satisfaction must first be rendered to the Deity for sin, before any man can be worthy to receive him into himself, and engage in his service. The doubt which has been raised, whether i could be applied to these wounds and the scars that they caused, is not deserving of any consideration. Apuleius renders it by plagae, which exactly corresponds. Seneca, as quoted by Augustine (de civ. dei 6. 10), says, “se ipsi in templis contrucidant, vulneribus suis ac sanguine supplicant." A plausible objection might be founded upon the expression, "I have been wounded;" for in nearly all the accounts which we possess, relating to this custom, self-inflicted wounds alone are mentioned. But it is evident, at least from the statements of modern travellers (see Olearius p. 332), that there are cases in which the worshippers inflict wounds upon one another; and the assertion, "I have been wounded," does not preclude the infliction of wounds upon one's self. The late prophet may have intentionally selected the passive, because he was only the instrument, the real authors were the lovers. The probability of this last assumption is increased by the selection of the word

, to denote the idols, a choice which can hardly have been accidental. The expression "my lovers" is evidently employed on account of the contrast which it presents to the announcement, "I have been wounded." The folly of this species of idolatrous worship is described by Seneca (ut supra) in much the same manner: "ut sic dii placentur, quemadmodum ne homines quidem saeviunt teterrimi et in fabulas traditae crudelitatis. Tyranni laceraverunt aliquorum membra, neminem sua lacerare jusserunt. In regiae libidinis voluptatem castrati sunt quidam ; sed nemo sibi, ne vir esset, jubente domino, manus intulit." The connexion between this verse and the preceding one is as follows. The late prophet, when asked about his circumstances, tries first of all to avert suspicion that he has ever left his humble occupation. But when the interrogator calls his attention to the suspicious scars upon his body, he acknowledges with the deepest shame his former folly, and shows that he regards it in this light, by the manner in which his confession is made. "Between thy hands" may be most simply explained as meaning on the hands themselves and round about them.

"Between" is employed instead of "on," to show that

we are not to imagine that the wounds were confined to the hands; it merely describes the situation in general terms, showing, however, that they were chiefly about the hands, and also that we are not to think at all of such remote parts as the head and shoulders. The reason why the hands are singled out, is not that they were uncovered, and that the wounds were more readily seen on that account. It is evident from the expression, "on all hands there are cuttings," which occurs in Jer. xlviii. 37, in connexion with a description of the mourning of the Moabites, that it was a common custom to wound the hands. In the passages relating to this subject in both classical authors and the Fathers, the greatest stress is generally laid upon the arms, which are certainly included here. Seneca, for example, says, "lacertos secat," and Apuleius, "sua quisque brachia dissecant."

CHAPTER XIII. 7-9.

The Lord's shepherd, who is closely connected with the Lord himself, is to be taken away from his flock, the covenant-nation, by a violent death. The flock, deprived of its shepherd, will then be exposed to sufferings of every kind and eventually scattered. But the Lord will not withdraw his hand from it for ever. Two-thirds, indeed, must perish. But to the last third, after it has passed through the purifying fire of affliction, the mercy of God will be gloriously displayed.

This prophecy forms a brief repetition, and at the same time an explanation of that contained in chap. xi. and xii. 1–xiii. 6. Ver. 7. "Awake, O sword, upon my shepherd and upon a man, my fellow, saith the Lord of Sabaoth; smite the shepherd and the flock is scattered, and I bring back my hand over the little ones."

There can be no doubt, that by the Lord's shepherd mentioned here we are to understand the same shepherd, who is represented as associated with him by a mysterious unity of nature; who is described in chap. xi. as undertaking the office of shepherd over

the miserable nation and making a last attempt to preserve it; whose fidelity in his office is rewarded by it with such base ingratitude;' and who is eventually put to death (chap. xii. 10). The rejection of this shepherd is represented in chap. xi. as followed by precisely the same consequences, as his death in the verses before us, namely the destruction of the greater portion of the nation (compare ver. 8 with chap. xi. 6, 9, 15-17); and even in chap. xii. 10 his death is indirectly referred to, as the cause of all the sufferings which befal the nation. This is amply sufficient to demonstrate the fallacy of every exposition, which seeks for any other shepherd than the Messiah; whether "the ideal Pseudo-Messiah, Ben Joseph," as most of the Jewish commentators suppose ;2 or "some hostile general," who is called the Lord's shepherd ironically, as Jarchi imagines; or "the foolish shepherd" spoken of in chap. xi. 15-17, as Grotius maintains in his commentary on Matt. xxvi. 31; or "Judas Maccabeus," as not only Jahn but Grotius also affirms in his commentary on this passage (for, as is generally the case where mere conjectures are indulged in, he is not consistent with himself); or "au ideal general, who is to fall in conflict with the foe," as Köster, Bertholdt, and Eichhorn say; or "a native monarch, who is to be punished for his sins," which is the notion entertained by Hitzig and Bleek, and which Maurer and Ewald have carried out still further by fixing upon the individual intended,—the former fancying Jehoiakim, the latter the wicked Pekah; or lastly, "the whole body of rulers, spiritual and temporal, including Christ," which is the interpretation given by Calvin and Drusius. All these explanations are at variance, not only with the authority of Christ, but also, and most decidedly, with the expression which immediately follows "upon a man my fellow." It is true, this would not be the case, if could be applied

1 Hitzig observes : as the flock which is to be scattered is evidently the nation, the shepherd cannot be the prophet, but the king, and of this we have a proof in the use of the singular.' But in his commentary on chap. xi. 4 sqq., Hitzig still maintains, even in the second edition, that the prophet is intended. And yet it is evidently to the Lord's shepherd, spoken of here, that the commission, "feed the flock of slaughter," was addressed, in chap. xi. 4.

2 Vid. Jos. de Voisin, observv. in prooem. pug, fid. p. 160. Hulsius, theol. Jud. p. 54. Elsner, praes. Wessel, de Messia gladio judicis, non bello percutiendo. Leiden 1741.

to an associate of any description, as many have asserted. The shepherd is said to be called the associate of the Lord, because He is also the shepherd of his people. But this assertion cannot be sustained. is one of those words, which are peculiar to the Pentateuch, having subsequently become entirely obsolete. It is used eleven times in the Pentateuch, and is not met with anywhere else. From this it is obvious, that Zechariah did not take it from the living language of his own day, but, like in chap. xii. 5, from the Pentateuch, and therefore, that we must adhere strictly to the meaning which we find it bearing there. It occurs in the laws relating to injuries done to near relations, and is always used with peculiar emphasis, to show how great a crime it is to injure one, who is related both bodily and spiritually by a common descent. It is used interchangeably as being equivalent to brother; a word which is invariably employed in the laws of Moses with reference to a common physical and spiritual descent. We will quote the eleven passages in which it occurs. Lev. xix. 11, "ye shall not lie or defraud " (compare Eph. iv. 25). Ver. 15, "thou shalt judge y righteously." Ver. 17, "thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart; thou shalt rebuke." Lev, xviii. 20, "thou shalt not lie with y Lev. xxiv. 19, "if a man inflict a bodily injury, as he hath done so shall it be done to him." Lev. xxv. 15, "if thou buyest anything of

ye shall not injure any לעמיתך or sellest anything עמיתך

one his brother." And so again in vers. 16 and 17, "and ye shall not injure any one, and thou shalt fear thy God." Lev. vi. 2, "If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto in anything entrusted to him (repudiate a trust)-or oppress It is obvious that

1 The reason why is only found in Leviticus, and not in Exodus also, is sufficiently explained on the supposition that it was used interchangeably, after the almost synonymous words and had been written very frequently, to prevent these from being weakened and losing their deeper meaning by constant use. We cannot adopt the rendering given by Gesenius and Hitzig: "vir societatis meae, ie. socius meus." Even if my was originally an abstract, it is always used as a concrete in the Pentateuch (compare in Lev. xix. 17), and Zechariah has simply taken the word as he found it there.

in all these passages is used in a very different sense from our word nächste (lit. the next or nearest one; Angl. neighbour), which has been weakened by use, and robbed of its original meaning by sin, until it has come at length to denote generally a stranger. It clearly indicates the closest relationship that can possibly exist among men, not one which can be entered into at pleasure, but into which every man is born, which continues to exist even against his will, and becomes the just occasion and ground of punishment if he violate its obligations. From this it is evident, however, that, when the same term is applied to the relation in which a certain individual stands to God, the individual referred to cannot be a mere man, but must be the same person who has already been referred to in chap. xi. and xii., as connected with the Lord by a mysterious unity of essence. The neighbour or fellow of the Lord is no other than he who says in John x. 30, "I and the Father are one," and who is described in John i. 18 as "the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father," whose connexion with the Father is the closest that can possibly be conceived.

עמית

In the use of y in this passage, there seems to be a special reference intended to the circumstances under which it invariably occurs in the Pentateuch, namely, in laws relating to injuries inflicted upon a "neighbour." The prophet, by employing this word, gives prominence to the apparent discrepancy between the command of the Lord "Sword, awake over my shepherd," and the precepts of his own law, according to which no one was to injure his ammith (neighbour). He calls attention in this way to the grandeur of that object, for the attainment of which the Lord could even disregard a relation, whose type among men he had commanded to be kept holy. Humanly speaking, he points out how much is involved in such a command, how much it must cost the Lord (compare the expression in Romans viii. 32, "who spared not his own son."), which is added, stands in a certain contrast toy. He, whose is the sword to smite, must combine the human nature with the divine.

is not

infrequently used to denote man, as contrasted with God, e.g., Job xvi. 21. The subordinate idea of strength, which the word often has, like our word man, is not to be sought for here, as