The principal object that met the eyes of Zechariah, was a candelabrum, a candlestick or lamp-bearer, entirely of gold, consisting of a tall upright shaft, surmounted by a bowl, and of a number of branches, each of which supported a lamp, springing out of it, as boughs from the trunk of a tree, not however indiscriminately or all round, but only on two sides, each being opposite to each. A candlestick of like form was placed in the tabernacle of Moses and temple of Solomon, having "six branches* going out of the sides thereof; three branches of the candlestick out of the one side thereof and three * Exodus, xxv. 32, and following, xxxvii. 17, and following. In Solomon's temple there were ten candlesticks, as appears from 1 Kings, vii. 49, 2 Chronicles, iv. 7. But Josephus, in Antiq. Jud. b. 8, cap. 3, § 7, tells us, that although Solomon made a vast number of candlesticks, μupias, according to the commandment of Moses, yet that he dedicated ONE only for the holy place, εξ ων μιαν ανέθηκεν εις τον vaov, that it might be lighted every day agreeably to the law. Abijah, king of Judah, also, in 2 Chronicles, xiii. 11, where he is extolling the fidelity and piety of his own subjects, in opposition to the idolatry of the Israelites, and particularizing the instances in which they kept the charge of the Lord, mentions the candlestick and its lamps, as one only. Perhaps the disagreement may best be reconciled by supposing, that though ten candlesticks were placed in the sanctuary, one only was lighted. At any rate it is plain, that the ten were regarded, as being only one in point of use and signification; so that the increase of number had not, and was not intended to have, any other effect, than to augment the grandeur of the sanctuary. In like manner and to the same end, several other utensils, which were single in the tabernacle, were ten in the temple. 2 Chronicles, iv, 6, 8. branches of the candlestick out of the other side thereof: " and on each of these was a lamp, with a central one on the summit of the shaft. Zechariah, having noticed and described the objects before him, inquired the meaning of the mystic imagery, "what are these my Lord?" that is, what are they intended to represent? for what they actually were, he plainly saw. The reply is made by another question, reproving the prophet for his ignorance in much the same terms, as those, in which our Lord rebuked Nicodemus upon a like occasion. "Knowest thou not what these be?" as if it were a reproach and shame to him to be slow of heart in the ap prehension of such intelligible symbols. And truly it was to be expected, that Zechariah, a master in Israel, a priest and a prophet, studious of scripture, familiar with types, versed in pro phetic language, and with a mind illuminated by the preceding emblems, should readily have penetrated the veil of a figure, which had been familiar to the Jews from the time of Moses. The leniency of the angel's rebuke, under such circumstances, would be as remarkable, as the dulness of the prophet, if we did not collect from Zechariah's words, as he enumerates the objects presented to his view, that not only was the emblem attended by some extraordinary accompa niments, but that in its parts and make it differed widely from the candlesticks, that were placed in the tabernacle and temple. In the first place he remarked a bowl or basin on the top of the candlestick, meaning the top of the shaft*, intended to contain oil for the nourishment of the lights of the lamps. It is not indeed expressly stated here, that the bowl was intended to answer this purpose. But since it is not easy to devise any other, and this is very obvious, it may fairly be presumed, that Zechariah would immediately perceive it. From the eleventh and twelfth verses it certainly appears, that such was the use of the bowl; yet what is said there is designed, not so much to explain its use, as to shew the nature of the oil, with which it was filled, and the sources and the means of its supply. The very existence and position of the bowl with its pipes is deemed sufficient to declare the purpose, which it was intended to answer. This bowl was the first particular which attracted and arrested the attention of the prophet; and this it did so the more forcibly, because the golden candlesticks in the tabernacle and temple had no such vessel and because it filled the place, which in them was occupied by the central lamp. * In like manner the candlestick is put for the shaft only -in Exodus, xxxvii. 20. It is expressly noticed to be on the top of the candlestick, at once marking the surprise of Zechariah at the circumstance and directing the observation of the reader to that circumstance, that the shaft was not surmounted by a lamp, but by a golden bowl. Having mentioned the bowl, the prophet proceeds, as if he were describing an object well known and familiar to him, "and its seven lamps;" for this use of the possessive pronoun plainly indicates his recognition of the emblem and bis assured expectation that it would be found to bear that exact number of lamps, as being proper and essential parts of it. But as he went on speaking, he observed with increased surprise, that the number of lamps was greater than seven, was even double. He therefore immediately corrected his error, respecting the number, "seven and seven!" I do not pretend to assert, that this was certainly the process, which took place in Zechariah's mind. His expressions may also be accounted for by supposing, that he at first spake of the number of lamps, as being seven only, in order to shew what it ought regularly to have been, or what he expected it would have been, thus hinting to us one principal reason of his inability to comprehend the meaning of the symbol. Our English translators however have not permitted any marks to appear in their version of this departure of Zechariah's candlestick, in respect to the number of its lamps, from the original standard; having so rendered the words "seven and seven," as if the prophet intended to distribute the seven pipes afterwards mentioned, one to each of the lamps; "and seven pipes to the seven lamps." The construction, out of which this rendering arises, is, as every reader of the original perceives, greatly embarrassed and perplexed. But without dwelling upon that objection, it is sufficient to ask; if the number of the lamps be determined to be seven, how can they be arranged in an even, regular, becoming manner, when the bowl is set, as the prophet describes it to be, on the summit of the shaft? Nobody will imagine, that they were placed unevenly, three on one side and four on the other. Neither can the central lamp be supposed to have been elevated by means of some curvilinear support above the bowl, because then it could not have been fed by the oil, and that lamp at least, if not the whole row of lamps with it, would have been raised above the bowl, which seems hardly to accord with the prophet's description. Nor on the other hand can the bowl be conceived to be raised by curved |