The sacrificial blood was not sprinkled upon these; they were simply smeared with a little blood applied with the finger, in the case of the expiatory sacrifices. According to the law (Lev. i. 5, 11, iii. 2, etc.), the blood was to be swung against the altar. This was done, according to rabbinical tradition (Mishn. Seb. v. 4 sqq., and Rashi on Lev. i. 5), in such a manner, that with two sprinklings all the four sides of the altar were wetted,—a result which could only be ensured by swinging the bowls filled with blood, so as to strike the corners of the altar.
Through this victory over the world-power Israel will attain to glory. Ver. 16. “And Jehovah their God will. endow them with salvation in that day, like a flock His people; for stones of a crown are they, sparkling in His land. Ver. 17. For how great is its goodness, aud how great its beauty! Corn will make youths to sprout, and new wine maidens.” yin does not mean to help or deliver here; for this would affirm much too little, after what has gone before. When Israel has trodden down its foes, it no longer needs deliverance. It denotes the granting of positive salvation, which the explanatory clause that follows also requires. The motive for this is indicated in the clause, “ like a flock His people.” Because Israel is His (Jehovah’s) people, the Lord will tend it as a shepherd tends his flock. The blessings which Jehovah bestows upon His people are described by David in Ps, xxiii. The Lord will do this also, because they (the Israelites) are crown-stones, namely as the chosen people, which Jehovah will make a praise and glory for all nations (Zeph. iii.
19, 20). To the predicate 712 228 the subject 717 may easily be supplied from the context, as for example in 70 j in ver. 12. To this subject 4) nipbiant aNiathies itself. This verb is connected with nés, a banner, in Ps. Ix. 6, the only other passage in which it occurs; but here it is used in the sense of ndtsats, to glitter or sparkle. The meaning, to lift up, which is given by the lexicons, has no foundation, and is quite unsuitable here. For crown-stones do not lift themselves up, but sparkle; and the figure of precious stones, which sparkle upon the land, denotes the highest possible glory to which Israel can attain, The suffix attached to in218 refers to Jehovah, only we must not identify the land of Jehovah with Palestine. The application of this honourable epithet to Israel is justified in ver. 17, by an allusion to the excellence and beauty to which it will attain. The suffixes in jz and 12. cannot refer to Jehovah, as Ewald and Hengstenberg suppose, but refer to iY, the people of Jehovah. ‘5. is quite irreconcilable with an allusion to Jehovah, since this word only occurs in connection with men and the isch King (Ps. xlv. 3; Isa. xxxili. 17); and even if it were used of Jehovah, it would still be unsuitable here. For though the vigorous prosperity of the nation is indeed a proof of the pode of God, it is not a proof of the beauty of God. Mdéh is an exclamation of amazement: “ how great 1” (Ewald, § 330, a). 230, when affirmed of the nation, is not moral goodness, but a good appearance, and is synonymous with *», beauty, as in Hos. x.11. This prosperity proceeds from - the blessings of grace, which the Lord causes to flow down to His people. Corn and new wine are mentioned as such blessings, for the purpose of individualizing, as indeed they frequently are (eg. Deut. xxxiii. 28; Ps. Ixxii. 16), and are distributed rhetorically between the youths and the maidens.
Chap. x. CoMpLETE REDEMPTION OF THE PEOPLE OF Gop.—This chapter contains no new promise, but simply a further expansion of the previous section, the condition on which salvation is to be obtained being mentioned in the introduction (vers. 1 and 2); whilst subsequently, more especially from ver. 6 onwards, the participation of Ephraim in the salvation in prospect is more elaborately treated of. The question in dispute among the commentators, viz. whether vers. 1 and 2 are to be connected with the previous chapter, so as to form the conclusion, or whether they form the commencement of a new address, or new turn in the address, is to be answered thus: The prayer for rain (ver. 1) is indeed occasioned by the concluding thought in ch. ix. 17, but it is not to be connected with the preceding chapter as though it were an integral part of it, inasmuch as the second hemistich of ver. 2 can only be separated with violence from ver. 8. The close connection between ver. 2b and ver. 3 shows that ver. 1 commences a new train of thought, for which preparation is made, however, by ch. ix. 17.
Ver. 1. “Ask ye of Jehovah rain in the time of the latter rain; Jehovah createth lightnings, and showers of rain will He give them, to every one vegetation in the field. Ver. 2. For the teraphim have spoken vanity, and the soothsayers have seen a lie, and speak dreams of deceit; they comfort in vain: for this they have wandered like a flock, they are oppressed because there ts no shepherd.” The summons to prayer is not a mere turn of the address expressing the readiness of God to give (Hengstenberg), but is seriously meant, as the reason assigned in ver. 2 clearly shows. The church of the Lord is to ask of God the blessings which it needs for its prosperity, and not to put its trust in idols, as rebellious Israel has done (Hos. ii. 7). The prayer for rain, on which the successful cultivation of the fruits of the ground depends, simply serves to individualize the prayer for the bestowal of the blessings of God, in order to sustain both temporal and spiritual life; just as in ch. ix. 17 the fruitfulness of the land and the flourishing of the nation are simply a concrete expression, for the whole complex of the salvation which the Lord will grant to His people (Kliefoth). This view, which answers to the rhetorical character of the exhortation, is very different from allegory. The time of the latter rain is mentioned, because this was indispensable to the ripening of the corn, whereas elsewhere the early and latter rain are connected together (e.g. Joel ii. 23; Deut. xi. 18-15). The lightnings are introduced as the harbingers of rain (cf. Jer, x. 13; Ps. cxxxv. 7). M“tar geshem, rain of the rain-pouring, i.@. copious rain (compare Job xxxvil. 6, where the words are transposed). With /dhem (to them) the address passes into the third person: to them, i.e. to every one who asks. WY is not to be restricted to grass or herb as the food of cattle, as in Deut. xi. 15, where it is mentioned in connection with the corn and the fruits of the field; but it includes these, as in Gen. i. 29 and Ps. civ. 14, where it is distinguished from chdtsir. The exhortation to pray to Jehovah for the blessing needed to ensure prosperity, is supported in ver. 2 by an allusion to the worthlessness of the trust in idols, and to the misery which idolatry with its consequences, viz. soothsaying and false prophecy, have brought upon the nation. The ¢’rdphim were house-deities and oractlar deities, which were worshipped as the givers and protectors of the blessings of earthly prosperity (see at Gen. xxxi. 19). Along with these D'DbiP are mentioned, ¢.e. the soothsayers, who plunged the nation into misery through their vain and deceitful prophesyings. nin is not the subject of the sentence, for in that case it would have the article like pDip3; but it is the object, and D°DD1P7 is also the subject to ma? ni pon. “Therefore,” ze. because Israel had trusted in teraphim and soothsayers, it would have to wander into exile. yD3, to break up, applied to the pulling up of the pegs, to take down the tent, involves the idea of wandering, and in this connection, of wandering into exile. Hence the perfect 39D2, to which the imperfect §Y? is suitably appended, because ‘bie being oppressed, i.e. the oppression which Israel suffered from the heathen, still continued. The words apply of course to all Israel (Ephraim and Judah); compare ch. ix. 13 with ch. x. 4, 6. Israel is bowed down because it has no shepherd, 2.e. no king, who guards and provides for his people (cf. Num. xxvii. 17; Jer. xxiii. 4), having lost the Davidic monarchy when the kingdom was overthrown.
To this there is appended in vers. 3 sqq. the promise that Jehovah will take possession of His flock, and redeem it out of the oppression of the evil shepherds. Ver. 3. “ My wrath is kindled upon the shepherds, and the goats shall I punish; for Jehovah of hosts visits His flock, the house of Judah, and makes it like His state-horse in the war. Ver. 4. From Him will be corner-stone, from Him the nail, from Him the war-bow; from Him will every ruler go forth at once.” When Israel lost its own shepherds, it came under the tyranny of bad shepherds. These were the heathen governors and tyrants. Against these the wrath of Jehovah is kindled, and He will punish them. There is no material difference between D0'¥5, shepherds, and Ony, leading goats. ‘Attadim also signifies rulers, as in Isa. xiv. 9. The reason assigned why the anit shepherds are to be punished, is that Jehovah visits His flock. The perfect pdgad is used prophetically of what God has resolved to do, and will actually carry out; and pdqad c. ace. pers. means to visit, t.e. to assume the care of, as distinguished from pdéqad with “al pers., to visit in the sense of to punish (see at Zeph. ii. 7). The house of Judah only is mentioned in ver. 3, not in distinction from Ephraim, however (cf. ver. 6), but as the stem and kernel of the covenant nation, with which Ephraim is to be united once more. The care of God for Judah will not be limited to its liberation from ' the oppression of the bad shepherds; but Jehovah will also make Judah into a victorious people. This is the meaning of the figure “like a state-horse,” i.c. a splendid and richly ornamented war-horse, such as a king is accustomed to ride. This figure is not more striking than the description of Judah and Ephraim as a bow and arrow (ch. ix. 13). This equipment of Judah as a warlike power overcoming its foes is described in ver. 4, namely in 4a, in figures taken from the firmness and furnishing of a house with everything requisite, and in 48, etc., in literal words. The verb N¥° of the fourth clause cannot be taken as the verb belonging to the 1389 in the first three clauses, because N¥) is neiiieed applicable to pinndh nor to yathed. We have therefore to supply 7. From (out of) Him will be pinndah, corner, here corner-stone, as in Isa. xxvii. 16, upon which the whole building stands firmly, and will be bails securely,—a, suitable figure for the firm, stately foundation which Judah is to receive. To this is caged yathed, the plug. This figure is to be explained from the arrangement of eastern houses, in which the inner walls are provided with -a row of large nails or plugs for hanging the house utensils upon. The plug, therefore, is a suitable figure for the supports or upholders of the whole political constitution, and even in Isa. xxii. 23 was transferred to persons. The war-bow stands synecdochically for weapons of war and the military power. It is a disputed point, however, whether the suffix in mimmenna (out of him) refers to Judah or Jehovah. But the opinion of Hitzig and others, that it refers to Jehovah, is overthrown by the expression 133!) 83’ in the last clause. For even if we could say, Judah will receive its firm foundation, its internal fortification, and its military strength from Siatiaaed, the expression, “Every military commander will go out or come forth out of Jehovah,” is unheard-of and unscriptural. It is not affirmed in the Old Testament even of the Messiah that He goes forth out of God, although His “ goings forth” are from eternity (Mic. v. 1), and He Himself is called E/ gibbor (Isa. ix. 5). Still less can this be affirmed of every ruler (hol-ndgés) of Judah. In this clause, therefore, mimmenni must refer to Judah, and consequently it must be taken in the same way in the first three clauses. On } §¥‘, see Mic. v. 1. Nogés, an oppressor or taskmaster, is not applied to a leader or ruler in a good sense even here, any more than in Isa. ii, 12 and Ix. 17 (see the comm. on these passages). The fact that negus in Ethiopic is the name given to the king (Koehler), proves nothing in relation to Hebrew usage. The word has the subordinate idea of oppressor, or despotic ruler, in this instance also; but the idea of harshness refers not to the covenant nation, but to its enemies (Hengstenberg), and the words are used in antithesis to ch. ix. 8. Whereas there the promise is given to the nation of Israel that it will not fall under the power of the’ ndgés any more, it is here assured that it is to attain to the position of a ndgés in relation to its foes (Kliefoth). bai-pa is strengthened by 7: every oppressor together, which Judah will require in opposition to its foes. Thus equipped for battle, Judah will annihilate its foes. Ver. 5. “ And they will be like heroes, treading street-mire in the battle: and will fight, for Jehovah is with them, and the riders upon horses are put to shame. Ver. 6. And I shall strengthen the house of Judah, and grant salvation to the house of Joseph, and shall make them dwell; for I have had compassion upon them: and they will be as if I had not rejected them: for Iam Jehovah their God, and will hear them. Ver. 7. And Ephraim will be like a hero, and their heart will rejoice as if with wine: and their children will see it, and rejoice; their heart shall rejoice in Jehovah.” In ver. 5, bosim is a more precise definition of k’gibborim, and the house of Judah (ver. 3) is the subject of the sentence. They will be like heroes, namely, treading upon mire. osim is the kal participle used in an intransitive sense, since the form with o only occurs in verbs with an intransitive meaning, like bdsh, lot, gom; and bas in kal is construed in every other case with the accusative of the object: treading upon mire = treading or treading down mire. Consequently the object which they tread down or trample in pieces is expressed by nisin ba; and thus the arbitrary completion of the sentence by “ everything that opposes them” (C. B. Mich. and Koehler) is set aside as untenable. Now, as “ treading upon mire” cannot possibly express merely the firm tread of a courageous man (Hitzig), we must take the dirt of the streets as a figurative expression for the enemy, and the phrase “treading upon street-mire” as a bold figure denoting the trampling down of the enemy in the mire of the streets (Mic. vil. 10; 2 Sam. xxii. 43), analogous to their “treading down sling-stones,” ch. ix. 15, For such heroic conflict will they be fitted by the help of Jehovah, that the enemy will be put to shame before them. The riders of the horses are mentioned for the purpose of individualizing the enemy, because the principal strength of the Asiatic rulers consisted in cavalry (see Dan. xi. 40). 210 intransitive, as in ch. ix.5. This strength for a victorious conflict will not be confined to Judah, but Ephraim will also share it. The words, “and the house of Ephraim will I endow with salvation,” have been taken by Koehler as signifying “that Jehovah will deliver the house of Ephraim by granting the victory to the house of Judah in conflict with its own foes and those of Ephraim also;” but there is no ground for this. We may see from ver. 7, according to which Ephraim will also fight as a hero, as Judah will according to ver. 5, that vin does not mean merely to help or deliver, but to grant salvation, as in ch. ix. 16. The circumstance, however, “that in the course of the chapter, at any rate from ver. 7 onwards, it is only Ephraim whose deliverance and restoration are spoken of,” proves nothing more than that Ephraim will receive the same salvation as Judah, but not that it will be delivered by the house of Judah. The abnormal form oniavin is regarded by many, who follow Kimchi and Aben Ezra, as a forma composita from DMN and MDT: TT make them dwell, and bring them back.” But this is precluded by the fact that the bringing back would necessarily precede the making to dwell, to say nothing of the circumstance that there is no analogy whatever for such a composition (cf. Jer. xxxii. 37). The form is rather to be explained from a confusion of the verbs ¥’p and Y’5, and is the hiphil of 3 for pmavin (LX X., Maurer, Hengstenherg; comp. Olshausen, Grammat. p. 559), and not a hiphil of 2, in which a transition has taken place into the hiphil form of the verbs 15 (Ewald, § 196, b, Not. 1; Targ., Vulg., Hitzig, and Koehler). For “bringing back” affirms too little here. aniwin, “IT make them dwell,” corresponds rather to “they shall be as if they had not been cast off,” without needing any further definition, since not only do we meet with 20 without anything else, in the sense of peaceful, happy dwelling (e.g. Mic. y. 3), but here also the manner of dwelling is indicated in the appended clause prAnat-N? WN, “as before they were cast off” (cf. Ezek. xxxvl. 11). D3YN is also not to be taken as referring to the answering of the prayers, which Ephraim addressed to Jehovah out of its distress, out of its imprisonment (Koehler), but is to be taken in a much more general sense, as in ch. xiii. 9, Isa. lviii. 9, and Hos. ii. 23. Ephraim, like Judah, will also become a hero, and rejoice as if with wine, i.e. fight joyfully like a hero strengthened with wine (cf. Ps. Ixxviil. 65, 66). This rejoicing in conflict the sons will see, and exult in consequence; so that it will be a lasting joy.
In order to remove all doubt as to the realization of this promise, the deliverance of Ephraim is described still more minutely in vers. 8-12. Ver. 8. “J will hiss to them, and gather them; for I have redeemed them: and they will multiply as they have multiplied. Ver. 9. And I will sow them among the nations: and in the far-off lands will they remember me; and will live with their sons, and return. Ver.10. And I will bring them back out of the land of Egypt, and gather them out of Asshur, and bring them into the land of Gilead and of Lebanon; and room will not be found for them.” That these verses do not treat of a fresh (second) dispersion of Ephraim, or represent the carrying away as still in the future (Hitzig), is evident from the words themselves, when correctly interpreted. Not only are the enticing and gathering together (ver. 8) mentioned before the sowing or dispersing (ver. 9), but they are both expressed by ial verbal forms ("PWS and OYUN); and the misinterpretation is thereby precluded, that events occurring at different times are referred to. We must also observe the voluntative form APws, “TI will (not I shall) hiss to them, “.e. entice them” (shdraq helna used for alluring, as in Isa. v. 26 and vii. 18), as well as me absence of a copula. They both show that the intention here is simply to explain with greater clearness what is announced in vers. 6, 7. The perfect on5 is prophetic, like O07 in ver. 6. The further promise, “ they will multiply,” etc., cannot be taken as referring either merely to the Beal plication of Israel in exile (Honest Koehler, ete.), or merely to the future multiplication after the gathering together. According to the position in which the words stand eee DY2PX and “DYN, they must embrace both the multiplication during the Heer aes and the multiplication after the gathering together. The perfect 121 123 points to the increase which Tsrael experienced in the olden time under the oppression of Egypt (Ex. i. 7,12). This increase, which is also promised in Ezek. xxxvi. 10, 11, is effected by God’s sowing them broadcast among the nations. Yi does not mean to scatter, but to sow, to sow broadcast (see at Hos. ii. 25). Con-. sequently the reference cannot be to a dispersion of Israel inflicted as a punishment. The sowing denotes the multiplieation (cf. Jer. xxxi. 27), and is not to be interpreted, as Neumann and Kliefoth suppose, as signifying that the Hphraimites are to be scattered as seed-corn among the heathen, to spread the knowledge of Jehovah among the nations. This thought is quite foreign to the context; and even in the words, “in far-off lands will they remember me,” it is neither expressed nor implied. These words are to be connected with what follows: Because they remember the Lord in far-off lands, they will live, and return with their children. In ver. 10a the gathering together and leading back of Israel are more minutely described, and indeed as taking place out of the land of Asshur and out of Egypt. The fact that these two lands are mentioned, upon which modern critics have principally founded their arguments in favour of the origin of this prophecy before the captivity, cannot be explained “ from the circumstance that in the time of Tiglath-pileser and Shalmaneser many Ephraimites had fled to Egypt” (Koehler and others); for history knows nothing of this, and the supposition is merely a loophole for escaping from a difficulty. Such passages as Hos. viii. 13, ix. 3, 6, xi. 11, Mic. vii. 12, Isa. xi. 11, xxvii. 13, furnish no historical evidence of such thing. Even if certain Ephraimites had fled to Kgypt, these could not be explained as relating to a return or gathering together of the Ephraimites or Israelites out of Egypt and Assyria, because the announcement presupposes that the Ephraimites had been transported to Egypt in quite as large numbers as to Assyria,—a fact which cannot be established either in relation to the times before or to those after the captivity. Egypt, as we have already shown at Hos. ix. 3 (cf. viii. 18), is rather introduced in all the passages mentioned simply as a type of the land of bondage, on account of its having been the land in which Israel lived in the olden time, under the oppression of the heathen world. And Asshur is introduced in the same way, as the land into which the ten tribes had been afterwards exiled. This typical significance is placed beyond all doubt by ver. 11, since the redemption of Israel out of the countries named is there exhibited under the type of the liberation of Israel out of the bondage of Egypt under the guidance of Moses. (Compare also Delitzsch on Isa. xi. 11.) The Ephraimites are to return into the land of Gilead and Lebanon; the former representing the territory of the ten tribes in the olden time to the east of the Jordan, the latter that to the west (cf. Mic. vil. 14). S¥D Nd, there is not found for them, sc. the necessary room: equivalent to, it will not be sufficient for them (as in Josh. xvii. 16).
Ver. 11. “And he goes through the sea of affliction, and smites the waves in the sea, and all the depths of the river dry up; and the pride of Asshur will be cast down, and the staff of Egypt will depart. Ver. 12. And I make them strong in Jehovah; and they will walk in His name, is the saying of Jehovah.” The subject in ver. 11 is Jehovah. He goes, as once He went in the pillar of cloud as the angel of the Lord in the time of Moses, through the sea of affliction. ™¥, which has been interpreted in very different ways, we take as in apposition to 0’, though not as a permutative, “through the sea, viz. the affliction” (C. B. Mich., Hengst.); but in this sense, “ the sea, which caused distress or confinement,” so that the simple reason why ™¥ is not connected with 0° in the construct state, but placed in apposition, is that the sea might not be described as a straitened sea, or sea of anxiety. This apposition points to the fact which floated before the prophet’s mind, namely, that the Israelites under Moses were so confined by the Red Sea that they thought they were lost (Ex. xiv. 10 sqq.). The objection urged by Koehler against this view—namely, that M8 as a noun is not used in the sense of local strait or confinement—is proved to be unfounded by Jonah ii. 3 and Zeph. i. 15. All the other explanations of tsdéréh are much more unnatural, being either unsuitable, like the suggestion of Koehler to take it as an exclamation, “O distress!” or grammatically untenable, like the rendering adopted by Maurer and Kliefoth, after the Chaldean usage, “he splits.” The smiting of the waves in the sea does indeed play upon the division of the waves of the sea when the Israelites passed through the Red Sea (Ex. xiv. 16, 215 cf. Josh. iii. 13, Ps. xxvii. 17, exiv. 5);
but it affirms still more, as the following clause shows, namely, a binding or constraining of the waves, by which they are annihilated, or a drying up of the floods, like 0005 in Isa. xi. 15. Only the floods of the Nile (is) are mentioned, because the allusion to the slavery of Israel in Egypt predominates, and the redemption of the Israelites out of all the lands of the nations is represented as bringing out of the slave-house of Egypt. The drying up of the flood-depths of the Nile is therefore a figure denoting the casting down of the imperial power in all its historical forms; Asshur and Egypt being mentioned by name in the last clause answering to the declaration in ver. 10, and the tyranny of Asshur being characterized by fi83, pride, haughtiness (cf. Isa. x. 7 sqq.), and that of Egypt by the rod of its taskmasters. In ver. 12 the promise for Ephraim is brought toa close with the general thought that they will obtain strength in the Lord, and walk in the power of His name. With 07720 the address reverts to its startingpoint in ver. 6. i2 stands for ‘a, to point emphatically to the Lord, in whom Israel as the people of God had its strength. Walking in the name of Jehovah is to be taken as in Mic. iv. 5, and to be understood not as relating to the attitude of Israel towards God, or to the “self-attestation of Israel” (Koehler), but to the result, viz. walking in the strength of the Lord.
Tf, in conclusion, we survey the whole promise from ch. ix. 11 onwards, there are two leading thoughts developed in it: (a) That those members of the covenant nation who were still seattered among the heathen should be redeemed out of their misery, and gathered together in the kingdom of the King who was coming for Zion, i.e. of the Messiah; (6) That the Lord would endow all His people with power for the conquest of the heathen. They were both fulfilled, in weak commencements only, in the times immediately following and down to the coming of Christ, by the return of many Jews out of captivity and into the land of the fathers, particularly when Galilee was strongly peopled by Israelites; and also by the protection and care which God bestowed upon the people in the contests:between the powers of the world for supremacy in Palestine. The principal fulfilment is of a spiritual kind, and was effected through the gathering of the Jews into the kingdom of Christ, which commenced in the times of the apostles, and will continue till the remnant of Israel is converted to Christ its Saviour.
In the second half of the “ burden” upon the world-power, which is contained in this chapter, the thought indicated in ch. x. 3—namely, that the wrath of Jehovah is kindled over the shepherds when He visits His flock, the house of Judah— is more elaborately developed, and an announcement is made of the manner in which the Lord visits His people, and rescues it out of the hands of the world-powers who are seeking to destroy it, and then, because it repays His pastoral fidelity with ingratitude, gives it up into the hands of the foolish shepherd, who will destroy it, but who will also fall under judgment himself in consequence. The picture sketched in ch. ix. 8-10, 12, of the future of Israel is thus completed, and enlarged by the description of the judgment accompanying the salvation; and through this addition an abuse of the proclamation of salvation is prevented. But in order to bring out into greater prominence the obverse side of the salvation, there is appended to the announcement of salvation in ch. x. the threat of judgment in vers. 1-3, without anything to explain the transition; and only after that is the attitude of the Lord towards His people and the heathen world, out of which the necessity for the judgment sprang, more fully described. Hence this chapter divides itself into three sections: viz. the threat of judgment (vers. 1-3); the description of the good shepherd (vers. 4-14); and the sketch of the foolish shepherd (vers. 15-17).
Vers. 1-3. Tus DrvastatTion oF THE Hoty Lanp.— Ver. 1. “ Open thy gates, O Lebanon, and let fire devour thy cedars! Ver. 2. Howl, cypress; for the cedar is fallen, for the glory is laid waste! Howl, ye oaks of Bashan; for the inaccessthle forest ts laid low! Ver. 3. A loud howling of the shepherds; jor their glory is laid waste! A loud roaring of the young lions; for the splendour of Jordan is laid waste!” That these verses do not form the commencement of a new prophecy, having no connection with the previous one, but that they are simply a new turn given to that prophecy, is evident not only from the omission of any heading or of any indication whatever which could point to the commencement of a fresh word of God, but still more so from the fact that the allusion to Lebanon and Bashan and the thickets of Judah points back unmistakeably to the land of Gilead and of Lebanon (ch. x. 10), and shows a connection between ch. xi. and x., although this retrospect is not decided enough to lay a foundation for the view that vers. 1-3 form a conclusion to the prophecy in ch. x., to which their contents by no means apply. For let us interpret the figurative description in these verses in what manner we will, so much at any rate is clear, that they are of a threatening character, and as a threat not only form an antithesis to the announcement of salvation in ch. x., but are substantially connected with the destruction which will overtake the “flock of the slaughter,” and therefore serve as a prelude, as it were, to the judgment announced in vers. 4-7. The undeniable relation in which Lebanon, Bashan, and the Jordan stand to the districts of Gilead and Lebanon, also gives us a clue to the ex-, planation; since it shows that Lebanon, the northern frontier of the holy land, and Bashan, the northern part of the territory of the Israelites to the east of the Jordan, are synecdochical terms, denoting the holy land itself regarded in its two halves, and therefore that the cedars, cypresses, and oaks in these portions of the land cannot be figurative representations of heathen rulers (Targ., Eph. Syr., Kimchi, etc.); but if powerful men and tyrants are to be understood at all by these terms, the allusion can only be to the rulers and great men of the nation of Israel (Hitzig, Maurer, Hengst., Ewald, etc.). But this allegorical interpretation of the cedars, cypresses, and oaks, however old and widely spread it may be, is not so indisputable as that we could say with Kliefoth: “The words themselves do not allow of our finding an announcement of the devastation of the holy land therein.” For even if the words themselves aftirm nothing more than “that the very existence of the cedars, oaks, shepherds, lions, is in danger; and that if these should fall, Lebanon will give way to the fire, the forest of Bashan will fall, the thicket of Jordan be laid waste;” yet through the destruction of the cedars, oaks, etc., the soil on which these trees grow is also devastated and laid waste. The picture is a dramatic one. Instead of the devastation of Lebanon being announced, it is summoned to open its gates, thatthe fire may be able to enter in and devour its cedars. The cypresses, which hold the second place among the celebrated woods of Lebanon, are then called upon to howl over the fall of the cedars, not so much from sympathy as because the same fate is awaiting them. The words 71¥ DVIS WX contain a second explanatory clause. We is a conjunction (for, because), as in Gen. xxx. 18, xxxi. 49, *Addirim are not the glorious or lofty ones among the people (Hengst., Kliefoth), but the glorious ones among the things spoken of in the context,—namely, the noble trees, the cedars and cypresses. ‘The oaks of Bashan are also called upon to howl, because they too will fall like “the inaccessible forest,” ze. the cedar forest of Lebanon. The keri habbdtsir is a needless correction, because the article does not compel us to take the word as a substantive. If the adjective is really a participle, the article is generally attached to it alone, and omitted from the noun (cf. Ges. § 111, 2, a). rep’ Dip, voice of howling, equivalent to a loud howling, The cher herds howl, because ’addartdém, their glory, is laid waste. We are not to understand by this their flock, but their pasture, as the parallel member {77° ji83 and the parallel passage Jer. xxv. 36 show, where the shepherds howl, because their pasture is ane What the pasture, z.e. the good pasture ground of the land of Bashan, is to the shepherds, that is the pride of Jordan to the young lions,—namely, the thicket and reeds which grew so luxuriantly on the banks of the Jordan, and afforded so safe and convenient a lair for lions (cf. Jer. xii. 5, xlix. 19, 1.44). Ver. 3 announces in distinct terms a devastation of the soil or land. It follows from this that the cedars, eypresses, and oaks are not figures representing earthly rulers. No conclusive arguments can be adduced in support of such an allegory. It is true that in Isa. x. 34 the powerful army of Assyria is compared to Lebanon; and in Jer. xxii. 6 the head of the cedar forest is a’symbol of the royal house of Judah; and that in Jer. xxii. 23 it is used as a figurative term for Jerusalem (see at Hab. ii. 17); but neither men generally, nor individual earthly rulers in particular, are represented as cedars or oaks. The cedars and cypresses of
Lebanon and the oaks of Bashan are simply figures denoting what is lofty, glorious, and powerful in the world of nature and humanity, and are only to be referred to persons so far as their lofty position in the state is concerned. Consequently we get the following as the thought of these verses: The land of Israel, with all its powerful and glorious creatures, is to become desolate. Now, inasmuch as the desolation of a land also involves the desolation of the people living in the land, and of its institutions, the destruction of the cedars, cypresses, etc., does include the destruction of everything lofty and exalted in the nation and kingdom; so that in this sense the devastation of Lebanon is a figurative representation of the destruction of the Israelitish kingdom, or of the dissolution of the political existence of the ancient covenant nation. This judgment was executed upon the land and people of Israel by the imperial power of Rome. ‘This historical reference is evident from the description which follows of the facts by which this catastrophe is brought to pass.
Vers. 4-14. This section contains a symbolical act. By the command of Jehovah the prophet assumes the office of a shepherd over the flock, and feeds it, until he is compelled by its ingratitude to break his shepherd’s staff, and give up the flock to destruction. This symbolical act is not a poetical fiction, but is to be regarded in strict accordance with the words, as an internal occurrence of a visionary character and of prophetical importance, through which the faithful care of the Lord for His people is symbolized and exhibited. Ver. 4. “ Thus said Jehovah my God: Feed the slaughtering-jlock; Ver. 5. whose purchasers slay them, and bear no blame, and their sellers say, Blessed be Jehovah! I am getting rich, and their shepherds spare them not. Ver. 6. For I shall no more spare the inhabitants of the earth, is the saying of Jehovah; and behold I cause the men to fall into one another's hands, and into the king's hand; and they will smite the land, and I shall not delwer out of their hand.” The person who receives the commission to feed the flock is the prophet. This is apparent, both from the expression “ my God” (ver. 5, comp. with vers. 7 sqq.), and also from ver. 15, according to which he is to take the instruments of a foolish shepherd. This latter verse also shows clearly enough, that the prophet does not come forward here as performing these acts in his own person, but that he represents another, who does things in vers. 8, 12, and 13, which in truth neither Zechariah nor any other prophet ever did, but only God through His Son, and that in ver. 10 He is identified with God, inasmuch as here the person who breaks the staff is the prophet, and the person who has made the covenant with the nations is God. These statements are irreconcilable, both with Hofmann’s assumption, that in this symbolical transaction Zechariah represents the prophetic office, and with that of Koehler, that he represents the mediatorial office. For apart from the fact that such abstract notions are foreign to the prophet’s announcement, these assumptions are overthrown by the fact that neither the prophetic office nor the mediatorial office can be identified with God, and also that the work which the prophet carries out in what follows was not accomplished through the prophetic office. “ The destruction of the three shepherds, or world-powers (ver. 8), is not effected through the prophetic word or office; and the fourth shepherd (ver. 15) is not instituted through the prophetic office and word” (Kliefoth). The shepherd depicted by the prophet can only be Jehovah Himself, or the angel of Jehovah, who is equal in” nature to Himself, 7.e. the Messiah. But since the angel of Jehovah, who appears in the visions, is not mentioned in our oracle, and as the coming of the Messiah is also announced elsewhere as the coming of Jehovah to His people, we shall have in this instance also to understand Jehovah Himself by the shepherd represented in the prophet. He visits His flock, as it is stated in ch. x. 8 and Ezek. xxxiv. 11, 12, and assumes the care of them. The distinction between the prophet and Jehovah cannot be adduced as an argument against this; for it really belongs to the symbolical representation of the matter,. according to which God commissions the prophet to do what He Himself intends to do, and will surely accomplish. The more precise definition of what is here done depends upon the answer to be given to the question, Who are the slaughtering flock, which the prophet undertakes to feed? Does it denote the whole of the human race, as‘ Hofmann supposes; or the nation of Israel, as is assumed by the majority of commentators? 3777 {N¥, flock of slaughtering, is an expression that may be applied either to a flock that is being slaughtered, or to one that is destined to be slaughtered in the future. In support of the latter sense, Kliefoth argues that so long as the sheep are being fed, they cannot have been already slaughtered, or be even in process of slaughtering, and that ver. 6 expressly states, that the men who are intended by the flock of slaughtering will be slaughtered in future when the time of sparing is over, or be treated in the manner described in ver. 5. But the first of these arguments proves nothing at all, inasmuch as, although feddintont is of course not equivalent to slaughtering, a flat, that is being slaughtered by its owners might be transferred to another shepherd to be fed, so as to rescue it from the caprice of its masters. The ond argument rests upon the erroneous assumption that 780 ‘1M in ver. 6 is identical with the slaughtering flock. The epithet | MINT INS, ae. lit. flock of strangling—as hdrag does not mean fo. slay, but to strangle—is explained in ver. 5. The flock is so called, because its present masters are strangling it, without bearing guilt, to sell it for the purpose of enriching Cen eines. and its shepherds treat it in an unsparing manner; and ver. 6 does not give the reason why the flock is called the flock of strangling or of slaughtering (as Kliefoth supposes), but the reason why it is given up by Jehovah to the prophet to feed. 30¥/N? > does not affirm that those who are strangling it do not hails themselves to blame— this is expressed in a different manner (cf. Jer. ]. 7): nor that they do not actually incur guilt in consequence, or do not repent of it; for Jehovah transfers the flock to the prophet to feed, because He does. not wish its possessors to go on strangling it, and DW never has the meaning, to repent. OWN? x refers Eee to the fact that these men have hibbente gone unpunished, that they still continue to prosper. So et "adshem means to bear or expiate the guilt, as in Hos. v. 15, xiv.1 (Ges., Hitzig, Ewald, etc.). What follows also agrees with this,— namely, that the sellers have only their own advantage in view, and thank God that they have thereby become rich. The singular 2’ is used distributively: every one of them says so. WYN), a syncopated form for Wyx) (Ewald, § 73, 6), and) expressing the consequence, that I enrich myself (cf. Ewald, § 235,.b). omy are the former shepherds. The inipantente are not futures, but express the manner in which the flock was accustomed to be treated at the time when the prophet undertook to feed it. Jehovah will put an end to this capricious treatment of the flock, by commanding the prophet to feed it. The reason for this He assigns in ver. 6: For I shall not spare the inhabitants of the earth any longer. 87 °2%* cannot be the inhabitants of the land, i.e. those who are described as the “ flock of slaughtering” in ver. 4; for in that case “ feeding” would be equivalent to slaughtering, or making ready for slaughtering. But although a flock is eventually destined for slaughtering, it is not fed for this purpose only, but generally to yield profit to its owner. Moreover, the figure of feeding is never used in the Scriptures in the sense of making ready for destruction, but always denotes fostering and affectionate care for the preservation of anything; and in the case before us, the shepherd feeds the flock entrusted to him, by slaying.the three bad shepherds; and it is not till the flock has become weary of his tending that he breaks the shepherd’s staves, and lays down his pastoral office, to give them up to destruction. Consequently the 7981 ‘ay are different from the 13900 iN¥, and are those in the midst of whom the flock is living, or in whose possession and power it is. They cannot be the inhabitants of a land, however, but since they have kings (in the plural), as the expression “ every one into the hand of his king” clearly shows, the inhabitants of the earth, or the world-powers; from which it also follows that the “ flock of slaughtering” is not the human race, but the people of Israel, as we may clearly see from what follows, especially from vers. 11-14. Israel was given up by Jehovah into the hands of the nations of the world, or the imperial powers, to punish it for its sin. But as these nations abused the power entrusted to them, and sought utterly to destroy the nation of God, which they ought only to have chastised, the Lord takes charge of His people as their shepherd, because He will no longer spare the nations of the world, z.e. will not any longer let them deal with His people at pleasure, without being punished. The termination of the sparing will show itself in the fact that God causes the nations to destroy themselves by civil wars, and to be smitten by tyrannical kings. ‘ 792 8S, to cause to fall into the hand of another, z.e. to deliver up to his power (cf. 2 Sam. iii. 8). DIN is the human race; and 120, the king of each, is the king to whom each is subject. The subject of 3NM3 is WI and iD?0, the men and the kings who tyrannize over the others. These smite them in pieces, ¢.e. devastate the earth by civil war and tyranny, without any interposition on the part of God to rescue the inhabitants of the earth, or nations beyond the limits of Israel, out of their hand, or to put any restraint upon tyranny and self-destruction.
From ver. 7 onwards the feeding of the flock is described. Ver. 7. “ And I fed the slaughtering flock, therewith the wretched ones of the sheep, and took to myself two staves: the one I called Favour, the other I called Bands; and so I fed the flock. Ver. 8a. And I destroyed three of the shepherds in one month.” The difficult expression 10, of which very different renderings have been given (lit. with the so-being), is evidently used here in the same sense as in Isa. xxvi. 14, Ixi. 7, Jer. ii. 33, etc., so as to introduce what occurred ¢o ipso along with the other event which took place. When the shepherd fed the slaughtering flock, he thereby, or at the same time, fed the wretched ones of the sheep. jN30 ‘*1y, not the most wretched of the sheep, but the wretched ones among the sheep, like [837 ")Y¥ in Jer. xlix. 20, 1. 45, the small, weak sheep. [N87 %Y therefore form one portion of the 72707 jN¥, as Hofmann and Kliefoth have correctly explained; whereas, if they were identical, the whole of the appended clause would be very tautological, since the thought that the flock was in a miserable state was already expressed clearly enough in the predicate 7277, and the explanation of it in ver. 5. This view is confirmed by ver. 11, where JN83. “QV is generally admitted to be simply one portion of the flock. To feed the flock, the prophet takes two shepherds’ staves, to which he gives names, intended to point to the blessings which the flock receives through his pastoral activity. The fact that he takes two staves does not arise from the circumstance that the flock consists of two portions, and cannot be understood as signifying that he feeds one portion of the flock with the one staff, and the other portion with the other. According to ver. 7, he feeds the whole flock with the first staff; and the destruction to which, according to ver. 9, it is to be given up when he relinquishes his office, is only made fully apparent when the two staves are broken. The prophet takes two staves for the simple purpose of setting forth the double kind of salvation which is bestowed upon the nation through the care of the good shepherd. The first staff he calls OY3, i.e.
loveliness, and also favour (cf. Ps. xc. 17, Ai DY3). It is in the latter sense that the word is used here; for the shepherd’s staff shows what Jehovah will thereby bestow upon His people. The second staff he calls pean, which is in any case a kal participle of ban. Of the two certain meanings which this verb has in the kal, viz. to bind (hence chebhel, a cord or rope) and to ill-treat (cf. Job xxxiv. 31), the second, upon which the rendering staff-woe is founded, does not suit the explanation which is given in ver. 14 of the breaking of this staff. The first is the only suitable one, viz. the binding ones, equivalent to the bandage or connection. Through the staff noam (Favour), the favour of God, which protects it from being injured by the heathen nations, is granted to the flock (ver. 10); and through the staff chobh’im the wretched sheep receive the blessing of fraternal unity or binding (ver. 14). The repetition of the words jX80"n¥ AYIN) (end of ver..7) expresses the idea that the feeding is effected with both staves. The first thing which the shepherd appointed by God does for the flock is, according to ver. 8, to destroy three shepherds. 30, the hiphil of 193, signifies ddavifev, to annihilate, to destroy (as in Ex. xxiii. 23). Don nvowns may be rendered, the three shepherds (tovs tpets rouévas, LX X.), or three of the shepherds, so that the article only refers to the genitive, as in Ex.
also frequently the case when two nouns are connected together in the construct state (see Ges. § 111, Anm.). We agree with Koehler in. regarding the latter as the only admissible rendering here, because in what precedes shepherds only have been spoken of, and not any definite number of them. The shepherds, of whom three are destroyed, are those who strangled the flock according to ver. 5, and who are therefore destroyed in order to liberate the flock from their tyranny. But who are these three shepherds? It was a very widespread and ancient opinion, and one which we meet with in Theodoret, Cyril, and Jerome, that the three classes of Jewish rulers are intended,— namely, princes (or kings), priests, and prophets. But apart from the fact that in the times after the captivity, to which our prophecy refers, prophesying and the prophetic office were extinct, and that in the vision in ch. iv. 14 Zechariah only mentions two classes in the covenant nation who were represented by the prince Zerubbabel and the high priest Joshua;. apart, I say, from this, such a view is irreconcilable with the words themselves, inasmuch as it requires us to dilute’ the destruction into a deposition from office, or, strictly speaking, into a counteraction of their influence upon the people; and this is quite sufficient to overthrow it. What Hengstenberg says in vindication of it—namely, that “an actual extermination cannot be intended, because the shepherds appear immediately afterwards as still in existence”—is founded upon a false interpretation of the second half of the verse. So much is unquestionably correct, that we have not to think of the extermination or slaying of three particular individuals,’ and that not so much because it cannot be shown that three rulers or heads of the nation were ever destroyed in the space of a month, either in the times before the captivity or in those which followed, as because the persons occurring in this vision are not individuals, but classes of men. As the 0°95 mentioned in ver. 5 as not sparing the flock are to be understood as signifying heathen rulers, so here the three shepherds are heathen liege-lords of the covenant nation. Moreover, as it is unanimously acknowledged by modern commentators that the definite number does not stand for an indefinite plurality, it is natural to think of the three imperial rulers into whose power Israel fell, that is to say, not of three rulers of one empire, but of the rulers of the three empires. The statement as to time, “in one month,” which does not affirm that the three were shepherds within one month, as Hitzig supposes, but that the three shepherds were destroyed in one month, may easily. be reconciled with this, if we only observe that, in a symbolical transaction, even the distinctions of time are intended to be interpreted symbolically. There can be no doubt whatever
1 The attempts of rationalistic commentators to prove that the three shepherds are three kings of the kingdom of the ten tribes, have completely broken down, inasmuch as of the kings Zechariah, Shallum, and Menahem (2 Kings xv. 8-14), Shallum alone reigned an entire month, so that not even the ungrammatical explanation of Hitzig, to the effect that snx ma refers to the reign of these kings, and not to their destruction, furnishes a sufficient loophole; whilst Maurer, Bleek, Ewald, and Bunsen felt driven to invent a third king or usurper, in order to carry out their that “a month” signifies a comparatively brief space of time. At the same time, it is equally impossible to deny that the assumption that “in a month” is but another way of saying in a very short time, is not satisfactory, inasmuch as it would have been better to say “in a week,” if this had been the meaning; and, on the other hand, a year would not have been a long time for the extermination a three shepherds. Nor can Hofmann’s view be sustained,—namely, that the one month (= 80 days) is to be interpreted on the basis of Dan. ix. 24, as a prophetical period of 30 X 7 = 210 years, and that ie definition of the time refers to the fact that the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and Macedonian empires were destroyed within a period of 210 years. For there is no tenable ground for calculating the days of a month according to sabbatical periods, since there is no connection between the yerach of this verse and the D'Y2Y of Daniel, to say nothing of the fact that the time which intervened ienecn the conquest of Babylon and the death of Alexander the Great was not 210 years, but 215. The only way in which the expression “in one month” can be interpreted symbolically is that proposed by Kliefoth and Koehler,—namely, by dividing the month as a period of thirty days into three times ten days according to the number of the shepherds, and taking each ten days as the time employed in the destruction of a shepherd. Ten is the number of the completion or the perfection of any earthly act or occurrence. If, therefore, each shepherd was destroyed in ten days, and the destruction of the three was executed in a month, i.e. within a space of three times ten days following one another, the fact is indicated, on the one hand, that the destruction of each of these shepherds followed directly upon that of the other; and, on the other hand, that this took place after the full time allotted for his rule had passed away. The reason why the prophet does not say three times ten days, nor even thirty days, but connects the thirty days together into a month, is that he wishes not only to indicate that the time allotted for the duration of the three imperial monarchies is a brief one, but also to exhibit the unwearied activity of the shepherd, which is done more clearly by the expression “one month” than by “thirty days.”
The description of the shepherd’s activity is followed, from ver. 8b onwards, by a description of the attitude which the flock assumed in relation to the service performed on its behalf. Ver. 80. “ And my soul became impatient over them, and their soul also became weary of me. Ver. 9. Then I said, I will not feed you any more; what dieth may die, and what perisheth may perish; and those which remain may devour one another's flesh. Ver. 10. And I took my staf’ Favour, and broke it in pieces, to destroy my covenant which I had made with all nations. Ver. 11. And it was destroyed in that day; and so the wretched of the sheep, which gave heed to me, perceived that it was the word of Jehovah.” The way in which ver. 8a and ver. 8) are connected in the Masoretic text, has led the earlier commentators, and even Hengstenberg, Ebrard, and iliefoth, to take the statement in ver. 80 as also referring to the shepherds. But this is grammatically impossible, because the imperfect ¢. Vav consec. 18PM) in this connection, in which the same verbal forms both before and after express the sequence both of time and thought, cannot be used in the sense of the pluperfect. And this is the sense in which it must be taken, if the words referred to the shepherds, because the prophet’s becoming impatient with the shepherds, and the shepherds’ dislike to the prophet, must of necessity have preceded the destruction of the shepherds. Again, it is evident from ver. 9, as even Hitzig admits, that the prophet “ did not become disgusted with the three shepherds, but with his flock, which he resolved in his displeasure to leave to its fate.” As the suffix D2N8 in ver. 9 is taken by all the commentators (except Kliefoth) as referring to the flock, the suffixes D072 and OWb? in ver. 8 must also point back to the flock (jN83, ver. 7). WB] TYP, to become impatient, as in Num. xxi. 4. ona, which only occurs again in Prov. xx. 21 in the sense of the Arabic \sv, to be covetous, is used here in the sense of the Syriac, to experience vexation or disgust. In consequence of the experience which the shepherd of the Lord had had, according to ver. 8, he resolves to give up the feeding of the flock, and relinquish it to its fate, which is described in ver. 9) as that of perishing and destroying one another. The participles 7M, N73, and niNW32 are present participles, that which dies is destroyed (perishes) and remains; and the imperfects MOA, 1h2N, and 72/28A are not jussive, as the form min clearly proves, but are expressive of that which can be or may happen (Ewald, § 136, d, 6). As a sign of this, the shepherd breaks one staff in pieces, viz. the no‘am, to intimate that the good which the flock has hitherto received through this staff will be henceforth withdrawn from it; that is to say, that the covenant which God has made with all nations is to be repealed or destroyed. This covenant is not the covenant made with Noah as the progenitor of all men after the flood (Kliefoth), nor a relation entered into by Jehovah with all the nationalities under which each nationality prospered, inasmuch as the shepherd continued again and again to remove its flockdestroying shepherds out of the way (Hofmann, Schrifibeweis, ii. 2, p. 607). For in the covenant with Noah, although the continuance of this earth was promised, and the assurance given that there should be no repetition of a flood to destroy all living things, there was no guarantee of protection from death or destruction, or from civil wars; and history has no record of any covenant made by Jehovah with the nationalities, which secured to the nations prosperity on the one hand, or deliverance from oppressors on the other. The covenant made by Ged with all nations refers, according to the context of this passage, to a treaty made with them by God in favour of His flock the nation of Israel, and is analogous to the treaty made by God with the beasts, according to Hos. i. 20, that they should not injure His people, and the treaty made with the stones and the beasts of the field (Job v. 23, cf. Ezek. xxxiv. 25). This covenant consisted in the fact that God imposed upon the nations of the earth the obligation not to hurt Israel or destroy it, and was one consequence of the favour of Jehovah towards His people. Through the abrogation of this covenant Israel is delivered up to the nations, that they may be able to deal with Israel again in the manner depicted in ver. 5. It is true that Israel is not thereby delivered up at once or immediately to that self-immolation which is threatened in ver. 9, nor is this threat carried into effect through the breaking in pieces of one staff, but is only to be fully realized when the second staff is broken, whereby the shepherd entirely relinquishes the feeding of the flock. So long as the shepherd continues to feed the flock with the other staff, so long will. utter destruction be averted from it, although by the breaking of the staff Favour, protection against the nations of the world is withdrawn from it. Ver. 11. From the abrogation of this covenant the wretched among the sheep perceived that this was Jehovah’s word. 3, so, z.e. in consequence of this. The wretched sheep are characterized as ‘8 pnw, “those which give heed to me.” ‘n& refers to the prophet, who acts in the name of God, and therefore really to the act of God Himself. What is affirmed does not apply to one portion, but to all, {883 “2, and proves that we are to understand by these the members of the covenant nation who give heed to the word of God. What these godly men recognised as the word of Jehovah, is evident from the context, viz. not merely the threat expressed in ver. 9, and embodied in the breaking of the staff Favour, but generally speaking the whole of the prophet’s symbolical actions, including both the feeding of the flock with the staves, and the breaking of the one staff. The two together were an embodied word of Jehovah; and the fact that it was so was discerned, i.e. discovered by the righteous, from the effect produced upon Israel by the breaking of the staff Favour, i.e. from the consequences of the removal of the obligation imposed upon the heathen nations to do no hurt to Israel.
With the breaking of the staff Favour, the shepherd of the Lord has indeed withdrawn one side of his pastoral care from the flock that he had to feed, but his connection with it is not yet entirely dissolved. This takes place first of all in vers. 12-14, when the flock rewards him for his service with base ingratitude. Ver. 12. “And I said to them, If it seem good to you, give me my wages; but if not, let 1 alone: and they weighed me as wages thirty silverlings. Ver. 13. Then Jehovah said to me, Throw tt to the potter, the splendid price at which I am valued by them; and so I took the thirty silverlings, and threw % into the house of Jehovah to the potter. Ver. 14, And J broke my second staff Bands, to destroy the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.” piven (to them), so far as the grammatical construction is concerned, might be addressed to the wretched among the sheep, inasmuch as they were mentioned last. But when we bear in mind that the shepherd began to feed not only the wretched of the sheep, but the whole flock, and that he did not give up any one portion of the flock by breaking the staff Favour, we are forced to the conclusion that the words are addressed to the whole flock, and that the demand for wages is only intended to give the flock an opportunity for | explaining whether it is willing to acknowledge his feeding, and appreciate it rightly. The fact that the prophet asks for wages from the sheep may be explained very simply from the fact that the sheep represent men. The demand for wages is not to be understood as implying that the shepherd intended to lay down his office as soon as he had been paid for his service; for in that case he would have asked for the wages before breaking the first staff. But as he does not ask for it till afterwards, and leaves it tothe sheep to say whether they are willing to give it or not (“if it seem good to you”), this demand cannot have any other object than to call upon the sheep to declare whether they acknowledge his service, and desire it to be continued. By the wages the commentators have very properly understood repentance and faith, or piety of heart, humble obedience, and heartfelt, orateful love. These are the only wages with which man can discharge his debt to God. They weighed him now as wages thirty shekels of silver (on the omission of shegel or keseph, see Ges. § 120, 4, Anm. 2). “ Thirty,’—not to reward him for the one month, or for thirty days—that is to say, to give him a shekel a day for his service (Hofm., Klief.): for, in the first place, it is not stated in ver. 8 that he did not feed them longer than a month; and secondly, a shekel was not such very small wages for a day’s work, as the wages actually paid are represented as being in ver. 13. They rather pay him thirty shekels, with an allusion to the fact that this sum was the compensation for a slave that had been killed (Ex. xxi. 32), so that it was the price at which a bond-slave could be purchased (see at Hos. ii. 2). By paying thirty shekels, they therefore gave him to understand that they did not estimate his service higher than the labour of a purchased slave. To offer such wages was in fact “more offensive than a direct refusal” (Hengstenberg). Jehovah therefore describes the wages ironically as “a splendid value that has been set upon me.” As the prophet fed the flock in the name of Jehovah, Jehovah regards the wages paid to His shepherd as paid to Himself, as the value set upon His personal work on behalf of the nation, and commands the prophet to throw this miserable sum to the potter. Both the verb hishlikh (throw) and the contemptuous expression used in relation to the sum paid down, prove unmistakeably that the words “ throw to the potter” denote the actual casting away of the money. And this alone is sufficient to show that the view founded upon the last clause of the verse, “I threw it into the house of Jehovah to the potter,” viz. that hayydtsér signifies the temple treasury, and that yotsér is a secondary form or a copyist’s error for 1318, is simply a mistaken attempt to solve the real difficulty. God could not possibly say to the prophet, The wages paid for my service are indeed a miserable amount, yet put it in the temple treasury, for it is at any rate better than nothing. The phrase “throw to the potter” (for the use of hishlikh with’el pers. compare 1 Kings xix. 19) is apparently a proverbial expression for contemptuous treatment (= to the knacker), although we have no means of tracing the origin of the phrase satisfactorily. Hengstenberg’s assumption, that “to the potter” is the same as to an unclean place, is founded upon the assumption that the potter who worked for the temple had his workshop in the valley of Ben-Hinnom, which, having been formerly the scene of the abominable worship of Moloch, was regarded with abhorrence as an unclean place after its defilement by Josiah (2 Kings xxiii. 10), and served as the slaughter-house for the city. But it by no means follows from Jer. xviii. 2 and xix. 2, that this potter dwelt in the valley of Ben-Hinnom; whereas Jer. xix. 1 and 2 lead rather to the opposite conclusion. If, for example, God there says to Jeremiah, “ Go and buy a pitcher of the potter (ver. 1), and go out into the valley of Ben-Hinnom, which lies in front of the potter’s gate” (ver. 2), it follows pretty clearly from these words that the pottery itself stood within the city gate. But even if the potter had had his workshop in the valley of Ben-Hinnom, which was regarded as unclean, he would not have become unclean himself in consequence, so that men could say “to the potter,” just as we should say “zum Schinder” (to the knacker); and if he had been looked upon as unclean in this way, he could not possibly have worked for the temple, or supplied the cooking utensils for use in the service of God— namely, for boiling the holy sacrificial flesh. The attempts at an explanation made by Grotius and Hofmann are equally unsatisfactory. The former supposes that throwing anything VOL, II. 2A before the potter was equivalent to throwing it upon the heap of potsherds; the latter, that it was equivalent to throwing it into the dirt. But the potter had not to do with potsherds only, and potter’s clay is not street mire. The explanation given by Koehler is more satisfactory; namely, that the meaning is, “The amount is just large enough to pay a potter for the pitchers and pots that have been received from him, and which are thought of so little value, that men easily comfort themselves when one or the other is broken.” But this does not do justice to hishltkh, since men do not throw to a potter the money for his wares, but put it into his hand. The word hishlikh involves the idea of contempt, and earthen pots were things of insignificant worth. The execution of the command, “T threw it (‘othd, the wages paid me) into the house of Jehovah to the potter,” cannot be understood as signifying “into the house of Jehovah, that it might be taken thence to the potter” (Hengstenberg). If this were the meaning, it should have been expressed more clearly. As the words read, they can only be understood as signifying that the potter was in the house of Jehovah when the money was thrown to him; that he had either some work to do there, or that he had come there to bring some earthenware for the temple kitchens (cf. xiv. 20). This circumstance is no doubt a significant one; but the meaning is not merely to show that it was as the servant of the Lord, or in the name and by the command of Jehovah, that the prophet did this, instead of keeping the money (Koehler); for Zechariah could have expressed this in two or three words in a much simpler and clearer manner. The house of Jehovah came into consideration here rather as the place where the people appeared in the presence of their God, either to receive or to solicit the blessings of the covenant from Him. What took place in the temple, was done before the face of God, that God might call His people to account for it. Ver. 14. In consequence of this shameful payment for his service, the shepherd of the Lord breaks his second staff, as a sign that he will no longer feed the ungrateful nation, but leave it to its fate. The breaking of this staff is interpreted, in accordance with its name, as breaking or destroying the brotherhood between Judah and Israel. With these words, which are chosen with reference to the former division of the nation into two hostile kingdoms, the dissolution of the fraternal unity of the nation is depicted, and the breaking up of the nation into parties opposing and destroying one another is represented as the result of a divine decree. Hofmann, Ebrard (Ofenbarung Johannis), and Kliefoth have erroneously supposed that this relates to the division of the covenant nation into two parties, one of which, answering to the earlier Judah, would receive Christ, and remain the people of God; whilst the other, answering to the Ephraim or Israel of the times after Solomon, would reject Christ, and therefore be exposed to hardening and judgment. According to the evident meaning of the symbolical representation, the whole flock paid the good shepherd wages, which were tantamount to a rejection of his pastoral care, and was therefore given up by him; so that by falling into parties it destroyed itself, and, as the shepherd tells it in ver. 9, one devoured the flesh of the other. This is not at variance with the fact that by this self-destroying process they did not all perish, but that the miserable ones among the sheep who gave heed to the Lord, i.e. discerned their Saviour in the shepherd, and accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah, were saved. This is simply passed over in our description, which treats of the fate of the whole nation as such, as for example in Rom. ix. 31, xi. 11-15, because the number of these believers formed a vanishing minority in comparison with the whole nation. The breaking up of the nation into parties manifested itself, however, in a terrible manner soon after the rejection of Christ, and accelerated its ruin in the Roman war.
There is this difference, however, in the interpretation which has been given to this symbolical prophecy, so far as the historical allusion or fulfilment is concerned, by expositors who believe in revelation, and very properly understand it as referring to the times of the second temple: namely, that some regard it as setting forth the whole of the conduct of God towards the covenant nation under the second temple; whilst others take it to be merely a symbol of one single attempt to save the nation when on the verge of ruin, namely, that of the pastoral office of Christ. Hengstenberg, with many of the older commentators, has decided in favour of the latter view. But all that he adduces in proof of the exclusive correctness of this explanation does not touch the fact itself, but simply answers weak arguments by which the first view has been defended by its earlier supporters; whilst the main argument which he draws from ver. 8, to prove that the symbolical action of the prophet sets forth one single act of pastoral fidelity on the part of the Lord, to be accomplished in a comparatively brief space of time, rests upon a false interpretation of the verse in question. By the three shepherds, which the shepherd of Jehovah destroyed in a month, we are to understand, as we have shown at ver. 8, not the three classes of Jewish rulers, but the three imperial rulers, in whose power Israel continued from the times of the captivity to the time of Christ. But the supposition that this section refers exclusively to the work of Christ for the salvation of Israel during His life upon earth, is quite irreconcilable with this. We cannot therefore come to any other conclusion than that the first view, which has been defended by Calvin and others, and in the most recent times by Hofmann, Kliefoth, and Koehler, is the correct one, though we need not therefore assume with Calvin that the prophet “represents in his own person all the shepherds, by whose hand God ruled the people;” or discern, as Hofmann does, in the shepherd of the Lord merely a personification of the prophetic order; or, according to the form in which Koehler expresses the same view, a representation of the mediatorial work in the plan of salvation, of which Daniel was the first representative, and which was afterwards exhibited on the one hand by Haggai and Zechariah, and on the other hand by Zerubbabel and his successors, as the civil rulers of Israel, and by Joshua and those priests who resumed the duties of their office along with him. For the extermination or overthrow of the three imperial rulers or imperial powers was no more effected or carried out by the prophets named, than by the civil rulers and priesthood of Israel. The destruction was effected by Jehovah without the intervention of either the prophets, the priests, or the civil authorities of the Jews; and what Jehovah accomplished in this respect as the Shepherd of His people, was wrought by Him in that form of revelation by which He prepared the way for His coming to His people in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, namely as the Angel of Jehovah, although this form is not more precisely indicated in the symbolical action described in the chapter before us. In that action the shepherd, to whom thirty silverlings are weighed out as his wages, is so far from being regarded as distinct from Jehovah, that Jehovah Himself speaks of these wages as the price at which He was valued by the people; and it is only from the gospel history that we learn that it was not Jehovah the superterrestrial God, but the Son of God, who became incarnate in Christ, i.e. the Messiah, who was betrayed and sold for such a price as this.
What the Evangelist Matthew observes in relation to the fulfilment of vers. 12 and 13, presents various difficulties. After describing in ch. xxvi. the betrayal of Jesus by Judas, the taking of Jesus, and His condemnation to death by the Roman governor Pontius Pilate at the instigation of the high priests and elders of the Jews; and having still further related that Judas, feeling remorse at the condemnation of Jesus, brought back to the high priests and elders the thirty silverlings paid to him for the betrayal, with the confession that he had betrayed innocent blood, and that having thrown down the money in the temple, he went and hanged himself, whereupon the high priests resolved to apply the money to the purchase of a potter’s field as a burial-ground for pilgrims; he adds in ch. xxvii. 9,10: “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value, and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me.” The smallest difficulty of all is occasioned by the fact that the thirty silverlings were weighed, according to the prophecy, as wages for the shepherd; whereas, according to the fulfilment, they were paid to Judas for the betrayal of Jesus. For, as soon as we trace back the form of the prophecy to its idea, the difference is resolved into harmony. The payment of the wages to the shepherd in the prophetical announcement is simply the symbolical form in which the nation manifests its ingratitude for the love and fidelity shown towards it by the shepherd, and the sign that it will no longer have him as its shepherd, and therefore a sign of the blackest ingratitude, and of hard-heartedness in return for the love displayed by the shepherd. The same ingratitude and the same hardness of heart are manifested in the resolution of the representatives of the Jewish nation, the high priests and elders, to put Jesus their Saviour to death, and to take Him prisoner by bribing the betrayer. The payment of thirty silverlings to the betrayer was in fact the wages with which the Jewish nation repaid Jesus for what He had done for the salvation of Israel; and the contemptible sum which they paid to the betrayer was an expression of the deep contempt which they felt for Jesus. There is also no great importance in this difference, that here the prophet throws the money into the house of Jehovah to the potter; whereas, according to Matthew’s account, Judas threw the silverlings into the temple, and the high priests would not put the money into the divine treasury, because it was blood-money, but applied it to the purchase of a potter’s field, which received the name of a field of blood. For by this very fact not only was the prophecy almost literally fulfilled; but, so far as the sense is concerned, it was so exactly fulfilled, that every one could see that the same God who had spoken through the prophet, had by the secret operation of His omnipotent power, which extends even to the ungodly, so arranced the matter that Judas threw the money into the temple, to bring it before the face of God as blood-money, and to call down the vengeance of God upon the nation, and that the high priest, by purchasing the potter’s field for this money, which received the name of “field of blood” in consequence “unto this day” (Matt. xxvii. 8), perpetuated the memorial of the sin committed against their Messiah. Matthew indicates this in the words “as the Lord commanded me,” which correspond to Oy Mm ION in ver. 13 of our prophecy; on which H. Aug. W. Meyer has a observed, “that the words ‘as the ion d commanded me’ express the fae that the application of the wages of treachery to the purchase ie the potter’s field took place ‘in accordance with the purpose of God,’ whose command the prophet had received. As God had directed the prophet (ov) how to proceed with the thirty silverlings, so was it with the antitypical fulfilment of the prophecy by the high priests, and thus was the purpose of the divine will accomplished.” The other points in which the quotation in Matthew differs from the original text (for the LXX. have adopted a totally different rendering) may be explained from the fact that the passage is quoted memoriter, and that the allusion to the mode of fulfilment has exerted some influence upon the choice of words. This involuntary allusion shows itself in the reproduction of ‘0 AMPS), “TL took the thirty silverlings, and threw them to the potter,” by “they took the thirty pieces of silver,... and gave them for the potter’s field;” whilst “the price of him that was valued” is only a free rendering of TPH VIS, and “of the children of Israel” an explanation of Dey.
The only real and important difficulty in the quotation is to be found in the fact that Matthew quotes the words of Zechariah as “that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet,” whereas all that he quotes is taken simply and solely from the prophet Zechariah. The reading ‘Iepeu/ov in Matthew is critically unassailable; and the assumption that Matthew refers to some lost scripture, or to a saying of Jeremiah handed down by oral tradition, and others of a similar kind, are simply arbitrary loopholes, which cannot come into any further consideration at all. On the other hand, the attempts made to explain the introduction of Jeremiah’s name in the place of that of Zechariah, on the ground that, so far as the principal features are concerned, our prophecy is simply a resumption of the prophecy in Jer. xix., and that Zechariah announces a second fulfilment of this prophecy (Hengstenberg), or that it rests upon the prophecy of Jer. xviii, in which the potter is also introduced, and that its fulfilment goes beyond Zechariah’s prophecy in those features which deviate from the words of Zechariah, so that Jer. xviii. xix. was fulfilled at the same time (Kliefoth), are deserving of serious consideration. Matthew, it is supposed, intended to point to this relation by inentioning Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. We would support this view without reserve, if the connection assumed to exist between our prophecy and the prophecies of Jer. xviii. and xix. could only be shown to be a probable one. But the proof adduced by Hengstenberg that our prophecy rests upon Jer. xviii. reduces itself to these two remarks: (1) That the potter, of whom Jeremiah purchased a pot (ch. xix.) to break it in the valley of Ben-Hinnom, had his workshop in this valley, which was regarded with abhorrence, as being unclean; and (2) that Zechariah was to throw the bad wages into the valley of Ben- Hinnom precisely at the spot where this potter’s workshop was.
This he supposes to have taken place with a distinct allusion to the prophecy in Jer. xix., and with the assumption that the readers would have this prophecy before their minds. But in our exposition of ver. 13 we have already shown that Jeremiah did not purchase his pot in the valley of Ben-Hinnom, but of the potter who dwelt within the city gate; and also that the words of Zechariah, “I threw it into the house of Jehovah to the potter,” do not affirm that the prophet threw the wages paid ‘him into the valley of Ben-Hinnom. But with these false assumptions, the view founded upon them—namely, that our prophecy is a resumption of that of Jeremiah—necessarily falls to the ground. The symbolical action enjoined upon Jeremiah, and carried out by him, viz. the breaking to pieces in the valley of Ben-Hinnom of the pot purchased of the potter in the city, does not stand in any perceptible relation to the word of the Lord to Zechariah, to throw the wages paid to him into the house of Jehovah to the potter, so as to lead us to take this word as a resumption of that prophecy of Jeremiah. Kliefoth appears to have seen this also, inasmuch as he gives up the idea of finding the proof that our prophecy rests upon that of Jeremiah in the prophecy itself. He therefore bases this view upon the simple fact that Matthew (xxvii. 9) does not quote our passage as a word of Zechariah, but as a word of Jeremiah, and therefore at any rate regarded it as such; and that our passage has nothing independent in its contents, but is rather to be completed or explained from Jeremiah, though not from Jer. xix., but from Jer. xviii, where the potter who makes a pot, and breaks it in pieces because it 1s marred, represents God, who is doing just the same with Israel as the potter with the pot that is marred. Consequently even in Zechariah we are to understand by the potier, to whom the prophet throws the wages in the temple, Jehovah Himself, who dwells in the temple. But apart from the impossibility of understanding the words of God in ver. 13, “Throw the splendid price at which I have been valued by them to the potter,” as meaning “Throw this splendid price to me,” this view founders on the simple fact that it necessitates the giving up of the agreement between the prophecy and its historical fulfilment, inasmuch as in the fulfilment the price of the betrayal of Jesus is paid, not to the potter, Jehovah, but to a common potter for his field in the valley of Ben-Hinnom. If, therefore, it is impossible to show any connection between our prophecy and the prophecies of Jeremiah, there is no other course left than to follow the example of Luther,—namely, either to attribute the introduction of Jeremiah’s name in Matt. xxvii. 9 in the place of that of Zechariah to a failure of memory, or to regard it as a very old copyist’s error, of a more ancient date than any of the critical helps that have come down to us.!
Vers. 15-17.—THE Foorisn SHEPHERD.—Ver. 15. “And Jehovah said to me, Take to thee yet the implement of a foolish shepherd. Ver. 16. For, behold, I raise up to myself a shepherd in the land: that which is perishing will he not observe, that which as scattered will he not seck, and that which is broken will he not heal; that which ts standing will he not care for; and the flesh of the fat one will he eat, and tear their claws in pieces. Ver. 17. Woe to the worthless shepherd, who forsakes the flock! sword over his arm, and over his right eye: his arm shall wither, and his right eye be extinguished.” After Israel has compelled the good shepherd to lay down his shepherd’s office, in consequence of its own sin, it is not to be left to itself, but to be given into the hand of a foolish shepherd, who will destroy it. This is the thought in the fresh symbolical action. By “iy, “yet (again) take the instruments,” etc., this action is connected with the previous one (vers. 4 sqq.); for iy implies that the prophet had already taken a shepherd’s instruments once before in his hand. The shepherd’s instruments are the shepherd’s staff, and taking it in his hand is a figurative representation of the feeding of a flock. This time he is to take the im-
1 Luther says, in his Commentary on Zechariah, of the year 1528: ‘ This chapter gives rise to the question, Why did Matthew attribute the text concerning the thirty pieces of silver to the prophet Jeremiah, whereas it stands here in Zechariah? This and other similar questions do not indeed trouble me very much, because they have but little bearing upon the matter; and Matthew does quite enough by quoting a certain scripture, although he is not quite correct about the name, inasmuch as he quotes prophetic sayings in other places, and yet does not even give the words as they stand in the Scripture. The same thing may occur now; and if it does not affect the sense that the words are not quoted exactly, what is to hinder his not having given the name quite correctly, since the words are of more importance than the name?”
plement of a foolish shepherd, é.¢. to set forth the action of a foolish shepherd. Whether the pastoral staff of the foolish shepherd was of a different kind from that of the good shepherd, isa matter of indifference, so far as the meaning of the symbol is concerned. Folly, according to the Old Testament view, is synonymous with ungodliness and sin (cf. Ps. xiv. 1 sqq.). The reason for the divine command is given in ver. 16 by a statement of the meaning of the new symbolical action. God will raise up a shepherd over the land, who will not tend, protect, and care for the flock, but will destroy it. That we are not to understand by this foolish shepherd all the evil native rulers of the Jewish people collectively, as Hengstenberg supposes, is as evident from the context as it possibly can be. If the good shepherd represented by the prophet in vers. 4-14 is no other than Jehovah in His rule over Israel, the foolish shepherd who is raised up over the land in the place of the good shepherd, who had been despised and rejected, can only be the possessor of the imperial power, into whose power the nation is given up after the rejection of the good shepherd sent to it in Chiist, 2.e. the Roman empire, which destroyed the Jewish state. The rule of the foolish shepherd is depicted not only as an utter neglect, but as a consuming of the flock, as in Ezek. xxxiv. 3, 4, Jer. xxiit. 1, 2. The perishing sheep he will not seek, z.e. will not take charge of them (cf. ver. 9). 737 cannot be the young or tender one; for not only is naar, the boy, not used of animals, but even when used of men. it has not the meaning tender or weak. The word is a substantive formation from nd‘ar, to shake, pied to disperse, used in the sense of dispulsio, and the abstract being used for the concrete, the dispersed, the scattered, as the early translators rendered it. Hannishbereth, that which is broken, ¢.e. injured through the fracture of a limb. The opposite of nishbereth is na¥830, that which stands upon its feet, and therefore is still strong. But not only will he neglect the flock: he will also seize upon it, and utterly consume it, not only devouring the flesh of the fat one, but even tearing in pieces the claws of the sheep. Not indeed by driving them along bad and stony roads (Tarn., Ewald, Hitzig), for one does no great harm to sheep, but so that nica he consumes the sheep, he even splits or tears in pieces the claws, to seize upon and swallow the last morsel of flesh or fat. But this tyrant will also receive his punishment for doing so. The judgment which is to fall upon him is set forth in accordance with the figure of the shepherd, as punishment through the loss of the arm and of the right eye. These two members are mentioned, because with the arm he ought to have protected and provided for the flock, and with the eye to have watched over them. The Yod in ‘y5 and ‘219 is not the suffix of the first person, but the so-called Yod compaginis with the construct state (see at Hos. x. 11). Donn is a substantive, as in Job sili. 4; it does not mean worthlessness, however, but nothingness. A worthless shepherd is one who is the opposite of what the shepherd should be, and will be: one who does not feed the flock, but leaves it to perish GS87 °3). The words from cherebh to y’mind are a sentence in the form of a proclamation. The sword is called to come upon the arm and the right eye of the worthless shepherd, i.e. to hew off his arm, to smite his right eye. The further threat that the arm is to wither, the eye to become extinct, does not appear to harmonize with this. But the sword is simply mentioned as the instrument of punishment, and the connecting together of different kinds of punishment simply serves to exhibit the greatness and terrible nature of the punishment. With this threat, the threatening word concerning the imperial power of the world (ch. ix.-xi.) is very appropriately brought to a close, inasmuch as the prophecy thereby returns to its starting-point.
This section forms the first half of the second prophecy of Zechariah coneerning the future of Israel and of the nations of the world, viz. the prophecy contained in ch, xil.—xiv., which, as a side-piece to ch. ix.-xi., treats of the judgment by which Israel, the nation of God, will be refined, sifted, and led on to perfection through conflict with the nations of the world. This first section announces how the conflict against Jerusalem and Judah will issue in destruction to the nations of the world (ch. xii. 1-4). Jehovah will endow the princes of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem with marvellous strength to overcome all their foes (vers. 5-9), and will pour out His Spirit of grace upon them, so that they will bitterly repent the death of the Messiah (vers. 10-14), and purify themselves from all ungodliness (ch. xiii. 1-6).
Ver. 1. “Burden of the word of Jehovah over Israel. Saying of Jehovah, who stretches out the heaven, and lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him.” This heading, which belongs to the whole prophecy in ch, xii.—xiv., corresponds in form and contents to that in ch. ix. 1. The burden of Jehovah over Israel stands by the side of the burden of Jehovah over the land of Hadrach, the seat of the heathen power of the world (ch. ix. 1). And as the reason assigned for the latter was that the eye of Jehovah looks at mankind and all the tribes of Israel, so the former is explained here by an allusion to the creative omnipotence of Jehovah. Only there is nothing in our heading to answer to the words “ and Damascus is his rest,” which are added to the explanation of the symbolical name Hadrach in ch. ix. 1, because Israel, as the name of the covenant nation, needed no explanation. The other formal differences are very inconsiderable. Sy answers substantially to the 2 (in 7983, ch. ix. 1), and signifies, notwithstanding the fact that massa announces a threatening word, not “against,” but “over,” as we may see by comparing it with ‘yy ON xt in Mal.i.1. The reason for the massa’ announced is given here in the form of an apposition, 771 D8) standing first like a heading, as in Ps. cx. 1, 2 Sam. xxiii. 1, Num. xxiv. 3,15. The predicates of God are formed after Isa. xlii. 5 (see also Amos iv. 13), and describe God as the creator of the universe, and the former of the spirits of all men, to remove all doubt as to the realization of the wonderful things predicted in what follows. ‘3 7%, the forming of the spirit within man, does not refer to the creation of the spirits or souls of men once for all, but denotes the continuous creative formation and guidance of the human spirit by the Spirit of God. Consequently we cannot restrict the stretching out of the heaven and the laying of the foundation of the earth to the creation of the universe as an act accomplished once for all at the beginning of all things (Gen. ii. 1), but must take these words also as referring to the upholding of the world as a work of the continuously creative providence of
God. According to the biblical view (cf. Ps. civ. 2-4), ‘God stretches out the heavens every day afresh, and every day He lays the foundation of the earth, which, if His power did not uphold it, would move from its orbit, and fall into ruin” (Hengst.).
Ver. 2. “ Behold, I make Jerusalem a reeling-basin for all the nations round about, and upon Judah also will it be at the stege against Jerusalem. Ver. 3. And it will come to pass on that day, I will make Jerusalem a burden-stone to all nations: all who lift tt up will tear rents for themselves; and all the nations of the earth will gather together against it. Ver. 4. In that day, 1s the saying of Jehovah, will I smite every horse with shyness, and its rider with madness, and over the house of Judah will I open my eyes, and every horse of the nations will I smite with blindness.” These verses allude to an attack on the part of the nations upon Jerusalem and Judah, which will result in injury and destruction to those who attack it. The Lord will make Jerusalem a reeling-basin to all nations round about. Saph does not mean threshold here, but basin, or a large bowl, as in Ex. xii. 22. Sy is equivalent to myn in Isa. li. 17 and Ps. Ix. 5, viz. reeling. Instead of the goblet, the prophet speaks of a basin, because many persons can put their mouths to this at the same time, and drink out of it (Schmieder). The “cup of reeling,” 2.e. a goblet filled with intoxicating drink, is a figure very frequently employed to denote the divine judgment, which intoxicates the nations, so that they are unable to stand any longer, and therefore fall to the ground and perish (see at Isa. li. 17).—Ver. 26 has been explained in very different ways. It is an old and widespread view, that the words “also upon Judah will it be,” ete., express the participation of Judah in the siege of Jerusalem. The Chaldee and Jerome both adopt this explanation, that in the siege of Jerusalem Judah will be constrained by the nations to besiege the capital of its own land. The grammatical reason assigned for this view is, that we must either take 7 with 2Y in the sense of obligation (it will also be the duty of Judah: Mich., Ros., Ewald), or supply Syn-4D as the subject to 7: the reeling-basin will also come upon Judah. But there is great harshness in both explanations. With the former, pnbnp, or some other infinitive, would hardly have been omitted; and with the latter, the preposition
5 would stand before M1, instead of 5y, Moreover, in what follows there is no indication whatever of Judah’s having made common cause with the enemy against Jerusalem; on the contrary, Judah and Jerusalem stand together in opposition to the nations, and the princes of Judah have strength in the inhabitants of Jerusalem (ver. 5), and destroy the enemy to save Jerusalem (ver. 6). Moreover, it is only by a false interpretation that any one can find a conflict between Judah and Jerusalem indicated in ch. xiv. 14. And throughout it is incorrect to designate the attitude of Judah towards Jerusalem in these verses as “ opposition,’—a notion upon which Ebrard (Offend. Joh.) and Kliefoth have founded the marvellous view, that by Jerusalem with its inhabitants and the house of David we are to understand the unbelieving portion of Israel; and by Judah with its princes, Christendom, or the true people of God, formed of believing Israelites, and increased by believing Gentiles. Judah is not opposed to Jerusalem, but simply distinguished from it, just as the Jewish kingdom or people is frequently designated by the prophets as Jerusalem and Judah. The 03, which does not separate, but adds, is of itself inapplicable to the idea of opposition. Consequently we should expect the words ‘7 oy DN to express the thought, that Judah will be visited with the same fate as Jerusalem, as Luther, Calvin, and many others follow the Peshito in supposing that they do. by mi has then the meaning to happen, to come over a person; and the only question is, What are we to supply in thought as the subject? The best course is probably to take it from the previous clause, “that which passes over Jerusalem;” for the proposal of Koehler to supply mdtsor as the subject is precluded by the circumstance that médtsor, a siege, can only affect a city or fortress (cf. Deut. xx. 20), and not aland. The thought is strengthened in ver. 3. Jerusalem is to become a burden-stone for all nations, which inflicts contusions and wounds upon those who try to lift it up or carry it away (“experiencing no hurt itself, it causes great damage to them:” Marck). The figure is founded upon the idea of the labour connected with building, and not upon the custom, which Jerome speaks of as a very common one in his time among the youth of Palestine, of testing and exercising their strength by lifting heavy stones. There is a gradation in the thought, both in the figure of the burdensome stone, which wounds whoever tries to lift it, whilst intoxicating wine only makes one powerless and incapable of any undertaking, and also in the description given of the object, viz. in ver. 2 all nations round about Jerusalem, and in ver. 3 all peoples and all nations of the earth. It is only in the last clause of ver. 3 that the oppression of Jerusalem indicated in the two figures is more minutely described, and in ver. 4 that its overthrow by the help of God is depicted. The Lord will throw the mind and spirit of the military force of the enemy into such confusion, that instead of injuring Jerusalem and Judah, it will rush forward to its own destruction. Horses and riders individualize the warlike forces of the enemy. The rider, smitten with madness, turns his sword against his own comrades in battle (cf. ch. xiv. 3, Judg. vii. 22, 1 Sam. xiv. 20). On the other hand, Jehovah will open His eyes upon Judah for its protection (1 Kings vill. 29; Neh. i. 6; Ps. xxxii. 8). This promise is strengthened by the repetition of the punishment to be inflicted upon the enemy. Not only with alarm, but with blindness, will the Lord smite their horses. We have an example of this in 2 Kings vi. 18, where the Lord smote the enemy with blindness in answer to Elisha’s prayer, i.e. with mental blindness, so that, instead of seizing the prophet, they fell into the hands of Israel. The three plagues, timmdhon, shigga'on, and ‘iwvdron, are those with which rebellious Israelites are threatened in Deut. xxviii. 28. The “house of Judah” is the covenant nation, the population of Judah including the inhabitants of Jerusalem, as we may see from what follows.
Ver. 5. “ And the princes of Judah will say in their hearts, The inhabitants of Jerusalem are strength to me, in Jehovah of hosts their God. Ver. 6. On that day will I make the princes of Judah as a basin of fire under logs of wood, and like a torch of jive under sheaves; and they will devour all nations round about, on the right and on the left; and Jerusalem will dwell still further in its place, at Jerusalem. Ver.7. And Jehovah will save the tents of Judah first, that the splendour of the house of David and the splendour of the inhabitants of Jerusalem may not lift itself up over Judah.” The princes of Judah are mentioned as the leaders of the people in war. What they say is the conviction of the whole nation (allaph, as in ch. ix, 7).
TYDN (in this form dz. dey.) is a substantive = 728, strength (J ob xvii. 9). The singular iz (to me) expresses the fact that every individual says or thinks this, as with the expression “should J weep” in ch. vii. 3. The princes of Judah recognise in the inhabitants of Jerusalem their strength or might, not in this sense, that Judah, being crowded together before Jerusalem, expects help against the foe from the strength of the city and the assistance of its inhabitants, as Hofmann and Koehler maintain, for “ their whole account of the inhabitants of the land being shut up in the city (or crowded together before the walls of Jerusalem, and covered by them) is a pure invention” (Koehler), and has no foundation in the text; but in this sense, that the inhabitants of Jerusalem are strong through Jehovah their God, z.e. through the fact that Jehovah has chosen Jerusalem, and by virtue of this election will save the city of His sanctuary (compare x. 12 with i. 2, 1. 17, ii. 16). Because the princes of Judah put their trust in the divine election of Jerusalem, the Lord makes them into a basin of fire under logs of wood, and a burning torch under sheaves, so that they Neste all nations round about like flames of fire, and Jerusalem therefore remains unconquered and undestroyed in its place at Jerusalem. In this last sentence Jerusalem is first of all the population personified as a woman, and in the second instance the city as such. From the fact that Jerusalem is still preserved, in consequence of the destruction of the enemy proceeding from the princes of Judah, it is very evident that the princes of Judah are the representatives of the whole nation, and that the whole of the covenant nation (Judah with Jerusalem) is included in the house of Judah in er. 4, And ver. 7 may easily be reconciled with this. The statement that the Lord will “save the tents of Judah first that the splendour of the house of David may not lift itself up above Judah,” contains the simple thought that the salvation will take place in such a manner that no part of the nation will have any occason to lift itself up above another, and that because the salvation is effected not by human power, but by the omnipotence of God alone. “The tents of Judah, ze. its huts, form an antithesis to the splendid buildings of the capital, and probably (?) also point to the defenceless condition of Judah, through which it was absolutely cast upon the help of God” * (Hengstenberg). NM NBN, the splendour or glory, not the-boasting. The house of Davide: is the royal line, which was continued in Zerubbabel and his family, and culminated in Christ. Its splendour consists in the glorification promised in ch. iv. 6-10 and 14, and Hag. ii. 23; and the splendour of the inhabitants of Jerusalem is the promises which this city received through its election to be the city of God, in which Jehovah would be enthroned in His sanctuary, and also through the future glorification predicted for it in consequence (ch. i. 16, 17, 11. 8, 14, sqq.). The antithesis between Jerusalem and the house of David on the one hand, and the tents of Judah on the other, does not serve to express the thought that “the strong ones will be saved by the weak, in order that the true equilibrium may arise between the two” (Hengst.), for Judah cannot represent the weak ones if its princes consume the enemy like flames of fire; but the thought is simply this: At the deliverance from the attack of the foe, Jerusalem will have no pre-eminence over Judah; but the promises which Jerusalem and the house of David have received will benefit Judah, ze. the whole of the covenant nation, in like manner. This thought is expressed in the following way: The defence- _ less land will be delivered sooner than the well-defended capital, that the latter may not lift itself up above the former, but that both may humbly acknowledge “that the victory in both cases is the Lord’s” (Jerome); for, according to ver. 8, Jerusalem will enjoy in the fullest measure the salvation of God. Ver. 8. “ On that day Jehovah will shelter the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that stumbleth among them will be as David on that day; and the house of David as God, as the angel of Jehovah before them. Ver. 9. And it will come to pass on that day, I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.” In the conflict with the heathen nations, the Lord will endow the inhabitants of Jerusalem with marvellous strength with which to overcome all their foes. The population of Jerusalem is divided into two classes, the weak and the strong. The weak are designated as hannikhshdl, the stumbling one, who cannot stand firmly upon his feet (1 Sam. 1 Galvin observes: ‘‘In my opinion, the prophet applies the term