels" (<a href='B:230 68:17'>Psa 68:17</a>); God makes His Angels spirits (<a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a>). The horses within the chariots also represent Angels, under the control of the four mighty cherubim Angels. This is similar to <a href='B:230 68:17'>Psa 68:17</a> describing God’s chariots as being full of Angels.</p>


text:
<p>The one with the black horses goes out toward the north country; and the white went out after them; and the dappled went forth toward the south country- See on :4:&nbsp; "The north country" must be Babylon (<a href='B:450 2:6'>Zec 2:6</a>; <a href='B:300 1:13-14'>Jer 1:13-14</a> etc. )- those Angels went to minister to the Jews there and to enable the hearts of the Persian rulers to continue to support the work of rebuilding (or is this looking back to the judgements on Babylon in preparation for Cyrus’ decree concerning the restoration?). Another group of Angels went toward the South- Egypt or the land of Judah (<a href='B:330 20:46-47'>Eze 20:46-47</a>). If the eretz of the South is in fact the area of Judah south of Jerusalem, as it is in <a href='B:450 7:7'>Zec 7:7</a>, then we would have confirmed the idea that the Angels of judgment went forth because of Judah’s sins, but didn’t actually judge them. But they did judge Babylon, the north.</p><p>We note there were four coloured horses in :2,3, but we don’t read of the red horses doing anything. Perhaps red represents blood and judgment. This was prepared against Judah for their sins, but the red horses weren’t used. The restored Judah wasn’t then destroyed. See on :2. In the longer term application, the four horses and chariots represented the nations of Daniel 2 who would dominate Judah. The red horse would then not be mentioned because it had already achieved its purpose upon Babylon, which had by then fallen to the Medes. Bible prophecy has multiple applications, in accordance with human prayer, repentance or lack thereof. And so these two suggested interpretations can both be legitimate.</p>


text:
<p>The strong went out, and sought to go that they might walk back and forth through the earth: and he said, Go around and through the earth! So they walked back and forth through the earth- These Angels, the same as those who originally surveyed the whole area by walking "to and fro through the earth" in <a href='B:450 1:10-11'>Zec 1:10-11</a>, "sought" permission from the co-ordinating Angel to continue their work. The Angels wished to do something but needed the permission of Michael the Angelic "lord of all the earth" to do so. We shall take over the roles of Angels in the future Kingdom. There will be scope therefore to serve God upon our own initiative; and what we earnestly desire to do for Him will be empowered. In this life we are to develop that desire to serve, and then all the limitations will be taken away. The "earth" here is probably ’the land’ of Israel-&nbsp; which&nbsp; would&nbsp; have&nbsp; included Babylon, at its proper extent from ’sea to sea’</p>


text:
<p>Then he called to me, and spoke to me, saying, Behold, those who go toward the north country have quieted My spirit in the north country- The "spirit" must be understood in the light of :5, where the reference is to Angels. Maybe the reference is to an Angel crying out for judgment upon Babylon. Or the Spirit-Angel that needed quietening in Babylon was perhaps the satan-Angel that was resisting the Angel seeking to further the rebuilding work; . He would have gone (literally?) to Babylon to give the "prince of Persia" the idea of banning the rebuilding. The two Angels that quietened Him were those of <a href='B:340 10:12-13'>Dan 10:12-13</a> - the Joshua-Angel of <a href='B:450 3:1'>Zec 3:1</a>, and Michael who "came to help Me" (Gabriel) in <a href='B:340 10:13'>Dan 10:13</a>. Alternatively, note that <a href='B:340 9:21'>Dan 9:21</a> describes Gabriel being "caused to fly with weariness"- thus it may have been Gabriel who was ’quieted’ or ’given rest’ (AVmg:) in <a href='B:450 6:8'>Zec 6:8</a>, implying He was in Babylon trying to enable the rebuilding but needed the support of the other two Angels.</p>


text:
<p>The word of Yahweh came to me, saying- Despite the awful sins and weaknesses of Judah revealed in the previous chapter, God wanted still to try to force through His plan for reestablishing His Kingdom, even if some details had to be changed.</p>


text:
<p>Take of them of the captivity- Note how this still calls the returned community "the exiles"- as if to suggest that they still had the mentality with which they went into captivity. The temptation to mix flesh and spirit is simply very powerful, and recurs daily in our lives in various forms. In those temptations we face what the exiles faced- a desire to appear faithful to God externally whilst doing exactly what they wanted, influenced by the world around them.</p><p>Even of Heldai, of Tobijah, and of Jedaiah; and come the same day, and go into the house of Josiah the son of Zephaniah, where they have come from Babylon- They had apparently only recently arrived and were staying in the home of Josiah. It could be that they had brought with them some of the gold and silver artifacts of temple worship which had been taken into Babylon earlier, but were now released. Their names are significant. "Heldai" [’worldliness’], "Tobijah" [’Yah’s goodness / grace’], "Jedaiah" [’Yah knows’], living in the house of Josiah, "Yah has founded"]. The impression is that despite the worldliness of the exiles, known by God, God’s grace had led to the foundation of the new temple being founded, and they were to continue building upon it. See on <a href='B:450 11:8'>Zec 11:8</a>.</p><p>The grace of God to the exiles is of course a foretaste of His grace to us. Time and again God speaks of the exiles in such positive language. For all that they had willingly adopted the gods of the captors, God still fondly describes them as ’Zion who dwells in Babylon’ (<a href='B:450 2:7'>Zec 2:7</a>). They were the Kingdom in embryo, waiting to just be transplanted from Babylon to Judah, just as we are the temple of God prepared symbolically in Heaven and waiting to be revealed on earth. Putting that grace another way, God proclaimed that despite all their idolatry and weakness in Babylon, Judah had ’paid off’ their guilt for former sins by their service there (<a href='B:290 40:2'>Isa 40:2</a>). We can only marvel at God’s grace, and the tragedy was that it was wasted and unperceived by them. May we do somewhat better.</p>


text:
<p>Yes, take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them on the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest- <a href='B:450 6:11-15'>Zec 6:11-15</a> is clear enough that Joshua-Jesus could have become a king-priest, and the Kingdom of God been reestablished in his time. Perhaps the crowning of Joshua was because God realized that Zerubbabel was not going to make it as the king He had intended. But there is no record that Judah ever got near having a king again. Joshua the high priest never became king Joshua. Or perhaps the allusion is to High Priestly mitre, the lack of which in <a href='B:450 3:5'>Zec 3:5</a> was a cause for concern to Zechariah. "Crowns" plural would suggest that the priestly mitre was to be complemented by a crown of rulership.</p>


text:
<p>And speak to him, saying, ‘Thus says Yahweh of Armies, Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: and he shall grow up out of his place; and he shall build Yahweh’s temple- see on <a href='B:450 4:14'>Zec 4:14</a>; <a href='B:300 23:5'>Jer 23:5</a>. "The Branch" was a title for Messiah, who was to appear at the restoration (<a href='B:300 23:5'>Jer 23:5</a>; <a href='B:300 33:15'>Jer 33:15</a>). The Hebrew here reads rather strangely: "Behold there is a man- Shoot is his name". Seeing Zerubbabel’s name means ’Shoot from Babylon’, it’s odd that Zerubbabel isn’t named specifically. Perhaps the implication is that Zerubbabel had failed, but another person with the same basic name still could fulfil the prophecies. But with the failure of Zerubbabel, there was no other king-priest to fulfil the prophecies. The Maccabees attempted to force a fulfilment, with opportunists like Simon and John Hyrcanus claiming to be king-priests- but with no actual dynastic evidence. And they hardly fulfilled the prediction that the King-Priest Messiah would sit on David’s throne (<a href='B:450 6:10'>Zec 6:10</a>). It could be that "Behold the man" is an invitation to look at the priest Joshua as "the man"; he was to replace Zerubbabel by becoming a king-priest.</p><p>It seems that Haggai and Zechariah returned to Jerusalem from Babylon in order to prepare the way for Zerubbabel- they were therefore the primary fulfillment of the prophecies of an Elijah-type prophet heralding the coming of the Messiah king. Zerubbabel’s failure therefore meant that their ministry was re-scheduled and fulfilled in the work of John the Baptist. Zerubbabel is called “the branch” (<a href='B:450 3:8'>Zec 3:8</a>; <a href='B:450 6:12'>Zec 6:12</a>; <a href='B:300 23:5-6'>Jer 23:5-6</a>), and this obviously invites connection with the prophecy of a branch / Messiah who would grow out of the cut down stump of Jesse (<a href='B:290 11:1'>Isa 11:1</a>). Again, Zerubbabel fits the picture perfectly. The house of David had been cut down in judgment, but the prophesied branch would not be from the royal line of Kings- but rather simply from the ‘stump’ that had been left, i:e. a descendant of Jesse who was not in the direct line of kings. <a href='B:400 5:2'>Mic 5:2</a> speaks of a similar person- a Messiah-king who would be from Bethlehem, i:e. the family of Jesse, rather than from Jerusalem where the royal line of kings were born. His origins would be “from old”- i:e. a person who is still a descendant of Jesse, but not in the direct line of kings. See on <a href='B:450 3:8'>Zec 3:8</a>.</p><p>But finally, all the immediate candidates to fulfil these words failed to do so. And yet the prophetic word was to come true in the person of the Lord Jesus. The Kingdom He restored was a spiritual one, and will only be physically manifested at His second coming. And thus the mocking “behold the man..."would have been seen by the Lord as a reference to <a href='B:450 6:12'>Zec 6:12</a>, where He is foreseen as a Priest crowned with silver and gold, introduced to Israel with the same phrase: “Behold the man...". The Lord would have taken encouragement that in the Father’s eyes, He was crowned there and then in glory, as He magnified His priestly office. But it would have seemed so, so different in the eyes of those mocking men. He was an intellectual genius without compare, and He applied His genius to the Father’s word. He would have been conscious of all these links, and so much more. This way of His didn’t seem to leave Him in His time of dying. And His awareness would doubtless have been a tremendous encouragement to Him. God likewise can control our trials so that we take strength from them in accordance with our appreciation of His word.</p>


text:
<p>Even he shall build Yahweh’s temple; and he shall bear the glory- In :11 we saw Joshua crowned with a priestly mitre; this ’bearing the glory’ might mean that he was also to have the urim and thummim. <a href='B:150 2:63'>Ezr 2:63</a> and <a href='B:160 7:65'>Neh 7:65</a> had perhaps prophesied that a priest would stand up with the urim and thummim in the envisaged restoration of the Kingdom. I explained on <a href='B:450 3:9'>Zec 3:9</a> that possession of the urim and thummim was also envisaged at this time.</p><p>And shall sit and rule on His throne; and he shall be a priest on His throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both- Being a priest upon a throne implies a king-priest, after the order of Melchizedek and not according to the Mosaic system. There would be peace or a merging into unity between the concepts of priesthood and kingship which had previously been kept separate. Joshua-Jesus could have become the king-priest. But he like Zerubbabel failed and dropped the baton.</p><p>Or we can see this as a repeat of the prophecy of Hag. 2:23, that Zerubbabel would be king, with Joshua as the High Priest. We have here a clear example of a potential prophecy; like Cyrus, Zerubbabel was specifically named as having a future which didn't materialize for him. Because he and others chose for that not to happen. This helps us understand how the detailed command / prophecy of Ez. 40-48 was all likewise potential, as in fact are all of the restoration prophecies.  The Davidic line from Jeconiah had been cursed by Jeremiah, saying that no offspring of "Coniah" would sit on the throne (Jer. 22:30). However, Zerubbabel was of the main Davidic line through Solomon and Jeconiah. This is stressed in the Lord's genealogy in Mt. 1:12,13: "Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud". Again we see how God's prophetic plan and even His curses are open to renegotiation. Zerubbabel the cursed not to be king could have become king. But he failed to live up to the potential, and so God's word of curse still came true.  </p>


text:
<p>The crowns shall be to Helem, and to Tobijah, and to Jedaiah, and to Hen the son of Zephaniah, for a memorial in Yahweh’s temple- The idea is that the crowns were to be left in the temple for a sign of the potential that was possible; for Joshua and the three new arrivals from Babylon were never in fact crowned kings and rulers. "Heldai", ’worldliness’] of :10 is now renamed "Helem", ’vision’ or ’vision of God’. If they quit their worldliness, then God’s envisioned purpose of reestablishing the Kingdom immediately would come about. All the time, the message is of potentials. Another person, "Hen", is mentioned in addition to those of :10. This is the word for "grace", which Yahweh had kept secret [’Zephaniah’]. By grace, these men could still participate in the reestablished Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>Those who are far off shall come and build in Yahweh’s temple- Those far off could refer to the Jews still in Persia who were yet to return. Or the reference might be to the Gentiles- or perhaps both groups are in view.  The implication of "come" is that Gentiles would enter the sacred space of the temple in order to rebuild it. The acceptance of Gentiles within God’s house is clearly implied. But Gentiles didn’t come and help the Jews in building as the restoration prophecies required. It could be that their refusal of Gentile help to build the temple, insisting that only Jews work in it (<a href='B:150 4:3'>Ezr 4:3</a> cp. <a href='B:160 2:20'>Neh 2:20</a>), was actually going too far; by being so exclusive, they were disallowing the fulfilment of the prophecies both in Zechariah 6 and in Isaiah, that Gentiles would help in the final rebuilding of Zion. As with some of us, their quite correct refusal to allow “the adversaries of Judah” (<a href='B:150 4:1'>Ezr 4:1</a>) to fellowship with us in the work can lead us to an exclusive approach to fellowship, that actually disallows the essentially outgoing and inclusive spirit of the God we serve. The Jews returned from Babylonian having swung to the opposite extreme from their earlier worldliness; they returned proud and refusing contact with the Gentile world, considering themselves saved by their own strength. And this is perhaps reflected in the way they refused on principle to allow any Gentiles to help them in the building work. <a href='B:290 60:10-11'>Isa 60:10-11</a> had foretold: “And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee [as in the decree of Cyrus]... Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night”; and them as Ezekiel 43 had also described, “I will glorify the house of my glory” (<a href='B:290 60:7'>Isa 60:7</a>). But due to the Jews’ abuse of the Sabbath and their refusal to believe Yahweh would be the promised wall of protecting fire to them, the gates could not be open continually, and had to be shut at night (<a href='B:160 7:3'>Neh 7:3</a>; <a href='B:160 13:19'>Neh 13:19</a>). And Antiochus quite soon after Nehemiah’s time destroyed them [which shows how the spirituality involved in what we do, e.g. the building of the wall, is the essential thing, rather than the achievement of anything in itself]. The implication of the prophecies about Zion’s open gates was that whosoever would could then come at any time to seek Yahweh. But men were potentially turned away from Him, and His Kingdom not realized…just because greedy, materialistic Jews wanted to have a few more coins in their pocket as a result of their trading on the Sabbath. And so with us, our meanness, our disabling of adverts to be placed, preaching to be done…by our selfishness, our desire to have more than we need to cover us in the case of an y eventuality, all this effectively shuts up the Kingdom against men. If the Pharisees could do just this, it is possible for us to do it. The salvation of others has been delegated into our hands.</p><p>And you shall know that Yahweh of Armies has sent me to you- As noted on <a href='B:450 2:9'>Zec 2:9</a>; <a href='B:450 4:9'>Zec 4:9</a>, there was distinct scepticism about Zechariah. But he recognizes in the next sentence that the fulfilment of his words and his personal justification would only happen if his audience were obedient. The implication is that his visions of the restored Kingdom could have come about in that generation.</p><p>This will happen, if you will diligently obey the voice of Yahweh your God’- One of God’s greatest tragedies must be all the potential He has set up, which we don’t use- the plans He’s made possible, which are left unfulfilled because we don’t rise up to it. Ezekiel 40-48 describe a great temple which the returning exiles could have built; but they didn’t. Most didn’t even bother returning from Babylon; those who did traded with the Gentiles, married their women, and built their own houses rather than God’s. <a href='B:450 6:15'>Zec 6:15</a> says the same in the context of this temple being built:&nbsp; “And this shall come to pass, if you will diligently obey the voice of the Lord”.</p>


text:
<p>It happened in the fourth year of king Darius that the word of Yahweh came o Zechariah in the fourth day of the ninth month, the month of Chislev- We note the usage of Babylonian forms for the months, reflecting how deep was the assimilation of the Jews into Babylonian language and culture. The temple work would be completed two years later (<a href='B:150 6:15'>Ezr 6:15</a>). But it was not at all on track to complete a temple according to the specifications required in Ezekiel 40-48, hence this prophecy of encouragement.</p>


text:
<p>The people of Bethel sent Sharezer and Regem Melech, and their men, to entreat Yahweh’s favour- The people of Bethel were amongst the first to return to the land and rebuild their own houses, whilst leaving God’s house unfinished, as <a href='B:440 1:3-4'>Hag 1:3-4</a> laments. 223 of them returned in <a href='B:150 2:28'>Ezr 2:28</a>, and another 123 at the time of <a href='B:160 7:32'>Neh 7:32</a>. "Regem Melech" is a mixture of an Assyrian and Hebrew word, implying ’friend of the king’. Again we see how deeply assimilated the Jews had become. "Sharezer" likewise reflects this, equivalent to the Assyrian Sar-usur or Asur-sar-usur, "Asur protect the King"; and it was the name of one of Sennacherib’s sons (<a href='B:120 19:37'>2Ki 19:37</a>).</p>


text:
<p>And to speak to the priests of the house of Yahweh of Armies, and to the prophets, saying, Should I weep in the fifth month, separating myself, as I have done these so many years?- Weeping implied fasting (<a href='B:160 1:4'>Neh 1:4</a>; <a href='B:360 2:12'>Joe 2:12</a>). This fast had been established to remember the&nbsp; destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the burning of the temple in that month (<a href='B:120 25:8-9'>2Ki 25:8-9</a>; <a href='B:300 52:12-13'>Jer 52:12-13</a>). They had instituted several other such fasts and feasts (see on <a href='B:450 8:19'>Zec 8:19</a>). The only fast required by God was that on the day of atonement on the tenth day of the seventh month. That fasting was intended to elicit repentance; and it was exactly that which was lacking in Judah. Instead they had fasted basically out of self pity, lamenting their national judgment as a tragedy, but without personal repentance. "These so many years" could refer to the 20 or so years since the first returnees had arrived in Judah. Or it could refer to the entire 70 years of captivity, since the destruction of the temple which this fast celebrated- which would make this another of several indications that there had been some retention of Yahweh worship in the land, and the returnees were wrong to consider the pre-existing Jewish population as somehow not in covenant with Yahweh. I have discussed this in commentary on the early chapters of Ezra.</p>


text:
<p>Then the word of Yahweh of Armies came to me, saying- The question was used as an opportunity to call Judah to deeper repentance, and there are several answers given to the question as to whether they should continue their self-imposed fasts of <a href='B:450 7:3'>Zec 7:3</a>, each introduced by this same rubric "Then the word of Yahweh of Armies came to me, saying".</p>


text:
<p>Speak to all the people of the land, and to the priests, saying, ‘When you fasted and mourned in the fifth and in the seventh month for these seventy years- As explained on <a href='B:450 8:19'>Zec 8:19</a>, the Jews had instituted a fast in the seventh month, to mourn the murder of Gedaliah (<a href='B:300 41:1-2'>Jer 41:1-2</a>). But this had eclipsed the fast of the seventh month which God required- on the day of atonement, to mourn their personal sins and seek His atonement.</p><p>Did you actually fast to Me, really to Me?- God’s answer is that they hadn’t really fasted for Him. They’d fasted, publically appearing to love the temple and the idea of a restored Kingdom... but in reality they had not done it for God, but somehow for themselves. And the challenge echoes to us today; we can go through all manner of religious ritual when it is effectively to ourselves and not to God.</p><p>The returned exiles were intended to keep feasts as commanded in Ezekiel 40-48, but it seems they didn’t. The pertinent command about the seventh month was in <a href='B:330 45:25'>Eze 45:25</a>: “In the seventh month, in the fifteenth day of the month, shall he [the prince] do the like in the feast of the seven days, according to the sin offering, according to the burnt offering, and according to the meat offering, and according to the oil”. But here God through Zechariah criticized the Jews for keeping this feast only externally, but not “unto me”. <a href='B:440 2:1'>Hag 2:1</a> records how on the 21st day of the 7th month- i:e. once the seven day feast that began on the 15th had finished- Haggai was sent to rebuke “the prince”, Zerubbabel, for being so slack in fulfilling Ezekiel’s vision. Even by the time of <a href='B:160 8:14-17'>Neh 8:14-17</a>, it was so that the feast of the 7th month had not been kept by Judah since the time of Joshua. They subconsciously switched off to Ezekiel’s words; just as we can all do.</p>


text:
<p>When you eat, and when you drink, don’t you eat for yourselves, and drink for yourselves?- The challenge echoes to us today; we can go through all manner of religious ritual when it is effectively to ourselves and not toGod. We can sing hymns- but to ourselves; pray, but to ourselves, as portrayed in the Lord’s story of the Pharisee praying ostensibly to God, but actually to himself (<a href='B:490 18:11'>Luk 18:11</a>). And so it was with the Jews’ fasting. Zechariah is answering their question about whether or not to continue fasting on the anniversary of the temple's destruction. He doesn't say yes or no, but rather comments that all their fasting and lamenting the destruction of the temple had been mere religious ritualism and not from the heart. So the question of continuing to do so was to be answered 'No' if they were going to continue fasting in that meaningless way; the answer was not yes or no, but rather, in what spirit were they fasting? Fasting is associated with repentance, and as discussed on Zech. 1:3 the 'return' of the Jews to God was not very deep; their repentances were insincere. Although Yahweh had by grace 'returned' them to their land anyway. Daniel's repentance for the sins of the exiles and their fathers involved prayer and fasting (Dan. 9:2); but their fasting was clearly not of that quality. If they believed the prophecies about the restoration of the Kingdom and the temple, then they would now not need to continue lamenting the destruction of the first temple.</p>


text:
<p>Aren’t these the words which Yahweh proclaimed by the former prophets, when Jerusalem was inhabited and in prosperity, and its cities around her, and the South and the lowland were inhabited?’- The point was that it was whilst the Jews were in prosperity formerly that they were so far from God and needed the radical call to repentance made by the former prophets. The returned exiles had been motivated by a desire for personal gain, and were bitterly disappointed by the drought and poor harvests (see on Haggai 1 and Malachi). The idea was that even if they attained prosperity, they would still be in sin. Bethel was one of the "cities" in view, and the answer was being given to the delegation from there (:2).</p>


text:
<p>Thus has Yahweh of Armies spoken, saying, ‘Execute true judgment, and show kindness and compassion every man to his brother- The Levites were to judge justly in the restored temple (<a href='B:330 44:24'>Eze 44:24</a>). But here and in <a href='B:450 8:16'>Zec 8:16</a>, the same word is used to exhort them to stop judging unjustly. They were not therefore restoring the temple system and kingdom as commanded in Ezekiel 40-48. The records of Ezra and Nehemiah lament the lack of justice, kindness and compassion shown to their own brethren at the time of the restoration. These were the very attributes of the Yahweh Name (<a href='B:20 34:4-6'>Exo 34:4-6</a>). Who God is must be an imperative for us to be likewise; and that is an abiding principle for all time. And it was the lack of these things which had been the basis for their exile (<a href='B:300 7:5-7'>Jer 7:5-7</a>; <a href='B:300 22:3'>Jer 22:3</a>). And the returned exiles were now behaving in just the same way.</p>


text:
<p>Don’t oppress the widow, nor the fatherless, the foreigner, nor the poor- The implication is that the returned exiles were committing the same sins as Judah had done before the exile. They were no better than their fathers, and the earlier prophetic criticisms of them still applied to this later generation. This is demonstration enough of how God’s word is a living word and speaks to subsequent generations rather than solely to the initial audience; and that is surely why the relevant prophetic words have been preserved for us in the Bible. Thus prophetic appeals to Old Testament Israel are quoted in the New Testament as being directly to us.</p><p>And let none of you devise evil against his brother in your heart’- LXX "Let none of you remember in your hearts the malice of your brother". This balances the first half of the verse, which criticizes those in power. If it were only the sins of a minority which were in view, then the judgment of the entire community would have been inappropriate. But remembering the malice of our more powerful brothers is just as much a sin as the oppression of the weak by the strong. Here again we see a major message in a minor prophet.</p>


text:
<p>But they refused to listen, and turned their backs, and stopped their ears, that they might not hear- This quotes Nehemiah’s words of warning to the returned exiles in <a href='B:160 9:29'>Neh 9:29</a>. There are three progressive positions described here. They refused to listen, then turned their backs upon the warnings of the prophets, and then psychologically turned off their hearing. This same downward spiral is observable in human beings of all ages.</p>


text:
<p>Yes, they made their hearts as hard as flint- Like a diamond. The same figure is used in <a href='B:330 3:9'>Eze 3:9</a>, meaning to be psychologically unimpressable by anything other than what we already believe in our hearts. Hence LXX "They set their heart disobedient".</p><p>In case they might hear the law, and the words which Yahweh of Armies had sent by His Spirit in the previous prophets- The human mind can resist the Holy Spirit, powerful as that Spirit Isa. Otherwise, we would not have freewill. We wonder why people are apparently deaf to God’s word. It’s not merely busyness with life, or inability to intellectually grasp what it says. There is a psychological basis for all apparent intellectual failure; and that basis is that they do not want to hear and face God’s demands.</p><p>Therefore great wrath came from Yahweh of Armies- The invading, desolating armies had been those of Yahweh, controlled by His Angelic armies, as previous visions in Zechariah have made clear.</p>


text:
<p>It has come to pass that, as He called, and they refused to listen, so they will call, and I will not listen, said Yahweh of Armies- "They" as in the former generation were already dead. But as noted on :10, God’s word is a living word. Just as the former generation had refused to listen to God’s call, so the present generation would call to God and God would not listen. Our attitude to God’s call to us in His word is reflected in how He responds to our calls to Him in the words of our prayers. Prayer and our attitude to God’s word are therefore related. As He calls to us and we respond, so we call to Him and He responds; or doesn’t respond, according to our lack of response to Him. And yet Zechariah’s generation were calling out for increased prosperity; and were having no response. Because they were not hearing His word about restoring the Kingdom. The delegation from Bethel (:2) had come calling to God for an answer. And there was no yes / no answer as they sought.</p>


text:
<p>But I will scatter them with a whirlwind among all the nations which they have not known. Thus the land was desolate after them, so that no man passed through nor returned: for they made the pleasant land desolate- We note the mixing of tenses; "I will scatter... the land was desolate". This is explicable once we grasp the principle explained on :10 and :13 (see too on <a href='B:450 8:9'>Zec 8:9</a>); God had called to a previous generation of Judah through the prophetic word, and they had refused to respond. And so the land had been desolated. But that same call came to the current generation; and they too would be scattered. But God was so gracious with the returned exiles; that scattering took centuries to happen, until the temple was again destroyed and the Jews scattered in AD70. We note that the desolation of the land was because they had made the land "desolate". The judgments were a reflection of what they themselves had done. And it was a "pleasant land", Heb. a land of desire- God’s desire was to reestablish His Kingdom there, but they made no use of that huge potential.</p>


text:
<p>The word of Yahweh of Armies came to me- After the heavy condemnation of the returned exiles in the previous verses, we can but marvel at God’s grace in now assuring them that He would still bring about His Kingdom purpose with Judah: "‘Execute true judgment, and show kindness and compassion every man to his brother. Don’t oppress the widow, nor the fatherless, the foreigner, nor the poor; and let none of you devise evil against his brother in your heart’. But they refused to listen, and turned their backs, and stopped their ears, that they might not hear. Yes, they made their hearts as hard as flint, in case they might hear the law, and the words which Yahweh of Armies had sent" (Zech. 7:9-12). Again we see God seeking to as it were force through His purpose of restoring the Kingdom, despite the weakness of the people's repentance as lamented in Zech. 7.</p>


text:
<p>Thus says Yahweh of Armies: I am jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I am jealous for her with great wrath- The wrath was with Judah. The allusion is to Jer. 32:37: "I am going to gather them from all the lands to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation; I will bring them back to this place". The wrath was a reflection of His jealousy for her, the wrath of love. <a href='B:450 7:12'>Zec 7:12</a> has just stated God’s great wrath with Judah. But His wrath against the Gentile desolators of His people was even greater. See on <a href='B:450 1:2'>Zec 1:2</a>; <a href='B:450 1:15'>Zec 1:15</a>. The even greater wrath He had over Zion’s treatment, deserved as it was, is a reflection of the profound depth of His passionate love for Zion. It’s as if a husband who has an unfaithful wife is more angry with those who punish her than he is with her. Because, quite simply, he loves her so deeply. Again we note the title "Yahweh of Armies". The Angels’ tremendous zeal for the restoration comes bubbling through. No wonder the Kingdom prophecies of Isaiah, Ezekiel and Zechariah could have been fulfilled if only the people had worked together&nbsp; with the Angels to their full potential!</p>


text:
<p>Thus says Yahweh: I have returned to Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem- Many times God says that He will return to Zion if they returned to Him. They had physically returned, but not spiritually. And yet He still returned to Zion. Such was and is His grace, His desire to bring about His promise of the Kingdom and restoration. The physical movement of the Angel back to Jerusalem is suggested here. The cherubic glory of God, representing His presence, had departed from Zion in Ezekiel 1, but <a href='B:330 43:4'>Eze 43:4</a> envisaged it returning: "The glory of Yahweh came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east". But there followed a stern warning to repent: "Now let them put away their prostitution, and the dead bodies of their kings, far from Me; and I will dwell in their midst forever. You, son of man, show the house to the people of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the pattern. If they be ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the form of the house" (<a href='B:330 43:9-11'>Eze 43:9-11</a>). The glory returned by grace, but that grace was to elicit repentance, and a building of the temple according to the specifications in Ezekiel 40-48. But Judah didn’t respond to the tremendous initiative of God’s grace.</p>&nbsp;<p>The language of Israel’s return from captivity as found in Isaiah and Ezekiel all has evident reference to the second coming and the final establishment of the Kingdom. It isn’t just that Israel’s return under Ezra and Zerubbabel was a type of that final homecoming. It could have been the Kingdom- had they obeyed the prophecies. It was all about a potential Kingdom of God. But they were too caught up with their own self-interest, with building their own houses rather than God’s; and so it was all deferred. Using the prophetic perfect, God had prophesied that at the time of the restoration, He would come and dwell in rebuilt Zion- just as Ezekiel’s prophecy had concluded: “The name of the city from that day shall be, The LORD is there” (<a href='B:330 48:35'>Eze 48:35</a>). Clearly, Ezekiel’s prophecies could have been fulfilled at the restoration; God was willing that they should be. But human apathyand self-interest stopped it from happening as it could have done.</p><p>Joshua didn’t live up to the conditional prophecies made about him in Zechariah. Ezra and Nehemiah seem to have taken over the priestly and kingly work of Joshua and Zerubbabel respectively. Nehemiah’s record concludes on the negative note that Judah had forsaken Zion (<a href='B:160 13:11'>Neh 13:11</a>). Nobody wanted to live in Jerusalem because of the persecution there; the Levites even went and lived outside it where they had “fields”, because they weren’t given their tithes (<a href='B:160 13:1'>Neh 13:1</a>). Lots had to be drawn to get people to live there (<a href='B:160 11:1'>Neh 11:1</a>). It became a ghost town, when it should have been inhabited as a town without walls for the multitudes of returned exiles joyfully dwelling there (<a href='B:450 2:5'>Zec 2:5</a>).</p><p>Jerusalem shall be called ‘The City of Truth;’ and the mountain of Yahweh of Armies, ‘The Holy Mountain’- "Truth" is a word associated with covenant relationship. The Mount Zion would be "holy" as opposed to all the abominations being practiced there, both before and after the restoration. But that depended upon whether Judah would be faithful and holy, and they ultimately chose not to be. It is in the Messianic Kingdom that Jerusalem will be called the "city of truth" (<a href='B:290 1:26'>Isa 1:26</a>); at the time when Messiah would be enthroned upon "my holy mountain of Zion" (<a href='B:230 2:6'>Psa 2:6</a>; <a href='B:290 11:9'>Isa 11:9</a>). This could have happened at the restoration; but Joshua and Zerubbabel failed to be the required Messianic figures, and so the prophecy is delayed in fulfilment until the return of the Lord Jesus to earth. But the city had to be of truth and holy, for these prophecies to come true. And Haggai has just condemned the returnees as "unclean". Jerusalem "shall" be a city of truth can be read more as commandment than prediction. For :16-19 will go on to beg the people to live in "truth", "therefore love the truth" (:19), so that the wonderful potentials might be made possible. </p>


text:
<p>Thus says Yahweh of Armies: Old men and old women will again dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, every man with his staff in his hand for very age- The prolonged lifespans envisaged are those of the Messianic Kingdom in Isaiah 65. As noted on :3, this could have happened at the restoration, but it was delayed until the coming of the Lord Jesus in glory. The dwelling of Yahweh in the midst of Jerusalem would be the time when aged men and women would likewise dwell there. The significance of very old people in the immediate context was that these were those who would have seen Zion before the Babylonian invasion. But this never came about. Instead those older ones wept as they realized the rebuilt temple was far smaller than the first temple, and not according to the prophecies of Ezekiel they had heard during the captivity.</p>


text:
<p>The streets of the city will be full of boys and girls playing in its streets- Jeremiah in his Lamentations had lamented the murder of the children in its streets. This was now to all be reversed. But instead, Nehemiah records how hard it was to get the returned exiles to dwell in Jerusalem. They preferred to build their own homes and farmsteads outside of Jerusalem. They thereby precluded the fulfilment of such prophecies. This is the undoing of the judgment of Jer. 9:21, that children would be cut off from the streets of Jerusalem. The same concept is found in the final visions of the Kingdom in Revelation; the curses upon earth for human disobedience will be reversed. Likewise the turning of fasts to feasts in :19 reverses Am. 8:10 "I will turn your feasts into mourning". Long life (:4) and prosperous children (:5) were the blessings of obedience to the old covenant, and are alluded to in Is. 65. But Judah had broken the old covenant and had been offered the new covenant by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. They had refused that, and focused instead on trying to keep the Mosaic law as best they could. And yet still God is eager to move ahead with them even on that basis. The new covenant had offered "the sound of merrymakers. I will make them many, and they shall not be few" (Jer. 30:18,19), which in essence is the picture here in Zechariah, of children playing safely in the streets.</p>


text:
<p>Thus says Yahweh of Armies: If it is too hard in the eyes of the remnant of this people in those days, should it also be too hard in My eyes? says Yahweh of Armies- Here again is a timeless challenge; we can assume that what is hard for us must therefore be hard for God. This is the root psychological problem we have which is the basis for our lack of faith in His abilities. They reasoned that “the time” of which he spoke hadn’t come (<a href='B:440 1:2'>Hag 1:2</a>)- even though the temple had miraculously been enabled to be rebuilt, for no human benefit at all to Cyrus (<a href='B:290 45:13'>Isa 45:13</a> “not for price nor reward”). They felt that all the prophecies were “marvellous” (AV) or "too hard" in the sense of something incapable of concrete fulfilment in their experience. This is why <a href='B:440 1:2'>Hag 1:2</a> rebuked them for saying “the time is not come… that the Lord’s house should be built”. They didn’t want the prophecy to be fulfilled, because it would mean ‘going up’ from their ceiled houses- both in Babylon and in the farmsteads they had built in Judah- to build the temple. They thereby brought God down to their level of capability and potential; and this is what we do likewise through our lack of faith in His ability. And note that it was "the remnant", those who by grace God was prepared to accept, who suffered this lack of faith. "Too hard" is surely an allusion to how Abraham and Sarah felt that God’s covenant promises were "too hard" to be fulfilled, earning the rebuke of <a href='B:10 18:14'>Gen 18:14</a> (s:w:). The exiles likewise were precluding the fulfilment of the covenant by the same attitude. Note the connection between the "covenant" and God’s "marvels" [s:w. "too hard", <a href='B:20 34:10'>Exo 34:10</a>]. Nehemiah had lamented that the exiles were not mindful of God’s previous "marvels" (s:w:), His historical doing of that which was "too hard" for man, time and again (<a href='B:160 9:17'>Neh 9:17</a>). This is why we have Biblical history; to remind us that God repeatedly achieves that which is "too hard" for men.</p><p>"These days" are the day of small things of Zech. 4:10. There seemed too large a divide between present experience and the glorious future promised. Lack of faith in our day is likewise a sense that it is a bridge too far, over too much troubled water, between present realities and the promised future. But because we tend to feel that way doesn't mean God sees it that way, and faith is the ability to see things from God's ultimate perspective. The equivalent in Jeremiah's prophecies of the restoration is Jeremiah's comment that "Nothing is impossible for You" (Jer. 32:17), confirming God's comment: "is anything impossible for Me?" (Jer. 32:27).</p>


text:
<p>Thus says Yahweh of Armies: Behold, I will save My people from the east country and from the west country- At that time, the Jews were in the south (Egypt) and what was called "the north". Hardly any of them were in the West. This could have come true in Zechariah’s time in the sense of their regathering from the sun’s rising [east] to it’s setting [west]. But they didn’t want to be regathered, for the most part, and remained in captivity. The allusion is to how God both saved and brought (:8) His people out of Egypt and to the promised land. But in their hearts they returned to Egypt. And so the prophecy will have a latter day fulfilment, when as today, the majority of Jews are located to the west of Palestine. The context is of God forcing through His saving purpose. The calls to flee from the land of the north alluded to in Zech. 2 had gone unheeded. Now it seems God has a plan to recall the Jews in the west and east. God had earlier said that the exiles would return from all points of the compass: “I will bring thy seed from the east and gather thee from the west; I will say to the north, Give up, and to the south, Keep not back” (Is. 43:5,6). But those in the north and south, Babylon and Egypt, hadn't returned in any great numbers. And there were very few Jews literally to the west and east of Palestine at that time. And even they it seems didn't come; for the prophecy eventually will be fulfilled in the Gentile converts: "Many shall come from the east and from the west [note no mention of north and south], and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven" (Mt. 8:11).</p>


text:
<p>And I will bring them, and they will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem; and they will be My people, and I will be their God, in truth and in righteousness- The connection is with :3; when God dwelt in the midst of Jerusalem, so would His people. Zion would be "the city of truth" (:3) in that truth and righteousness would characterize God’s people and His relationship with them. God did indeed "bring them" from exile through stirring up the spirit of Cyrus by His Spirit to enable them to return. But the majority resisted that call, that ’bringing’; likewise it was His intention that they would return not just physically but also spiritually, in repentance. And those who did return likewise resisted that potential bringing back to Him. Just as so many of all ages have resisted the series of Divine nudges throughout their lives, designed to bring them to Him. "In truth and in righteousness" meant the people could preclude this by not living in truth and righteousness- which is the basis for Zechariah's appeal a few verses later. "I will be their God" is the language of the new covenant and restoration prophesied, or offered, in Jer. 30:22,25. It is the language of the promises to Abraham, which are the basis for the new covenant. But if they didn't live in truth and righteousness, then God would not be their God in the sense offered.</p>


text:
<p>Thus says Yahweh of Armies: Let your hands be strong- The context of Zechariah is that the hands of those rebuilding the temple had been weakened (Ezra 4:4). The idea is ’let your hands be strengthened’. There had to be some conscious volition on the part of the temple rebuilders; but God would strengthen their hands. We recall God strengthening the hands of Lot to leave Sodom whilst he himself delayed (same phrase in <a href='B:10 19:16'>Gen 19:16</a>); the call was to those still in Babylon to likewise flee lest they be spiritually consumed there. The very phrase "let your hands be strong" is used repeatedly in the record of the rebuilding in Nehemiah 3, rendered in the AV "Next [s:w."hands"... repaired [s:w."strong"]", literally ’their hands strengthened’. Nehemiah had prayed "let their hands be strengthened" (<a href='B:160 6:9'>Neh 6:9</a>), just as initially they had "strengthened their hands to this good work" (<a href='B:160 2:18'>Neh 2:18</a>), just as Ezra had been strengthened by God’s hand (<a href='B:150 7:28'>Ezr 7:28</a>). God has turned the heart of the king to strengthen their hands (<a href='B:150 6:22'>Ezr 6:22</a>), and yet by this point in time they needed the encouragement to again be strengthened. And that strengthening was mediated through the words of the prophets.</p><p>You who hear in these days these words from the mouth of the prophets who were in the day that the foundation of the house of Yahweh of Armies was laid, even the temple, that it might be built- As noted on <a href='B:450 7:10'>Zec 7:10</a>; <a href='B:450 7:13-14'>Zec 7:13-14</a>, God’s word is a living word and speaks to subsequent generations rather than solely to the initial audience; and that is surely why the relevant prophetic words have been preserved for us in the Bible. The prophets who had predicted the laying of the foundation stone of the restored temple should still be listened to. That prophetic word of purpose was still capable of fulfilment in later years. The prophets in view therefore may not necessarily be Haggai and Zechariah. The idea is that the essence of the prophetic message through Zechariah was the same as that of the earlier prophets. The restoration wasn't happening, despite all the potential, because that generation of Jews were just repeating the basic errors of their ancestors who had also rejected God's appeals for true repentance. That is exactly the point made in Zech. 1:4; 7:11,12. They had laid the foundations of the temple, and not according to the commands of Ez. 40-48. But God urges them to go ahead, He would accept and work through that smaller version. And so Zechariah reminds them that the foundations had been laid that the temple might be built.</p>


text:
<p>For before those days there were no wages for man, nor any wages for an animal- The economic situation was so bad that men worked for nothing, and there wasn’t enough to even feed the beasts of burden. God could give and take prosperity so easily. This is the scenario mentioned by Haggai, of earning wages and putting them into a bag with holes in it. This was all an outcome of their lack of devotion to the work of restoring the Kingdom.</p><p>Neither was there any peace to him who went out or came in, because of the adversary. For I set all men everyone against his neighbour- This was the state of affairs in the land before the rebuilding started. But through Angelic work, God had made the land peaceful and at rest so that the rebuilding work could start and prosper (<a href='B:450 1:11'>Zec 1:11</a>). We note that God can set men against each other, and also bring about peace between persons. This is all the work of His Spirit upon the spirit of people. There really should be no excuse for disunity and ’every man against his neighbour’ when God is willing and eager to create unity amongst His people. This is the unity of or caused by the Spirit, which Paul exults in later. Lack of unity would therefore be due to a resistance to the work of His Spirit.</p>


text:
<p>But now I will not be to the remnant of this people as in the former days, says Yahweh of Armies- The terrible situation in Judah at the time of the founding of the temple (:10) would not continue. The people had returned motivated by a desire for material betterment, and God had given them drought and bad harvests (Haggai 1) to try to direct them to Him in repentance. They hadn’t responded, and now God all the same wants to pour out the covenant blessings of good harvests (:12). Haggai had made it clear that God's blessings would appear if they focused on His house rather than their own. And so He had given them famine and plague to lead them to a better focus. But Zechariah seems to be saying that God would just pour out His blessings anyway (:12) if they were willing to accept it. He so wanted to force through His Kingdom program with them.</p>


text:
<p>For they will sow their seed in peace and the vine will yield its fruit, and the ground will give its increase, and the skies will give their dew- See on Hag 1:9. God was willing to send the Kingdom conditions at that time, the blessings of keeping the covenant (<a href='B:50 33:28'>Deu 33:28</a>):&nbsp; But we know that in reality, Judah were not obedient to the heavenly vision of Ezekiel, and therefore Judah’s agriculture was not blessed in this way; the vines cast their fruit, and the fruit of the ground was destroyed (<a href='B:440 1:6'>Hag 1:6</a>; <a href='B:440 1:11'>Hag 1:11</a>; <a href='B:460 3:10-11'>Mal 3:10-11</a>). The reason was that <a href='B:450 8:12'>Zec 8:12</a> was conditional- upon <a href='B:450 8:16-17'>Zec 8:16-17</a>: “These are the things that ye shall do [i:e. to bring these prophecies about]; Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbour; execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates: And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith the LORD”. But Judah abused each other, and didn’t fulfil the conditions for the prophecy.</p><p>And I will cause the remnant of this people to inherit all these things- The remnant referred to those who had returned at Zechariah’s time. They could have experienced thIsa. The latter chapters of Ezekiel stress how Israel were to “inherit” the land; yet the same word is used in other restoration prophecies, about Messiah causing Israel to “inherit” the land again after their return from “the north country” (<a href='B:450 2:12'>Zec 2:12</a>; <a href='B:290 49:8'>Isa 49:8</a>; <a href='B:300 3:18'>Jer 3:18</a>). When Judah returned from the “north country”, then Jerusalem would be the universally recognized “throne of the Lord” (<a href='B:300 3:17-18'>Jer 3:17-18</a>). The Kingdom could have come when Judah returned from Babylon. It was therefore potentially possible for the returning exiles to inherit all the land outlined in <a href='B:330 47:13-21'>Eze 47:13-21</a> and share it out between the 12 tribes. But they grabbed every man for himself, his own farmstead, his own mini-Kingdom. They had no interest in the wider vision, nor in subduing extra land; and the majority of the Jews didn’t even want to inherit it; they preferred the soft life of Babylon, the Kingdom of men rather than the Kingdom of God. And thus the Kingdom made possible was never actually fulfilled at that time.</p>


text:
<p>It shall come to pass that, as you were a curse among the nations, house of Judah and house of Israel, so will I save you, and you shall be a blessing. Don’t be afraid- The Divine intention was that the ten tribes along with Judah would be a blessing to the nations living in the eretz promised to Abraham. It was "fear" which held them back from realizing this, just as it was fear which stopped God’s people possessing that same land at the time of Moses and Joshua. But all this was conditional upon their wanting to leave the lands of their captivity, and to live according to the spirit of :16.</p><p>Let your hands be strong- See on :9. Jerusalem being told not to fear and to have strong hands is a direct fulfilment of the kingdom prophecy of <a href='B:430 3:16'>Zep 3:16</a>: "In that day it will be said to Jerusalem, Don’t be afraid, Zion. Don’t let your hands be weak". The people of Judah who had returned were on the very cusp of the Kingdom of God being reestablished. It so nearly happened, such was God’s enthusiasm for the salvation of that generation. But it didn’t happen because they were focused on the immediate and material rather than the spiritual.</p>


text:
<p>For thus says Yahweh of Armies: As I thought to do evil to you, when your fathers provoked Me to wrath, says Yahweh of Armies, and I didn’t repent- God pronounces "evil", but in the gap between the pronunciation of judgment and carrying it out, there is the possibility of human repentance and God’s repentance / change of mind. So this statement that God did not repent is effectively saying that Judah had not then repented. Judah had still not returned / repented, but God had returned them to their land all the same. Zech. 8:14,15 uses the language of the new covenant in Jer. 32:42: "For thus says the Lord... Just as I purposed to bring disaster upon you... so again I have purposed in these days to do good to Jerusalem... do not be afraid". This matches Jer. 32:40-42: "For thus says the Lord: Just as I have brought all this great disaster upon this people, so I will bring upon them all the good fortune that I now promise them... I will rejoice in doing good to them". Although the Jews wanted to continue keeping the Old Covenant, God was eager to push forward their entrance into the New Covenant. But all this was conditional upon their 'doing good' (:16,17). They didn't, and remained committed to the [broken] old covenant, and so these things have been reapplied to us who enter the new covenant today.</p>


text:
<p>So again have I thought in these days to do good to Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. Don’t be afraid- There is no equivalent to "And I didn’t repent" in :14. God was not promising that He would not change His mind, because He cannot force through salvation upon people. The conditions of :16 were still required:&nbsp; The gap between Divine statement and its fulfilment still existed, as it did in :14. And there needed to be freewill response from the people, in the terms of :16.  The appeals for repentance in :16,17 are likely against a background of the people assuming that since they had some kind of a temple rebuilt, therefore they must be automatically acceptable with God. The repeated assurances "Don't be afraid" beg the question, 'Afraid of what?'. I suggest it was the basic human fear of being taken beyond the narrow confines of their initial vision of life as it is.</p>


text:
<p>These are the things that you shall do: speak every man the truth with his neighbour. Execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates- These were the conditions for God’s insistent desire to reestablish the Kingdom to come about immediately. They seem petty demands compared to the magnitude of what was on offer. But this is the major message of the minor prophets- that things like truth, justice and peace are of utterly paramount importance. And upon them stands or falls the part of men in God’s Kingdom. And Judah at this time failed. The Levites were to judge justly in the restored temple (<a href='B:330 44:24'>Eze 44:24</a>). But here and in <a href='B:450 7:9'>Zec 7:9</a>, the same word is used to effectively exhort them to stop judging unjustly.</p>


text:
<p>And let none of you devise evil in your hearts against his neighbour, and love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, says Yahweh- As explained on :15,16, in return for apparently petty changes, God was prepared to reestablish the Kingdom in glory there and then. But to God, these things were not petty. They were requests for attitudes of mind, not loving falsity, not scheming in their hearts against their neighour. It is mental attitudes that God hates. This itself sets up the colossal importance of being spiritually minded, and the primary importance of the heart over any external religious rituals. God was looking for them to love truth and peace (:19); rather than loving falsity. The same phrase for ’devising evil’ is used of how the opponents of the exiles ’devised evil’ against them (<a href='B:160 6:2'>Neh 6:2</a>; <a href='B:190 8:3'>Est 8:3</a>). Yet the exiles were doing to their brethren what had been done to them. This is the classic cycle of abuse; to do to others as was done to us. Only repentance and a response to Divine grace will break it. God had ’devised evil’ against His people (:14; <a href='B:400 2:3'>Mic 2:3</a>). But they were devising evil against that same people, their brethren. They were unconsciously playing God, responding to their own rightful receipt of God’s judgment by judging others; instead of accepting guilt and the rightness of God’s judgment. We note the parallels between :16,17 and Jer. 9:3-8, which list these very things as the reason Judah went into captivity and the old covenant was broken. If they continued behaving like this, then the possibility of entering the new covenant (see on :14) and the restored Kingdom of God would be precluded. And according to Malachi, the returnees failed. </p>


text:
<p>The word of Yahweh of Armies came to me- See on <a href='B:450 7:4'>Zec 7:4</a>. This appears to still be in answer to the question posed by the delegation from Bethel about fasting in <a href='B:450 7:2'>Zec 7:2</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Thus says Yahweh of Armies: The fasts of the fourth, fifth, seventh and tenth months shall be for the house of Judah joy and gladness, and cheerful feasts- Zechariah chapters 7 and 8 clearly form a unit. In Zech. 7:6 Zechariah answered their question about whether or not to continue fasting on the anniversary of the temple's destruction [in the fifth month]. He doesn't say yes or no, but rather comments that all their fasting and lamenting the destruction of the temple had been mere religious ritualism and not from the heart. So the question of continuing to do so was to be answered 'No' if they were going to continue fasting in that meaningless way; the answer was not yes or no, but rather, in what spirit were they fasting? Fasting is associated with repentance, and as discussed on Zech. 1:3 the 'return' of the Jews to God was not very deep; their repentances were insincere. Although Yahweh had by grace 'returned' them to their land anyway. Daniel's repentance for the sins of the exiles and their fathers involved prayer and fasting (Dan. 9:2); but their fasting was clearly not of that quality. If they believed the prophecies about the restoration of the Kingdom and the temple, then they would now not need to continue lamenting the destruction of the first temple. Indeed, by faith, they would turn those fasts into feasts of celebration. But the Jews didn't do so. The fasts "shall be" feasts- I take that as a command more than a prophecy. But true to human nature, they preferred to remain myopic, lamenting the past and comfortable doing so because it gave a sense of tradition and community, rather than seeing the very real possibilities of living a Kingdom life of all joy and peace through believing. The challenge is not simply to those who think the Christian walk is a glum holding on to tradition, lamenting every step of their lives in this world, taking comfort in thoughts that they are preserving God's Truth in a dark and wicked world as the miserable faithful have ever done. In fact, the problem is basic to human nature. We actually prefer to walk in myopic flat emotion, rather than be inspired and 'be strengthened' by the Spirit to see the great possibilities there are for us both now and eternally, and to change fasts to feasts. Ask believers whether they are 100% certain of their personal salvation... and the answers are disappointing. The Jews have been criticized in Zech. 7:5,6 for effectively fasting for themselves and not for God: "Did you actually fast to Me, really to Me?". To live in the postmodern world of flat emotion and continual borderline depression is in fact selfish; so much art and culture glorifies the inane and negative and people live in that same spirit. Just as Judah fasted for themselves, and refused to turn the fasts to feasts. 
</p><p>Joy, gladness and cheerful feasts is the language of the restoration prophecies like Jer. 33:10,11: "Yet again there shall be heard in this place, about which you say, It is waste, without man and without animal, even in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem that are desolate, without man and without inhabitant and without animal, the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the voice of those who say, Give thanks to Yahweh of Armies, for Yahweh is good, for His loving kindness endures forever; who bring thanksgiving into the house of Yahweh. For I will cause the captivity of the land to return as at the first, says Yahweh". The Messianic banquet could have happened then- if they wanted it. Just as people can make what they will of the breaking of bread banquet. We could argue that the sound of joy and gladness had been taken from the nation for 70 years- but if they turned the fasts into feasts as commanded, then the restoration would be with them: "I will take from them the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride... This whole land shall be a desolation and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. It shall happen that when seventy years are accomplished, then I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, says Yahweh, for their iniquity" (Jer. 25:10-12; Jer. 7:34; 16:9). The reversal of fasts to feasts was to be part of the new covenant experience prophesied in Jer. 31:12; 33:11: "I will turn their mourning into joy, I will comfort them, and give them gladness for sorrow". But they preferred to mope around in mourning, and those days of mourning are kept in Judaism to this day. The essence of these things is to be found in the experience of those on the Lord Jesus, who said that His disciples would feast and not fast because of His presence with them. 
</p><p>The Jews had instituted their own fasts: the ninth day of the fourth month, in memory of the capture of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans; in the fifth month, in remembrance of the burning of the temple and city (see on <a href='B:450 7:3'>Zec 7:3</a>); in the seventh month, to mourn the murder of Gedaliah (<a href='B:300 41:1-2'>Jer 41:1-2</a>); and in the tenth month, in memory of the commencement of the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. But the only fast required by God was that on the day of atonement on the tenth day of the seventh month. That fasting was intended to elicit repentance; and it was exactly that which was lacking in Judah. Instead they had fasted basically out of self pity, lamenting their national judgment as a tragedy, but without personal repentance. We see here the human tendency towards religion; and even when ostensibly based upon spiritual things, it can end up a totally separate religion to the one God desires. In their case, fasting to lament Gedaliah’s death took precedence over fasting in repentance for personal sins, which was what God wanted.</p><p>Therefore love truth and peace- Without loving truth, these feasts would not be joyful to the Jews who had returned. The prophecy was conditional. As noted on :17, they had loved falsity; God was and is intensely concerned with the state of the human heart. What do we really love and aspire to? Hence all who truly love the Lord’s appearing, with all that entails, shall be saved (<a href='B:620 4:8'>2Ti 4:8</a>). To love truth is not to love achieving intellectual truths of interpretation. Rather the idea is of loving integrity and rightness, righteousness. So that Jerusalem could be called a "city of truth", inhabited by people who 'did truth'. And this is the idea of Jer. 31:23: "Once more they shall use these words in the land of Judah and in its towns when I return their fortunes: “The Lord bless you, O abode of righteousness, O holy mountain!". That meant, however, that for the restoration to happen- there had to be righteousness and holiness within Jerusalem. Haggai had declared the people there "unclean"; and now Zechariah appeals for integrity, truth in its moral sense, which in the end is true Biblical love. We note how John's letters often harp on the connection between love and 'truth'. Jer. 32:41 speaks of how "I will plant them in this land in faithfulness"- the same Hebrew idea as 'truth'. But Zechariah has to appeal to the people to have that faithfulness. In the end, they didn't. And a case can be made that the rest of the prophecy, Zech. 9-14, moves on to reinterpret the prophetic possibilities with reference to the Lord Jesus and the establishment of His Kingdom in an even more glorious way, seeing that the people didn't want it then. And that is why the appeals for repentance in Zechariah finish here, and the prophecies are no longer dated specifically, as they have no immediate relevance to the time of Darius.</p><p>Indeed it could be argued that Zech. 8 is a summary of the previous prophecies in Zech. 1-7, and gives Judah an ultimatum- to live the Kingdom life now, or the Kingdom will not be restored. The rest of the prophecy then focuses upon the future. The connections are persuasive: 8:2 = 1:14; 8:3 = 1:16; 2:14,15; 8:4,5 = 2:4,8; 8:7,8 = 2:6,11,12; 8:9-13 = 3:10; 4:9; 8:14,17 =  5:3,4; 7:9,10; 8:19 = 7:3,9; 8:20-22 = 2:15; 5:5-11; 8:23 = 2:10-12,15. </p>


text:
<p>Thus says Yahweh of Armies: Many peoples, and the inhabitants of many cities will yet come- The "many peoples" could refer to the peoples of Judah / Israel (as in Dt. 33:3,19). Consistently, the restoration prophecies envisaged God’s restored people as being a blessing to the nations around them; they would recognize that Yahweh had done great things for His people (<a href='B:230 126:1-3'>Psa 126:1-3</a>) and would wish to therefore become part of that people. The reality was that Judah and Israel continued worshipping the idols of those nations, and later evolved into an exclusivist, superior attitude toward them.</p>


text:
<p>And the inhabitants of one shall go to another, saying- "The inhabitants of one" is LXX "five cities", perhaps alluding to the five cities which were the capitals of Persia and which therefore became a figure of speech for Persia. Likewise the five cities (the Pentapolis) of the Philistines may also be in view. The peoples of their captivity could have turned to the wonderful God of the Jews; but thisdidn’t happen.</p><p>‘Let us go speedily to entreat the favour of Yahweh, and to seek Yahweh of Armies. I will go also’- "Speedily" is also rendered ’continually’. This is the picture of the closing vision in Zechariah 14; Gentiles coming up at regular intervals to keep the feasts. But we see here how the word of the Gospel spreads; it is by the invitation of those seeking God artlessly passed on to others. We see here a powerful picture of effective evangelism. Those who ask others to go the journey to Zion must themselves lead by example: "I will go also".</p>


text:
<p>Yes, many peoples and strong nations will come to seek Yahweh of Armies in Jerusalem, and to entreat the favour of Yahweh- Perhaps Nehemiah was some kind of potential Messiah- for the surrounding Gentiles ‘came up’ to him and shared in the luxurious temple meals (a common Kingdom prophecy- the same Hebrew words are used for the Gentiles ‘coming up’ to the temple in <a href='B:290 60:5'>Isa 60:5</a>; <a href='B:290 60:11'>Isa 60:11</a>; <a href='B:300 16:19'>Jer 16:19</a>; <a href='B:440 2:7'>Hag 2:7</a>; <a href='B:450 8:22'>Zec 8:22</a>). Those meals could have been the Messianic banquets. See on <a href='B:460 1:10'>Mal 1:10</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Thus says Yahweh of Armies: In those days, ten men will take hold- It has been estimated that about 20,000 Jews were taken to Babylon. But the population of Babylon was 200,000, indeed it is noted as the first city to pass 200,000 population. This would mean that the population of Babylon was ten percent Jewish. The ideal was that Babylon would turn to Judah’s God, ’taking hold of the skirt’ in covenant relationship.</p><p>Out of all the languages of the nations- Initially the reference would have been to the 127 languages of the Persian empire. They would beg for acceptance by the&nbsp; minority nation amongst them, the Jews.</p><p>They will take hold of the skirt of him who is a Jew, saying, ‘We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you’-See on <a href='B:330 16:63'>Eze 16:63</a>. It was God’s intention that ten men (a reference to Israelites of the ten tribes?) would take hold of the skirts of a Jew (i:e. one of Judah) and come with him to worship in the new temple. The idea was that those Jews still in Babylon and Persia would return, and there would be many Gentiles who would come with them. But in fact the opposite happened. So few wanted to live in Jerusalem, that the rulers had to cast lots to force one in ten Jews to go and live in Jerusalem (<a href='B:160 11:1'>Neh 11:1</a>). Most of the captives chose to stay where they were, in captivity, assimilated into the culture and ways of the world around them. And the ten tribes didn’t really unite with Judah, but went off and got lost in the Gentile world.</p><p>"A Jew" is literally ’a Yehudite’- a specific term for a resident of the Persian province of Judah. They could have had the peoples of all the nations in the Persian empire grabbing hold of their skirt. Yehud could have risen up to be the head of all the nations in the land promised to Abraham, i:e. the Persian empire. These were the very real possibilities.</p><p>"God is with you" refers to how the visible presence of Yahweh would have been seen in Zion, when Yahweh Shammah, "the Lord is there". This should have been the effect of the Gentiles witnessing a mass return of Jews and the reestablishment of God's Kingdom at that time. But that didn't happen, and so the words are alluded in 1 Cor. 14:25 of how Gentiles who behold the functional Christian church would say that "God is with you".

</p><p>The LXX hints that even this prophecy is conditional, upon the Gentiles actually wanting to join the Jews in Yahweh worship: "In those days my word shall be fulfilled if ten men of all the languages of the nations should take hold—even take hold of the hem of a Jew...".
</p><p>We see a number of different potential movements within God's purpose. Jeremiah and Ezekiel had offered the captives a return from exile, a new covenant and a restored Kingdom, with a new temple and a Messianic "Prince" and conditions of great blessing in the land, with the Gentiles becoming proselytes. But this was conditional upon their repentance. They didn't repent and only a relatively few returned from exile. They didn't build the temple as commanded by Ezekiel and sought to return to the [now broken] old covenant. They didn't repent and were only interested in their own properties and material betterment. Haggai and Zechariah appealed for repentance, but it was only done on a surface level. Through Zechariah, God offered them a new version of things- a priest [Joshua] and a king [Zerubbabel], and offers to cleanse the Levitical priesthood. And offered the blessings of the old covenant in return for obedience to the old covenant. Jeremiah's prophecies of the new covenant are alluded to in Zechariah 1-8 and parts of them are mixed in with the new deal God was offering a people who still wanted the old covenant, for reasons of preserving tradition. But even that wasn't acceptable to them. God condemns them as "unclean" (Haggai) and unacceptable (Malachi). After Zechariah 8, Zechariah refocuses the possible futures upon the Lord Jesus and His Kingdom. Yet Mal. 1: 11 is clear that God enjoyed fellowship and worship from a faithful remnant of exiles still in captivity, quite without a temple and sanctuary. And quite possibly without a Levitical priesthood. Zech. 8:20-23 and other restoration prophecies speak of a pilgrimage of nations to worship at the restored temple in Jerusalem. But Malachi sees the possibility of individual Jews [initially] acceptably worshipping God from a distance. And this merges with the wider vision of individual Gentiles worldwide glorifying Him, without the temple and restored Kingdom in the specific form envisaged by the restoration prophets. In all this we see God's earnest desire to somehow work with men, on whatever level.
</p>


text:
<p>An oracle. The word of Yahweh is against the land of Hadrach- Hadrach is another name&nbsp; for the area around Damascus. It may be mentioned because here Alexander the Great of Greece won his victory which opened the way for him to then pursue his campaign against Syria and the areas around Israel, which the next verses describe. Or the reference could be to the Syrian god Chadrak; the oracle was specifically against the god of Damascus.</p><p>And will rest upon Damascus; for the eye of man and of all the tribes of Israel is toward Yahweh- This continues the theme of Zechariah 8, that in the Messianic Kingdom there would be a joining together of the Gentiles with the Jews in turning to God. This time would also be of unity between the ten tribes and the two tribes- all &nbsp;the tribes of Israel would together turn toward Yahweh. Our common repentance and&nbsp; relationship with God is what is in practice the basis of fellowship between God’s people; it is based upon spiritual experience rather than common theology. But this time of turning to Yahweh would only come about after terrible judgments upon the nations around Judah. These would elicit repentance of a remnant, as the following prophecy makes clear. In the first instance, the reference is to the campaign of Alexander the Great against the neighbours of Judah; this could have led to the coming of a Messiah figure and the reestablishment of the Kingdom. But this possibility also didn’t work out, and so these events will have their major fulfilment in the last days and the time of theLord’s return.</p>


text:
<p>And Hamath, also, which borders on it- The idea is that Hamath would share the same judgment as Damascus, perhaps at the same time or at the same hands. This happened during the campaign of Alexander the Great.</p><p>Tyre and Sidon, because they are very wise- This continues the great prophetic theme; that all human strength and wisdom is as nothing before God’s judgment.</p>


text:
<p>Tyre built herself a stronghold, and heaped up silver like the dust, and fine gold like the mire of the streets- All human strength was and is to crumble before God’s judgment. Isaiah and Ezekiel had prophesied against mainland Tyre, and their words had been fulfilled by the Babylonians. But they then built their island stronghold, as if to ensure future Divine prophecies against them would not be fulfilled.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, the Lord will dispossess her, and He will strike her power in the sea; and she will be devoured with fire- Initially seen in the destruction of Tyre’s island citadel by Alexander the Great building a mole into the sea to reach it. "Dispossess" is literally ’to send into exile’, and there are records of 13,000 people from the conquered Tyre being sent away into slavery.</p>


text:
<p>Ashkelon will see it, and fear; Gaza also, and will writhe in agony; as will Ekron, for her expectation will be disappointed- LXX "for she is ashamed at her trespass". The idea is that the Divine judgments would elicit repentance in a minority, just as was intended to happen with Judah. Or if we read as the Masoretic text, the idea would be that Ekron as the most northerly city in the route of Alexander’s advance had hoped that Tyre or Egypt would come to the support of the Philistines; but they were disappointed. All trust in human strength can lead only to disappointment.</p><p>And the king will perish from Gaza, and Ashkelon will not be inhabited- The order of mention of the cities in this section follows the route of Alexander’s campaign. I suggested on Daniel 2 that there were various potential fulfilments of the sequence of metals in the image, culminating in the reestablishment of the Kingdom of God in Israel. The perishing of the king of Gaza at the hands of Alexander is recorded by Herodotus: "Betis the satrap, or petty"king,"was bound to a chariot by thongs thrust through the soles of his feet, and dragged round the city".</p>


text:
<p>Foreigners will dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines- <a href='B:160 4:7'>Neh 4:7</a>; <a href='B:160 13:24'>Neh 13:24</a> stress that Ashdod was a particular opponent of the restoration. But they too would be cut off. Perhaps the "foreigners" in view were those whom the people of Ashdod considered foreigners, i:e. the Jews. And again we note the continued, repeated prophetic criticism of pride. This was and is the fundamental reason for Divine judgment. In :10 we read of the ’cutting off’ (s:w:) of the military strength of Zion’s enemies; perhaps the pride of the Philistines refers specifically to that about which they prided themselves, namely their military technology. And we can see clear similarities in the latter day fulfilment of these verses, in the judgments to come upon the latter day Philistines- the Palestinians.</p>


text:
<p>I will take away his blood out of his mouth, and his abominations from between his teeth- This implies that the previously mentioned nations are as a beast with Judah in their mouth, whom they are treating abominably:&nbsp; This is the same figure as <a href='B:370 3:12'>Amo 3:12</a> describing a shepherd taking out the remnants of Judah from the mouth of the beast which had devoured them. Such an arrest of their behaviour never happened, let alone resulting in a remnant of them repenting and joining with Israel as spoken of in the rest of this verse. Yet it will come true, in the last days. It is this which means that Zechariah 9 is clearly a prophecy of the return of Christ to earth and the establishment of His Kingdom (see <a href='B:450 9:1'>Zec 9:1</a>; <a href='B:450 9:9-11'>Zec 9:9-11</a> especially). But this worldwide Kingdom will be established after judgments are executed upon Damascus, Hamath, Tyre, Sidon, Ashkelon, Ekron, Ashdod and Gaza- a collection of peoples likened to a beast with a mouth and teeth which have enclosed Israel. These areas are geographically exactly where the jihadists envisage the ’greater Syria’ as being. They surround present day Israel, from the Gaza Strip to Lebanon. And they are likened to some latter day beast descending upon Israel, which must be destroyed before God’s Kingdom can be established. This encourages us to see the beast of Daniel and Revelation as referring in its final form to Israel’s Islamist neighbours who now surround her. <a href='B:290 9:12'>Isa 9:12</a> uses ‘beast’ imagery when it speaks of the Syrians andPhilistines [same word as ‘Palestinians’] as being the mouth of a huge beast, closing around Israel:&nbsp; "The Syrians before, and the Philistines behind;&nbsp; and they shall devour Israel with open mouth". This image of an Arab beast devouring Israel is repeated in <a href='B:360 1:6'>Joe 1:6</a> concerning the later Assyrian invader.</p><p>And he also will be a remnant for our God; and he will be as a chieftain in Judah, and Ekron as a Jebusite- Just as remnant of Judah will be for "our God", so a remnant of the aggressive nations around Judah would likewise serve the same God ["our God"]. They would become equal to the Jews, even becoming chiefs in Judah, and the remnant of Ekron’s inhabitants would be as the Jews who lived in Jerusalem itself. It is called "Jebus" here, its Palestinian name, to demonstrate the degree of unity between the Jewish remnant and the repentant remnant of the surrounding nations. This could have happened at the time of the restoration, but neither remnant repented. This is therefore yet to come, and will bring about the situation of <a href='B:290 19:24'>Isa 19:24</a>, when in the Kingdom, natural Israel and the surrounding nations will have equal share. This message was unattractive to the returned exiles, who wanted an exclusively Jewish kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>I will encamp around My house against the army, so that none pass through or return; and no oppressor will pass through them any more- The potential fulfilment was that Alexander could have come to Jerusalem, encamp against it, and be destroyed by the appearance of a Messianic figure in Zion (:9). But this also didn’t happen, and so the prophecy will have a rescheduled fulfilment in the last days. "I will encamp about mine house because of the army of him that passeth by [the latter-day Sennacherib], and because of him that returneth... the Lord of Hosts (Angels) shall defend them" (<a href='B:450 9:8'>Zec 9:8</a>; <a href='B:450 9:15'>Zec 9:15</a>) is all the language of Jacob under threat from Esau, being Angelically camped around. This is the basis for the latter day situation in Jerusalem. It has been noted that Alexander averted his plans to attack Jerusalem and instead bypassed Judah in his enthusiasm to get to Egypt and conquer it. This was of God, but reflected how the scenario envisaged here was not then to happen, although in essence it will do so in the last day. "Oppressor" is the word used about the Egyptians oppressing Israel in Egypt (<a href='B:20 3:7'>Exo 3:7</a>; <a href='B:20 5:6'>Exo 5:6</a>; <a href='B:20 5:10'>Exo 5:10</a>). Alexander didn’t do this to Judah. The idea is that an oppressor would come into Judah and oppress them, but Yahweh would defend Jerusalem- exactly as happened when the Assyrians invaded Judah at the time of Hezekiah. This didn’t really happen under Alexander, although it was potentially possible. But it will happen in the last days.</p><p>For now I have seen with My eyes- The allusion may be to how God also ’saw’ His people in Egypt, and saved them (<a href='B:20 2:25'>Exo 2:25</a>; <a href='B:20 3:7'>Exo 3:7</a>). The problem was that they did not lift their eyes to their maker, and His gaze and theirs didn’t meet.</p>


text:
<p>Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion! Shout, daughter of Jerusalem!- This is the potential "shout" of <a href='B:290 44:23-28'>Isa 44:23-28</a>: “Sing, O ye heavens; for the LORD hath done it: shout [s:w:], ye lower parts of the earth: break forth into singing, ye mountains, O forest, and every tree therein: for the LORD hath redeemed Jacob, and glorified himself in Israel…. that frustrateth the tokens of the liars [s:w. <a href='B:160 4:15'>Neh 4:15</a> re. God frustrating the Samaritan opposition]... That confirmeth the word of his servant [Cyrus], and performeth the counsel of his messengers; that saith to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be inhabited; and to the cities of Judah, Ye shall be built".</p><p>Behold, your King comes to you! He is righteous, and having salvation; humble, and riding on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey- This is another prophecy of Zerubbabel or Joshua which had to have its real fulfilment deferred until the coming of Jesus. This King could have brought salvation- the salvation prophesied as coming at the restoration (<a href='B:450 8:7'>Zec 8:7</a>) when Yahweh [as represented by His appointed king] came to Zion (<a href='B:450 8:3'>Zec 8:3</a>). See on <a href='B:300 23:5'>Jer 23:5</a>. Did Zerubbabel / Joshua like Nehemiah enter Jerusalem on a donkey? Or were they intended to but didn’t?"His dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth” (:10) means that full inheritance of the territory promised to Abraham could have been possible at the restoration, had Joshua or Zerubbabel become their king. The phrase contrasts with the repeated reminder that the Persians had dominion “on this side the river” (<a href='B:150 4:10-11'>Ezr 4:10-11</a>; <a href='B:150 4:16'>Ezr 4:16</a>; <a href='B:150 5:3'>Ezr 5:3</a>; <a href='B:150 5:6'>Ezr 5:6</a>; <a href='B:150 6:13'>Ezr 6:13</a>; <a href='B:150 8:36'>Ezr 8:36</a>; <a href='B:160 3:7'>Neh 3:7</a>). The coming King (and Joshua was prophesied as a king) was to free Judah from Persia’s dominion, and establish God’s Kingdom on its territory, with boys and girls playing in the streets of Jerusalem (<a href='B:450 8:5'>Zec 8:5</a>). “From sea even to sea” is a conscious quote of the famous Messianic prophecy of <a href='B:230 72:8'>Psa 72:8</a>. This was David’s prayer for Solomon; that he should have been the Messiah, and his Kingdom should have been Messiah’s. <a href='B:130 28:6-7'>1Ch 28:6-7</a> definitely seems to imply that Solomon could have lived for ever had he been obedient: “I will establish his kingdom for ever, if he be constant to do my commandments”. But as everyone knew, Solomon had failed, what was potentially possible hadn’t come true, due to his apostasy. Now, again, it could come true through the work of Joshua and Zerubbabel, and the priesthood and people being obedient to the temple prophecies of Ezekiel. If they wanted the Kingdom to come, then they had to live the Kingdom life.</p><p>There is an intended juxtaposition here: “Your King comes... lowly, and riding on a donkey”. Kings were supposed to enter upon a charger, not upon a donkey, let alone upon a foal who had not been broken in, bucking and starting in every direction rather than sedately bearing the glorious king. This was and is the great paradox- a humble king. Likewise in the New Testament, the Spirit chose ‘shepherd’ as an image of ecclesial leadership, when the surrounding Rabbis despised shepherds as&nbsp; dishonest. It’s just the same as the Lord Jesus describing Himself as the humble King- a very contradiction in the terms of the contemporary culture.</p>


text:
<p>I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow will be cut off; and he will speak peace to the nations: and his dominion will be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth- The Greek invasion is seen as focusing upon the territory of Israel and Jerusalem particularly. A united Ephraim [the ten tribes] and Judah, freshly returned from captivity and to God, would&nbsp; overcome these invaders with God’s help, and take over the entire eretz promised to Abraham for the new Messianic King; with a message of peace with God to those nations.</p>


text:
<p>As for you also, because of the blood of your covenant, I have set free your prisoners from the pit in which is no water- The prisoners in the pit in the first instance were Judah in captivity, represented by Jeremiah who was cast into such a pit (<a href='B:290 51:14'>Isa 51:14</a>; <a href='B:290 61:1'>Isa 61:1</a>; <a href='B:300 37:16'>Jer 37:16</a>). Jeremiah had foreseen that a new covenant would be made with the returning exiles when they were freed from the pit of Babylonian captivity. It is this covenant which is in view here, and it is associated with blood, just as the Abrahamic covenant had been [through the blood of circumcision] and the old, Mosaic covenant, which was inaugurated through the sprinkling of blood. Quite how this would have worked out at the time of the restoration is unclear; perhaps the "blood" referred to that shed in the Babylonian invasion of Judah. But the wording is as it is because most of the exiles preferred to remain in the pit of Babylon, and those who did return repeatedly broke the covenant by their behaviour. The final fulfilment would be in the blood of the Lord Jesus, mediator of the new covenant, releasing God’s people from the pit of sin and death.</p>


text:
<p>Turn to the stronghold, you prisoners of hope!- The exiles are presented as prisoners, whereas in fact they enjoyed a degree of freedom, as the book of Esther reveals. So the imprisonment was spiritual, just as the exiles were urged to flee spiritual death in Babylon. They were imprisoned in the hope of deliverance at the restoration, and yet this "hope of Israel" was rejected by them, in preference for life in Babylon. They were asked to turn or return to the stronghold of Zion. They had been released from prison (:11); but they needed to actually leave. And they for the most part chose to remain in their cells.</p><p>&nbsp;Even today I declare that I will restore double to you- "Even today", when the exiles were still so weak and sinful. "Restore" is the same original word as "Turn" at the start of the verse. Their returning literally and spiritually to God and the things of the Kingdom would result in God’s returning "double" to them. And so it is today; any move we make toward God is compensated double by His movement toward us.</p>


text:
<p>For indeed I bend Judah as a bow for Myself. I have filled the bow with Ephraim; and I will stir up your sons, Zion- "Stir up" is s:w. <a href='B:150 1:5'>Ezr 1:5</a> about Judah’s spirit being ‘stirred up’ to return. But most of them preferred to remain in exile. And so this prophecy of Judah and Ephraim being reunited at the restoration and used by God to achieve military victory against their enemies... simply never happened.</p><p>Against your sons, Greece, and will make you like the sword of a mighty man- The envisaged scenario was that the Greek invasion of the Middle East would come against Jerusalem, and be defeated by a united Judah and Israel; who would then dominate the entire eretz promised to Abraham. This had also been envisaged in Daniel. The little horn of Daniel 7 grows out of the fourth kingdom, represented by the fourth beast. But in Daniel 8, a very similar horn grows out of Greece, the third kingdom. We can therefore conclude that the antichrist figure of Daniel 8 would have appeared as an outgrowth of the Greek kingdom, and been destroyed by Messiah’s coming. But this didn’t happen, and Antiochus Epiphanes became but an incipient fulfilment of the antichrist of the last days. Zechariah, like Daniel, contains many conditional prophecies- “And this shall come to pass, if you will diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God” (<a href='B:450 6:15'>Zec 6:15</a>). <a href='B:450 9:13'>Zec 9:13</a> appears to be another such conditional prophecy, similar in reference to that of Daniel 8 about the possibility of Messiah’s coming at the time of the Greek empire. God says He will place Ephraim within the bow of Judah, to be fired at her enemies; and He would “raise up your sons, O Zion, against your sons, O Greece” (<a href='B:450 9:13'>Zec 9:13</a>), leading to the final salvation of God’s people, the establishment of Messiah’s Kingdom, and her Messianic king coming unto her (<a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a>). But this didn’t come true; the resistance of the Maccabees was not based on true spirituality, and the Romans took over control of the land from the Greeks. No Messianic Kingdom was established. This would explain the purposeful ambiguity of interpretation which there is in the image of Daniel 2; a good case can be made for the sequence Babylon-Media-Persia-Greece, and yet also for the sequence Babylon-Medo Persia- Greece-Rome. Daniel 8 predicts the breakup of the Greek empire after Alexander’s death into four horns, out of which a little horn arises (<a href='B:340 8:8'>Dan 8:8</a>). The only other prophetic reference to four horns is again in Zechariah, when we read of how the four horns who had scattered God’s people were to be cut off by the carpenters (<a href='B:450 1:18-19'>Zec 1:18-19</a>):&nbsp; The carpenters surely look forward to the carpenter Messiah. He could have appeared and cut off those four horns; but He did not, and so another prophetic sequence was allowed, in which another [fourth] beast arose, this time with ten horns, not just four. And in Revelation we find this developed further, in that seven heads also appear on the beast, and a whore rides the best, sitting upon [another?] seven hills / kingdoms. The number and ferocity of the enemies of God’s people seems to increase over time. If Israel had repented earlier, then all this would have been unnecessary. The three horses of Zechariah 1 thus become four horses in Zechariah 6. The fact the four cherubim chariots are sent out in judgment of those same coloured horses speaks of how all earthly entities have their representative Angels in Heaven. &nbsp;See on <a href='B:450 1:12'>Zec 1:12</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh will be seen over them; and His arrow will go flashing like lightning; and the Lord Yahweh will blow the trumpet, and will go with whirlwinds of the south- "The Lord shall be over them"- as the Angels went over David beyond the mulberry trees (<a href='B:100 5:24'>2Sa 5:24</a>) and as the Angel in the cloud was over Israel in the wilderness. "His arrow shall go forth as lightning"- Angel cherubim language. He "shall go with whirlwinds of the South"- the group of Angels sent into "the south" (i:e. Judah) in <a href='B:450 6:6'>Zec 6:6</a>. If Judah returned, both physically and spiritually, then they would be walking in step with the Spirit in that they would be in harmony with the Angel cherubim who were also returning to Zion, having left in Ezekiel 1 and returning when the glory would have returned to the rebuilt Zion in Ezekiel 40-48. Thus in the next verse Zechariah attributes Israel’s final success as thanks to “the Lord of hosts”- the hosts of Angels working with them and for them. See on <a href='B:450 10:1'>Zec 10:1</a>. But they didn’t rebuild according to those specifications, many didn’t return physically, and only a very few returned to God in repentance. And so it didn’t happen; and the trumpet blowing, perhaps alluding to the announcing of the year of release and day of atonement, never happened.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh of Armies will defend them- In the restoration context, this would be a reference to the Angel cherubim working with the returned exiles, defending them from the Greek invasion; see on :14.</p><p>And they will destroy and overcome with sling stones- The reference is clearly to David’s victory over Goliath and the Philistines, who have been mentioned earlier in this chapter. The idea is that there would be a revival of how things were in David’s time when Israel were God’s kingdom in the past. See on <a href='B:450 10:5'>Zec 10:5</a>. But instead of subduing the nations around them with the victory of Israel’s God, they brought their own brethren into subjection unto them, that they might gain out of them (<a href='B:450 9:15'>Zec 9:15</a> s:w. <a href='B:160 5:5'>Neh 5:5</a>). It could’ve been the Kingdom, Israel could have become the joy of the whole earth and her people a joy. But instead, they were obsessed with their petty, miserable little kingdoms, and the next few centuries had nothing of the joy which Isaiah had repeatedly prophesied as being possible for them.</p><p>And they will drink, and roar as through wine; and they will be filled like bowls, like the corners of the altar- The drinking of wine in the context of the altar bowls suggests the drink offering. But they would be as bowls, filled by God- a reference to the filling with His Spirit which was promised at the restoration and entering of the new covenant. But the GNB and LXX offer to the effect that: "They will shout in battle like drunk men and will shed the blood of their enemies; it will flow like the blood of a sacrifice poured on the altar from a bowl". This mass military victory over their enemies never really happened at the restoration, but it will at the Lord’s return:&nbsp;This will be the sacrifice in Bozrah of <a href='B:290 34:6'>Isa 34:6</a>; <a href='B:290 63:1'>Isa 63:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh their God will save them in that day as the flock of His people- This salvation could have happened at the time of the restoration; but the flock were not obedient to the call to return to Zion and spiritually to their shepherd. And they were misled by false shepherds from amongst themselves (<a href='B:450 10:2'>Zec 10:2</a>). We noted on :14 that the Angels were potentially a big part of the restoration. The Angel leading the exiles is elsewhere&nbsp; styled a shepherd (<a href='B:290 63:9-11'>Isa 63:9-11</a>; <a href='B:230 80:1'>Psa 80:1</a>). "The lord of Hosts (Angels) has visited His flock the house of Judah" (<a href='B:450 10:3'>Zec 10:3</a>). Similarly, Israel "went their way as a flock, they were troubled because there was no shepherd" (<a href='B:450 10:2'>Zec 10:2</a>)- i:e. the Angel was not with them because they refused to follow Him.</p><p>For they are like the jewels of a crown, lifted on high over His land- As explained on <a href='B:450 6:11'>Zec 6:11</a>, Joshua could have been crowned as priest and Messianic king, but the jewels of the crown were God’s people. Malachi speaks of them likewise, but accepts that the day was yet future when they would be made up together into a crown (<a href='B:460 3:17'>Mal 3:17</a>).</p>


text:
<p>For how great is His goodness, and how great is His beauty!- The beauty may refer to the potential beauty of Israel as jewels (:16), made so by the grace / goodness of their God.</p><p>Grain will make the young men flourish, and new wine the virgins- Grain and new wine were the blessings for an Israel who remained in covenant relationship with their God. This could have happened at the restoration, for <a href='B:330 36:29'>Eze 36:29</a> had spoken of how at that time "I will also save you from all your uncleanness: and I will call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you". But instead, as Haggai 1 notes, they were beset by famine and crops ruined by plague.</p>


text:
<p>Ask of Yahweh rain in the time of the spring rains; Yahweh will make storm clouds, He will give rain showers to everyone for the plants in the field- I explained on <a href='B:450 9:14'>Zec 9:14</a> that the Angels had potentially prepared a way for Judah to return and prosper into a restored kingdom of God, just as the Spirit now fulfils that function for those who wish to be God’s people today. Had Judah moved in step with this, they would have become part of the cherubim system. The cherubim reference is continued here. Yahweh would again “make bright clouds” (AV) for Israel, reminiscent of Ezekiel’s cherubim. Finally, the Lord shall go before them, as He had wanted to in Ezekiel’s time, and even the feeble amongst Israel “shall be as the angel of the Lord [who goes] before them” (<a href='B:450 12:8'>Zec 12:8</a>). They would become as the Angel in the same way as Ezekiel became part of the cherubim system, following eagerly where the Angel-cherubim lead. All this huge potential, to move forward with the Angel cherubim above them, was theirs for the asking- "Ask [this] of Yahweh...". The drought which was crippling the exiles at this time (see on Haggai 1), would be replaced by showers.</p>


text:
<p>For the teraphim have spoken vanity, and the diviners have seen a lie; and they have told false dreams. They comfort in vain- Here is evidence enough that the Jews returned from exile with teraphim and false prophets; perhaps the term "teraphim" is used to recall how the historical Jacob had also returned from his exile with teraphim (<a href='B:10 31:32'>Gen 31:32</a>).</p><p>Therefore they go their way like sheep. They are oppressed, because there is no shepherd- As noted on <a href='B:450 9:16'>Zec 9:16</a>, God was eager to shepherd His people; but they preferred false shepherds (:3), and chose not to walk in step with the Angel cherubim who were to shepherd the people (see on <a href='B:450 9:16'>Zec 9:16</a>). This was exactly why they had gone into captivity (<a href='B:330 34:8'>Eze 34:8</a>), and they were behaving the same at their return. The situation would only finally be resolved by a new shepherd arising in the Lord Jesus, and the final homecoming will be at His return.</p>


text:
<p>My anger is kindled against the shepherds, and I will punish the male goats; because Yahweh of Armies has visited His flock, the house of Judah, and will make them as His majestichorse in the battle- God was angry with the false shepherds who claimed that now was not the time to rebuild the temple (see on <a href='B:440 1:2'>Hag 1:2</a>); because it was the time, and the Angel hosts / armies of Yahweh had potentially enabled the way for them to return, and to be ridden by Him as a horse in victory against all their enemies. Those false shepherds acted as male goats, who were used to direct the sheep in the absence of a human shepherd. Zechariah and Malachi repeatedly criticize the shepherd-priests of Judah for not leading the people as they should have done, and thereby enabled the restoration as potentially envisaged. Because Yahweh had visited His people and (potentially) made them capable of establishing His Kingdom, therefore the priests were at fault for not enabling Judah’s spiritual revival. See on <a href='B:450 13:7-9'>Zec 13:7-9</a>.</p>


text:
<p>From Him will come forth the cornerstone, from Him the nail, from Him the battle bow, from Him every ruler together- The cornerstone of the new temple had been laid, but a far more glorious structure was possible, in line with that in Ezekiel 40-48. God would have raised up a new leadership, as explained on <a href='B:450 6:14'>Zec 6:14</a>. "The nail", like the cornerstone, was the language of Messiah (<a href='B:290 22:23'>Isa 22:23</a>; <a href='B:470 21:42'>Mat 21:42</a>). Under this leadership, a repentant Israel and Judah would have vanquished all opposition and established a restored Kingdom of God in the territory of the eretz. But they didn’t, and yet the prophecies will come true when they do repent in the last days.</p>


text:
<p>They shall be as mighty men, treading down muddy streets in the battle; and they shall fight, because Yahweh is with them; and the riders on horses will be confounded- The reference to trampling as mud is the language of <a href='B:100 22:43'>2Sa 22:43</a> about David, who has already been alluded to in <a href='B:450 9:15'>Zec 9:15</a>; this would be a restoration of the Davidic kingdom. See on <a href='B:10 49:17'>Gen 49:17</a>. As noted on :1 and <a href='B:450 9:14'>Zec 9:14</a>, repentant Judah could have merged into the Angel-cherubim system; they could have been ’mighty ones’, elohim, just as the Angels. Horse riders would be confounded because the restored Judah were as a horse ridden by Angels, and Yahweh Himself (:3). "Yahweh is with them" may be a hint that "God with us" in the person of Messiah was with them; and all this has its major fulfilment at the Lord’s second coming. There is the implication that the returned exiles could have won great military victories; but instead they feared to challenge the local powers.</p>


text:
<p>I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph, and I will bring them back- Again we see the Divine intention to reunite both Judah and the ten tribe kingdom in their restoration; but this didn’t happen because the majority preferred to remain in the lands of their exile. <a href='B:330 37:16'>Eze 37:16</a> had clearly spoken of such unity at the restoration: "Judah... the children of&nbsp; Israel... Joseph, the stick of&nbsp; Ephraim... all the house of&nbsp; Israel". They didn’t return despite God’s desire to strengthen them and bring them back. And Judah was not strengthened or ’made to prevail’ above their brethren (same Hebrew in <a href='B:130 5:2'>1Ch 5:2</a>), even though this was the Divine intention. See on :12.</p><p>For I have mercy on them; and they will be as though I had not cast them off- This mercy was dependent upon their asking for it in repentance; but they didn’t. And so it must have its fulfilment in a latter day scenario. Paul’s positive approach to Israel’s conversion is reflected in his whole reasoning in Romans 11, his classic statement about preaching to Israel. He begins by saying that God has not cast off His people Israel totally, because some, e.g. himself, have turned to Christ. So, seeing that God will not cast off His people Israel in the ultimate sense, it perhaps follows that in every generation some of them will come to Christ as Paul did (<a href='B:520 11:1-2'>Rom 11:1-2</a>). In some sense, God has cast off His people (<a href='B:120 21:14'>2Ki 21:14</a> RV; <a href='B:450 10:6'>Zec 10:6</a>); and yet, because a minority of them will always accept Christ, it is not true that God has cast off His people in a total sense (<a href='B:520 11:1'>Rom 11:1</a> RV). It was only because of this remnant that Israel have not become like Sodom (<a href='B:520 9:29'>Rom 9:29</a>)- even though Old Testament passages such as Ezekiel 16 clearly liken Jerusalem to Sodom. Yet they are not as Sodom ultimately, for the sake of the remnant who will believe.</p><p>For I am Yahweh their God, and I will hear them- As noted on :1, if they had asked for the restoration to come about and done their part, it would’ve done.</p>


text:
<p>Ephraim will be like a mighty man, and their heart will rejoice as through wine; yes, their children will see it, and rejoice. Their heart will be glad in Yahweh- Ephraim, the ten tribes, werenot regathered because they didn’t want to be. I noted on :5 that it would’ve been possible for the exiles to be the earthly function of the Angel cherubim of the heavens. Ephraim would be "mighty ones", elohim. They would receive the blessing of wine, the sign of covenant blessing, and the next generation, "their children", would experience the restored Kingdom of God in Israel. All this was possible but tragically was precluded by a lack of repentance and short term outlook which wanted to remain in the old and familiar. "Mighty man" is literally gibbor, the term used of Messiah in <a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a>. Finally these prophecies will come true when a repentant Israel identify with ["be like"] the Lord Jesus Christ at His second coming.</p>


text:
<p>I will signal for them, and gather them; for I have redeemed them- “I will hiss for them"(AV) is the same phrase used in <a href='B:290 5:26'>Isa 5:26</a> of the latter day regathering of Judah. But even at the time of the restoration it could have been fulfilled; God had hissed for them, urging them to return, because He had already potentially redeemed them. They were to quit Babylon to accept that redemption. And like many today, most of them just didn’t want to do that. The short term attractions were too great for them. The regathering of Israel is therefore related to their redemption. The fact so many have now been regathered to the land is surely an indication that their redemption draws nigh; and should we not therefore tell them of the Gospel which they must accept as part of that redemption?</p><p>And they will increase as they have increased- The promise to Abraham of the seed multiplying would come true; for those promises are the basis of the new covenant, the new deal offered to repentant Israel and Judah.</p>


text:
<p>I will sow them among the peoples; and they will remember Me in far countries; and they will live with their children, and will return- The context is of the return from captivity, so perhaps the reading of the GNB is correct:"Though I have scattered them among the nations, yet in far-off places they will remember me. They and their children will survive and return home together". We note the repeated mention of the children (:7 too). Likely the reason given for remaining in captivity was that it was better for the children to remain, rather than drag them on a long, uncertain journey to a strange land and live amongst the ruins. But their children would be blessed if they did return in penitence, with the experience of growing up in God’s restored Kingdom. The exile was a ’sowing’; the fruit intended to rise up was a generation of penitent young people who would seek to return to their ancestral homeland. But instead, that generation bitterly blamed God for punishing them for their fathers’ sins (Ezekiel 18)."Remember me"is better ’make mention of me’. The idea was that they would openly witness to the surrounding nations about the Hope of Israel, and even bring those Gentiles with them to Zion.</p>


text:
<p>I will bring them again also out of the land of Egypt, and gather them out of Assyria; and I will bring them into the land of Gilead and Lebanon; and there won’t be room enough for them- In the first instance, the Jews in Egypt were those who had gone there in Jeremiah’s time, disbelieving the promise that they would be safer remaining in the ruins of Judah. Those once spiritually weak ones, along with the ten tribes in Assyria, would return in great numbers, and live in the now fertile land of Gilead and Lebanon, back in the northern Kingdom. But they didn’t- at that time. Such a restoration will be realized, but in the last days. That generation resisted God’s ’bringing them again’ and ’gathering’ of them, just as the invitation to participate in the Hope of Israel and the restored Kingdom of God is resisted by those who hear it today."Bring them again"translates the usual Hebrew word for"return". God would return them; but they had to return. If they took that step in faith, just as today, then God would make it happen. They would be"gathered... with a mighty hand and [God’s] stretched out arm"(<a href='B:330 20:34'>Eze 20:34</a> s:w:). But they refused that might hand which would have brought them safely through their physical and spiritual journey.</p>


text:
<p>He will pass through the sea of affliction, and will strike the waves in the sea, and all the depths of the Nile will dry up; and the pride of Assyria will be brought down, and the scepter of Egypt will depart- If the Jewish exiles in Egypt and the ten tribes in Assyria had wanted to return, then as noted on :10, God’s mighty hand would have even dried up the Nile, taken away the power of the Egyptians and brought down Assyria- just so that they could return. God will work powerfully in the geopolitics of the world for the sake of just a minority with whom He has a purpose. In my days I saw God open up then Communist Eastern Europe, allow the internet to be developed- for the sake of getting the Gospel to millions He sought to call out and save.</p>


text:
<p>I will strengthen them in Yahweh; and they will walk up and down in His name, says Yahweh- see on <a href='B:450 12:5'>Zec 12:5</a>; <a href='B:450 12:8'>Zec 12:8</a>; <a href='B:330 16:63'>Eze 16:63</a>. As in :6, the strengthening in view is not simply prevailing above others in military terms; they would be spiritually strengthened. The new covenant offered to the exiles involved being given a new heart (<a href='B:330 36:26'>Eze 36:26</a>), and that strengthening of the Spirit is still a part of the same new covenant we accept today in baptism. To some degree a repentant natural Israel will take over the role of the Angels as God’s eyes walking up and down and to and fro in the earth (land?). This follows from Zechariah earlier describing the Angels as walking to and fro in the earth (<a href='B:450 1:10'>Zec 1:10</a>; <a href='B:450 6:7'>Zec 6:7</a>). As noted on :1 and <a href='B:450 9:14'>Zec 9:14</a>, repentant Judah on earth could have become part of the glorious system of the Angel cherubim above them. But this is to be fulfilled in their latter day repentance, when in visible, literal terms the glory returns to Zion eternally.</p>


text:
<p>Open your doors, Lebanon, that the fire may devour your cedars- The tone of Zechariah changes as the prophecy progresses. All the wonderful potentials were not being used by the exiles, and so judgment and rejection was to come. The returned exiles from Assyria could have lived in Lebanon, as stated just a few verses earlier in <a href='B:450 10:10'>Zec 10:10</a>. But God in this chapter is now as it were breaking up all those potentials. The cedars of Lebanon were to be devoured by fire. Finally this came true in the sense that the cedars which characterized the temple were destroyed by fire in AD70.</p>


text:
<p>Wail, fir tree, for the cedar has fallen, because the stately ones are destroyed. Wail, you oaks of Bashan, for the strong forest has come down- As noted on :1, the potential just stated in <a href='B:450 10:10'>Zec 10:10</a> was not now going to come about. The exiles didn’t want to return, and so they would not live in Bashan; rather, the oaks and forests there would be burnt. This initially applies to the breaking of all the potentials in Zechariah’s time, but the prophecy came to a fulfilment in the destruction of the northern areas of Palestine in the Roman advance of AD70, and will likely have another fulfilment in the last days. The relevance to the first century becomes more apparent later in the chapter. The"stately ones"uses the same word for the"nobles"in Judah at the time of the restoration (<a href='B:160 3:5'>Neh 3:5</a>; <a href='B:160 10:29'>Neh 10:29</a>). They could have become the leaders of the restored kingdom of God in Israel at Zechariah’s time; but that potential was rejected by them, and now broken by God.</p>


text:
<p>A voice of the wailing of the shepherds! For their glory is destroyed: a voice of the roaring of young lions! For the pride of the Jordan is ruined- The wailing of shepherds and the roaring of lions create the idea that the invaders [lions] came as a result of the failure of the shepherds. This was why Judah had gone into captivity (Ezekiel 34), and sadly they didn’t reform and so their final destruction in AD70 was a result of their bad shepherds."The wailing of the shepherds"occurred when Babylon took Jerusalem (same phrase in <a href='B:300 25:36'>Jer 25:36</a>). The Jordan was the famed habitat of young lions; the idea is that the destruction of their habitat made them roam.</p>


text:
<p>Thus says Yahweh my God: Feed the flock of slaughter- Zechariah was asked to act out a parable of a shepherd. God had decided to slaughter the flock, and they were to be prepared for that by their own shepherds. The slaughter of the post-exilic community didn’t come until AD70; this again was a reflection of God’s huge patience.</p>


text:
<p>Their buyers slaughter them, and go unpunished. Those who sell them say, ‘Blessed be Yahweh, for I am rich;’ and their own shepherds don’t pity them- The buyers and sellers of the flock are presented as worshippers of Yahweh. The slaughter of the flock was to be in the first century when the covenant was finally broken; but the abuses of the Jews against each other was effectively a slaughtering of the flock for their own enrichment. Nehemiah records how the rich enslaved the poor during the famine. And they"repent not"(LXX; NEV"Go unpunished"). There was not the required repentance of the exiles, but rather a simplistic desire for personal wealth out of the situation in Judah (see on Haggai 1).</p>


text:
<p>For I will no more pity the inhabitants of the land, says Yahweh- God had often stated in Ezekiel that He would not pity Judah. But at the restoration, He did pity them, by absolute grace (<a href='B:330 36:21'>Eze 36:21</a> s:w:). But this pity is now as it were withdrawn; they were to be destroyed, and only God’s true remnant would find His pity (<a href='B:460 3:17'>Mal 3:17</a> s:w:).</p><p>But, behold, I will deliver the men, every one of them, into his neighbour’s hand, and into the hand of his king. They will strike the land, and out of their hand I will not deliver them- Earlier in Zechariah, God had enthusiastically explained that Zerubbabel and then Joshua could have been the Messianic king of the restored kingdom. But both those men and their people didn’t want that, and returned to remain under the kingship of the Gentiles. And so Judah was to be destroyed by each other, and also by the one they had chosen king. When they crucified the Lord, they stated that Caesar was their only king (<a href='B:500 19:15'>Joh 19:15</a>), and he wasthe one who was to destroy them in AD70.</p>


text:
<p>So I fed the flock of slaughter, especially the oppressed of the flock- LXX"And I will tend the flock of slaughter in the land of Chanaan". The returned exiles would grow into the ’Judea’ of the first century. But they were to be led by their shepherds, whose role Zechariah played, towards their final slaughter in AD70. Or consider the GNB:"Those who bought and sold the sheep hired me, and I became the shepherd of the sheep that were going to be butchered".</p><p>I took for myself two staves. The one I called Grace, and the other I called Union, and I fed the flock- Grace is to be the basis for unity between God’s people. The covenant relationship experienced with God naturally binds us in union with others in that same covenant. Unity with God and with our brother is therefore connected. It could be deduced that division between brethren is therefore a reflection of how some have not grasped the wonder of personal, covenant relationship with God through His grace. All interpersonal issues take on a completely different colour in the face of God’s grace. And is this which is the stave or rod which will guide the flock rightly. But those staves were to be broken; without an awareness of Divine grace and unity between brethren, God’s people are really without any shepherding. It had been God’s intention to reunite Israel and Judah at the restoration, on the basis of the fact that both would accept His grace as offered in the new covenant.</p>


text:
<p>I cut off the three shepherds in one month; for my soul was weary of them, and their soul also loathed me- GNB"I lost patience with three other shepherds, who hated me". God had patiently waited for Judah to respond, there had been several potential Messianic shepherd figures (Zerubbabel, Joshua, Nehemiah), and yet His patience had limits.</p><p>Heldai, Tobijah and Jedaiah returned from Babylon and were intended to be leaders who would crown Joshua / Jesus as the Messiah-Priest-Branch who would rebuild Jerusalem. See on <a href='B:450 6:10'>Zec 6:10</a>; <a href='B:450 6:14'>Zec 6:14</a>. But nothing is heard of them further. Perhaps it is to them that this refers. They had gone into captivity because of poor shepherds, and now at their return they again lacked men willing to be their Saviours; and God is saying that He would not do the shepherding job which He had delegated to others. It could be that Heldai, Tobijah and Jedaiah all died in one month as a result of Zechariah’s prophecy at the time of <a href='B:150 5:1'>Ezr 5:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Then I said, I will not feed you- GNB"I will not be your shepherd any longer". In this acted parable, Zechariah is reflecting God’s feelings. The shepherds were unwilling to manifest God to the people, and the flock / people didn’t want His shepherding. They would not ’return’ to Him.</p><p>That which dies, let it die; and that which is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let those who are left eat each other’s flesh- This was finally fulfilled in the horrors of the siege of Jerusalem in AD70. It is the spirit of <a href='B:730 22:11'>Rev 22:11</a>:"He that is unrighteous, let him continue to do unrighteousness, and he that is filthy, let him remain filthy, and he that is righteous, let him continue to do righteousness, and he that is holy, let him remain holy". We get the impression that this calamity was intended for Zechariah’s time, but by grace and God’s continual efforts and longsuffering it didn’t come about until AD70; and it yet will come true in the last days.</p>


text:
<p>I took my staff Grace, and cut it apart, ‘That I might break My covenant that I had made with all the people’- The breaking of"grace"meant breaking the"bands"of unity between Israel and Judah. The basis for interpersonal unity is response to God’s grace, rather than an academic, technical agreement on theology. The basis of the new covenant offered to Israel at the restoration was grace. By that grace, God was willing to accept the unspiritual exiles if they came to Him. But they didn’t, they refused covenant relationship with Him. And so having spurned and broken the covenant, He broke it from His side too. God will not break His covenants; but He is here confirming that His people had broken the covenant.</p><p>Throughout Zechariah we have seen multiple allusions to the work of the Angels. This was in that time how God revealed Himself to men, and invited them to conceive of Him. We recall the words of the Angel in <a href='B:70 2:1'>Jdg 2:1</a>"And an Angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers: and I said, I will never break My covenant with you". The subsequent rebuke of srael by the Angel makes this passage imply that although the Angel had promised never to break the Covenant, He could and would do so- reflecting the God of Hosea, who has emotion and can change His mind in accordance with the mind of His people. Now, the Angel speaking to Zechariah does break the covenant. There is another Angelic reference in :6:"I will no more pity the inhabitants of the land, says the Lord"(cp. <a href='B:290 63:9'>Isa 63:9</a> regarding the wilderness Angel:"in His love and in His pity"He redeemed Israel from Egypt). Although the Angelic covenant was broken, it is to be re-established:"I will even deal with thee as thou hast done, which hast despised the oath in breaking the covenant (i:e. you’ve broken the covenant, I’ll do the same). Nevertheless I will remember My covenant with thee... and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant... thou shalt receive thy sisters... and I will give them unto thee for daughters, but not by thy (former) covenant. And I will establish My covenant with thee"(<a href='B:330 16:59-62'>Eze 16:59-62</a>). This covenant was a marriage covenant."For the Lord hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and&nbsp;a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God"(Michael the Angel?), <a href='B:290 54:6'>Isa 54:6</a>. This is all referring back to the Angel calling Hagar, showing that God’s Angel was figuratively ’married’ to Israel; thus Judah were invited to understand that it was the Angel representing God who divorced and will take back&nbsp;Israel.</p>


text:
<p>It was broken in that day; and thus the poor of the flock that listened to me knew that it was the word of Yahweh- LXX"The Chananites, the sheep that are kept for me, shall know that it is the word of the Lord". There was a minority amongst the returned exiles who did respond to Zechariah’s teaching; perhaps the Lord alludes here when commenting that"to the poor the Gospel is preached"(<a href='B:490 7:22'>Luk 7:22</a>). There’s no doubt that"the poor"in whatever sense, be it poverty of spirit or finances, are those more likely to respond to God’s word of the Kingdom."The poor"perceived that Zechariah’s breaking of the staff meant that the covenant was broken; what had been possible for returned Judah now wasn’t.</p>


text:
<p>I said to them, If you think it best, give me my value; and if not, keep it. So they weighed for my wages thirty pieces of silver- In the acted parable, Zechariah asks the sheep merchants what wages they will give him for having kept their flock for slaughter. The implication is that they had now arrived at the time for slaughter, and he was handing the flock back to them which he had prepared for slaughter. The time of slaughter was in the first century. The Lord Jesus was the shepherd who had tried to save the flock but His very efforts with them, and their rejection of them, made them the generation that had to be slaughtered. In this sense He shepherded the flock to slaughter. Zechariah at this point therefore becomes a type of the Lord Jesus Christ. The way he asks them if they wish to pay him, leaving the choice with them, perhaps again hints at the huge freewill Judah were allowed; they need not have gone ahead with the path that led to the betrayal and murder of their own Messiah.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to me, Throw it to the potter, the handsome price that I was valued at by them!- This appears to be sarcasm, as if it was a very low price for his work. It was the price of a slave; and all Judas could buy with it was a field of muddy clay soil, not much use for anything. It is incredible that Judas did what he did for so little; but this is the power of avarice, greed, insisting blindly upon our own agenda and jealousy.</p><p>I took the thirty pieces of silver, and threw them to the potter, in the house of Yahweh- This clearly looks forward to Judas throwing down the thirty pieces of silver in the temple, and the money being used to purchase the potter’s field. It has been suggested that there were earthen, potter’s vessels in the temple, and Zechariah threw the coins to a potter who was in the temple at the time, perhaps in connection with the earthen vessels there. Zechariah has been speaking in this chapter of how because the exiles had refused God’s offer of a new covenant, the community would be judged and rejected. This came to its full term in the first century, and so his acting out the rejection and betrayal of the Lord Jesus is appropriate and in context.</p>


text:
<p>Then I cut apart my other staff, even Union, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel- At the time of Zechariah, that brotherhood was already broken. Repeatedly in Zechariah, there has been the message that Judah and Israel would be reunited at the restoration. This didn’t happen, as the majority of both groups preferred to remain in the lands of their exile. But that unity was potentially prepared. But it seems now God breaks that, He takes away that potential because it is clear that in Zechariah’s time, that was just not the wish of God’s people to make use of it. And we have surely all seen potentially unity between groups and persons being broken by God in response to the way that the humans involved just didn’t want it. We note again that union between individuals is related to our acceptance of grace, the first ’staff’ which was to guide the flock.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh saidto me, Take for yourself yet again the equipment of a foolish shepherd- This final acted parable appears to speak specifically of the failure of Zerubbabel, the one who could have been the shepherd. Just as the shepherd leaders of Judah had been foolish and this had led Judah into captivity (s:w. <a href='B:350 9:7'>Hos 9:7</a>), so now the restored community likewise were foolish and had foolish shepherds.</p>


text:
<p>For, behold, I will raise up a shepherd in the land-"Raise up"is the language of restoration (s:w. <a href='B:370 9:11'>Amo 9:11</a> and often). God had raised up a shepherd in the land, indeed it seems when Zerubbabel failed, Joshua was raised up, and even Nehemiah. But despite this initiative of God, the shepherds were like those before the captivity.</p><p>Who will not visit those who are cut off, neither will seek those who are scattered, nor heal that which is broken, nor feed that which is sound; but he will eat the flesh of the fat sheep, and will tear their hoofs in pieces- This is the language of Ezekiel 34 concerning the shepherds of Judah before the exile. Now those who had been restored were behaving the same way. The leadership of Judah were not interested in the spiritual welfare of people, but rather just their own material benefit from them. This came to full term in the generation which led Judah to crucify their King, the Lord Jesus the Messiah:&nbsp; The “great mountain” of Babylon was to become a plain before Zerubbabel (<a href='B:450 4:7'>Zec 4:7</a>)- a clear allusion to <a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a>, in which the little stone of Messiah destroys the Kingdoms of men and becomes a great mountain to replace the statue headed by Babylon. But Zerubbabel didn’t destroy Babylon- according to Jewish tradition he returned there after ‘giving up’ in Jerusalem. He was “the worthless shepherd” who didn’t gather “those that be scattered”, who didn’t encourage the Jews scattered in Babylon to return to the fold of Zion, and who didn’t care for their spiritual wellbeing. And so the prophecy that Babylon would be destroyed before Zerubbabel has to be reapplied, and will be fulfilled at the return of the Lord Jesus."That which is broken"would then refer to the walls and buildings of Jerusalem and the temple. These were not rebuilt as potentially possible.</p>


text:
<p>Woe to the worthless shepherd who leaves the flock!- I suggested on :16 that this refers to Zerubbabel leaving the flock of Judah in the land and returning to Babylon.</p><p>The sword will be on his arm, and on his right eye. His arm will be completely withered, and his right eye will be totally blinded!- This could also speak of leprosy. Was this how he ended his days, we wonder? Yet he, the ‘shoot out of Babylon’ as his name means, could have been the promised Messianic shoot out of the withered stem of Jesse. He could have been the Messianic shoot out of the dry ground of Babylon (<a href='B:290 53:2'>Isa 53:2</a>) who would accompany the return of the temple vessels from Babylon (<a href='B:290 52:11'>Isa 52:11</a>). But he disappears strangely out of the record. Thus the events of Nehemiah 8, where the Feasts of Trumpets, Atonement and Tabernacles as well as the dedication of the wall are all recorded, make no mention of the High Priest or Zerubbabel officiating. He, Joshua and indeed anyone who could have taken their place somehow didn’t rise to the occasion. And so <a href='B:290 51:17-18'>Isa 51:17-18</a> lamented, prophetically: “Awake, awake, stand up, O Jerusalem, which hast drunk at the hand of the LORD the cup of his fury [at the end of the 70 years captivity]... [but] There is none to guide her among all the sons whom she hath brought forth; neither is there any that taketh her by the hand of all the sons that she hath brought up”:&nbsp;Perhaps Zerubbabel, or whoever could have been the Messianic prince, was smitten with a stroke which left his arm withered and his right eye blinded. That language certainly sounds like a stroke. And those who had heard Zechariah’s words would immediately have perceived their fulfilment.</p>


text:
<p>An oracle. The word of Yahweh concerning Israel- The previous chapter has stated that the potential unity between Israel and Judah at the restoration had now been broken; that was not to happen at Zechariah’s time. But Judah’s judgments in the last days would in fact bring about the final fulfilment of God’s plans, which He had potentially enabled for fulfilment at Zechariah’s time. And so"Israel"is addressed as Jerusalem, capital of Judah (:2), and used as a parallel with"Judah".</p><p>Yahweh, who stretches out the heavens, and lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him says- God’s ability to stretch out the eretz and the sky above it was a figure understood to refer to His ability to rebuild and restore that land and its people, just as He had stretched out and founded the literal heavens and earth (<a href='B:290 40:22'>Isa 40:22</a>; <a href='B:290 42:5'>Isa 42:5</a>; Isa 4424; <a href='B:290 45:12'>Isa 45:12</a> and often). He had promised to place His Spirit in the restored Judah at their return from captivity (Ezekiel 37). All these Divine capabilities, and therefore human potentials, had been refused by the Judah of Zechariah’s day. But they would again become possible in the last days.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of reeling to all the surrounding peoples, and on Judah also will it be in the siege against Jerusalem- As explained on :1, the focus now is specifically upon the latter day, final fulfilment of God’s prophetic purpose for Judah and Jerusalem. Babylon is depicted as a latter day entity which gives a cup to others to drink; and that cup is here defined as Jerusalem. There will be a requirement that all within latter day Babylon are somehow associated with Jerusalem, and this will cause their condemnation; for the cup is also a symbol of condemnation. It is their ’taking’ of Jerusalem which is the taking of the cup of condemnation. The"surrounding peoples"are the constituents, therefore, of the latter day Babylon which Revelation constructs upon the basis of prophecies such as thIsa. And this is the arena of focus of Bible prophecy- the land promised to Abraham and its immediate neighbours. These"surrounding peoples"are"all the nations of the earth / eretz promised to Abraham"of :3. We notice the increased focus upon Jerusalem in radical Islamist theology. The"siege against Jerusalem"seems to refer to that of the last days and not AD70, for the"surrounding peoples"were not destroyed then as required by :3,4.</p>


text:
<p>It will happen in that day- <a href='B:450 12:3-11'>Zec 12:3-11</a> is a passage which contains seven occurrences of the phrase"In that day...". The passage does not have to be interpreted chronologically; this is a list of events which will occur around the same time,"in that day". They are snapshots of the same scene from different angles. The seals of Revelation 6 and the repeated references to a three and a half year tribulation period can be understood likewise; they do not necessarily refer to chronologically different events, but are giving different aspects of information about the same basic scene. The lack of strict chronological sequence in prophecy is a major feature of the Old Testament; thus a consideration of the phrase “in that day..." in Isaiah reveals that the context ’jumps around’ all over the place, from the first coming of Christ to the Babylonian invasion to the Kingdom. There is no reason to think that Revelation is any different.</p><p>That I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all the peoples- Babylon’s judgment will be to have a stone placed around them and then to be thrown into the sea (<a href='B:730 18:21'>Rev 18:21</a>). But they will themselves have prepared this judgment, by lading themselves with the stone of Jerusalem. "All the peoples" therefore refer to all those within the Babylon confederacy of the last days.</p><p>All who trample upon it will be severely wounded, and all the nations of the earth will be gathered together against it- The nations of the eretz promised to Abraham are the "surrounding peoples" of :2. They will be gathered together against it through accepting a radical jihadist theology which focuses upon Jerusalem; and&nbsp; that theology is clearly now in development. This trampling upon Jerusalem is clear evidence that Jerusalem will fall. Israel and the IDF are not invincible, as some Protestants like to imply. This is the time when Jerusalem is trodden underfoot of the Gentiles during the "times of the Gentiles" [domination of Jerusalem]; see on <a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a>. Those "times" appear to be the 1260 days / 42 months / three and a half years of other prophecies. "Severely wounded" is literally "cut to pieces", and this is the picture of <a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a>; the stone of God’s Kingdom shall dash to pieces those who trample upon the stone of Zion.</p>


text:
<p>In that day, says Yahweh, I will strike every horse with terror, and his rider with madness- All the apparently invincible military technology of the latter day invasion will be brought to nothing and revealed as foolishness. To be struck with terror and madness from Yahweh is the very term used of God’s judgments upon Israel for their disobedience (<a href='B:50 28:28'>Deu 28:28</a>). All that was done to Israel will be done to their abusers. The confounding of the horse riders is that spoken of in <a href='B:450 10:5'>Zec 10:5</a>, and it is to be achieved by God working through a repentant Jewish remnant.</p><p>And I will open My eyes on the house of Judah, and will strike every horse of the peoples with blindness- God’s eyes are a metaphor for His Angels. The Angel Michael is described as "standing up" for Israel in the last days (<a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a>); as if Angelic activity on Israel’s behalf&nbsp; revives in the last days. Striking with blindness recalls what the Angels did to the men of Sodom, in order to preserve a tiny remnant of God’s people within it. And those events typify the latter day salvation of the remnant from the city called Sodom, which is Jerusalem. The image of blind horses may mean in modern terms that some sensory technology which is used in weaponry will be disabled. We note that horse riders are used to represent the latter day invaders of Israel in Revelation, and also in the prophecy of Gog’s invasion (<a href='B:330 38:15'>Eze 38:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The chieftains of Judah will say in their heart, ‘The inhabitantsof Jerusalem are my strength in Yahweh of Armies their God’- The chieftains or governors of Judah are referred to in <a href='B:450 9:7'>Zec 9:7</a>, where they refer to repentant Jews and Gentiles. These repentant ones who will become the rulers in the restored Kingdom of God will be strengthened by those then dwelling in Jerusalem. And those are "Yahweh of Armies", the Angels with which the Lord Jesus will return to earth, the saviours who appear on mount Zion to deliver her from her latter day abusers (see on <a href='B:380 1:21'>Oba 1:21</a>). This shows how Angels will be very much in evidence on earth at the time of Jerusalem’s surrounding by armies and Armageddon. : "The inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength in the Lord of Hosts (Angels) their God". Who this ’God’ refers to is defined in :8: "He that is feeble amongst them (the"inhabitants of Jerusalem") at that day shall be as David, and the house of David shall be as God, as the Angel of the Lord (which will go) before them". This implies that the inhabitants of Jerusalem will have the same power as the hosts of Angels which will have been seen fighting "before them". Thus the Jews will "walk up and down in His Name" (<a href='B:450 10:12'>Zec 10:12</a>) as the Angels are now said to do (<a href='B:450 1:11'>Zec 1:11</a>; <a href='B:220 1:7'>Job 1:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>In that day I will make the chieftains of Judah like a pan of fire among wood, and like a flaming torch among sheaves; and they will devour all the surrounding peoples, on the right hand and on the left- As explained on <a href='B:680 3:7'>2Pe 3:7</a>; <a href='B:680 3:12'>2Pe 3:12</a>, literal fire will be used to destroy the latter day abusers of God’s land and people. And that fire will be directed by the chieftains of Judah, who as explained on :5 refer to the repentant Jewish remnant now directly empowered by the Angels who have returned with Jesus to Zion; and those Angels are made as a flaming fire (<a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a>). We see again how the faithful Jews on earth will be in step with the Angel cherubim above them. The invaders will be as "sheaves" awaiting judgment- the idea of ’Armageddon’, cp. <a href='B:400 4:12'>Mic 4:12</a>.</p><p>And Jerusalem will yet again dwell in their own place, even in Jerusalem- "Jerusalem" is here put for its people, the daughter of Zion.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh also will save- ’Jesus’ means in Hebrew ’Yah will save’. His second coming is here in view.</p><p>The tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem be not magnified above Judah- This is reflective of how David reigned first over Judah and then later took Jerusalem and all Israel (<a href='B:100 5:3'>2Sa 5:3</a>). The Lord Jesus as the true Davidic king will act as His forefather. "First" can be as LXX and others, "as in the beginning" or "as in former days". The theme is of the restoration of the Davidic kingdom as God’s Kingdom. In the Kingdom to be established, association with any particular place or family line, even David’s, will be irrelevant compared to the glory of the Lord Jesus. And this needed to be written, for the generations to come after Zechariah would tend to glory in such things.</p>


text:
<p>In that day Yahweh will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem- I suggested on :5 that this term there referred to the Angels who come to Zion at the Lord’s second coming. But here it refers to the human Jews in Zion (see :10); because they will be identified with the Angels, "like the Angel of Yahweh", as this verse goes on to say. This may appear to contradict the command of the Olivet prophecy to flee Jerusalem (<a href='B:470 24:16'>Mat 24:16</a>). We see here an example of God’s grace. Those who were commanded to flee, but did not, are still saved- but by grace alone.</p><p>He who is feeble among them at that day will be like David- The theme of Zechariah is the restoration of the Davidic king and kingdom; but the final, latter day fulfilment of this is that all God’s people shall be as David. "Feeble" is literally ’he who has stumbled’ and is often used in a spiritual sense, as it is in <a href='B:460 2:8'>Mal 2:8</a> of the spiritually stumbled / fallen exiles. But they will then repent, and from their weakness will be made spiritually strong by the gift of the Spirit.</p><p>And the house of David will be like God- David accepted that his house / family was "not so with God" (2Sa 235), but in the last days it will be; for the Lord Jesus and His spiritual children are in that sense from the house of David. God’s family will be David’s family.</p><p>Like the angel of Yahweh before them- As often noted, the repentant Jews on earth were to be identified with the Angel cherubim above them. See on :5; <a href='B:450 10:12'>Zec 10:12</a>.</p>


text:
<p>It will happen in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem- These nations are the "surrounding peoples" of :2, who are gathered against Jerusalem by accepting a theology which persuades them that Jerusalem must be taken by them at all costs; see on :3. The Hebrew for "destroy" is used multiple times in Deuteronomy about the destruction of the nations of the eretz so that Israel could inherit that land. And this continues to be the context and frame of reference here.</p>


text:
<p>I will pour on the house of David, and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication- The restored exiles had been offered a new covenant with God, which would involve His Spirit being put into them, "a new heart" given, and all the blessings of the gift of the Spirit which the New Testament promises to those who accept that same new covenant today. They had then refused it, but now in repentance they will accept it. This spiritual gift will lead them to the acceptance of the crucified Christ now spoken of. The spirit of supplications is GNB "the spirit of prayer". As Paul puts it, we know not what to pray for as we ought (<a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a>), but the gift of the Spirit makes supplication for us. For those open to the Spirit, we are guided what to pray for, and our relationship with God and Jesus in prayer is guided by His Spirit. This will be experienced by the repentant Jews.</p><p>And they will look to Me whom they have pierced- Simeon had prophesied that a sword would pierce Mary’s heart as it also pierced that of Christ her son (<a href='B:490 2:35'>Luk 2:35</a>). This is one reason for thinking that Mary may still have been at the cross when the Lord died. It could be that John took her to his home, arm round her shoulders as she wrestled with the desire to take one last motherly look back, and then returned himself to the cross; and then Mary crept back, almost hot on his heels, or perhaps choosing another route, and hiding somewhere in the crowd where neither her son nor John, her new son, would see her. To me, this has the ring of truth about it. Simeon’s prophecy, as that sweet baby in cheap cloths lay cradled in his arms, seems to imply that as the Lord’s heart was pierced, so would his mother’s be. Are we to conclude from this that there was a heart-piercing groan within her, as she saw the spear head enter and the blood flow out? Each time they called out ‘Come down from the cross!’, her heart must have been in her mouth. Would He? She had learnt the lesson of Cana, not to pressurize Him for convenient miracles; not to catch His eye as if to say ‘Go on, do it, for my sake’. But nonetheless, because she was only human, she would have hoped against hope. But now, the finality of death forced itself upon her. And her heart was pierced in that moment. Yet Yahweh Himself had prophesied, years before: "They shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him... and shall be in bitterness for him" (<a href='B:450 12:10'>Zec 12:10</a> AV). The use of pronouns here seems to mean that God was in Christ on the cross, reconciling the world unto Himself (<a href='B:540 5:19'>2Co 5:19</a>). When the Son was pierced, so was the Father. And so at the moment of that sword-thrust, we see the connection of both parents with their suffering Son. As He was pierced, so were the Father and mother. Here we see the wonder and yet the tragedy of the Divine family. We have a very rare insight into the relationship between the Father and Mary. The notion of personal pre-existence and total Deity of Christ destroys this beauty and mystery. Indeed, the whole relationship between the Lord and His mother and Father is surpassingly beautiful, once His nature is correctly understood.</p><p>These words are quoted in <a href='B:730 1:7'>Rev 1:7</a>: "Behold, he comes with the clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they that pierced him, and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over him". This passage from Zechariah appears to be a prophecy of how Israel shall see the Lord at His second coming, and that is the interpretation given here. Those who crucified the Lord had this prophecy come true as they looked upon and gloated over the pierced Lord Jesus on the cross (see on <a href='B:500 19:37'>Joh 19:37</a>). But it shall come true again, when they are resurrected to judgment at the last day, see His enthronement in glory ["he comes with the clouds" is the language of Daniel 7 about this], realize from marks in His body that this is the one whom they crucified, exclaim "Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord!" (<a href='B:470 23:39'>Mat 23:39</a>), but find they are not able to be in His Kingdom. That bitter disappointment at the future they have missed, that they now so want, with all the resulting self-anger, is described as weeping and gnashing of teeth. That will be psychological punishment enough for the rejected. "The tribes of the earth", every eye of them, shall see the Lord in that moment. "The earth" refers to the land, of Israel; all those who looked upon Him upon the cross, "every eye", shall then be resurrected to see Him and mourn bitterly over what they did. The "every eye" is I suggest unpacked and defined by "they that pierced him" and "all the tribes of the land". The "and..." does not have to mean ’in addition to’; it can be a device for defining the term which has gone before it. As if to say ’Yes, even…’.</p><p>And they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son, and will grieve bitterly for him- Men would look upon the pierced (i:e. crucified) Saviour, and mourn in recognition of their own sinfulness. This verse is quoted as having fulfilment both at the crucifixion (<a href='B:500 19:37'>Joh 19:37</a>) and also at the final judgment (<a href='B:730 1:7'>Rev 1:7</a>). There is strong connection between these two events And so it has been observed that the cross divided men into two categories: The repentant thief and the bitter one; the soldiers who mocked and the Centurion who believed; the Sanhedrin members who believed and those who mocked; the women who lamented but didn’t obey His word, and those whose weeping isn’t recorded, but who stood and watched and thought; the people who beat their breasts in repentance, and those who mocked as to whether Elijah would come to save the Lord. In coming before the cross we likewise have a foretaste of judgment day.</p><p>As one grieves for his firstborn- The idea is of a firstborn who dies in babyhood, with no other children. All the parent had has been lost. This is a window into God’s feelings at the loss of His only begotten son; and their mourning would help them know His feelings. And it was the Lord Jesus Himself was "grieved" in His crucifixion sufferings (s:w. <a href='B:10 49:23'>Gen 49:23</a>).</p><p>Haggai and Zechariah clearly set up Zerubbabel as the Messianic king who could have ruled over a restored kingdom. But he strangely disappears from the scene. One possibility is that he was killed by the priestly group in a power struggle with Joshua the High Priest. In this case, this would be the primary potential interpretation of Zech. 12:10.</p>


text:
<p>In that day there will be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon- The historical event in view seems to be the mourning for Josiah in that location, for which Jeremiah wrote special lamentations (<a href='B:140 35:22'>2Ch 35:22</a>; <a href='B:140 35:25'>2Ch 35:25</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The land will mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart- This mourning is that of the last days. We can conclude that David and his son Nathan and their families will be resurrected, the Davidic kingdom will be so fully restored; and will mourn for what their descendants had done to the Lord Jesus, their great descendant. Zerubbabel, the failed potential Davidic king, was in the line of Nathan (<a href='B:130 3:5'>1Ch 3:5</a>; <a href='B:490 3:27'>Luk 3:27</a>; <a href='B:490 3:31'>Luk 3:31</a>) and perhaps the mourning will also be for all the failed potentials.</p><p>And their wives apart- The emphasis upon how the wives would mourn separately is to highlight the fact that repentance is deeply personal; religion is not just for men, as it was traditionally. Every man and woman of every family would realize their guilt for having failed to accept Jesus as Christ, and for having thereby sided with His historical persecutors and crucifiers.</p>


text:
<p>The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of the Shimeites apart, and their wives apart- The idea is that the kingly (:12) and priestly (:13) families would mourn; and this would have been also because of how Joshua had failed to be the priestly king and high priest which he could have been (see on <a href='B:450 3:1'>Zec 3:1</a>; <a href='B:450 6:11'>Zec 6:11</a>). Why mention the Shimeites particularly? The LXX gives, "the tribe of Simeon", and after the exile it seems that this tribe was also accepted into the priesthood. "Simeon and Levi" are connected in <a href='B:10 49:5'>Gen 49:5</a>. They were between them particularly responsible for the Lord’s death, hence their mourning. They would mourn "apart", i:e. from their own deep sense of personal sin; rather than guilt being as it were elicited from the proximity of others in mourning. All emotional response tends to be influenced by those close to us; but this was and is not to be when it comes to the issues of repentance, which are so essentially personal.</p>


text:
<p>All the families who remain, every family apart, and their wives apart- Those who "remain" could refer to the very few Jews who remain alive after the traumas of the last days, and who come to repentance. Or it may mean that all the other tribes / families of Israel would likewise mourn.</p>


text:
<p>In that day there will be a spring opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness- The purifying is alluding to Mosaic rituals of purification from sin and uncleanness, and also of preparing the priests for service. This spring is mentioned in <a href='B:360 3:18'>Joe 3:18</a>, where it apparently emerges from the temple mount. And in a symbolic sense it is used in John’s Gospel and Revelation 21 of the cleansing available in Christ. Entry to the new covenant offered to the exiles had involved receiving purification and the Spirit as it were sprinkled on their hearts (<a href='B:330 36:25'>Eze 36:25</a>). They didn’t want this at that time, and yet it shall be given finally in the last days to those who want it. Whether or not there will be a literal spring from mount Zion at the Lord’s return is to my mind a too literal and secular perspective. John and Revelation, along with <a href='B:330 36:25'>Eze 36:25</a>, are clear that the essence is that the repentant mind will be washed by the Spirit, just as it can be for those in this life who accept God’s dominion over them, His Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>It will come to pass in that day, says Yahweh of Armies, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they will be remembered no more. I will also cause the prophets and the spirit of impurity to pass out of the land- In contrast to the spirit of grace that will be poured out (<a href='B:450 12:10'>Zec 12:10</a>), all other spirits will be driven out. The "that day" is that of :1, which finally will be the Lord’s return. At Zechariah’s time, there were still problems with idol worship and false prophets; and we can deduce from Nehemiah and <a href='B:460 3:5'>Mal 3:5</a>; Zec 102 that these were problems even after the restoration from Babylon. But the essence of these issues will again be seen in latter day Judah. Idolatry is now covetousness (<a href='B:560 5:5'>Eph 5:5</a>; <a href='B:580 3:5'>Col 3:5</a>), and this is currently the spirit of latter day Judah. "The spirit of impurity" surely connects with their being "three unclean spirits like frogs" which lead the nations of the eretz promised to Abraham to Armageddon (<a href='B:730 16:13'>Rev 16:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>It will happen that, when anyone still prophesies, then his father and his mother who bore him will tell him, ‘You must die, because you speak lies in the name of Yahweh;’ and his father and his mother who bore him will stab him when he prophesies- LXX "Bind him". Binding is part of the condemnation process (<a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a>). We are reading about what is to happen "in that day" (:2), which finally refers to the last day when the Lord returns. We may have envisaged here the resurrection to judgment at that time of the false prophets of Zechariah’s time, and their parents. Those who remain impenitent will then be judged and condemned. Then, their parents would be obedient to the commands of <a href='B:50 13:6-10'>Deu 13:6-10</a> about what to do if your son was a false prophet.</p>


text:
<p>It will happen in that day, that the prophets will each be ashamed of his vision, when he prophesies; neither will they wear a hairy mantle to deceive- This verse could suggest that the resurrected false prophets repent, no longer wearing prophetic garb in imitation of Elijah; or at least, they suffer the shame of condemnation as they recall what they did. Too much stress should not be laid upon the Hebrew tenses here.</p><p>Jacob’s flight into Syria is set up as typical of Israel going into dispersion as a punishment for their idolatry. But they will return, as Jacob did. Then Israel will not wear a rough garment to deceive any more as Jacob did in order to deceive his father; then they will have renounced the human side of Jacob and captured his final spirituality for their own.</p>


text:
<p>But he will say, ‘I am no prophet, I am a tiller of the ground; for I have been made a bondservant from my youth’- This again could be read as a statement of repentance by the resurrected false prophets, insisting that they were no longer prophets. Or it could be a desperate denial of their being false prophets; the accused would be claiming that he only wore a hairy garment because he was an agricultural labourer. It is this denial which leads to the objection of :6.</p>


text:
<p>One will say to him, ‘What are these wounds in your hands?’. Then he will answer, ‘Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends- This appears to be in objection to the resurrected false prophet protesting his innocence in :5. In this case, there is an element to which the judgment process is a collective affair, with people effectively judged by others, like the men of Nineveh judging first century Israel; see on <a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a>. The wounds in the palms would refer to the self-inflicted wounds made by the prophets of Baal, as happened at the time of Elijah’s contest with them on Carmel. The Hebrew behind "With which I was wounded" apparently implies ’Which I wounded myself with’, and this would confirm the application to how the false prophets wounded themselves in worship sessions:&nbsp; This implies that the resurrected still have some characteristics of their previous life. And the false prophet in this case caves in and admits, that he had done this in the house of his friends. He recognizes that the house of Baal was the house of his friends, and his claim to have been an agricultural labourer-slave with wounds in his hands from his labour was just an untrue excuse.</p><p>It is tempting to apply these words to the Lord Jesus showing wounds in His hands from the nails of the cross. But this is quite outside of the context.</p>


text:
<p>Awake, sword- The idea is that the sword of judicial judgment of men (<a href='B:520 13:4'>Rom 13:4</a>) is commanded by God; whatever happens as a result of it was therefore willed by God and was not random chance.</p><p>Against My shepherd- The intended shepherd was Zerubbabel and then Joshua. But they didn’t live up to thIsa. The intended scenario was that this shepherd would be smitten, and Judah again be scattered in captivity. But for whatever reason, perhaps because of the repentance and prayer of a tiny minority, that didn’t happen. But the prophetic word came true at the time of the Lord Jesus, and the scattering and salvation of the weak faithed disciples became its fulfilment. Therefore the shepherd here clearly finally refers to Jesus (<a href='B:470 26:31'>Mat 26:31</a>), although the shepherd elsewhere in Zechariah refers to the Angel- another proof that there was one specific Angel in the Old Testament that foreshadowed Jesus, presumably Gabriel.</p><p>And against the man who is close to Me, says Yahweh of Armies- The term can mean a close relative, an ’equal’ only insofar as they are related. The term is supremely relevant to the relationship between Father and Son.</p><p>Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered; and I will turn My hand against the little ones- The "little ones" are the lambs of the scattered sheep, and the term is also used of&nbsp; the disciples (<a href='B:470 10:42'>Mat 10:42</a>; <a href='B:470 18:6'>Mat 18:6</a>; <a href='B:470 18:10'>Mat 18:10</a>), who are also the scattered sheep (<a href='B:470 26:31'>Mat 26:31</a>). The image of scattered sheep in the absence of shepherds is used of Judah’s scattering as a result of their bad shepherds (<a href='B:300 10:21'>Jer 10:21</a>; <a href='B:300 23:1-2'>Jer 23:1-2</a>; <a href='B:330 34:5-6'>Eze 34:5-6</a>). But this intended second scattering of Judah didn’t then happen; the disciples as it were bore the fulfilment of it when they were scattered from the Lord and then spiritually reformed- for the Hebrew phrase "turn My hand against" doesn’t have to mean that God was against the lambs. "Against" can as well be translated "upon" (as AV), and the identical Hebrew term is used in <a href='B:290 1:25'>Isa 1:25</a>: "I will turn My hand upon you and purge away your dross". There is the idea there of God’s direct intervention in order to ultimately save.</p>


text:
<p>It shall happen that in all the land, says Yahweh, two parts in it will be cut off and die; but the third will be left in it- This appears to continue in the context of :7 and therefore refers to the fate of the flock once the shepherd is cut off. I suggested on :7 that there was an initial scenario of the appointed "shepherd" of Judah being smitten, and the people being scattered again; and now we learn that there would have been the cutting off of two thirds within the land, and then the final spiritual purging of the remaining third. The cutting off is that of :2, where the same word is used of the cutting off of idols and those who worshipped them. For those who worship and trust them are like unto them (<a href='B:230 115:8'>Psa 115:8</a>); the cutting off of the idols (:2) meant the cutting off of those who worshipped them (:8). But there has never been a time when two thirds of Judah were cut off and a third brought to repentance&nbsp; (:9). Perhaps, given that the preceding verse talks about the first century, the idea was that the Roman invasion would have led to a third repenting. This would fit in with the clear possibility that there was for the Lord Jesus to have returned in AD70. But they didn’t repent. So this threatened scenario was deferred, and will therefore come true in the last days. The reference to "all the eretz" may intend us to understand that this is not in fact talking solely about Judah in Palestine, but about all the inhabitants of the eretz promised to Abraham; and a third of them will come to repentance.</p>


text:
<p>I will bring the third part into the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will test them like gold is tested. They will call on My name, and I will hear them. I will say, ‘It is My people;’ and they will say, ‘Yahweh is my God’- This could well be speaking of how God cut off men like Zerubbabel who were poor shepherds, although potential Messiahs; and it could have then happened that during the ‘cutting off’ of Jewish population during the Antiochus invasions, a minority could have repented and ushered in the true restoration. But this didn’t happen, and so the prophecy had a deferred fulfilment, although humanly speaking somewhat out of context, in the cutting off of the good shepherd, the scattering of the disciples, and their spiritual refining. And then another possible fulfilment arose in the scattering of AD70; but the refinement was again not achieved, and so the whole scene is deferred to the last days for fulfilment. See on <a href='B:450 10:3'>Zec 10:3</a>.</p><p>If the two halves of this verse are indeed chronological, we have a salvation by grace, a pulling out of the fire just as Judah had been plucked out of the fire of Babylon (<a href='B:450 3:2'>Zec 3:2</a>)- which is only then followed by a repentant calling upon God’s Name. God took the initiative in bringing Judah and Jerusalem out of the fire- but they had to then respond. They didn’t, but the remnant of latter day Judah will do. God’s statement that they are His people is matched by their response that He is their God. But the point is that He takes the initiative in declaring impenitent people ’My people’, and they then respond. It’s rather like how the Lord broke His bread with impenitent sinners, showing them He accepted them, exactly so that they would repent. And we need to follow the Father and Son in taking such initiatives of grace; forgiving without repentance in order that God’s grace leads those forgiven to repentance</p>


text:
<p>Behold, the day of Yahweh comes- All the previous potentials had not been responded to by Judah, and I have continually mentioned throughout Zechariah that the various prophecies were therefore rescheduled and reapplied to the last days. In this sense, God’s prophetic word will come true in essence. And so it is appropriate that Zechariah finishes with a prophecy specifically about the very last days, when all the previous prophecies will come to their final term. Likewise the many judgments upon Judah which had been promised but somehow had been delayed, will all come true. Hence the coming of the day of Yahweh was to be seen as judgment for Judah (<a href='B:460 4:1'>Mal 4:1</a>).</p><p>When your spoil will be divided in your midst- The significance of "in your midst" is that it is done there rather than in the camp of the invaders outside the city. This would imply the total fall of the city and its possession by the invaders. The Egyptians sought to pursue Israel and "divide the spoil" (s:w. <a href='B:20 15:9'>Exo 15:9</a>). But there will be no Passover deliverance. Jerusalem will fall.</p>


text:
<p>For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle- The gathering of all nations to battle predicted here is the language of Revelation 9, 16 regarding the gathering of the nations to Armageddon after the release of the hordes bound by the Euphrates- and we have already seen that happening with jihadists bursting across that river into the eretz promised to Abraham. The point is, the words of Zechariah 14 are applied to the events of the last days. Jerusalem therefore must fall. &nbsp;The final outworking of all this, of course, depends upon whether, or to what degree, Israel repent in response to our appeals: "Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the Earth" (<a href='B:730 3:10-11'>Rev 3:10-11</a>).</p><p>And the city will be taken, the houses pillaged, and the women raped- This is a quotation from <a href='B:290 13:16'>Isa 13:16</a> about the fate of Babylon. Jerusalem was to be treated as Babylon because that is how they were in spirit. Zechariah was prophesying in the context of Judah’s rather unenthusiastic return from captivity in Babylon; and most of them remained behind in Babylon. The memory was still relatively fresh of how a generation ago, Babylon had captured Jerusalem, destroyed the temple and taken the people into captivity. And now they had returned after the 70 years captivity- and Zechariah was telling them that yet again, Jerusalem was to be “taken” and the population taken into captivity. It would be hard to imagine a more unpopular message. The same Hebrew word translated “taken” is many times used of how Babylon took Jerusalem (<a href='B:300 32:3'>Jer 32:3</a> “I will give this city into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he shall take it”; <a href='B:300 32:24'>Jer 32:24</a>; <a href='B:300 32:28'>Jer 32:28</a>; <a href='B:300 34:22'>Jer 34:22</a>; <a href='B:300 37:8'>Jer 37:8</a>; <a href='B:300 38:3'>Jer 38:3</a>; <a href='B:300 38:28'>Jer 38:28</a>). Clearly the implication is that a second, revived Babylon would arise and take Jerusalem; and there would be yet another captivity. We are seeing Babylon – Assyria reforming, with a jihadist theology focusing upon taking the city of Jerusalem. The prophecy of Zechariah 14 has never been fulfilled- but it will be.</p><p>Half of the city will go out into captivity, and the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city- Significantly, half of Jerusalem is comprised of East Jerusalem, which is Arab. So when we read of how “Half of the city will go out into captivity”, this may well refer to the Jewish half of the city. "The rest of the people" is literally "the remnant"; the implication is that there will be a faithful remnant which will not be cut off and will remain in Jerusalem.</p><p><a href='B:340 9:26-27'>Dan 9:26-27</a> require the city of Jerusalem to be taken, and the abomination of desolation placed there; and this is quoted by the Lord Jesus as requiring fulfilment in the last days just prior to His return (<a href='B:470 24:14-15'>Mat 24:14-15</a>; <a href='B:470 24:29-31'>Mat 24:29-31</a>). Any previous fulfilments were incipient at best; they did not immediately herald the Lord’s visible return as required by the Oliver prophecy. <a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a> adds: "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled". The allusion is to <a href='B:340 8:13'>Dan 8:13</a>: "The transgression of desolation gave both the sanctuary and the host (i:e. the people of Israel) to be trodden underfoot":&nbsp; This part of Luke 21 is clearly alluding to Zechariah 14, a prophecy about the final desolation of Jerusalem:</p><p>Jerusalem surrounded by armies (<a href='B:490 21:20'>Luk 21:20</a>)= All nations against Jerusalem to battle (<a href='B:450 14:2'>Zec 14:2</a>).</p><p>The desolation of Jerusalem is near (<a href='B:490 21:20'>Luk 21:20</a>) = The city shall be taken (<a href='B:450 14:2'>Zec 14:2</a>).</p><p>Let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains (<a href='B:490 21:21'>Luk 21:21</a>) = You shall flee to the... mountains (<a href='B:450 14:5'>Zec 14:5</a>)</p><p>Great distress in the land(<a href='B:490 21:22'>Luk 21:22</a>) = Houses ransacked, women raped (<a href='B:450 14:2'>Zec 14:2</a>)</p><p>Led away captive into all nations (<a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a>) = Half the city shall go into captivity (<a href='B:450 14:2'>Zec 14:2</a>)</p><p>Jerusalem trodden down by the Gentiles (<a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a>) = Jerusalem a stone trodden down by the Gentiles (<a href='B:450 12:3'>Zec 12:3</a> LXX).</p><p>The “treading down” of Jerusalem didn’t end in 1967; for if that is the reference of the prophecy, then Christ should be back by now. The presence of the Dome of the Rock and Arab possession of East Jerusalem hardly sounds as if 1967 was much of a fulfilment anyway. The times of the Gentiles have clearly continued since 1967. The more logical interpretation is surely that Jerusalem must be trodden down by Gentiles until the “times” of that domination end- and that is probably a reference to the 42 months / 1260 days / three and a half year down-treading which we meet in both Daniel and Revelation.</p>


text:
<p>Then Yahweh will go out and fight against those nations, as when He fought in the day of battle- God again will act openly as He did against Israel’s neighbours in past conflicts. The ’going out’ will in a literal sense be fulfilled in the Lord Jesus, on behalf of His Father, going forth out of Heaven to intervene against Judah’s abusers.</p>


text:
<p>His feet will stand in that day on the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east- The description of the Lord’s feet standing on the Mount of Olives naturally looks ahead to the words of the Angels at the ascension of the Lord Jesus from that same Mount, promising that He would return in the same way. As He stands upon His feet, so do the opponents (:14 s:w:). This is the greatest showdown of human history, between God and man, Spirit and flesh.</p><p>And the Mount of Olives will be split in two, from east to west, making a very great valley. Half of the mountain will move toward the north, and half of it toward the south- This will create four separate elevated areas, with a large valley running north-south between them. Hence the reference to "My mountains" plural in :5; this valley will be the way to flee in :5. The mount of Olives is described as being on the East of Jerusalem; the faithful will flee eastwards and then through the newly created valley. This will then become the valley of Judah’s revival spoken of in Ezekiel 37; they will arise as a powerful army to subdue their enemies, energized by the Spirit and led by the returned Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>You shall flee by the valley of My mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azel- As noted on :4, this implies they flee out of Jerusalem to the east and through the new valley opened up through the mount of Olives. The GNB offers: "You will escape through this valley that divides the mountain in two", avoiding interpreting "Azel" as a proper noun. A way of escape will be made, through a mountain; parted as the Red Sea was parted, that God’s people might escape. And yet according to Ezekiel, the glory is to enter from the east (<a href='B:330 43:2'>Eze 43:2</a>); so we are to imagine them uniting with the Lord of glory at the mount of Olives, and joining Him in returning through east Jerusalem. The western slopes of the Mount of Olives appear to be part of what forms the "valley of decision" of <a href='B:360 3:14'>Joe 3:14</a>, the "valley of slaughter" of <a href='B:300 19:6'>Jer 19:6</a>. It is through this new valley that the way of Yahweh is prepared to come to Zion from the east.</p><p>Yes, you shall flee, just like you fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah- The LXX is significantly different, implying instead that there will be no way of escape: "And the valley of my mountains shall be closed up, and the valley of the mountains shall be joined on to Jasod, and shall be blocked up as it was blocked up in the days of the earthquake, in the days of Ozias king of Juda". Perhaps the ambiguity is intentional; depending upon the faith of the remnant, the earthquake will either open up a way of escape through a new valley across the former mount of Olives (:4), or will block their escape and leave them to their final destruction. The earthquake at Uzziah’s time may have been one of the ways in which he was "marvellously / miraculously helped" against his enemies (<a href='B:140 26:15'>2Ch 26:15</a>). Zechariah’s prophecy is based around the restoration of the throne of David, and there are therefore allusions to the historical David throughout. Here, to the fleeing of David from Jerusalem via the Mount of Olives along this same path (<a href='B:100 15:30'>2Sa 15:30</a>; <a href='B:100 15:32'>2Sa 15:32</a>).</p><p>Yahweh my God will come, and all the holy ones with you- LXX, as GNB: "The LORD my God will come, bringing all the angels with him". This is quoted in the New Testament about the return of the Lord Jesus on God’s behalf, with "all the angels with him" (<a href='B:470 25:31'>Mat 25:31</a>). Note the change of pronouns; it’s as if Zechariah is caught up in the wonder of having Yahweh as his personal God, when otherwise addressing God ["with you"]. Such shifting of address are likely familiar to us if we have ever tried to make a transcript of our own personal prayers. Focus and address shifts within the same sentence, as we often see in the prayers transcripted in the Psalms.</p>


text:
<p>It will happen in that day, that there will not be light, cold, or frost- The idea is that seasons will be no more. But the Hebrew is difficult; the RVmg. offers "There shall not be light, the bright ones shall contract themselves". This radical change in the planets, sun and stars at the Lord’s return is likewise spoken of in <a href='B:360 3:15'>Joe 3:15</a>; <a href='B:290 13:10'>Isa 13:10</a>; <a href='B:470 24:29'>Mat 24:29</a>; <a href='B:730 6:12-13'>Rev 6:12-13</a>. It was prefigured by how Joshua-Jesus made them stop in their tracks (<a href='B:60 10:12-13'>Jos 10:12-13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>It will be a unique day- Literally, "it will be one day". This recalls the first day of creation, described this way in <a href='B:10 1:3'>Gen 1:3</a>. We will note on :21 that there are seven occurrences of "that day" in this vision. A new creation is being presented. This verse then goes on to allude to "there was evening and morning, the first day".</p><p>Which is known to Yahweh; not day, and not night; but it will come to pass, that at evening time there will be light- LXX "When this will happen is known only to the LORD"; alluded to in NT teaching that none knows the day nor hour, but only the Father. But this may be one of a number of indications that the meaning of time will be collapsed around the Lord’s return. This is really necessary for there to be the individual judgment of a multitude as many as the sand on the shore. This also explains why it’s impossible to construct a chronology of events around His coming in terms of a linear progression. "In that day" is a favourite phrase of Zechariah’s, and the events spoken of as then happening are hard to fit into a chronological framework. It would also explain the apparent tension between passages which imply an immortal emergence from the grave, and those which suggest a mortal emergence and then judgment and reward. It just depends which view of time one takes. If there is light at evening time, we would have here another way of saying that the sun will never go down, which is the language of the Kingdom of God established on earth (<a href='B:290 60:20'>Isa 60:20</a>; <a href='B:730 22:5'>Rev 22:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>It will happen in that day, that living waters will go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the eastern sea, and half of them toward the western sea; in summer and in winter will it be- LXX "in the dry season as well as the wet". The new valley spoken of in :4,5 will have living waters flowing in it. The situation of <a href='B:330 47:1-12'>Eze 47:1-12</a> which was potentially possible for the restored exiles will then be finally brought about. Just as the waters are mentioned as being created in Genesis (see on:7,21), so in this new creation the equivalent is these living waters, parallel with the law of Yahweh going out of Jerusalem in <a href='B:290 2:3'>Isa 2:3</a>; <a href='B:400 4:2'>Mic 4:2</a>, causing the nations to flow back to Zion. And they will revive the otherwise ’Dead Sea’ to the east. These are the living waters which Judah could have earlier experienced but refused (<a href='B:300 2:13'>Jer 2:13</a>). Clearly this water of life is used symbolically in <a href='B:730 22:1'>Rev 22:1</a>, but this is not to say that the symbol will have no literal basIsa. Most symbols do. We can live the essence of the Kingdom life now, in that this living water should come forth from our innermost being to give life to the dead world around us (<a href='B:500 7:38'>Joh 7:38</a>). And this outflow from us should be constant, just as these future waters are not seasonal nor occasional.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh will be King over all the earth- Zechariah has previously spoken of a Davidic king reigning for Yahweh over all the eretz or "earth" promised to Abraham. Now this King will be reigning for Yahweh, and clearly looks forward to the Lord Jesus.</p><p>In that day Yahweh will be declared as the one and only- This declaration will cut out all idolatry amongst God’s people, and all other forms of worship amongst the Gentiles. The command to exalt Yahweh as the only God in <a href='B:50 6:4'>Deu 6:4</a> was and is therefore an invitation to live the Kingdom life now. In this sense, as in John’s Gospel, we can experience the nature of the life eternal right now. The "one day" of :7 is an eternal manifestation of the one God.</p><p>And His name unified- It may well be that <a href='B:560 4:4-6'>Eph 4:4-6</a> is alluding back to this verse; this passage inspires us to keep the unity of the Spirit, because here and now "there is one body, and one Spirit... one Lord ... one baptism, one God";&nbsp; Paul is saying that the unity of the Kingdom, as spoken of in <a href='B:450 14:9'>Zec 14:9</a>, must be found in the ecclesia of today.</p>


text:
<p>All the land will be made like the Arabah- GNB "will be made level". A new flat plateau is envisaged. This could be brought about by the shaking / earthquake predicted in Hag. 2:6 and which could have come at the end of the Ez. 38 invasion: "in that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel... all the men who are on the surface of the earth, shall shake at My presence. The mountains shall be thrown down, the steep places shall fall and every wall shall fall to the ground" (Ez. 38:19,20). Had Judah accepted the new covenant offered to them in Ez. 33,34, they would have revived as in Ez. 37, the Ez. 38 invasion and earthquake would have happened and then on the resultant plateau, the new temple would have been built. Despite Judah's failures to engage with these things, Haggai and Zechariah were saying that if the people wanted, they could have the earthquake and temple. God really was trying to force through His saving purpose. </p><p>From Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem; and she will be lifted up, and will dwell in her place, from Benjamin’s gate to the place of the first gate, to the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananel to the king’s winepresses- These locations feature in the account of the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem and the temple (<a href='B:160 3:1'>Neh 3:1</a>; <a href='B:160 3:31-32'>Neh 3:31-32</a>; <a href='B:160 12:39'>Neh 12:39</a>). Zechariah wasprophesying in this context. He is implying that the work of rebuilding the temple and city had not been done according to the specifications and commandments for the exiles in Ezekiel 40-48 and <a href='B:300 31:38'>Jer 31:38</a>; <a href='B:300 31:40'>Jer 31:40</a>, and so God will finally make it good in His own way. The reference to "the king’s winepresses" at the south of Jerusalem (<a href='B:160 3:15'>Neh 3:15</a>) would only have made sense to the primary audience of Zechariah; he is inviting them to imagine how places they knew well would one day be in the literal, eternal Kingdom of God on earth. And we can imagine the same, regarding things in our lives.</p>


text:
<p>Men will dwell therein- LXX "They shall dwell in the city". This was in contrast to how in Nehemiah’s time, the returned exiles had been reluctant to dwell there because it was not safe. It was a reminder to the initial audience of the potential they had wasted.</p><p>And there will be no more curse- Quoted in <a href='B:730 22:3'>Rev 22:3</a> about the future Kingdom of God on earth. The "curse" in view is not only that placed in Genesis, but the specific curses for disobedience which had come upon Judah.</p><p>But Jerusalem will dwell safely- Proof enough, surely, that the invasion of Gog when Jerusalem ’dwells safely’ is after the Lord’s return and not before it (<a href='B:330 38:8'>Eze 38:8</a>; <a href='B:330 38:11'>Eze 38:11</a>; <a href='B:330 38:14'>Eze 38:14</a>). Attempts to identify the invaders at this stage are therefore slightly misplaced. The Hebrew phrase for ’dwelling safely’ is repeatedly used about the blessings of living in covenant relationship with God</p>


text:
<p>This will be the plague with which Yahweh will strike all the peoples who have warred against Jerusalem: their flesh will consume away while they stand on their feet, and their eyes will consume away in their sockets, and their tongue will consume away in their mouth- See on :4. This implies that the plague will be sudden, whilst the warring soldiers are standing up. The language could suggest the effects of nuclear radiation. Perhaps Yahweh will punish the nations through their destroying of each other with their own weaponry, and this is implied in :13. This is how He has destroyed previous invaders. The triple reference to "consume away" is perhaps to serve as a signpost to the fact that most of the occurrences of this word relate to the consuming away of Israel because of their sins. Now what has been done to them shall be done to those who did it, as the structure of Revelation explains.</p>


text:
<p>It will happen in that day, that a great panic from Yahweh will be among them; and they, each of them, will lay hold on the hand of his neighbour, and his hand will rise up against the hand of his neighbour- This is how historically the invaders of Israel were destroyed (<a href='B:70 7:22'>Jdg 7:22</a>; <a href='B:90 14:20'>1Sa 14:20</a>; <a href='B:140 20:23'>2Ch 20:23</a>). I suggested on :12 that they may use their nuclear weaponry against each other. "Panic" translates the word used in <a href='B:50 7:23'>Deu 7:23</a> about the destruction of the Canaanite nations; and these are the same nations in view in the last days: "But Yahweh your God will deliver them up before you and will confuse them with a great confusion until they are destroyed". It is also the word used of the destruction of the Philistines / Palestinians in <a href='B:90 5:9'>1Sa 5:9</a>; <a href='B:90 5:11'>1Sa 5:11</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Judah also will fight at Jerusalem- The repentant Jewish remnant are here prophesied as liberating the captured Jerusalem. This contrasts with passages like Psalms 2 which suggest Jerusalem will be defended and preserved from her invaders. A common way of dealing with these apparent contradictions has been to postulate a timeline of events, a series of invasions, with some happening after the return of the Lord Jesus and His enthronement in Zion. This may be a legitimate way of dealing with the problem, but no proposed chronology seems to resolve all the points of contradiction between the various prophecies. My suggestion again is that Bible prophecy is conditional. Various scenarios may happen, depending upon various factors such as the speed of Israel’s repentance, the amount and quality of prayer and spirituality in the believers of the last days, God’s grace, His desire to just end it all and get on with the Kingdom balanced against His desire to see more saved by prolonging things... And so Jerusalem may or may not fall, various invasions may or may not happen, in accordance with the human freewill factors that God so respects in how He finally works things out with Israel and this world.</p><p>And the wealth of all the surrounding nations will be gathered together: gold, and silver, and clothing, in great abundance- What was done to Judah in :1 would now be done to her abusers. This explains the structure of the book of Revelation; the seven seals of judgment upon Israel are reflected in the bowls of judgment then poured out upon those who judged her. This verse is behind <a href='B:730 21:26'>Rev 21:26</a>: "They shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into" the restored Zion.</p>


text:
<p>So will be the plague of the horse, of the mule, of the camel, and of the donkey, and of all the animals that will be in those camps, as that plague- The animals mentioned were all of military usage, and refer to the military resources of the invaders. In latter day terms this translates into the military technology and hardware of the attackers being plagued and thereby destroyed in the same way as the users thereof (:12)</p>


text:
<p>It will happen that everyone who is left of all the nations- The remnant that is left is a term which is usually used about the repentant remnant of God’s people. There will also be such a remnant amongst her latter day enemies. This is a major theme- that there will be a minority amongst the attackers who repent.</p><p>That came against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, Yahweh of Armies- We note the focus of the attackers as specifically upon Jerusalem. This fits with an increasing focus in jihadist Islam [the religion of Israel’s surrounding nations and enemies] upon Jerusalem. We can expect to see the Jerusalem issue becoming increasingly prominent, both politically and in their theology.</p><p>And to keep the feast of tabernacles- This festival is chosen because it celebrated the entry into the promised land. It will be a way of celebrating God’s grace to Israel; the Gentiles will keep it because they have so identified with Israel that her God and her history is now theirs. It was a celebration too of the end of harvest, which is often used as a metaphor for judgment. It is a mistake to think that the Law of Moses will be reinstated for some period at the Lord’s return. That law was ended permanently, as the New Testament makes clear. Under that law, men were required to appear three times before the Lord at the main feasts (<a href='B:20 23:17'>Exo 23:17</a>); but here, only one feast appears to be required. Likewise the legal requirements of the restored temple in Ezekiel 40-48 were not the Law of Moses, as they differed significantly from it.</p>


text:
<p>It will be, that whoever of all the families of the earth doesn’t go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, Yahweh of Armies, on them there will be no rain- At the time of Zechariah, rain was being withheld upon Judah because of their disobedience, as Haggai 1 and Malachi mention. The initial audience would have been aware of this and realized they were being treated like the obstinate Gentiles of the last days who would refuse all evidence of Yahweh’s supremacy and refuse to submit to Him. For this is what they were doing.</p>


text:
<p>If the family of Egypt doesn’t go up, and doesn’t come, neither will it rain on them- The obvious point is that Egypt was then the nation which was independent of rainfall, because it depended for irrigation upon the flooding of the Nile rather than precipitation. With all the huge tectonic upheavals of the last days, this situation will change. That is the clear implication of this threat. "The family of Egypt" is a slightly unusual term. The implication may be that at Zechariah’s time, the family of God in Egypt had chosen not to ’come up’ to Zion, preferring the land of their exile.</p><p>This will be the plague with which Yahweh will strike the nations that don’t go up to keep the feast of tents- Perhaps God expected the Jews in Egypt to come to Jerusalem to keep the feast. But they didn’t, and thereby were living out the condemnation of latter day people who refuse the most obvious evidence that Yahweh is indeed king in Zion.</p>


text:
<p>This will be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all the nations that don’t go up to keep the feast of tabernacles- Egypt as so often is presented as representative of "all the nations". We note that even when the Lord Jesus is enthroned in Jerusalem, obedience will not be forced. And we also are reminded that in the face of the most overpowering visual evidence, human nature is such that men can still refuse it. "Punishment" translates the same original word translated "sin", e.g. in <a href='B:450 13:1'>Zec 13:1</a>. The Hebrew language at this point was structured to reflect the fact that sin is its own punishment. It’s not so much that God punishes sin, but that sin is its punishment.</p>


text:
<p>In that day there will be on the bells of the horses, HOLY TO YAHWEH- "The horses" suggests a specific group of horses is in view; and the horses of the context are those ridden by the invaders in :15. Instead of bearing slogans glorifying their dedication to pagan gods, the "bridles" (LXX, NEV "bells") of the surviving horses will be dedicated instead to Yahweh. This is another way of saying that swords will be beaten into ploughs (<a href='B:290 2:4'>Isa 2:4</a>). "Holy to Yahweh" was the inscription on the High Priestly mitre (<a href='B:20 28:36'>Exo 28:36</a>). The idea is that such holiness would extend equally; the horses were to be as dedicated to Yahweh as the High Priest. This thought continues in the second half of the verse, where sacred bowls are to be as holy as earthen pots. And we can live with that spirit now; every part of our lives is to be dedicated to Yahweh. No area of life or field of human endeavour is to be considered as more or less sanctified than any other.</p><p>And the pots in Yahweh’s house will be like the bowls before the altar- LXX "The cooking pots in the Temple will be as sacred as the bowls before the altar". Holiness will extend to absolutely everything.</p>


text:
<p>Yes, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah will be holy to Yahweh of Armies; and all those who sacrifice will come and take of them, and cook in them- This rather conflicts with the practice amongst the Jews of the priests preparing the sacrifices, with the resultant abuses exemplified in the situation in <a href='B:90 2:13-15'>1Sa 2:13-15</a>. But God seeks for personal relationship with individual people; both now and in that future day, we are to personally prepare and offer our own sacrifice to Him. We cannot depend upon any religious structure to do this for us, assuming because we made a general donation to a fund or charitable appeal we are thereby freed from any further concept of sacrifice.</p><p>In that day- This phrase occurs seven times in the prophecy of Zechariah 14; see on :7. We are perhaps invited to see this as the consumption of the creation week, a new creation. The final "in that day" we expect to be something very significant, but instead the prophecy concludes with what could appear an anticlimax- a reference to there no longer being traders / Canaanites in the temple. But this is typical of the prophets; to focus upon moral failure which might appear relatively minor, and show how deeply significant it in fact is to God.</p><p>There will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of Yahweh of Armies- This was of obvious relevance to Zechariah’s generation; for the book of Nehemiah laments how Canaanites came and traded and even had chambers in the temple. So the crowning blessing of the Kingdom "in that day" will be that there will be no more spiritual weakness within us the people and temple of God. And this is what surely every spiritually minded believer wishes for above all. Fear of our own weakness and the corruption of God’s "house" by apostacy will then be no more.</p>


text:
<p>An oracle: the word of Yahweh to Israel by Malachi- "Malachi" is a form of malak, the word usually used for messenger of Angel. The appeal of the prophecy is to the priests, who are described in <a href='B:460 2:7'>Mal 2:7</a> as "the messenger of Yahweh of Armies". So it would seem that Malachi [s:w. "messenger"] was himself a priest who was modelling what a priest should be like by giving his prophecy. So we have here a priest rebuking priests; and this is always the most powerful way to preach, teach and pastor, when the teacher or pastor has commonality with the audience. It was and is why the Lord Jesus fully had our human nature. The priests were to ‘turn’ [s:w. ‘convert’] believers away from the life of sin and behind the way of God (<a href='B:460 2:6'>Mal 2:6</a> LXX); the priestly mission was to bring about the conversion which was required before the revelation of Messiah and the Messianic Kingdom. As explained on Haggai and Zechariah, the exiles who returned could have experienced Joshua and / or Zerubbabel as their Messianic rulers in God’s restored Kingdom in Judah. But they didn’t ’return’ to Yahweh spiritually, and most of them preferred to remain in exile anyway. It could be that ’Malachi’ was an appeal for repentance by a priest who was attempting to prepare the way for Messiah’s coming. But still Judah refused to respond, and his fellow priests, perhaps his own relatives, refused to prepare that way; and Malachi as the messenger of the covenant was rejected by his people. And so Malachi’s mission failed, but it would come true in the work of the future Elijah prophet. Hence he concludes by speaking about this. John the Baptist was the primary fulfilment of it, and the latter day Elijah prophet will be the main fulfilment. John the Baptist felt that the Elijah ministry was about being "a voice crying", and he gives no direct answer to the question "Who are you?". He was just a voice, he felt his name was irrelevant. This might explain why ’Malachi’ is anonymous, simply the messenger- of a possible new covenant. LXX reads "The words of the Lord to Israel by the hand of His messenger", asking us to connect with the message about the messenger of the covenant in Mal. 3:1. </p>


text:
<p>I have loved you, says Yahweh. Yet you say, How have you loved us? Wasn’t Esau Jacob’s brother? says Yahweh, Yet I loved Jacob- This repeats the language of the new covenant: "I have loved you with an everlasting love" (Jer. 31:3). But Judah had rejected that offer of a new covenant made to them by Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and tried to return to the old covenant- which Zechariah had explained was now broken. They shied away from God's pure love, just as many do today. They like spoilt children wanted to think that "love" means the gift of material prosperity here and now. Although they had rejected the new covenant, God's love for them was unchangeable (Mal. 3:6). The gifts and calling of God to Israel were unchangeable (Rom. 11:29) and as such, a parade example of His grace. For Israel were chosen as God's beloved child not because of their goodness, but simply because He loved them- and no real explanation is given for that choice of love. "For the fathers' sakes" still only throws the question one stage further back. And certainly with our calling and predestination likewise.
</p><p>And yet for all the focus of the returnees upon separation from others, the temple and the ritualism of the old covenant, they are presented here as not really believing God loved them and offering Him the cheapest of their sacrifices. Their words are not what they actually said, but how their attitudes were read by God. And so it can be with us today. It's why Paul prayed on his knees that the converts would know the love of Christ that passes knowledge. It's quite possible to have a religious approach to faith that leaves us not feeling the love of God, and therefore uninfluenced by it. For we love only because He first loved us; as loved children we also walk in love (Eph. 5:1,2).
</p><p>Isaiah speaks of this same inability of Judah to believe in God's love. "The LORD comforts his people and will have compassion on his afflicted ones. But Zion said, “The LORD has forsaken me, the Lord has forgotten me” . Can a mother forget the baby at her breast
and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me" (Is. 49:14-16). And the marks on God's palms look ahead to the marks left in the Lord's palms by the nails of the cross. So often the exiles were dejected because the restoration prophecies hadn't worked out as they had hoped- because of their wrong attitudes. They returned to the land expecting personal material blessing, and turned against God when that didn't happen. Just as so many turn away from God today after coming to Him with wrong expectations of immediate blessing. God doesn't just shrug and make no further response. He appeals to them on the basis that His love for Israel is eternal and is shown by how He has chosen, taken hold of and called them: "But you, Israel My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham My friend, you whom I have taken hold of from the ends of the earth and called from its corners and said to you, ‘You are My servant, I have chosen you and not cast you away’; don’t you be afraid, for I am with you" (Is. 41:8-10). We too cannot surely deny that we have been chosen, taken hold of and called. We find the same in Jer. 33:24-26: "Don’t consider what this people has spoken saying, The two families which Yahweh chose, has He not cast them off? Thus do they despise My people, that they should be no more a nation before them. Thus says Yahweh: If My covenant of day and night fails, if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; then will I also cast away the seed of Jacob". This was in response to the feeling of the dry bones of Judah in captivity: "Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are totally cut off" (Ez. 37:11). So God appeals to them, that He has not and will not cut them off. At the beginning of the exile, they felt that "My strength is perished, and my expectation from Yahweh" (Lam. 3:18). And the same mentality continued in Malachi's time. 
</p><p>A sense that 'nobody loves me' is at the root of so much sin, addictions etc. It may quite possibly be true in this world, but the pain of being humanly unloved too easily leads people to believe that therefore, not even God loves them. Or at least, not very much. If our heart is melted by the love of another, then we are so hugely empowered. And we have that love... from God and the Lord Jesus. The New Testament defines the love of God and the love of Christ as specifically referring to the Lord's death on the cross. But we are too often up against the problem Malachi addressed- of religious people, believers in God, who feel somehow distant from God's love. Like them, we might never say in so many words "Wherein have You loved me?" but that is too often effectively our position. 
</p><p>Paul cites predestination as a parade example of God’s grace. God’s love of&nbsp; Jacob over Esau was not because Jacob was better; in secular terms, he was not such a nice guy as Esau. But God’s love was for Jacob, to demonstrate His grace and to thereby elicit the response of faith and devotion. But Jacob / Israel refused. In Malachi’s time, Israel had greatly slacked in keeping the Law: "What a weariness is it!", they grumbled to each other. They divorced faithful wives so they could marry Gentiles, they practiced sorcery and sexual perversion (<a href='B:460 2:14-16'>Mal 2:14-16</a>; <a href='B:460 3:5'>Mal 3:5</a>). But the first problem which the Spirit addresses is their lack of appreciation that God really did love them deeply(<a href='B:460 1:2'>Mal 1:2</a>). All the other immorality flowed from this. We need to constantly remind ourselves never to feel "Nobody loves me". God loves us, in His Son. Let us never ever forget that.</p><p>The clear parallel between the historical man Jacob and the people of Israel is brought out here. Had Israel appreciated God’s love for the man Jacob, and perceived that he was typical of them, then they would never have doubted God’s love for them. And the same is true of us, whom Jacob likewise represents. It can be demonstrated that the weakness of Jacob, morally and even doctrinally, runs far deeper than may be apparent on the surface. Even at the end, despite the level of spiritual maturity which Jacob doubtless achieved, he still had serious aspects of incompleteness in his character. And yet he is held up as a spiritual hero, a victor in the struggle against the flesh. This was (and is) all possible on account of the phenomenal imputation of righteousness which God gave to His Jacob. He was saved by grace, not works; and Malachi appeals to God’s people to see in Jacob’s salvation an eternal reminder of God’s grace (<a href='B:460 1:2'>Mal 1:2</a>; <a href='B:460 3:6'>Mal 3:6</a>). Very often, the name Jacob is associated with the way that God sees His people of Jacob / Israel as righteous when in fact they are not (<a href='B:40 23:7'>Num 23:7</a>; <a href='B:40 23:10'>Num 23:10</a>; <a href='B:40 23:21'>Num 23:21</a>; <a href='B:40 24:5'>Num 24:5</a>; <a href='B:230 47:4'>Psa 47:4</a>; <a href='B:230 105:6'>Psa 105:6</a>; <a href='B:230 135:4'>Psa 135:4</a>; <a href='B:290 41:8'>Isa 41:8</a>).</p><p>The various questions and statements put into Judah’s mouth in Malachi, such as "How have you loved us?", are unlikely citations of what they actually said. Rather do we see here how God perceives the thought as the word, and how He sees and traces to the end the implications of our positions. We note that these same people who questioned whether God loved them were at the same time intensely religious and emotional in their apparent devotions to Him, covering His altar with tears (<a href='B:460 2:13'>Mal 2:13</a>). In this we see a challenge; we can very seriously go through the motions of religious devotion, and yet disbelieve the simple love of God toward us.</p>


text:
<p>But Esau I hated- We may ponder why God says He loves Israel but "hates" Esau. It has been truly said that 'hate' might be understood as meaning 'to love less'. But all the same, the Hebrew word translated "hate" means just that. It is used of how God hates child sacrifice (Dt. 12:31); idolatry (Dt. 16:22); of how a woman felt her husband "Hates me and doesn't love me" (Jud. 14:16); of how Amnon hated his rape victim more than he had once loved her (2 Sam. 13:15); of how Haman hated the Jews (throughout Esther this word is used). Love and this "hate" are presented as polar opposites (e.g. 2 Sam. 19:6; 2 Chron. 19:2); the "hate" is not simply a lower level of "love". I suggest God says that He loves sinful Jacob and hates Esau in order to shake Judah from their lethargy, from their sense that God just treats them like any other nation. His love for Jacob was so strong that anything other than that love looked like hatred. This statement of extreme love prefaces the forthcoming message that God notices and feels their disregard of Him and has emotions appropriate to that; but they are overarched by this eternal love for Israel.
</p><p>But it is true that "hated" effectively means ’loved less’ (as in <a href='B:490 14:26'>Luk 14:26</a> cp. <a href='B:470 10:37'>Mat 10:37</a>; and <a href='B:10 29:30-31'>Gen 29:30-31</a> cp. <a href='B:50 21:15-16'>Deu 21:15-16</a>). We read that Rebekah loved Jacob, but Isaac loved Esau; this isn’t to say that each parent hated the other child, but that they loved them less. God seems to be saying that He too had (as it were) this kind of favouritism- by grace. And "Jacob" was to be awed by that grace; but they were not. In wrath God had said of Israel: “I hated them” (<a href='B:350 9:15'>Hos 9:15</a>). Yet God loves Israel with an eternal love, and hates their enemies Esau (<a href='B:460 1:3'>Mal 1:3</a>). He will “love them freely” ultimately (<a href='B:350 14:4'>Hos 14:4</a>). These windows into God’s internal struggles reveal that His love is far from cheap.</p><p>And made his mountains a desolation- Esau was judged for his sins; whereas so often, God didn’t judge Jacob as he deserved.</p><p>And gave his heritage to the jackals of the wilderness- God gave Esau and inheritance and then took it away, giving it to the jackals. Jacob / Israel sinned even worse; their mountains were also made desolate, their heritage given to others- but despite a dearth of repentance, God had still restored them to their land in Malachi’s time. This restoration was by grace alone; and Israel ought to have responded more and not questioned God’s love. The destruction of Edom / Esau was by the Babylonians, who also destroyed Judah (Jer. 49:17-22). But Judah simply bemoaned their lot whereas Edom rebuilt their ruins (:4).  </p>


text:
<p>Whereas Edom says, We are beaten down, but we will return and build the waste places; thus says Yahweh of Armies, They shall build, but I will throw down- God challenges Judah’s indolence to rebuild the temple by drawing their attention to how zealously Edom had rebuilt their “desolate places”. If Edom can do it… why can’t you, Judah, with all God’s prophecies and support behind you? God threw down what the Edomites tried to rebuild, but was eager to confirm and magnify every stone laid by Judah. We too are challenged by the devotion and commitment of secular people to causes which are unspiritual and not Godly. If they can do so much for their causes; how much more should we devote every atom of our being to the things of the Kingdom.</p><p>And men will call them ‘The Wicked Land’, even the people against whom Yahweh shows wrath forever- Judah at this time were also "wicked"; the same word is used of them at Malachi's time 'working wickedness' (Mal. 3:15); 'doing wickedly' (Mal. 4:1). Just as the land was full of wickedness a generation before in the time of Zech. 5:8. The curses against Judah and Edom were similar (<a href='B:290 34:5'>Isa 34:5</a>); but God never lifted the curse upon Edom, whereas by grace He had done so upon Judah. Petra remains desolate to this day. The surrounding peoples throughout the generations were persuaded that Edom was a "Wicked land" and would not rebuild it. We see here how God can act directly upon the perceptions and hearts of people; and He can do so positively through His Spirit with us. God’s wrath with Israel is described as eternal, but His grace to them was such that it was not.</p>


text:
<p>Your eyes will see, and you will say, Yahweh is great- even beyond the border of Israel!- "See" is s:w. "discern" in <a href='B:460 3:18'>Mal 3:18</a> ["you will again discern the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between those who serve God and those who do not"] ; as explained there and on <a href='B:460 2:4'>Mal 2:4</a>, all too late, the rejected will perceive spiritual truths. The connection with <a href='B:460 3:18'>Mal 3:18</a> suggests the "Your eyes" in view are those of rejected Israel. They oppressed Gentiles (<a href='B:460 3:5'>Mal 3:5</a>) and considered eretz Israel the sole dominion of God’s kingship or kingdom. But they would realize all too late that His Kingdom included Gentiles. The context is God’s grace poured out to Jacob but not to Esau; the Jews of Malachi’s time who refused and despised that grace would be resurrected to judgment and then see Gentiles such as Edom glorifying the God of Israel. Just as the Lord says that the unbelieving Jews of His generation would "see" Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom and themselves thrust out; they would not see Him again until they did see Him at the resurrection and would say, all too late, "Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord".
</p><p>"Beyond the border of Israel" can as well be rendered "up until", right up to the Biblical definitions of "Israel" from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean. This would be the same idea as Mic. 5:4 "for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth" / land promised to Abraham. It would continue the theme of  Zech. 14:9: "the Lord will become king over all the earth" / land. And note that Malachi follows straight on from Zechariah in 'the book of the twelve' minor prophets. Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi are all on the same physical scroll.
</p>


text:
<p>A son honours his father, and a servant his master. If I am a father, then where is my honour?- Just as Judah questioned in their hearts whether God loved them (:2), so they acted as if they weren’t the children of God, and therefore didn’t need to give Him the response which a son does to a father,</p><p>And if I am a master, where is the respect due me?- One doesn’t give sub-standard service to their employer. One didn’t bring him a defective animal as a gift. And yet Israel gave their God the lame and the blind animals, they only served Him as far as it didn’t hurt them (<a href='B:460 1:6-9'>Mal 1:6-9</a>). They gave Him what cost them nothing. And yet they should not only have served Him as they served their earthly masters; but, because He is the “great God”, they should have given Him even more. And so we must ask: the time we give to our careers and development in them, the thought we give to our secular lives, the respect we pay it… how does this compare to our attitude to Divine things?</p><p>Says Yahweh of Armies to you, priests- The appeal to the priests is made explicit in <a href='B:460 2:1'>Mal 2:1</a>, but it begins here. As noted on :1, Malachi was a priest, and he was appealing to the priests, possibly his own family members. The criticism of the priests for offering defective animals was really a criticism of their keeping the best sacrifices for themselves, and also allowing the people to offer defective animals. This is why the mass of society were as culpable as the priests.</p><p>Who despise My name- To know the name of Yahweh is an imperative to serve Him (<a href='B:130 28:9'>1Ch 28:9</a>). The greatness of the Name should have led to full and costly sacrifices (<a href='B:460 1:6-11'>Mal 1:6-11</a>; <a href='B:460 1:14'>Mal 1:14</a>; <a href='B:460 2:2'>Mal 2:2</a>). Thinking upon the Name led the faithful to pay their tithes and fellowship with each other (<a href='B:460 3:6'>Mal 3:6</a>; <a href='B:460 3:10'>Mal 3:10</a>). Giving unto Yahweh the glory due to His Name is articulated through giving sacrifice (<a href='B:230 96:8'>Psa 96:8</a>). If we know God, we will act and judge as He does (<a href='B:300 22:16'>Jer 22:16</a>). To perceive that Yahweh is indeed so righteous results in us humbling ourselves (<a href='B:140 12:6'>2Ch 12:6</a>), just as the declaration of the Name made Moses hide in the cleft of the rock, and as it will make men in the last days throw away all their vestige of human pride (Isaiah 2).</p><p>You say, ‘How have we despised Your name?’- The priests perhaps excused themselves by reasoning that it was the people bringing defective offerings. The fact is, God demands our all, our total best. Anything less than that is an excuse. The Hebrew for "despised" is used of Esau (<a href='B:10 25:34'>Gen 25:34</a>). In the context we have just read of how Esau was worse than Jacob but God saved Jacob by grace. This ought to have elicited in Jacob / Israel a desire not to act as Esau, but to be transformed by that grace. But instead they acted like and even worse than Esau, also despising spiritual things. To despise the Name was the presumptuous sin (<a href='B:40 15:31'>Num 15:31</a>). It was because of despising God that they had broken the covenant and gone into captivity (s:w. <a href='B:140 36:16'>2Ch 36:16</a>; <a href='B:330 16:59'>Eze 16:59</a>; <a href='B:330 22:8'>Eze 22:8</a>). Now they had been restored by grace, but they were behaving the same way. They didn’t deserve to be in the land, but rather to be sent away again into another captivity.</p><p>The priests despised Yahweh's Name (Mal. 1:6), unlike their ancestor Levi, who “revered Me and stood in awe of My Name” (Lev. 2:5). But it seems that some of the ordinary people did respond, and feared the Name: "Those who feared Yahweh spoke frequently one with another; and Yahweh listened, and heard, and a book of memory was written before Him, for those who feared Yahweh, and who honoured His name" (Mal. 3:16). And for them, God promised the Messianic "sun of righteousness" to arise for them “who revere My Name” (Mal. 4:2). Despite the bad example of their priests / religious leaders, individuals can still respond. </p>


text:
<p>You offer polluted bread on My altar- As teachers of God's law (Mal. 2:7), the priests ought to have refused such offerings from the people. But they didn't, and offered them on the altar. We note the love of Judah for the altar; it was the first thing they restored on return from exile and they covered it with tears (Mal. 2:13). But they offered sub-standard offerings upon it. This is typical of a religious approach to God, where the altar rather than the offering is seen as paramount.  </p><p>The abuses against “My altar” of <a href='B:460 1:7'>Mal 1:7</a>; <a href='B:460 1:10'>Mal 1:10</a> refer to the much-mentioned altar of Ezekiel 40-48, which was to be used in a way unlike the previous abuses of the pre-captivity period. Judah had made no difference between clean and unclean, and therefore had gone into captivity (<a href='B:330 22:26'>Eze 22:26</a>); and therefore the temple was a command / prophecy to divide the clean from the unclean in the whole way the building was designed and was to be built and operated (<a href='B:330 42:20'>Eze 42:20</a>). It was a “law” that the top of the house be “holy” (<a href='B:330 43:12'>Eze 43:12</a>). See on :8. Malachi is primarily addressing the priesthood; they were already "polluted", unable to prove their genealogy as the records had been destroyed when Jerusalem was sacked, and were only allowed to serve by grace (<a href='B:160 7:64'>Neh 7:64</a>). But they didn’t respond to that grace; they themselves polluted God’s service.</p><p>God had sworn not to allow His Name to be polluted or profaned, e.g. <a href='B:290 48:11'>Isa 48:11</a> "For My own sake, for My own sake, will I do it; for how should My name be profaned? I will not give My glory to another"; also in <a href='B:330 20:9'>Eze 20:9</a>. But He never forces, and so He ’allowed’ Judah at this time to pollute it. God invites us to see His efforts to stop His Name being polluted as somehow defeated by the extent of Israel’s pollutions. This theme comes out clearly in Ezekiel: they polluted Him, but He strove lest His Name should be polluted. Here is the extent of freewill which God gives man to sin- and also the extent of the hopefulness of God. It’s as if He didn’t imagine they would pollute Him as much as they did.</p><p>You say, ‘How have we polluted You?’ In that you say, ‘Yahweh’s table contemptible’- “They shall come near to my table” (<a href='B:330 44:16'>Eze 44:16</a>) in the restored temple. They did, but they despised it (<a href='B:460 1:7'>Mal 1:7</a>; <a href='B:460 1:12'>Mal 1:12</a>), they found it such a weariness. Yet they covered the altar with tears of religious devotion (<a href='B:460 2:13'>Mal 2:13</a>), when n reality they despised it. For God’s table was His altar, He ate in fellowship with the offerers. We have here a powerful challenge to mere religiousity. "Contemptible" is s:w. despise"in :6. They despised God’s Name by despising His table. Our attitude to His table, which in our day could refer to the breaking of bread service, is our attitude to His Name. If we treat it as mere religion, a weapon to control others with, a sign of local club membership, then we like Judah are despising His Name.</p><p>Whilst the "table" refers to the altar, we note how Ez. 40:39-43 labours how there were to be tables for the offerings to be laid on and slaughtered. It was presumably on these stone tables that the animals were examined for defects. It seems that they were intended to construct eight stone tables for the sacrifices to be laid on. But we read here in Malachi of a singular "table", which they had despised and polluted with their stolen or substandard sacrifices. The priests laid the animal on the table, saw it was defective, but shrugged and accepted it anyway. Always the point is being made that this was all so far from the glorious temple scenario which Ezekiel had taught them and commanded them whilst in exile. </p>


text:
<p>When you offer the blind for sacrifice, isn’t that evil? And when you offer the lame and sick, isn’t that evil?- The idea is that the people presented or offered a sick animal to the priests, and the priests accepted it; this is not the word for "offer" in :7. "Isn't that evil?" is as RV "It is no evil!", ironically, or quoting their words. The offering of defective animals was likely encouraged by the poor harvests, poverty and blight on animals which the returned exiles faced, as detailed in Haggai. Indeed the economic situation was so bad by the time of Neh. 5:1-5 that they were selling their children as slaves just to get food to eat. But that was a result of their own sins and wrong attitudes. The excuse of the priests would have been that it was the people who offered these defective animals. But they were judged as responsible, as their acceptance of them encouraged the masses in their disrespect.</p><p>They offered blemished sacrifices, when it had been prophesied / commanded in the Ezekiel prophecies of the restored temple that Israel were not to do this (<a href='B:330 43:23'>Eze 43:23</a>). Those prophecies were command more than prediction, and only conditional upon Israel’s obedience- which was not forthcoming. So much prophetic potential was wasted, as it is in human life today. See on <a href='B:460 1:7'>Mal 1:7</a>; <a href='B:460 1:10'>Mal 1:10</a>; <a href='B:460 2:14'>Mal 2:14</a>; <a href='B:460 3:8'>Mal 3:8</a>.</p><p>They offered the blemished sacrifices which Israel presented to them (:8,14). Thus they failed to speak out against the low spiritual standards of their flock, but instead went along with them. So the masses got the spiritual leadership they wanted, even if they despised them (:9). For this reason, both society and priesthood were equally to be condemned.</p>&nbsp;<p>Present it now to your governor!- A Persian term is here used, suggesting Malachi was speaking not long after the restoration, when the Jews were still influenced by Persian language.</p><p>Will he be pleased with you? Or will he accept your person? says Yahweh of Armies- Heb."accept your face". Sitting at God’s table / altar with acceptable sacrifice would have resulted in them meeting God face to face as it were, over the table.</p>


text:
<p>Now, please entreat the favour of God, that He may be gracious to us- Zech. 7:13 had clearly stated that God was not open to hearing their prayers until they changed: "Just as, when I called, they would not hear, so, when they call, I will not hear, says the LORD". Despite the potential being that the rebuilt temple would be a "house of prayer for all nations" (Is. 56:7). Perhaps that's why prayer isn't ever really mentioned in Malachi, apart from here. And yet  here Malachi still urges them to pray. He knew God's grace. And this is not the only time when Godly men have prayed when it appeared God had turned off. Jeremiah is a classic example.</p><p>It appears that a minority did respond to Malachi’s words. But as religious people tend to, they asked the priest [Malachi] to pray for them, rather than wanting to engage personally with God. They are perhaps alluding to the intercession of Moses for a faithless Israel.</p><p>With this, will He accept any of you? says Yahweh of Armies- The problem was that the nature of the failures was such that the whole society was implicated. The priests offered the defective sacrifices which the people brought. And yet despite this, God as it were changes His mind and does accept that minority in <a href='B:460 3:16'>Mal 3:16</a>. Such was and is His enthusiasm to save at least some.</p>


text:
<p>Oh that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire on My altar in vain!- "Oh that there were one..." suggests that there was not a single faithful priest. The idea seems to be that God felt it were better to close the temple, to shut the doors, than keep them open to offer sacrifices like these. We see how far the glorious potential for the restored temple had failed. As the Lord would later put it, better hot or cold than lukewarm. 
</p><p>God's desire for the temple to be closed down stands in sharp contrast to the glorious prophecies of the temple's restoration. He is moving towards a way of relating to people without the temple; as we will note on :11.
</p><p>There were to be gate openers in the restored temple (<a href='B:330 46:12'>Eze 46:12</a>). There were gate openers, but they demanded to be paid for their services (AV); or [LXX]&nbsp; the gate openers were nowhere to be found. The difference in the translations reflects the Hebraism: if you won’t serve for nothing, then you haven’t served.</p><p>An indication that Nehemiah could have been a Messiah figure is to be found in <a href='B:460 1:10'>Mal 1:10</a> RV, which laments that even if one man could be found to shut the temple doors properly, then God’s pleasure would have returned to Israel. It was Nehemiah who shut the doors (<a href='B:160 13:19'>Neh 13:19</a> - i:e. organized the temple services?), but presumably the implication is that he didn’t continue as required. See on <a href='B:440 1:1'>Hag 1:1</a>; <a href='B:440 2:7'>Hag 2:7</a>; <a href='B:450 8:22'>Zec 8:22</a>.</p><p>The AV offers:"Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought". If this is legitimate, then we have an allusion to the book of Job, which appears to have been rewritten under inspiration with relevance to the return from exile. The satan in the book of Job expresses his serious doubt that any man would serve God for no prospect of reward in this life (<a href='B:220 1:9'>Job 1:9</a>). One of the themes of the book of Job is to show how a real believerwill serve God for nothing. In fact, Job went beyond this. He says that he will still serve God even if he gets nothing from Him in this life and even if there is no future reward either, &nbsp;and even if God treats Him unfairly; ’Even if’, Job speculates, ’God slays me (not just ’kills’ me)’&nbsp;&nbsp; (consider <a href='B:220 13:15'>Job 13:15</a>; <a href='B:220 14:7'>Job 14:7</a>; <a href='B:220 14:14'>Job 14:14</a>; <a href='B:220 19:10'>Job 19:10</a>). This was love of God, this was devotion to ones’ creator, despite not understanding His ways. In Malachi’s time, the Jews were expecting a reward from God for every little thing they did. They are rebuked in language which is full of allusion back to Job, and his willingness to serve God"for nought"(<a href='B:460 1:10'>Mal 1:10</a> AV).</p><p>I have no pleasure in you, says Yahweh of Armies, neither will I accept an offering at your hand- The glory of Yahweh as described at the end of Ezekiel could have appeared in Haggai’s time- but this wonderful possibility was held back by Israel’s petty minded, self-satisficing laziness. The same word is used in <a href='B:330 43:27'>Eze 43:27</a> - then, when the temple of Ezekiel was built, Yahweh would “accept / take pleasure in” His people and temple. But because they built and served Him with such a mean spirit, He did not “accept” them at that time (<a href='B:460 1:10'>Mal 1:10</a>; <a href='B:460 1:13'>Mal 1:13</a> s:w:).</p>


text:
<p>For from the rising of the sun even to the going down of the same, My name is great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the nations, says Yahweh of Armies- Note the conflict of tenses; His Name will be glorified, because it is right now great. The implication is that we glorify that Name now, and thereby live the Kingdom life now. This is the sense of the Lord’s repeated offers of"life eternal"to be experienced right now. The exiles despised Gentiles (<a href='B:460 3:5'>Mal 3:5</a>), but ultimately it was Gentiles who were to offer a more pure sacrifice than the Jews. Their"pure offering"contrasts with the defective offerings of the Jews at this time. And the Jews of that generation would be resurrected to see this, and then be condemned (see on :5)."Every place"uses maqom, the word for a holy place; the whole earth was to be full of such holy places, where incense could be offered acceptably; which meant that the Jerusalem temple would no longer be the only sacred space- a lesson the exiles ought to have learnt through their relationship with God in Babylon.</p><p>The Gentiles are understood in Mal. 1:11 as being able to offer a pure offering "in every place". The Jerusalem temple was not required to make an acceptable offering. That had been the initial plan, as Ez. 48 had envisaged the Yahweh Name would be "there"; but the Jews had despised God's Name. So anyone who did make His Name "great" could offer an acceptable, pure offering- from wherever they are. And yet in Mal. 3:4 another scenario is given- the Levitical priesthood will be purged and "Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasant to Yahweh, as in the days of old" (Mal. 3:4). It never was purged. But Malachi's generation were still being given the opportunity to have that scenario. Mal. 1:11 makes it clear that He foresaw that their spurning of His holiness would actually lead to a situation where He was glorified by far more people over a far greater area.
</p><p>The idea could be: “I will no longer accept the local and polluted offering, for I will substitute for it a pure and universal offering”. This looked forward to the Lord's sacrifice. And possibly the readjustment of these things would come to its fulfilment in the “spiritual sacrifices” of prayer and praise (Heb. 13:15), generous deeds (Heb. 13:16; Phil. 4:18) and self-dedication (Rom. 12:1). 
</p><p>Another option is that the present tenses could lead us to read this as speaking of the Jews and Israelites who had not returned to the land. They were offering acceptable incense without the temple, throughout the Persian empire. And this was acceptable, whereas the offerings made at the temple weren't. We recall how Ezekiel established a "little sanctuary" in exile and there likely were others. There are records of Jewish  sacrifices being made in the Elephantine colony in Egypt, in Babylonia, and at the Jewish temple in Leontopolis in Lower Egypt. These and other sanctuaries may have been the referent of how "in every place [the Hebrew often refers to a holy place]" amongst the Gentiles in the territory of the land promised to Abraham, incense was being offered acceptably to Yahweh.
</p><p>We see a number of different potential movements within God's purpose. Jeremiah and Ezekiel had offered the captives a return from exile, a new covenant and a restored Kingdom, with a new temple and a Messianic "Prince" and conditions of great blessing in the land, with the Gentiles becoming proselytes. But this was conditional upon their repentance. They didn't repent and only a relatively few returned from exile. They didn't build the temple as commanded by Ezekiel and sought to return to the [now broken] old covenant. They didn't repent and were only interested in their own properties and material betterment. Haggai and Zechariah appealed for repentance, but it was only done on a surface level. Through Zechariah, God offered them a new version of things- a priest [Joshua] and a king [Zerubbabel], and offers to cleanse the Levitical priesthood. And offered the blessings of the old covenant in return for obedience to the old covenant. Jeremiah's prophecies of the new covenant are alluded to in Zechariah 1-8 and parts of them are mixed in with the new deal God was offering a people who still wanted the old covenant, for reasons of preserving tradition. But even that wasn't acceptable to them. God condemns them as "unclean" (Haggai) and unacceptable (Malachi). After Zechariah 8, Zechariah refocuses the possible futures upon the Lord Jesus and His Kingdom. Yet Mal. 1: 11 is clear that God enjoyed fellowship and worship from a faithful remnant of exiles still in captivity, quite without a temple and sanctuary. And quite possibly without a Levitical priesthood. Yet their offerings were "pure" and they glorified Yahweh's Name, unlike those offered in the rebuilt temple. Zech. 8:20-23 and other restoration prophecies speak of a pilgrimage of nations to worship at the restored temple in Jerusalem. But Malachi sees the possibility of individual Jews [initially] acceptably worshipping God from a distance. And this merges with the wider vision of individual Gentiles worldwide glorifying Him, without the temple and restored Kingdom in the specific form envisaged by the restoration prophets. This is confirmed by the way these words of Mal. 1:11 are quoted in 1 Tim. 2:8 and applied to Christians praying to God: "I desire then
that men pray in every place". This would explain the clear feeling of personal relationship with God which is so marked in Malachi: "Out of a total of 55 verses in the book, 47 contain the first person address of Yahweh to Israel". In all this we see God's earnest desire to somehow work with men, on whatever level.
</p>


text:
<p>But you profane it- The purpose of building the temple system was so that Yahweh’s Name would no longer be profaned by His people in that temple (<a href='B:330 36:23'>Eze 36:23</a>; <a href='B:330 44:7'>Eze 44:7</a>); but they had profaned it (also <a href='B:460 1:12'>Mal 1:12</a>), in that they saw it all as mere religion, and the fire of a true relationship with the Almighty was smothered. Judah profaned the Sabbath too (<a href='B:160 13:17-18'>Neh 13:17-18</a>). The potential kingdom situation of Ezekiel 40-48 was therefore precluded by their disobedience to it.</p><p>In that you say, ‘Yahweh’s table is polluted, and its fruit, even its food, is contemptible’- This is typical of the prophets- to perceive the real implication of attitudes. For the Jews probably didn’t actually say those words. But because those words didn’t pass their lips and weren’t formed by their tongue... this didn’t mean that they didn’t think that. The Lord brought all this into simple truth when He stated that the thought is the action and the words.</p><p>According to the LXX titles, there were certain Psalms which were written for the dedication of the rebuilt temple, and others written by Haggai and Zechariah. They include: Psalms 96, 138, 147, 148. These all seem to speak as if the time of a glorious temple was to be the time of God’s Kingdom; this was the possibility, and it was the prevailing hope in the minds of the faithful minority. But the Psalms had to remain prophecies of the future day of Zion’s glory. Psalms 96 is very clear: “Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name [i:e:] bring an offering, and come into his courts” (:8). But Judah did not bring the right offerings, although the glory of Yahweh’s Name ought to have elicited them (<a href='B:460 1:11-14'>Mal 1:11-14</a>).</p><p>They are accused here of blaspheming God's Name,  faithlessness (2:10-17), wearying the Lord with their words (2:17), failing to return to the Lord Almighty (3:6-7), saying "it is futile to serve God" and robbing God (3:8,13). Yet they covered the altar with tears (Mal. 2:13), such was their religious devotion. But still God assures them that He loves them.  </p>


text:
<p>You say also, ‘Behold, what a weariness it is!’- They considered serving God a "weariness" because they felt there weren't getting anything immediate and material out of it. The same word is used in Is. 43:22: “You have become weary of me, O Israel!”. There was a mutuality here: “Your appointed feasts my soul hates. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them” (Is. 1:14). God was wearied with their weariness, and so it is in the breakdown of relationship between God and men today. And yet despite this, God reaches out to them again and again.
</p><p>What a contrast with David! The whole of Psalms 119 describes how he rejoiced at God’s law, staying up late at night, straining his eyes into the candlelight to read it, getting up first thing in the morning to read some more (<a href='B:230 119:147-148'>Psa 119:147-148</a>)."Travail"is the same word translated"weariness"here, used by Nehemiah as a summary of all the trouble that had come upon Judah in their history (<a href='B:160 9:32'>Neh 9:32</a>). This is the mindset of so many- they have travail in the world, and they consider relationship with God to likewise be"travail". Anything apart from total commitment to God will result in this miserable mindset.</p><p>And you have sniffed at it, says Yahweh of Armies-"Sniffed"alludes to an animal snorting or ’breathing back’ at food they don’t like. It is the word used about how Yahweh"sniffed"or ’blew away’ the harvest reaped by the exiles (<a href='B:440 1:9'>Hag 1:9</a>). As noted on What a weariness it is, Judah had slumped to a situation where they sniffed or blew away at the idea of giving God the best, and He sniffed or blew away what they harvested. Only total devotion to Him of our very best will bring us out of this mire of mediocrity which grips unbelieving society.</p><p>And you have brought that which was taken by violence, the lame, and the sick; thus you bring the offering- The returned exiles were stealing cattle from each other, and then quickly using them as offerings before the theft would be discovered. And by so doing, they robbed God (<a href='B:460 3:8'>Mal 3:8</a>). The Hebrew for"sick"is literally ’that which is worn away’, and it is also one of the Hebrew words translated"prayer". It is used in :9; to pray to God with entreaty is as it were to wear Him down, as in the parable of the insistent widow. The play on words here is to reflect how God would not be ’worn down’ by their prayers if their sacrifices were of worn down animals. The timeless message is that we are not to sacrifice to God that which costs us nothing, that which is in any case superfluous to our personal needs. And we need to examine all our giving to God in this light.</p><p>Should I accept this at your hand? says Yahweh- The prophetic intention was that God would"accept"the offerings of the restored exiles in the rebuilt temple (s:w. <a href='B:330 20:41'>Eze 20:41</a>; <a href='B:330 43:27'>Eze 43:27</a>). But He is saying that they were precluding the fulfilment of those prophecies by offering that which was clearly unacceptable. Again we see the open ended nature of God’s purpose, and the extreme importance thereby attached to human freewill decisions.</p>


text:
<p>But the deceiver is cursed, who has in his flock a male, and vows, and sacrifices to the Lord a blemished thing- The cruel tragedy here is that a vow meant that you promised to make a sacrifice to God if He did something for you. God had answered their prayers, He came through for them as asked- but their gratitude was in offering a blemished animal even when it was in their power to offer Him what they had promised.
</p><p>"Blemished thing" is feminine. Freewill vow offerings were to be male. We may ask, ’Who were the offerers deceiving?’. Not the priests, because they knew the blemishes of the animals they sacrificed. Like Ananias and Saphira, the offerers were deceiving God. And they thought they could get away with it. They would naturally have recoiled at this being stated in such bald terms, but thisis effectively what we are doing if we don’t offer the best according to our potential. The law required male offerings (<a href='B:30 1:3'>Lev 1:3</a>; <a href='B:30 1:10'>Lev 1:10</a>); the offerer was claiming that he had only a flock of females and hence couldn’t offer a male. This was obviously untrue, but they thought they could thus deceive God, as if He wouldn’t notice.</p><p>For I am a great King, says Yahweh of Armies-"The great king"is the title beloved by the kings of Assyria, Greece and Babylon (<a href='B:120 18:19'>2Ki 18:19</a>; <a href='B:120 18:28'>2Ki 18:28</a>; <a href='B:300 25:14'>Jer 25:14</a>; <a href='B:340 8:21'>Dan 8:21</a>). The emphasis is therefore upon"I". The restored exiles still felt that their imperial rulers were their great king, rather than throwing off the yoke of tribute and tithing to them and accepting Yahweh as the one and only"great king". We too can so easily fear man’s greatness rather than God’s.</p><p>And My name is awesome among the nations- It is a continual theme of Malachi that the Gentiles would ultimately serve God acceptably and better than Judah (see on :11). We note the present tense,"is awesome", as if this potential was already being developed.</p>


text:
<p>Now, you priests, this commandment is for you- The idea would be that the following is specifically for the priests, although Malachi 1 is largely directed at them also. I suggested on <a href='B:460 1:1'>Mal 1:1</a> that the priesthood was to specifically be the messenger of the new covenant heralding the potential arising of a Messiah figure. But Judah refused, and so the potential was rescheduled and reapplied to John the Baptist, and then to the latter day Elijah prophet.</p>


text:
<p>If you will not listen- Heb."hear". This was the epitome of God’s covenant:"Hear, O Israel". To not even hear meant that all the rest of the covenant principles were lost on them. To hear God, to respect His word, is essential. This is why the Bible must have paramount place in all our thinking about God.</p><p>And if you will not lay it to heart- Judah had gone into captivity because they did not"lay it to heart"(<a href='B:300 12:11'>Jer 12:11</a> s:w:). The restoration from captivity was to involve setting or laying to heart the new covenant (<a href='B:300 31:21'>Jer 31:21</a>). They had returned from captivity, but were still not laying to heart their relationship with God. This lack of mental focus is one of the most common diseases of the soul, and affects many who would otherwise consider themselves religious Christians. They covered the altar with tears (:13) but didn't lay God's word to their heart. For all time we see demonstrated that mere religion and emotionalism isn't the same as a heart response to God.</p><p>To give glory to My name, says Yahweh of Armies- The exiles developed such an obsession with the Name that they even forbad the pronunciation of it. But this was typical mere religiousity, seeing that their root problem was a refusal to glorify the characteristics of God’s Name.</p><p>Then will I send the curse on you- The curse with the article suggests the specific curse for disobedience to the covenant (<a href='B:50 27:15-26'>Deu 27:15-26</a>; Deuteronomy 28).</p><p>And I will curse your blessings. Indeed, I have cursed them already, because you do not lay it to heart- This may refer to how as recorded in Haggai 1, there was famine and none of the covenant blessings which they had been promised for obedience. Or the idea may be that what apparent blessings they had were already cursed from God’s viewpoint, but there was a gap between the curse and its fulfilment; note the future sense of :3. This explains the apparent contradiction: "I will curse... I have already cursed". In that gap, they could have repented and changed God’s intention. We too live within that gap, and it should impart an intensity to our living, repentance and self-examination. God had already cursed the priests, He had made that statement. But the whole point of Malachi’s appeal was that the priests would repent, and thus the curse that had “already” been pronounced would not come into operation. Note that God isn’t saying: ‘If you don’t repent, beware, I will curse you’. He had already cursed them, but at that late stage, even then, He was willing to change His word- if they repented. It was exactly the same with Nineveh. Indeed, many of the OT appeals to repentance and outlines of judgment to come are of this nature. That judgment had already been decreed. But the power of the repentance appeals is that even so, God is so sensitive to genuine repentance that He is willing to go back on His own word. It’s a great encouragement not only to personal penitence, but to perceiving the deep significance of he repentance of others, and accordingly framing our personal attitudes and judgments concerning them.</p><p>"Already"translates a Hebrew term which could mean"I have cursed them severally", taking the grammar distributively- as if to say,"I have cursed each one of your blessings". This would mean that there were a whole list of blessings potentially prepared, which one by one were now cursed. The amount of potential lost was tragic, and it continues in so many lives today as so many possible futures simply don’t come about.</p><p>We must remember that it is specifically the priests who are being cursed; their specific blessings were to be cursed. What were their blessings? As discussed on :14, the priests were not trusting in the blessing promised to faithfully teaching God's word and arranging Israel's worship. The promise of blessing to the tribe of Levi was clear: "Yahweh, bless his substance [s.w. "wealth"]. Accept the work of his hands" (Dt. 33:11). Possibly this general 'blessing' of the Levites is implied in Num. 6:27: "So shall they put my name upon the people of Israel, and I will bless them" (RSV). Somehow everything will work out if we go God's way. But they didn't trust that, and divorced their wives and married Gentile pagans to try to ensure their own wealth. </p>


text:
<p>Behold, I will rebuke your seed- The reference could be to literal seed, but more likely to their children. The most common excuse for lack of devotion to God is that resources are needed for our children. This was the reason given by faithless Israel for not entering Canaan. But it was their children who would suffer. GNB "I will punish your children". The priests married Gentile women and divorced their Jewish wives, and as such decided themselves that their seed would not be a "Godly seed" (:14,15). So they worked out this curse by their own decisions and actions, just as Jeremiah had said of them: "Your ways and your doings have brought this upon you. This is your doom" (Jer. 4:18). Their descendants would cease from being Levites if their mothers were pagan Gentiles. They would be taken away from the altar just like dung was taken away from it, and dumped outside the camp (Ex. 29:14; Lev. 4:11; 16:27). But this was their own choice. God didn't want this to happen-  "I have sent this commandment to you, that my covenant may continue with Levi" (2:4, NASB). </p><p>And will spread dung on your faces, even the dung of your feasts; and you will be taken away with it- This is one of the harshest, crudest condemnations of the priesthood in the whole Bible. And yet it is prefaced by the statement of God's amazing love for all Israel in Mal. 1. It is the wrath of love. The allusion is to the taking of the dung of the sacrifices"without the camp"to an unclean place of destruction (<a href='B:20 29:14'>Exo 29:14</a>; <a href='B:30 8:17'>Lev 8:17</a> etc:). Judah were being told that without repentance, they would again be cast out from God’s holy space."Spread"is the same word used for God’s scattering of His people into exile (<a href='B:30 26:33'>Lev 26:33</a>). They didn’t repent, but this didn’t happen for centuries, until AD70. Such was God’s amazing patience, setting us a powerful challenge whenever we think we have been patient enough with lack of human response to His word. But finally, God did end their feasts by destroying the temple and ending the Mosaic law, and expelling Israel. The language is crude and shocking, purposefully so, in order to get over to these religious people who wept tears over God’s altar in apparent devotion (:13)... that they were so deeply unclean and their devotions and blemished animal sacrifices so abominable.</p>


text:
<p>You will know that I have sent this commandment to you- This continues the theme discussed on <a href='B:460 1:5'>Mal 1:5</a> and <a href='B:460 3:18'>Mal 3:18</a>, that all too late when resurrected to judgment, that generation would know the truth of all these things. This explains why condemnation is described as the mental anguish which leads to gnashing of teeth. Or we can read this as NASB, as a continued begging for the priests to return to the covenant: "I have sent this commandment to you, that my covenant may continue with Levi" (2:4, NASB). And yet God had offered His people a new covenant, indeed the old covenant was broken. But they wanted to still stick with the old covenant and so He goes along with that desire. The Lord likewise spoke of how He appealed to Israel by all means, offering to play weddings, then funerals- but the just didn't want to play ball.</p><p>That My covenant may be with Levi, says Yahweh of Armies- God wanted to make a new covenant with the priests who are here addressed (:1) as"Levi". I will suggested on :5 that this was not the same as the Mosaic law, and was a separate although similar covenant to that made with Phinehas in <a href='B:40 25:12-13'>Num 25:12-13</a>.</p><p>On a general level, all those in true covenant relationship with God will realize the fullness of commitment to us which He has entered into, and will likewise make a whole-hearted response and sacrifice (<a href='B:460 2:4-5'>Mal 2:4-5</a>). <a href='B:230 103:18'>Psa 103:18</a> parallels"such as keep his covenant"with" those that remember his commandments to do them". Covenant relationship brings a natural desire to live within the atmosphere of God’s spirituality. For Israel in covenant with God, absolutely nothing- not sex, menstruation, the content of clothing fabric, diet- could fall outside the scope of their covenant relationship. And so in principle it is with us under the new covenant.</p>


text:
<p>My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him that he might be reverent toward Me; and he was reverent toward Me, and stood in awe of My name- The old covenant could not give life (<a href='B:550 3:21'>Gal 3:21</a>), nor peace with God because there was a remembrance made of personal sins each year because of the inadequacy of the animal sacrifices alone to deal with personal sin (<a href='B:650 10:3'>Heb 10:3</a>). As noted throughout Zechariah, God in Jeremiah and Ezekiel had offered the returning exiles a new covenant, which did offer life and peace:"I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant"(<a href='B:330 37:26'>Eze 37:26</a>; <a href='B:290 54:10'>Isa 54:10</a>). But they had refused it. This surely is the covenant in view rather than the old covenant. But the statement here is that this covenant had already been given and accepted. The priest who first accepted it was I suggest not the historical Levi, but Joshua the high priest who could have become a Messianic ruler. He initially accepted it but didn’t continue in that covenant, neither did the priesthood after him; see on <a href='B:440 1:1'>Hag 1:1</a>; <a href='B:440 2:4'>Hag 2:4</a>; <a href='B:450 3:1'>Zec 3:1</a>; <a href='B:450 3:3'>Zec 3:3</a>; <a href='B:450 3:6'>Zec 3:6</a>; <a href='B:450 3:8-9'>Zec 3:8-9</a>; <a href='B:450 6:11'>Zec 6:11</a>. See on :7. The allusions to Phinehas are also clear:"‘Behold, I give to him My covenant of peace: and it shall be to him, and to his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was jealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel"(<a href='B:40 25:12-13'>Num 25:12-13</a>). This was itself an incipient form of the new covenant, which was repeated to the priesthood at the time of the restoration as part of the new covenant offered to all Judah who returned to the land.</p>


text:
<p>The law of truth was in his mouth, and unrighteousness was not found in his lips. He walked with Me in peace and uprightness- The man in view was"Levi"but this means surely an individual, specific priest, rather than Levi personally. As suggested on :5, it may not so much be Phinehas in view, but rather Joshua the intended high priest who began well but then fell away. God’s law was to be taught in truth, whereas as explained on :8, the priesthood in Malachi’s time had begun to twist the law in an untruthful way. <a href='B:290 59:3'>Isa 59:3</a> uses the same words in condemning Judah after the restoration for having unrighteous lips. They influenced the priesthood, and the priesthood influenced them. And thus the entire community was guilty. The particular unrighteousness on the lips of the priesthood would have been in teaching unrighteousness as righteousness, thereby making their audience"stumble at the law"(:8)."Uprightness"is the word translated"straight"in explaining how the priestly messenger of the covenant would make the way"straight"for Messiah’s coming (<a href='B:290 40:4'>Isa 40:4</a>; <a href='B:290 42:16'>Isa 42:16</a>). This was what was required of the priesthood and high priest in order to prepare the way for Messiah’s coming. But the priest [Joshua?] failed in this, and so did the priesthood subsequently.</p><p>And turned many away from iniquity-"Many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God"(<a href='B:490 1:16'>Luk 1:16</a>) was alluding back to Malachi’s message and prophecies of Messiah’s forerunner; and it also referred to this definition of the ideal priest as one who"did turn many away from iniquity". The high priest Joshua and the priesthood at Malachi’s time failed to prepare the way for Messiah’s coming; and so it was reapplied to John the Baptist, and again to the Elijah prophet of the last days."Turned away"is the usual word used for Judah’s"return"from exile. They had been intended to return to God as well as literally to the land. They had failed to do so, and so they were given by grace the messenger of the covenant to prepare them. This appears to have been a priest, maybe Joshua, or the figure presented as ’Malachi’, but the priesthood generally were not fulfilling this role as intended. And so it was rescheduled for fulfilment in John the Baptist and the Elijah prophet of the last days.</p><p>There is clearly a connection with <a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a> promising blessing for those who turn many away from iniquity. Daniel’s prophecy that there would be a time of trouble for Israel, followed by a resurrection and judgment, may have had a potential fulfilment in Haman’s persecution. The LXX of Esther 5 includes her prayer, in which she says that Haman was seeking to hinder the work of the temple. This would explain why initially the Samaritans persuaded the Persians to make the work cease, but then (humanly inexplicably) another edict is given for it to resume. The people were delivered (<a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a>), as they were by Michael the Angel manipulating Esther. But the resurrection, judgment and Kingdom didn’t follow, because Israel weren’t ready for it. Then those who turned many to righteousness- i:e. the priesthood, in the primary context- would be rewarded (<a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a>). But Malachi and Haggai repeatedly criticized the priesthood at the time of the restoration for being selfish and not teaching Israel. Daniel and Jeremiah were heartbroken that there had to be such a delay to the full fulfilment of the Messianic restoration of the Kingdom.</p><p>As noted on :7, all Israel were to be priests in spirit. The priests were to ‘turn’ [s:w. ‘convert’] believers away from the life of sin and behind the way of God (<a href='B:460 2:6'>Mal 2:6</a> LXX), but this is applied to all of us in <a href='B:660 5:19'>Jas 5:19</a>.</p>


text:
<p>For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth-Dt. 33:10 had stated that Levi "shall teach judgments to Jacob" i.e. the rest of Israel. But this was command more than prediction, because Mal. 2:7 says that therefore the priest's lips should keep knowledge. They didn't, but they ought to have done. Again we see how "shall" is so often command rather than prediction of how things shall be in the future.  </p><p> As noted on :5, the priests had entered a new covenant on returning from exile. This new covenant required Judah to have God’s law written on their hearts, so that they each had the knowledge of God (<a href='B:300 31:34'>Jer 31:34</a>); and yet <a href='B:460 2:5-7'>Mal 2:5-7</a> laments that the priests were more interested in divorcing their wives than teaching God’s law to the people; their lips didn’t keep nor teach the knowledge of God. The priests of the new temple system were to teach Judah and to make others discern between good and evil (<a href='B:330 44:23'>Eze 44:23</a>). But they did the opposite, and therefore the huge potential predicted for them in Ezekiel 40-48 didn’t come about.</p>&nbsp;<p>Although there was a special priesthood, it was clearly God’s intention that all Israel should be like priests; they were to be a"Kingdom of priests"(<a href='B:20 19:6'>Exo 19:6</a>)."The priests lips should keep knowledge"; but the average Israelite was encouraged to study the Law for himself,"that your lips may keep knowledge"(<a href='B:240 5:2'>Pro 5:2</a> s:w:).</p><p>For he is the messenger of Yahweh of Armies- As suggested on <a href='B:460 1:1'>Mal 1:1</a>, Malachi [s:w."messenger"] was himself a priest who was modelling what a priest should be like by giving his prophecy. The messenger of the covenant (<a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a>) was therefore a priest or priesthood which would prepare the people to accept the new covenant in Messiah. The implication is that Malachi and the priesthood of his time could and should have been doing this; but the priests refused. So we have here a priest rebuking priests; and this is always the most powerful way to preach, teach and pastor, when the teacher or pastor has commonality with the audience. It was and is why the Lord Jesus fully had our human nature. The prophecy was reapplied to John the Baptist, who was also a priest; and seeing Israel generally failed to respond, again to the latter day Elijah prophet.</p>


text:
<p>But you have turned aside out of the way- I suggested on :5 that initially at the return from Babylon, the priest did teach God’s ways. Certainly Nehemiah and Ezra did. But the subsequent priesthood didn’t.</p><p>You have caused many to stumble in the law- This was the effect of their not rejecting the law, but finding all manner of ways of twisting it to allow female animals to be offered instead of the males stipulated (<a href='B:460 1:14'>Mal 1:14</a>), and crippled animals to be accepted instead of unblemished ones. Finding ways around God’s requirements only makes others stumble; again, a timeless warning.</p><p>You have corrupted the covenant of Levi, says Yahweh of Armies- As explained on :5, that covenant was not the old covenant, but a new covenant offered to the returning exiles, as detailed in Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 37, which they initially accepted, but now the next generation had corrupted it. There is clearly also an allusion to the covenant with Phinehas. The priests"corrupted the covenant of Levi", in that they married out of the Faith (<a href='B:160 13:29'>Neh 13:29</a>), thus violating the Spirit of the Phinehas covenant- which was given in recognition of zealous action against relationships with Gentile women (<a href='B:40 25:12-13'>Num 25:12-13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Therefore I have also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according to the way you have not kept My ways, but have had respect for persons in the law-By letting the people 'get away with' things like offering sick animals, the priests became despised by the people. As will be explained on :11, the people came to despise the priests just as they had done at the time of the young Samuel. But because of this, the people were driven to idolatry. This is what happens when the leadership of God’s communities drive people away and make them simply not want to have anything to do with the community any more; those driven away rarely keep the faith, but rather drift off to various forms of idolatry. By respecting persons, showing favouritism to some, the priesthood became despised before all the people. They were unable to have a platform of respect from which to teach the people, and what they taught anyway was a corruption of the law.</p>


text:
<p>Don’t we all have one father? Hasn’t one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother- It could be argued that Malachi is quoting their words of justification for marrying Gentiles: "Don’t we all have one father? Hasn’t one God created us?". They reasoned that seeing all men are created by God and descend from Adam, we are a brotherhood of man and so we can intermarry. This was totally different to God's insistence in Mal. 1 that He has a unique and special love and purpose for Israel, which He doesn't have with any other nation. But the returned exiles considered themselves rejected by Yahweh, and used this as an excuse to divorce their Jewish wives and marry Gentiles.
</p><p>The treachery in :14 was against their wives. But here it is against their own brethren, and often elsewhere the word is used of treachery / unfaithfulness to the covenant with God. Unfaithfulness in personal relationships inevitably leads to breakdown in relationships with ones' brethren. And tearing up your covenant with your wife was related to tearing up your covenant with God/ You won't be unfaithful in one aspect of your life without it affecting other aspects; spirituality is "the whole man". On Mal. 4:6 we will see how reconcilliation with God is related to reconcilliation within human relationships.
</p><p>The covenant in view is that explained on :5:Remember that Malachi is addressing the priests (:1), and he himself was a priest (:7), probably a family relative of the priests he was addressing. Therefore the reference to brothers and having one father is to be understood in that context; the"one father"Malachi shared with his audience would then have been Levi. But the wider principle remains; the unity of God and our common relationship with Him should mean that we do not at treacherously against our brother, who also has God as Father.</p><p>Profaning the covenant of our fathers?- The purpose of building the temple system was so that Yahweh’s Name and covenant would no longer be ’profaned’ by His people (<a href='B:330 36:23'>Eze 36:23</a>; <a href='B:330 44:7'>Eze 44:7</a>); but they had profaned it (also <a href='B:460 1:12'>Mal 1:12</a>), in that they saw it all as mere religion, and the fire of a true relationship with the Almighty was smothered.</p><p>Breaking covenant with God was related to breaking covenant with their wives and marrying Gentiles. Thus those who ’married out’ in Ezra’s time admitted:"We have broken covenant with our God ("have broken faith with our God" , RSV) and have taken strange (i:e. Gentile) wives of the people of the land... now let us make a covenant with our God, to put away all these wives"(<a href='B:150 10:2'>Ezr 10:2</a> LXX). Ezra confirms the truth of what they said:"You have broken covenant and taken strange wives"(<a href='B:150 10:10'>Ezr 10:10</a> LXX). Some years later, Nehemiah stridently criticized Israel for yet again marrying Gentiles. He described their action as"breaking covenant with our God and marrying strange wives"(<a href='B:160 13:27'>Neh 13:27</a> LXX); the Levites likewise"defiled the priesthood, and the covenant of the priesthood"(<a href='B:160 13:29'>Neh 13:29</a>) by their marriages. Notice how the repentant Jews in Ezra’s time realized that they had broken the covenant, and sought to rectify things by re-entering the covenant, through serious repentance:&nbsp; Marriage with unbelievers needs to be assessed in the light of these words. In nearly every reference to marriage to Gentiles, there is the comment that this would surely lead to adopting the religious views of the Gentile partner; views which inevitably take a man away from the one and only Divine Truth, as revealed in the covenants of the Gospel. Turn through the following passages, which all make the connection between marriage out of the covenant, and adopting idolatry: <a href='B:20 34:12-16'>Exo 34:12-16</a>; <a href='B:50 7:2-9'>Deu 7:2-9</a>; <a href='B:70 3:6-7'>Jdg 3:6-7</a>; <a href='B:110 11:2-3'>1Ki 11:2-3</a>; <a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a>; <a href='B:540 6:14'>2Co 6:14</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Judah has dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah has profaned the holiness of Yahweh which he loves, and has married the daughter of a foreign god- The context is of the priests being criticized, that is the theme throughout this chapter. We enquire why they are addressed here as "Judah". Perhaps because the original Judah married the daughter of a Canaanite (Gen. 38:2) and his first two sons by this marriage were slain by God (Gen. 38:7,10). Just as God would curse the seed of the priests who married Gentiles (:2,3). "Judah has profaned the sanctuary of Yahweh" (Heb.) was something which the priests specifically are made guilty of doing in Malachi's criticisms of them. The priests were not to marry a "profane" woman (Lev. 21:7), and here the same word is used of becoming profane by marrying a pagan, who was "profane".</p><p>The treachery was therefore marital unfaithfulness. This is the great burden of Hosea; that Judah were in covenant relationship with God but were unfaithful. And yet there was never a time when Judah stated in so many words that they were through with Yahweh and were remarrying idols. The prophets so often perceive the true implication of human actions and attitudes. They had effectively divorced God and remarried. We recall that Malachi was speaking at the time of the restoration. The common impression that they left their idols in Babylon when they returned to Judah is incorrect. It’s true that under the Maccabees they did reject idolatry, but not for a few generations. All the rebuilding of the temple and the walls of Jerusalem was therefore done against this background of idolatry. Remember that it is the priests being addressed here (:1). They had made Judah stumble (:8); they are being blamed for Judah effectively divorcing Yahweh. They had effectively taught idolatry, although they would have strongly denied this. But by driving people away from Yahweh worship by their corruption and theft from the people, which led to the people despising them (:9), they had driven the people to idolatry. There is a religious need and instinct within people; if we or our church leadership make others stumble away from serving God, putting them in a position where they feel they can’t come to meetings or remain within the believing community... then they will stumble off to other faiths. And it will be our fault.</p><p>The people were warned that the temple had been destroyed because of their previous “abominations”, and that the rebuilt temple was not to feature any such abominations (<a href='B:330 43:8'>Eze 43:8</a>; <a href='B:330 44:6-7'>Eze 44:6-7</a>; <a href='B:330 44:13'>Eze 44:13</a>). “Let it suffice you of your abominations” they were told- and were commanded not to allow the uncircumcised into the temple, as they had been doing (<a href='B:330 44:6'>Eze 44:6</a>; <a href='B:330 44:9'>Eze 44:9</a>). This sounds as if the prophecy of Ezekiel was more command than prediction- to those of his own day. But they returned, and committed the abominations [s:w:] of the Gentiles (<a href='B:150 9:1'>Ezr 9:1</a>; <a href='B:150 9:11'>Ezr 9:11</a>; <a href='B:150 9:14'>Ezr 9:14</a>) and married their daughters. udah did not ‘separate’ themselves from the surrounding tribes but instead married them and worshipped their idols (s:w. <a href='B:150 9:1'>Ezr 9:1</a> “The people of Israel... have not separated themselves from the people of the land, doing according to their abominations... for they have taken of their daughters for themselves”). The same word for “abominations” occurs here; they had"dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel". Yet it had been emphasized that the temple system Ezekiel described was to be free of all the “abominations” [s:w:] previously committed by Israel (<a href='B:330 43:8'>Eze 43:8</a>; <a href='B:330 44:6-7'>Eze 44:6-7</a>; <a href='B:330 44:13'>Eze 44:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>May Yahweh cut off out of the tents of Jacob the man who does this, and his descendant; may he not offer an offering to Yahweh of Armies- As explained on :11, God is furious with those who cause others to stumble by effectively driving them away from the community of His children. Those who uphold disfellowship, excommunication, a closed table etc. must take this challenge very seriously."May he not offer..."confirms that we are reading specifically about the priests, who offered the sacrifices. But by divorcing their Jewish wives and marrying into the families of idolatrous Gentiles, the Levites were themselves bringing this curse about- for their children would not be able to serve in the temple.</p><p>The AV has"The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar":&nbsp; Yahweh cut off the “master” [‘the stirred up one’, s:w. about how their spirit was ‘stirred up’ to achieve the work of the Kingdom at the restoration (<a href='B:150 1:5'>Ezr 1:5</a>)] because they divorced their wives and married Gentiles (<a href='B:460 2:12'>Mal 2:12</a>). The potential work of God on men’s hearts was frustrated by their hardness of heart."The scholar"would refer to those taught by the"master"priest; perhaps Joshua the potential high priest is in view.</p>


text:
<p>This again you do: you cover the altar of Yahweh with tears, with weeping, and with sighing, because He doesn’t regard the offering any more, neither receives it with good will at your hand- "This again..." begs the question as to what is the force of "again". It may well just mean 'And further...'. Although it's tempting to make a connection with Ez. 8:14, where Judah went into captivity because Jewish women entered the temple of Yahweh and wept for Tammuz [perhaps ritual weeping, a form of worship]. But the context requires that those who wept at the altar because their offerings weren't accepted are those of :14-16, who are given as a reason that they had divorced their wives. Access to the altar suggests that this is addressed to the priests, who have in the previous verses been convicted of making the people stumble into idolatry. Covering an altar with tears and emotional behaviour recalls the priests of Baal on Carmel (<a href='B:110 18:28'>1Ki 18:28</a>). They professed such loyalty to Yahweh when effectively they had divorced Him. This is all proof enough that emotionalism in religious worship is not necessarily reflective of true spirituality. Their semblance of Yahweh worship was no better than Baal worship. Going through the motions and emotions of worship may in fact be no more than idolatry. This is an incisive challenge. They covered the altar with tears of apparent devotion whilst in their hearts doubting God loved them (<a href='B:460 1:2'>Mal 1:2</a>) and robbing and attempting to deceive God.</p>


text:
<p>Yet you say, ‘Why?’- They were somehow aware that God didn’t accept their offerings. Perhaps it was simply because Malachi was telling them so. Or maybe the absence of the shekinah glory in the temple was the evidence of this; for the restored temple scenario of Ezekiel 40-48 featured the glory and visible presence of God returning to the temple.</p><p>Because Yahweh has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion, and the wife of your covenant- see on <a href='B:300 31:32'>Jer 31:32</a>; <a href='B:460 1:8'>Mal 1:8</a>. The priests married Gentile women (<a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a>; <a href='B:460 2:14-16'>Mal 2:14-16</a>), even though Ezekiel 44 commanded they should not do this: "they shall take virgins of the seed of the house of Israel" (Ez. 44:22).. They thereby precluded the possibility of the prophecies of Ezekiel 40-48 being fulfilled. I suggested on :5 that the covenant in view is that which the priests entered on returning from captivity. This is why that generation are being charged with departing from a covenant which they personally entered. Their broken covenant relationship with God and their breaking of the covenant with Levi was reflected in their breaking covenant with their wives. As they had divorced God and married Gentile gods (:11), so they had divorced their Jewish wives to marry Gentiles. That is the implication of the parallels. Yet their Jewish wives remained their"companion", some kind of concubine. This again reflects how Judah had effectively divorced Yahweh and married Gentile idolatry, and yet they still professed devotion and commitment to Him. The Hosea - Gomer situation expresses just the same.</p><p>We naturally enquire why the priests were divorcing their Jewish wives and marrying Gentile women. We must remember the extreme poverty of the times, caused by the plagues and bad harvests brought by Yahweh. The Jews were even selling their children into slavery for bread (Neh. 5:1-5). It seems that these Gentile women were from wealthy local land owning families who had been moved into Judea during the exile. Land was needed in order to grow food, and the landless Levites were tempted to do anything in order to get access to land- seeing they weren't being paid tithes, as Malachi later laments. Neh. 13:10 confirms that: "the portions of the Levites had not been given to them; so that the Levites and the singers, who did the work, had fled each to his field". There was therefore financial advantage in such marriage as it gave access to land; and that was why they divorced their Jewish wives. They didn't have to financially support them after divorce, and the families they married into likely demanded this too. To simply take another wife would have been economically difficult for them- polygamy was only for the wealthy. And the priests particularly did this because they had no land inheritance, tithes weren't being paid to them and therefore they were desperate. And so they were tempted to marry into pagan families that owned land. But they were guilty of not being faithful to the covenant with Levi; for in return for the tribe of Levi focusing on teaching God's word and arranging His worship, He had promised to always take care of them: "Yahweh, bless his substance [s.w. "wealth"]. Accept the work of his hands" (Dt. 33:11). This promised blessing was not being experienced by them because they didn't trust it (see on :2). Somehow everything will work out if we go God's way. But they didn't trust that, and divorced their wives and married Gentile pagans to try to ensure their own wealth. And yet they covered Yahweh's altar with tears, as if trying to demonstrate that they actually were still close to Yahweh despite their unconscionable actions. Such demonstrations of zeal for God, when the heart and body are far from Him, are psychologically credible and seen amongst us today.</p>


text:
<p>Did He not make you one, although He had the residue of the Spirit? Whyone? He sought a godly seed- Possibly "Although He had the residue of the Spirit" might mean that God made one man and one woman- although He could have used His Spirit to create more than one wife for Adam. But He didn't. Because He saw that one man : one woman was the best basis for them raising "A Godly seed". Or perhaps God 'made you one' in allusion to how He would make man and woman "one flesh" in marriage (Gen. 2:24). He cements the relationship over the years, and divorce for the reasons they were divorcing was breaking apart what He had tried to joint together. This was the Lord's perspective on divorce (Mt. 19:4-6) and Paul's perspective on extramarital sex (1 Cor. 6:15-17). Certainly a father divorcing his wife and taking a Gentile unbelieving wife was not going to easily raise a Godly seed. And how many divorces and second relationships have simply not taken into account the negative spiritual effect upon the children...</p><p>The wife of youth whom they had divorced was primarily Yahweh (:11). But as so often happened, a man’s relationship with God is reflected in his relationship with others. Their divorce with God was connected to their literal divorcing of their wives and taking others, from pagan backgrounds. Just as they had divorced Yahweh and married the daughters of strange gods (:11). The Levites were not to marry divorcees or Gentiles (<a href='B:330 44:2'>Eze 44:2</a>), so they precluded the fulfilment of that potential scenario of Ezekiel 40-48.</p><p>The Hebrew is difficult and the GNB is of some help:"Didn’t God make you one body and spirit with her? What was his purpose in this? It was that you should have children who are truly God’s people". The basic point is clear; their remarriages to Gentiles were not going to produce"a Godly seed", and that is one of the reasons why marriage with unbelievers is wrong.</p><p>If husband and wife are one spirit, psychologically joined by the marriage bonding which God applies to married couples not just at the wedding but throughout their relationship, then breaking that apart is undoing His work. Our spirit is thereby working against God’s Spirit. The Lord’s teaching about marriage and divorce in <a href='B:470 19:6'>Mat 19:6</a> seems based on His reflections upon this verse. If we have the Spirit of God we will not act in marriage as they were acting- hence we could translate "No one has acted like that if he has a remnant of the spirit".</p><p>Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of his youth- Typical of the prophets, the appeal to repentance is on the most personal level- an appeal to watch their mind and thinking,"your spirit". And this appeal to the spirit is repeated in :17. This appeal for repentance had been made in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah, and there had been response, to the point of those who had married Gentile wives divorcing them. And yet very quickly, the very same failure was committed again. No matter how intense the repentance of a moment, this is not guarantee that we can drift on acceptably to God. That is the lesson.</p>


text:
<p>For I hate divorce, says Yahweh, the God of Israel- Malachi began by speaking of God ’hating’ Esau in the sense of loving him less. Perhaps this idea is present here too; for God and Israel divorced. God is perhaps saying that He ’loves less’ divorce, it is the least preferred option. But in the next sentence, He will state that He equally hates the use of the institution of marriage to cover violence. It could be that we are to conclude that in such a case, then the open separation of divorce is preferable, although God ’loves it less’ or ’hates’ it.</p><p>But the LXX and ESV offer a translation to the effect"But if thou shouldest hate thy wife and put her away, saith the Lord God of Israel, then ungodliness shall cover thy thoughts...". This makes better sense of the connection between the words"hate"and"putting / sending away"[’divorce’] which is to be found in <a href='B:10 26:27'>Gen 26:27</a> and <a href='B:50 24:3'>Deu 24:3</a>. "Divorce is hatred" is a fair interpretation- for in their context, they were hating their wives and divorcing them for no good reason. Without changing any of the consonants, the Hebrew can be read with different vowels to give as LXX "if anyone hates, let him divorce". Or we may consider the NIV: "The man who hates and divorces his wife… does violence to the one he should protect".</p><p>And him who covers his garment with violence! says Yahweh of Armies- The garment refers to the metaphor of a man casting his garment over his wife as a sign of protection and acceptance in marriage (<a href='B:50 22:30'>Deu 22:30</a>; <a href='B:80 3:9'>Rth 3:9</a>; <a href='B:330 16:8'>Eze 16:8</a>). The idea could be that the man was using the garment of marriage to cover violence. On one hand God hates divorce, but He balances this by saying that He equally hates those who do not formally divorce but use the institution of marriage to conceal violence. Or we can understand this as meaning "divorce is like a garment that covers wrongdoing / violence". As if the divorce and remarriage somehow obviated them from moral responsibility for how they had behaved to their first wives. "I hate divorce" can be understood as God saying He considers divorce, in this case, as hateful. Rashi renders "For injustice shall cover his garment". Instead of covering their wife with a garment, they were being 'violent' to her. Possibly they were being literally violent to their Jewish wives to make them leave them and return to their parents, in which case the husband was free from financial responsibility towards her.</p><p>Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you don’t deal treacherously- For all their gross immorality, the appeal was to take heed to how they thought, their spirit. For this is the root of our behaviour. This is twice repeated (:15). Divorce and all marital failure begins in the mind, in the spirit. The LXX makes the connection clearer: "But if thou shouldest hate thy wife and put her away, saith the Lord God of Israel, then ungodliness shall cover thy thoughts, saith the Lord Almighty: therefore take ye heed to your spirit". </p>


text:
<p>You have wearied Yahweh with your words- Several times we read of God being wearied by Israel’s sins (<a href='B:290 7:13'>Isa 7:13</a>; <a href='B:300 15:6'>Jer 15:6</a>; <a href='B:330 24:12'>Eze 24:12</a>; <a href='B:460 2:17'>Mal 2:17</a>). Even though God does not"grow weary"(<a href='B:290 40:28'>Isa 40:28</a>) by nature, it seems to me that in His full entering into His people’s situation, He does allow Himself to grow weary with the sins of those with whom He is in covenant relationship. He as it were limits Himself, in order to enter into meaningful relationship with us. It was this kind of capacity which God has which was supremely revealed in His ’sharing in’ the crucifixion of His Son.</p><p>Yet you say, ‘How have we wearied Him?’ In that you say, ‘Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of Yahweh, and He delights in them;’ or ‘Where is the God of judgment?’- Again, it is doubtful if their lips framed these actual words. But the prophets perceive the real implication of positions. And God does the same with us today. The priests are being addressed here (:1), and perhaps their false teaching was to the effect that judgment was now past and whatever the people did would not come into judgment; and that God delighted in sinners. God had given them the land because He"delighted"in them (<a href='B:40 14:8'>Num 14:8</a> s:w:). Perhaps the priests were wrongly teaching that the mere fact they were physically within the land showed that God delighted in them, even though they were doing evil.</p><P>Evidence of God's judgment was all around them. Not least the drought, leading to them even selling their children for food (Neh. 5:1-5). But they acted as if all this was either bad luck or God being unreasonable and unjust to them- remembering that the Hebrew for "judgment" also has the idea of justice. Like many today, they had blanked out in their minds the possibility that they needed to deeply repent- and then things would be so different.
</p><p>Or we can read this with GNB "Where is the God who is supposed to be just?". They expected a materially blessed life from God despite their selfishness and lack of devotion to Him. And they ended up saying He was unjust, because He didn't come through for them materially. Just as many do today. The Judeans were living in a world of broken dreams [the restoration prophecies hadn't come true, and they were impoverished not wealthy], lost hopes, sadness, religious and political cynicism. Exactly as so many do today. Isaiah gives more background: "‘(Why) do we humble ourselves, if you do not take note of it? (Is. 58:3) ... We await justice, but there is none, salvation, but it is far away from us" (Is. 59:11). Malachi elsewhere reports their claim that God didn't love them (Mal. 1:2), and that "It is useless to serve God. What have we gained by keeping his charge and walking in abject awe of the Lord of Hosts?" (Mal. 3:14). But they refused to accept the reason for all this which Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi gave them- they had not repented, were disobedient to the commands for the restored Kingdom, and were looking solely for their own immediate material benefit rather than God's glory.  
</p>


text:
<p>Behold, I send My messenger, and he will prepare the way before Me- We are accustomed to the application that was given to John the Baptist preparing the way for the Lord Jesus (Mk. 1:2; Mt. 11:10; Lk. 7:27). But surely the initial potential was that an Angel / messenger / priest (Mal. 2:7) would be sent to clear the way before a triumphant Israel, just as an Angel went ahead of Israel to clear the nations from the promised land and lead them in to the Kingdom of God. The "you" who would be sent the messenger is the same "you" as addressed throughout Malachi- his generation. The messenger of Yahweh was also a prophet (Hag. 1:13). An Angel controlled prophet / priest was to come, for in the post exilic prophets, this is the usage of 'messenger'. Joshua may have fitted this, but he failed. Possibly Malachi himself, whose name means 'messenger', was the potential fulfilment. And so the prophecy was reapplied to John the Baptist, who was a prophet in the priestly line and the last prophet. The prophets were until John. The preparation of the way is the scene of Is. 40:3 which is specifically applied to John; and Mk. 1:2,3 seems to mix quotation of Is. 40:3 and Mal. 3:1 as if they refer to the same event in John the Baptist. But there is some flexibility in interpretation allowed for in Mt. 11:14: "if you are willing to receive [it], this is Elijah, the one about to come". The Elijah prophecy of Mal. 4 could be understood to have the same fulfilment in view as the "Messenger" prophecy of Mal. 3:1. But the flexibility in interpretation is because there were and are various potential fulfillments. John presented himself as an Elijah prophet,  wearing camel's hair and a leather girdle (as Elijah in 2 Kings 1:8), locating his ministry in the wilderness with its associations with Elijah.
</p><p>Israel didn't as a whole accept John's message- because they killed their Messiah. Neither the Malachi prophet nor John succeeded in purging the priesthood as required here. Malachi has specifically criticized the corrupt priesthood. And so it will have a latter day fulfilment in another "Elijah" prophet, which is the burden of Mal. 4. Although the prophecy will be readjusted as there is no literal priesthood to cleanse. Just as the prophecy could have had an immediate fulfilment in Malachi's time, but didn't. This open ended nature of prophecy is actually seen in our own lives; we are given potential futures which we may preclude from fulfilment, and so the prophetic intention becomes reinterpreted and reapplied. 
</p><p>This prophecy of preparing the way of the Lord, in readiness for His glory to ride over it to Zion, is based on similar prophecies in Is. 40:3; 57:14; 62:10. But although these Isaianic prophecies use similar language, they are commands to servants in the plural to prepare the way: "Prepare you the way of Yahweh in the wilderness!...  Cast up, cast up, prepare the way, take up the stumbling-block out of the way of My people...  Prepare the way of the people! Cast up, cast up the highway! Gather out the stones!". Malachi calls these servants "the messenger". They not only do the work of removing the stones from the path, but give a message of repentance at the same time. The latter day "Elijah" may well be a group of preachers doing this work. And the stone of stumbling to Israel is defined by Paul as Israel's refusal to accept Jesus as their Messiah. The mission of the latter day Elijah ministry will be to take this stone out of the way, by converting them to accept Jesus as Christ and Him crucified.
</p><p>See on <a href='B:290 40:4'>Isa 40:4</a>. As explained on <a href='B:460 2:7'>Mal 2:7</a>, the messenger of the covenant&nbsp; was a priest or priesthood which would prepare the people to accept the new covenant in Messiah; for the priests were to be"the messenger"(<a href='B:460 2:7'>Mal 2:7</a>). The implication is that Malachi and the priesthood of his time could and should have been doing this; but the priests refused. The prophecy was reapplied to John the Baptist, who was also a priest; and seeing Israel generally failed to respond, again to the latter day Elijah prophet. The restored community are accused of turning to or ’preparing’ [s:w."prepare"] their own way rather than the way of the Lord (<a href='B:290 53:6'>Isa 53:6</a>; <a href='B:290 56:11'>Isa 56:11</a> cp. <a href='B:290 40:3'>Isa 40:3</a>). But the Messianic prophecy of <a href='B:290 53:6'>Isa 53:6</a> claims that this turning to their own way would be resolved and corrected by the coming of Messiah. But for Him to come, there must first be a messenger who prepared that way (s:w. <a href='B:290 40:3'>Isa 40:3</a>; <a href='B:290 57:14'>Isa 57:14</a>; <a href='B:290 62:10'>Isa 62:10</a>). The priesthood and high priest of Malachi’s time failed in this, and so the work was rescheduled for John the Baptist, and later the Elijah prophet of the last days. The same words for"prepare the way"are found in <a href='B:330 43:1'>Eze 43:1</a>; <a href='B:330 44:1'>Eze 44:1</a>; <a href='B:330 47:2'>Eze 47:2</a> about"the way"that is ’prepared’ or ’looks’ eastward. This was the way or road over which the glory was to re-enter the restored temple. But Judah didn’t rebuild that temple as specified and as Malachi often demonstrates, the priests failed to act as commanded in Ezekiel 40-48. And so the messenger who was to prepare that way likewise failed; but finally the essence of the prophecies will come true through the work of the Elijah prophet and John the Baptist [also a priest] preparing the way of the Lord Jesus, so that His glory and Spirit could enter a spiritual temple of restored people.</p><p>Isaiah begins his section on the restoration with a bold prophecy that the restoration of Zion was to be associated with a way being prepared for Israel’s God to come to them (<a href='B:290 40:1-3'>Isa 40:1-3</a>). These words are repeated here in <a href='B:460 3:1-3'>Mal 3:1-3</a>, where the messenger&nbsp; was to prepare the way of Yahweh’s coming. It seems that in some sense they could have come true in the first return of the exiles along the wilderness way back to Zion, under Ezra. But over 100 years later, in Malachi’s time, the prophecy was still capable of fulfilment, if the priesthood would be purged. But finally it was all deferred in fulfilment until the coming of John the Baptist and the LordJesus</p><p>“Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee” is how <a href='B:480 1:2'>Mar 1:2</a> quotes <a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a>; but “before thy face” is added, as if to create a reference to the Angel sent before Israel in the wilderness, to find a resting place (<a href='B:20 23:20'>Exo 23:20</a>). The parallel is set up between John and the Angel, and therefore between Jesus and the people of Israel. The Lord Jesus is His people. He personally is the vine, the one body- symbols of the whole community. He isn’t the trunk, and we the branches:&nbsp; We are the branches, and He is the whole vine. We are Him to this world.</p><p>And the Lord, whom you seek will suddenly come to His temple- The Lord will return to Zion to find a repentant remnant there, converted by our preaching. When the way has been prepared, then “the Lord… shall suddenly [Heb. ‘immediately’] come to his temple”. It seems that He comes as soon as, almost to the moment, that the way is prepared. Is it going too far to imagine that when the last Jews are baptized in Jerusalem, perhaps literally on the Temple Mount, then the Lord will immediately return there, “to his temple”? Then the Lord shall “come down to fight for mount Zion and for the hill thereof” (<a href='B:290 31:4'>Isa 31:4</a>).</p><p>But we can also understand the sudden coming of"the Lord whom you seek"as a warning of judgment to Malachi’s generation of impenitent Jews. <a href='B:370 5:18'>Amo 5:18</a> and <a href='B:460 3:1-2'>Mal 3:1-2</a> warn that just ’seeking’ or desiring the coming of the Lord isn’t enough; for what end will it be, if we don’t truly love His appearing? Yet Amos goes on to say that Israel “put far away” the reality of the day of the Lord, in their minds (<a href='B:370 6:3'>Amo 6:3</a>). And yet they desired or sought it. We can study prophecy, but not really love His appearing in seriously preparing ourselves for that day. Indeed, we can subconsciously put it far from us. When we grasp for a fleeting moment how very near is the second coming for us; can we dwell upon it, retain that intensity? Or would we rather put it “far away”? This is surely why the Lord brings the list of signs of His coming to a close with some chilling parables concerning the need for personal watchfulness.</p><p>And the messenger of the covenant whom you desire, behold, He comes! says Yahweh of Armies- As noted above, Judah ’desired’ the coming of the day of the Lord and the"messenger"which was to prepare the way for Him; they even ’delighted’ in these things [AV]. But they didn’t morally respond, so the way was not prepared. Yet He would come, ultimately, to their judgment and condemnation.</p><p>"Behold, he comes" could be read as a request for them to "look" for him to come. This fits with the Lord teaching that John the Baptist was Elijah if they would receive it. Likewise, this "messenger" could have come and prepared the way for Messiah in Malachi's time. For it is Malachi who is telling his generation to behold / look.</p>


text:
<p>But who can endure the day of His coming? And who will stand when He appears?-One answer is: Nobody. Ps. 130:3 is clear: “If Thou, Lord, wilt mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?”. Joel likewise: “The day of the Lord is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?”. The implication is that the only one who can stand before the Lord is the one justified by faith in His grace. This was a call to repentance and trust in Him, rather than a bland foretelling of their condemnation. These words are quoted in Rev. 6:17 about the second coming of the Lord Jesus.</p><p> The implication is that Malachi’s generation would not stand but fall, they would not abide the day of His coming in that they would be resurrected to condemnation in that day (cp. <a href='B:360 2:11'>Joe 2:11</a>). Knowledge of the coming of judgment leads to self-examination:"The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come... But who may abide the day of his coming?"(<a href='B:460 3:2'>Mal 3:2</a> AV cp. <a href='B:730 6:17'>Rev 6:17</a>). Belief in the second coming must provoke the question:"What manner of persons ought (we) to be...", as we hasten towards the day of judgment?"Wherefore, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent, that ye may be found of Him... without spot, and blameless"(<a href='B:680 3:11'>2Pe 3:11</a>; <a href='B:680 3:14'>2Pe 3:14</a>).</p><p>For He is like a refiner’s fire, and likelaunderer’s soap- The implication is that the priests of Malachi’s generation would be resurrected at"the day of His coming"to pass through this refining process; and would not abide it. In Malachi’s time, they could have responded to the day of the messenger by allowing themselves to be refined. But they refused to respond to Malachi [’messenger’]. The appropriacy of the imagery of soap and laundry is because this would cleanse dirty priestly garments. This is the picture presented in Zechariah 3, of the Jewish priesthood of that time being dressed in"filthy garments". They could have been reformed and cleansed by responding to Malachi’s message; but they didn’t.</p><p>Ultimately for us too, the day of judgment is to purify us- not ultimately, for that has been done by the Lord’s blood and our lives of faithful acceptance of this. But the fire of judgment reveals the dross of our lives to us and in this sense purges us of those sins. The judgment seat is for our benefit, not God’s- He knows our lives and spiritual position already. Without the judgment, we would drift into the Kingdom with no real appreciation of our own sinfulness or the height of God’s grace. The trials of our faith are like fire which purifies us (<a href='B:670 1:7'>1Pe 1:7</a>; <a href='B:670 4:12'>1Pe 4:12</a>). And yet this is the language of the last judgment. In our response to trials, we have the outcome of our judgment. We must rejoice now in our tribulations with the same joy which we will have when we are accepted by the Lord at the last day (<a href='B:670 4:13'>1Pe 4:13</a>). Job felt that his calamities were God entering into judgment with him (<a href='B:220 14:3'>Job 14:3</a>). If we react properly to trials, we thereby receive now"the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls"(<a href='B:670 1:9'>1Pe 1:9</a>). Thus the question of the degree to which we now are ’saved’ is connected with the fact that to some degree, the judgment process is also going on now.</p><p>The soap was to totally remove the stain. This came to ultimate term in the Lord's sacrifice cleansing and deep cleaning the conscience. Possibly the idea is that the only one who can stand before God's judgment is the man totally cleansed by this soap.</p>


text:
<p>And He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi, and refine them as gold and silver; and they shall offer to Yahweh offerings in righteousness- The implication of :2 is that the priests of Malachi’s generation would be resurrected at"the day of His coming"to pass through this refining process; and would not abide it. Once they are destroyed, then there will be left a remnant who will be able to serve Yahweh acceptably. All these prophecies could have had a fulfilment at Malachi’s time or at the time in the first century when John the Baptist was the"messenger"and could have reformed the priesthood. But they resisted. And so the essence of the prophecies will come true in the last days. But that is not to say that every literal detail will; and so the refined Levites will not necessarily offer literal sacrifices. The offering of sacrifice will perhaps be spiritually interpreted, as it is in the New Testament (<a href='B:650 13:15'>Heb 13:15</a>). The"He"who refines the Levites is not necessarily Yahweh; it could be the messenger of the covenant, which initially referred to Malachi and later John the Baptist in their attempts to reform the priesthood.</p><p>The Levites of the restoration had been taken from among the many nations that comprised Babylon / Persia; they were brought, as many as could be bothered to go, to their own land. They were cleansed there (s:w. <a href='B:150 6:20'>Ezr 6:20</a>; <a href='B:160 12:30'>Neh 12:30</a>). But they became un-cleansed through allowing Tobiah into the temple chambers, by trading on the Sabbath, and by marrying Gentiles (<a href='B:160 13:9'>Neh 13:9</a>; <a href='B:160 13:22'>Neh 13:22</a>; <a href='B:160 13:30'>Neh 13:30</a>). The priesthood needed to be “cleansed” again (<a href='B:460 3:3'>Mal 3:3</a> s:w:). The promise of Ezekiel 36 sounds unconditional- as if, whoosh, God would make His sinful people righteous regardless of their own will; but they still needed to respond: “For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh” ( <a href='B:330 36:24-29'>Eze 36:24-29</a>). Israel were to return from captivity, destroy all the Gentile abominations and idols from their land, and then receive a new heart and a new covenant (<a href='B:330 11:18-19'>Eze 11:18-19</a>). But they didn’t do so, and now at Malachi’s time they needed cleansing again. But they refused it, and so that cleansing will ultimately only be at theLord’s return.</p>


text:
<p>Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasant to Yahweh, as in the days of old, and as in ancient years- The restored kingdom of God in Israel and the restoration of the Davidic king"as in the days of old"could have come about in Malachi’s time. If the priesthood had responded to the purging, they would again have offered acceptable offerings. But Malachi 1 explains that they offered blemished sacrifices which were not"pleasant to Yahweh". And so this possible scenario was precluded. But as explained on :1-3, the essence of the prophecies will come true in the last days. The offering of sacrifice will perhaps be spiritually interpreted, as it is in the New Testament (<a href='B:650 13:15'>Heb 13:15</a>).</p><p>The Gentiles are understood in Mal. 1:11 as being able to offer a pure offering "in every place". The Jerusalem temple was not required to make an acceptable offering. That had been the initial plan, as Ez. 48 had envisaged the Yahweh Name would be "there"; but the Jews had despised God's Name. So anyone who did make His Name "great" could offer an acceptable, pure offering- from wherever they are. And yet in Mal. 3:4 another scenario is given- the Levitical priesthood will be purged and "Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasant to Yahweh, as in the days of old" (Mal. 3:4). It never was purged. But Malachi's generation were still being given the opportunity to have that scenario. Mal. 1:11 makes it clear that He foresaw that their spurning of His holiness would actually lead to a situation where He was glorified by far more people over a far greater area.</p>


text:
<p>I will come near to you in judgment- This is the answer to the complaint in the previous chapter, “Where is the God of judgment?”. 'He is coming', is the answer. In the immediate context, God was going to judge the priesthood of Malachi’s time. He was going to charge them with theft from Him, and He would be a witness in their court case, as well as their judge. But that generation did not have judgment executed upon them. This was deferred, by grace, until AD70 when the messenger in the form of John the Baptist had again come to them, and God’s own Son had appeared as their Messiah. Such is God’s amazing patience.</p><p>God’s Son was by His coming alone the manifestation of"the God of judgment", the supreme judge of men by His very being (<a href='B:460 2:17'>Mal 2:17</a>; <a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a>). In His coming, God"visited His people"(<a href='B:490 7:16'>Luk 7:16</a>); but the OT image of Yahweh visiting His people was one of visiting in judgment (<a href='B:300 23:2'>Jer 23:2</a>; <a href='B:350 2:13'>Hos 2:13</a>; <a href='B:350 9:9'>Hos 9:9</a>). By His very being amongst men He would convict them of their sinfulness. His light would show up the shadows of their sins. Mark begins his Gospel by quoting this Malachi passage, as if to say that the appearance of Jesus was the coming of judgment for men (<a href='B:480 1:2'>Mar 1:2</a>):&nbsp; This judgment-coming of Jesus at His revelation to Israel 2000 years ago is then described as God coming near to men in judgment (<a href='B:460 3:5'>Mal 3:5</a>). This is why a consideration of the Lord Jesus in bread and wine inevitably and naturally leads to self-examination; for He is, by His very being, our immediate and insistent judge.</p><p>And I will be an alert witness- Or, "swift". Swift in the sense of 'I come quickly' or suddenly. God is presented as both judge and witness. For He alone is judge, and yet as omniscient, He is also the ultimate witness. And yet He is also presented as pleading as an advocate for His sinful people before His own judgment. God can both maintain our cause [as an advocate] and forgive, as a judge (<a href='B:140 6:39'>2Ch 6:39</a>). God is the one who will both plead our cause as an advocate, and take vengeance, i:e. order the sentence, as judge (<a href='B:300 51:36'>Jer 51:36</a>). <a href='B:400 7:9'>Mic 7:9</a> speaks of how Micah has sinned against Yahweh, and yet He will plead his cause and also execute judgment. Likewise with Israel,"the Lord standeth up to plead, and (also) standeth up to judge his people"(<a href='B:290 3:13'>Isa 3:13</a>); even though He is also the witness against them. David understood this when he asked that God would"judge [RV "give sentence"] between me and thee, and see [i:e. be the witness], and plead my cause [i:e. be the advocate]"(<a href='B:90 24:15'>1Sa 24:15</a>). These are Old Testament anticipations of the Lord Jesus as witness, advocate and judge. All these things are simply metaphors to try to expose to us the various balanced aspects within God’s view and final judgment of men.</p><p>Against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against the perjurers, and against those who oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, and who deprive the foreigner of justice, and don’t fear Me, says Yahweh of Armies- All this was going on in the restored community in Malachi’s time. It was why the mass of the people came to despise the priests and avoided Yahweh worship, leading them to stumble into idolatry (see on <a href='B:460 2:9'>Mal 2:9</a>; <a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a>).</p><p>In the restored temple, the princes would not oppress the people (<a href='B:330 45:8'>Eze 45:8</a>); “Moreover the prince shall not take of the people’s inheritance by oppression, to thrust them out of their possession” (<a href='B:330 46:18'>Eze 46:18</a>). But the priests did just this (also <a href='B:160 5:1-5'>Neh 5:1-5</a>; <a href='B:450 7:10'>Zec 7:10</a>).</p><p>“The [Gentile]people of the land” were to have a part in the new system of things (<a href='B:330 45:16'>Eze 45:16</a>; <a href='B:330 45:22'>Eze 45:22</a>; <a href='B:330 46:3'>Eze 46:3</a>; <a href='B:330 46:9'>Eze 46:9</a>), and yet this very phrase is repeatedly used concerning the Samaritan people who lived in the land at the time of the restoration (<a href='B:150 4:4'>Ezr 4:4</a>; <a href='B:150 10:2'>Ezr 10:2</a>; <a href='B:150 10:11'>Ezr 10:11</a>; <a href='B:160 9:24'>Neh 9:24</a>; <a href='B:160 10:30-31'>Neh 10:30-31</a>). God’s intention was that they should eventually be converted unto Him; it was His intention that Ezekiel’s temple be built at the time of the restoration under Ezra. And yet <a href='B:450 7:10'>Zec 7:10</a>; <a href='B:460 3:5'>Mal 3:5</a>&nbsp; criticize the Jews who returned and built the temple for continuing to oppress the stranger / Gentile. Israel would not. <a href='B:290 56:6'>Isa 56:6</a> defines what is meant by “a house of prayer for all nations”- it is for those of all nations who “join themselves to the Lord, to serve him and to love the name of the Lord... every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant”. But Judah herself had polluted the sabbath and broken the covenant, as Malachi makes clear. The word for "foreigner" means literally a guest, a sojourner- surely referring to the Gentiles who had immigrated to the land during the Babylonian and Persian reigns. But these people had now been settled for a few generations. Yet still the Jews called them immigrants- when it was they, born in Babylon, who were more like immigrants to the land. Whilst still in exile, the Jewish returnees had been specifically told to share the land inheritance with such people. The same word is used in Ez. 47:22,23: "You shall divide it by lot for an inheritance to you and to the aliens who live among you, who shall father children among you; and they shall be to you as the native-born among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel. It shall happen, that in what tribe the foreigner lives, there you shall give him his inheritance, says the Lord". Yet the fulfilment of this was precluded by the way the returned exiles treated such foreigners.
</p><p>Oppression of the widow and fatherless was because the Law explained that tithes were in order to benefit these people. Malachi will go on to lament that the Jews weren't paying their tithes as required- and these groups therefore suffered. Man is held responsible by God for the indirect outcomes of his sins of omission. And that's a principle that has huge implications. 
</p>


text:
<p>For I, Yahweh, don’t change; therefore you sons of Jacob are not consumed- The unchanging nature of God's loyalty and love for Israel is contrasted with how they have not changed in their disloyalty to Him: "From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from My ordinances" (:7). The promised restoration of the Kingdom hadn't happened as prophesied, for the reasons given in Haggai and Zechariah. But the Jews liked to think that this was because God had changed; He protests that He hasn't. Hence LXX "I have not changed". Yahweh does change, as witnessed multiple times. Such is His grace. We think of the way He changed His purpose of destroying Israel and making a new Israel from Moses, of destroying Nineveh after 40 days etc. What is unchanging is His grace in not destroying His sinful people. This verse should not therefore be used to support the wrong idea that Yahweh is like the gods of the pagans, who were characterized by stone faced immutability.</p><p>Because of the sins listed in :5, the sons of Jacob should have been consumed. Those same sins are those listed in <a href='B:450 5:4'>Zec 5:4</a>, and there God uses the same word to say that He will"consume [the house of Jacob] with the timber and stones thereof". But this judgment was not in fact brought upon the exiles. It was deferred, by grace alone; although it finally came true in the destruction of the temple in AD70.</p>


text:
<p>From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from My ordinances, and have not kept them. Return to Me, and I will return to you, says Yahweh of Armies. But you say, ‘How shall we return?’- The returned exiles being addressed had physically returned from captivity. But they had not returned to God. He had even taken the initiative of returning to them when they had not returned spiritually to Him (see on <a href='B:450 8:3'>Zec 8:3</a>). But all the initiative of His grace had been spurned by them; it had not elicited repentance [s:w."return"]. Because they refused to accept the need for personal repentance, as many do today."How shall we return?"is not a question about the method or path, but rather carries the sense of ’Since when do we need to return / repent?’. See on <a href='B:450 1:3'>Zec 1:3</a>. Time and again in the context of the restoration it is emphasized that God would return to His people if they returned to Him (<a href='B:450 1:3'>Zec 1:3</a>). And they didn’t return to Him- most chose not to return to the land, and those who did for the most part did not return to their God in their hearts. The whole basis of Israel’s covenant relationship with God was that if they were exiled from the land for their sins, they must repent and then God would return to them (<a href='B:50 30:1-10'>Deu 30:1-10</a>). Yet God graciously states to the exiles:"I am returned unto you"(<a href='B:450 1:16'>Zec 1:16</a>; <a href='B:450 8:3'>Zec 8:3</a>). Here was grace indeed. Passages like <a href='B:330 36:24-31'>Eze 36:24-31</a> therefore speak as if God’s grace to the exiles was effectively a new covenant- which has in essence been extended to us. Having stated the conditionality of His ’returning’ to His people, and recognizing they hadn’t fulfilled their part of the conditions- God all the same returns to them, such was and is His almost desperate desire for relationship with His beloved people. This is a lesson for us in our relationships with others- to continue our acceptance and’return’ to them, even if they don’t fulfill their part of the deal. For this, day by day, is how our God deals not only with us but with His weak and wayward people as a whole.</p><p>The implication of Hag. 2:17 is that they had not totally turned to Yahweh. They had responded to Haggai's call to resume work in Hag. 1:12,13 and God had been as it were much enthused by it. But after a month's work they needed more appeal. They still hadn't turned completely and permanently to Him, with a 'repentance not to be repented of' as Paul would say. Zechariah's prophecy came two months after Haggai (Zech. 1:1). And he appeals again for the people to turn to God (Zech. 1:3). And even after Zechariah's time, the people still didn't really return to Yahweh in repentance, despite their focus on legalism and xenophobic hatred of Gentiles: "Return to Me, and I will return to you, says Yahweh of Armies. But you say, ‘How shall we return?’" (Mal. 3:7). Clearly their turning to Him had been only temporary. But still God was enthusiastic over their even very temporal response. Despite surely foreknowing how they would very quickly flag. He so wanted the Kingdom to be restored and His people to live in all joy and peace of relationship with Him. And that desire is unabated to this day, despite having been frustrated by His people so often, so deeply and for so long.</p>


text:
<p>Will a man rob God? Yet you rob Me!- The fact God owns everything means that there can be no distinction between what is ours and what is God’s. To think like that is to steal from Him. And hence the power and force of the argument here: “Will a man rob God?”. Have we robbed God in this way, especially in our attitudes and perceptions? To take for ourselves what is God’s is to play God. Materialism and selfishness are in this sense playing God. This was Achan’s sin- to take what was devoted to God for himself. And this was why he is described as having ‘stolen’. But from whom? From God (<a href='B:60 6:18'>Jos 6:18</a>; <a href='B:60 7:11'>Jos 7:11</a>).</p><p>But you say, ‘How have we robbed You?’. In tithes and offerings- In the restored temple, they were to use just measures (<a href='B:330 45:9-14'>Eze 45:9-14</a>), unlike what they had previously done. But they robbed God in their sacrifices in the restored temple (<a href='B:460 3:8'>Mal 3:8</a>). See on <a href='B:460 1:8'>Mal 1:8</a>. Tithes were to be paid to the Levites (<a href='B:330 44:30'>Eze 44:30</a>). But Nehemiah’s record and <a href='B:460 3:8'>Mal 3:8</a> make it clear that this didn’t happen, due to petty selfishness. But we must remember that Malachi is largely addressing the priests; the tithes given to them should have been tithed in turn by them to God, but they didn’t do this. Offerings intended for sacrifice were kept by them. Only in :9 are"this whole nation"addressed.</p>


text:
<p>You are cursed with the curse; for you rob Me, even this whole nation- The Hebrew stresses "Me... Me you have robbed". They robbed God Almighty... The Hebrew for 'robbed' here is qaba, the last part of the name 'Jacob'. Despite the similarity with the cheating, materialistic, deceitful Jacob, Malachi began by explaining that "Jacob have I loved". God's love for them wasn't in doubt, despite calling out their deceit. "This whole nation" may be a reference to how they were all Jacob / Israel. And yet we will soon read that a minority did speak to one another and Yahweh noted them for future salvation. "This whole nation" would suggest this minority repented at this point, until then they were in the "whole nation" who were cursed for deceiving God; which makes their humility to Malachi's word even more impressive. </p><p>Although it seems Malachi the priest (see on <a href='B:460 1:1'>Mal 1:1</a>) is addressing the priests primarily after <a href='B:460 2:1'>Mal 2:1</a>,"this whole nation"are charged with robbing God, and are cursed. They had been driven away from Yahweh worship by the priests (see on <a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a>), but they were still guilty. If someone is made to stumble, the one who caused it is guilty; but so are they who stumbled. We cannot come to the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus and explain that we were indifferent to His love, His death for us, the offer of eternity... because he did this and she said that.</p><p>"The curse"presumably refers to the curse for disobedience to the covenant of Deuteronomy 28. God cursed them with that curse; but there is no particular evidence that it was carried out until AD70. They were not sent again into captivity until then, and they had many years of good harvests. So again we marvel at God’s grace and longsuffering. At Malachi’s time, the curse was pronounced, but there was a gap of many generations until it was carried out. In a sense we too live within such a gap, heightening the sense of intensity and urgency in responding to God’s offer to cancel the curse and instead bless us.</p>


text:
<p>Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in My house- The initial reference is to the way Hag. 1:9 laments that the returnees had brought their harvests to their own houses rather than to God's house. See on Hag. 1:9. "The storehouse" references the “great chamber” which surrounded the temple on three sides, of three stories, each containing several rooms (1 Kings 6:5,6). Hezekiah used these chambers to store the tithes (2 Chron. 31:11,12). But these were the very rooms given to the enemy of the Jews, Tobiah, in the time of Neh. 10:38; 13:5-9, 12,13.
</p><p>"The whole tithe" suggests they were tithing but incompletely. Just as they made offerings, but offered only the lame or blind animals. It is this partial commitment which God finds so offensive. They thought they were testing God by doing this, and getting away with it: "they put God to the test and escape" (:15). Hence God's response, challenging them to "test" Him by giving the whole tithe, and to receive immediate blessing and amazing fecundity- which is all the language of the restored kingdom of God coming on earth. "The windows of heaven" that would open in response refer to the gift of rain (as in Gen. 7:11), which would miraculously come down and cause immediate growth and fruitfulness. This is perhaps the reference of Joel 2:23,24: "He gives you the former rains in just measure, and He causes the rain to come down for you, the former rains and the latter rains, as before. The threshing floors will be full of wheat, and the vats will overflow with new wine and oil". This test was not therefore a principle for all time, but related specifically to the exiles at that point. The Jews at this time were poor, some had to borrow money and sell their children into slavery just to buy food and pay taxes (Neh. 5:14,15). Their poverty was related to drought and plague which was their own fault, as Haggai and Malachi made clear. All the same, they were poor- and were being challenged to still give the tithes. The lack of tithes meant that the Levites weren't supported and therefore weren't around much to teach them God's law and encourage them. We see here how once God's people slip into a downward spiral, obedience gets harder and harder- although God still appeals for it.
</p><p>The criticism of their position on tithing was not so much because God per se wanted or needed their tithes. Tithing was a common practice, and was a sign of devotion to the one tithed to. <a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a> has said that the people divorced Yahweh and married the daughter of another god. Their tithes were therefore being paid to idols; it was because of this that Yahweh asked for their tithes to be paid to His house and not to the idol temples. And we must remember that the priesthood is being addressed by Malachi; they were to tithe to God the tithe which they received from the people. But they gave only a part of it and not the"whole"which was due."That there may be food in My house"implies they were as it were starving God. They put very little on the altar, His"table"at which He ate with the worshippers,and in any case only placed upon it the lowest grade"food", the blind and sick animals. Entertainment and hospitality culture was paramount to the Middle Eastern mind. Yet they are accused of giving God low grade and small portions. As we sit at His table, we must ask ourselves this same question, as to what we are putting before Him.</p><p>And test Me now in this, says Yahweh of Armies- The Lord’s first temptation- to turn stones into bread- would not in itself have been a sin if He had agreed to it. But it would have been choosing a lower level, by breaking His fast. But the next temptations were to actually sin. If He had agreed to the first suggestion, obedience to the next ones would have been harder. It could even be argued that to put the Lord to the test was permissible on a lower level- for passages like <a href='B:230 34:8'>Psa 34:8</a> and <a href='B:460 3:10'>Mal 3:10</a> almost encourage it for those with a weak faith. Gideon likewise put the Lord to the test and was answered. But the Lord chose the higher level: and He knew Scripture which could support it.</p><p>However we must give full weight to the fact that only five verses later, this same word for"test"is used; the people complained that those who"put God to the test... escape"(:15). We could conclude that God didn’t actually intend for Him to be put to the test, and rather is He here using irony. This would take away the mainstay from beneath all Pentecostal appeals for tithes to be paid in order for the givers to receive more personal wealth. Or it could be that some did test God as invited to, and"escaped"or ’were saved’ (s:w. <a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a>; <a href='B:360 2:32'>Joe 2:32</a>).</p><p>If I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough for- Haggai 1 notes that there was a famine in the land at the restoration. In response to this, the priests and the people were giving God small portions and deficient animals. The covenant blessings of fertility were not experienced. If they returned to covenant with God, as symbolized by giving their tithes to Him and not to the idols, then they would receive the covenant blessings. This is significantly different to interpreting these passages as meaning that if you give tithes to God, then you will get material blessing.</p><p>We shouldn’t underestimate the seriousness of the famine conditions in Judah as described in Nehemiah 5. The sheer lack of food led the Jews to sell their children and land to their richer brethren just to get something to eat. <a href='B:460 3:5-15'>Mal 3:5-15</a> says that this was directly a result of their lack of zeal to rebuild and care for God’s house. What a far cry from the prophecies of plenty and huge harvests which had been made. So much potential was wasted. <a href='B:160 5:8'>Neh 5:8</a> records Nehemiah’s comment that the wealthy Jews were victimizing the poorer Jews just as Babylon once had, and now Nehemiah needed to redeem them from slavery just as God had redeemed His people from servitude in Babylon. God’s deliverance of His people simply hadn’t been responded to. Tragically, it would appear from <a href='B:160 5:15'>Neh 5:15</a> that Zerubbabel, the potential Messiah of Israel, had acted in this oppressive way too. There could even be the implication in the Hebrew of <a href='B:160 1:3'>Neh 1:3</a> that the majority of those who initially returned to Judah then returned back to Babylon- for Nehemiah speaks of"The remnant that are left of the captives there in the province"[of Judah]".</p><p>But we need to enquire whether the "blessing" promised for proper tithing was in fact material blessing. The "blessing" of fundamental importance was the blessing promised to Abraham, of relationship with God and the coming of the saviour seed. The idea of pouring out blessing upon the restored Jews of this time is repeated in <a href='B:450 8:13'>Zec 8:13</a> and <a href='B:290 44:3'>Isa 44:3</a>: "I will pour My Spirit on your seed, and My blessing on your offspring". The poured out blessing was undoubtedly spiritual rather than material- the gift of the Spirit to the seed of Abraham. And this is how the New Testament understands the poured out "blessing"- of the Spirit, of forgiveness (<a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a>).</p>


text:
<p>I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground- The immediate context is of material, agricultural blessings of the covenant. The second half of the verse speaks of the vines yielding fruit at the right time. Here, "rebuke" is literally "corrupt", and is used in <a href='B:460 2:3'>Mal 2:3</a> of how God corrupted the seed they sowed. "The devourer", tiny rodents and lice that devoured, corrupted and ruined their seed before it sprung up, would be in turn corrupted by God, so that the crop brought forth fruit.</p><p>This sounds as if there was an Angel called "the devourer" at the time of the restoration, as there was one called "the destroyer" at the Exodus. He was given command to destroy Judah’s harvests due to their lack of commitment to God’s house; yet He could be rebuked or restrained by God, implying the Angel focused on fulfilling what He was told to do without taking into account any other factors- until God overrode or restrained Him.</p><p>But Malachi 3 is specifically about the final cleansing of Judah when the messenger of the covenant comes, and this has reference to the last days. Then, there will be a "devourer" in the form of a beast like invader devouring the land, which will be "rebuked".</p><p>Neither shall your vine cast its fruit before its time in the field, says Yahweh of Armies- The Kingdom prophecies about agricultural fecundity and bumper harvests produced miraculously would have come true had Judah tithed at this time. In the context of the restoration from Babylon, <a href='B:450 8:12'>Zec 8:12</a> prophesied: “For the seed shall be prosperous; the vine shall give her fruit, and the ground shall give her increase, and the heavens shall give their dew; and I will cause the remnant of this people to possess all thesethings”. But we know that in reality, Judah were not obedient to the heavenly vision of Ezekiel, and therefore Judah’s agriculture was not blessed in this way; the vines cast their fruit, and the fruit of the ground was destroyed (<a href='B:440 1:6'>Hag 1:6</a>; <a href='B:440 1:11'>Hag 1:11</a>; <a href='B:460 3:10-11'>Mal 3:10-11</a>). The reason was that <a href='B:450 8:12'>Zec 8:12</a> was conditional- upon <a href='B:450 8:16-17'>Zec 8:16-17</a>: “These are the things that ye shall do [i:e. to bring these prophecies about]; Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbour; execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates: And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith the LORD”. But Judah abused each other, and didn’t fulfil the conditions for the prophecy.</p><p>They were gathered back [although they resisted this in that many preferred to stay in the soft life of Babylon], but they hardly dwelt safely or confidently in their land. They planted vineyards, but received a poor harvest due to their lack of attention to God’s house; their enemies destroyed their fruits, and their vine “cast her fruit before the time” (<a href='B:440 1:6'>Hag 1:6</a>; <a href='B:460 3:10-11'>Mal 3:10-11</a>). Haggai and Malachi criticized Israel for this, saying it could be rectified by their obedience to the tithing principle (:10). Yet in Nehemiah’s time, Judah refused to pay tithes properly; but even then, if they had thoroughly repented, the Kingdom conditions were still possible. Such was God’s desire to continue working with His hopeless people.</p><p>The withholding of agricultural blessing occurred several times- in <a href='B:160 5:2-3'>Neh 5:2-3</a> (as prophesied in <a href='B:290 5:9'>Isa 5:9</a>), in Haggai’s time, and now later in Malachi ’s time; when the restored Zion could have been as the garden of Eden, i:e. paradise restored on earth (<a href='B:290 51:3'>Isa 51:3</a>). Here we see frightening similarities with ourselves. We know, but often don’t do. We sense this cycle of failure, crying out for mercy, receiving it, failing again, crying for mercy, receiving it, failing again... we see it in Israel, in our brethren and those around us, and in ourselves. We can expound it, lament it, feel the shame and tragedy of it all... and yet continue to have a part in it. Eventually, the people stayed in this groove so long that they degenerated into how they were at the time of Malachi- self-righteous, with no sense of failure any more, living self-centred lives of petty materialism, earning wages as they did in Haggai’s time, to put into pockets with holes in, life without satisfaction, achieving nothing, passively angry. This is what Malachi clearly portrays. It’s a terrible picture, and one which we can sail dangerously close to identifying with. We too easily conclude that life is tough and unfair, it's all the fault of others and an unreasonable, distant God- rather than our lack of repentance.</p>


text:
<p>All nations shall call you blessed, for you will be a delightful land, says Yahweh of Armies- The allusion is to the promises to Abraham being fulfilled- if the people at that time tithed and returned to God. The willingness of Yahweh to work with His people and bring about His Kingdom with them is really amazing. They had failed to live the Kingdom life for well over 100 years since Ezra first returned from Babylon. All sorts of potential Kingdom opportunities had slipped through their fingers. Finally Malachi appealed for their repentance, for them to pay the tithes, and then their land would be “delightful” and all nations would call them blessed; Messiah would come and purge a corrupt priesthood, so that “then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old” (<a href='B:460 3:1-4'>Mal 3:1-4</a>). But only a remnant “hearkened and heard” (<a href='B:460 3:16'>Mal 3:16</a>), their future salvation was guaranteed, but “the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven” to judge the heedless majority. He had offered them the Gospel of His Kingdom, had maneuvered and manipulated the greatest nations of the day to enable them to take up the offer, affecting the lives of millions of people throughout the Middle East... but they were more worried about their little farm and storing up their crops for themselves, too mean spirited to look out of themselves, too self-satisfied with their own religion, too sure of their own righteousness. Instead of subduing the nations around them with the victory of Israel’s God, they brought their own brethren into subjection unto them, that they might gain out of them (<a href='B:450 9:15'>Zec 9:15</a> s:w. <a href='B:160 5:5'>Neh 5:5</a>). It could’ve been the Kingdom, Israel could have become the joy of the whole earth and her people a joy. But instead, they were obsessed with their petty, miserable little kingdoms, and the next few centuries had nothing of the joy which Isaiah had repeatedly prophesied as being possible for them. And so with Malachi, the sun went down over the prophets, and the Father’s appeal to His wayward sons came to an end, until the coming of His Son.</p>


text:
<p>Your words have been stout against Me, says Yahweh. Yet you say, ‘What have we spoken against You?’- ’Stout words’ is the same phrase translated "... words prevailed against..." (<a href='B:130 21:4'>1Ch 21:4</a>). God is sensitive to words and the thoughts behind them. He reads thoughts as words and sees the implications of our positions as if they are words. For Judah protested they had never actually framed such words against God, when their thoughts and attitudes had in fact done so. We have highlighted the paramount importance of spiritual mindedness, emphasized heavily in the teaching of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>You have said, ‘It is vain to serve God;’ and ‘What profit is it that we have followed His instructions, and that we have walked mournfully before Yahweh of Armies?- The drought, leading to them even selling their children for food (Neh. 5:1-5), resulted in their conclusion that there was a huge gap between the glorious prophecies of temple restoration and what they were experiencing. Hag. 2:18,19 had prophesied that the economic woes could be gloriously reversed; but it hadn't happened, because they didn't repent. And so they concluded that the temple services were pointless. Because they were 'in it' only for their immediate material blessing, and refused to accept the words of Haggai and Zechariah pointing out how the whole situation was their fault. Malachi likewise points out that there would be blessings for obedience to God (Mal. 3:10-12,20) and curses otherwise (Mal. 2:2,3; 3:19). </p><p>Nehemiah, seeking for Israel’s obedience to Ezekiel’s vision (<a href='B:330 40:46'>Eze 40:46</a>; <a href='B:330 44:8'>Eze 44:8</a>; <a href='B:330 44:14-16'>Eze 44:14-16</a>), tried to get them to “keep the charges” (s:w. <a href='B:160 7:3'>Neh 7:3</a>; <a href='B:160 12:9'>Neh 12:9</a>; <a href='B:160 12:45'>Neh 12:45</a>; <a href='B:160 13:20'>Neh 13:20</a>). But soon, Judah complained that there was no benefit to them from having kept the charges (<a href='B:460 3:14'>Mal 3:14</a> s:w. "instructions"). Partial obedience discouraged them from any further effort, because the fullness of blessing can only come from a way of life conformed to God’s Kingdom vision and life. This is why people get disillusioned with religion and lose even the true faith- because they seek for immediate benefit as a result of keeping a few highly specific aspects of God’s law, rather than willingly devoting their way of life to the realization of His vision.</p><p>They had "walked mournfully", they were bowing their heads in mock grief like a bulrush (Is. 58:5); establishing at least three annual fasts to mourn the events of the fall of Jerusalem (Zech. 7:3,5; 8:19), covering His altar with tears (<a href='B:460 2:13'>Mal 2:13</a>), whilst placing upon it miserly portions of inferior meat, as Malachi has just pointed out. They considered that this external appearance of religious devotion ought to be enough to get His full blessing; and this is a lesson so many religious people have to learn. And they rightly concluded that their religious devotions were "vain"; they had effectively taken His Name in vain (<a href='B:20 20:7'>Exo 20:7</a>). Before the captivity their religious devotions had been "vain" (s:w. <a href='B:290 1:13'>Isa 1:13</a>); and the restored exiles were doing just the same. And so the day would come when it would become openly apparent who served God and who didn’t, in that their service of Him was in fact nothing of the sort (:18).</p><p>Time and again, Haggai and Zechariah had appealed for repentance. This is what would stop the bad harvests and failed expectations about the restoration of the Kingdom. The response of the people had been to perform ritual mourning, as a token sign of repentance. This is the "mourning" that they now consider to have been pointless. We readers see the obvious point- that their 'repentance' was not for real. And the challenge of genuine repentance echoes down to us.
</p>


text:
<p>Now we call the proud happy; yes, those who work wickedness are built up- The "we" may mean that Malachi is identifying himself with his sinful people as did Ezra and Nehemiah. Likewise today there is a tendency to think that the proud and sinful are somehow truly prosperous and "built up", established well. But pride and happiness don’t go together; the pride is really a reflection of their internal unhappiness. And those who work wickedness rarely keep the results of it; they are not "built up" in the medium or longer term of their lives. But the people then as now looked at the apparent success of a man at one moment, and assumed that ’this is the way to go, the life to live, the man to be’.</p><p>Yes, they put God to the test and escape’- Only five verses earlier (:10), this same word for "test" was used when the people were invited to test God by tithing properly and receiving blessing. Now we read that they complained that those who "put God to the test... escape". We could conclude that God didn’t actually intend for Him to be put to the test, and rather is He here using irony. This would take away the mainstay from beneath all Pentecostal appeals for tithes to be paid in order for the givers to receive more personal wealth. Or it could be that some did test God as invited to, and "escaped" or ’were saved’ (s:w. <a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a>; <a href='B:360 2:32'>Joe 2:32</a>). Overall, putting God to the test is condemned in Scripture. We are to believe in Him rather than cynically testing Him out. Israel were condemned for putting God to the test in the desert.</p>


text:
<p>Then those who feared Yahweh spoke frequently one with another; and Yahweh listened, and heard-  "This whole nation" had been cursed; so we assume that the "then" means that at this point, some were struck with fear of God and repented, and took strength in talking of their repentance to each other. There was response to Malachi’s preaching and appeal, even if only amongst a minority. We shouldn’t get the impression that the prophets were totally ignored; in many of their writings there is the hint that a very few did respond. And it has always been that way, as God’s word never returns fruitless. The repentant minority spoke to each other about the truth of Malachi’s challenges and confessed their sins to each other. And God was so thrilled with their words that He as it were wrote them down for eternity. This is the significance of our words; we shall be judged by the words we speak now (<a href='B:470 12:37'>Mat 12:37</a>). They will as it were be played back to us at judgment day. We could wish for no stronger encouragement to watch our words, and to enquire as to the real content of our discussions with one another in this life.</p><p>And a book of memory was written before Him, for those who feared Yahweh, and who honoured His name- Their faithful words to each other contrast with the unfaithful words of :14,15. The words of the faithful were written in God's book and will form the basis for His final judgement of them. We see the huge importance of words. For by our words shall we be condemned or saved. The allusion is to how the Persians kept a diary of events, of good and bad deeds done to them by their servants, and then at a later point remembered them and rewarded or punished them- as seen in the book of Esther.  This "book" (singular) therefore contains a record of our individual works, or good words in the Malachi context. We aren’t saved by works, but our works will be reflected in the nature of the eternity which we experience. There are other indications that the book contains a record of our individual works and ways: "The dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works" (<a href='B:730 20:12'>Rev 20:12</a>). "I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the Gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life" (Php_4:3). Notice how being in the book of life is associated with certain works committed by those in it. This "book of life" was written from the foundation of the world (<a href='B:730 13:8'>Rev 13:8</a>; <a href='B:730 17:8'>Rev 17:8</a>), although it contains the records of our individual works. "The works were finished from the foundation of the world" (<a href='B:650 4:3'>Heb 4:3</a>)- the works and actions that comprise each saint were finished from the beginning, written by the Angels in God’s book. The statement in <a href='B:10 1:31'>Gen 1:31</a> that at the end of the natural creation "God saw everything that He had made..." may imply that He saw then everything He would ever make- "the works were finished from the foundation (creation?) of the world". Notice again how the unfathomable system of predestination and foreknowledge is in the hands of the Angels. The Angel wrote the book initially- Moses pleaded with the Angel on Sinai in <a href='B:20 32:32'>Exo 32:32</a> "Blot me, I pray thee, out of Thy book (of life), which Thou hast written" (from the foundation of the world).</p><p>Nehemiah several times asks God to "remember unto me" the good deeds he had done for Judah (<a href='B:160 5:19'>Neh 5:19</a> RV), and to likewise "remember" the bad works of the wicked (<a href='B:160 6:14'>Neh 6:14</a> RV). He clearly perceived judgment day as featuring the good deeds of the righteous being as it were listed, and the sins of the wicked being likewise recounted. Perhaps his prayer was heard in that in a restoration context, <a href='B:460 3:16'>Mal 3:16</a> comments that a book of remembrance was written by God to record the good deeds of the faithful at that time.</p><p>The priests despised Yahweh's Name (Mal. 1:6), unlike their ancestor Levi, who “revered Me and stood in awe of My Name” (Lev. 2:5). But it seems that some of the ordinary people did respond, and feared the Name: "Those who feared Yahweh spoke frequently one with another; and Yahweh listened, and heard, and a book of memory was written before Him, for those who feared Yahweh, and who honoured His name" (Mal. 3:16). And for them, God promised the Messianic "sun of righteousness" to arise for them “who revere My Name” (Mal. 4:2). Despite the bad example of their priests / religious leaders, individuals can still respond. 
</p><p>"Honoured" is as in AV "thought upon". Thinking upon God's Name is the same idea as in Phil. 4:8 "Think on these things".
</p>


text:
<p>They shall be Mine, says Yahweh of Armies, My very own possession in the day when I make up My jewels- "They shall be Mine" is a phrase that naturally invites comparison with the fact Yahweh owns all things. Likewise "My very own", the same idea used by a child in wanting an object "of my very own". We are personally and quintessentially "His" because we repent, because we thereby honour His Name, because He becomes all for us, because He so loves how we speak together with other believers. And that is a huge challenge to the nature of our communications and conversations with each other. And looked at this way, God is not so wealthy. He is as the poor widow woman who only has ten coins and therefore the loss of one is significant. Or the man who only has two sons and nearly loses both of them.
</p><p>This faithful minority who spoke well were a minority of a minority [the Jews who returned] of a minority [the Jews were God's people but a minority of earth's population]. The term for "jewels" is that used of how God’s obedient covenant people would be His "peculiar treasure"(s:w. <a href='B:20 19:5'>Exo 19:5</a>; <a href='B:50 7:6'>Deu 7:6</a>; <a href='B:50 14:2'>Deu 14:2</a>; <a href='B:50 26:18'>Deu 26:18</a>). They were to be His very own personal wealth, just as personal as the peasant woman had her dowry of coins around her forehead, the only thing in the world that was truly hers. And to lose one of them was to lose part of herself, knowing that not even her body was her own, only those few coins. This is how thrilled God will be with those who responded to Malachi’s words, and we can respond likewise. But the emphasis is upon total obedience to the covenant as the basis upon which they were His "peculiar treasure". And the next sentence indicates that this was lacking; for they needed to be "spared" by grace. But their words of repentance to each other, their spiritual conversations, their desire for relationship with Him, were enough for God to note that eternally and spare them. And so they shall eternally be some of the jewels in His eternal collection.</p><p>And I will spare them, as a man spares his own son who serves him- That is, undeservedly, only because of his parental feelings and mercy toward the child. Even the faithful will only be accepted because they are ’spared’. Those who enter the Kingdom will genuinely, from the very depth of their being, feel that they shouldn’t be there. They will cast their crowns before the enthroned Lord, as if to resign their reward as inappropriate for them (Rev 410). Indeed, they shouldn’t be in the Kingdom. The righteous are "scarcely saved" (<a href='B:670 4:18'>1Pe 4:18</a>). The righteous remnant who spoke often to one another about Yahweh will only be "spared" by God’s grace (<a href='B:460 3:17'>Mal 3:17</a>). The accepted will feel so certain of this that they will almost argue with the Lord Jesus at the day of judgment that he hasn’t made the right decision concerning them (<a href='B:470 25:37-40'>Mat 25:37-40</a>). It’s only a highly convicted man who would dare do that.</p>


text:
<p>Then you shall return and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him who serves God and him who doesn’t serve Him- This is spoken to the "you" of Malachi 3 (e.g. :14) who refused to repent. God had asked them to repent, but their response was: "Wherein shall we return?" (3:7). In the last day, they would realize that they had not really served God, whereas their humble brethren of :16,17 had done so. In their final rejection, they would repent, all too late, and appreciate the basis of the Lord’s condemnation: they will discern the crucial chasm between the righteous and the wicked, just as "then shall the Kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins..." (<a href='B:470 25:1'>Mat 25:1</a>). Then, the wicked will understand the judgments of God. But it is our wisdom to learn and appreciate them now. Then they will go through the sensation of conversion [’returning’], realising with crystal clarity the separation between the ways of the flesh and spirit which they ought to have grasped in their day of opportunity. Then they will “discern”, just as Christ will “appear” [s:w. ‘discern’] at the judgment; they will then see things through His eyes, from the perspective which He will have at the judgment (<a href='B:460 3:2'>Mal 3:2</a>). Malachi begins by saying that at the day of judgment, Edom’s eyes “shall see [s:w. ‘discern’], and ye shall say, the Lord will be magnified” (<a href='B:460 1:5'>Mal 1:5</a> AV)- although they refused to make this recognition now.</p><p>We will come to know and share the mind of our Lord as we watch Him judge, as He discerns between the sheep and the goats. Knowing God’s present judgment should have a powerful practical effect upon us. If we know the judgment of God against certain types of behaviour, we will keep away from them totally. It is only the rejected who refuse to know "the judgment of their God" (<a href='B:300 5:4'>Jer 5:4</a>).</p><p>When they are appointed their portion with the hypocrites and there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, then &nbsp;shall the Kingdom be likened unto the five wise and five foolish virgins. Then the rejected will understand the principles of that parable, crystal clearly. Members of the ecclesia of Israel will say "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord"- but be rejected (how else to understand <a href='B:470 23:39'>Mat 23:39</a>?). Likewise the Egyptians, fleeing in the mud from Yahweh as they vainly hoped against hope that the returning waters wouldn’t somehow reach them... they came to know Yahweh (<a href='B:20 14:18'>Exo 14:18</a>).</p>


text:
<p>For, behold, the day comes, it burns as a furnace; and all the proud, and all who work wickedness- The day or the sun comes, in judgment for these people. Yet the sun of righteousness will arise for the faithful. This is the day of final judgment just spoken of in <a href='B:460 3:16-18'>Mal 3:16-18</a>. Note that pride is the epitome of wickedness. Likewise to the Lord, humility was the very epitome of righteousness (<a href='B:470 5:5'>Mat 5:5</a> cp. <a href='B:230 37:29'>Psa 37:29</a>).</p><p>Will be stubble; and the day that comes will burn them up, says Yahweh of Armies- The burning of straw (s:w. stubble) is the language of condemnation at the harvest of the last day inIsa 10:17; <a href='B:290 25:10'>Isa 25:10</a>; <a href='B:530 3:12'>1Co 3:12</a>.</p><p>That it shall leave them neither root nor branch- Root nor branch may mean 'son or grandson'. Malachi is joined to the Hebrew scroll of Zechariah as if as an appendix. So we should be guided by Zechariah for the meaning of "root" and "branch". Root and branch were both words used of the Messianic shoot and branch who could have arisen at the restoration; see on <a href='B:450 3:8'>Zec 3:8</a>; <a href='B:450 6:12'>Zec 6:12</a>, the root and branch of David (<a href='B:730 5:5'>Rev 5:5</a>). These possibilities would be removed, but were finally fulfilled in the Lord Jesus, but His salvation will not be available for the proud and wicked who shall be burnt up in the last day.</p>


text:
<p>But to you who fear My name- The imperfect but repentant minority of Malachi’s time of <a href='B:460 3:16-17'>Mal 3:16-17</a>. It seems Malachi is addressing them directly as his audience at this point. They feared God's Name whereas the priests, their religious leadership, are condemned for despising that Name. They had come to their relationship with God quite without the teaching or example of their religious leaders; their relationship was based solely on having heard and responded to God's word personally. The priesthood had failed. There was now nobody standing between God and man. Only a minority of the ordinary people, who responded to God's word directly, were ready for the arising of the sun of righteousness. And that is the situation we are in today. Organized religious structures have failed. The church and its leadership are, summing up and generalizing, a failure. We who await the Lord's coming are the spiritual descendants of that small minority who repented at Malachi's preaching.</p><p>Shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in his rays- We noted on :1 that the salvation of the Lord Jesus will not be available for the wicked at the last day; but "to you", the faithful minority responding to Malachi, the coming of Messiah would be a time of healing and salvation [the two ideas are combined in the same Hebrew word]. We note that He returns to those in Israel who already fear the Name. Israelite repentance is a condition for the Lord’s return. He is the sun of righteousness in that He is the basis for the righteousness imputed to them; for we noted on <a href='B:460 3:17'>Mal 3:17</a> that even the repentant remnant are "spared" by grace, they are treated as totally obedient to the covenant (see on <a href='B:460 3:17'>Mal 3:17</a>) when in fact they were not.</p><p>But the healing in His rays or wings of His garment (Heb:) is of course true now. Understanding that leads to faith in His healing. The faith of the sick woman who grabbed the hem or wings of His garment is commended by the Lord (<a href='B:480 5:34'>Mar 5:34</a>; <a href='B:470 9:20'>Mat 9:20</a>)- when it was due to her understanding of the significance of the hem of the Lord’s robe that she had touched Him. She had perceived the connection with the High Priest’s hem; perhaps too she had added Job’s comment about our touching but the hem of God’s garment into the equation. And certainly she perceived that the sun of righteousness of Malachi 4 had healing in his hems / wings of his garment.</p><p>Zacharias clearly understood the Elijah prophet to be his son, John the Baptist; and he interprets this arising of the sun of righteousness as the giving of knowledge of salvation in Jesus right now: "You will go on before the Lord to prepare His ways; to give to His people the knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, with which the sunrise from on high shall visit us, to shine upon those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace" (Lk. 1:76-79). The sun of righteousness is for “the righteous” (Mal. 3:18). They already spread the rays of that sun. "Jesus Christ the righteous", "the righteous judge" may allude here (1 Jn. 2:1; 2 Tim. 4:8).

</p><p>The "healing" of the sun of righteousness in Mal. 4:2 is that spoken of in the promise of the new covenant: "I will cure them [s.w.], and reveal unto them the abundance of peace and truth" through knowing the Lord Jesus (Jer. 30:17; 33:6). Malachi's generation had refused that new covenant offered to them whilst still in exile. But the work of Elijah would lead a later generation to accept it. The Jews in exile had "looked for the time of healing, but behold, trouble" (Jer. 8:15; 14:19- this is twice emphasized)- because they didn't repent and accept the new covenant. "Healing" [s.w.] is a result of repentance (Is. 6:10; 57:19; Jer. 3:22; Hos. 6:1). This is why there was "no remedy", literally 'no healing', for the generation who went into exile (2 Chron.  36:16), and why Jeremiah's prophecies often lament the lack of healing for Judah's wounds; they had broken the old covenant, for which one of the curses was that there would be no healing (Dt. 28:27,35). Ultimately, "by his stripes we are healed" (Is. 53:5). It will only be by repentantly coming to the crucified Jesus as Lord and Saviour that He can be as the sun of righteousness giving healing. The priesthood had failed to heal (Zech. 11:16 and often in the prophets).</p><p>You will go out, and leap like calves of the stall- As we struggle in our daily battle with the flesh, it is necessary to keep our eye on that split-second moment of total acceptance by our Lord. We will burst out, mentally and physically, like stalled calves given freedom for the first time. Currently we have changed masters, from sin to the Lord. But we are still slaves. There awaits what Paul calls the "glorious liberty of God's dear children". The slave who traded his master's talents well shall be given that which is his very own. Seeing he was faithful in that which was another man's. <a href='B:230 68:1-3'>Psa 68:1-3</a> speak of how the rejected will be chased away, but the righteous will "be glad" and "exult before God: yea, let them exceedingly rejoice", after the pattern of Israel’s ecstasy after their deliverance at the Red Sea.</p><p>"Then shall thy light break forth as the morning [i:e. you’ll have a part in the Lord’s glory, <a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a>], and thine health shall spring forth [cp. <a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a> springing forth as stalled calves]... and thy righteousness shall go before thee [our good deeds recited by the Judge]... then [at the judgment seat of Christ] thou shalt call, and the Lord shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am" (<a href='B:290 58:6-9'>Isa 58:6-9</a>). If we show mercy to the desperate now, we won’t necessarily have our prayers automatically heard in this life. But in the poverty and desperate need of the judgment, our cries will be heard on account of our generous, forgiving response in this life.</p>


text:
<p>You shall tread down the wicked- This is the language of God’s treading upon the wicked Egyptians (<a href='B:420 3:13'>Hab 3:13</a>). But "the wicked" in the context are the wicked amongst God’s people (:1; <a href='B:460 3:18'>Mal 3:18</a>). The faithful will then discern them for who they are (<a href='B:460 3:18'>Mal 3:18</a>),&nbsp; whereas in this life, and particularly at Malachi’s time, it must have been difficult to perceive who were genuine and who were not. Just as we cannot discern now between wheat and weeds. The destruction of the wicked abusers of God’s people seems to be part of the same process as the destruction of the wicked amongst God’s people. They will be "condemned with the world". This is one of the passages which imply that the rejected will be physically annihilated by the Lord. Given the terrible descriptions of the mental anguish of the condemned, this would essentially be a merciful act. It may be that many will die in the judgments which come upon the world. But it could be that others are simply put out of their agony by the Lord. Some now in the ecclesia will be dashed to pieces by Him (<a href='B:730 2:27'>Rev 2:27</a>), and Malachi implies that the faithful will play a part in the destruction of their wicked brethren.</p><p>For they will be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I make, says Yahweh of Armies- The idea of burning feet turning the wicked to ashes is precisely that of the cherubim (s:w. <a href='B:330 1:7'>Eze 1:7</a>). As often intimated in Zechariah, the faithful are to become identified with the cherubim.</p>


text:
<p>Remember the law of Moses My servant, which I commanded to him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and ordinances- This was so that the curse for disobedience to the law would not come upon them (:7). The faithful minority of <a href='B:460 3:16-17'>Mal 3:16-17</a> are bidden remember the actual law, because the priests were teaching it wrongly (see on <a href='B:460 2:8'>Mal 2:8</a>). It was "for all Israel", not just for an enthusiastic minority. And all of that law was still binding upon Malachi’s generation, every statute and ordinance; whereas the priests were teaching that only some parts needed to be attended to.</p><p>Usually we read of 'observing' or 'obeying' the law. Perhaps the idea of 'remembering' it is in the context of the way they have offered lame animals, paid only part of the tithes- they had kept the law of Moses as lip service, on a surface level. They were to "remember" what the law actually said and do it. Again we see the possibility of fulfilment of these words in Malachi's own time and in the lives of his immediate audience.
</p><p>Jeremiah and Ezekiel had given the exiles the opportunity of accepting a new covenant. The old covenant was broken. But the people still hankered for that old covenant. And it seems God went along with that by still offering those in Malachi's time some future with Him even on the basis of the old covenant. 
</p>


text:
<p>Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Yahweh comes- As explained on <a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a>, the restored community could still have seen a Messiah figure arise if they had responded to the messenger of the covenant preparing His way. ’Malachi’ was that messenger, as was the priesthood. But they failed to respond, and so the prophecies were rescheduled and reapplied to another priest, John the Baptist, who prepared the way for the true and full Messiah. So if Israel would receive it, John the Baptist was the Elijah prophet. The course of fulfilment of prophecy was conditional upon whether John succeeded in turning the hearts of Israel back to the fathers or not; on preparing them for the great and terrible day of the Lord. Brethren as varied as John Knowles and Harry Whittaker have all recognized in their expositions that the Kingdom could have come in the first century had Israel received John as Elijah. But they would not. And so another Elijah prophet is to come in the last days and prepare Israel for her Messiah. “If ye are willing to receive him, this is Elijah which is to come” (<a href='B:470 11:14'>Mat 11:14</a> RVmg:) says it all. More details about him are noted on Revelation 11. He need not be the literal resurrected Elijah, although that is possible; recall how the Lord Jesus is called "David", when He is not David but in the spirit and line of David (<a href='B:350 3:5'>Hos 3:5</a>; <a href='B:330 34:23'>Eze 34:23</a> etc:). The Elijah prophet who was to herald the Messianic Kingdom could have been John the Baptist- if Israel had received him. But they didn’t, and so the prophecy went down another avenue of fulfilment. It could be that :6 implies that there is still the possibility that even the latter day Elijah mission could fail. But ultimately it will succeed, for the great and dreadful day of Yahweh is that of the Lord’s final return (<a href='B:360 2:31'>Joe 2:31</a>).</p><p>I suggest this approach is what explains the apparent contradiction between John's denial that he was Elijah (Jn. 1:21,25), and the Lord's statement that for those who received it, John was the Elijah prophet. He says "Elijah has come" [in John] in Mk 9:12; and yet at the same time, "Elijah is coming / will come" (Mt. 17:11). Seeing that Greek NT tenses are specific, I suggest He said both: "Elijah is coming, Elijah has come".  John's denial that he was the Elijah prophet was tantamount to his acceptance that he had not succeeded in being the Elijah prophet- even though his choice of clothing clearly consciously imitated that of Elijah. 
</p><p>As discussed on Mal. 3:1, the Elijah prophet is "the messenger" who is the servants of Yahweh of the Isaianic prophecies about a way being prepared. They are both servants, doing the work of removing the stumbling stones [= rejection of Jesus as crucified Christ / Messiah], and also a messenger giving a message of Him. They will be the Elijah prophet. Hence the Hebrew here is strictly "the Elijah the prophet". "The Elijah" is a strange way of expression if Elijah personally is meant.
</p><p>But Elijah failed in his mission because he failed to act as a prophet, and God effectively fired him. He didn't achieve renewal of the covenant between Yahweh and His people; the implication is that the latter day Elijah will achieve this. The duty of a prophet was not only to return the people to God. It was to defend the people before God in prayer, praying to God on their behalf (Gen. 20:7,17; Ex. 32:31–35; Num. 14:11–25; 1 Sam. 7:5–9; Jer. 7:16; 11:14; 14:11; Ps. 99:6). The role of the Elijah prophet was therefore also to mediate for the people that they might receive God's grace. This is also part of the latter day Elijah ministry.
</p>


text:
<p>He will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers- The tragedy of "You didn't turn to Me" in Hag. 2:17 is that God has repeatedly tried to comfort the returned exiles that "I am with you" (Hag. 2:4; 1:13)...  "My Spirit dwelt [and dwells] among you" (Hag. 2:5). But they didn't want to be with Him, to realize the presence of His Spirit amongst them, just as the Corinthians were not spiritual although they had been richly given the Spirit. The returnees were preoccupied by the immediate, and their desire to live their petty dreams. And so it is oftentimes with man. Haggai's call echoes to us- not to be preoccupied with life and material things. The final restoration prophet concluded with the promise that God would have to send the Elijah prophet to turn their hearts to God: "He will turn the hearts..." (Mal. 4:6). Literally, to return [s.w. 'repent'] their hearts. He would bring about their repentance; in the latter day context, this would refer to their repentance for crucifying their Messiah. 
</p><p>Despite the religious system developed by the returnees and their exclusion of others, they didn't obey Haggai's call to turn their hearts to their God. And so through the Elijah prophet it was God's plan to almost forcibly turn their hearts to Him. But even the fulfilment in John the Baptist and the appearance of God's Son only achieved this in a minority. The problem was [and still is] preoccupation with man's immediate agendas, be they religious or secular.
</p><p>Mal. 3:7 offered a "return" of God to the people if they returned / repented to Him. But they argued they had nothing to repent of, no distance over which to return to Him. Now God says, as He does in the offers of the new covenant in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, that He will make them return to Him- so desperate is He for continued relationship with them. No longer is His return to them contingent upon their freewill return to Him. He will force them back to Him.
</p><p>Reconcilliation with God will produce or be associated with reconcilliation within personal relationships.  The LXX speaks of this involving also turning the hearts of the people to their neighbours. As discussed on Mal. 2:10, breaking covenant with others was related to breaking covenant with God. They were all at sixes and sevens with each other because their relationship with God was broken. This was now to be forcibly ended. And we discussed on Mal. 2:14-16 how the priests had abandoned their children and Hebrew wives. The results of this would potentially be undone by the Elijah prophet, the messenger of the covenant of Mal. 3:1. But he failed... so it was reapplied to John the Baptist, who likewise failed to convert all Israel. And so the success of the latter day Elijah ministry, in removing the stumbling stone of Christ crucified, will result in restored and enhanced human relationships. For that has to be the result of no longer stumbling over the Lord Jesus.
</p><p>"The hearts of the children to the fathers" is interpreted for us in Lk. 1:17, at least insofar as John the Baptist was a fulfilment of the Elijah prophet: "And it is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the
fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous [GNB "back to the way of thinking of the righteous"]; so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord”. "The children" are "the disobedient" and their fathers are "the righteous". The question is how these righteous fathers are turned towards the children, thanks to the work of the Elijah prophet. The account of John's 'Elijah' ministry in Mt. 3:7-12 is full of allusion to Malachi 4; and one of those connections is with the comment that that generation could not truly say that Abraham was their father (Mt. 3:9). This leads us to understand the righteous fathers as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. That would have been the natural interpretation of "the fathers" in first century Israelite society. It could be that in the latter day, ultimate fulfilment, the Lord Jesus returns, resurrects the dead, including the Jewish fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and there is then a process of work by the Elijah prophet which brings about repentance in Israel, whereby the resurrected Jewish fathers turn towards the children of that last generation, and those children likewise turn to those fathers. The righteous fathers are turned to the once disobedient children- by the work of "Elijah". But how and when this happens is a stubborn exegetical problem. 
</p><p>One possibility is that the language of fathers and children forms an inclusion with how Malachi opens: "Children honour their parents... I am your father— why don't you honour Me?" (Mal. 1:6). In this case, the "fathers" would be an intensive plural referring to their great Father, God. Just as the plural elohim is used for the one singular God; and just as in fact Mal. 1:6 uses the plural for "master" with reference to God, as if "masters", the one great master, God. And His heart would be turned to His children by the Elijah prophet converting the "children" to Him in repentance. Is. 63:16 speaks of the repentant remnant saying "Doubtless You are our father". Thus the children are reconciled to God. Most references to the people 'returning', especially in Malachi, Haggai and Zechariah, are to the children of Israel returning / repenting to God, and His returning to them. "Return unto Me … and I will return unto you" (Mal. 3:7; Zech. 1:3). Another possibility is to accept the interpretation of Rashi and the rabbis, that the hearts of the fathers are turned "onto" the children and vice versa- meaning that fathers and children are united in heart by their common experience of repentance before God. This message would then be relevant to Malachi's earlier observations of social and family breakdown amongst the returned exiles. And he closes his prophecy with this thought, because it is the reconcilliation between people, as a result of their individual reconcilliation with God, which is the ultimate achievement of God's grace in practice.
</p><p>Through the preaching of John, he turned men’s hearts- the idea of repentance, being brought about by the preacher (<a href='B:460 4:6'>Mal 4:6</a>). Such is the power of our preaching, the possibility which our words of witness give to our hearers. We have such power invested in us! If we are slack to use it, the Lord’s glory is limited, and the salvation of others disabled.</p><p>Elijah was only interested in demonstrating Yahweh's superiority over Baal, but it is questionable whether he made any lasting converts from Baal worship to Yahweh. Because he wasn't interested in people- at least initially. He was removed from his post after his shameful intercession against Israel in 1 Kings 19. But we must square this against Malachi's apparently strange comment that Elijah in future will turn the heart of the fathers to the children and vice versa. This makes sense once we understand that Baal worship involved child sacrifice, as the preceding section in 1 Kings 16 makes clear. This created tension and no "heart" between fathers and children, and vice versa. After his demotion, Elijah carried on believing- and we can assume that he "got it". His future work will therefore involve caring for people, and turning fathers and children towards each other in that they have quit Baal. Elijah will finally learn from his immaturity, and become people focused. LXX has "(who shall turn again) the heart of a man to his neighbour".
</p><p>Israel were out of step with their fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jacob, Levi, Moses and "Elijah" have just been mentioned (<a href='B:460 1:2'>Mal 1:2</a>; <a href='B:460 2:4'>Mal 2:4</a>; <a href='B:460 2:6'>Mal 2:6</a>; <a href='B:460 3:3-4'>Mal 3:3-4</a>). The appeal of the latter day Elijah is to return to the promises made to the fathers, which are the essence of the new covenant. The turning of the fathers’ hearts to the children need not imply that the fathers are still alive; the idiom of the passage means that the hearts of the children and the fathers will be at one with each other. <a href='B:490 1:16-17'>Luk 1:16-17</a> interprets "the heart of the children to the fathers" as meaning "the disobedient to the wisdom of the just".</p><p>Lest I come and strike the earth with a curse- The ultimate salvation of the earth / land of Israel and its people is still conditional, upon their response to the Elijah prophet. There is no automatic salvation just because a day on the calendar has arrived. Salvation is intensely personal and human response is absolutely essential; and that is the appropriate finale of the prophecy. And yet if the last word of the Old Testament is "curse", the first recorded word of the Lord Jesus in His public preaching of the Gospel is "Blessed" (Mt. 5:3). But that blessing was upon individuals who responded to Him. It could be argued that the work of John the Baptist as the Elijah prophet failed to reform Israel [as did Elijah and Malachi]- and so in AD70 the land was indeed struck with a curse, "with a decree of utter destruction" (ESV). Is. 43:28 had said the same: "Therefore I will profane the princes of the sanctuary; and I will make Jacob a curse". But Zech. 14:11 had foreseen this, and yet prophesied that through the return of the Lord Jesus, "Men will dwell therein, and there will be no more curse [s.w. Mal. 4:6]; but Jerusalem will dwell safely". This suggests that indeed all but the final Elijah ministry would fail. The land would be cursed. But this will be lifted at the Lord's return.</p>


