refers to the הוא

"the

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, 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 -In that day, namely the day on which I had broken my staff, or without a figure, "after I had withdrawn my favour from the people, the hostile nations, which I had hitherto restrained, fell at once upon them."-Therefore; namely, from this very fact.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 liberum aestimari sexaginta siclis, 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." 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. Thaty, literally the gate of the pottery, must be rendered thus is evident from the allusion to ver. 1, here would be, strictly speaking, superfluous, and also

But Jer. xix. 2

from the fact that Jeremiah would not have mentioned the gate leading to the valley of Hinnom by name, seeing that it was generally known, and is described elsewhere simply as the gate of the valley, if there had not been something in the name itself bearing upon the subject in hand.' (Compare Nehemiah ii. 13, 15, with Jer. ii. 23, in the latter of which passages the valley of Hinnom is called the valley Kar' ¿çoxnv.) But from the time of Josiah, by whom the valley of Hinnom, at that time the scene of idolatrous abominations of the most fearful description, was polluted by carrion, human bones, and other things of a similar kind, it was regarded by the Jews with disgust and abhorrence as an unclean place; and eventually the opinion was expressed in the Talmud, that the mouth of hell was there." When Zechariah represents the contemptible wages as having been cast into the valley of Hinnom, and mentions the particular spot in the valley, the workshop or field of the potter, we see in each of these a special reference to a prophecy of Jeremiah, with which he supposes his readers to be already acquainted. In the first there is an allusion to Jer. xix. The prophet is repre

sented there as going with several of the elders of the nation and the leading priests to the valley of Hinnom, where he breaks to pieces an empty earthen vessel. The meaning of this symbolical action is described as follows: "because they have filled this place with the blood of the innocents; I will empty

the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place, and I will make them fall by the sword of their enemies, and by the hands of those that seek their lives, and their carcases will I give to be meat for the fowl of heaven, and for the beasts of the earth..

figlina sc. officina pottery, in qua fiunt vasa

is not a potsherd, but an earthen vessel, When used by itself it never means

.1 in ver יוצר חרש is evident from

a sherd. In the Pentateuch it is always used for an earthen vessel : every Cheres, in which thou boilest," Lev. vi. 21 (compare xi. 33, xiv. 50, xv. 12, "make them

Num. v. 17); and again Jer. xxxii. 14, earthen vessel," Prov. xxvi. 33.

into an

2 Lightfoot says (centur. chorograph. Matth. praem. opp. t. ii. p. 200), “in the time of the second temple, when the things which had formerly brought the place into such ill repute, had all vanished, there still remained so much that was disgusting and repulsive, that the name suggested the thought of hell as much as it had done before. It was the common cesspool of the whole city, in which every kind of filth was collected."

Thus will I break this people and this city as one breaketh the potter's vessel, which cannot be healed any more, and they shall bury in Tophet, because there is no more room. Thus will I do with this place and to the inhabitants thereof, and make this city like Tophet. And the houses of Jerusalem, and the houses of the kings of Judah, shall be defiled as the place of Tophet." Zechariah describes the contemptible wages as having been thrown into the valley of Ben Hinnom or Tophet, partly because this was an unclean place, but more particularly for the purpose of renewing the prophecy of Jeremiah, and to show that a second fulfilment of this prophecy would take place, inasmuch as the justice of God, which dictated the threat and its first fulfilment, would be again provoked and even in a still more fearful manner. The sign of the base.ingratitude of the Jewish nation, the corpus delicti, is carried to the very same spot, from which their former abominations cried to God and called down his vengeance. A new pledge, as it were, is deposited there, which the nation will be obliged to redeem at the proper time. The selection of the potter's ground, in particular, is made with reference to chap. xviii. The prophet is represented there, as paying a visit to the potter's house at the command of the Lord, just at the time when the potter was at work. And the vessel, that he made of clay, was marred in his hands; then he made another vessel out of the clay as it seemed good to him." The meaning of the symbol is thus described: "O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in my hand. Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you; return ye now every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and doings." This truth, that the Lord could and would cast off his rebellious people, without acknowledging any claim on their part, if they did not repent in due time, is here made prominent once more by Zechariah, when he describes the contemptible wages as being brought to the spot, where the truth was first uttered by Jeremiah, and which was quite as well adapted to set forth the truth in symbol in the time of Zechariah, seeing that the potter had opened his workshop there again. The circumstances also were such as to recall this prophecy of Jeremiah in all its force; for the former apostasy, which had directly occasioned it, was