728x90
Zerubbabel Chosen as a Signet
20 The word of the Lord came a second time to Haggai fon the twenty-fourth day of the month, 21 “Speak to jZerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, kI am about to shake the heavens and the earth, 22 and lto overthrow the throne of kingdoms. I am about to destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the nations, and moverthrow the chariots and their riders. And the horses and their riders shall go down, nevery one by the sword of his brother. 23 On that day, declares the Lord of hosts, I will take you, O jZerubbabel omy servant, the son of pShealtiel, declares the Lord, and make you qlike a3 signet ring, ofor I have chosen you, declares the Lord of hosts.”
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2016), 학 2:20–23.
20 The word of the Lord came a second time to Haggai fon the twenty-fourth day of the month, 21 “Speak to jZerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, kI am about to shake the heavens and the earth, 22 and lto overthrow the throne of kingdoms. I am about to destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the nations, and moverthrow the chariots and their riders. And the horses and their riders shall go down, nevery one by the sword of his brother. 23 On that day, declares the Lord of hosts, I will take you, O jZerubbabel omy servant, the son of pShealtiel, declares the Lord, and make you qlike a3 signet ring, ofor I have chosen you, declares the Lord of hosts.”
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2016), 학 2:20–23.
20절) 그달(9월) 24일 여호와의 말씀이 다시 학개에게 임함.
-As in 2:10, the Lord’s word is said to come “to” (ʾel) Haggai rather than “by the hand of” (bĕyad) Haggai (cf. 1:3; 2:1). As noted earlier, the difference in meaning between the two expressions is slight. The preposition ʾel portrays Haggai as a passive recipient of divine revelation, while bĕyad shifts attention to the prophet as an active agent in the communication of that message. But the important thing is that it is the Lord’s message. Haggai is simply a chosen messenger.
Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 192.
Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 192.
21-22절) 유다 총독 스룹바벨에게 여호와 하나님으로부터의 임박한 심판을 고하심. 하늘과 땅을 진동시키시고 열국의 보좌를 엎고 열방의 세력을 멸하심. 그 병거들과 그 탄 자들을 엎드러뜨림으로 말과 그 탄자가 각각 그 동무의 칼에 엎드러지게 될 것을 선포하심. 본문의 임박한 하나님의 심판에 대한 경고는 출애굽의 상황을 연상케 한다. 본문은 여호와 하나님이 주체로 이 심판을 행할 것임을 거듭 강조하고 있다.
- The first person verbs in v. 22 speak of violence that originates not in fortuitous events of nature but with intentional divine decisions. The repeated use of the first person is vivid: “I will overturn,” “I will shatter,” “I will overthrow.” The sovereign Lord credits himself with the foreboding acts of judgment described here. Such language calls to mind certain prior Old Testament scenes that provide the poetic imagery and visual backdrop for this oracle.7 In Gen 19:25 the Lord “overthrew” (same verb as “overturn” here) Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding plain (cf. Isa 13:19; Jer 20:16; Amos 4:11; Deut 29:23). The Song of Moses speaks of Pharaoh’s horses and riders, along with his chariots and army, being hurled into the sea as a result of the Lord’s decisive intervention at the time of the exodus (Exod 15:1, 4, 19, 21). Haggai also speaks of the overthrow of royal thrones, the shattering of the power of foreign kingdoms,8 and the overthrow of chariots and their drivers. The similarity of language is not coincidental.
7 Haggai’s language may also reflect here, as D. L. Petersen (following Sauer) suggests, some allusion to the judgmental language of national destruction as found in Psalms 2 and 110 (Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary, OTL [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984], 100).
8 The second colon of 2:22 seems a bit overloaded due to the two genitives dependent on חֹזֶק (“strength”). The NIV translates the clause “[I will] shatter the power of the foreign kingdoms.” A more literal translation is, “And I will destroy the power of the kingdoms of the nations.” Some scholars regard מַמְלְכוֹת (“kingdoms”), which also occurs just three words earlier, as a gloss that may have originated as a variant to the word הַגּוֹיִם (“the nations”). But there is no MSS evidence to support this view. In spite of the awkwardness of the phrase, it seems best to retain מַמְלְכוֹת as in the MT. The twofold occurrence of מֱמְלְכוֹת (“kingdoms”) may in fact serve a purpose. C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers have suggested that a subtle distinction may be intended in this use of similar phraseology: “ ‘Throne of kingdoms’ may refer to the ruler or dynast controlling all the kingdoms composing the empire, with ‘foreign kingdoms’ (literally, ‘kingdoms of nations’) representing the constituent polities” (Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB [New York: Doubleday, 1987], 67).
Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 193–194.
7 Haggai’s language may also reflect here, as D. L. Petersen (following Sauer) suggests, some allusion to the judgmental language of national destruction as found in Psalms 2 and 110 (Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary, OTL [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984], 100).
8 The second colon of 2:22 seems a bit overloaded due to the two genitives dependent on חֹזֶק (“strength”). The NIV translates the clause “[I will] shatter the power of the foreign kingdoms.” A more literal translation is, “And I will destroy the power of the kingdoms of the nations.” Some scholars regard מַמְלְכוֹת (“kingdoms”), which also occurs just three words earlier, as a gloss that may have originated as a variant to the word הַגּוֹיִם (“the nations”). But there is no MSS evidence to support this view. In spite of the awkwardness of the phrase, it seems best to retain מַמְלְכוֹת as in the MT. The twofold occurrence of מֱמְלְכוֹת (“kingdoms”) may in fact serve a purpose. C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers have suggested that a subtle distinction may be intended in this use of similar phraseology: “ ‘Throne of kingdoms’ may refer to the ruler or dynast controlling all the kingdoms composing the empire, with ‘foreign kingdoms’ (literally, ‘kingdoms of nations’) representing the constituent polities” (Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB [New York: Doubleday, 1987], 67).
Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 193–194.
23절) 그날에 만군의 여호와께서 스알디엘의 아들 스룹바벨에게 말씀하신다. 내 종이라고 부르시며 내가 너를 취하고 너로 인장 반지를 삼으리니 이는 내가 너를 택하였음이다라고 말씀하심. 하나님의 주권적인 선택을 매우 강력하게 표현하고 있다.
- Zerubbabel is singled out as a key player not only in the reconstruction of the temple but also in the anticipated future of the Davidic kingdom. The mention of a historical figure by name in an eschatological setting is unusual,18 although certain references to David elsewhere in the Old Testament may have some similarity to this reference to Zerubbabel.19 The setting of v. 23 is established by the phrase bayyôm hahûʾ (“on that day”). This phrase is frequently used with an eschatological nuance in Old Testament prophetic literature.20
The language of v. 23 is characterized by terminology emphasizing unilateral divine selection, such as “I will take you,” “my servant,” and “I have chosen you.” The piling up of such language in a short space signals that unusual events are being described. The Hebrew verb lāqaḥ (“to take”) often has a very general sense, but here it is used with the specific nuance of selecting or choosing, a usage that is attested elsewhere for this verb.21 The language of v. 23 is similar to that of 1 Kgs 11:37, where the Lord addresses the following words to Jeroboam: “However, as for you, I will take you [wʾōtĕkā ʾeqqaḥ], and you will rule over all that your heart desires; you will be king over Israel.” The Lord will “take” (ʾeqqāḥăkā) Zerubbabel in the sense that he has chosen him for a unique role in connection with the momentous events described in this passage.
The term ʿabdî (“my servant”), which occurs in v. 23, is common in the Hebrew Bible. It is often used of those whom the Lord has appointed to a particular task, whether from among his people or the pagan nations.22 But ʿabdî is especially used as a designation of David as king, either in reference to the historical person of David or an eschatological figure who will be David-like.
18 Meyers and Meyers regard this phenomenon as unique, constituting “the only case in the Hebrew Bible in which an eschatological prophecy is focused upon a known historical figure” (Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 15, 68). See also S. Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel—Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah,” ZAW 94 (1982): 77.
19 See, e.g., Hos 3:5, where the expression “David their king” has in view not David specifically but a descendant in the Davidic line. Cf. Jer 30:9; Ezek 34:23–24.
20 The expression בַּיּוֹמ הַהוּא occurs more than two hundred times in the Hb. Bible, often in an eschatological sense. Among the prophets Isaiah is especially fond of this expression, using it some forty-five times. Jeremiah uses this expression ten times; Ezekiel thirteen times; Hosea four times; Joel once; Amos five times; Obadiah once; Micah three times; Zephaniah four times; Zechariah twenty-two times.
21 See, e.g., Deut 1:15, 23; 4:20, 34; Josh 3:12; 4:2; 1 Kgs 11:37.
22 The phrase “my servant” is used, e.g., of the following individuals: Abraham (Gen 26:24); Jacob (Isa 43:10; 44:1, 2; 44:21; 49:3; 52:13; 53:11; Jer 3:10; 46:27, 28; Ezek 28:25; 37:25); Moses (Num 12:7, 8; Josh 1:2, 7; 2 Kgs 21:8; Mal 3:22); Caleb (Num 14:24); David (2 Sam 3:18; 7:5, 8; 1 Kgs 11:13, 32, 34, 36, 38; 14:8; Isa 37:35; Jer 33:21, 22, 26; Ezek 34:23, 24; 36:26; 37:24; Ps 89:4, 21; 1 Chr 17:4, 7); Naaman (2 Kgs 5:6); Isaiah (Isa 20:3); Eliakim (Isa 22:20); Israel (Isa 41:8, 9; 42:1, 19); Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 25:9; 27:6; 43:10); the Branch (Zech 3:8); Job (Job 1:8; 2:3; 31:13; 42:7, 8[2x]). Other permutations of this expression also appear (e.g., “servant,” “your servant,” “his servant,” “servant of the Lord”).
Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 195–196.
The language of v. 23 is characterized by terminology emphasizing unilateral divine selection, such as “I will take you,” “my servant,” and “I have chosen you.” The piling up of such language in a short space signals that unusual events are being described. The Hebrew verb lāqaḥ (“to take”) often has a very general sense, but here it is used with the specific nuance of selecting or choosing, a usage that is attested elsewhere for this verb.21 The language of v. 23 is similar to that of 1 Kgs 11:37, where the Lord addresses the following words to Jeroboam: “However, as for you, I will take you [wʾōtĕkā ʾeqqaḥ], and you will rule over all that your heart desires; you will be king over Israel.” The Lord will “take” (ʾeqqāḥăkā) Zerubbabel in the sense that he has chosen him for a unique role in connection with the momentous events described in this passage.
The term ʿabdî (“my servant”), which occurs in v. 23, is common in the Hebrew Bible. It is often used of those whom the Lord has appointed to a particular task, whether from among his people or the pagan nations.22 But ʿabdî is especially used as a designation of David as king, either in reference to the historical person of David or an eschatological figure who will be David-like.
18 Meyers and Meyers regard this phenomenon as unique, constituting “the only case in the Hebrew Bible in which an eschatological prophecy is focused upon a known historical figure” (Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 15, 68). See also S. Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel—Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah,” ZAW 94 (1982): 77.
19 See, e.g., Hos 3:5, where the expression “David their king” has in view not David specifically but a descendant in the Davidic line. Cf. Jer 30:9; Ezek 34:23–24.
20 The expression בַּיּוֹמ הַהוּא occurs more than two hundred times in the Hb. Bible, often in an eschatological sense. Among the prophets Isaiah is especially fond of this expression, using it some forty-five times. Jeremiah uses this expression ten times; Ezekiel thirteen times; Hosea four times; Joel once; Amos five times; Obadiah once; Micah three times; Zephaniah four times; Zechariah twenty-two times.
21 See, e.g., Deut 1:15, 23; 4:20, 34; Josh 3:12; 4:2; 1 Kgs 11:37.
22 The phrase “my servant” is used, e.g., of the following individuals: Abraham (Gen 26:24); Jacob (Isa 43:10; 44:1, 2; 44:21; 49:3; 52:13; 53:11; Jer 3:10; 46:27, 28; Ezek 28:25; 37:25); Moses (Num 12:7, 8; Josh 1:2, 7; 2 Kgs 21:8; Mal 3:22); Caleb (Num 14:24); David (2 Sam 3:18; 7:5, 8; 1 Kgs 11:13, 32, 34, 36, 38; 14:8; Isa 37:35; Jer 33:21, 22, 26; Ezek 34:23, 24; 36:26; 37:24; Ps 89:4, 21; 1 Chr 17:4, 7); Naaman (2 Kgs 5:6); Isaiah (Isa 20:3); Eliakim (Isa 22:20); Israel (Isa 41:8, 9; 42:1, 19); Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 25:9; 27:6; 43:10); the Branch (Zech 3:8); Job (Job 1:8; 2:3; 31:13; 42:7, 8[2x]). Other permutations of this expression also appear (e.g., “servant,” “your servant,” “his servant,” “servant of the Lord”).
Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 195–196.
인장 반지의 비유는 고대 근동에서 주권과 권위를 상징한다. 결국 스룹바벨이 신적 권위를 부여받은 다윗의 계보임을 강조한다.
- Haggai’s ring imagery is especially striking in this context.27 The signet ring was a common emblem of ownership and authority in the ancient Near East; it was used for the authentication of such things as royal directives or legal documents.28 Missives of this sort were typically sealed with a piece of clay impressed with the distinctive and identifying marks of the ring (cf. Jer 32:9–15). Such a ring normally was worn either suspended on a cord around the neck (cf. Gen 38:18) or placed on a finger of the right hand (cf. Jer 22:24), although it could be displayed on one’s arm as well (cf. Song 8:6).29 In Hag 2:23 the signet ring figuratively portrays Zerubbabel as one who uniquely represented divine authority and who appeared as the Lord’s coregent.30
27 It would be hard to improve on J. A. Motyer’s apt description of this section: “The final verses of his book reveal Haggai as the literary equivalent of an impressionist painter—he gives general tone and effect without elaborate detail. His colors are the thunderstorm and the earthquake (2:21), revolution (2:22a), clashing armies (2:22b–c), and civil conflict (2:22d). As in a carefully composed picture, where every stroke is designed to lead the eye to what is central, so here too the focus is like a shaft of sunlight illuminating one item—a ring shining on a finger (2:23)” (“Haggai,” in The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998], 3:1000).
28 On the use of seals in general in the ANE see M. Gibson and R. D. Biggs, eds., Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East, BMes 6 (Malibu: Undena, 1977).
29 That the signet ring was worn on one’s person in order to prevent its theft or unauthorized use, as P. A. Verhoef suggests, is not entirely clear (The Books of Haggai and Malachi, NICOT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987], 147). One can just as easily imagine that the signet ring may have been worn so that its owner might have convenient and ready access to it. In some instances there may also have been social advantages associated with having this emblem of authority clearly in public view.
30 In v. 23 Tg. Jonathan expands the reference to Zerubbabel as a “signet ring” (חוֹתָם) to “the engraving (or setting) of a signet ring upon the hand” (כגלף דעזקא על יד), thus making the idea a bit more specific than it is in the MT.
Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 197–198.
27 It would be hard to improve on J. A. Motyer’s apt description of this section: “The final verses of his book reveal Haggai as the literary equivalent of an impressionist painter—he gives general tone and effect without elaborate detail. His colors are the thunderstorm and the earthquake (2:21), revolution (2:22a), clashing armies (2:22b–c), and civil conflict (2:22d). As in a carefully composed picture, where every stroke is designed to lead the eye to what is central, so here too the focus is like a shaft of sunlight illuminating one item—a ring shining on a finger (2:23)” (“Haggai,” in The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998], 3:1000).
28 On the use of seals in general in the ANE see M. Gibson and R. D. Biggs, eds., Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East, BMes 6 (Malibu: Undena, 1977).
29 That the signet ring was worn on one’s person in order to prevent its theft or unauthorized use, as P. A. Verhoef suggests, is not entirely clear (The Books of Haggai and Malachi, NICOT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987], 147). One can just as easily imagine that the signet ring may have been worn so that its owner might have convenient and ready access to it. In some instances there may also have been social advantages associated with having this emblem of authority clearly in public view.
30 In v. 23 Tg. Jonathan expands the reference to Zerubbabel as a “signet ring” (חוֹתָם) to “the engraving (or setting) of a signet ring upon the hand” (כגלף דעזקא על יד), thus making the idea a bit more specific than it is in the MT.
Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 197–198.
본문은 이렇게 막을 내린다. 그렇다면 실제로 스룹바벨은 어떤 역할을 했는가? 그가 실제로 영광스러운 승리의 열매를 거두지는 못했다. 하지만 마태와 누가는 메시야의 계보에 스룹바벨을 언급한다. 히브리서 기자도 이렇게 증언한다.(히 11:39)
(히 11:39, 개정) 『이 사람들은 다 믿음으로 말미암아 증거를 받았으나 약속된 것을 받지 못하였으니』
신약의 주님의 재림에 대한 예언도 이와 마찬가지이다. 예언의 성취를 기다리지만 아직 완성되지 않았다고 해서 이것이 예언의 신적인 정당성을 무력화 시킬 수는 없다.
- The magnitude of these promises to Zerubbabel poses an exegetical problem. Were these pronouncements actually fulfilled in Zerubbabel? Did he usher in a restoration of Israelite monarchy that was accompanied by the overthrow of Gentile nations in the fashion that Haggai describes?32 The history of this period provides no evidence that he did so. Haggai’s promises did not come to fruition in the person of Zerubbabel. On the contrary, not long after this prophecy was given, Zerubbabel dropped into obscurity and passed off the scene. History is silent about what became of him or under what conditions he concluded his life. Whether he was removed from office by the Persians out of concern over possible insurrection in Judah,33 or died while in office, or continued to govern for a period of time is unknown.34
What is clear is that Zerubbabel did not usher in a triumphant period of rule such as vv. 20–23 describe. According to some scholars Haggai’s grand predictions concerning Zerubbabel turned out to be a dismal failure.35 What the prophet thought would take place did not occur.36 Haggai’s predictions are therefore regarded by some scholars as an instance of prophecy failing to come to fruition, a case of what has been called cognitive dissonance within the prophetic literature.37
A better understanding of this matter lies in viewing Zerubbabel as a representative figure.38 Just as the name David could carry associations of a royal figure who is in the Davidic line but who transcends the historical figure of David, so it is with Zerubbabel.39 This governor of Judah represented a renewal of divine pleasure in a people who had returned from the disciplinary experience of the exile—a people whom the Lord was once again pleased to acknowledge and for whom he had great plans. Like many other Old Testament promises, these predictions had both a near dimension and a more distant one. Haggai’s promises given to Zerubbabel, while true of him in a limited way, find their ultimate expression in a greater Zerubbabel who was to come.40 It is not surprising that in the genealogies of Jesus provided by Matthew and Luke, Zerubbabel is mentioned as part of the messianic line.41
That Haggai himself necessarily expected a delayed fulfillment of his words is not likely. He had no way of anticipating the temporal distances that might exist between prediction and fulfillment. As the writer to the Hebrews says of past heroes of the faith, “These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised” (Heb 11:39). In that regard Haggai was no different from New Testament writers who expected the prophecies of Jesus’ return to have a sooner rather than later fulfillment. They could not have anticipated the measure of time that separated their predictions from historical fulfillment. Such temporal distance, however, does not negate the validity of their prophecies. It merely confirms that at times they spoke of profound mysteries that were beyond their ability fully to comprehend.
What is clear is that Zerubbabel did not usher in a triumphant period of rule such as vv. 20–23 describe. According to some scholars Haggai’s grand predictions concerning Zerubbabel turned out to be a dismal failure.35 What the prophet thought would take place did not occur.36 Haggai’s predictions are therefore regarded by some scholars as an instance of prophecy failing to come to fruition, a case of what has been called cognitive dissonance within the prophetic literature.37
A better understanding of this matter lies in viewing Zerubbabel as a representative figure.38 Just as the name David could carry associations of a royal figure who is in the Davidic line but who transcends the historical figure of David, so it is with Zerubbabel.39 This governor of Judah represented a renewal of divine pleasure in a people who had returned from the disciplinary experience of the exile—a people whom the Lord was once again pleased to acknowledge and for whom he had great plans. Like many other Old Testament promises, these predictions had both a near dimension and a more distant one. Haggai’s promises given to Zerubbabel, while true of him in a limited way, find their ultimate expression in a greater Zerubbabel who was to come.40 It is not surprising that in the genealogies of Jesus provided by Matthew and Luke, Zerubbabel is mentioned as part of the messianic line.41
That Haggai himself necessarily expected a delayed fulfillment of his words is not likely. He had no way of anticipating the temporal distances that might exist between prediction and fulfillment. As the writer to the Hebrews says of past heroes of the faith, “These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised” (Heb 11:39). In that regard Haggai was no different from New Testament writers who expected the prophecies of Jesus’ return to have a sooner rather than later fulfillment. They could not have anticipated the measure of time that separated their predictions from historical fulfillment. Such temporal distance, however, does not negate the validity of their prophecies. It merely confirms that at times they spoke of profound mysteries that were beyond their ability fully to comprehend.
'성경묵상 > 학개' 카테고리의 다른 글
| 학 2:10-19 부정한 우리들에게 복을 약속하시는 하나님 (0) | 2017.01.18 |
|---|---|
| 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 |