Zec 6:1-5 (1) And I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came

four chariots out from between two mountains; and the mountains were mountains o f brass. (2) In the first chariot were red horses; and in the second chariot black horse s; (3) And in the third chariot white horses; and in the fourth chariot grisled an d bay horses. (4) Then I answered and said unto the angel that talked with me, What are these , my lord? (5) And the angel answered and said unto me, These are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth.

Zec 6:5 four spirits of the heavens heavenly spirits who stand before Jehovah to receive G ods commands (Zec_4:14; 1Ki_22:19; Job_2:1; Luk_1:19) in heaven (of which Zion is the counterpart on earth, see on Zec_6:1), and proceed with chariot speed (2Ki_ 6:17; Psa_68:17) to execute them on earth in its four various quarters (Psa_104: 4; Heb_1:7, Heb_1:14) [Pembellus]. Or, the secret impulses of God which emanate from His counsel and providence; the prophet implies that all the revolutions in the world are from the Spirit of God and are as it were, His messengers or spir its. these are the four spirits of the heavens; or, "the four winds of the heavens"; the apostles and ministers of the Gospel may be compared to "the winds", because their ministry is the ministration of the Spirit, which is like wind that blows invisibly, powerfully, and where it listeth; and because in and by it the Spiri t breathes life and comfort into the souls of men; and because of the powerful e fficacy and penetrating nature of the word preached by them, and their swiftness and readiness to do the will of God: angels are called "spirits" or "winds", Ps a_104:3 they are created spirits, and so differ from God; are incorporeal ones, and so differ from men; and are immaterial and immortal, and so die not: they ar e spiritual subsistences, and spirits of the heavens, or heavenly spirits; heave n being the place of their abode and residence; and they may be compared to "win ds", for their invisibility, wonderful penetration into places and things, their very great swiftness, and prodigious power and strength. The Targum paraphrases the words thus, "these are the four kingdoms, which are as the winds of heaven;

and so the same are signified by the four winds in Dan_7:2 to which they may be compared for their swift and forcible carrying all before them, and for their fi ckleness and changeableness; and to which, the several parts of the world, into which they went, agree: which go forth, from standing before the Lord of all the earth: so the apostles of Christ, and ministers of the Gospel, stood before him in his eternal purposes and decrees from everlasting; and went forth, having their commission from him in time; and were sent by him into the several parts of the world he is the Lord of; and by whom they were filled with gifts, grace, and courage, fitting them f or their work. Angels also stand before him, ministering unto him; always behold him; are in his presence, and enjoy his favour; and go forth from him, being se nt forth by him on various accounts into all the parts of the world; which Jehov ah is the Creator, Upholder, and Governor of: moreover, this is applicable to th e four monarchies; these stood before the Lord in his vast and infinite mind; in the secret decrees of it, before the world was; and the sending and going forth

of them from him show that they were powers ordained of God, who has the govern ment of the whole world in his hands.

Zec 6:5 These are the four spirits of the heavens - They cannot be literal winds: for sp irits, not winds, stand before God, as His servants, as in Job, the sons of God c ame to present themselves before the Lord (Job_1:6; Job_2:1. This they did, (Jero me), for these four kingdoms did nothing without the will of God. Zechariah sums u p in one, what former prophets had said separately of the Assyrian, the Babyloni an, Egyptian, Persian. O Assyria, the rod of Mine anger - I will send him against an ungodly nation, and against the people of My wrath I will give him a charge I sa_10:5. I will send and take all the families of the north, and Nebuchadrezzar, the king of Babylon, My servant, and will bring them against this land Jer_25:9. T he Lord shall hiss for the fly, that is in the uttermost part of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria, and they shall come, and shall rest, all of them, in the desolate valleys Isa_7:18-19. I will call all the families of the kingdoms of the north, saith the Lord; and they shall come, and shall set every one his throne at the entering of the gates of Jerusalem Jer_1:15. Whatever the human impulse or the human means, all stand before the Lord of the whole earth, ministering to His will whose are all things, the Judge of all, who withholdeth the chastisement till the iniquity is full, and then, through mans injustice, exe cutes His own just judgment. Osorius: He says that they went forth from where the y had stood before the Lord of the whole earth, to show that their power had bee n obtained by the counsel of God, that they might serve His will. For no empire was ever set up on earth without the mind, counsel and power of God. He exalts t he humble and obscure, He prostrates the lofty, who trust overmuch in themselves , arms one against the other, so that no fraud or pride shall be without punishm ent. The four chariots are explained in Zec_6:5 by the interpreting angel to be the f our winds of heaven, which go forth after they have taken their stand by the Lor d of the whole earth, i.e., have appeared before Him in the attitude of servants , to lay their account before Him, and to receive commands from Him ( , as in 1). This addition shows that the explanation is not a real interpretation; that is to say, the meaning is not that the chariots represent the four winds; but th e less obvious figure of the chariots is explained through the more obvious figu re of the winds, which answers better to the reality. Since, for example, accord ing to Zec_6:8, the chariots are designed to carry the Spirit (ruach) of God, ther e was nothing with which they could be more suitably compared than the winds (ruac h) of heaven, for these are the most appropriate earthly substratum to symbolize the working of the Divine Spirit (cf. Jer_49:36; Dan_7:2). This Spirit, in its judicial operations, is to be borne by the chariots to the places more immediate ly designated in the vision. As they go out, after having appeared before God, t he two mountains, between which they go out or come forth, can only be sought in the place where God s dwelling is. But the mountains are of brass, and therefor e are not earthly mountains; but they are not therefore mere symbols of the migh t of God with which His church is defended (Hengst., Neumann), or allusions to t he fact that the dwelling-place of God is immovable and unapproachable (Koehler) , or symbols of the imperial power of the world and the kingdom of God (Kliefoth ), according to which the power of the world would be just as immovable as the k ingdom of God. The symbol has rather a definite geographical view as its basis. As the lands to which the chariots go are described geographically as the lands of the north and south, the starting-point of the chariots must also be thought of geographically, and must therefore be a place or country lying between the no rthern and southern lands: this is the land of Israel, or more especially Jerusa lem, the centre of the Old Testament kingdom of God, where the Lord had His dwel ling-place. It is therefore the view of Jerusalem and its situation that lies at

the foundation of the vision; only we must not think of the mountains Zion and Moriah (as Osiander, Maurer, Hofmann, and Umbreit do), for these are never disti nguished from one another in the Old Testament as forming two separate mountains ; but we have rather to think of Zion and the Mount of Olives, which stood oppos ite to it towards the east. Both are named as places where or from which the Lor d judges the world, viz., the Mount of Olives in Zec_14:4, and Zion very frequen tly, e.g., in Joe_3:16. The place between the two mountains is, then, the valley of Jehoshaphat, in which, according to Joe_3:2., the Lord judges the nations. I n the vision before us this valley simply forms the starting-point for the chari ots, which carry the judgment from the dwelling-place of God into the lands of t he north and south, which are mentioned as the seat of the imperial power; and t he mountains are of brass, to denote the immovable firmness of the place where t he Lord dwells, and where He has founded His kingdom. The colour of the horses, by which the four chariots are distinguished, is just as significant here as in Zec_1:8; and indeed, so far as the colour is the same, the meaning is also the same here as there. Three colours are alike, since beru ddm, speckled, is not essentially different from seruqqm, starling-grey, viz., black and white mixed together (see at Zec_1:8). The black horses are added here. Bla ck is the colour of grief (cf. black as sackcloth of hair, Rev_6:12). The rider up on the black horse in Rev_6:5-6, holds in his hand the emblem of dearness, the m ilder form of famine. Consequently the colours of the horses indicate the destin ation of the chariots, to execute judgment upon the enemies of the kingdom of Go d. Red, as the colour of blood, points to war and bloodshed; the speckled colour to pestilence and other fatal plagues; and the black colour to dearness and fam ine: so that these three chariots symbolize the three great judgments, war, pest ilence, and hunger (2Sa_24:11.), along with which the noisome beast is also mentio ned in Eze_14:21 as a fourth judgment. In the vision before us the fourth chario t is drawn by white horses, to point to the glorious victories of the ministers of the divine judgment. The explanation of the chariots in this vision is render ed more difficult by the fact, that on the one hand the horses of the fourth cha riot are not only called beruddm, but also; and on the other hand, that in the ac the starting of the chariots the red horses are omitted, and the speckled are d istinguished from the instead, inasmuch as it is affirmed of the former that they orth into the south country, and of the latter, that they sought to go that they might pass through the whole earth, and they passed through with the consent of G od. The commentators have therefore attempted in different ways to identify in h .Hitzig and Maurer assume that is omitted from Zec_6:6 by mistake, and th pyist s error for ,although there is not a single critical authority that can be add uced in support of this. Hengstenberg and Umbreit suppose that the predicate ,str Zec_6:3 refers to all the horses in the four chariots, and that by the strong hor ses of Zec_6:7 we are to understand the red horses of the first chariot. But if th e horses of all the chariots were strong, the red alone cannot be so called, sin ce the article not only stands before in Zec_6:7, but also before the three other s, and indicates nothing more than that the colours have been mentioned before. Moreover, it is grammatically impossible that in Zec_6:3 should refer to all the ams; as we must in that case have had ( Koehler). Others (e.g., Abulw., er) have attempted to prove that taht evo may have the sense of ;regard aining the latter, after Isa_63:1, as signifying bright red. But apart from the fact that it is impossible to see why so unusual a word should have been chosen in the place of the intelligible word adummm in the account of the destination of the red team in Zec_6:7, unless were merely a copyist s error for adummm, there isfactory grounds for identifying with , since it is impossible to adduce any w shed examples of the change of into in Hebrew. The assertion of Koehler, that th e Chaldee verb ,robustus fuit, is in Hebrew in Job_39:4, is incorrect; for we f nse of to be healthy and strong in the Syriac and Talmudic as well, and the Chal daic is a softened form of ,and not of .The fact that in 1Ch_8:35 we have 41, being the only instance of the interchange of and in Hebrew, is not sufficie nt of itself to sustain the alteration, amidst the great mass of various reading s in the genealogies of the Chronicles. Moreover, chamuts, from chamets, to be sharp , does not mean red (= adom), but a glaring colour, like the Greek ; and even in Isa_6

:1 it has simply this meaning, i.e., merely den tes the n s al redness f the dr ess, which d es n t l k like the p rple f a king's talar, r the scarlet f a chlamys (Delitzsch); r, speaking m re c rrectly, it merely den tes the glaring c l r which the dress has acq ired thr gh being sprinkled ver with red sp ts, arising either fr m the dark j ice f the grape r fr m bl d. All that remains theref re is t ackn wledge, in acc rdance with the w rds f the te t, that in t he interpretati n f the visi n the depart re f the team with the red h rses is mitted, and the team with speckled p werf l h rses divided int tw teams - n e with speckled h rses, and the ther with black. We cann t find any s pp rt in this f r the interpretati n f the f r chari ts a s den ting the f r imperial m narchies f Daniel, since neither the fact that t here are f r chari ts n r the c l r f the teams f rnishes any tenable gr nd f r this. And it is precl ded by the angel's c mparis n f the f r chari ts t the f r winds, which p int t f r q arters f the gl be, as in Jer_49:36 and D an_7:2, b t n t t f r empires rising ne after an ther, ne f which always t k the place f the ther, s that they embraced the same lands, and were merely disting ished fr m ne an ther by the fact that each in s ccessi n spread ver a wider s rface than its predecess r. The c l r f the h rses als d es n t fav r, b t rather pp ses, any reference t the f r great empires. Leaving t f sight the arg ments already add ced at Zec_1:8 against this interpretati n, Kli ef th himself admits that, s far as the h rses and their c l r are c ncerned, there is a th r gh c ntrast between this visi n and the first ne (Zec_1:7-17), - namely, that in the first visi n the c l r assigned t the h rses c rresp nd s t the kingd ms f the w rld t which they are sent, whereas in the visi n bef re s they have the c l r f the kingd ms fr m which they set t t c nvey th e j dgment t the thers; and he endeav rs t e plain this distincti n, by sayi ng that in the first visi n the riders pr c re inf rmati n fr m the different ki ngd ms f the w rld as t their act al c nditi n, whereas in the visi n bef re s the chari ts have t c nvey the j dgment t the kingd ms f the w rld. B t thi s distincti n f rnishes n tenable gr nd f r interpreting the c l r f the h r ses in the ne case in acc rdance with the bject f their missi n, and in the ther case in acc rdance with their rigin r starting-p int. If the intenti n wa s t set f rth the stamp f the kingd ms in the c l rs, they w ld c rresp nd i n b th visi ns t the kingd ms p n r in which the riders and the chari ts had t perf rm their missi n. If, n the ther hand, the c l r is reg lated by the nat re and bject f the visi n, s that these are indicated by it, it cann t e hibit the character f the great empires. If we l k still f rther at the statement f the angel as t the destinati n f the chari ts, the tw attempts made by H fmann and Klief th t c mbine the c l rs f the h rses with the empires, sh w m st distinctly the ntenable character f this view. Acc rding t b th these e p sit rs, the angel says n thing ab t t he chari t with the red h rses, beca se the Babyl nian empire had acc mplished i ts missi n t destr y the Assyrian empire. B t the Pers -Median empire had als acc mplished its missi n t destr y the Babyl nian, and theref re the team with the black h rses sh ld als have been left nn ticed in the e planati n. On the ther hand, Klief th asserts, and appeals t the participle in Zec_6:6 in support is assertion, that the chariot with the horses of the imperial monarchy of MedoPersia goes to the north country, viz., Mesopotamia, the seat of Babel, to conve y the judgment of God thither; that the judgment was at that very time in proces s of execution, and the chariot was going in the prophet s own day. But although the revolt of Babylon in the time of Darius, and its result, furnish an apparen t proof that the power of the Babylonian empire was not yet completely destroyed in Zechariah s time, this intimation cannot lie in the participle as expressing what is actually in process, for the simple reason that in that case the perfec ts which follow would necessarily affirm what had already taken place; and conseque y not only would the white horses, which went out behind the black, i.e., the ho rses of the imperial monarchy of Macedonia, have executed the judgment upon the Persian empire, but the speckled horses would have accomplished their mission al so, since the same is affirmed of both. The interchange of the participle with the fect does not point to any difference in the time at which the events occur, but

simply expresses a distinction in the idea. In the clause with the mission of the iot is expressed through the medium of the participle, according to its idea. Th e expression the black horses are going out is equivalent to, they are appointed to go out; whereas in the following clauses with the going out is expressed in the f f a fact, for which we should use the present. A still greater difficulty lies in the way of the interpretation of the colours of the horses as denoting the great empires, from the statement concerning the p laces to which the teams go forth. Kliefoth finds the reason why not only the bl ack horses (of the Medo-Persian monarchy), but also the white horses (of the Gra eco-Macedonian), go forth to the north country (Mesopotamia), but the latter aft er the former, in the fact that not only the Babylonian empire had its seat ther e, but the Medo-Persian empire also. But how does the going forth of the speckle d horses into the south country (Egypt) agree with this? If the fourth chariot a nswered to the fourth empire in Daniel, i.e., to the Roman empire, since this em pire executed the judgment upon the Graeco-Macedonian monarchy, this chariot mus t of necessity have gone forth to the seat of that monarchy. But that was not Eg ypt, the south country, but Central Asia or Babylon, where Alexander died in the midst of his endeavours to give a firm foundation to his monarchy. In order to explain the going out of the (fourth) chariot with the speckled horses into the south country, Hofmann inserts between the Graeco-Macedonian monarchy and the Ro man the empire of Antiochus Epiphanes as a small intermediate empire, which is i ndicated by the speckled horses, and thereby brings Zechariah into contradiction not only with Daniel s description of the empires, but also with the historical circumstances, according to which, as Kliefoth has already observed, Antiochus E piphanes and his power had not the importance of an imperial monarchy, but were merely an offshoot of another imperial monarchy, namely the Graeco-Macedonian. (Note: Kliefoth (Sach. p. 90) adds, by way of still further argument in support of the above: The way in which Antiochus Epiphanes is introduced in Daniel 8 is i n perfect accordance with these historical circumstances. The third monarchy, th e Graeco-Macedonian, represented as a he-goat, destroys the Medo-Persian empire; but its first great horn, Alexander, breaks off in the midst of its victorious career: four horns of kingdoms grow out of the Graeco-Macedonian, and one of the se offshoots of the Macedonian empire is Antiochus Epiphanes, the little horn, the bold and artful king. But Zechariah would no more agree with this descriptio n in Daniel than with the historical fulfilment, if he had intended the speckled horses to represent Antiochus Epiphanes. For whereas, like Daniel, he enumerate s four imperial monarchies, he makes the spotted horses appear not with the thir d chariot, but with the fourth, and expressly combines the spotted horses with t he powerful ones, which, even according to Hofmann, were intended to indicate th e Romans, and therefore unquestionably connects the spotted horses with the Roma n empire. If, then, he wished the spotted horses to be understood as referring t o Antiochus Epiphanes, he would represent Antiochus Epiphanes not as an offshoot of the third or Graeco-Macedonian monarchy, but as the first member of the four th or Roman, in direct contradiction to the book of Daniel and to the historical order of events.) Kliefoth s attempt to remove this difficulty is also a failure. Understanding by the spotted strong horses the Roman empire, he explains the separation of the s potted from the powerful horses in the angel s interpretation from the peculiar character of the imperial monarchy of Rome, - namely, that it will first of all appear as an actual and united empire, but will then break up into ten kingdoms, i.e., into a plurality of kingdoms embracing the whole earth, and finally pass over into the kingdom of Antichrist. Accordingly, the spotted horses go out firs t of all, and carry the spirit of wrath to the south country, Egypt, which comes into consideration as the kingdom of the Ptolemies, and as that most vigorous o ffshoot of the Graeco-Macedonian monarchy, which survived Antiochus Epiphanes hi mself. The powerful horses harnessed to the same chariot as the Roman horses go out after this, and wander over the whole earth. They are the divided kingdoms of Daniel springing out of the Roman empire, which are called the powerful ones, not only because they go over the whole earth, bu

t also because Antichrist with his kingdom springs out of them, to convey the ju dgments of God over the whole earth. But however skilful this interpretation is, it founders on the fact, that it fails to explain the going forth of the speckl ed horses into the land of the south in a manner corresponding to the object of the vision and the historical circumstances. If the vision represented the judgm ent, which falls upon the empires in such a manner that the one kingdom destroys or breaks up the other, the speckled horses, which are intended to represent th e actual and united Roman empire, would of necessity have gone out not merely in to the south country, but into the north country also, because the Roman empire conquered and destroyed not only the one offshoot of the Graeco-Macedonian empir e, but all the kingdoms that sprang out of that empire. Kliefoth has given no re ason for the exclusive reference to the southern branch of this imperial monarch y, nor can any reason be found. The kingdom of the Ptolemies neither broke up th e other kingdoms that sprang out of the monarchy of Alexander, nor received them into itself, so that it could be mentioned as pars pro toto, and it had no such importance in relation to the holy land and nation as that it could be referred to on that account. If the angel had simply wished to mention a vigorous offsho ot of the Graeco-Macedonian empire instead of mentioning the whole, he would cer tainly have fixed his eye upon the kingdom of the Seleucidae, which developed it self in Antiochus Epiphanes into a type of Antichrist, and have let the speckled horses also go to the north, i.e., to Syria. This could have been explained by referring to Daniel; but not their going forth to the south country from the fac t that the south country is mentioned in Dan_11:5, as Kliefoth supposes, inasmuc h as in this prophecy of Daniel not only the king of the south, but the king of the north is also mentioned, and that long-continued conflict between the two de scribed, which inflicted such grievous injury upon the holy land. To obtain a simple explanation of the vision, we must consider, above all things , that in all these visions the interpretations of the angel do not furnish a co mplete explanation of all the separate details of the vision, but simply hints a nd expositions of certain leading features, from which the meaning of the whole may be gathered. This is the case here. All the commentators have noticed the fact, that the stat ement in Zec_6:8 concerning the horses going forth into the north country, viz., that they carry the Spirit of Jehovah thither, also applies to the rest of the teams - namely, that they also carry the Spirit of Jehovah to the place to which they go forth. It is also admitted that the angel confines himself to interpreting single featu res by individualizing. This is the case here with regard to the two lands to wh ich the chariots go forth. The land of the north, i.e., the territory covered by the lands of the Euphrates and Tigris, and the land of the south, i.e., Egypt, are mentioned as the two principal seats of the power of the world in its hostil ity to Israel: Egypt on the one hand, and Asshur-Babel on the other, which were the principal foes of the people of God, not only before the captivity, but also afterwards, in the conflicts between Syria and Egypt for the possession of Pale stine (Daniel 11). If we observe this combination, the hypothesis that our vision depicts the fate of the four imperial monarchies, is deprived of all support. Two chariots go into the north country, which is one representative of the heath en world-power: viz., first of all the black horses, to carry famine thither, as one of the great plagues of God with which the ungodly are punished: a plague w hich is felt all the more painfully, in proportion to the luxury and excess in w hich men have previously lived. Then follow the white horses, indicating that the judgment will lead to complete victory over the power of the world.

Into the south country, i.e., to Egypt, the other representative of the heathen world-power, goes the chariot with the speckled horses, to carry the manifold j udgment of death by sword, famine, and pestilence, which is indicated by this co lour. After what has been said concerning the team that went forth into the north cou ntry, it follows as a matter of course that this judgment will also execute the will of the Lord, so that it is quite sufficient for a chariot to be mentioned.

On the other hand, it was evidently important to guard against the opinion that the judgment would only affect the two countries or kingdoms that are specially mentioned, and to give distinct prominence to the fact that they are only repres entatives of the heathen world, and that what is here announced applies to the w hole world that is at enmity against God. This is done through the explanation in Zec_6:7 concerning the going out of a fo urth team, to pass through the whole earth. This mission is not received by the red horses, but by the powerful ones, as the speckled horses are also called in the vision, to indicate that the manifold judgments indicated by the speckled ho rses will pass over the earth in all their force. The going forth of the red horses is not mentioned, simply because, according t o the analogy of what has been said concerning the other teams, there could be n o doubt about it, as the blood-red colour pointed clearly enough to the shedding of blood. The object of the going forth of the chariots is to let down the Spirit of Jehov ah upon the land in question. , to cause the Spirit of Jehovah to rest, i.e , is not identical with , to let out His wrath, in Eze_5:13; Eze_16:42; for lent to chemah, wrath or fury; but the Spirit of Jehovah is ruach mishpat (Isa_4:4), a spirit of judgment, which not only destroys what is ungodly, but also quickens and invigorates what is related to God. The vision does not set forth the destruction of the world-power, which is at en mity against God, but simply the judgment by which God purifies the sinful world , exterminates all that is ungodly, and renews it by His Spirit. It is also to be observed, that Zec_6:6 and Zec_6:7 are a continuation of the ad dress of the angel, and not an explanation given by the prophet of what has been said by the angel in Zec_6:5.

The construction in Zec_6:6 is anakolouthic, the horses being made the subject in ,instead of the chariot with black horses, because the significance of the char lay in the horses.

The object to in Zec_6:7 is the Lord of the whole earth in Zec_6:5, who causes ts to go forth; whereas in in Zec_6:8 it is the interpreting angel again.

By ,lit., he cried to him, i.e., called out to him with a loud voice, the contents the exclamation are held up as important to the interpretation of the whole.