130. - Collection Point® | The Total Digital Asset Management System

120 Structure and the Book ofZechariah
ru», n*7R, ]riK, irr, nan. These all occur in connection with the
delaying tactics of the author of the outer sections. It is true that irr
occurs also in v. 9b as part of the important phrase 'and you will
know that Yahweh of hosts has sent me', but it is difficult to show any
significant connection between this and the outer sections. 1 None of
them, therefore, seems particularly important for our purposes.
This leaves the expression p»n "?D (vv. 10, 14 only). It occurs as
the last element in each of the two informative answers of the angel,
which marks it as an important element in the vision.
The Sequence of Thought in the Outer Sections ofZechariah 4
In vv. 1-3 Zechariah is asked what he sees and describes two main
items:
1. A menorah with a bowl on top having seven lamps, each with
seven lips.
2. Two olive trees (right and left of the bowl).
It is only Zechariah's description which informs the reader of the contents
of the vision.
Verse 4 contains Zechariah's question, 'What are these?' The question
is vague, and the reader will presumably expect an explanation of
both features. However, we actually find:
1. A delaying counter-question.
2. A prophetic oracle.
3. An explanation of 'these seven' only.
This necessitates a further question about the olive trees (v. 11) which
is explained in v. 14 after the second delay: 'Do you not know...'
(v. 13). They are the two in^'n '33. Still another question is attached
to v. 11: 'What are these two branches.. .and the two golden
pipes...?' This looks like a secondary addition. Without it the answer
in v. 14 refers unambiguously to the two olive trees. With it, the
answer is not clear. 2 Could the 'two sons of oil' be both the olive trees
and the two anrn rrnn« 'from which the gold is poured out (?)'? It
1. A contrast between the prophet's present ignorance and the future knowledge
of the people might be conjectured. It seems to be too tenuous to entertain seriously.
2. This is agreed by most commentators. Petersen regards it as deliberate
obfuscation (see above).