Zec 9:8-9
Whilst the heathen world falls under the judgment of destruction, and the remnant of the heathen are converted to the living God, the Lord will protect His house, and cause the King to appear in Jerusalem, who will spread out His kingdom of peace over all the earth. Zec 9:8. “I pitch a tent for my house against military power, against those who go to and fro, and no oppressor will pass over them any more; for now have I seen with my eyes. Zec 9:9. Exult greatly, O daughter Zion; shout, daughter Jerusalem: behold, thy King will come to thee: just and endowed with salvation is He; lowly and riding upon an ass, and that upon a foal, the she-ass’s son. Zec 9:10. And I cut off the chariots out of Ephraim, and the horses out of Jerusalem, and the war-bow will be cut off: and peace will He speak to the nations; and His dominion goes from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth.” Chânâh, to encamp, to pitch a tent. לביתי, dat. commod. “for my house,” for the good of my house. The house of Jehovah is not the temple, but Israel as the kingdom of God or church of the Lord, as in Hos 8:1; Hos 9:15; Jer 12:7, and even Num 12:7, from which we may see that this meaning is not founded upon the temple, but upon the national constitution given to Israel, i.e., upon the idea of the house as a family. In the verse before us we cannot think of the temple, for the simple reason that the temple was not a military road for armies on the march either while it was standing, or, as Koehler supposes, when it was in ruins. מצּבה stands, according to the Masora, for מצּבא = מן־צבא, not however in the sense of without an army, but “on account of (against) a hostile troop,” protecting His house from them. But Böttcher, Koehler, and others, propose to follow the lxx and read מצּבה, military post, after 1Sa 14:12, which is the rendering given by C. B. Michaelis and Gesenius to מצּבה. But this does not apply to חנה, for a post (מצּבה, that which is set up) stands up, and does not lie down. מצּבה is more precisely defined by מעבר וּמשּׁב, as going through and returning, i.e., as an army marching to and fro (cf. Zec 7:14). There will come upon them no more (עליהם, ad sensum, referring to בּיתי) nōgēs, lit., a bailiff or taskmaster (Exo 3:7), then generally any oppressor of the nation. Such oppressors were Egypt, Asshur, Babel, and at the present time the imperial power of Persia. This promise is explained by the last clause: Now have I seen with mine eyes. The object is wanting, but it is implied in the context, viz., the oppression under which my nation sighs (cf. Exo 2:25; Exo 3:7). ‛Attâh (now) refers to the ideal present of the prophecy, really to the time when God interposes with His help; and the perfect ראיתי is prophetic.
God grants help to His people, by causing her King to come to the daughter Zion. To show the magnitude of this salvation, the Lord calls upon the daughter Zion, i.e., the personified population of Jerusalem as a representative of the nation of Israel, namely the believing members of the covenant nation, to rejoice. Through מלכּך, thy King, the coming one is described as the King appointed for Zion, and promised to the covenant nation. That the Messiah is intended, whose coming is predicted by Isaiah (Isa 9:5-6), Micah (Mic 5:1.), and other prophets, is admitted with very few exceptions by all the Jewish and Christian commentators. לך, not only to thee, but also for thy good. He is tsaddı̄q, righteous, i.e., not one who has right, or the good cause (Hitzig), nor merely one righteous in character, answering in all respects to the will of Jehovah (Koehler), but animated with righteousness, and maintaining in His government this first virtue of a ruler (cf. Isa 11:1-4; Jer 23:5-6; Jer 33:15-16, etc.). For He is also נושׁע, i.e., not σώζων, salvator, helper (lxx, Vulg., Luth.), since the niphal has not the active or transitive sense of the hiphil (מושׁיע), nor merely the passive σωζόμενος, salvatus, delivered from suffering; but the word is used in a more general sense, endowed with ישׁע, salvation, help from God, as in Deu 33:29; Psa 33:16, or furnished with the assistance of God requisite for carrying on His government. The next two predicates describe the character of His rule. עני does not mean gentle, πραΰ́ς (lxx and others) = ענו, but lowly, miserable, bowed down, full of suffering. The word denotes “the whole of the lowly, miserable, suffering condition, as it is elaborately depicted in Isa 53:1-12” (Hengstenberg). The next clause answers to this, “riding upon an ass, and indeed upon the foal of an ass.” The ו before על עיר is epexegetical (1Sa 17:40), describing the ass as a young animal, not yet ridden, but still running behind the she-asses. The youthfulness of the animal is brought out still more strongly by the expression added to עיר, viz., בּן־אתנות, i.e., a foal, such as asses are accustomed to bear (עתנות is the plural of the species, as in כּפיר אריות, Jdg 14:5; שׂעיר העזּים, Gen 37:31; Lev 4:23). “Riding upon an ass” is supposed by most of the more modern commentators to be a figurative emblem of the peacefulness of the king, that He will establish a government of peace, the ass being regarded as an animal of peace in contrast with the horse, because on account of its smaller strength, agility, and speed, it is less adapted for riding in the midst of fighting and slaughter than a horse. But, in the first place, this leaves the heightening of the idea of the ass by the expression “the young ass’s foal” quite unexplained. Is the unridden ass’s foal an emblem of peace in a higher degree than the full-grown ass, that has already been ridden?
And secondly, it is indeed correct that the ass was only used in war as the exception, not the rule, and when there were no horses to be had (cf. Bochart, Hieroz. i. p. 158, ed. Ros.); and also correct that in the East it is of a nobler breed, and not so despised as it is with us; but it is also a fact that in the East, and more especially among the Israelites, it was only in the earlier times, when they possessed no horses as yet, that distinguished persons rode upon asses (Jdg 5:10; Jdg 10:4; Jdg 12:14; 2Sa 17:23; 2Sa 19:27), whereas in the time of David the royal princes and kings kept mules for riding instead of asses (2Sa 13:29; 2Sa 18:9; 1Ki 1:33; 38:44); and from the time of Solomon downwards, when the breeding of horses was introduced, not another instance occurs of a royal person riding upon an ass, although asses and mules are still constantly used in the East for riding and as beasts of burden; and lastly, that in both the ancient and modern East the ass stands much lower than the horse, whilst in Egypt and other places (Damascus for example), Christians and Jews were, and to some extent still are, only allowed to ride upon asses, and not upon horses, for the purpose of putting them below the Mohammedans (for the proofs, see Hengstenberg’s Christology, iii. pp. 404-5). Consequently we must rest satisfied with this explanation, that in accordance with the predicate עני the riding of the King of Zion upon the foal of an ass is an emblem, not of peace, but of lowliness, as the Talmudists themselves interpreted it. “For the ass is not a more peaceful animal than the horse, but a more vicious one” (Kliefoth).