Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

shepherds means. The second passage in the New Testament is John x. The evil shepherds, whom the good shepherd will remove out of the way, when he undertakes the care of the flock, are the "strangers" in ver. 5, the "thieves" in ver. 8, the "hirelings" in ver. 12. Of these the Lord says in ver. 8, "all that ever came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them,"-words which, in their cutting severity, correspond exactly to the expression, "I cut off" in the passage before us. The very fact that Jesus invariably addresses himself to the oxλo, is a practical declaration that the shepherds are no more. We never find the Lord or his apostles attempting to effect a reform of the ruling power. On the contrary this is always regarded as under sentence of condemnation. The destruction

of the shepherds was accomplished in one month. This cannot be merely equivalent to "within a short space of time," as Kimchi, Calvin, and others suppose. If so, there would be good ground for Hitzig's question, "Why should a month be spoken of, when most likely a day or an hour would have been more appropriate?" That the prophet would have said "in one day," if he had simply meant within a very short time, is evident from the parallel passage in chap. iii. 9, where the reconciliation to be effected by the Messiah is thus described, "I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day." The month is to be reckoned from the commencement of the shepherd's ministry; and the expression "in one month" is to be taken as denoting a period, which is long when compared with "one day," but brief as contrasted with other periods of time. It shows that the extermination of the three shepherds is not to be regarded as a single act, like the expiation, but as a continuous act, which occupies some time. It sets before us in an appropriate manner the repeated efforts on the part of Christ, to deliver the poor nation, the lost sheep of the house of Israel, from the spiritual tyranny of its blind and corrupt guides. "I was weary of them," lit., my soul was short with them, I lost all patience with them.1

is usually rendered “to feel disgust,” according to the ana

1 Schultens (on Prov. xx. 21) says, "this expression does not denote weariness, so much as the indignation which arises from intolerable injuries, under which the mind is, as it were, oppressed and suffocated. The impatience of one who is grievously harassed, oppressed, stifled, who can hardly breathe, is everywhere apparent."

VOL. IV.

C

manner.

But this is not quite correct.

logy of the Syriac. Schultens has already shown that the verb denotes the hostile and malignant disposition of the three shepherds, regarded both as condemned by God and as springing from an evil moral source, and therefore could not be applied to the feelings cherished by the good shepherd towards them. In Arabic denotes a low and corrupt state of mind generally, and is then specially applied to avarice as a base passion. In Hebrew this is evidently the idea, in the only other passage in which the verb occurs, Prov. xx. xxi. is an inheritance acquired in a despicable The evil shepherds are inflamed with contemptible hatred towards the good shepherd, because he exposes their wickedness, and seeks to deprive them of their power. They do all they can, therefore, to prevent the execution of his commission. "Their soul" is not merely a substitute for the personal pronoun, but denotes the intensity and depth of the abhorrence. Maurer would refer the words on and to the sheep rather than the shepherds, but evidently for no other reason than that his false views respecting the shepherds require it. If these are to be regarded as individuals, and not as orders, their extermination must necessarily consist in their death, and nothing more can be predicated after this. If the sheep are intended, it is difficult to see what gives rise to the impatience and weariness. Both of these presuppose, that some contention has already been described as taking place between the good shepherd, and those to whom the words refer. The latter do not wish to be deposed. Hence the impatience, and the efforts made by the good shepherd to effect their deposition excite the most malignant feelings on their part.

Ver. 9. And I will not feed you; the dead thing shall die, that which is exterminated shall be exterminated, and the rest will consume every one the other.1

Schmieder has very properly compared this passage with John viii. 21, “I go away, and ye shall seek me and shall die in your sins." But there is a still closer resemblance in Matt. xxiii. 37, 38,." O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often

1 Calvin: "When they cannot be healed, and suffer no remedy to be provided for their ills, I will leave them; they shall learn what it is to be without the good shepherd."

would I have gathered thy children together,

[ocr errors][merged small]

ye would not! Behold your house is left unto you desolate." The determination not to feed the "poor sheep" any more, which is based upon the discovery made in ver. 8, presupposes that they resemble the shepherds.

There are many who follow

the Septuagint (ảπoðvηokéтw) and Jerome, and understand the futures as expressing a wish. But the very form of the words

shows that this cannot be the case. They are predictions. The "dead thing" and "that which is exterminated' denote something, which is devoted to so certain a destruction, that it may be regarded as dead and exterminated already. The only thing that could have averted this destruction would have been their following the good shepherd; but now that he has been obliged to give up his office, things are left to take their natural course. There are three kinds of destruction referred to here, as a comparison of the parallel passages will show; plague, such as usually breaks out in besieged cities (the dead will die), violent death from foreign foes, and a terrible strife among the citizens themselves, in consequence of the existing distress. Compare, for example, Jer. xv. i. 2, “Then said the Lord unto me, though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be towards this people; cast them out of my sight, and let them go forth. And it shall come to pass, if they say unto thee, Whither shall we go forth? then shalt thou tell them, thus saith the Lord: such as are for death, to death; and such as are for the sword, to the sword; and such as are for the famine, to the famine; and such as are for captivity, to captivity." Also, Jer. xxxiv. 17, "Ye have not hearkened unto me, in proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother, and every man to his neighbour; behold, I proclaim liberty for you to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine." See also Ezek. vi. 12, "He that is far off shall die of the pestilence; and he that is near shall fall by the sword; and he that remaineth and he that is preserved shall die by the famine." No proof need be adduced, that the destruction of the Jewish state was really effected by the combination of all these three. And those who remain will eat the flesh one of another.1 A similar description is given of the manner in which the citizens of the kingdom of Israel fought one against another, 1 Marck: "Ex rabie fera, in quam praeter naturam hae oves degenerabunt.”

But this is not quite correct.

logy of the Syriac. Schultens has already shown that the verb denotes the hostile and malignant disposition of the three shepherds, regarded both as condemned by God and as springing from an evil moral source, and therefore could not be applied to the feelings cherished by the good shepherd towards them. In Arabic denotes a low and corrupt state of mind generally, and is then specially applied to avarice as a base passion. In Hebrew this is evidently the idea, in the only other passage in which the verb occurs, Prov. xx. xxi.

is an inheritance acquired in a despicable נַחֲלָה מְבֹחֶלֶת

manner. The evil shepherds are inflamed with contemptible hatred towards the good shepherd, because he exposes their wickedness, and seeks to deprive them of their power. They do all they can, therefore, to prevent the execution of his commission. "Their soul” is not merely a substitute for the personal pronoun, but denotes the intensity and depth of the abhorrence. Maurer would refer the words on and on to the sheep rather than the shepherds, but evidently for no other reason than that his false views respecting the shepherds require it. If these are to be regarded as individuals, and not as orders, their extermination must necessarily consist in their death, and nothing more can be predicated after this. If the sheep are intended, it is difficult to see what gives rise to the impatience and weariness. Both of these presuppose, that some contention has already been described as taking place between the good shepherd, and those to whom the words refer. The latter do not wish to be deposed. Hence the impatience, and the efforts made by the good shepherd to effect their deposition excite the most malignant feelings on their part.

Ver. 9. And I will not feed you; the dead thing shall die, that which is exterminated shall be exterminated, and the rest will consume every one the other.1

Schmieder has very properly compared this passage with John viii. 21, "I go away, and ye shall seek me and shall die in your sins." But there is a still closer resemblance in Matt. xxiii. 37, 38,." O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often

1 Calvin: "When they cannot be healed, and suffer no remedy to be provided for their ills, I will leave them; they shall learn what it is to be without the good shepherd."

would I have gathered thy children together,

and

ye would not! Behold your house is left unto you desolate." The determination not to feed the "poor sheep" any more, which is based upon the discovery made in ver. 8, presupposes that they resemble the shepherds.

There are many who follow

the Septuagint (ȧπоovησкéтw) and Jerome, and understand the futures as expressing a wish. But the very form of the words shows that this cannot be the case. They are predictions. The "dead thing" and "that which is exterminated" denote something, which is devoted to so certain a destruction, that it may be regarded as dead and exterminated already. The only thing that could have averted this destruction would have been their following the good shepherd; but now that he has been obliged to give up his office, things are left to take their natural course. There are three kinds of destruction referred to here, as a comparison of the parallel passages will show; plague, such as usually breaks out in besieged cities (the dead will die), violent death from foreign foes, and a terrible strife among the citizens themselves, in consequence of the existing distress. Compare, for example, Jer. xv. i. 2, "Then said the Lord unto me, though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be towards this people; cast them out of my sight, and let them go forth. And it shall come to pass, if they say unto thee, Whither shall we go forth? then shalt thou tell them, thus saith the Lord: such as are for death, to death; and such as are for the sword, to the sword; and such as are for the famine, to the famine; and such as are for captivity, to captivity." Also, Jer. xxxiv. 17, "Ye have not hearkened unto me, in proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother, and every man to his neighbour; behold, I proclaim liberty for you to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine." See also Ezek. vi. 12, "He that is far off shall die of the pestilence; and he that is near shall fall by the sword; and he that remaineth and he that is preserved shall die by the famine." No proof need be adduced, that the destruction of the Jewish state was really effected by the combination of all these three. And those who remain will eat the flesh one of another.1 A similar description is given of the manner in which the citizens of the kingdom of Israel fought one against another, 1 Marck: "Ex rabie fera, in quam praeter naturam hae oves degenerabunt."

« ForrigeFortsæt »