728x90
A Call to Return to the Lord
1 In the eighth month, ain the second year of Darius, the word of the Lord came to the prophet bZechariah, the son of cBerechiah, son of dIddo, saying, 2 e“The Lord was very angry with your fathers. 3 Therefore say to them, Thus declares the Lord of hosts: fReturn to me, says the Lord of hosts, and gI will return to you, says the Lord of hosts. 4 hDo not be like your fathers, ito whom the former prophets cried out, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, fReturn from your evil ways and from your evil deeds.’ But jthey did not hear or pay attention to me, declares the Lord. 5 Your fathers, where are they? And kthe prophets, do they live forever? 6 lBut my words and my statutes, which I commanded mmy servants the prophets, did they not novertake your fathers? So they repented and said, o‘As the Lord of hosts purposed to deal with us for pour ways and pdeeds, so has he dealt with us.’ ”

 The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2016), 슥 1:1–6.

1절) 다리오왕 2년 8월에 스가랴(잇도의 손자 베레갸의 아들)에게 여호와의 말씀이 임함. 앞서 학개는 6월에 여호와의 말씀을 받았는데 2달후 말씀이 스가랴에게 임한 것이다. 에스라 5-6장이 바로 학개와 스가랴의 활동시기임을 알 수 있다. 당시는 BC 520년에 해당하고 이제 바벨론 왕국이 쇠퇴하고 페르시아가 패권을 장악하는 시기였다. 스가랴의 이름의 뜻은 “여호와께서 기억하신다”이다. 이는 하나님과 백성사이의 신적 언약관계를 나타내는 말이다. 
- God gives the prophecies during the time covered in Ezra 5–6 (see Ezra 5:1 and 6:14).
 Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 1753.

- The phrase the prophet used, “the word of the Lord” (dĕbar—YHWH), occurs frequently in the Old Testament, and especially in the writing prophets, to assert divine authority.4 This expression typically functions as a technical term to claim divine revelation for a prophecy.5 The same phrase opens the books of Hosea, Joel, Jonah, Micah, Zephaniah, and Malachi. Similar phrasing begins the book of Haggai also. Occurring dozens of times in the prophets alone, the phrase usually appears either at the beginning and/or ending of most prophetic oracles, not just at the beginning of prophetic books. For instance, the expression occurs repeatedly in the book of Zechariah.6
4 The Hb. דְּבַר־יהוה emphasizes the Lord’s role in communicating his word to his messenger (see 1:7; 4:8; 6:9; 7:1, 4, 8; 8:1, 18). This term occurs over 150 times in the prophetic literature. For a thorough analysis of the phrase, see O. Grether, Name und Wort Gottes im Alten Testament (Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1934), 62–65. This formula is similar in meaning to the equally common prophetic expressions נְאֻם־יהוה (“a saying of the Lord”), and כֹּה אָמַר יהוה (“thus says the Lord”).
5 TDOT, 3:111.
6 Zech 1:1, 7; 4:6, 8; 6:9; 7:1, 4, 8; 8:1, 18; 9:1; 11:11; 12:1.
 George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 80.

다른 선지자들과는 달리 스가랴는 부모와 조부의 이름을 명시하고 있다. 이는 스가랴의 가문의 정통성을 강조하기 위한 것이다. 스가랴는 제사장 라인 사람이다. 
- Verse 1 also introduces the prophet who received the divine message, “Zechariah son of Berekiah, son of Iddo” (see 1:7). This brief genealogy personalizes Zechariah, giving more information about the prophet himself than any of the other minor prophets except for Zephaniah. Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Haggai offer no family information whatsoever. Hosea, Joel, and Jonah only mention the prophet’s father. By providing this additional information, Zechariah emphasized his continuity with the past and served to distinguish him from others who bore this popular name.
 George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 80.

스가랴에 대해서 신약에 예수님께서 그의 순교를 언급하시는데 이것을 해석하는데 여러가지 문제가 있다. 
- When one turns to the New Testament, a further complication regarding Zechariah’s lineage emerges after reading Jesus’ pronouncement of judgment on the Pharisees for “the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar” (Matt 23:35; see Luke 11:51). The only reference to the martyrdom of any priest named Zechariah in the Old Testament occurs in 2 Chr 24:20–22, speaking of “Zechariah son of Jehoiada.” Furthermore, the event narrated in 2 Chr 24 occurred c. 800 BC, precluding any identification with our prophet.15 While a definitive solution to the question is unavailable, commentators tend either to suggest that our prophet was ultimately martyred or that Isaiah’s associate, “Zechariah son of Jeberekiah” (Isa 8:2) is in view. The primary difficulty with both suggestions, however, is the absence of historical references to the martyrdom of either individual.
15 See J. Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 255.
 George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 83.

2절) 여호와께서 열조들에 대해서 심히 진노하셨다라고 선포한다. 본문은 설교형식으로 선포된다. 
-  Zechariah repeatedly referred back to earlier teachings in the Torah as well as other divine commands, and he freely employed exhortation to enjoin his hearers to repent and return to God. (See the helpful parallels in Deut 20:1–9; Josh 1:1–11; 2 Chr 15:1–7; 19:6–7; 20:15–17; 30:6–9; Jer 7:1–26.)19
19 M. A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, Vol. 2, Berit Olam (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), 570.
 George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 84.

하나님의 백성들은 하나님의 거룩하심을 경외하고 그분을 경배해야 한다. 스가랴는 지속적으로 신적인 분노를 표출한다. 
- Consequently, the people of God should fear God’s holiness and respond accordingly. While often implicit, the theme of divine anger reappears forcefully in the book of Zechariah, especially in 1:15 and 7:12.
 George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 84.

3-6절) 만군의 여호와께서 스가랴를 통해서 무리들에게 이렇게 증거하라고 명령하신다. “너희는 내게로 돌아오라. 나 만군의 여호와의 말이니라. 그리하면 내가 너희에게로 돌아가리라 나 만군의 여호와의 말이니라 또한 너희 열조, 조상을 볻받지 말아라. 왜냐하면 옛적 선지자들을 통해서 그들에게 너희는 악한 길, 악한 행실을 떠나서 여호와께로 돌아오라는 여호와의 말씀을 전했지만 그들이 듣지 않고 귀기울이지 않았기 때문이다. 너희 열조가 어디 있느냐? 선지자들이 영원히 살겠느냐? 그러나 내가 선지자들을 통해서 너희에게 전한 나의 말과 전례들이 너희에게 임하지 않았느냐? 그러므로 너희가 ‘만군의 여호와께서 우리의 길과 행위대로 우리를 벌하려고, 다루시려고 생각하셨던 것을 행하셨다’라고 후회하며 말했다”
지속적으로 스가랴가 요청하는 것은 악할 길과 행위로부터 돌아서라는 것이다. 

- It is important to recognize that Zechariah’s message rests solidly upon covenantal language and concepts. To turn from the Lord means breaking covenant with him by turning toward “evil ways” and “evil practices” (1:4).27 The covenantal terms “word” (dābār) and “statute” (ḥōq) in 1:6 further underscore the covenantal tone of the sermon.28 Hence, for Israel to forsake the Lord represents treason. How could the people expect God to keep his covenant while they deliberately violate the covenant themselves?
The people’s repentance (šûb) in 1:6b refers to the preexilic fathers who repented, albeit too late to avoid God’s judgment. Verse 6 does not contradict 1:4, even though v. 6 indicates that Judah did repent, while v. 4 suggests that they did not.29 Ezra 9:1–10:17 and Dan 9:1–19 describe the people’s remorse for their sins after it was too late to avert the Babylonian exile. In typical Old Testament fashion, the prophet drew from history to make his theological point. Zechariah’s contemporaries had an opportunity to learn from their forefathers’ wayward paths, and in so doing, to insure God’s future blessings on their lives.

27 See Holladay, Root šûbh, 141.
28 These terms דָּבָר (HALOT, 211–12) and חֹק (HALOT, 346–47), respectively, occur in the following covenant texts: Deut 4:1–2; 17:19; 27:8–10. See E. H. Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 96.
29 The emendation in BHS of אֶתְכֶם (“you”) for אֲבֹתֵיכֶם (“your fathers”) that is advocated in order to avoid the putative contradiction is unfounded and unnecessary.
 George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 86.

결국 하나님의 진노는 이스라엘의 회복의 기초가 된다. 주님의 사랑이, 죄에 대한 그분의 분노가 이들에게 희망이 되는 것이다. 
- If the hortatory tone, the reminder of judgment and reference to the anger of the Lord appear to be an inappropriate way to encourage a downcast people and spur them to action, the purpose is to provide solid ground for the promises to come.32
The future appears bright, but the prophet offers no unbridled optimism. A promising future rests on the people’s willingness to humble themselves before the Lord in submission to his covenant and its holy demands. The profound promise of v. 3, “Return to me … and I will return to you,” takes on even greater significance in light of the Lord’s holiness and his covenantal promises to Judah.
Zechariah’s sermon found deep roots in Israel’s historical experiences. The exile in 587 BC fulfilled the message of the prophets regarding the judgment and deportation of Judah. God remained faithful to his covenant, offering mercy on precisely the same grounds of divine grace and mercy that he had extended to their forefathers. Whether during the days of Jeremiah or Zechariah, restoration and security came hand in hand with repentance and holiness.

32 Baldwin, Zechariah, 87.
 George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 87.

열조와 선지자들은 반드시 죽는다. 하지만 하나님의 말씀은 살아있다. 그 말씀은 덜어지지 아니하고 반드시 다 이룰 것이다. 
- Christ is a prophet that lives for ever, but all other prophets have a period put to their office. Note, Ministers are dying men, and live not for ever in this world. They are to look upon themselves as such, and to preach accordingly, as those that must be silenced shortly, and know not which sermon may be the last. People are to look upon them as such, and to hear accordingly, as those that yet a little while have the light with them, that they may walk and work while they have the light.
 Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 1568.


저작자표시

'성경묵상 > 스가랴' 카테고리의 다른 글

슥 2:6-13 그 날에  (0) 2017.02.08
슥 2:1-5 세번째 환상 : 우리의 불성곽이 되시는 하나님  (0) 2017.02.03
슥 1:18-21 두번째 환상 : 네뿔과 네명의 대장장이 환상  (0) 2017.02.02
슥 1:7-17 첫번째 환상 : 붉은 말을 타고 화석류 나무 사이에 선 자  (0) 2017.01.31
스가랴(서론)  (0) 2017.01.23
728x90
The Command to Rebuild the Temple
1 aIn the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, on the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came by the hand of Haggai the prophet to bZerubbabel the son of cShealtiel, governor of Judah, and to dJoshua the son of eJehozadak, the high priest: 2 “Thus says the Lord of hosts: These people say the time has not yet come to rebuild the house of the Lord.”

a ver. 15; ch. 2:10; Ezra 4:24; 5:1; Zech. 1:1, 7
b See 1 Chr. 3:19
c See 1 Chr. 3:17
d See Ezra 3:2
e 1 Chr. 6:15
 The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2016), 학 1:1–2.


1절) 선지서의 첫 시작은 매우 중요한 정보를 우리에게 제공한다. 첫번째는 이 시기에 대한 정치, 역사적인 정보이고 두번째는 이 여호와의 말씀을 증거하는 사람이 누구인지, 세번째는 이 메시지를 일차적으로 받는 수신자가 누구인지, 공식적인 직함이 무엇인지를 제공한다. 
- First, there is a date that enables us to situate the message within the political history of the period. Second, the prophet is identified as the bearer of a message from the Lord. And third, the primary recipients of the message are identified by name, family descent, and official position.
 Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 102.
1) 시기 : 다리오왕 2년 6월 초하루. 이는 기원전 520년 8월 29일로 추정된다. 
- The Darius of Hag 1:1 is Darius I Hystaspes, who ruled over Persia from 522 to 486 B.C. He ascended the throne of Persia after the death of Cambyses and was still relatively new to royal power when Haggai commenced the prophetic ministry described in this book. At that time Darius had been in power for only a couple of years, just long enough to have begun to settle in to what would be for him a lengthy rule over the mighty and far-flung Persian empire.
 Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 103.

구약의 선지서들은 그들의 역사를 기술할때 이스라엘의 왕, 몇년이라고 기술한다. 하지만 이 시기는 남, 북왕국이 멸망하여 이스라엘에 왕이 없었던 시기이므로 역사적인 기술을 위해 이방의 왕을 기술할 수 밖에 없었다. 
- Old Testament prophets typically related their historical circumstances to a particular king of Israel or, in some cases, to multiple Israelite kings. The Book of Isaiah, for example, is situated in the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah (Isa 1:1). The Book of Jeremiah links its events to the days of the Judean king Josiah and his son Jehoiakim (Jer 1:2–3). The Book of Ezekiel begins with a reference to the exile of Judah’s king Jehoiachin (Ezek 1:2). The Book of Daniel refers to the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah (Dan 1:1). Several of the Minor Prophets also have similar chronological notices at their beginning (e.g., Hos 1:1; Amos 1:1; Mic 1:1; Zeph 1:1).
Contrary to this convention, neither Haggai nor Zechariah relates their events to a king of Judah. The reason for this departure from the earlier norm is very simple. The Babylonian captivity had effectively brought an end to the Israelite monarchy. By the time of the events described in Haggai and Zechariah, the people of Israel had been without a king of their own for six decades and more. It was therefore necessary for these postexilic prophets to relate the events they describe to the only king Israel knew at that moment in history—a Persian king. This dating scheme implicitly calls attention to the fact that since Israel was without a king of her own, her national life must sadly be defined in terms of subservience to a foreign, and in fact a pagan, king. The degree to which the population of Judah was able to chart its own course for the future had significant restrictions imposed from the outside.

또한 분문의 구체적인 시기 또한 당시 사용하던 달력 시스템이 바뀌었다는 것을 이해할 필요가 있다. 포로기 이전에는 가을에 새로운 해가 시작했다면 포로기 이후에는 바벨론 달력 시스템을 차용해서 봄에 새로운 해가 시작된다. 그레서 이 유월(엘룰월)은 여름, 즉 기원전 520년 8월 29일에 해당한다. 
- This reference to month is complicated by the fact that at different times ancient Israel used different calendrical systems. Before the exile the Israelites had used a calendar marking the beginning of the new year in the fall. But during and after the exile Israel adopted the Babylonian calendar, with the new year beginning in the spring. It is this latter system that is reflected in Haggai’s usage. The sixth month (i.e., Elul) was therefore toward the end of summer.10 In terms of modern reckoning the date in v. 1 corresponds to August 29, 520 B.C.11
10 See the discussion in J. Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964), §§65–81.
11 As pointed out earlier in the introduction, for the conversion of ancient dates to their modern equivalents I am indebted to R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology, 626 b.c.–a.d. 75, Brown University Studies 19 (Providence: Brown University Press, 1956).
 Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 105.
 Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 104–105.

유대인들에게 매달 첫째날은 하나님께 특별한 제물을 드리는 날이다. 민 10:10에 초하루에는 번제물과 화목제물을 드릴 것을 명했다. 그러나 이시기에 도리어 여호와의 전은 폐허가 되어 있기에 하나님께 예물을 드리고 예배를 드리는 행위는 그쳤다. 
- That the first day of the month was the occasion of Haggai’s message is of interest in that according to Torah the first of every month was a time for special offerings to the Lord (cf. Num 28:11–15). As such it was to be a time of celebration and rejoicing (Num 10:10). But with the temple lying in ruins, there was no way properly to observe these festive occasions as had been done less than a century before. It may be that by delivering his message on this first day of the month Haggai intended the very timing of his message to call attention to the spiritual dilemma that confronted his people.
 Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 105.

학개의 특징은 또한 매우 구체적인 날자를 기록하고 있다는 것이다. 이는 먼저 사건의 사실성을 강조하는 것이고 또한 선지자의 메시지의 신뢰성을 보장해주는 역할을 한다. 

- The specificity with which these dates are given in Haggai serves two purposes. First, it underscores the factuality of the events that are described, situating them within a verifiable historical context. Second, it lends credibility to the predictive portions of the prophet’s message, since his accuracy on past allusions can be readily established.15
15 See further P. A. Verhoef, “Notes on the Dates in the Book of Haggai,” in Text and Context: Old Testament and Semitic Studies for F. C. Fensham (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), 263–64.
 Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 106.

2) 메시지의 기원이 여호와께로 말미암았음을 알려준다. 사람을 통해서 여호와의 말씀이 전달되지만 이것이 사람으로부터 기인한 것이 아님을, 하나님께롤 부터 온 것임을 강조한다. 또한 1절은 이 신적 말씀이 선지자를 통해서 하나님의 백성에게 전달되고 있음을 강조한다. 본문에 학개로 말미암아라는 단어는 by the hand of Haggai인데 through의 의미가 크다. 일반적으로 선지자들이 말씀을 받는다고 할때 본문처럼 말씀을 전달하는 통로로서 강조할 것인지, 아니면 말씀을 받는 자로서 강조할 것인지에 따라 표현이 달라진다. 이것의 의미는 단지 이 말씀을 거부한다는 것이 사람의 말을 거부하는 것이 아니라 하나님을 거부한 것이 된다는 것이다. 
- This statement calls attention to two equally important features of Haggai’s message.16 First, it underscores the divine origin of his message, claiming for it revelatory status. Though conveyed by a human spokesman, the message did not originate with that messenger. It is a message whose importance derived from its suprahuman and divine nature. It is “the word of the Lord” (dĕbar YHWH). Thus from the start of this book the prophet stresses the notion that through his message it is ultimately the Lord who speaks. This is a theme to which Haggai will repeatedly return in the remainder of this book. The prophetic word as divine revelation is an essential part of the theology of this book; it is a component of Haggai’s thought that is emphasized over and over.17 Second, the expression in v. 1 links this divine word to the human messenger who delivered it to the Lord’s people. It is a message that came “through” (bĕyad, lit. “by the hand of”) Haggai.18 The more familiar expression for describing prophetic reception of a divine message speaks of the word of the Lord coming “to” (ʾel) the prophet rather than “through” (bĕyad) him.19 This expression appears in Hag 2:10, 20, for example. There is a slight distinction of meaning in the two phrases. The expression hāyâ bĕyad (“it was by the hand of”) directs attention to the transmission of the message to the audience for whom it was intended, while hāyâ ʾel (“it was to”) focuses on the prophet’s reception of the divine oracle. In the former instance the emphasis is on the prophet’s role as intermediate agent through whom the divine message was communicated to a third party, whereas in the latter instance the emphasis is on the prophet’s role as chosen recipient of the divine message.20 In v. 1 it is the former construction that appears.
16 In 1:1 the LXX includes the words λέγων Εἰπόν (“saying, Say”), thus treating the following portion of v. 1 as part of the direct discourse rather than, as in the MT, a narrative identification of the intended recipients of the divine word that was mediated by Haggai. This addition in the Gk. text probably is due to harmonization with Hag 2:1–2, where we find in the MT the words לֵאמֹר אֱמָר־נָא (“saying, Say”). The reading of the MT is preferable here.
17 See further on this point the discussion of Haggai’s theology found in the Introduction.
18 Cf. Hag 1:3; 2:1; Mal 1:1. The phrase is also employed frequently throughout the OT in expressions other than those that describe reception of divine revelation. R. L. Smith’s comment is therefore not accurate as it stands: “This construction ‘by the hand of …’ is rare in the prophets. It is found only in Hag 1:1, 3; 2:1; and Mal 1:1” (“Haggai,” in Micah–Malachi, WBC [Waco: Word, 1984], 152). On the contrary, the expression appears often in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel; it occurs occasionally in certain other prophetic writings as well.
19 See, e.g., Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1; Jonah 1:1; Mic 1:1; Zeph 1:1; Zech 1:1.
20 This distinction, however, should not be rigidly pressed. Hag 2:1 has בְּיַד where we might have expected אֶל instead. Kessler attributes the exception to the work of a redactor who was inconsistent with the practice followed elsewhere in Haggai. M. McEntire insists on a distinction between the expressions here and understands the author to be signaling disruption in the narrative. But whether the variation is a reflection of intentional narrative strategy, as McEntire suggests, or whether the distinction between the expressions has simply blurred is not easy to say. The latter seems more likely (see McEntire, “Haggai—Bringing God into the Picture,” RevExp 97 [2000]: 70, 72; Kessler, The Book of Haggai, 117.
 Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 107.

3) 메시지의 수신자는 스알디엘의 아들 유다총독 스룹바벨과 여호사닥의 아들 대제사장 여호수아이다. 스룹바벨은 정치 권력을 대표하고, 여호수아는 종교권력을 대표한다. 여호와의 전을 건축하기 위해서 위 사람들에게 반드시 여호와의 말씀이 전달되어야 했다. 
- The first is Zerubbabel, who represented political power as the Persian-appointed governor over Judah, and the second is Joshua, who represented religious authority as the duly appointed high priest. Five times these two names appear together in Haggai (1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 4), always in the same order. This suggests a diarchic form of rule in which civil and religious leadership were merged in the governing body. The consistent listing of Zerubbabel first hints at his primacy in this arrangement.
 Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 108.
스룹바벨(바벨론의 씨)은 스알디엘(내가 여호와께 물었다)의 아들로 이름의 의미를 볼때 포로기에 잡혀 간 상황에서 출생했을 것이다. 
- It is Zerubbabel who is first singled out. Not all of the biblical details concerning the family relationships of Zerubbabel are equally clear. The probable meaning of his name (i.e., “seed of Babylon”)22 suggests that he was born in the captivity. The name may also hint at the extent to which the Jewish community of the exile had accepted its Babylonian environment.23 Zerubbabel is described here as the “son of Shealtiel.”24 Unlike the name Zerubbabel, Shealtiel reflects a northwest Semitic environment. In Hebrew the name means “I have asked God.” It is presumably an allusion to parental prayer for the birth of a child. The name may be an indication that Zerubbabel’s father had been born before the exile, since during the exile west Semitic influences in names probably gave way to Babylonian influences.25
Shealtiel was an older son of the Judean king Jehoiachin, according to 1 Chr 3:17. The Chronicler presents Zerubbabel’s genealogy in terms slightly different from those found in Haggai. According to 1 Chr 3:19, Zerubbabel’s father was not Shealtiel but Pedaiah, who was a younger son of Jehoiachin (1 Chr 3:17). This would seem to imply that Shealtiel was actually Zerubbabel’s uncle, not his father. How is this discrepancy to be accounted for? We can only conjecture. Suggestions that the problem is due to textual error in the MT are not convincing.26 It may be that in keeping with the law of Levirite marriage (Deut 25:5–6) Pedaiah had married Shealtiel’s widow, in which case a male child born to that relationship could properly be called the son of the presumably deceased Shealtiel. This proposal would seem to be an adequate explanation for the problem,27 although it must be stressed that it goes beyond the silence of the biblical passages in the matter.
Another problem concerns the relationship of Zerubbabel to Sheshbazzar, who is mentioned in the Book of Ezra as among the Jews who returned from Babylon to Judah and who was appointed governor by Cyrus (Ezra 1:8, 11; 5:14, 16).28 The details of the biblical material in this regard are difficult to sort out. The traditional view, which is at least as old as Josephus,29 is that Zerubbabel and Shesbazzar are different names for the same individual. The view held by most modern scholars, however, is that they are two different individuals.30 In that case Sheshbazzar was responsible for starting the work on the foundations of the temple, while Zerubbabel at a later time was responsible for bringing the work to completion (cf. Ezra 3:8–10; 5:16).

22 See BDB, 279; HALOT, 279. The name Zerubbabel is probably a Hb. adaptation of the Akk. zēr bābili.
23 So, e.g., J. A. Soggin, Introduction to the Old Testament, from Its Origins to the Closing of the Alexandrian Canon, rev. ed., OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), 325.
24 Cf. Hag 1:12, 14; 2:2, 23; Ezra 3:2, 8; Neh 12:1; Matt 1:12; Luke 3:27.
25 So C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 10.
MT Masoretic Text
26 The LXX of 1 Chr 3:19 has Shealtiel rather than Pedaiah as the father of Zerubbabel. But this is the easier reading text-critically and is likely due to scribal harmonization.
27 For a fuller discussion of this view see C. F. Keil, Minor Prophets, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 175–76. It is an interpretation that has been adopted by a number of modern commentators, although Meyers and Meyers regard it as an unconvincing attempt at harmonization (see Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 10).
28 A further complication is Sheshbazzar’s relationship to Shenazzar of 1 Chr 3:18. Is this one individual referred to by two different names, or are these two separate individuals? Most probably, they are separate individuals. See, e.g., S. Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel—Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah,” ZAW 94 (1982): 95–96; L. L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 76. But some scholars equate the two. See, e.g., E. Stern, “The Persian Empire and the Political and Social History of Palestine in the Persian Period,” in Introduction: The Persian Period, CHJ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 70; J. Bright, A History of Israel, 3d ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 362.
29 See Josephus, Ant. 11.13.
30 For a summary of the issues see J. Lust, “The Identification of Zerubbabel with Sheshbassar,” ETL 63 (1987): 90–95; J. S. Wright, The Building of the Second Temple (London: Tyndale, n.d.), esp. pp. 10–12; Japhet, “Sheshbezzar and Zerubbabel,” 90–94. Lust concludes that Zerubbabel is to be identified with Sheshbazzar, while Wright maintains that Sheshbazzar (to be equated with Shenazzar of 1 Chr 3:18) was the uncle of Zerubbabel. Japhet sees the two as separate individuals. T. André also discusses the issue at some length, concluding that Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar should be viewed as separate individuals (Le prophète Aggée: Introduction critique et commentaire [Paris: Librairie Fischbacher, 1895], 48–63).
 Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 108–110.


2절) 여호와의 전은 성전으로서의 그리스도, 성전으로서의 교회 그리고 새 예루살렘에 거하시는 하나님으로 그분의 존재를 형상화 하고 이를 기대한다. 
- The house of the Lord symbolizes his presence and looks forward to Christ as temple (John 1:14; 2:19–21), the church as temple (1 Cor. 3:16; Eph. 2:20–22), and the dwelling of God in the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:3; 21:22–22:5).
 Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 1744.

The Lord of Hosts: Frequency and Use in the OT
Why does the title “Lord of hosts” appear more frequently in Malachi than in any other OT book, and in the time of prophetic books more than during other time periods? In the period of Isaiah, the northern kingdom was overrun and destroyed and the southern kingdom almost destroyed by the “hosts” (armies) of Assyria. God’s people had so few troops that the Assyrian King Sennacherib could mockingly challenge King Hezekiah with the offer of a gift of 2,000 horses if Hezekiah could find enough soldiers to ride them (Isa. 36:8). Similarly, in the period of Jeremiah, the southern kingdom was wiped out by the hosts (armies) of Babylon.
In the postexilic period of Malachi, the postage-stamp-sized Judah, as a tiny province within the vast Persian Empire, had no army of its own. It is precisely in such times, when God’s people are painfully aware of how limited their own resources are, that there is no greater comfort than the fact that the Lord has his invincible heavenly armies standing at the ready. It is like the comfort that Elisha prayed for his servant at Dothan when they were surrounded by the Syrian armies: “ ‘O Lord, please open his eyes that he may see.’ So the Lord opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw, and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha” (2 Kings 6:17). Perhaps it is like the comfort felt by Jesus before the cross: “Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matt. 26:53).
The following chart shows the percentages of verses in a book containing at least one occurrence of the phrase, “Lord of hosts” (or related variation):
1. Malachi (43.6%)
2. Haggai (31.6%)
3. Zechariah (21.8%)
4. Amos (6.1%)
5. Jeremiah (5.9%)
6. Isaiah (4.7%)
7. Nahum (4.3%)
8. Zephaniah (3.8%)
9. Habakkuk (1.8%)
10. Micah (1.0%)
11. 2 Samuel (0.9%)
12. Psalms (0.7%)
13. 1 Samuel (0.6%)
14. Hosea (0.5%)
15. 1 Kings (0.4%)
16. 1 Chronicles (0.3%)
17. 2 Kings (0.3%)
 Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 1776.

본문에서 이스라엘 백성을 내 백성이 아니라 이 백성이라고 지칭한다. 이것은 지금 하나님과 이스라엘 백성들 사이의 거리감을 나타낸다. 
- Following the introduction to the Lord’s words in v. 2, we expect to find his initial instructions through Haggai to the people. Instead, v. 2 abruptly continues with a citation of what the people were saying in defense of their actions.49 The Lord’s remarks begin with the expression “these people” (hāʿām hazzeh).50 There is a notion of contempt and disparagement in the words. The Lord does not refer to them as “my people,” although in light of earlier covenantal promises extended to their ancestors he might have done so. Instead he calls them “this people.” The personal pronoun “my,” which might have brought a measure of reassurance to the people in the midst of their hardships, is replaced by the cold and detached demonstrative pronoun “this” (cf. Isa 6:9, 10). The word signals at the outset of this message that something was wrong in the relationship between the Lord and the inhabitants of Judah.
49 More than a century ago this problem was noticed by A. P. Sym, who concluded that a dislocation of part of Haggai’s message had occurred (“A Textual Study in Zechariah and Haggai,” ExpTim 7 [1895–1896]: 257–60, 317–21). According to Sym most of Zech 4:6–10 actually belongs after Hag 1:2, since it fits here better than it does in Zechariah. The reasons advanced for this view, however, are not compelling, and there is no external evidence that supports such a conclusion. That there is an awkwardness to this pericope in Haggai is clear; that the solution to the problem lies in shifting Zech 4:6–10 to a position following Hag 1:2 seems unlikely.
50 The Hb. expression is singular, “this people,” but English translators often prefer to render this collective singular as a plural, “these people” (so NIV, ESV, NRSV, Tanak, NET Bible).
 Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 115.
백성들의 변명은 자신들이 성전 건축에 관심이 없거나 그것을 안하겠다는 것이 아니라 그 때가 이르지 아니했다라는 것이다. 적합한 때가 아니기에 성전을 재건하지 않는 것이라고 핑계대고 있는 것이다. 

- In this section Haggai repeatedly pictures the temple as a house (bêt) in which the Lord resides. The choice of terms is significant. In biblical language the description of the temple as God’s house suggests a roofed building equipped with furniture suitable to its function as a dwelling place for the deity. The temple perceived as a house differs in Old Testament thought from an altar, which could stand in the open by itself and which functioned not as a dwelling for the deity but as a place of sacrifice.53 This notion of the temple as the house of God is thus important for understanding the urgency Haggai attaches to this structure. To leave the Lord’s dwelling in a state of disrepair was to show disrespect to its occupant.
53 On this distinction see further M. Haran, “Temples and Cultic Open Areas as Reflected in the Bible,” in Temples and High Places in Biblical Times: Proceedings of the Colloquium in Honor of the Centennial of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Jerusalem, 14–16 March 1977 (Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1981), 31–37.
 Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 116.


저작자표시

'성경묵상 > 학개' 카테고리의 다른 글

학 2:1-9 장래 임할 성전의 영광  (0) 2017.01.17
학 1:12-15 우리의 마음을 흥분시키시는 하나님  (0) 2017.01.16
학 1:7-11 무엇을 위해서 달리는가?  (0) 2017.01.12
학 1:3-6 황무한 집에 거하시는 하나님  (0) 2017.01.11
학개(개요)  (0) 2017.01.09

+ Recent posts

티스토리툴바