Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

See Is.

in consequence of the distress which preceded its fall. ix. 19 sqq. "No man shall spare his brother. They devour on the right hand, and are hungry; they devour on the left hand and are not satisfied; every man eateth the flesh of his arm” (rages, that is, against his own flesh, inasmuch as those who destroy one another are members of one community, of one national body).

Ver. 10. "And I took my staff Loveliness and broke it, that I might put an end to my covenant, which I had concluded with all nations."

The same event, which we find predicted in plain terms in the foregoing verse, is exhibited here under a twofold symbolical action. The desolation, caused by foreign nations, is represented by the breaking of the staff Loveliness or Grace; and the contention within by the breaking of the staff of the bound ones; or to speak more correctly, the announcement contained in the previous verse is followed here by an account of its fulfilment. The figure of the flock is not strictly preserved. In the words "with all nations," the figure is dropped; in figurative language it should have been "with all wild beasts" (cf. Is. lvi. 9, "all ye beasts of the field come to devour.") The thought, that hitherto the covenant-nation has been preserved from being destroyed by foreign enemies, in consequence of the secret interposition of the omnipotence of God, is expressed thus: the Lord has concluded a treaty with all nations on behalf of Israel, and this treaty is now to be brought to an end by the breaking of the staff Favour. A similar figure is employed elsewhere. In Job v. 23 the fact that no creature can injure the man who is at peace with God is stated thus: "for thy league shall be with the stones of the field, and the beasts of the field shall be at peace with thee." In Hosea ii. 18 the safety of the covenant-nation from earthly foes, when once it has been forgiven by its chief enemy, the Lord, is described in these terms, "and in that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground, and I will break the bow, and the sword, and the battle, and make them dwell safely." But the passage which Zechariah had immediately before his mind was Ezek. xxxiv. 25, “And I will make with them a covenant of peace, and will cause the

evil beasts to cease out of the land, and they dwell safely in the desert, and sleep in the woods," which differs from the one before us simply in the fact, that the figure of the flock is more stringently preserved. Zechariah announces that the covenant, which is here declared to have been concluded by the Lord for the good of his people, will now be brought to an end as a punishment for its fearful apostasy. If proper attention had been paid to these parallel passages, the words "all peoples" would never have been referred to the tribes of Israel, as they have been by Marck, and latterly also by Umbreit (see Bleek's reply). A sufficient objection to this explanation is to be found in the fact that the breaking of the staff Favour must indicate some special manifestation of the Divine displeasure; otherwise the breaking of the staff of the united ones could not have been mentioned as co-ordinate with it. Moreover, even if "the peoples" could denote the tribes of Israel, this meaning would be excluded here by the addition of the word (all). But the assertion, that is not infrequently used in connection with the tribes of Israel is thoroughly unfounded.

[ocr errors]

by עַמִּים

itself is never used in this sense. In chap. xii. 6 "all nations" are the heathen nations; and in Micah iv. 5 "all nations" form the antithesis to Israel. The New Testament parallel to this passage is to be found in Luke xix. 41-44, where Christ says to Jerusalem, which knew not the day of its visitation, "the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side; and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee." Compare also Luke xxi. 24, "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles."

Ver. 11. "And thus the treaty was brought to an end in that day, therefore the poorest sheep which adhered to me, learned that this is the word of the Lord."

It is obvious from this verse, that the efforts of the good shepherd are not altogether in vain, but a small company of true disciples attach themselves to him. These ("his own sheep,' who follow the true shepherd, but flee from a stranger, and who know the true shepherd, as Christ says in John x. 4, 5, 14) are described as those who observe him, keep their eye constantly

refers to the הוא

fixed upon him, and always act according to his direction and will. When the enemy broke into the land, after the treaty was brought to an end, they perceived that the announcement, which had already been made, of the destruction to be effected by the Lord, was not a mere human threat, but really a divine prediction. The prophet speaks of the event as past, because in the vision which passed before his mind, the things described had actually occurred. If the prophecy had been couched in literal terms, instead of being clothed in symbol, it would have run thus: when, therefore, my treaty is brought to an end, those who fear me will discern in the fulfilment the divine character of this sentence of mine upon Israel. announcement already made in vers. 9 and 10. There is a parallel to the words of the last clause in Jer. xxxii. 6-8, "the Lord said to me, behold Hananeel comes to thee, saying, buy my field; and Hananeel came to me and said, buy my field, I pray thee. Then I knew that this was the word of the Lord." By the fulfilment of the word of God, Jeremiah is still more firmly convinced, that he has not mistaken a human idea for a Divine revelation. A remark to this effect, that the fulfilment of his prophecies will furnish the proof of their Divine character, is frequently met with in Zechariah; compare chap. ii. 13, where the angel of the Lord says, "then shall ye know that the Lord of Sabaoth hath sent me." (See also chap. ii. 15 and vi. 15). -In that day, namely the day on which I had broken my staff, or without a figure, "after I had withdrawn my favour from the people, the hostile nations, which I had hitherto restrained, fell at once upon them."-Therefore; namely, from this very fact.

Ver. 12. "And I said to them; if it seemeth good to you, give me my wages, if not, let it be; and they weighed to me as my wages thirty pieces of silver."

"I said to them." Jahn observes that this must refer, not to the flock, but to the shepherds; since it was only from them that the wages could be demanded. But in this he is wrong. By the fact that the shepherd treats with the flock itself, whereas in other cases it is the owner who is treated with, he shows that this flock is endowed with reason. He leaves out the smaller and more despised portion of the people, among whom the

desired success had been obtained, as was stated in the previous verse, and treats with the larger and more powerful portion, whose obstinacy had compelled him to lay down his office. No doubt the leaders of the nation are more particularly intended, as taking part in this negotiation, not as shepherds, however, but as part of the flock itself; just as we find them described in Ezek. xxxiv., at one time as shepherds, at another as goats, and then again as fat sheep in contrast with the lean. The Lord could not demand his wages from the shepherds as such, for he had never entered their service, but on the contrary had endeavoured to deliver the flock out of their hands. Most of the commentators (e.g., Theodoret, Eusebius, Jarchi) understand by the wages, repentance and faith, or piety of heart. This is in fact the only return, which is worthy of the good shepherd. The great object of his coming was to secure these fruits. It is no valid objection to this, that the good shepherd does not ask for his wages, till he has entirely given up the people, till the Lord has withdrawn his favour, and the people therefore are no longer able to bring forth the fruits of repentance, but are devoted to destruction. For the form of the demand (compare Jer. xl. 4, Ezek. iii. 27) shows that the good shepherd does not expect it to be complied with, but makes this just demand, with which we may compare the Lord's looking for figs on the figtree of the Jewish nation, at a time when it had lost its capacity for bearing figs, in order that an opportunity might be afforded for the manifestation of the disposition of the nation and its hard ungrateful heart. They weigh to him as his wages thirty pieces of silver. Instead of wages they offer him an insult. Thirty pieces of silver are so contemptible a sum', that the very offer, for such services as he had rendered, especially from the quarter from which it came, was more insulting than a positive refusal. In Hosea iii. 2 thirty pieces of silver are represented as the sum for which a slave might be purchased (see vol. i. p. 189). According to Ex. xxi. 32 thirty pieces of silver was the compensation to be paid for having killed a servant. This passage suggests the thought that they intend to take away the life of the good shepherd (a fact which comes out still more

1 Maimonides (Mor. Neb. c. 40, part 3) "ut plus minus reperies hominem Khamım pastimari sexaginta sicl, servum vero triginta."

distinctly in chap. xii. 10 and xiii. 7), and avail themselves of the opportunity to offer him this insult.

Ver. 13. "And the Lord said to me: throw it to the potter, the noble price, at which I am valued by them; and I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them to the potter into the house of the Lord."

The Lord addresses the prophet, who is his representative. This is evident from the words, "at which I have been valued." Th, to throw away, sometimes with the idea of contempt implied (compare Jer. xxii. 19, lii. 3, and Ezek. xx. 8). We should not have so many erroneous explanations of the expression "to the potter," nor would the attempt to explain the verse have been altogether given up on account of these words, if more attention had been paid to the clue furnished by Jeremiah, who affords the same help in the interpretation of this book, as Ezekiel and Daniel in that of the Revelation. It would then have been seen that "to the potter" is the same as "into an unclean place, or to the hangman." The potter referred to here, as the constant use of the article in this passage, in the prophecies of Jeremiah, and in the Gospel of Matthew leads us to conclude, was probably the potter employed about the temple; for we cannot imagine that there was only one potter in all Jerusalem. His workshop was in the valley of Hinnom, most likely because the earth which he required was very plentiful there, or that the earth in the valley was peculiarly good. The following reasons are sufficient to establish this conclusion. That the workshop was not only outside the city, but actually in the valley, which runs beneath it, is evident from Jer. xviii. 2, where the prophet, who was in the temple at the time, receives instructions to "arise, and go down to the potter's house." Compare ver. 3, "then I went down to the potter's house." points especially to the valley of Hinnom, "go down to the valley of Ben Hinnom, which lies by the brick-gate, and proclaim there the words which I shall tell thee." From this it follows that the gate which led to the valley of Hinnom was called the brick or pot-gate, from the pottery which stood in the valley. That yw, literally the gate of the pottery, must be rendered thus is evident from the allusion to ver. 1. where would be, strictly speaking, superfluous, and also

But Jer. xix 2

« ForrigeFortsæt »