Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Zechariah 4:4
So I answered and spoke to the angel that talked with me, saying, What [are] these, my lord?
Osorius: Awakened from his state of sleep, even thus the prophet seemed slowly to understand what was shown him. He asks then of the instructing angel. The angel, almost amazed, asks if he knowns it not, and when he plainly declares his ignorance, makes clear the enigma of the vision.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
So, after that I had seen and discerned,
I answered: see Zec 3:4.
Spake to the angel that talked with me: see Zec 1:19; 2:3.
What are these? see Zec 1:9.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
4. The prophet is instructed inthe truths meant, that we may read them with the greater reverenceand attention [CALVIN].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
So I answered, and spake to the angel that talked with me,…. The same that awoke him out of sleep, and asked him what he saw:
saying, What [are] these, my lord? that is, what do they signify? what do they represent? or what are they emblems of? for he knew what they were; that they were a candlestick, and two olive trees; but he was desirous of knowing what the meaning of them were.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The interpretation of this vision must therefore be founded upon the meaning of the golden candlestick in the symbolism of the tabernacle, and be in harmony with it. The prophet receives, first of all, the following explanation, in reply to his question on this point: Zec 4:4. “And I answered and spake to the angel that talked with me, What are these, my lord? Zec 4:5. And the angel that talked with me answered and said to me, Knowest thou not what these are? And I said, No, my lord. Zec 4:6. Then he answered and spake to me thus: This is the word of Jehovah to Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, and not by power, but by my Spirit, saith Jehovah of hosts. Zec 4:7. Who art thou, O great mountain before Zerubbabel? Into a plain! And He will bring out the top-stone amidst shoutings, Grace, grace unto it!” The question addressed by the prophet to the mediating angel, “What are these?” ( mah ‘elleh , as in Zec 2:2) does not refer to the two olive trees only (Umbreit, Kliefoth), but to everything described in Zec 4:2 and Zec 4:3. We are not warranted in assuming that the prophet, like every other Israelite, knew what the candlestick with its seven lamps signified; and even if Zechariah had been perfectly acquainted with the meaning of the golden candlestick in the holy place, the candlestick seen by him had other things beside the two olive trees which were not to be found in the candlestick of the temple, viz., the gullah and the pipes for the lamps, which might easily make the meaning of the visionary candlestick a doubtful thing. And the counter-question of the angel, in which astonishment is expressed, is not at variance with this. For that simply presupposes that the object of these additions is so clear, that their meaning might be discovered from the meaning of the candlestick itself. The angel then gives him the answer in Zec 4:6: “This (the vision as a symbolical prophecy) is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: Not by might,” etc. That is to say, through this vision Zerubbabel is informed that it – namely, the work which Zerubbabel has taken in hand or has to carry out – will not be effected by human strength, but by the Spirit of God. The work itself is not mentioned by the angel, but is referred to for the first time in Zec 4:7 in the words, “He will bring out the top-stone,” and then still more clearly described in the word of Jehovah in Zec 4:9: “The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house (the temple), and his hands will finish it.” It by no means follows from this that the candlestick, with its seven lamps, represented Zerubbabel’s temple (Grotius, Hofmann); for whilst it is impossible that the candlestick, as one article of furniture in the temple, should be a figurative representation of the whole temple, what could the two olive trees, which supplied the candlestick with oil, signify with such an interpretation? Still less can the seven lamps represent the seven eyes of God (Zec 4:10), according to which the candlestick would be a symbol of God or of the Spirit (Hitzig, Maurer, Schegg). The significance of the candlestick in the holy place centred, as I have shown in my biblische Archologie (i. p. 107), in its seven lamps, which were lighted every evening, and burned through the night. The burning lamps were a symbol of the church or of the nation of God, which causes the light of its spirit, or of its knowledge of God, to shine before the Lord, and lets it stream out into the night of a world estranged from God. As the disciples of Christ were called, as lights of the world (Mat 5:14), to let their lamps burn and shine, or, as candlesticks in the world (Luk 12:35; Phi 2:15), to shine with their light before men (Mat 5:16), so as the church of the Old Testament also. The correctness of this explanation of the meaning of the candlestick is placed beyond all doubt by Rev 1:20, where the seven , which John saw before the throne of God, are explained as being the seven , which represent the new people of God, viz., the Christian church. The candlestick itself merely comes into consideration here as the stand which carried the lamps, in order that they might shine, and as such was the divinely appointed form for the realization of the purpose of the shining lamps. In this respect it might be taken as a symbol of the kingdom of God on its formal side, i.e., of the divinely appointed organism for the perpetuation and life of the church. But the lamps received their power to burn from the oil, with which they had to be filled before they could possibly burn.
Oil, regarded according to its capacity to invigorate the body and increase the energy of the vital spirits, is used in the Scriptures as a symbol of the Spirit of God, not in its transcendent essence, but so far as it works in the world, and is indwelling in the church; and not merely the anointing oil, as Kliefoth supposes, but also the lamp oil, since the Israelites had no other oil than olive oil even for burning, and this was used for anointing also.
(Note: The distinction between lamp oil and anointing oil, upon which Kliefoth founds his interpretation of the visionary candlestick, and which he tries to uphold from the language itself, by the assertion that the anointing oil is always called shemen , whereas the lamp oil is called yitshar , is shown to be untenable by the simple fact that, in the minute description of the preparation of the lamp oil for the sacred candlestick, and the repeated allusion to this oil in the Pentateuch, the term yitshar is never used, but always shemen , although the word yitshar is by no means foreign to the Pentateuch, but occurs in Num 18:12; Deu 7:13; Deu 11:14; Deu 12:17, and other passages. According to Exo 27:20, the lamp oil for the candlestick was to be prepared from shemen zayith zakh kathth , pure, beaten olive oil (so also according to Lev 24:2); and according to Exo 30:24, shemen zayith , olive oil, was to be used for anointing oil. Accordingly the lamp oil for the candlestick is called shemen lamma’or in Exo 25:6; Exo 35:8, Exo 35:28, and shemen hamma’or in Exo 35:14; Exo 39:37, and Num 4:16; and the anointing oil is called shemen hammishchah in Exo 29:7; Exo 31:11; Exo 35:15; Exo 39:38; Exo 40:9; Lev 8:20, Lev 8:10, and other passages; and shemen miwshchath – qodesh in Exo 30:25. Apart from Zec 4:14 of the chapter before us, yitshar is never used for the lamp oil as such, but simply in the enumeration of the productions of the land, or of the tithes and first-fruits, when it occurs in connection with trosh , must or new wine (Num 18:12; Deu 7:13; Deu 11:14; Deu 14:23; Deu 18:4; Deu 28:51; 2Ch 31:5; 2Ch 32:28; Neh 5:11; Neh 10:39; Neh 13:12; Hos 2:9, Hos 2:22; Joe 1:10; Joe 2:19, Joe 2:24; Jer 31:12; Hag 1:11), but never in connection with yayin (wine), with which shemen is connected (1Ch 12:40; 2Ch 2:14; 2Ch 11:11; Pro 21:17; Jer 40:10). It is evident from this that yitshar , the shining, bears the same relation to shemen , fatness, as trosh , must, to yayin , wine, – namely, that yitshar is applied to oil as the juice of the olive, i.e., as the produce of the land, from its shining colour, whilst shemen is the name given to it when its strength and use are considered. Hengstenberg’s opinion, that yitshar is the rhetorical or poetical name for oil, has no real foundation in the circumstance that yitshar only occurs once in the first four books of the Pentateuch (Num 18:12) and shemen occurs very frequently; whereas in Deuteronomy yitshar is used more frequently than shemen , viz., the former six times, and the latter four.)
And in the case of the candlestick, the oil comes into consideration as a symbol of the Spirit of God. There is no force in Kliefoth’s objection – namely, that inasmuch as the oil of the candlestick was to be presented by the people, it could not represent the Holy Spirit with its power and grace, as coming from God to man, but must rather represent something human, which being given up to God, is cleansed by God through the fire of His word and Spirit; and being quickened thereby, is made into a shining light. For, apart from the fact that the assumption upon which this argument is founded – namely, that in the oil of the candlestick the Spirit of God was symbolized by the altar fire with which it was lighted – is destitute of all scriptural support, since it is not mentioned anywhere that the lamps of the candlestick were lighted with fire taken from the altar of burnt-offering, but it is left quite indefinite where the light or fire for kindling the lamps was to be taken from; apart, I say, from this, such an argument proves too much ( nimium, ergo nihil ), because the anointing oil did not come directly from God, but was also presented by the people. Supposing, therefore, that this circumstance was opposed to the symbolical meaning of the lamp oil, it would also be impossible that the anointing oil should be a symbol of the Holy Ghost, since not only the oil, but the spices also, which were used in preparing the anointing oil, were given by the people (Exo 25:6). We might indeed say, with Kliefoth, that “the oil, as the fatness of the fruit of the olive tree, is the last pure result of the whole of the vital process of the olive tree, and therefore the quintessence of its nature; and that man also grows, and flourishes, and bears fruit like an olive tree; and therefore the fruit of his life’s fruit, the produce of his personality and of the unfolding of his life, may be compared to oil.” But it must also be added (and this Kliefoth has overlooked), that the olive tree could not grow, flourish, and bear fruit, unless God first of all implanted or communicated the power to grow and bear fruit, and then gave it rain and sunshine and the suitable soil for a prosperous growth. And so man also requires, for the production of spiritual fruits of life, not only the kindling of this fruit by the fire of the word and Spirit of God, but also the continued nourishment and invigoration of this fruit through God’s word and Spirit, just as the lighting and burning of the lamps are not effected simply by the kindling of the flame, but it is also requisite that the oil should possess the power to burn and shine. In this double respect the candlestick, with its burning and shining lamps, was a symbol of the church of God, which lets the fruit of its life, which is not only kindled but also nourished by the Holy Spirit, shine before God. And the additions made to the visionary candlestick indicate generally, that the church of the Lord will be supplied with the conditions and requirements necessary to enable it to burn and shine perpetually, i.e., that the daughter of Zion will never fail to have the Spirit of God, to make its candlestick bright. (See at Zec 4:14.)
There is no difficulty whatever in reconciling the answer of the angel in Zec 4:6 with the meaning of the candlestick, as thus unfolded according to its leading features, without having to resort to what looks like a subterfuge, viz., the idea that Zec 4:6 does not contain an exposition, but passes on to something new, or without there being any necessity to account, as Koehler does, for the introduction of the candlestick, which he has quite correctly explained (though he weakens the explanation by saying that it applies primarily to Zerubbabel), namely, by assuming that “it was intended, on the one hand, to remind him what the calling of Israel was; and, on the other hand, to admonish him that Israel could never reach this calling by the increase of its might and the exaltation of its strength, but solely by suffering itself to be filled with the Spirit of Jehovah.” For the candlestick does not set forth the object after which Israel is to strive, but symbolizes the church of God, as it will shine in the splendour of the light received through the Spirit of God. It therefore symbolizes the future glory of the people of God. Israel will not acquire this through human power and might, but through the Spirit of the Lord, in whose power Zerubbabel will accomplish the work he has begun. Zec 4:7 does not contain a new promise for Zerubbabel, that if he lays to heart the calling of Israel, and acts accordingly, i.e., if he resists the temptation to bring Israel into a free and independent position by strengthening its external power, the difficulties which have lain in the way of the completion of the building of the temple will clear away of themselves by the command of Jehovah (Koehler). For there is not the slightest intimation of any such temptation as that supposed to have presented itself to Zerubbabel, either in the vision itself or in the historical and prophetical writings of that time. Moreover, Zec 4:7 has not at all the form of a promise, founded upon the laying to heart of what has been previously mentioned. The contents of the verse are not set forth as anything new either by (saith Jehovah), or by any other introductory formula. It can only be a further explanation of the word of Jehovah, which is still covered by the words “saith Jehovah of hosts” at the close of Zec 4:6. The contents of the verse, when properly understood, clearly lead to this. The great mountain before Zerubbabel is to become a plain, not by human power, but by the Spirit of Jehovah. The meaning is given in the second hemistich: He (Zerubbabel) will bring out the top-stone. (is not a simple preterite, “he has brought out the foundation-stone” (viz., at the laying of the foundation of the temple), as Hengstenberg supposes, but a future, “he will bring out,” as is evident from the Vav consec., through which is attached to the preceding command as a consequence to which it leads. Moreover, does not mean the foundation-stone, which is called , lit., corner-stone (Job 38:6; Isa 28:16; Jer 51:26), or , the head-stone of the corner (Psa 118:22), but the stone of the top, i.e., the finishing or gable stone ( with raphe as a feminine form of , and in apposition to ). , to bring out, namely out of the workshop in which it had been cut, to set it in its proper place in the wall. That these words refer to the finishing of the building of the temple which Zerubbabel had begun, is placed beyond all doubt by Zec 4:9.
The great mountain, therefore, is apparently “a figure denoting the colossal difficulties, which rose up mountain high at the continuation and completion of the building of the temple.” Koehler adopts this explanation in common with “the majority of commentators.” But, notwithstanding this appearance, we must adhere to the view adopted by the Chald., Jerome, Theod. Mops., Theodoret, Kimchi, Luther, and others, that the great mountain is a symbol of the power of the world, or the imperial power, and see no difficulty in the “unwarrantable consequence” spoken of by Koehler, viz., that in that case the plain must be a symbol of the kingdom of God (see, on the contrary, Isa 40:4). For it is evident from what follows, that the passage refers to something greater than this, namely to the finishing of the building of the temple that has already begun, or to express it briefly and clearly, that the building of the temple of stone and wood is simply regarded as a type of the building of the kingdom of God, as Zec 4:9 clearly shows. There was a great mountain standing in the way of this building of Zerubbabel’s – namely the power of the world, or the imperial power – and this God would level to a plain. Just as, in the previous vision, Joshua is introduced as the representative of the high-priesthood, so here Zerubbabel, the prince of Judah, springing from the family of David, comes into consideration not as an individual, but according to his official rank as the representative of the government of Israel, which is now so deeply humbled by the imperial power. But the government of Israel has no reality or existence, except in the government of Jehovah. The family of David will rise up into a new royal power and glory in the Tsemach , whom Jehovah will bring forth as His servant (Zec 3:8). This servant of Jehovah will fill the house of God, which Zerubbabel has built, with glory. In order that this may be done, Zerubbabel must build the temple, because the temple is the house in which Jehovah dwells in the midst of His people. On account of this importance of the temple in relation to Israel, the opponents of Judah sought to throw obstacles in the way of its being built; and these obstacles were a sign and prelude of the opposition which the imperial power of the world, standing before Zerubbabel as a great mountain, will offer to the kingdom of God. This mountain is to become a plain. What Zerubbabel the governor of Judah has begun, he will bring to completion; and as he will finish the building of the earthly temple, so will the true Zerubbabel, the Messiah, Tsemach , the servant of Jehovah, build the spiritual temple, and make Israel into a candlestick, which is supplied with oil by two olive trees, so that its lamps may shine brightly in the world. In this sense the angel’s reply gives an explanation of the meaning of the visionary candlestick. Just as, according to the economy of the Old Testament, the golden candlestick stood in the holy place of the temple before the face of Jehovah, and could only shine there, so does the congregation, which is symbolized by the candlestick, need a house of God, that it may be able to cause its light to shine. This house is the kingdom of God symbolized by the temple, which was to be built by Zerubbabel, not by human might and power, but by the Spirit of the Lord. In this building the words “He will bring forth the top-stone” find their complete and final fulfilment. The finishing of this building will take place , i.e., amidst loud cries of the people, “Grace, grace unto it.” is an accusative of more precise definition, or of the attendant circumstances (cf. Ewald, 204, a), and signifies noise, tumult, from = , a loud cry (Job 39:7; Isa 22:2). The suffix refers, so far as the form is concerned, to , but actually to habbayith , the temple which is finished with the gable-stone. To this stone (so the words mean) may God direct His favour or grace, that the temple may stand for ever, and never be destroyed again.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
It afterwards follows, that the Prophet inquired of the Angel, What does this mean? We hence learn again, that the Prophet was instructed by degrees, in order that the vision might be more regarded by us; for if the Prophet had immediately obtained the knowledge of what was meant, the narrative might be read by us with no attention; we might at least be less attentive, and some might probably think that it was an uncertain vision. But as the Prophet himself attentively considered what was divinely revealed to him, and yet failed to understand what God meant, we are hereby reminded that we ought not to be indifferent as to what is here related; for without a serious and diligent application of the mind, we shall not understand this prophecy, as we are not certainly more clear-sighted than the Prophet, who had need of a guide and teacher. There is also set before us an example to be imitated, so that we may not despair when the prophecies seem obscure to us; for when the Prophet asked, the Angel immediately helped his ignorance. There is therefore no doubt but that the Lord will supply us also with understanding, when we confess that his mysteries are hid from us, and when conscious of our want of knowledge, we flee to him, and implore him not to speak in vain to us, but to grant to us the knowledge of his truth. The angel’s question to the Prophet, whether he understood or not, is not to be taken as a reproof of his dullness, but as a warning, by which he meant to rouse the minds of all to consider the mystery. He then asked, Art thou ignorant of what this means, in order to elicit from the Prophet a confession of his ignorance. Now if the Prophet, when elevated by God’s Spirit above the world, could not immediately know the purpose of the vision, what can we do who creep on the earth, except the Lord supplies us with understanding? In short, Zechariah again recommends to us the excellency of this prophecy, that we may more attentively consider what God here declares.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(4) These does not refer merely to the olive-trees, though in Zec. 4:11-12 they are shown to be the salient point in the vision, but to everything described in Zec. 4:2-3.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
4, 5. The prophet fails to understand the vision, and he turns to his companion for an explanation.
Answered See on Zec 1:10.
These The contents of the entire vision, not only the trees. The interpreting angel expresses surprise that the prophet, who should be familiar with the symbolism of the temple, does not understand the vision, “Knowest thou not what these are?”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Zec 4:4 So I answered and spake to the angel that talked with me, saying, What [are] these, my lord?
Ver. 4. What are these, my lord? ] Or, Sir; which English word comes from Cyrus, the Persian word for a lord or great prince, as H. Stephanus will have it; others fetch it from , authority, or , a lord, and so the word Adoni in the text is usually rendered. Others think our word Sir comes from the French Sieur, whence Monsieur, my lord; as the word Lord from the old Saxon Laford, which cometh of Laef, to sustain; like as the Hebrew Adonai, from Eden, a foundation or pillar, that sustaineth the whole building. It is written sometimes with Camets, or long a, in the end, and then it is proper to God (as having the vowels of Jehovah), and is given to him 134 times in the Old Testament. Sometimes it is written with Pathach, or short a, and then it is applied to the creatures, as here to the angel: Hinc Hispanorum Don, saith Drusius.
What are these
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
my lord. Hebrew ‘adon. See App-4.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
What: Zec 4:12-14, Zec 1:9, Zec 1:19, Zec 5:6, Zec 6:4, Dan 7:16-19, Dan 12:8, Mat 13:36, Rev 7:13, Rev 7:14
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Zec 4:4. Zechariah asked for an interpretation of the olive trees.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Zec 4:4-5. So I answered, &c. Namely, after I had seen and discerned; What are these, my lord Observe how respectfully he speaks to the angel, calling him his lord; those that would be taught, must give honour to their teachers. He saw what these things were, but inquired what they signified. It is very desirable to know the meaning of Gods manifestations of himself, and of his mind, both in his word and by his ordinances and providences. The angel answered, &c., Knowest thou not what these be? This might be said, not with a view of reflecting on the prophets want of discernment, but merely to excite his attention: so Capellus observes. Blayney, however, thinks that, by this question, the angel meant to censure the prophets dulness in not perceiving what a reasoning and reflecting mind, versed in the allegories of prophecy, might in some measure at least have discovered. Thus also Henry: If he had considered and compared spiritual things with spiritual, he might have guessed at the meaning of these things: for he knew that there was a golden candlestick in the tabernacle, which it was the priests constant business to supply with oil, and to keep it burning; when, therefore, he saw in vision such a candlestick, with lamps always burning, and yet no priests to attend it, nor any occasion for them, he might discern the meaning of this to be, that though God had set up the priesthood again, yet he could carry on his own work for and in his people without them. And I said, No, my lord He makes an ingenuous confession of his ignorance.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Zechariah asked the angel for an explanation of what he saw. The angel asked if he did not understand what these things represented, but Zechariah said he did not (cf. Zec 4:13).