-
Commentary on the Prophet Zechariah
- The Catholic University of America Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
COMMENTARY ON THE PROPHET ZECHARIAH t is clear that, at the same time as the prophet Haggai, blessed Zechariah was also prophesying : in the [496] second year of Darius, as you can learn from the divine Scripture itself,1 the former says he began his prophecy according to a divine revelation, and similarly the latter . So it becomes clear that each was delivering his prophecy after the return of the Israelite people when brought back from Babylon to Judea. When Cyrus, you see, who was the first to rule over Persians and Medes at the same time, gave instructions for them to return to their own country, a considerable number returned to Jerusalem and Judea with Zerubbabel in charge; they laid the foundations of the Temple and erected the altar in it. But as the work was prevented from reaching a conclusion, at one time through the malice of those obstructing them and at another through their own indolence, the blessed prophet Haggai as a result of divine revelation blamed them for their indolence and charged them with a depraved attitude in neglecting the work when they had shown such enthusiasm for their own houses as not only to build them but also to decorate them considerably. The divine house, on the other hand, had been neglected; so he roused them all to the work, as the prophet’s book itself discloses. Now, blessed Zechariah by divine revelation in his case as well confirms in similar terms the people’s return in his own prophecies, while verifying also that Jerusalem would achieve its own restoration, a king being appointed in it by divine decree ,2 elevated from that source, managing its affairs and fight1 . See Hg 1.1, Zec 1.1. 2. This conclusion of Zerubbabel’s kingship, encouraged in Theodore by the LXX’s evident misreading of an unfamiliar term employed by Haggai (1.1) for his role in the restored community, has had a marked effect on Theodore’s 322 ing for everyone in the wars against the foreigners, while the priesthood recovered its status again with its former splendor. The result was that through this he convinced those who had returned to accept that their occupation of the site was secure, something that those who had come back were naturally in two minds about, as to whether their residence was permanent, either through the severity of the captivity that they had not anticipated enduring, or also through the unexpectedness of the return. In particular, the secure return of those repatriated proved a guarantee that would convince others of those still in captivity that they would return to Judea. Now, it seems he had many different revelations, and he describes the gist of each: he discloses the attack of those in the company of Gog and their total ruin that ensued, and the fact that unexpectedly and against all human hope Jews under the reign and generalship of Zerubbabel would gain control of them. He mentions also the distress besetting them after that, which happened to them at the time of the Maccabees from the successors of the Macedonian kingdom.3 Now, there is no cause for surprise if what happened previously he presents through revelation as future events, as when he says that he saw four horns being struck down that had scattered Israel: it is quite clear that this was not due to happen, but had happened. I mean, if he suggests through the four horns the Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, and Persians, as some people’s opinion holds, [497] it is obvious that both Assyrians and Babylonians had already paid the penalty by that time. Cyrus wiped out the Medes,4 and after him was Darius, the fourth horn, while from COMMENTARY ON ZECHARIAH, PREFACE 323 treatment of him throughout these commentaries, and especially his ability to fulfil (in preference to Jesus) messianic prophecies. 3. The unity of the book—something Theodore could not question—has been the subject of discussion since the seventeenth century, some scholars placing chs 9–14 later than Zechariah’s ministry in the late sixth century (as Theodore accepts it above), even relating them to Alexander the Great’s invasion of Palestine in the late fourth century. Theodore here, implicitly, admits grounds for a late date. 4. See Theodore’s comment on the relevant verse, 1.18. The ascent of Cyrus the Persian to power in the mid-sixth century was rather by way of amalgamation with the Medes...