Page:Visions and Prophecies of Zechariah (Baron, David).djvu/291



AN EXAMINATION OF MODERN CRITICISM 275

blood of the heathen," on the part of the writer of these chapters.

What is true is that the prophet, who already in the First Part was commissioned to announce God s " great fury " against the nations who oppressed Israel, and already there foretells the overthrow of Gentile world-power, does in the last chapters, when he comes to prophesy more particularly of the last days, and of the solemn events which are to usher in the day when Jehovah shall at last be " King over all the eartli" set forth in realistic language the final great conflict, and the terrible judgments which are to come, not only on " the heathen," but on Israel also.

It might be true that, according to his natural disposition, Zechariah, " that gentle lover of peace," might not find it a congenial task to prophesy of war and judgment, or to describe the destruction of the enemies of God and of His people ; but other " gentle lovers of peace " among Israel s inspired prophets also had to utter some terribly heavy things against the ungodly in Israel and the nations who forget God, when compelled so to do by the hand and the Spirit of God. There was no gentler man nor greater lover of peace than Jeremiah, and when he had to announce im pending calamities and judgments he shrank from his task and did it with a broken heart ; but Jehovah s word came to him saying, " Behold, I have put My words in thy mouth : see, I have set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down, and to destroy and to over throw ; to build and to plant" He who was the embodiment of gentleness and love, and loved to reveal the Father s heart, had yet to warn men of the place of doom " where the worm dieth not, and where the fire is not quenched."

But let us turn briefly to the other arguments against the unity of Zechariah, as summarised by Von Orelli. We pass over the statement under the heading (b], namely, that " the circle of thought is quite different in the two parts of the book" for, as he himself observes, " this cannot be conclusive against the unity of the author, as, e.g., we cannot demand that Zechariah, in his later discourses, should use again the