Zechariah 3:3

3 Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood before the angel.

Read Zechariah 3:3 Using Other Translations

Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel.
Now Joshua was standing before the angel, clothed with filthy garments.
Jeshua’s clothing was filthy as he stood there before the angel.

What does Zechariah 3:3 mean?

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible
Zechariah 3:3

Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments
Having fallen into sin. The Jewish writers F26 interpret this of the sin of his children in marrying strange wives, ( Ezra 10:18 ) or he had married one himself, as Jerom from the Jews, on the place; or a whore, as Justin Martyr F1 suggests; or had been slothful and sluggish in rebuilding the temple; and, be it what it will, Satan had aggravated it, and represented him as a most filthy creature, covered with sin, and as it were clothed with it: sins may well be called filthy garments, since righteousnesses are as filthy rags, ( Isaiah 64:6 ) . It may also denote the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood, and the pollutions in it, at least in those who officiated therein, and especially under the second temple; as well as may represent the defilements of the Lord's people by sins they fall into: and stood before the angel:
as an accused person, charged with sin, and waiting the issue of the process against him: he stood under an humble sense of his iniquities, looking to the blood and righteousness of Christ for pardon and justification; praying and entreating that these filthy garments might be took away from him, and he be clothed with fine linen, suitable to his character as a priest. Such a sordid dress was the habit of persons arraigned for crimes. It was usual, especially among the Romans, when a man was accused of, and charged with, capital crimes, and during his arraignment, to let down his hair, suffer his beard to grow long, to wear filthy ragged garments, and appear in a very dirty and sordid habit; hence such were called "sordidati" F2: nay, it was not only customary for the accused person, when he was brought into court before the people to be tried, to be in such a filthy dress; but even his near relations, friends, and acquaintance, before the court went to voting, used to appear in like manner, with their hair dishevelled, and clothed with garments foul and out of fashion, weeping and crying, and deprecating punishment; thinking, by such a filthy and deformed habit, to move the pity of the people F3. It is said of the ambassadors of the Rhodians at Rome, upon a certain victory obtained, that they appeared at first in white garments, suitable to a congratulation; but when they were told that the Rhodians had not so well deserved to be reckoned among the friends and allies of the Romans, they immediately put on sordid garments, and went about to the houses of the principal men, with prayers and tears entreating that cognizance might first be taken of their cause, before they were condemned F4: though, on the contrary, some, when arraigned, as defying their accusers, and as a token of their innocence, and to show the fortitude of their minds, and even, if they could, to terrify the court itself, would dress out in the most splendid manner; or, however, would not follow the above custom. It is reported of Scipio Africanus, that when he was arraigned in court, he would not omit shaving his beard, nor put off his white garments, nor appear in the common dress of arraigned persons F5: and when Manlius Capitolinus was arraigned in court, none of his relations would change their clothes; and Appius Claudius, when he was tried by the tribunes of the common people, behaved with such spirit, and put on such a bold countenance, as thinking that by his ferocity he might strike terror into the tribunes; and so Herod, when he was accused before Hyrcanus, went into the court clothed in purple, and attended with a guard of armed men F6: whether the above custom obtained in Judea, and so early as the times of this prophet, is not so evident; though Josephus ben Gorion says it was a custom for a guilty person to stand before the judges clothed in black, and his head covered with dust F7; however, it is certain that with the Jews a distinction was made in the dress of priests, who, by the sanhedrim, were found guilty or not; such as were, were clothed and veiled in "black"; and such as were not, but were found right and perfect, were clothed in white; and went in, and ministered with their brethren the priests F8.


FOOTNOTES:

F26 T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 93. 1.
F1 Dialog. cum Trypho, p. 344.
F2 Salmuth. in Paneirol. Memorab. par. 1. tit. 44. p. 187.
F3 Alex. ab Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 3. c. 5.
F4 Liv. Hist. l. 45. c. 20.
F5 A. Gell. Noct. Attic. l. 3. c. 4.
F6 Alex. ab Alex. ut supra. (Genial. Dier. l. 3. c. 5)
F7 Hist. Heb. c. 44. apud Drusium in Amos ii. 7.
F8 Misn. Middot, c. 5. sect. 3. T. Bab. Yoma fol. 19. 1. Maimon. Biath Hamikdash, c. 6. sect. 11.
California - Do Not Sell My Personal Information  California - CCPA Notice