Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

Jews destroyed one another in the fury of their party contentions. In Zechariah's days the severe wound inflicted upon the nation by the separation of Judah and Israel (Is. vii. 17) began to heal; and in chap. 10 he predicts a perfect cure. The restoration of unity is one of the most delightful prospects, which Ezekiel sets before the nation (chap. xxxvii. 15 sqq.). But at a still later period a fresh sin on the part of the nation would again deprive it of the blessing."

Ver. 15. "And the Lord said to me, take unto thee again the instruments of a foolish shepherd.”

Again: that is, still continuing to set forth in symbol the fate which awaits the nation. Ewald renders the passages, "take to thee still farther." links this action to the previous one, and shows that they are to be looked at from the same point of view. If the prophet acts as the representative of a coming shepherd in the first instance, he must do the same in the second. It is very evident, that by the foolish shepherd, we are not to understand any one individual, but the whole

4

1 This is so obvious, that it even forced itself upon Abarbanel's mind, "quia tempore excidii latrones aucti sunt, et cum amore etiam fraternitas est imminuta in tribu Juda, et insuper inter hos et filios Israelis, sacerdotes et Levitas, qui apud ipsos erant, idcirco hic ait, ad irritum faciendam fraternitatem inter Judam et Israelem."

2 The commentators, who dispute Zechariah's authorship of the second part, generally pass very quickly over this verse. It is inconceivable, how Bleek could assert, that it points to a period antecedent to the breaking up of the Ephraimitish kingdom. If the authorship of Zechariah is denied, the only possible conclusion to which we can come, is that the prophecy belongs to an earlier period than the division of the two kingdoms, and this is not for a moment to be thought of. There is an account in 1 Kings xii. 20 of the breaking up of the brotherhood. (, brotherhood, is only met with here; the form is Aramaic, see Fürst). From the period of the division of the kingdoms to the dissolution of the kingdom of the ten tribes, the brotherhood between Judah and Israel was never restored. The first indispensable condition was communia sacra. That the breaking up of the brotherhood extended to the time of Isaiah is evident from Is. vii. 17. But the brotherhood between Judah and Israel is referred to here, in terms which show that at least the first step must have been taken towards its restoration.

3 Calvin says on this verse, "the prophet teaches here, that even when God had relinquished the care of the people, a certain show of government would still be maintained, but one from which it could easily be gathered that God was no longer acting the part of a shepherd. God had already laid down his office of shepherd, but he afterwards placed wolves, and thieves and robbers over the nation in the place of shepherds, when he was about to execute his fearful judgment upon the Jews.'

4 According to Ewald the foolish shepherd is "Pekah, the wild king who was ruling at the time." Maurer thinks Hosea is intended, Hitzig, Menahem.

body of bad rulers, who brought about the destruction of the nation after the rejection of the good shepherd. We must not refer the expression to foreign rulers, however, but to the governors at home. Such threats of divine punishment, as we find in ver. 17, could only be directed against the latter, since they were both instruments and sharers in the punishment, as well as the apostasy. Of the apostasy in fact they were the leading instigators. The former, on the other hand, are represented in ver. 5 as entirely free from sin. We have already seen, that in the verse just referred to, the native governors are called shepherds, and as such are opposed to the foreign rulers, who are described as buyers and sellers. The foolish shepherd is not identical with the wicked shepherds in ver. 8, as Schmieder supposes. The appearance of the shepherd is expressly described as future in ver. 16, and we naturally understand this as meaning future in relation to the ideal present; which, as we have already seen, was the time of the appearance of the good shepherd. "The good shepherd has withdrawn from the flock, the bad shepherd takes his place" (Hitzig). The reason why the actual plurality of the bad rulers is exhibited in the form of an ideal unity, is to be found in this antithesis to the one good shepherd. The term applied to the shepherd, "foolish," not wicked, directs attention to the fact, that the rulers of the nation are so blinded by the judicial punishment inflicted by God, as to be unable to see that, whilst their fury is directed against the nation, they are undermining their own good. This aspect of wickedness, viz., the folly associated with it, is frequently referred to. Compare, for example, Jer. iv. 22, "For my people is foolish; they know me not; foolish children are they and without understanding; they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge. By the instruments of a foolish shepherd we may understand merely the shepherd's staff, if we regard the expression simply as in antithesis to what precedes, or the other instruments employed by a shepherd as

Such guessing as this is a sufficient proof that the principle of interpretation is false.

1 Abendana (in the Spicilegium to Sal. Ben Melech's Miclal Jophi) had the right idea; but his explanation is too limited: " per pastores nihili intelliguntur principes latronum, Jochanan, Simeon et Eliezer."

well. We may imagine the shepherd's instruments as consisting of a strong stick mounted with iron, with which he wounds the sheep, whereas the good shepherd keeps them in order with a thin staff and gentle strokes. We may also picture to ourselves a shepherd's bag full of holes, and containing nothing of any use to either shepherd or sheep. In any case Bochart's notion must be rejected, that "there is nothing in either the appearance, or attributes of the bad shepherd, to distinguish him from the good; his actions alone betray him." (Hieroz. i. 455).

Ver. 16. "For behold I raise up a shepherd in the land, those that perish he will not visit, the tender thing he will not seek out, nor heal that which is wounded; the strong he will not nourish, and the flesh of the fat one he will eat, and split their claws in pieces.

The foolish shepherd does the very opposite of what Christ the good shepherd is represented as doing in Is. xlii. 3, “The bruised reed he will not break, and the smoking flax will he not quench." Zechariah had also several passages from Jeremiah and Ezekiel in his mind. Compare Ezek. xxxiv. 3, 4, "Ye eat the fat and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill the fat one and ye feed not the flock; the weak ye strengthen not, the broken ye bind not up, ye bring not back that which has broken away, neither do ye seek out that which is ready to perish;" and Jer. xxiii. 1, 2, "Woe be unto the shepherds which destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture, saith the Lord; therefore, thus saith the Lord God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; ye have scattered my flock and driven them away, and have not visited them." The connexion with these passages is not merely an outward one. By a just judgment of God the nation had been punished by means of bad rulers before the captivity. Jeremiah and Ezekiel had promised deliverance from them, and after the captivity, namely in the time of Zechariah, this had actually taken place, when the nation was ruled in a truly paternal spirit by Zerubbabel and Joshua. Zechariah, however, announces that at a future period the same cause will again produce the same effects, and that in a heightened degree. The word "for," at the commencement, may be explained on the supposition, that it assigns the reason, why a symbolical action had been enjoined.

according to the current הנער

נער

opinion, means that which has burst or broken away; Gesenius and Maurer: "dispulsio, concr. dispulsum." But as y written in precisely the same way, is used to denote "the young" in every other passage in which it occurs, there is no reason to make an exception in this instance, but on the contrary there is every reason to assume, that the radical signification of tender and weak is the leading notion here, and to this the idea of seeking is very appropriate. We must imagine the tender one, which needs the greatest care of all the flock, as having been left behind. The verby, which is certainly also the root of , "a boy," does not suit well as the root of with the meaning strayed, if we consider the sense in which it is generally used. Its only meaning is to shake. The form also is not suitable, as we may see at once from the fact that Hitzig proposes to change the vowel points, and alter the participle into a Niphal. But the occurrence of the masculine in the midst of feminines is perfectly decisive. It is impossible to account for this, if we regard the word as part of the verb. On the other hand the nouny, according to the early usages of the language, for which Zechariah has a great preference, is employed for both genders (compare Gen. xxiv. 16 and Job i. 19). It is a matter of but little importance, that is never used of animals, whether we consider the age in which Zechariah wrote, or the fact that the prophecy really relates to men. The two clauses relating to the weak and the strong are separated by Athnach. From its connexion with the fat one it is better to explain

as meaning, not that which stands still and cannot move from its place on account of hunger and exhaustion, but "that which stands upright." The analogy of the language is in favour of this, as does not mean to stand still, but to stand. The Septuagint rendering is тò óλóλnpov; that of the Vulgate: id quod stat. The words, "he will split their claws," do not refer to the extreme cruelty of the shepherds, as many commentators suppose, but to the avarice, which is no doubt accompanied by cruelty to the sheep. There is a climax intended; he will eat,

1 "It is opposed to that which lies down and is prostrate from disease. For as the sick and broken down stand in need of medicine, so do those that stand up and are well need food and sustenance, that their health may be preserved."-Bochart.

&c., he will even break the claws one from another, that not a shred of flesh may be lost.1

Ver. 17. "Woe to the worthless shepherd who leaves the flock, a sword over his arm and over his right eye! his arm will be entirely lamed, his right eye will become quite dim.”2

The arm and the right eye are mentioned as individual examples of the objects of punishment, and as the two parts of the body, which are most needed by a good shepherd for tending and guarding his flock, and most shamefully abused by a bad shepherd to the ruin of the sheep. The arm is the organ of strength, the right eye of prudence. An apparent difficulty is presented by the fact that two kinds of punishment are mentioned in connexion with each member, and that the two are incompatible with each other. The sword is first of all threatened to both; then Karáληis to the arm (Calvin, "the arm will dry up, i.e., its strength will so thoroughly depart that it will become like a rotten stick"), and dimness to the eye. But the punishments mentioned merely serve to particularise the general notion of punishment, and the prophet connects several together, to give greater distinctness to the magnitude of the punishments as well as of the crime. He was the better able to do this here, since the shepherd was not one individual, but many.

CHAP. XII. 1-XIII. 6.

A new scene opens here. The nation of the Lord, which is at war with all the nations of the earth, though weak in itself, is strong in the Lord, and is everywhere victorious (vers. 1-9). The Lord breaks the hard hearts of the inhabitants of Jerusa

1 Ewald and Hitzig adopt Tarnov's explanation, "he will tear their hoofs, by driving them on bad roads." But tearing or breaking in pieces points to a direct act. Compare the parallel passage in Micah iii. 3, where allusion is made to the breaking of bones by the voracious princes.

2 "In this verse the prophet teaches, that although God will justly inflict this severe punishment upon the Jews, yet the shepherds themselves will not escape with impunity; and thus he shows that, even in the midst of all this confusion and destruction, he will still remember his covenant."--Calvin.

« ForrigeFortsæt »