Zechariah · Chapter 11

V. 1. Open thy doors-That destruction of the Jewish church and nation, is here foretold in dark and figurative expressions, which our Lord, when the time was at hand, prophesied of very plainly. Lebanon-Lebanon, a great mountain boundary between Judea and its neighbours on the north, is here commanded to open its gates, its fortifications raised to secure the passages, which lead into Judea. That the fire-Fire kindled by the enemy in the houses and buildings in Judea, and in Lebanon itself. The cedars-Palaces built with cedars.

Verse 1. Open thy doors, O Lebanon] I will give Mr. Joseph Mede’s note upon this verse:—

“That which moveth me more than the rest, is in chap. 11., which contains a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, and a description of the wickedness of the inhabitants, for which God would give them to the sword, and have no more pity upon them. It is expounded of the destruction by Titus; but methinks such a prophecy was nothing seasonable for Zachary’s time, (when the city yet for a great part lay in her ruins, and the temple had not yet recovered hers,) nor agreeable to the scope. Zachary’s commission, who, together with his colleague Haggai, was sent to encourage the people, lately returned from captivity, to build their temple, and to instaurate their commonwealth. Was this a fit time to foretell the destruction of both, while they were yet but a-building? And by Zachary too, who was to encourage them? Would not this better befit the desolation by Nebuchadnezzar?” I really think so. See Mr. J. Mede’s lxi. Epistle.

Lebanon signifies the temple, because built of materials principally brought from that place.

Verse 1. Open thy doors, O Lebanon — The prophet, having signified in the foregoing prophecy that the Jewish nation should recover its prosperity, flourish for some time, and become considerable; and having announced to Zion the coming of Messiah her king, and congratulated her on the peaceable nature and great extent of his kingdom, with the blessed effects which his rule should produce, proceeds now to foretel the ruin which should come on the body of the Jewish nation for rejecting him, with the destruction of their temple and capital city. To this only can the first three verses of this chapter relate; for no calamities happened to that people, from the time of Zechariah till that event, of which the expressions here used can with propriety be understood. Lebanon itself cannot be here addressed, which had no doors or gates: but it is figuratively put, either for the temple, built of the cedars of Lebanon, as it is Ezekiel 17:3; and Habakkuk 2:17; or for the city of Jerusalem, whose lofty buildings resembled the stately ranks of trees in a forest: but the former is more probably intended. And, if the Jewish writers may be credited, such was the application made of this prophecy by the Rabbi Johanan, when the doors of the temple opened of their own accord, a little before the temple was burned, a circumstance attested by Josephus, Bell. Jud. lib. 6. cap. 5: “Then R. Johanan, a disciple of R. Hillel, directing his speech to the temple, said, ‘I know thy destruction is at hand, according to the prophecy of Zechariah:’ Open thy doors, O Lebanon, &c.” That the fire — Either, figuratively, the wrath of God and the rage of the enemy, or, literally, fire kindled by the enemy; may devour thy cedars — Thy palaces and other fabrics built with cedars.

Verse 1. Open thy doors, oh Lebanon. This is a word of delicacy for the temple, calling it by another name. Dr. Lightfoot quotes several striking comments on this text. “The east gate of the inner temple being of brass, and so heavy that it could scarcely be shut by twenty men, and was barred and bolted in the securest manner; yet it was seen at night to open without any visible power! This the weaker sort of people conjectured to be a sign of prosperity, an omen that God would send them good things. On the contrary, those of cooler mind and deeper thought, interpreted the phenomenon as an indication of the utter ruin of their power, and of their temple.” Josephus’s Wars of the Jews, book 6. chap. 31. The learned rabbins agree with Josephus on this fact, that “forty years before the destruction of the city, the doors of the temple opened of their own accord.” Juchasin, f. 10. On occasion of which Rabban Ben Zaccai, [afterwards president of the sanhedrim] exclaimed, Open thy doors, oh Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars.

Rabbi Solomon, in his comment on these words, “Open thy doors, oh Lebanon,” inferred the destruction of the temple, repeating the above testimony, that the doors had opened spontaneously. From the time that this phenomenon occurred, the sanhedrim removed their sittings from Gazith, a large chamber in the temple, and held them in other convenient places.

LAMENTATION OF THE HUMILIATED ENEMIES, 1-3.

These verses do not form an independent piece, nor are they to be connected with Zechariah 11:4ff., for the opening words of verse 4 show that there a new prophecy begins. They are rather the conclusion to the promise in chapter 10, that the exiles will be re-established in their own land (Zechariah 10:10), for they state what will become of the present occupants of the land: they will be completely annihilated. What has been said indicates that the judgment announced in these verses is not, as is commonly assumed, a judgment upon Israel, but upon the foreigners who now occupy their territory. The language used is highly poetic (compare Isaiah 2:12ff.).

1. The enemies are pictured as magnificent forests (Isaiah 10:33, 34), in danger of being devoured by fire. The prophet calls upon Lebanon to open its doors so that the fire may come in. Lebanon — See on Zechariah 10:10, and reference there. Cedars — These were the glory of Lebanon. At one time they were very abundant. Solomon used them in the temple (1 Kings 5:6), and several of the Assyrian kings claim to have cut them and carried them to Assyria (compare Habakkuk 2:17; see Hastings’s Dictionary of the Bible, article “Cedar”). 2. Howl, fir tree — Or, cypress. Next to the cedar the choicest tree of Lebanon (Isaiah 14:8; 37:24); it also was used in the construction of the temple (1 Kings 5:22, 24). For the cedar is fallen — Not so much out of sympathy as because a similar fate is awaiting the cypress. The mighty are spoiled — R.V., “the goodly ones.” Expresses the same thought as the preceding. The mighty ones are the noble trees of Lebanon. Oaks of Bashan — See on Amos 4:1. Bashan was at one time exceedingly rich in oak forests; even now fine specimens of oak trees may be seen east of the Jordan, but not in as great numbers as formerly (compare Tristram, Natural History, p. 369). Forest of the vintage — Better, R.V., “strong forest”; or, better, with margin, “fortified” — inaccessible. Both Bashan and Lebanon must fall before the anger of Jehovah. The two forests with their majestic trees represent the heathen power that is now occupying the former territory of Israel west and east of the Jordan (see on Zechariah 10:10). To make room for the exiles about to return it must be driven out. To simplify the Hebrew text, which is somewhat awkward, Marti proposes to omit 2a; he reads verses 1, 2, “Open, O Lebanon, thy doors, that the fire may devour thy cedars; howl, ye oaks of Bashan, for the strong forest is come down.”

V. 2. Fir-tree-Houses and towns built with firs. The cedar-Much less shall ye escape. Ye Oaks-Used in that country for building palaces, cities, towns, and fortresses. The forest-Jerusalem, compared to a forest, in regard of the many and tall houses in it. In short, all are called to cry, for the miseries that will come upon all. Come down-Is laid desolate.

Verse 2. Howl, fir tree] This seems to point out the fall and destruction of all the mighty men.

Verses 2, 3. Howl, fir-tree — By the several sorts of trees here mentioned, seem to be meant the several orders and degrees of men, who should be sharers in the common destruction: see Isaiah 2:13; 10:33, 34; and the notes. The fir-tree seems to denote the lower people, who are bid to howl because even their superiors, signified by the cedar, could not withstand the storm. Howl, O ye oaks of Bashan — O ye rich, great, and powerful people of the land; Bashan was famous for its stately oaks. For the forest of the vintage — Or rather, a forest, the fenced one, is come down — “As the inhabitants are represented under the image of the trees, the city is aptly denoted by a forest; to which is added by way of distinction rxbh, the fenced one, the article h being emphatic, and marking the extraordinary strength of its fortifications, or fence, which, however, proves insufficient for its security.” There is a voice of the howling of the shepherds — That is, of the princes and rulers of the people. For their glory is spoiled — Their magnificent houses are destroyed. A voice of the roaring of young lions — Those who are in the foregoing sentence called shepherds, are here called young lions, because they were devourers of the people by their extortions and oppressions. The pride of Jordan is spoiled — By the pride of Jordan, those woods and thickets are primarily intended that rose proudly above the banks of that river, and greatly decorated the scene. But as those were the receptacles of lions, they are here, in a secondary and metaphorical sense, put for the residences of those princes and grandees, who are denominated lions in the preceding clause for the reason now mentioned.

Ver. 2. Howl, firtree, for the cedar is fallen. Trees sometimes represent kings, as Daniel describes Nebuchadnezzar by a tall cedar. The figures in all this chapter are brief, and the objects obscure. We may err in comments; yet many things direct us to apply the whole scenery to the last age of the jewish nation. Therefore, as Paul speaks delicately of the Roman power, saying, “he that letteth, will let,” and as Peter names the church in Babylon, so Zechariah, on so tender a point, touches with a delicate pencil, the final fall of the jewish state. The subject here, and in the fourth chapter of Malachi, is apparently the same. Their sun is darkened, their moon wanes, their stars fall.

LAMENTATION OF THE HUMILIATED ENEMIES, 1-3.

These verses do not form an independent piece, nor are they to be connected with Zechariah 11:4ff., for the opening words of verse 4 show that there a new prophecy begins. They are rather the conclusion to the promise in chapter 10, that the exiles will be re-established in their own land (Zechariah 10:10), for they state what will become of the present occupants of the land: they will be completely annihilated. What has been said indicates that the judgment announced in these verses is not, as is commonly assumed, a judgment upon Israel, but upon the foreigners who now occupy their territory. The language used is highly poetic (compare Isaiah 2:12ff.).

1. The enemies are pictured as magnificent forests (Isaiah 10:33, 34), in danger of being devoured by fire. The prophet calls upon Lebanon to open its doors so that the fire may come in. Lebanon — See on Zechariah 10:10, and reference there. Cedars — These were the glory of Lebanon. At one time they were very abundant. Solomon used them in the temple (1 Kings 5:6), and several of the Assyrian kings claim to have cut them and carried them to Assyria (compare Habakkuk 2:17; see Hastings’s Dictionary of the Bible, article “Cedar”). 2. Howl, fir tree — Or, cypress. Next to the cedar the choicest tree of Lebanon (Isaiah 14:8; 37:24); it also was used in the construction of the temple (1 Kings 5:22, 24). For the cedar is fallen — Not so much out of sympathy as because a similar fate is awaiting the cypress. The mighty are spoiled — R.V., “the goodly ones.” Expresses the same thought as the preceding. The mighty ones are the noble trees of Lebanon. Oaks of Bashan — See on Amos 4:1. Bashan was at one time exceedingly rich in oak forests; even now fine specimens of oak trees may be seen east of the Jordan, but not in as great numbers as formerly (compare Tristram, Natural History, p. 369). Forest of the vintage — Better, R.V., “strong forest”; or, better, with margin, “fortified” — inaccessible. Both Bashan and Lebanon must fall before the anger of Jehovah. The two forests with their majestic trees represent the heathen power that is now occupying the former territory of Israel west and east of the Jordan (see on Zechariah 10:10). To make room for the exiles about to return it must be driven out. To simplify the Hebrew text, which is somewhat awkward, Marti proposes to omit 2a; he reads verses 1, 2, “Open, O Lebanon, thy doors, that the fire may devour thy cedars; howl, ye oaks of Bashan, for the strong forest is come down.”

V. 3. Of the shepherds-The enemy having driven away their flocks and herds. Their glory-What was their honour. Of Jordan-The great forests on the banks of Jordan, where the young lions were wont to range.

Verse 3. Young lions] Princes and rulers. By shepherds, kings or priests may be intended.

Verses 2, 3. Howl, fir-tree — By the several sorts of trees here mentioned, seem to be meant the several orders and degrees of men, who should be sharers in the common destruction: see Isaiah 2:13; 10:33, 34; and the notes. The fir-tree seems to denote the lower people, who are bid to howl because even their superiors, signified by the cedar, could not withstand the storm. Howl, O ye oaks of Bashan — O ye rich, great, and powerful people of the land; Bashan was famous for its stately oaks. For the forest of the vintage — Or rather, a forest, the fenced one, is come down — “As the inhabitants are represented under the image of the trees, the city is aptly denoted by a forest; to which is added by way of distinction rxbh, the fenced one, the article h being emphatic, and marking the extraordinary strength of its fortifications, or fence, which, however, proves insufficient for its security.” There is a voice of the howling of the shepherds — That is, of the princes and rulers of the people. For their glory is spoiled — Their magnificent houses are destroyed. A voice of the roaring of young lions — Those who are in the foregoing sentence called shepherds, are here called young lions, because they were devourers of the people by their extortions and oppressions. The pride of Jordan is spoiled — By the pride of Jordan, those woods and thickets are primarily intended that rose proudly above the banks of that river, and greatly decorated the scene. But as those were the receptacles of lions, they are here, in a secondary and metaphorical sense, put for the residences of those princes and grandees, who are denominated lions in the preceding clause for the reason now mentioned.

Ver. 3. There is a voice of the howling of the shepherds, of the priests and rulers, when they saw the Roman armies come against Jerusalem.

3. The prophet already hears the lament of those who have been robbed of their power and glory. A voice of the howling — Equivalent to loud howling. A more forceful rendering would be, “Hark! howling!” (Compare G.-K., 146b; Zephaniah 1:14.) Shepherds — As in Zechariah 10:3, the foreign rulers. The presence of extensive herds in Bashan may have suggested the use of the term. Their glory — The rich pasture of the shepherds; in the figure, the majesty and splendor of the rulers. Young lions — At one time lions seem to have been abundant in Palestine (see on Hosea 5:14); here they represent the rulers and nobles. The pride of Jordan — “The thickets and reeds which grew so luxuriantly on the banks of the Jordan, and afforded so safe and convenient a lair for the lions” (Jeremiah 49:19). In the figure, identical in meaning with glory, the wealth and splendor of the rulers.

V. 4. My God-God the father speaks to Christ. Of the

slaughter-Appointed to the slaughter. The Jews, during four hundred and fifty years, were a flock of slaughter to the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and afterwards the Romans.

Verse 4. Feed the flock of the slaughter] This people resemble a flock of sheep fattened for the shambles; feed, instruct, this people who are about to be slaughtered.

Verses 4-5. Feed the flock of the slaughter — That is, the people, who are so denominated, because they were devoted to ruin by the following mischievous counsels of their false teachers, and the oppressions of their rulers. This command seems to be addressed to Zechariah; but an insuperable objection lies against its being understood as given to him in his own person, because he did not live in such times as are here described; for Zerubbabel the governor, and Joshua the high-priest, it appears, were men of extraordinary piety and virtue; and no doubt the rest of the princes or rulers of the people at this time were good men. We can, therefore, understand it in no other manner, as addressed to Zechariah, than as he typified Christ; and so God commanded him to do that which he had appointed Christ to do, namely, to gather and feed the lost sheep of Israel, which their shepherds scattered and destroyed. Whose possessors slay them — Whose governors and teachers are the cause of their destruction. Those are not improperly said to do a thing who are the cause of its being done. And hold themselves not guilty — Are not aware of the great guilt of their conduct; or, act as if they thought they might lawfully make merchandise of men’s bodies or souls, for their own lucre or advantage. See 2 Peter 2:3. And they that sell them — Who betray their persons, or liberty, or property, for profit; or sell them for slaves to foreigners; or, by their exactions and oppressions, reduce them to such poverty that they are obliged to sell themselves; say, Blessed be the Lord, for I am rich — That is, they hypocritically and impiously pretend to return God thanks for having put it in their power to acquire riches by such ungodly practices! And their own shepherds — That is, their chief priests, princes, and rulers, as above; pity them not — Destroy them without remorse. In Christ’s time, which seems to be here referred to, “the chief priests and the elders, who were the possessors of the flock, by their traditions, the commandments of men, and their impositions on the consciences of the people, were become perfect tyrants, devouring their houses, engrossing their wealth, and fleecing the flock instead of feeding it. The Sadducees, who were Deists, corrupted their judgments; the Pharisees, who were bigots for superstitious observances, corrupted their morals by making void the commandments of God, Matthew 15:6. Thus they slew the sheep of the flock; thus they sold them. They cared not what became of them, so they could but gain their own ends, and serve their own interests.” — Henry.

Ver. 4, 6. Feed the flock of slaughter. The poor of the land, as in ver. 7. Feed the people of Judea with all the wisdom and knowledge of the gospel, and gather in the elect, ere the Romans raze the city, and bury a million of people in the grave. For I will no more pity the land, but will smite it with a curse. Malachi 4:6.

ALLEGORY OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD, 4-14.

The interpretation of these verses is a very difficult task, chiefly because it is not possible to determine the historical situation reflected in them (for Marti’s view and other theories see Introduction, p. 589). Two things seem to be certain: 1. There is no immediate connection between this section and Zechariah 10:3-11:3. 2. The verses are descriptive rather than predictive. The preceding section looks into the future, this into the past, most probably the immediate past, so that the author may have been one of the actors in the events described. In the form of an allegory he describes Jehovah’s loving care for the people, their ingratitude, his resentment, and the resulting judgment. He declares that their experiences, pleasant and unpleasant, were ordained by Jehovah for a special purpose. When they disregarded his pleasant leadings he gave them up, temporarily at least, to calamity and misfortune. In the section immediately following the prophet turns again to the future with the promise that Jehovah will once more have mercy upon them. The close connection between the human agent and the divine Master is indicated in the use of the first person by the former, even when the act described must be regarded as having been executed by Jehovah himself. Whether the symbolical acts described were, either all or in part, actually performed by the prophet, or whether he introduces them only for the purpose of making the description more vivid, cannot be determined and is of secondary importance. The act symbolized is the real thing, and it remains the same whatever one may think of the reality of the symbolical acts (see p. 603f).

The shepherd’s loving care, 4-6.

4. The author represents Jehovah as appointing him the shepherd of the flock of slaughter, which Jehovah has determined to deliver from its oppressors. Feed — Give shepherding care and protection (see on Micah 5:4). The flock — The community of the Jews (see on Micah 7:14). Of the slaughter — Not a flock already slaughtered, nor a flock that is to be slaughtered literally (compare Jeremiah 12:3), but a flock that is treated cruelly and shamefully in the manner described in verse 5, which undoubtedly led to the undoing of many. Whose possessors — Margin R.V., “buyers.” The former is the meaning of the word in Isaiah 1:3, but the parallelism favors the marginal reading (compare Amos 8:6). Hold themselves not guilty — Literally, are not guilty; meant ironically, in their own opinion; hence the English reproduces the thought correctly (compare Jeremiah 50:7; Hosea 5:15). The buyers, in spite of their cruelty, admit no wrongdoing. They that sell them — The Jews are represented as cattle or sheep that may be bought or sold at the pleasure of the owner. The sellers succeed in filling their own pockets. Blessed be Jehovah — Not only do they not recognize guilt; they even exclaim piously that they are prospered by Jehovah; hence their acts must be in accord with his will. Their own shepherds — This is a translation plus an interpretation; literally, their shepherds. The form of the pronoun indicates that their does not refer to the flock, but to the buyers and sellers. These two are under the direction of the shepherds. Pity them not — The form of the pronoun is the same as in their buyers, their sellers; hence it must refer to the flock. Opinions differ as to who are the persons meant by buyers, sellers, shepherds. In all probability the first two are practically identical; they are persons who ill-treat the flock; the distinction is introduced only to make complete the picture of the helplessness of the sheep; they can be bought or sold at the pleasure of their owners and can do nothing to prevent it. Some think that they represent foreign rulers, but the exclamation “Blessed be Jehovah” contradicts this view. It seems best to understand all three terms of native rulers, the buyers and sellers as unscrupulous nobles or officials who oppress the people to serve their own interests, the shepherds as the masters or rulers of these nobles, who should have compassion for their subjects, but were indifferent and allowed their underlings to do as they pleased.

V. 5. Whose possessors-Governors. Not guilty-Think they do no ill. That sell them-For slaves. For I am rich-Profanely give God thanks, that they thrive by cruelty and oppression.

Verse 5. Whose possessors] Governors and false prophets, slay them, by leading them to those things that will bring them to destruction. And they that sell them] Give them up to idolatry; and bless God, strange to tell, that they get secular advantage by the establishment of this false religion.

Verses 4-5. Feed the flock of the slaughter — That is, the people, who are so denominated, because they were devoted to ruin by the following mischievous counsels of their false teachers, and the oppressions of their rulers. This command seems to be addressed to Zechariah; but an insuperable objection lies against its being understood as given to him in his own person, because he did not live in such times as are here described; for Zerubbabel the governor, and Joshua the high-priest, it appears, were men of extraordinary piety and virtue; and no doubt the rest of the princes or rulers of the people at this time were good men. We can, therefore, understand it in no other manner, as addressed to Zechariah, than as he typified Christ; and so God commanded him to do that which he had appointed Christ to do, namely, to gather and feed the lost sheep of Israel, which their shepherds scattered and destroyed. Whose possessors slay them — Whose governors and teachers are the cause of their destruction. Those are not improperly said to do a thing who are the cause of its being done. And hold themselves not guilty — Are not aware of the great guilt of their conduct; or, act as if they thought they might lawfully make merchandise of men’s bodies or souls, for their own lucre or advantage. See 2 Peter 2:3. And they that sell them — Who betray their persons, or liberty, or property, for profit; or sell them for slaves to foreigners; or, by their exactions and oppressions, reduce them to such poverty that they are obliged to sell themselves; say, Blessed be the Lord, for I am rich — That is, they hypocritically and impiously pretend to return God thanks for having put it in their power to acquire riches by such ungodly practices! And their own shepherds — That is, their chief priests, princes, and rulers, as above; pity them not — Destroy them without remorse. In Christ’s time, which seems to be here referred to, “the chief priests and the elders, who were the possessors of the flock, by their traditions, the commandments of men, and their impositions on the consciences of the people, were become perfect tyrants, devouring their houses, engrossing their wealth, and fleecing the flock instead of feeding it. The Sadducees, who were Deists, corrupted their judgments; the Pharisees, who were bigots for superstitious observances, corrupted their morals by making void the commandments of God, Matthew 15:6. Thus they slew the sheep of the flock; thus they sold them. They cared not what became of them, so they could but gain their own ends, and serve their own interests.” — Henry.

Ver. 4, 6. Feed the flock of slaughter. The poor of the land, as in ver. 7. Feed the people of Judea with all the wisdom and knowledge of the gospel, and gather in the elect, ere the Romans raze the city, and bury a million of people in the grave. For I will no more pity the land, but will smite it with a curse. Malachi 4:6.

ALLEGORY OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD, 4-14.

The interpretation of these verses is a very difficult task, chiefly because it is not possible to determine the historical situation reflected in them (for Marti’s view and other theories see Introduction, p. 589). Two things seem to be certain: 1. There is no immediate connection between this section and Zechariah 10:3-11:3. 2. The verses are descriptive rather than predictive. The preceding section looks into the future, this into the past, most probably the immediate past, so that the author may have been one of the actors in the events described. In the form of an allegory he describes Jehovah’s loving care for the people, their ingratitude, his resentment, and the resulting judgment. He declares that their experiences, pleasant and unpleasant, were ordained by Jehovah for a special purpose. When they disregarded his pleasant leadings he gave them up, temporarily at least, to calamity and misfortune. In the section immediately following the prophet turns again to the future with the promise that Jehovah will once more have mercy upon them. The close connection between the human agent and the divine Master is indicated in the use of the first person by the former, even when the act described must be regarded as having been executed by Jehovah himself. Whether the symbolical acts described were, either all or in part, actually performed by the prophet, or whether he introduces them only for the purpose of making the description more vivid, cannot be determined and is of secondary importance. The act symbolized is the real thing, and it remains the same whatever one may think of the reality of the symbolical acts (see p. 603f).

The shepherd’s loving care, 4-6.

4. The author represents Jehovah as appointing him the shepherd of the flock of slaughter, which Jehovah has determined to deliver from its oppressors. Feed — Give shepherding care and protection (see on Micah 5:4). The flock — The community of the Jews (see on Micah 7:14). Of the slaughter — Not a flock already slaughtered, nor a flock that is to be slaughtered literally (compare Jeremiah 12:3), but a flock that is treated cruelly and shamefully in the manner described in verse 5, which undoubtedly led to the undoing of many. Whose possessors — Margin R.V., “buyers.” The former is the meaning of the word in Isaiah 1:3, but the parallelism favors the marginal reading (compare Amos 8:6). Hold themselves not guilty — Literally, are not guilty; meant ironically, in their own opinion; hence the English reproduces the thought correctly (compare Jeremiah 50:7; Hosea 5:15). The buyers, in spite of their cruelty, admit no wrongdoing. They that sell them — The Jews are represented as cattle or sheep that may be bought or sold at the pleasure of the owner. The sellers succeed in filling their own pockets. Blessed be Jehovah — Not only do they not recognize guilt; they even exclaim piously that they are prospered by Jehovah; hence their acts must be in accord with his will. Their own shepherds — This is a translation plus an interpretation; literally, their shepherds. The form of the pronoun indicates that their does not refer to the flock, but to the buyers and sellers. These two are under the direction of the shepherds. Pity them not — The form of the pronoun is the same as in their buyers, their sellers; hence it must refer to the flock. Opinions differ as to who are the persons meant by buyers, sellers, shepherds. In all probability the first two are practically identical; they are persons who ill-treat the flock; the distinction is introduced only to make complete the picture of the helplessness of the sheep; they can be bought or sold at the pleasure of their owners and can do nothing to prevent it. Some think that they represent foreign rulers, but the exclamation “Blessed be Jehovah” contradicts this view. It seems best to understand all three terms of native rulers, the buyers and sellers as unscrupulous nobles or officials who oppress the people to serve their own interests, the shepherds as the masters or rulers of these nobles, who should have compassion for their subjects, but were indifferent and allowed their underlings to do as they pleased.

V. 6. I will deliver-To rob, imprison, banish, or kill each other. Of his king-The Roman Caesar, whom the Jews had chosen to be so. The land-Their king and his armies shall destroy the land.

Verse 6. For I will no more pity] I have determined to deliver them into the hands of the Chaldeans.

Verse 6. I will no more pity the inhabitants of the land — I will no more spare them than their shepherds do. The inhabitants of the land are to be distinguished from the poor of the flock in the next verse. By the former are meant those who in their respective stations were as wicked as the rulers, chief priests, and others, termed their shepherds, ver. 5; by the latter, those who were oppressed and were piously disposed. But I will deliver the men every one into his neighbour’s hand — “This verse assigns the reason for calling the people, the flock of slaughter. Nor can words more aptly describe the calamities which befell the Jews in the war which ended in the taking of Jerusalem by the Romans; when the people, having first, by their intestine broils, destroyed one another, as is set forth at large by Josephus, at length fell into the hand of him whom they had owned for their sovereign, (‘we have no king but Cesar,’ John 19:15,) and who completely desolated the land for their rebellion against him.” — Blayney.

Ver. 4, 6. Feed the flock of slaughter. The poor of the land, as in ver. 7. Feed the people of Judea with all the wisdom and knowledge of the gospel, and gather in the elect, ere the Romans raze the city, and bury a million of people in the grave. For I will no more pity the land, but will smite it with a curse. Malachi 4:6.

Verse 6 is another exceedingly difficult verse. Its connection with the preceding verse is not clear, and verse 7 would form a more suitable continuation of verse 5. Most recent commentators omit it as a later gloss. If it is original, it is best interpreted as a parenthetical sentence introduced by the author to explain the appointment of the shepherd. Jehovah was about to execute judgment upon the whole earth, and during the crisis he desired to have his people in the care of a capable leader. Inhabitants of the land — Better, of the earth; for the men, which follows, is used ordinarily of all mankind; Jehovah intended to shake the nations (Haggai 2:6, 7). The men — Better, mankind, or, the human race; with special reference, perhaps, to the surrounding nations that have proved hostile to the Jews. Deliver… every one into his neighbor’s hand, and into the hand of his king — The threat is one of anarchy and civil strife among the nations of the earth and of oppression by tyrannical kings. It is not improbable, however, that we should read, with a change of a single vowel point, “into the hand of his shepherd” instead of “into his neighbor’s hand”; the whole clause, “into the hand of his shepherd and into the hand of his king.” Then the thought will be, while the Jews are to have a good shepherd, the nations of the earth are to be placed under the rule of tyrannical shepherds (rulers) and kings. They — The tyrannical rulers and kings. I will not deliver — Jehovah will allow the nations of the earth to be destroyed. No further reference is made to the fate of the nations, and in the succeeding verses the author returns to the shepherd appointed over the Jews.

The people’s lack of appreciation, 7, 8.

The newly appointed shepherd enters upon his tasks with great expectation, but, alas! he is sorely disappointed.

V. 7. Bands-The beauty of grace and glory, the bands of love and peace.

Verse 7. And I wilt feed the flock of slaughter] I showed them what God had revealed to me relative to the evils coming upon the land; and I did this the more especially for the sake of the poor of the flock. Two staves] Two shepherd’s crooks. One I called Beauty-that probably by which they marked the sheep; dipping the end into vermillion, or some red liquid. And this was done when they were to mark every tenth sheep, as it came out of the field, when the tithe was to be set apart for the Lord. The other I called Bands] Probably that with the hook or crook at the head of it, by which the shepherd was wont to catch the sheep by the horns or legs when he wished to bring any to hand.

And I fed the flock.] These two rods show the beauty and union of the people, while under God as their Shepherd. It was the delight of God to see them in a state of peace and harmony.

Verse 7. And — Or rather, but, I will feed the flock of slaughter, even you — Or, especially you, O poor of the flock — Zechariah here, representing Christ the true shepherd, says, he will enter upon his office, and undertake the care of the flock appointed for the slaughter; even you, O poor of the flock — This clause is explicatory of the former, and by the repetition of it we are shown, that God, in his charge to the prophet, as a type of Christ, and to Christ the antitype, distinguishes clearly between different sorts of people among the Jews; between those that were poor, despised, weak, and humble, and those that were tyrannical, proud, and cruel, and made a prey of their inferiors: these were left out of the pastoral charge; the others were to be taken care of. And I took unto me two staves — These were the proper accoutrements of a shepherd, and these the prophet assumed as a badge of his office, and gave them significant names, which are partly explained, verses 10-14. “The shepherds of old time,” says Lowth, “had two rods, or staves, one turned round at the top, that it might not hurt the sheep: this was for counting them, and separating the sound from the diseased, Leviticus 27:32; the other had an iron hook at the end of it, to pull in and hold the straying sheep. The psalmist mentions both these, Psalm 23. 4, Thy rod and thy staff comfort me.” The one I called Beauty — Or, pleasantness, or, delight, as the word µ[wn may be rendered, signifying, says Lowth, his favour, gentleness, or kindness toward his people; which was remarkably verified in Christ, whose gracious words, and beneficial works, were conspicuous through the whole course of his life. The other I called Bands — Which the same author interprets of the bond of the new covenant, whereby he intended to unite both the kingdoms of Israel and Judah under himself, as their head and king, Ezekiel 37:22; and then afterward to unite the Jews and the Gentiles into one church, by breaking down the partition wall that was between them. Newcome considers the former, Beauty, as intended to “denote how beautiful and pleasant the land would have been, if its inhabitants had kept their covenant with God.” The other, Bands, “ as signifying the union which ought to have subsisted between Judah and Israel.” Mr. Scott explains “the former word of the honour, privilege, and ornament which the Jews possessed, according to their national covenant, in the oracles, instituted worship, and temple of God; and especially by the ministry of Christ and his apostles, who preached the gospel to them first.” The other, he thinks, means, “the connection of the nation under one government, and the harmony that had, in some measure, hitherto united them, as the flock of God.” Many other interpretations are given of these two names, but as they all are, and must be, in a great measure, founded on conjecture, the reader is not here troubled with them.

Ver. 7. I took two staves, the croziers of a shepherd. The one I called beauty, to denote the wisdom, virtue, and talents required of pastors. The other I called bands, to show how shepherds should defend their flocks against the wolves.

7. Even you, O poor of the flock — R.V., “verily the poor of the flock”; margin, “the most miserable of sheep.” The word translated even you or verily means ordinarily therefore, which gives no sense here. LXX. combines it with the next word into one and reads, “for the Canaanites of the flock”=for the traffickers of the flock (see on Hosea 12:7), which would be a reference to the buyers and sellers of verse 5. The divinely appointed shepherd enters upon his tasks with the determination to displace these buyers and sellers who have cruelly abused the flock. LXX. is probably to be preferred. The means with which the shepherd intended to accomplish his ends are indicated by the two staves which are selected. Beauty — Margin R.V., “Graciousness.” The staff symbolizes the return of the divine favor to the people. The shepherd meant to emphasize constantly the truth that, in spite of the present suffering, Jehovah is gracious to his people and is ready to shower upon them his blessing, if they will let him. Bands — Or, union. Verse 14 places it beyond doubt that the prophet is thinking of the reunion between the north and south. The promise of such reunion would be an earnest of strength and victory. Evidently he considers the two staves sufficient to put new life and courage into the ill-treated flock. I fed — See on verse 4, and reference there.

Verse 8. Three shepherds also I cut off in one month] Taking this literally, some think the three shepherds mean the three Maccabees, Judas, Jonathan, and Simon; others, the three wicked high priests, Jason, Alcimus, and Menelaus; others, the three last princes of the Asmonean race, Alexander, Hyrcanus, and Antigonus.

Perhaps three orders may be intended: 1. The priesthood. 2. The dictatorship, including the Scribes, Pharisees, &c. 3. The magistracy, the great sanhedrin, and the smaller councils. These were all annihilated by the Roman conquest.

Verse 8. Three shepherds also I cut off in one month — The prophet may be said to do what God did; either in the punishment of certain false prophets, or of certain wicked governors. Some think, that by these three shepherds were figuratively signified the chief priests, scribes, and elders of the Jews. Christ exposed these as blind guides, and thereby lessened their authority among the people, which contributed very much to the spreading of the gospel. Blayney, who thinks the common translation encumbered with insuperable difficulties, renders the clause, and I set aside the authority of the shepherds in one month. His reasons for this interpretation have certainly considerable weight, but cannot with propriety be introduced here. One argument, however, in favour of it, to which he appeals, may be noticed. It evidently suits that application of the prophecy which most commentators adopt. “Let us now see,” says he, “what happened to him, of whom Zechariah is evidently set forth as the type. Our Saviour’s teaching was in a style so far superior to that of the professed guides of the people in his days, that, stung with jealousy, they exclaimed, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? Ye have lost all your wonted influence; behold the world is gone after him, John 12:19. Even so it may be presumed the purity and disinterestedness of Zechariah’s instructions may have gained so far upon the minds of the people as to deprive the corrupt and selfish teachers of that ascendency which they once possessed.” And my soul loathed them — Or, was straitened toward them, as the Hebrew, µhb rxqt, may be literally translated, that is, I was straitened in my affections to them. I was less tender toward them than toward the poor of the flock, because they showed themselves to be averse from my person and doctrine. So the Vulgate, contracta est anima mea in eis. The LXX., however, read, barunqhsetai h yuch mou, my soul shall be burdened; and Bishop Newcome, my soul was grieved at them. The word hljb, rendered abhorred, in the next clause, does not occur elsewhere in the Scriptures, but, according to Bishop Newcome, bears that sense in the Syriac. The LXX. render it, ai yukai autwn epwruonto ep’ eme, Their souls howled, bellowed, roared, or, raised a horrible outcry against me, an expression strikingly descriptive of the fierce and vehement accusations of the Jewish chief priests, scribes, and elders against Christ, and of the violent, loud, and oft-repeated clamours of the people for his condemnation and crucifixion. Of which see Luke 23:5, 10, 18-24.

Ver. 8. Three shepherds also I cut off in one month. We may not know the precise meaning of these words; for when speaking of the fall of princes, delicacy is required. We know however that they were wicked shepherds, as were the three Herods. See Matthew 2:16. They might be three heathen rulers, or other great men, who oppressed the poor. Christ uses the staff of bands against his enemies. In the critics we find numerous speculations upon the subject, but to little purpose.

8b might be interpreted as supplying the reason why the good shepherd cut off the three shepherds. If so, the transition from verse 8 to verse 9 would be very abrupt; hence it seems better to make a full stop after “in one month” and connect 8b with verse 9. With great zeal the shepherd entered upon his task, but the flock failed to appreciate his efforts. And — R.V., “for”; better, but. My soul loathed them — R.V., “was weary of them.” The shepherd grew weary of the unappreciative flock; to it refers the pronoun them and not to the shepherds. Their soul also abhorred me — R.V., “loathed.” The flock came to dislike the shepherd’s strict control. Withdrawal of the good shepherd, 9-14.

V. 9. Then-After that time of his patient feeding the flock, and cutting off the unfaithful shepherds. Cut off-By the sword or famine. The flesh-Either live to be besieged, ‘till hunger makes the living eat the dead, or by seditions and bloody intestine quarrels, destroy each other.

Verse 9. I will not feed you] I shall instruct you no longer: some of you are appointed to death by famine; others, to be cut off by the sword; and others of you, to such desparation that ye shall destroy one another.

Verse 9. Then said I, will not feed you — I will no longer exercise a tender paternal care over you; that that dieth, let it die — Or rather, the dying let it die; that which has a deadly disease, let it perish by that disease. Or, that which is ready to die, and will not be cured, but hath rejected the shepherd’s love and skill, let it die. Thus Jesus said, If ye believe not, ye shall die in your sins. For this seems to be spoken of the miseries to which the Jewish people were delivered up for their manifold sins, and in particular for their rejection of Christ, which filled up the measure of their iniquity. And that that is to be cut off — Namely, by the sword of the enemy; let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another — Either live to be besieged till hunger and famine make the living eat the dead, or cruelly kill their children and others, that they may eat their flesh; a calamity threatened, Deuteronomy 28:52-58; or else, by seditious and bloody intestine quarrels, destroy each other; all which happened to them in the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans.

Ver. 9. That which is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another. A shocking but correct portrait of the horrors of the famine which prevailed in the rebel city, before the Romans stormed it.

9, 10. As a result of the flock’s ingratitude, the shepherd decided to discontinue the shepherding care. It is difficult to differentiate in these verses between the voice of the shepherd and that of Jehovah; sometimes Jehovah, sometimes the shepherd, seems to be the speaker. Only the former could authorize the sentence of doom implied in verse 9 or break the covenant (verse 10). The shepherd will leave the flock to its hopeless fate, to die, or to be cut off by the oppressors mentioned in verse 5, or to be devoured by one another.

V. 10. Even beauty-Which was the beauty and glory of them, the covenant of God, with all the blessings of it. That I might break-Declare it null. Christ calls it his covenant, for he was the mediator of it.

Verse 10. I took my staff—Beauty, and cut it asunder] And thus I showed that I determined no longer to preserve them in their free and glorious state. And thus I brake my covenant with them, which they had broken on their part already.

Verses 10, 11. And I took my staff, even Beauty — Or, pleasantness, or delight. See note on verse 7: emblematical, as of God’s favour, gentleness, or kindness to his people, and of the honour and privilege which they possessed in his oracles, instituted worship, and temple; so especially of God’s covenant with them, and all the blessings of it. And cut it asunder — To signify that, as they had rejected God and his favour, and refused to comply with the terms of his covenant, so that God had now annulled it, and rendered it utterly void. That I might break my covenant — This, in some measure, illustrates what is meant by the staff Beauty. While it was unbroken, the covenant between God and the Jews was whole and unbroken. And it is to be observed, Christ calls it his covenant, for he was the mediator of it: namely, to bring us to God in repentance, faith, and holy obedience; and to reconcile God to us in mercy and grace. Which I had made with all the people — Hebrew, µym[ lk, literally, all people, that is, all the tribes of Israel; and all other people that, by being proselyted to their religion, were incorporated into their nation. The Jewish Church is thus represented as being now stripped of all its glory, its crown profaned and cast to the ground, and all its honour laid in the dust, God being departed from it, and resolved no more to own it for his church. When Christ told the Jews that the kingdom of God should be taken from them, and given to another people, then he broke the staff of Beauty, Matthew 21:43. And it was broken in that day, though Jerusalem and the Jewish people were spared yet forty years longer; and though the great men did not, or would not, understand Christ’s words uttered on that occasion as a divine sentence, but thought to put it by with a cold, God forbid, Luke 20:16. Yet the poor of the flock, that waited upon him — Namely, who knew the Messiah, believed in him, observed his doctrine, miracles, and life, and obeyed him; who understood with what authority he spoke, and could distinguish the voice of their shepherd from that of a stranger; knew that he was the word of the Lord — Saw and acknowledged God in all this, trembled at his word, and were confident that it would not fall to the ground.

Ver. 10. I took my staff, even beauty. By this the shepherd of Israel marked the sheep which were to escape the slaughter, and then cut it asunder, to show that the unbelieving jews were excluded from covenant protection. Then the poor of the flock, that escaped beyond the Jordan, knew that it was the word of the Lord: they saw it fulfilled to the letter.

10. As an indication of his determination he breaks his staff. Beauty — See on verse 7. The breaking of this staff symbolized the withdrawal of the divine favor. Break my covenant… made with all the people — Better, R.V., “with all the peoples”; the nations surrounding the Jewish community. While the divine favor endured it prevented the hostile nations from doing injury to the flock (Hosea 2:18). Since Jehovah’s will would be supreme in this matter, his resolve amounted practically to a covenant with these peoples, binding them to refrain from hurting the flock of Jehovah; with the covenant broken they would be at liberty to do as they pleased.

The staff was broken and the covenant dissolved, and verse 11 implies that the results became apparent at once. And so the poor of the flock — As in verse 7; better, the traffickers of the flock (compare verse 5). That waited upon me — R.V., “that gave heed unto me.” Not that were obedient to me, but in a general sense that observed me; that is, that took notice of the acts of the shepherd. The words do not imply that they were influenced for the better. The events which immediately followed the breaking of the staff were evidence that the shepherd was indeed the representative of Jehovah.

V. 11. Broken-The covenant was disannulled. That waited-Believed in him, and obeyed him. Knew-Saw, and owned God in all this.

Verse 11. So the poor of the flock] The pious, who attended to my teaching, saw that this was the word—the design, of God.

Verses 10, 11. And I took my staff, even Beauty — Or, pleasantness, or delight. See note on verse 7: emblematical, as of God’s favour, gentleness, or kindness to his people, and of the honour and privilege which they possessed in his oracles, instituted worship, and temple; so especially of God’s covenant with them, and all the blessings of it. And cut it asunder — To signify that, as they had rejected God and his favour, and refused to comply with the terms of his covenant, so that God had now annulled it, and rendered it utterly void. That I might break my covenant — This, in some measure, illustrates what is meant by the staff Beauty. While it was unbroken, the covenant between God and the Jews was whole and unbroken. And it is to be observed, Christ calls it his covenant, for he was the mediator of it: namely, to bring us to God in repentance, faith, and holy obedience; and to reconcile God to us in mercy and grace. Which I had made with all the people — Hebrew, µym[ lk, literally, all people, that is, all the tribes of Israel; and all other people that, by being proselyted to their religion, were incorporated into their nation. The Jewish Church is thus represented as being now stripped of all its glory, its crown profaned and cast to the ground, and all its honour laid in the dust, God being departed from it, and resolved no more to own it for his church. When Christ told the Jews that the kingdom of God should be taken from them, and given to another people, then he broke the staff of Beauty, Matthew 21:43. And it was broken in that day, though Jerusalem and the Jewish people were spared yet forty years longer; and though the great men did not, or would not, understand Christ’s words uttered on that occasion as a divine sentence, but thought to put it by with a cold, God forbid, Luke 20:16. Yet the poor of the flock, that waited upon him — Namely, who knew the Messiah, believed in him, observed his doctrine, miracles, and life, and obeyed him; who understood with what authority he spoke, and could distinguish the voice of their shepherd from that of a stranger; knew that he was the word of the Lord — Saw and acknowledged God in all this, trembled at his word, and were confident that it would not fall to the ground.

ALLEGORY OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD, 4-14.

The interpretation of these verses is a very difficult task, chiefly because it is not possible to determine the historical situation reflected in them (for Marti’s view and other theories see Introduction, p. 589). Two things seem to be certain: 1. There is no immediate connection between this section and Zechariah 10:3-11:3. 2. The verses are descriptive rather than predictive. The preceding section looks into the future, this into the past, most probably the immediate past, so that the author may have been one of the actors in the events described. In the form of an allegory he describes Jehovah’s loving care for the people, their ingratitude, his resentment, and the resulting judgment. He declares that their experiences, pleasant and unpleasant, were ordained by Jehovah for a special purpose. When they disregarded his pleasant leadings he gave them up, temporarily at least, to calamity and misfortune. In the section immediately following the prophet turns again to the future with the promise that Jehovah will once more have mercy upon them. The close connection between the human agent and the divine Master is indicated in the use of the first person by the former, even when the act described must be regarded as having been executed by Jehovah himself. Whether the symbolical acts described were, either all or in part, actually performed by the prophet, or whether he introduces them only for the purpose of making the description more vivid, cannot be determined and is of secondary importance. The act symbolized is the real thing, and it remains the same whatever one may think of the reality of the symbolical acts (see p. 603f).

The shepherd’s loving care, 4-6.

4. The author represents Jehovah as appointing him the shepherd of the flock of slaughter, which Jehovah has determined to deliver from its oppressors. Feed — Give shepherding care and protection (see on Micah 5:4). The flock — The community of the Jews (see on Micah 7:14). Of the slaughter — Not a flock already slaughtered, nor a flock that is to be slaughtered literally (compare Jeremiah 12:3), but a flock that is treated cruelly and shamefully in the manner described in verse 5, which undoubtedly led to the undoing of many. Whose possessors — Margin R.V., “buyers.” The former is the meaning of the word in Isaiah 1:3, but the parallelism favors the marginal reading (compare Amos 8:6). Hold themselves not guilty — Literally, are not guilty; meant ironically, in their own opinion; hence the English reproduces the thought correctly (compare Jeremiah 50:7; Hosea 5:15). The buyers, in spite of their cruelty, admit no wrongdoing. They that sell them — The Jews are represented as cattle or sheep that may be bought or sold at the pleasure of the owner. The sellers succeed in filling their own pockets. Blessed be Jehovah — Not only do they not recognize guilt; they even exclaim piously that they are prospered by Jehovah; hence their acts must be in accord with his will. Their own shepherds — This is a translation plus an interpretation; literally, their shepherds. The form of the pronoun indicates that their does not refer to the flock, but to the buyers and sellers. These two are under the direction of the shepherds. Pity them not — The form of the pronoun is the same as in their buyers, their sellers; hence it must refer to the flock. Opinions differ as to who are the persons meant by buyers, sellers, shepherds. In all probability the first two are practically identical; they are persons who ill-treat the flock; the distinction is introduced only to make complete the picture of the helplessness of the sheep; they can be bought or sold at the pleasure of their owners and can do nothing to prevent it. Some think that they represent foreign rulers, but the exclamation “Blessed be Jehovah” contradicts this view. It seems best to understand all three terms of native rulers, the buyers and sellers as unscrupulous nobles or officials who oppress the people to serve their own interests, the shepherds as the masters or rulers of these nobles, who should have compassion for their subjects, but were indifferent and allowed their underlings to do as they pleased.

V. 12. And I said-Upon parting, Christ seems after the manner of men, to mind them of his claims for them, and desire them to reckon with him. If ye think good-He puts it to them, whether they thought he deserved ought at their hands? So they-The rulers of the Jews, the high priest, chief priests, and pharisees. Weighed-Which was the manner of paying money in those days. Thirty pieces-Which amounts to thirty-seven shillings and six-pence, the value of the life of a slave, Exodus 21:32. This was fulfilled when they paid Judas Iscariot so much to betray Christ.

Verse 12. If ye think good, give me my price] “Give me my hire.” And we find they rated it contemptuously; thirty pieces of silver being the price of a slave, Exodus 21:32.

Verses 12, 13. And I said unto them — Namely, upon parting. The prophet, still personating Christ, or acting as a type of him, reminds the Jews of his concern for their welfare, the care he had taken of them, and the labour he had bestowed on instructing them; and refers it to them whether his services had not deserved some reward, and, if they had, what that reward ought to be; saying, If ye think good, give me my price — Or rather, my wages or hire of service, as the word rkc undoubtedly signifies; and if not, forbear — If you dismiss me without wages I shall be content. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver — That is, as is supposed, thirty shekels, of the value of about 2s. 4d. each, which was the price of a slave. This showed how little they regarded him, or his labours; that is, how little value the Jews would put on the ministry of Christ; or on his labours and sufferings for their salvation. For, according to St. Matthew 26:15; 27:9, this symbolical action was fulfilled when the chief priests and elders of the Jews paid that sum to Judas for betraying Christ to them, and putting his life in their power. And the Lord said unto me — Unto the prophet, personating Christ; Cast it unto the potter — Hereby intimating that it was a reward only suitable to a potter’s labour, and a price only adequate for such wares as he sold, which were of the meanest value. A goodly price that I was prized at of them — Thus the prophet ironically remarks on the high estimation in which he and his services were holden: or rather, God here upbraids the shepherds of his people, who prized the great Shepherd no higher. And I cast them to the potter, &c. — Or, cast them into the house of the Lord for the potter: I cast them back into the treasury in the temple, whence afterward they were taken, and laid out in purchasing the potter’s field. This whole transaction, performed by Zechariah in a vision, as Lowth, Doddridge, and many other interpreters suppose, or, as others think, in reality; “was designed to be an exact representation of the several circumstances that should attend the betraying of Christ by Judas, the price the chief priests would put upon him, (to whom, as the governors of the temple, the money was returned,) and the use to which the money would be applied. And this whole prophetic scene was transacted in the single person of Zechariah, just as Ezekiel sustained the type or figure both of the Chaldean army that should besiege Jerusalem, and of the Jews themselves that should be besieged, Ezekiel 4:1-12.” So Lowth, who adds, “This is one of those prophecies whose literal sense is fulfilled in our blessed Saviour, and cannot be applied to any other person but in a very remote or improper sense.” The like instances may be seen Psalm 22:16-18; 69:21; Hosea 11:1. The Jews themselves have expounded this prophecy of the Messiah. “There can be no doubt,” says Blayney, “that this is the passage referred to Matthew 27:9, though under the name of Jeremiah, (put by mistake of some transcriber of St. Matthew’s gospel,) instead of Zechariah. But a question arises, how the transaction related by the evangelist can be said to be a fulfilling of that which was spoken by the prophet, considering the striking difference in some of the circumstances. In the one case, thirty pieces of silver were given as wages for service; in the other, they were paid as the price of a man’s blood: in the one they were thrown with contempt to the potter; in the other, they were cast down in the temple in a fit of remorse, and taken up by others, who employed them in the purchase of the potter’s field. But notwithstanding these differences, considering that all passed under the special direction of Divine Providence, it is impossible not to conclude, from a review of both transactions, that there was a designed allusion of the one to the other, and not a mere accidental resemblance between them. But the quotation, it is said, is not just: for no such words are to be found in the prophet, which the evangelist hath pretended to cite from him. To this it may be answered, that though not the precise words, the substance of them is given, so that the passages are at least equivalent,” as a collation of them in the original will show: see the note on Matthew 27:9.

Ver. 12. And I said, if ye think good, give me my price. The great and good shepherd, when he wept over Jerusalem, broke the staff of covenant blessings, saying, “now they are hid from thine eyes.” Christ is here the speaker; and he says, If ye think good, give me my price; give it to Judas. If otherwise, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver— the price of HIM who gave his life a ransom for all, to be testified in due time! Blush, oh ye heavens, and tremble, thou earth.

12. This recognition on the part of the traffickers would seem to offer an opportunity for further tests, (1) whether they had been led to a better appreciation of his services, (2) whether there was any desire on their part to have his services continued. One staff was still whole, an indication that he had not finally forsaken them. Unto them — If the emendation suggested in verse 11 is correct, this can refer only to the traffickers; it is only natural that they should pay the wages, since they had derived the most benefit from the flock (verse 5). The shepherd makes no demands; he asks them to decide whether or not his services merit compensation, and, if so, how much. They reply by offering him wages. Thirty pieces of silver — A piece or shekel of silver is equivalent to about 60 cents; thirty pieces to about $18. This seems to have been the price of a slave (Exodus 21:32), and the offer showed how little they appreciated the services of a divinely appointed shepherd (compare Matthew 26:15). The offer was an insult to the shepherd as well as to Jehovah, and verse 13 describes the displeasure of the latter. He orders the shepherd to throw the money away. Cast it unto the potter — A much-discussed phrase. Limited space makes impossible the enumeration of all the different interpretations given. On the assumption that the present Hebrew text is correct, the fewest difficulties are offered by the interpretation of Keil, who suggests that cast it to the potter may be a “proverbial expression for contemptuous treatment,” though, as he says, “we have no means of tracing the origin of the phrase satisfactorily.” Exception has been taken to the present text on the ground that there was no potter in the temple (compare last clause of verse 13), but if the phrase is a proverbial saying it is not necessary to assume the presence of a potter in the temple, be it for the purpose of repairing or selling dishes or for the purpose of worship, for the money might be treated contemptuously without a potter being present. The addition “in the house of Jehovah” calls attention to the seriousness and solemnity of the transaction. The action was symbolical as much as the breaking of the staff (verses 10, 14); for it signified the cessation of the care of the shepherd and of Jehovah. Jehovah and the people were the persons chiefly interested in this; the temple was the dwelling place of Jehovah, and to it flocked the people; hence all transactions requiring the presence of both parties could best be performed there. Such was the act performed by the shepherd, and it is for this reason that he selected the house of Jehovah as the place where he would give expression to Jehovah’s displeasure. With this interpretation the nature of the “contemptuous treatment” remains undefined; the shepherd may have cast the money away, or may have trampled upon it, or may have done anything else that would indicate how lightly he and Jehovah valued the sum. Many recent scholars prefer the reading of Targum and Peshitto,” “to the treasurer” or “treasury” in the place of “to the potter.” This would remove the obscurity of the present expression, but the objection raised by Keil is not without weight: “God could not possibly say to the prophet, The wages paid for my service are indeed a miserable amount, yet put it in the temple treasury, for it is at any rate better than nothing.” Goodly price — Meant ironically. I was prized at — Jehovah identifies himself here with the shepherd; the insult offered to the latter was in reality an insult to Jehovah.

V. 13. The Lord-God the Father. Cast it-As being so little, it would hardly purchase any thing but what was the cheapest among them. A goodly price-God upbraids the shepherds of his people, who prized the great Shepherd no higher. Cast them to the potter-Or rather, cast them into the house of the Lord for the potter; all which the Jewish rulers acted over.

Verse 13. And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter] Jehovah calls the price of his prophet his own price; and commands that it should not be accepted, but given to a potter, to foreshadow the transaction related Matthew 27:7.

“Earthen vessels were used in the temple; and we may suppose that some Levites were employed within the sacred precincts to furnish them. To these, the humblest of his ministers in the temple, God commands that the degrading price should be cast.” This is the substance of the notes on these two verses, given by Abp. Newcome.

We may look at it in another light, Give me my price! yrkc wbh habu sichri, bring my price, or give him my price; that is, Give the money to Judas which you have agreed to give him; for he can neither betray me nor you crucify me, but my own permission. But if not, forbear; take time to consider this bloody business, and in time forbear. For though I permit you to do it, yet remember that the permission does not necessitate you to do it; and the salvation of the world may be effected without this treachery and murder. See my notes on this place, See Clarke “Matthew 27:9”, where I have examined the evidence for the reading of “Zechariah the prophet,” instead of “Jeremiah.”

Verses 12, 13. And I said unto them — Namely, upon parting. The prophet, still personating Christ, or acting as a type of him, reminds the Jews of his concern for their welfare, the care he had taken of them, and the labour he had bestowed on instructing them; and refers it to them whether his services had not deserved some reward, and, if they had, what that reward ought to be; saying, If ye think good, give me my price — Or rather, my wages or hire of service, as the word rkc undoubtedly signifies; and if not, forbear — If you dismiss me without wages I shall be content. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver — That is, as is supposed, thirty shekels, of the value of about 2s. 4d. each, which was the price of a slave. This showed how little they regarded him, or his labours; that is, how little value the Jews would put on the ministry of Christ; or on his labours and sufferings for their salvation. For, according to St. Matthew 26:15; 27:9, this symbolical action was fulfilled when the chief priests and elders of the Jews paid that sum to Judas for betraying Christ to them, and putting his life in their power. And the Lord said unto me — Unto the prophet, personating Christ; Cast it unto the potter — Hereby intimating that it was a reward only suitable to a potter’s labour, and a price only adequate for such wares as he sold, which were of the meanest value. A goodly price that I was prized at of them — Thus the prophet ironically remarks on the high estimation in which he and his services were holden: or rather, God here upbraids the shepherds of his people, who prized the great Shepherd no higher. And I cast them to the potter, &c. — Or, cast them into the house of the Lord for the potter: I cast them back into the treasury in the temple, whence afterward they were taken, and laid out in purchasing the potter’s field. This whole transaction, performed by Zechariah in a vision, as Lowth, Doddridge, and many other interpreters suppose, or, as others think, in reality; “was designed to be an exact representation of the several circumstances that should attend the betraying of Christ by Judas, the price the chief priests would put upon him, (to whom, as the governors of the temple, the money was returned,) and the use to which the money would be applied. And this whole prophetic scene was transacted in the single person of Zechariah, just as Ezekiel sustained the type or figure both of the Chaldean army that should besiege Jerusalem, and of the Jews themselves that should be besieged, Ezekiel 4:1-12.” So Lowth, who adds, “This is one of those prophecies whose literal sense is fulfilled in our blessed Saviour, and cannot be applied to any other person but in a very remote or improper sense.” The like instances may be seen Psalm 22:16-18; 69:21; Hosea 11:1. The Jews themselves have expounded this prophecy of the Messiah. “There can be no doubt,” says Blayney, “that this is the passage referred to Matthew 27:9, though under the name of Jeremiah, (put by mistake of some transcriber of St. Matthew’s gospel,) instead of Zechariah. But a question arises, how the transaction related by the evangelist can be said to be a fulfilling of that which was spoken by the prophet, considering the striking difference in some of the circumstances. In the one case, thirty pieces of silver were given as wages for service; in the other, they were paid as the price of a man’s blood: in the one they were thrown with contempt to the potter; in the other, they were cast down in the temple in a fit of remorse, and taken up by others, who employed them in the purchase of the potter’s field. But notwithstanding these differences, considering that all passed under the special direction of Divine Providence, it is impossible not to conclude, from a review of both transactions, that there was a designed allusion of the one to the other, and not a mere accidental resemblance between them. But the quotation, it is said, is not just: for no such words are to be found in the prophet, which the evangelist hath pretended to cite from him. To this it may be answered, that though not the precise words, the substance of them is given, so that the passages are at least equivalent,” as a collation of them in the original will show: see the note on Matthew 27:9.

Ver. 13. Cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord, to buy his field. It is the goodly price that I was valued at of them. Thus with wonderful minuteness did the scriptures of the prophets foretel the transactions of Judas with the chief priests and elders; the precise sum he was to receive for his treachery, and even the very circumstance of the traitor’s throwing down the thirty pieces of silver on the floor of the temple, unable to retain in his possession the price of innocent blood, or endure the agonies of a guilty conscience. Matthew 27:3-5.

ALLEGORY OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD, 4-14.

The interpretation of these verses is a very difficult task, chiefly because it is not possible to determine the historical situation reflected in them (for Marti’s view and other theories see Introduction, p. 589). Two things seem to be certain: 1. There is no immediate connection between this section and Zechariah 10:3-11:3. 2. The verses are descriptive rather than predictive. The preceding section looks into the future, this into the past, most probably the immediate past, so that the author may have been one of the actors in the events described. In the form of an allegory he describes Jehovah’s loving care for the people, their ingratitude, his resentment, and the resulting judgment. He declares that their experiences, pleasant and unpleasant, were ordained by Jehovah for a special purpose. When they disregarded his pleasant leadings he gave them up, temporarily at least, to calamity and misfortune. In the section immediately following the prophet turns again to the future with the promise that Jehovah will once more have mercy upon them. The close connection between the human agent and the divine Master is indicated in the use of the first person by the former, even when the act described must be regarded as having been executed by Jehovah himself. Whether the symbolical acts described were, either all or in part, actually performed by the prophet, or whether he introduces them only for the purpose of making the description more vivid, cannot be determined and is of secondary importance. The act symbolized is the real thing, and it remains the same whatever one may think of the reality of the symbolical acts (see p. 603f).

The shepherd’s loving care, 4-6.

4. The author represents Jehovah as appointing him the shepherd of the flock of slaughter, which Jehovah has determined to deliver from its oppressors. Feed — Give shepherding care and protection (see on Micah 5:4). The flock — The community of the Jews (see on Micah 7:14). Of the slaughter — Not a flock already slaughtered, nor a flock that is to be slaughtered literally (compare Jeremiah 12:3), but a flock that is treated cruelly and shamefully in the manner described in verse 5, which undoubtedly led to the undoing of many. Whose possessors — Margin R.V., “buyers.” The former is the meaning of the word in Isaiah 1:3, but the parallelism favors the marginal reading (compare Amos 8:6). Hold themselves not guilty — Literally, are not guilty; meant ironically, in their own opinion; hence the English reproduces the thought correctly (compare Jeremiah 50:7; Hosea 5:15). The buyers, in spite of their cruelty, admit no wrongdoing. They that sell them — The Jews are represented as cattle or sheep that may be bought or sold at the pleasure of the owner. The sellers succeed in filling their own pockets. Blessed be Jehovah — Not only do they not recognize guilt; they even exclaim piously that they are prospered by Jehovah; hence their acts must be in accord with his will. Their own shepherds — This is a translation plus an interpretation; literally, their shepherds. The form of the pronoun indicates that their does not refer to the flock, but to the buyers and sellers. These two are under the direction of the shepherds. Pity them not — The form of the pronoun is the same as in their buyers, their sellers; hence it must refer to the flock. Opinions differ as to who are the persons meant by buyers, sellers, shepherds. In all probability the first two are practically identical; they are persons who ill-treat the flock; the distinction is introduced only to make complete the picture of the helplessness of the sheep; they can be bought or sold at the pleasure of their owners and can do nothing to prevent it. Some think that they represent foreign rulers, but the exclamation “Blessed be Jehovah” contradicts this view. It seems best to understand all three terms of native rulers, the buyers and sellers as unscrupulous nobles or officials who oppress the people to serve their own interests, the shepherds as the masters or rulers of these nobles, who should have compassion for their subjects, but were indifferent and allowed their underlings to do as they pleased.

V. 14. Then-So soon as I saw what value they put upon me. I cut asunder-Christ did it really, the prophet did it in the type. Break-Declare it broken. The brother-hood-That friendship which had been among them. Judah-The two tribes, and the remnant of the ten tribes.

Verse 14. That I might break the brotherhood] I cannot, says Newcome, explain this passage, without supposing that the kingdom of Israel subsisted when the prophet wrote it; and that either the wars between Judah and Israel are referred to, (see 2 Kings 16:5,) or the captivity of the ten tribes, when the brotherly connection between these kingdoms ceased.

Verse 14. Then — As soon as I saw what little value they put upon me, and my pastoral care over them, and services for them; I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands — The prophet did this in type, and Christ in reality; that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel — That I might declare, or foreshow, that the friendship and union which had existed between the two tribes and the remnant of the ten tribes, was broken. “From the time that the people returned from Babylon, the Jews and Israelites had formed one society, both of religion and polity, which society continued till the last destruction of Jerusalem, when, the Jewish kingdom being subverted, the bands were broken, and a disunion in religion was made; some of the Jews continuing attached to their ancient law as much as they could without the temple, and others professing the Christian faith.” — Houbigant. The design of the prophet’s commission, says Blayney, was to endeavour to bring about a reformation, upon which would depend the continuance of the brotherhood, or political union, between Judah and Israel. The second crook, or staff, was therefore called Bands. But when the commission ended without producing its effect, the breaking of the crook prefigured the dissolution of that brotherhood. What that brotherhood was, is well explained by Mr. Lowth, who says, that “upon the destruction of Jerusalem, which was the bond and cement of all their tribes, being the seat and centre both of their civil power, and of the divine worship, (Psalm 132:3-5,) the consequence was the entire dissolution of the nation, and the dispersion and confusion of all their tribes, whose families could no longer be distinguished after the loss of their genealogies.” Calmet thinks that, in this verse, Israel denotes the unbelieving Jews, who rejected Christ, and Judah the faithful ones who believed in him.

Ver. 14. Then I cut asunder mine other staff, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel. The two kingdoms, or the twelve tribes, have been so separated and dispersed as to forget their tribe and their kin. The jews cannot now make out their genealogy. But the new or peculiar people, whether jews or gentiles, have affinity in Christ with all the family of God.

14. In consequence of the lack of appreciation on the part of the flock the shepherd decides to abandon it entirely; as a sign of this he breaks the second staff, for which he has no further use. Bands — See on verse 7. That I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel — This does not imply the existence of the two kingdoms, nor does it point to a period before the division; it refers rather to the future reunion of the north and south, which is expected by many prophets to take place in the Messianic age. The breaking of the staff implies the destruction of the prospects of such reunion, but with these prospects gone there will be dashed to pieces any hope of a final triumph over the enemies, which will lead to the exaltation and glorification of the victors. On the teaching of the allegory see Introduction, p. 603. If the prophecy comes from the Maccabean period (see on verse 8), the good shepherd represents a high priest who occupied the office about 170 B.C. Who he was cannot be determined; Marti thinks of Onias IV.

ALLEGORY OF THE FOOLISH SHEPHERD, Zechariah 11:15-17 (+ 13:7-9.) This allegory is the sequel of the allegory of the good shepherd; Zechariah 11:15, 16, continues the record of the people’s experiences down to the present, verse 17 turns to the future. The flock that rejected the good shepherd was not left to itself — it was given into the hands of a foolish shepherd, who worked havoc with it; but he is doomed, and the flock will be delivered (Zechariah 13:7-9). By the allegory the prophet teaches that the present miserable condition of the people is due to their own stubbornness, and at the same time he assures them that Jehovah will return in mercy and compassion at some future time.

V. 15. Take unto thee-O Zechariah, personate a shepherd quite different from him thou hast represented.

Verse 15. The instruments of a foolish shepherd.] Such as a bag without bread, a scrip without measure, and a staff without a hook, &c., things that were needless or of no use; to point out to the Jewish pastors, who took no care of the flock, but devoured them, or ruled them with force and with cruelty.

Verse 15. And the Lord said, Take thee yet [or once more] the instruments of a foolish [or unwise] shepherd — The prophet, having hitherto represented the good shepherd, is now directed to assume the dress and equipage of one of a contrary character. As folly in the Scripture is equivalent to wickedness, by a foolish shepherd here may be meant, not only unskilful, but likewise ill-designing governors, or teachers, who should only intend their own advantage, and have no regard for the good of the flock, or people committed to their charge. The instruments of such a shepherd must be suitable to his own disposition and indiscretion, such as a crook armed with iron, which, whenever it was used, would wound the flock; and a scrip, or bag, which contained nothing useful for the sheep, and the like. The prophet here follows the order of time, that he may foretel the madness and blindness of the shepherds; that is, of the priests, rulers, and teachers of the Jewish nation, till the last destruction of Jerusalem; who not only disregarded religion, and the safety and welfare of the sheep, but even devoured such of them as were worth devouring.

Ver. 15. Take unto thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd. This is a keen satire on the jewish rulers, who were shepherds without a staff, without scrip, without a flock—shepherds without either hills or pastures.

15. Jehovah said unto me — As on the former occasion (verse 4). Yet — R.V., “yet again.” Connects this command with the preceding one. Take… the instruments of a… shepherd — The staves (verse 7). The taking up of these shows that the shepherd is ready to begin the shepherding care of the flock; hence the command is practically equivalent to that in verse 4. Foolish — This time the prophet is to act the part of a foolish shepherd (verses 7, 8). Foolish is to be understood in a moral sense, as ordinarily in the Old Testament, equivalent to forgetful of duty, worthless (verse 17). While this shepherd also would have staves, they could not be the same as those of the good shepherd (see on verse 7).

V. 16. Who shall not visit-Who seeks not out those that are lost. The young one-Which are aptest to perish through weakness. Nor heal-But leaves it to die of its wounds. That stand still-Not able to go forward. Will eat-Feast on the fattest of the flock. Tear their claws-Tear off their skin unto the very nails; in brief, a sluggish, negligent, covetous, riotous, oppressive, and cruel government, is shadowed out by a foolish shepherd.

Verse 16. I will raise up a shepherd in the land] Some wicked king; and Newcome supposes Hoshea may be meant. See 2 Kings 17:1, 2, and to such an abominable sovereign the prophecy may well apply.

Verse 16. For lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land — A shepherd, in the singular number, denotes a succession of such shepherds as are described in the following words. So a succession of priests is represented under the single person of Levi, Malachi 2:5, 6. Since the Jews had rejected the true Shepherd, God threatens to send, or permit to arise, among them, such shepherds to rule or teach them as should be notorious for their negligence and avarice, their cruelty and oppression. This may be understood either of the blind guides of whom Christ speaks, and whose character he describes at large, Matthew 23:13-33; namely, the scribes and Pharisees, the priests and doctors of their law; or of the avaricious, tyrannical, and unmerciful princes, that should rule them with rigour, and make their own land as much a place of bondage to them as ever Egypt or Babylon had been. And when they had rejected him by whom princes decree justice, it was just that they should be given over into the power of those who should decree unrighteous decrees. It is probable, also, that there is a reference here to the false prophets and false Christs, which, as our Lord foretold, Matthew 24:5, should arise. Many such there were, who, by their seditious practices, provoked the Romans, and hastened on the ruin of the Jewish nation: but it is very remarkable that they were never deceived by a counterfeit Messiah till they had refused and rejected the true Messiah. The prophet proceeds to describe the character of these foolish shepherds, in the following words: 1st, They should be negligent; which shall not visit those that be cut off — Or, as the LXX. render it, to eklimpanon, that which is missing, or has wandered from the flock; and it may signify that which is ready to perish. Neither shall seek the young one — Which are most apt to perish through weakness; he alludes to the lambs which, on account of their tender age, are not able to follow the flock. Nor heal that which is broken — Which has received some hurt, but shall leave it to die of its wounds. Nor feed that that standeth still — Not able to go forward. Blayney renders the word, made to stand, or set up again after sickness. “Such,” says he,” it is well known, require much care to nourish and support them, in order to their regaining strength; a care which the foolish shepherd will not bestow upon them.” Or, as the LXX. render it, to oloklhron ou mh kateuqunh, nor shall direct that which is whole, mentioned in opposition to those that wander, or are diseased. 2d, These shepherds would be luxurious; he shall eat the flesh of the fat — That is, instead of preserving the best of his flock, in order to increase it, he kills them to indulge his own appetite: or, enriches himself by oppressing, or otherwise taking from those that are persons of property: like that wicked servant that said, My lord delays his coming, he eats and drinks with the drunken, serving his own belly. 3d, They are tyrannical and cruel to the flock. And tear their claws [or, as it ought to be rendered, break their hoofs] in pieces — This implies the same as when it is said (Ezekiel 34:4) of such shepherds, With force and with cruelty have ye ruled them. The unwise shepherd, instead of being tender and gentle with his flock, is supposed to drag them about with his iron crook, or to over-drive them in rough and stony ground, so as to break their hoofs. Or, he imposes burdens and hardships upon them that they are unable to bear. Upon the whole, a sluggish, negligent, covetous, riotous, oppressive, and cruel government, priesthood, or ministry, is here shadowed out by a foolish shepherd.

Ver. 16. Lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land—which shall eat the flesh and tear their claws. The Roman power, that great iron empire, is here symbolized, and its character should be the reverse of that of a good shepherd, a name that is here ironically given to it. He shall not visit and seek the dispersed, nor succour the weak and the young; nor shall he heal that which is torn by the dogs, nor feed that which is standing hungry in desolation; but he shall eat the fat, and tear the residue with his claws. Such is the fourth, the terrible beast which Daniel saw, and which Zechariah here describes.

Verse 16 does not point to the future from the standpoint of the prophet, but from that of Jehovah’s command. It states why the latter issued the command, and at the same time it supplies an interpretation of the symbolic action. Jehovah, who withdrew the good shepherd (verse 13), determined to raise up one who would not protect and guard but hurt and destroy. A shepherd in the land — Not a successor of the “three shepherds” (verse 8), but of the good shepherd. Who is meant cannot be determined definitely. If Marti’s view concerning the three shepherds (see on verse 8) and concerning the good shepherd (see at the close of comments on verse 14) is correct it is not impossible that the foolish shepherd is Alcimus, who became high priest in 163 (compare 1 Macc. 7:5-25; 9:54-57). Visit — In a good sense, to take an interest in. Those that be cut off — As in verse 9 (compare verse 5); he will leave them to their fate. Margin R.V., “lost”; but, since the lost ones are referred to in the next clause, the ordinary rendering is to be preferred. The young one — Better, R.V., “those that are scattered.” If the text is correct, which may be doubted (see Ezekiel 34:4), the translation of R.V. is to be preferred; at least it expresses the thought which one would expect. The foolish shepherd would not seek the lost, nor would he heal the injured, nor feed the sound. That that standeth still — R.V., “that which is sound.” Another obscure expression, of which A.V. gives the more literal translation. Standeth is generally interpreted as the opposite of broken in the preceding clause; he does not look after the needs of the injured nor after those of the sound and strong. The translation feed also is uncertain; margin R.V. suggests “bear,” and the whole clause has been translated, “he does not bear the halting one,” that is, he does not lift up and carry in his arms the lamb or sheep that halts or comes to a standstill because of weariness (compare John 10:1-16). Though there may be uncertainty as to details, the thought expressed in all the clauses is that the foolish shepherd would not have the least care for the welfare of the flock (compare Ezekiel 34:4). But not only would he neglect the flock, he would even help to destroy it. He shall eat the flesh of the fat — That is, of the fatlings of the flock. Instead of looking after the welfare of the flock he is concerned only with his own well-being, and to satisfy his own appetite he is ready to sacrifice the lives of the sheep (compare Isaiah 3:13-15). Tear their claws in pieces — R.V., “hoofs.” This obscure phrase has received various interpretations. Some have thought that the reference is to the cruel practice of driving the flocks over rough roads; some have interpreted it of the intense greed of the shepherd which manifests itself in the tearing to pieces of the hoofs, so as to secure the last morsel of flesh or fat. Others have thought of the tearing of the hoofs, that the sheep might not wander too far, and thus give the shepherd trouble. The second interpretation is improbable, because one as greedy as this shepherd would hardly stop to gnaw the bones clean; he would rather kill another beast. The other interpretations are possible; in either case we would have a picture of extreme cruelty. The expression is peculiar and the text may have suffered; if so, we have no means of determining the original.

V. 17. The idol shepherd-To them that are but the images of shepherds. That leaveth-Casts off the care of the flock. The sword-Of the enemy, shall break his strength and be-fool his counsels. Dried up-They that have gifts which qualify them to do good, if they do it not, they will be taken away. They that should have been workmen, but were slothful, and would do nothing, will justly have their arm dried up. And they that should have been watchmen, but were drowsy, will justly have their eye blinded.

Verse 17. Wo to the idol shepherd] האליל רעי roi haelil, “the worthless,” or “good for nothing shepherd.” The shepherd in name and office, but not performing the work of one. See John 10:11. The sword shall be upon his arm] Punishment shall be executed upon the wicked Jews, and especially their wicked kings and priests. See Zechariah 11:16.

Arm—the secular power; right eye—the ecclesiastical state. His arm shall be clean dried up] The secular power shall be broken, and become utterly inefficient.

His right eye shall be utterly darkened] Prophecy shall be restrained; and the whole state, ecclesiastical and civil, shall be so completely eclipsed, that none of their functions shall be performed. This may refer to the worthless and wicked governor mentioned in the preceding verse. There are several things in this chapter that are very obscure, and we can hardly say what opinion is right; nor is it at all clear whether they refer to a very early or late period of the Jewish history.

ZECHARIAH

Verse 17. Wo to the idol shepherd — Or the shepherd of nothing, or of no value, as lylah y[r should be translated; he who calls himself the shepherd, ruler, or teacher of the people, but is in reality nothing less. So lyla yapr, Job 13:4, signifies physicians of no value. That leaveth the flock — Who taketh no care of the flock, and minds nothing but making his own profit out of them. Such a shepherd is no better than an idol, that is profitable for nothing, (Isaiah 44:10,) and hath only the outward form and appearance of a shepherd. The sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye — As he has abused his power and his understanding, signified by his arm and his right eye, God shall in his just judgment, deprive him of the use of both those faculties. The sword is put for any instrument of the divine vengeance. As the word brj here rendered sword, also means desolation, Blayney renders the clause, Because of his arm is desolation, and because of his right eye: observing, “The purport of the passage is, that since, through the misapplication of his power, and through his negligence in watching over the flock, they are subjected to desolation or the sword; therefore, as of strict justice, he shall be punished with a deprivation at least of those faculties which he so fatally misused.” Some think the right arm and right eye of the people are intended, and observe, that the arm of the Jews was dried up from that time when they were no longer able to bear arms, or to defend themselves; as their right eye has been darkened to the true knowledge of the Scriptures, which they read as with a veil before them.

Ver. 17. Woe to the idol shepherd, the jewish state and nation, who had left the fold of God to follow after idols, and to seek vanity. The sword of the Romans shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: blindness and infatuation shall seize their counsels. Their arm of national power shall be clean dried up. An utter obscuration of the Hebrew sun shall take place; and the veil of darkness shall remain upon them, till the nation return again to the Lord. Then the veil shall be taken away, and the gospel shall give them the light of the knowledge of the glory of the Lord.

17. The present hopeless condition is not to continue forever; Jehovah has sent it as a judgment for the rejection of the good shepherd, but he will again have mercy; the foolish shepherd will be removed. Woe to the idol shepherd — Better, R.V., “worthless shepherd.” He is doomed. That leaveth the flock — To destruction (compare John 10:12). The succeeding words should be translated as an imprecatory clause, “A sword upon his arm and upon his right eye!” May the arm which should have guarded and protected the flock be cut off, and may the eyes which should have selected good pasture and should have watched against danger be destroyed. That this will happen is affirmed in the rest of the verse. The arm will wither and the eye will lose its sight. The forms of judgment prayed for and threatened in the two clauses do not seem to harmonize. If a sword were used against the arm the result would hardly be a withering of the same. In view of this fact some commentators read, with a slight change in the vocalization of a single consonant, drought — drying up, withering — instead of sword. This change, “drought upon his arm and upon his right eye,” would bring the two clauses into perfect accord. On the other hand, it has been suggested that the two different kinds of punishment are placed together so as to emphasize the “greatness and terrible nature of the judgment.” If Zechariah 13:7-9, is the original continuation of Zechariah 11:17 (see introductory remarks on Zechariah 13:7-9), the present reading, “sword,” is to be retained (compare Zechariah 13:7).