reference is here made, in harmony with the original passage in Jeremiah. What we are to understand by the ornament of the shepherds may be gathered from Jeremiah, where we find "their pasture" instead. According to this, we are not to restrict it to the pasture, as Maurer does, or to understand it as meaning the things of which they are proud and make a boast, as Hitzig does; but must refer it simply to the good of the land, flowing with milk and honey, which was at their disposal, their proud possession.-Lions are frequently employed as symbols of strong and despotic men (compare Job iv. 10 and Ps. xxxiv. 11), especially of tyrannical rulers (see the remarks on Rev. xiii. 2 and Song of Solomon iv. 8). But the most deserving of attention is Ezek. xix., where the tyrannical princes of Judah are called (lions). Schmieder has justly observed," a very sharp reproof is implied in the fact that the shepherds of the nation are compared to lions, a shepherd and lion in one being something very similar to a wolf in sheep's clothing. This prepares the way for what follows, where the pious (?) sheep are mentioned whom the shepherds will not spare." The shepherds are also lions; this is the clue to the catastrophe depicted in vers. 1—3. Where the leaders are so degenerate, the whole life of the nation must have been deeply corrupted. The pride of the Jordan corresponds to the pride of Jacob in Ps. xlvii. 5, Amos vi. 8, Nahum ii. 3, and means the glorious possession and inheritance bestowed upon him. The issue of the whole is, that the threat of Ezekiel in chap. xxxiii. 28, "I lay the land most desolate, and the pomp of her strength shall cease, the mountains of Israel shall be desolate, that none shall pass through," receives a new fulfilment. Ver. 4. The prophet, having given a pictorial description in ver. 1-3 of the judgment to be inflicted upon the covenantnation, proceeds now to the manner in which this result would be brought about. The first three verses bear much the same relation to the rest of the chapter as Is. lii. 13—15 to chap. liii. -Thus saith the Lord my God, feed the flock of the slaughter.1 The question arises here, to whom are these words addressed? 1 , not slaughter-house, but slaughter, also occurs in Jeremiah. Compare more particularly chap. xii. 3, where and are mentioned הרגה together. The corrupt nation is introduced there as a flock destined for the slaughter. The same state of things is to occur again. Who is it, who is here commissioned to feed the flock? (1). Very many of the earlier expositors assumed that these words were addressed, without the prophet's intervention, to the Angel of the Lord, who was essentially one with God Himself, in other words, to the Messiah, in whom, according to the teaching of the Old Testament, this Angel was eventually to appear. The fact that there is something forced, in the assumption that another person is introduced in this sudden manner, and without farther notice, is not sufficient to prove that the opinion is incorrect. The abrupt introduction of new persons, whose presence is merely indicated by their speeches and actions, is a thing of frequent occurrence in the prophecies, and was a necessary result of the dramatic character of the prophetical writings. And there is the less ground for objecting to the sudden appearance of the Angel of the Lord in the present instance, from the fact that throughout the whole of the first part he is constantly represented as one of the persons employed. But a comparison of ver. 15 sqq. is amply sufficient to overthrow this exposition. The person, who is referred to in these verses, must be the same as the subject of ver. 4 sqq. This is evident from the expression, "take unto thee again the instruments of the evil shepherd." The word y again is a proof that the person who takes the instruments of the evil shepherd in this case, is the very same as the person who took the instruments of the wicked shepherd in ver. 7 sqq. But the contents of ver. 15 sqq. do not apply in any way to the Angel of the Lord or the Messiah, as the supporters of this view are obliged to confess. It cannot, therefore, be to him that reference is made in the fourth and following verses. (2). Others (including Hitzig, Ewald, Hofmann, and Bleek) suppose that the prophet is addressed, not as the representative of another, but in his private capacity. But ver. 15 sqq. demonstrates the incorrectness of this view, quite as much as that of the former. If the prophet is introduced there, not in his private capacity, but as the representative of another, this must also be assumed to be the case here. Moreover the very first 1 Hitzig himself condemns what he says on ver. 4, by the remark which he makes at ver. 15, "when the prophet takes the shepherd's staff a second time, he does this not to tend them himself, but as the type of a future shepherd." words go beyond the ordinary vocation of a prophet. No prophet was ever appointed to be the shepherd over the whole covenant-nation. How could a prophet be the chief shepherd of the whole flock (ver. 7), by whom all the other shepherds or rulers of the nation were deposed (ver. 8), who kept the nation in safety from all its outward foes,1 who preserved internal peace, and at whose all-powerful word both peace and safety came to What sense is there in the account of the thirty pieces of silver, if the prophet himself is intended? We may also appeal to the parallel passages, which are of such peculiar importance in the case of Zechariah. When the prophets pointed the people to the good shepherd of the future, they either spoke of the Lord himself, who would act as a shepherd to the nation which the wicked shepherds had ruined (compare Is. xl. 11, "He will feed his flock like a shepherd, he will gather the lambs in his arm and carry them in his bosom, and gently lead those that give suck "), or of the Messiah (e.g., Ezek. xxxiv. 23, "And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, my servant David, he shall feed them and he shall be their shepherd," chap. xxxvii. 24, compare Jer. iii. 15, xxiii. 4, 5). The manner in which these two passages are to be made to harmonise, namely, by assuming that the Lord would discharge the duties of a shepherd through the Messiah, is especially evident from Ezek. xxxiv., where the allusion to Christ as the good shepherd of the future is preceded by the declaration, that the Lord himself will visit his flock and take it under his care (vers. 11, 12). There must be an intimate connection, therefore, between the Lord and the second David. But how could we conceive it possible, that the very same position, which is occupied everywhere else by the Lord and his anointed, should be here assigned to the prophet? Lastly, the idea that the passage refers to the prophet, generally goes hand in hand with the assumption, that the narrative relates to some past event, and that the prophet is describing an attempt which had been made by him to rescue the unhappy kingdom of the ten tribes from 1 The words of ver. 10 go far beyond the province of a prophet, "that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people." The person to whom the Lord said in ver. 4 "feed my flock," here attributes to himself a divine work. destruction. But this opinion is thoroughly inadmissible. It is evident from vers. 1-3, ver. 7, and the allusion made to the brotherhood of Judah and Israel in ver. 14, that the section does not relate to the Ephraimites. Moreover no analogy can be adduced in support of the reference to any thing past, which is also overthrown by the correspondence between the threat of punishment in the fifth chapter and the emblematical portion of the present prophecy. (3). The only remaining view is, that ver. 4 commences an account of a symbolical transaction, in which the prophet represents another person, and typifies his conduct and circumstances. That this is commonly the case with the symbolical actions of the prophets, may be seen from every one of them. In this manner Isaiah, for example, in chap. xx., sets forth the coming fate of the Egyptians and Ethiopians. And thus do Jeremiah in chap. xx., and Ezekiel in chap. iv., depict the future condition of the covenant nation. In the symbolical procedure, related in the first three chapters of Hosea, the prophet represents the Lord, and his actions show forth the treatment, which the covenant nation would receive from the hands of the Lord. In determining who is the person represented by the prophet on this occasion, the choice can only be between the Lord and his angel or revealer. It cannot be argued in defence of the latter, that on several occasions the Lord is distinguished from the subject of the address, as in vers. 4, 13. Such a distinction forms an essential part of a symbolical transaction, as we may easily see if we compare Hosea; it belongs to the drapery, not to the substance. The person represented tells his representative what he is to do, in order that the representation itself may correspond to the reality. There is, however, just as little force in the argument which may be adduced on the other side, that in ver. 13 Jehovah calls the miserable wages paid to the shepherd the goodly price at which He, the Lord, was priced. Just as in other prophecies the Angel of the Lord, who is connected with him by unity of nature, is sometimes distinguished from him as the messenger from the sender, and at other times participates in both his name and actions, so is it also with Zechariah. The most striking example is chap. ii. 8, 9, "Thus saith Jehovah Zebaoth, you; after the glory1 hath he sent me unto the heathen, which spoil for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye. For behold I will shake my hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to the servants, and ye shall know that Jehovah Zebaoth hath sent me." The speaker is here distinguished from Jehovah Zebaoth, who had sent him; nevertheless the prophet calls him Jehovah Zebaoth, and he attributes to himself a divine work, namely, the destruction of the enemies of the covenant-nation (see the remarks on the passage itself). The decision of this question is rather dependent upon the result to be obtained from the general contents of Zechariah's prophecies, with reference to the relation in which the Lord and his angel stood to the covenant nation. Now we very soon discover, that all the intercourse between the Lord and his people was carried on through the medium of his revealer, who was furnished with all the fulness of his power; that all the blessings imparted to the nation proceeded from him,—that he in fact was the real protector and covenant-God of the Israelites. It was he who was in the midst of the myrtle-bush, the symbol of the covenant-nation, attended by a company of angels (chap. i. 8). He promises to dwell in the midst of the people (chap. ii. 14), and it is he who rebuts the charge brought by Satan against the covenant-nation in the person of its representative Joshua, and on his own authority bestows upon him the forgiveness of sins (chap. iii. 1 sqq.). To whom, then, but to him, the constant shepherd of the nation, could the last and greatest attempt to prove his fidelity as a shepherd, which is depicted in this section, be possibly attributed? This result, which is thus independently obtained, is confirmed by the fact that in the history of the Angel of the Lord, who appeared in the Messiah, we meet with the thirty pieces of silver again, and that in the New Testament he is represented as the subject of this prophecy, and actually hints at the fact himself (John xxi. 15-17).-We need scarcely stop to enquire whether the syınbolical transaction, here described, was an inward or an outward one. The former is very obvious, as Maimonides has shown (Mor. Neb. ii. 46, Buxt. p. 1 Correctly explained by Jonathan thus: "post gloriam, quae promissa est, ut adducatur super vos." |