in vers. 1-3. r, to smite in pieces, may be more suitably applied to a hostile invasion, than to internal contentions. In other passages it is always used in connection with foreign foes, (Num. xiv. 45; Deut. i. 44; Is. xxiv. 12). The words, "I will not deliver out of their hand," also point to heathen oppression. Ver. 7. "And so I fed the flock of the slaughter, therefore the most miserable sheep, and I took unto me two staves, the one I called loveliness, and the other I called the united ones, and fed the flock." There can be no doubt, that means therefore, on this account. Other renderings have all been adopted without any foundation. The simplest explanation is that given by Hitzig, who supposes the expression to refer to vers. 5, 6, in which case the word therefore merely repeats, in a more distinct and emphatic manner, what has already been said at the commencement, "and so I fed." As the directions to feed the sheep are explained by what follows in ver. 6, which commences with "for," so does the account of the execution of the order point back to the same explanation through the word therefore (I fed), with which it begins. The miserable of the sheep are the most miserable sheep, those whose miserable condition is such, that the rest in comparison are not miserable at all. The question arises, however, where are we to find the whole, the flock generally, with which the part is here compared. If we suppose the former to be one particular flock, the nation of Israel for example, the miserable would then be a portion of that nation, which was peculiarly miserable. If, on the other hand, we understand the former as denoting sheep generally, meaning thereby all people and nations, the most miserable sheep would then be the whole of the covenant nation. The former is the more customary view; and it is generally supposed that an antithesis is intended here, similar to Ezek. xxxiv. 16: "I will seek the lost, and bring back the strayed, bind up the wounded, and strengthen the sick; but the fat and strong I will destroy." It is also added that the most miserable are those, who are made humble by their misery, and long for salvation. But on closer examination it is evident that the latter view is the correct one. It cannot be objected to this, that in ver. 11 "the most miserable sheep" are only the God-fearing portion of the nation. For the limitation does not arise from the expression, "the most miserable sheep," but from the clause which follows, "who adhered to me;" and this modifying clause rather tends to show that "the most miserable sheep" is in itself a general expression, not limited to any particular class, but referring to the whole nation. The most decisive evidence in favour of the latter, however, is to be found in two parallel passages of Jeremiah,-viz., chap. xlix. 20, "Surely they (the children of Edom) tear the lowliest sheep;" and chap. 1. 45, where the same statement is made with reference to the Chaldeans. In both passages, "the lowliest sheep" is an expression applied to the Israelites, in contrast with all the nations round about. Moreover the Lord is described in vers. 4 and 9 as undertaking the office of shepherd, not merely over a portion of the nation, but over the whole, and for the good of the whole. The expression, "most miserable sheep," is identical with "sheep of the slaughter," by which the whole nation is designated. The fact that two shepherds' staves are taken, is supposed by many expositors to denote the various ways in which God dealt with the nation. But this idea is founded upon an erroneous interpretation of the names of the staves. A shepherd's staff is the instrument with which the shepherd defends his flock and ensures their well-being; "thy rod and thy staff they comfort me" (Ps. xxiii. 4). Hence the two staves, taken on this occasion, indicate the protection afforded by the good shepherd against a twofold danger, from outward foes and inward contention; the two sources of danger referred to in ver. 6, as those which would lead to the ruin of the nation, in the event of its hardness of heart continuing. But now, so long as the last attempt to lead it to repentance continues, the danger is averted by the faithful shepherd. After this it breaks in with fearful violence. by is rendered by mcst commentators loveliness or beauty (Sept., nánλos; Aquila and Symmachus, ε¿пpénɛia; Jerome, decus). At first sight the word, as thus interpreted, appears to have but little meaning; and, according to ver. 10, the staff represented the mercy of the Lord, by which he protected the nation from being destroyed by outward foes. But the usages of the language are decisive in favour of this rendering, and every objection is removed by the fact, that the expression, which is indefinite in itself, is more precisely defined by the two earlier passages to which this refers,-viz., Ps. xc. 17, "The loveliness of the Lord be upon us" (may it show itself in our history), and Ps. xxvii. 4, "One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the loveliness of the Lord, and to inquire in his temple." According to these passages the staff loveliness can only denote the lovely aspect in which the Lord manifests himself to his people, and therefore is identical with the staff mercy. We cannot agree with Bleek, who explains the name as denoting the loveliness of the people, an explanation at variance alike with the passages quoted and also with ver. 10, where the staff denotes an act of God; nor yet with Maurer, who renders it amœnitatem, vitam commodam. The singular by indicates the relation of the One God to his nation; the plural an that of the members of the nation to one another.-The second name is supposed by many to be used in a bad sense denoting either perdentes or dolentes. Thus in contrast with the first staff grace, the second is the staff woes, with which the nation is to be punished, in case it should refuse to receive the Lord as its shepherd.1 But the following proofs are sufficient to establish its incorrectness. (1). p does not mean to destroy or to be destroyed either in the Kal or Niphal, much less to feel pain.2 (2.) This rendering, as Calvin has already observed, is shown to 1 The last to defend this view is Hofmann (Schriftbeweis ii. 2, p. 557), "As there is aan, which means to do evil or inflict evil, pan, which denotes the various methods of inflicting evil, forms an appropriate antithesis ”.נעם to 2 The passages adduced in support of the meaning to destroy, which has already been contested by Gousset and Schultens (ad Jobum p. 964) are the following. Neh. i. 7, "We have sinned against thee or in,” "We is generally rendered, "We have dealt corruptly towards thee,' have acted wickedly towards thee;" but it ought rather to be rendered, "We are pledged to thee," omni pignore obstricti tibi tenemur ad poenam : Schultens has admirably illustrated this from the Arabic sayings, "Every man is pledged to death, every evil doer to punishment," or Every man binds himself by the things which he does." Job xxxiv. 31 is usually translated, "I paid the penalty, and will do wrong no more But the proper rendering would be, "I bear (or there has come upon me) what I do not deserve." Job intends to represent his innocence as continuous, and therefore employs the future.-Prov. xiii. 13, "Whoso despiseth the word, be incorrect, by the fact that the Lord makes use of the staff to feed the flock during the day of grace, and that he is represented in ver. 14 as breaking it when the period of grace is over. From this it is evident that the staff must be a symbol of blessings, and not of punishments. The breaking of the first staff denoted the withdrawal of a divine blessing, and that of the second does the same. Taking the staff, therefore, must represent the bestowal of a blessing; and as the harmony of the nation is destroyed when the staff is broken, this harmony must be the blessing bestowed when the staff is taken in the hand. (3.) It is difficult to understand the use of the plural, if this explanation be adopted. Other expositors, who are convinced that this rendering is inadmissible, have taken the word in the sense of binding. Three different modifications of this meaning have been suggested. Many of the early translators have rendered the word cord, either because they regarded as merely another form of an, a cord, or because they pointed it differently. Thus in the Septuagint, Aquila, and Symmachus we have xai Tv TÉpav Ènáhɛoa σχοίνισμα. Jerome translates it et alteram vocavi funiculos. Calvin, who points the word, adopts the same render , is pledged to himself, namely for punishment." Thus there is not a single passage, in which either the Kal or Niphal is used, where the meaning to destroy is even a probable one. The fact that it is found in the Niphal proves nothing. For this may be traceable to a modification of the primary meaning of the word, produced by the conjugation itself. ♫ to bind and to be bound; Piel, to ensnare, then to destroy. In Chaldee also the meaning to destroy is not found in the Peal, but in the Pael alone. (prave factum, scelus) in Dan. vi. 23, to which appeal is also made, is literally the pledged one (Amos ii. 8) according to the view already given. a, hurt, in Dan. iii. 25 (compare Ezra iv. 22) is to be explained by the help of Micah ii. 10, where, a cord, is used to denote pain; pain and hurt being regarded as a condition of restraint, tormentum a torquendo. Gesenius endeavours to trace the supposed meaning, pervertit et perversus pravus fuit, to the primary signification to bind, but with little success. There is no necessity to assume, as some of the more modern lexicographers have done, that ↳ is made up of two different roots. Abicht (p. 1100) has already shown in what way the meanings may all be traced to the one primary signification to bind or to be bound. ing.1 Others (e.g. Drusius, Fuller, and Marck) take the word as an active participle, "the binders." And others again, with De Dieu as their leader, regard it as a passive participle, and render it "the bound" or "the allied." There can be no doubt whatever that the word is generally used in Hebrew in the sense of binding, and that not merely in a literal, but also in a metaphorical sense. There can also be just as little doubt, that an has both an active and passive signification. This is sufficiently evident from the metaphorical use of the term Pfändung, which has the double meaning of binding another, and binding one's self or being bound. (Compare the passages quoted from Job and Nehemiah). In the Arabic the two corresponding verbs 3 and, which originally formed but one root, have not only an active meaning in the first conjugation, but a passive and reflective sense as well., to pledge and to destroy, both from the idea of binding, the latter as being in a forced condition, or one of restraint., demens, maniacus fuit, to be mentally bound., fœdus inivit, and, prægnans fuit, a state of physical bondage, as madness is one of mental. Now from this we may see, that the choice between the three modifications mentioned is not a difficult one. The first is too arbitrary to merit any notice. The second is untenable, because it furnishes no explanation of the use of the plural; for who could the binders be? The third has everything in its favour. The second staff, in perfect harmony with ver. 14, represented the brotherly union which continued to exist in the covenant nation during the period of grace, through the interposition of 1 Bleek subscribes to the same view (p. 282). But this gives us a far less suitable meaning than the received reading. "Cords" would point rather to the idea of fettering, for which it is very commonly employed. 2 This is the view held by Gesenius: constringens poet. pro fune; but the plural shows that it is incorrect. 3 This is very obvious from the derivative words an a sailor, (ligator funis nautici), a cord, and union or company ( 1 Sam. x. 5, 10, properly rendered by the LXX. xogòs #gopurāv), nýann, consilia (nectere dolos). |