shepherds means. 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

The second passage in the New Testament

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

The

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. impatience of one who is grievously harassed, oppressed, stifled, who can hardly breathe, is everywhere apparent."

VOL. IV.

с

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.

is an inheritance acquired in a despicable נַחֲלָה מְבֹחֶלֶת .xxi

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 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,

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 (ȧπоðνησкéтw) 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."

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.

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