Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

the Lord. The words, "and so I tended the flock," are not merely a superfluous repetition, but show that the tending took place by means of the staves. The rendering adopted by many, with which I fed the flock," is correct as far as the sense is concerned.

Ver. 8. "And I cut off the three shepherds in one month, and I was weary of them, and their soul also rebelled against me."

We shall enquire, first of all, who are to be understood by the three shepherds. We reject at the outset the view expressed by Calvin, Jahn, Rosenmüller, and others, who suppose that we have here a definite number for an indefinite, three for several. Instead of "the three shepherds" (Sept. ToÙS Tρeîs toiμévas) we should have in this case simply "three shepherds." The article is just as decisive against those who understand by the three shepherds three distinct individuals. If this were the meaning, we should either find the individuals mentioned before, in which case a simple allusion would be sufficient (but no such shepherds have ever been mentioned), or they must have been so well known to the prophet's readers that he might safely assume that they would readily understand him.1 But it is impossible to find three individuals to whom the words would apply. This is evident from the fact that, of all those who support this explanation, hardly two are to be found, who agree as to the persons referred to. Moreover the views advocated by the majority of these expositors must be rejected at the outset, on the simple ground that they seek the three shepherds among those who lived before the Babylonian captivity, whereas it is to a future event that reference is here made. There can be no doubt, therefore,

1 It is also to be observed, that the thought of the future predominates throughout the whole of the Scriptures, that it is never the existing generation alone which is addressed, and that the knowledge assumed as possessed, is never such as was accessible to their own age alone.

2 The rationalistic critics (e.g. Hitzig, Maurer, Ewald, and Bleek) fall back with a certain unanimity upon 2 Kings xv. 13. But in this case it is impossible to do justice even to the most outward circumstances. According to that passage Shallum reigned a full month. Menahem, who must have been the third, was not killed at all, but died a natural death at the end of ten years, and his son reigned in his stead. To get rid of the difficulty Hitzig works away at the word T, which must mean to cut off, as ver. 9 clearly shows; and Ewald invents "a third ruler, who rose up at the same time and was quickly overthrown, possibly on the other side of the Jordan, but who is necessarily passed over in 2 Kings xv. 10-13." The opinion is

that the prophet is speaking, not of three individuals, but of three orders of shepherds. Those who hold this opinion are divided again into various classes. Junius, Piscator, and Lightfoot conjecture that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, are referred to, a notion which must be rejected on the simple ground that these Jewish sects could not possibly be called the shepherds of the nation. Marck imagined the civil, ecclesiastical, and military authorities to be intended; but he has not brought forward any proofs that the latter are ever represented as belonging to the shepherds of the theocracy. If it may be regarded as certain, that the three shepherds represent the three classes of shepherds existing in the theocracy, in other words the leaders of the nation, the only correct method of procedure is to enquire, whether Zechariah himself, or any other of the Old Testament writers, especially those who lived about his time, has anywhere referred to three classes of shepherds as the sole leaders of the theocracy. Now if we adopt this course, we shall see that Zechariah cannot possibly have thought of any others than the civil authorities, the priests and the prophets. This is the oldest interpretation in existence.1 We may see how natural it is, from the fact that, whilst Christ was to com

based upon the assumption, which we have already shown to be erroneous, that we have not a prophecy here, but a historical picture relating to the circumstances of the ten tribes, an assumption sufficiently disproved by ver. 14. Another objection may also be offered, namely, that so special an interposition of the providence of God would hardly be looked for in the case of the kingdom of Israel, which rested upon a thoroughly false foundation. The destruction of the three shepherds is represented here as a consequence of the feeding; it was an act of mercy. But in the kingdom of Israel, the overthrow of one or other of the kings was attended with but little loss or gain to the kingdom of God. The men of God looked upon its changes of dynasty with comparative indifference. It is also a point of some moment, that all history fails to yield a suitable explanation, if we understand by the three shepherds three individuals. There is no gap in the history of either Judah or Israel, and therefore no opportunity is afforded anywhere of introducing the three shepherds.

1 Thus Theodoret says, "he refers to the rulers of the Jews, the prophets and the priests, for by these three orders they were fed." Cyril gives the same explanation, except that he substitutes the scribes for the prophets: "I think," he says, "that by the three shepherds he means the legally appointed priests, the duly constituted rulers of the people, and in addition to these the scribes; for they fed Israel." Jerome also mentions it. "I have read,” he states, "in the commentary of a certain writer, that the shepherds, who were cut off in one day through the indignation of the Lord, are to be seen in the priests, and false prophets and rulers of the Jews, because they were all cut off at once after the death of Christ."

bine in his own person all the offices which existed in the Old Testament, these three are the only ones which the Church has ever attributed to him, a proof that they must occupy a very prominent position in the Old Testament, and that there is no foundation for Schmieder's assertion, that it cannot be shown that this threefold division of the offices was distinctly recognised either before or during the time of Zechariah. The fact that this explanation was not universally adopted in later times, may be easily accounted for, on the ground that it was difficult to prove the existence of the prophetic office in the time of Christ. What else could have led any one to seek for other shepherds than those which are constantly associated together in this capacity, to the exclusion of every other, and which are also represented, as in this passage, as having been together the main cause of the misery and destruction of the nation? There are numerous passages in Jeremiah, which might be compared with this. For example, Jer. ii. 8, " The priests said not where is the Lord, and they that handle the law (also priests) knew me not; the shepherds (with special reference to the civil authorities), sinned against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal;" ver. 26, "As the thief is ashamed when he is found, so is the house of Israel put to shame, they, their kings, their princes (the two together constituting the civil authorities), and their priests, and their prophets." Jer. xviii. 18, "And they say, come and let us devise devices against Jeremiah; for the law cannot perish from the priests, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophets." If we examine the prophecies of Zechariah himself, we find the other two classes of shepherds most distinctly noticed in connexion with the prophetic order, of which he was the representative, in chap. iv. 12—14. To the enquiry, what the two olive branches were, which fed the lamp (the kingdom of God) with the oil pressed from their fruit, the prophet receives the following reply, "these are the two sons of oil, which stand before the Lord of the whole earth." The two orders, through which the Lord communicated his mercy to the Church, are here said to be the priesthood and the civil authorities, the former being at that time represented by Joshua, the latter by Zerubbabel. It is very obvious from a comparison of chap. iii. that it is not in their individual capacity that these two are

referred to here, for throughout that chapter Joshua is always spoken of as a representative, sometimes of the priesthood, and at other times of the whole nation. This passage is so far analogous to the passage before us, therefore, that in the latter the orders into which the leaders of the nation were divided are also personified as individuals. Compare also Mal. ii. 7, where the priestly order is called the messenger of the Lord of Hosts.

The only difficulty which remains is how to explain the fact that the prophetical order should be introduced as one of the three, seeing that this had been extinct for a long time before the period of fulfilment. We reply that, in accordance with the essential character of prophecy, the prophet represents the future by means of the analogous circumstances of his own time. Just as the order of the civil shepherds continued to exist though kings had ceased to reign, so did the order of prophets continue, so far as everything essential was concerned, even after the suspension of the gift of prophecy. The vocation of the prophet was to make known to the people the word and will of God (Jer. xviii. 18). Before the completion of the canon this was done by means of revelations made directly to the prophets themselves, but after this it was accomplished by the investigation of earlier revelations under the guidance of the Spirit of God, and the application of the results to the peculiar circumstances of the age. The place of the prophets was occupied by the scribes, on whom, according to the book of Ecclesiasticus, chap. xxxix., the Lord richly bestowed the spirit of understanding, who studied the wisdom of the ancients, investigated the prophets, delivered instruction and counsel, and who were noted for wise sayings. They stood in the same relation to the prophets of the Old Testament, as the enlightened teachers of the Christian Church to the prophets of the New. The three constituent elements of the Jewish Sanhedrim answer to the three shepherds mentioned here, namely, the leading priests, the scribes, and the elders, ȧpxiepeîs, γραμματεῖς, πρεσβύτεροι (Matt. xxvi. 3).

What are we to understand by the cutting off and extermination of the three shepherds? In the opinion of many commentators, the literal destruction of the individuals themselves. But a difficulty arises here from the fact that the extermination of the shepherds precedes the breaking of the staffs. It cannot,

therefore, be a literal extermination that is intended, for the shepherds are represented immediately afterwards as still in existence. It is they who provoke the good shepherd to impatience, and assume the attitude of greatest hostility to him, and from the use of the future with Vav. conversive, this must be regarded, not as preceding the extermination, but rather as the result of it. It is their obstinate resistance, by which all his pastoral efforts are frustrated, that leads him to break the staves and lay down the office of shepherd. We can only think, then, of an extermination of the shepherds, as shepherds, that is, their deposition from their office, the tacit assertion of their non-existence, which was followed by their outward removal in due time. To effect this deposition of the shepherds was the leading object of the Lord during his term of office. But the very disposition, which made them deserve to be deposed, also prevented the sentence, which was pronounced upon them with absolute authority, from being carried out in its fullest extent. Only the most miserable of the sheep which hearkened to the Lord (ver. 11), withdrew from their pernicious guidance. It was not till the rejection of the whole nation, which was blind to its own interests, that the sentence was executed in its full extent by foreign foes, and without its receiving good shepherds in the place of the bad, which would have been the case if it had obeyed the good shepherd, and carried out the decree of extermination itself. Bleek asks, "How can it possibly be said of the Redeemer, that the object of his efforts was to liberate the people-externally or internallyfrom the rule of their civil authorities, and consequently to exempt them from obedience towards them?” But it is not to

civil authority," in its ordinary sense, that reference is made here, (the political power was then in the hands of the Romans), but to an order of shepherds resting upon a theological foundation. We have, in fact, the sentence of deposition formally pronounced in Matt. xxiii. 2, 3: "the Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat all, therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works." Respect for the ecclesiastical authorities is here torn up by the Henceforth the hands alone are to be moved, not the To render inward obedience is not a duty, but a sin. The whole chapter will show us what the extermination of the

roots. heart.

« ForrigeFortsæt »