That the fire may devour thy cedars, etc. Zechariah 11:1-2 The fallen cedar W. L. Alexander, D. D. In this chapter there is an announcement of the judgment that was to come on the Jewish State and nation because of their ungodliness, and especially their contemptuous rejection of Him whom God sent to be their shepherd. The prophecy here is not in any way connected with that in the preceding chapters, except as it may be regarded as continuing the account of God's dealings with Israel, and their behaviour towards Him consequent on the events predicted in these chapters. Hitherto the prophet has been a bearer of good tidings to Zion, tidings of deliverance from oppressors, and restoration to former privilege and felicity. But there was a dark side to the picture as well as a bright one. All trouble and conflict had not ceased with their restoration to their own land: nor was their tendency to rebellion and apostasy from Jehovah, their Shepherd and King, finally subdued. Treating Him with contempt, His favour should be withdrawn from them, and the bonds that united them should be broken. The iron hand of foreign oppression should again be laid heavily upon them, and the ruin of their State and desolation of their land should mark the greatness of their sin by the severity of the penalty it had entailed. The prophecy begins with a picture of ruin and desolation overspreading the land, and then the process is detailed by which this was brought about and the cause of it indicated. The description of the judgment commences dramatically. Lebanon is summoned to open her doors, that the fire may enter to consume her cedars; the cypress is admonished to howl or wail because the cedar is fallen, because the noble and glorious trees are destroyed; the oaks of Bashan are called upon to join in the wail, for the inaccessible forest is laid low. The cypress is here called to lament for the fall of the cedar of Lebanon, the glory of the forest, not as deploring that calamity so much as anticipating for itself a like fate. That this description is to be taken literally cannot be supposed; the language is too forcible, and the picture too vivid to be understood merely of the destruction by fire of a few trees, even though these were the finest of their kind. On the other hand, there seems no sufficient reason for regarding this description as symbolical and wholly figurative. The more simple and tenable view is that which Calvin suggested, namely, that by the places here mentioned is intended the whole land of Judea, the desolation of which is predicted by the prophet. The catastrophe thus depicted was brought about by the misconduct of the people, and especially their shepherds and rulers, towards the Great Shepherd of Israel, whom God sent forth to feed and tend the flock. This is described in what follows, where the prophet is represented as acting as the representative of another, and as such is addressed. It cannot be supposed that the person addressed is the Angel of Jehovah, or the Messiah, for the person addressed in verse 4 is evidently the same as the person addressed in verse 15, and what is there said does not in any way apply to the Angel of Jehovah, or the Messiah. Nor can it be supposed that the prophet is here addressed in his own person, for as it was no part of the prophetic office to act as a shepherd of Israel, it could not be to the prophet as such that the command here given was addressed. The only supposition that can tenably be made is that what is here narrated passed as a vision before the inner sense of the prophet, in which he saw himself as the representative of another, first of the good shepherd who is sent to feed the flock, and then of the evil shepherd by whom the flock was neglected, and who should be destroyed for his iniquity. ( W. L. Alexander, D. D. )

Benson Commentary Zechariah 11:1 Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars. Zechariah 11:1 . Open thy doors, O Lebanon — The prophet, having signified in the foregoing prophecy that the Jewish nation should recover its prosperity, flourish for some time, and become considerable; and having announced to Zion the coming of Messiah her king, and congratulated her on the peaceable nature and great extent of his kingdom, with the blessed effects which his rule should produce, proceeds now to foretel the ruin which should come on the body of the Jewish nation for rejecting him, with the destruction of their temple and capital city. To this only can the first three verses of this chapter relate; for no calamities happened to that people, from the time of Zechariah till that event, of which the expressions here used can with propriety be understood. Lebanon itself cannot be here addressed, which had no doors or gates: but it is figuratively put, either for the temple, built of the cedars of Lebanon, as it is Ezekiel 17:3 ; and Habakkuk 2:17 ; or for the city of Jerusalem, whose lofty buildings resembled the stately ranks of trees in a forest: but the former is more probably intended. And, if the Jewish writers may be credited, such was the application made of this prophecy by the Rabbi Johanan, when the doors of the temple opened of their own accord, a little before the temple was burned, a circumstance attested by Josephus, Bell. Jud. lib. 6. cap. 5: “Then R. Johanan, a disciple of R. Hillel, directing his speech to the temple, said, ‘I know thy destruction is at hand, according to the prophecy of Zechariah:’ Open thy doors, O Lebanon, &c.” That the fire — Either, figuratively, the wrath of God and the rage of the enemy, or, literally, fire kindled by the enemy; may devour thy cedars — Thy palaces and other fabrics built with cedars. Zechariah 11:2 Howl, fir tree; for the cedar is fallen; because the mighty are spoiled: howl, O ye oaks of Bashan; for the forest of the vintage is come down. Zechariah 11:2-3 . Howl, fir-tree — By the several sorts of trees here mentioned, seem to be meant the several orders and degrees of men, who should be sharers in the common destruction: see Isaiah 2:13 ; Isaiah 10:33-34 ; and the notes. The fir-tree seems to denote the lower people, who are bid to howl because even their superiors, signified by the cedar, could not withstand the storm. Howl, O ye oaks of Bashan — O ye rich, great, and powerful people of the land; Bashan was famous for its stately oaks. For the forest of the vintage — Or rather, a forest, the fenced one, is come down — “As the inhabitants are represented under the image of the trees, the city is aptly denoted by a forest; to which is added by way of distinction ???? , the fenced one, the article ? being emphatic, and marking the extraordinary strength of its fortifications, or fence, which, however, proves insufficient for its security.” There is a voice of the howling of the shepherds — That is, of the princes and rulers of the people. For their glory is spoiled — Their magnificent houses are destroyed. A voice of the roaring of young lions — Those who are in the foregoing sentence called shepherds, are here called young lions, because they were devourers of the people by their extortions and oppressions. The pride of Jordan is spoiled — By the pride of Jordan, those woods and thickets are primarily intended that rose proudly above the banks of that river, and greatly decorated the scene. But as those were the receptacles of lions, they are here, in a secondary and metaphorical sense, put for the residences of those princes and grandees, who are denominated lions in the preceding clause for the reason now mentioned. Zechariah 11:3 There is a voice of the howling of the shepherds; for their glory is spoiled: a voice of the roaring of young lions; for the pride of Jordan is spoiled. Zechariah 11:4 Thus saith the LORD my God; Feed the flock of the slaughter; Zechariah 11:4-5 . Feed the flock of the slaughter — That is, the people, who are so denominated, because they were devoted to ruin by the following mischievous counsels of their false teachers, and the oppressions of their rulers. This command seems to be addressed to Zechariah; but an insuperable objection lies against its being understood as given to him in his own person, because he did not live in such times as are here described; for Zerubbabel the governor, and Joshua the high-priest, it appears, were men of extraordinary piety and virtue; and no doubt the rest of the princes or rulers of the people at this time were good men. We can, therefore, understand it in no other manner, as addressed to Zechariah, than as he typified Christ; and so God commanded him to do that which he had appointed Christ to do, namely, to gather and feed the lost sheep of Israel, which their shepherds scattered and destroyed. Whose possessors slay them — Whose governors and teachers are the cause of their destruction. Those are not improperly said to do a thing who are the cause of its being done. And hold themselves not guilty — Are not aware of the great guilt of their conduct; or, act as if they thought they might lawfully make merchandise of men’s bodies or souls, for their own lucre or advantage. See 2 Peter 2:3 . And they that sell them — Who betray their persons, or liberty, or property, for profit; or sell them for slaves to foreigners; or, by their exactions and oppressions, reduce them to such poverty that they are obliged to sell themselves; say, Blessed be the Lord, for I am rich — That is, they hypocritically and impiously pretend to return God thanks for having put it in their power to acquire riches by such ungodly practices! And their own shepherds — That is, their chief priests, princes, and rulers, as above; pity them not — Destroy them without remorse. In Christ’s time, which seems to be here referred to, “the chief priests and the elders, who were the possessors of the flock, by their traditions, the commandments of men, and their impositions on the consciences of the people, were become perfect tyrants, devouring their houses, engrossing their wealth, and fleecing the flock instead of feeding it. The Sadducees, who were Deists, corrupted their judgments; the Pharisees, who were bigots for superstitious observances, corrupted their morals by making void the commandments of God, Matthew 15:6 . Thus they slew the sheep of the flock; thus they sold them. They cared not what became of them, so they could but gain their own ends, and serve their own interests.” — Henry. Zechariah 11:5 Whose possessors slay them, and hold themselves not guilty: and they that sell them say, Blessed be the LORD; for I am rich: and their own shepherds pity them not. Zechariah 11:6 For I will no more pity the inhabitants of the land, saith the LORD: but, lo, I will deliver the men every one into his neighbour's hand, and into the hand of his king: and they shall smite the land, and out of their hand I will not deliver them . Zechariah 11:6 . I will no more pity the inhabitants of the land — I will no more spare them than their shepherds do. The inhabitants of the land are to be distinguished from the poor of the flock in the next verse. By the former are meant those who in their respective stations were as wicked as the rulers, chief priests, and others, termed their shepherds, Zechariah 11:5 ; by the latter, those who were oppressed and were piously disposed. But I will deliver the men every one into his neighbour’s hand — “This verse assigns the reason for calling the people, the flock of slaughter. Nor can words more aptly describe the calamities which befell the Jews in the war which ended in the taking of Jerusalem by the Romans; when the people, having first, by their intestine broils, destroyed one another, as is set forth at large by Josephus, at length fell into the hand of him whom they had owned for their sovereign, (‘we have no king but Cesar,’ John 19:15 ,) and who completely desolated the land for their rebellion against him.” — Blayney. Zechariah 11:7 And I will feed the flock of slaughter, even you, O poor of the flock. And I took unto me two staves; the one I called Beauty, and the other I called Bands; and I fed the flock. Zechariah 11:7 . And — Or rather, but, I will feed the flock of slaughter, even you — Or, especially you, O poor of the flock — Zechariah here, representing Christ the true shepherd, says, he will enter upon his office, and undertake the care of the flock appointed for the slaughter; even you, O poor of the flock — This clause is explicatory of the former, and by the repetition of it we are shown, that God, in his charge to the prophet, as a type of Christ, and to Christ the antitype, distinguishes clearly between different sorts of people among the Jews; between those that were poor, despised, weak, and humble, and those that were tyrannical, proud, and cruel, and made a prey of their inferiors: these were left out of the pastoral charge; the others were to be taken care of. And I took unto me two staves — These were the proper accoutrements of a shepherd, and these the prophet assumed as a badge of his office, and gave them significant names, which are partly explained, Zechariah 11:10-14 . “The shepherds of old time,” says Lowth, “had two rods, or staves, one turned round at the top, that it might not hurt the sheep: this was for counting them, and separating the sound from the diseased, Leviticus 27:32 ; the other had an iron hook at the end of it, to pull in and hold the straying sheep. The psalmist mentions both these, Psalm 23:4 , Thy rod and thy staff comfort me.” The one I called Beauty — Or, pleasantness, or, delight, as the word ???? may be rendered, signifying, says Lowth, his favour, gentleness, or kindness toward his people; which was remarkably verified in Christ, whose gracious words, and beneficial works, were conspicuous through the whole course of his life. The other I called Bands — Which the same author interprets of the bond of the new covenant, whereby he intended to unite both the kingdoms of Israel and Judah under himself, as their head and king, Ezekiel 37:22 ; and then afterward to unite the Jews and the Gentiles into one church, by breaking down the partition wall that was between them. Newcome considers the former, Beauty, as intended to “denote how beautiful and pleasant the land would have been, if its inhabitants had kept their covenant with God.” The other, Bands, “ as signifying the union which ought to have subsisted between Judah and Israel.” Mr. Scott explains “the former word of the honour, privilege, and ornament which the Jews possessed, according to their national covenant, in the oracles, instituted worship, and temple of God; and especially by the ministry of Christ and his apostles, who preached the gospel to them first.” The other, he thinks, means, “the connection of the nation under one government, and the harmony that had, in some measure, hitherto united them, as the flock of God.” Many other interpretations are given of these two names, but as they all are, and must be, in a great measure, founded on conjecture, the reader is not here troubled with them. Zechariah 11:8 Three shepherds also I cut off in one month; and my soul lothed them, and their soul also abhorred me. Zechariah 11:8 . Three shepherds also I cut off in one month — The prophet may be said to do what God did; either in the punishment of certain false prophets, or of certain wicked governors. Some think, that by these three shepherds were figuratively signified the chief priests, scribes, and elders of the Jews. Christ exposed these as blind guides, and thereby lessened their authority among the people, which contributed very much to the spreading of the gospel. Blayney, who thinks the common translation encumbered with insuperable difficulties, renders the clause, and I set aside the authority of the shepherds in one month. His reasons for this interpretation have certainly considerable weight, but cannot with propriety be introduced here. One argument, however, in favour of it, to which he appeals, may be noticed. It evidently suits that application of the prophecy which most commentators adopt. “Let us now see,” says he, “what happened to him, of whom Zechariah is evidently set forth as the type. Our Saviour’s teaching was in a style so far superior to that of the professed guides of the people in his days, that, stung with jealousy, they exclaimed, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? Ye have lost all your wonted influence; behold the world is gone after him, John 12:19 . Even so it may be presumed the purity and disinterestedness of Zechariah’s instructions may have gained so far upon the minds of the people as to deprive the corrupt and selfish teachers of that ascendency which they once possessed.” And my soul loathed them — Or, was straitened toward them, as the Hebrew, ???? ??? , may be literally translated, that is, I was straitened in my affections to them. I was less tender toward them than toward the poor of the flock, because they showed themselves to be averse from my person and doctrine. So the Vulgate, contracta est anima mea in eis. The LXX., however, read, ???????????? ? ???? ??? , my soul shall be burdened; and Bishop Newcome, my soul was grieved at them. The word ???? , rendered abhorred, in the next clause, does not occur elsewhere in the Scriptures, but, according to Bishop Newcome, bears that sense in the Syriac. The LXX. render it, ?? ????? ????? ????????? ?? ’ ??? , Their souls howled, bellowed, roared, or, raised a horrible outcry against me, an expression strikingly descriptive of the fierce and vehement accusations of the Jewish chief priests, scribes, and elders against Christ, and of the violent, loud, and oft-repeated clamours of the people for his condemnation and crucifixion. Of which see Luke 23:5 ; Luke 23:10 ; Luke 23:18-24 . Zechariah 11:9 Then said I, I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another. Zechariah 11:9 . Then said I, will not feed you — I will no longer exercise a tender paternal care over you; that that dieth, let it die — Or rather, the dying let it die; that which has a deadly disease, let it perish by that disease. Or, that which is ready to die, and will not be cured, but hath rejected the shepherd’s love and skill, let it die. Thus Jesus said, If ye believe not, ye shall die in your sins. For this seems to be spoken of the miseries to which the Jewish people were delivered up for their manifold sins, and in particular for their rejection of Christ, which filled up the measure of their iniquity. And that that is to be cut off — Namely, by the sword of the enemy; let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another — Either live to be besieged till hunger and famine make the living eat the dead, or cruelly kill their children and others, that they may eat their flesh; a calamity threatened, Deuteronomy 28:52-58 ; or else, by seditious and bloody intestine quarrels, destroy each other; all which happened to them in the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans. Zechariah 11:10 And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. Zechariah 11:10-11 . And I took my staff, even Beauty — Or, pleasantness, or delight. See note on Zechariah 11:7 : emblematical, as of God’s favour, gentleness, or kindness to his people, and of the honour and privilege which they possessed in his oracles, instituted worship, and temple; so especially of God’s covenant with them, and all the blessings of it. And cut it asunder — To signify that, as they had rejected God and his favour, and refused to comply with the terms of his covenant, so that God had now annulled it, and rendered it utterly void. That I might break my covenant — This, in some measure, illustrates what is meant by the staff Beauty. While it was unbroken, the covenant between God and the Jews was whole and unbroken. And it is to be observed, Christ calls it his covenant, for he was the mediator of it: namely, to bring us to God in repentance, faith, and holy obedience; and to reconcile God to us in mercy and grace. Which I had made with all the people — Hebrew, ?? ???? , literally, all people, that is, all the tribes of Israel; and all other people that, by being proselyted to their religion, were incorporated into their nation. The Jewish Church is thus represented as being now stripped of all its glory, its crown profaned and cast to the ground, and all its honour laid in the dust, God being departed from it, and resolved no more to own it for his church. When Christ told the Jews that the kingdom of God should be taken from them, and given to another people, then he broke the staff of Beauty, Matthew 21:43 . And it was broken in that day, though Jerusalem and the Jewish people were spared yet forty years longer; and though the great men did not, or would not, understand Christ’s words uttered on that occasion as a divine sentence, but thought to put it by with a cold, God forbid, Luke 20:16 . Yet the poor of the flock, that waited upon him — Namely, who knew the Messiah, believed in him, observed his doctrine, miracles, and life, and obeyed him; who understood with what authority he spoke, and could distinguish the voice of their shepherd from that of a stranger; knew that he was the word of the Lord — Saw and acknowledged God in all this, trembled at his word, and were confident that it would not fall to the ground. Zechariah 11:11 And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD. Zechariah 11:12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. Zechariah 11:12-13 . And I said unto them — Namely, upon parting. The prophet, still personating Christ, or acting as a type of him, reminds the Jews of his concern for their welfare, the care he had taken of them, and the labour he had bestowed on instructing them; and refers it to them whether his services had not deserved some reward, and, if they had, what that reward ought to be; saying, If ye think good, give me my price — Or rather, my wages or hire of service, as the word ???? undoubtedly signifies; and if not, forbear — If you dismiss me without wages I shall be content. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver — That is, as is supposed, thirty shekels, of the value of about 2 Samuel 4 d . each, which was the price of a slave. This showed how little they regarded him, or his labours; that is, how little value the Jews would put on the ministry of Christ; or on his labours and sufferings for their salvation. For, according to St. Matthew 26:15 ; Matthew 27:9 , this symbolical action was fulfilled when the chief priests and elders of the Jews paid that sum to Judas for betraying Christ to them, and putting his life in their power. And the Lord said unto me — Unto the prophet, personating Christ; Cast it unto the potter — Hereby intimating that it was a reward only suitable to a potter’s labour, and a price only adequate for such wares as he sold, which were of the meanest value. A goodly price that I was prized at of them — Thus the prophet ironically remarks on the high estimation in which he and his services were holden: or rather, God here upbraids the shepherds of his people, who prized the great Shepherd no higher. And I cast them to the potter, &c. — Or, cast them into the house of the Lord for the potter: I cast them back into the treasury in the temple, whence afterward they were taken, and laid out in purchasing the potter’s field. This whole transaction, performed by Zechariah in a vision, as Lowth, Doddridge, and many other interpreters suppose, or, as others think, in reality; “was designed to be an exact representation of the several circumstances that should attend the betraying of Christ by Judas, the price the chief priests would put upon him, (to whom, as the governors of the temple, the money was returned,) and the use to which the money would be applied. And this whole prophetic scene was transacted in the single person of Zechariah, just as Ezekiel sustained the type or figure both of the Chaldean army that should besiege Jerusalem, and of the Jews themselves that should be besieged, Ezekiel 4:1-12 .” So Lowth, who adds, “This is one of those prophecies whose literal sense is fulfilled in our blessed Saviour, and cannot be applied to any other person but in a very remote or improper sense.” The like instances may be seen Psalm 22:16-18 ; Psalm 69:21 ; Hosea 11:1 . The Jews themselves have expounded this prophecy of the Messiah. “There can be no doubt,” says Blayney, “that this is the passage referred to Matthew 27:9 , though under the name of Jeremiah, (put by mistake of some transcriber of St. Matthew’s gospel,) instead of Zechariah. But a question arises, how the transaction related by the evangelist can be said to be a fulfilling of that which was spoken by the prophet, considering the striking difference in some of the circumstances. In the one case, thirty pieces of silver were given as wages for service; in the other, they were paid as the price of a man’s blood: in the one they were thrown with contempt to the potter; in the other, they were cast down in the temple in a fit of remorse, and taken up by others, who employed them in the purchase of the potter’s field. But notwithstanding these differences, considering that all passed under the special direction of Divine Providence, it is impossible not to conclude, from a review of both transactions, that there was a designed allusion of the one to the other, and not a mere accidental resemblance between them. But the quotation, it is said, is not just: for no such words are to be found in the prophet, which the evangelist hath pretended to cite from him. To this it may be answered, that though not the precise words, the substance of them is given, so that the passages are at least equivalent,” as a collation of them in the original will show: see the note on Matthew 27:9 . Zechariah 11:13 And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD. Zechariah 11:14 Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel. Zechariah 11:14 . Then — As soon as I saw what little value they put upon me, and my pastoral care over them, and services for them; I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands — The prophet did this in type, and Christ in reality; that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel — That I might declare, or foreshow, that the friendship and union which had existed between the two tribes and the remnant of the ten tribes, was broken. “From the time that the people returned from Babylon, the Jews and Israelites had formed one society, both of religion and polity, which society continued till the last destruction of Jerusalem, when, the Jewish kingdom being subverted, the bands were broken, and a disunion in religion was made; some of the Jews continuing attached to their ancient law as much as they could without the temple, and others professing the Christian faith.” — Houbigant. The design of the prophet’s commission, says Blayney, was to endeavour to bring about a reformation, upon which would depend the continuance of the brotherhood, or political union, between Judah and Israel. The second crook, or staff, was therefore called Bands. But when the commission ended without producing its effect, the breaking of the crook prefigured the dissolution of that brotherhood. What that brotherhood was, is well explained by Mr. Lowth, who says, that “upon the destruction of Jerusalem, which was the bond and cement of all their tribes, being the seat and centre both of their civil power, and of the divine worship, ( Psalm 132:3-5 ,) the consequence was the entire dissolution of the nation, and the dispersion and confusion of all their tribes, whose families could no longer be distinguished after the loss of their genealogies.” Calmet thinks that, in this verse, Israel denotes the unbelieving Jews, who rejected Christ, and Judah the faithful ones who believed in him. Zechariah 11:15 And the LORD said unto me, Take unto thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd. Zechariah 11:15 . And the Lord said, Take thee yet [or once more] the instruments of a foolish [or unwise] shepherd — The prophet, having hitherto represented the good shepherd, is now directed to assume the dress and equipage of one of a contrary character. As folly in the Scripture is equivalent to wickedness, by a foolish shepherd here may be meant, not only unskilful, but likewise ill-designing governors, or teachers, who should only intend their own advantage, and have no regard for the good of the flock, or people committed to their charge. The instruments of such a shepherd must be suitable to his own disposition and indiscretion, such as a crook armed with iron, which, whenever it was used, would wound the flock; and a scrip, or bag, which contained nothing useful for the sheep, and the like. The prophet here follows the order of time, that he may foretel the madness and blindness of the shepherds; that is, of the priests, rulers, and teachers of the Jewish nation, till the last destruction of Jerusalem; who not only disregarded religion, and the safety and welfare of the sheep, but even devoured such of them as were worth devouring. Zechariah 11:16 For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces. Zechariah 11:16 . For lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land — A shepherd, in the singular number, denotes a succession of such shepherds as are described in the following words. So a succession of priests is represented under the single person of Levi, Malachi 2:5-6 . Since the Jews had rejected the true Shepherd, God threatens to send, or permit to arise, among them, such shepherds to rule or teach them as should be notorious for their negligence and avarice, their cruelty and oppression. This may be understood either of the blind guides of whom Christ speaks, and whose character he describes at large, Matthew 23:13-33 ; namely, the scribes and Pharisees, the priests and doctors of their law; or of the avaricious, tyrannical, and unmerciful princes, that should rule them with rigour, and make their own land as much a place of bondage to them as ever Egypt or Babylon had been. And when they had rejected him by whom princes decree justice, it was just that they should be given over into the power of those who should decree unrighteous decrees. It is probable, also, that there is a reference here to the false prophets and false Christs, which, as our Lord foretold, Matthew 24:5 , should arise. Many such there were, who, by their seditious practices, provoked the Romans, and hastened on the ruin of the Jewish nation: but it is very remarkable that they were never deceived by a counterfeit Messiah till they had refused and rejected the true Messiah. The prophet proceeds to describe the character of these foolish shepherds, in the following words: 1st, They should be negligent; which shall not visit those that be cut off — Or, as the LXX. render it, ?? ?????????? , that which is missing, or has wandered from the flock; and it may signify that which is ready to perish. Neither shall seek the young one — Which are most apt to perish through weakness; he alludes to the lambs which, on account of their tender age, are not able to follow the flock. Nor heal that which is broken — Which has received some hurt, but shall leave it to die of its wounds. Nor feed that that standeth still — Not able to go forward. Blayney renders the word, made to stand, or set up again after sickness. “Such,” says he,” it is well known, require much care to nourish and support them, in order to their regaining strength; a care which the foolish shepherd will not bestow upon them.” Or, as the LXX. render it, ?? ????????? ?? ?? ????????? , nor shall direct that which is whole, mentioned in opposition to those that wander, or are diseased. 2d, These shepherds would be luxurious; he shall eat the flesh of the fat — That is, instead of preserving the best of his flock, in order to increase it, he kills them to indulge his own appetite: or, enriches himself by oppressing, or otherwise taking from those that are persons of property: like that wicked servant that said, My lord delays his coming, he eats and drinks with the drunken, serving his own belly. 3d, They are tyrannical and cruel to the flock. And tear their claws [or, as it ought to be rendered, break their hoofs ] in pieces — This implies the same as when it is said ( Ezekiel 34:4 ) of such shepherds, With force and with cruelty have ye ruled them. The unwise shepherd, instead of being tender and gentle with his flock, is supposed to drag them about with his iron crook, or to over-drive them in rough and stony ground, so as to break their hoofs. Or, he imposes burdens and hardships upon them that they are unable to bear. Upon the whole, a sluggish, negligent, covetous, riotous, oppressive, and cruel government, priesthood, or ministry, is here shadowed out by a foolish shepherd. Zechariah 11:17 Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened. Zechariah 11:17 . Wo to the idol shepherd — Or the shepherd of nothing, or of no value, as ??? ????? should be translated; he who calls himself the shepherd, ruler, or teacher of the people, but is in reality nothing less. So ???? ???? , Job 13:4 , signifies physicians of no value. That leaveth the flock — Who taketh no care of the flock, and minds nothing but making his own profit out of them. Such a shepherd is no better than an idol, that is profitable for nothing, ( Isaiah 44:10 ,) and hath only the outward form and appearance of a shepherd. The sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye — As he has abused his power and his understanding, signified by his arm and his right eye, God shall in his just judgment, deprive him of the use of both those faculties. The sword is put for any instrument of the divine vengeance. As the word ??? here rendered sword, also means desolation, Blayney renders the clause, Because of his arm is desolation, and because of his right eye: observing, “The purport of the passage is, that since, through the misapplication of his power, and through his negligence in watching over the flock, they are subjected to desolation or the sword; therefore, as of strict justice, he shall be punished with a deprivation at least of those faculties which he so fatally misused.” Some think the right arm and right eye of the people are intended, and observe, that the arm of the Jews was dried up from that time when they were no longer able to bear arms, or to defend themselves; as their right eye has been darkened to the true knowledge of the Scriptures, which they read as with a veil before them. Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Expositor's Bible Commentary 00000000 "ZECHARIAH" (9-14) "Lo, thy King cometh to thee, vindicated and victorious, meek and riding on an ass, and on a colt, the foal of an ass." "Up, Sword, against My Shepherd! Smite the Shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered!" "And I will pour upon the house of David and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and of supplication, and they shall look to Him whom they have pierced, and they shall lament for Him, as with lamentation for an only son, and bitterly grieve for Him, as with grief for a first-born." CHAPTERS 9-14 OF "ZECHARIAH" WE saw that the first eight chapters of the Book of Zechariah were, with the exception of a few verses, from the prophet himself. No one has ever doubted this. No one could doubt it: they are obviously from the years of the building of the Temple, 520-516 B.C. They hang together with a consistency exhibited by few other groups of chapters in the Old Testament. But when we pass into chapter 9, we find ourselves in circumstances and an atmosphere altogether different. Israel is upon a new situation of history, and the words addressed to her breathe another spirit. There is not the faintest allusion to the building of the Temple-the subject from which all the first eight chapters depend. There is not a single certain reflection of the Persian period, under the shadow of which the first eight chapter were all evidently written. We have names of heathen powers mentioned which not only do not occur in the first eight chapters, but of which it is not possible to think that they had any interest whatever for Israel between 520 and 516: Damascus, Hadrach, Hamath, Assyria, Egypt, and Greece. The peace, and the love of peace, in which Zechariah wrote, has disappeared. Nearly everything breathes of war actual or imminent. The heathen are spoken of with a ferocity which finds few parallels in the Old Testament. There is a reveling in their blood of which the student of the authentic prophecies of Zechariah will at once perceive that gentle lover of peace could not have been capable. And one passage figures the imminence of a thorough judgment upon Jerusalem, very different from Zechariah’s outlook upon his people’s future from the eve of the completion of the Temple. It is not surprising, therefore, that one of the earliest efforts of Old Testament criticism should have been to prove another author than Zechariah for chaps, 9-14, of the book called by his name. The very first attempt of this kind was made so far back as 1632 by the Cambridge theologian Joseph Mede, who was moved thereto by the desire to vindicate the correctness of St. Matthew’s ascription { Matthew 27:9 } of "Zechariah" { Zechariah 11:13 } to the prophet Jeremiah. Mede’s effort was developed by other English exegetes. Hammond assigned chapters 10-12, Bishop Kidder and William Whiston, the translator of Josephus, chapters 9-14 to Jeremiah. Archbishop Newcome divided them, and sought to prove that while chapters 9-11 must have been written before 721, or a century earlier than Jeremiah, because of the heathen powers they name, and the divisions between Judah and Israel, chapters 12-14, reflect the imminence of the Fall of Jerusalem. In 1784 Flugge offered independent proof that chapters 9-14 were by Jeremiah; and in 1814 Bertholdt suggested, that chapters 9-11 might be by Zechariah the contemporary of Isaiah, and on that account attached to the prophecies of his younger namesake. These opinions gave the trend to the main volume of criticism, which, till fifteen years ago, deemed "Zechariah" 9-14 to be pre-exilic. So Hitzig, who at first took the whole to be from one hand, but afterwards placed 12-14 by a different author under Manasseh. So Ewald, Bleek, Kuenen (at first), Samuel Davidson, Schrader, Duhm (in 1875), and more recently Konig and Orelli, who assign chapters 9-11 to the reign of Ahaz, but 12-14 to the eve of the Fall of Jerusalem, or even a little later. Some critics, however, remained unmoved by the evidence offered for a pre-exilic date. They pointed out in particular that the geographical references were equally suitable to the centuries after the Exile. Damascus, Hadrach, and Hamath, { Zechariah 9:1 } though politically obsolete by 720, entered history again with the campaigns of Alexander the Great in 332-331, and the establishment of the Seleucid kingdom in Northern Syria. Egypt and Assyria { Zechariah 10:10 } were names used after the Exile for the kingdom of the Ptolemies, and for those powers which still threatened Israel from the north or Assyrian quarter Judah and Joseph or Ephraim, { Zechariah 9:10 ; Zechariah 9:13 etc.} were names still used after the Exile to express the whole of God’s Israel; and in chapters 9-14, they are presented, not divided as before 721, but united. None of the chapters give a hint of any king in Jerusalem; and all of them, while representing the great Exile of Judah as already begun, show a certain dependence in style and even in language upon Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah 40:1-31 ; Isaiah 41:1-29 ; Isaiah 42:1-25 ; Isaiah 43:1-28 ; Isaiah 44:1-28 ; Isaiah 45:1-25 ; Isaiah 46:1-13 ; Isaiah 47:1-15 ; Isaiah 48:1-22 ; Isaiah 49:1-26 ; Isaiah 50:1-11 ; Isaiah 51:1-23 ; Isaiah 52:1-15 ; Isaiah 53:1-12 ; Isaiah 54:1-17 ; Isaiah 55:1-13 ; Isaiah 56:1-12 ; Isaiah 57:1-21 ; Isaiah 58:1-14 ; Isaiah 59:1-21 ; Isaiah 60:1-22 ; Isaiah 61:1-11 ; Isaiah 62:1-12 ; Isaiah 63:1-19 ; Isaiah 64:1-12 ; Isaiah 65:1-25 ; Isaiah 66:1-24 . Moreover, the language is post-exilic, sprinkled with Aramaisms and with other words and phrases used only, or mainly, by Hebrew writers from Jeremiah onwards. But though many critics judged these grounds to be sufficient to prove the post-exilic origin of "Zechariah" 9-14, they differed as to the author and exact date of these chapters. Conservatives like Hengstenberg, Delitzsch, Keil, Kohler, and Pusey used the evidence to prove the authorship of Zechariah himself after 516, and interpreted the references to the Greek period as pure prediction. Pusey says that chapters 9-11 extend from the completion of the Temple and its deliverance during the invasion of Alexander, and from the victories of the Maccabees, to the rejection of the true shepherd and the curse upon the false; and chapters 11-12 "from a future repentance for the death of Christ to the final conversion of the Jews and Gentiles." But on the same grounds Eichhorn saw in the chapters, not a prediction, but a reflection of the Greek period. He assigned chapters 9 and 10 to an author in the time of Alexander the Great; Zechariah 11:1-17 - Zechariah 13:6 he placed a little later, and brought down Zechariah 13:7 . to the Maccabean period. Bottcher placed the whole in the wars of Ptolemy and Seleucus after Alexander’s death; and Vatke, who had at first selected a date in the reign of Artaxerxes Longhand, 464-425, finally decided for the Maccabean period, 170 ff. In recent times the most thorough examination of the chapters has been that by Stade, and the conclusion he comes to is that chapters 9-14, are all from one author, who must have written during the early wars between the Ptolemies and Seleucids about 280 B.C., but employed, especially in chapters 9, 10, an earlier prophecy. A criticism and modification of Stade’s theory is given by Kuenen. He allows that the present form of chapters 9-14 must be of post-exilic origin: this is obvious from the mention of the Greeks as a world power; the description of a siege of Jerusalem by all the heathen; the way in which ( Zechariah 9:11 f., but especially Zechariah 10:6-9 ) the captivity is presupposed, if not of all Israel, yet of Ephraim; the fact that the House of David are not represented as governing; and the thoroughly priestly character of all the chapters. But Kuenen holds that an ancient prophecy of the eighth century underlies chapters 9-11, Zechariah 13:7-9 , in which the several actual phrases of it survive; and that in their present form 12-14 are older than 9-11 and probably by a contemporary of Joel, about 400 B.C. In the main Cheyne, Cornill, Wildeboer, and Staerk adhere to Stade’s conclusions. Cheyne proves the unity of the six chapters and their date before the Maccabean period. Staerk brings down Zechariah 11:4-17 and Zechariah 13:7-9 to 171 B.C. Wellhausen argues for the unity, and assigns it to the Maccabean times. Driver Jdg 9:1-57 ; Jdg 10:1-18 ; Jdg 11:1-40 , with its natural continuation, Zechariah 13:7-9 , as not earlier than 333; and the rest of 12-14 as certainly post-exilic, and probably from 432-300. Rubinkam places Zechariah 9:1-10 in Alexander’s time, the rest in that of the Maccabees, but Zeydner all of it to the latter. Kirkpatrick, after showing the post-exilic character of all the chapters, favors assigning 9-11 to a different author from 12-14. Asserting that to the question of the exact date it is impossible to give a definite answer, he thinks that the whole may be with considerable probability assigned to the first sixty or seventy years of the Exile, and is therefore in its proper place between Zechariah and "Malachi." The reference to the sons of Javan he takes to be a gloss, probably added in Maccabean times. It will be seen from this catalogue of conclusions that the prevailing trend of recent criticism has been to assign "Zechariah" 9-14 to post-exilic times, and to a different author from chapters 1-8; and that while a few critics maintain a date soon after the Return, the bulk are divided between the years following Alexander’s campaigns and the time of the Maccabean struggles. There are, in fact, in recent years only two attempts to support the conservative position of Pusey and Hengstenberg that the whole book is a genuine work of Zechariah the son of Iddo. One of these is by C.H.H. Wright in his Bampton Lectures. The other is by George L. Robinson, now Professor at Toronto, in a reprint (1896) from the American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, which offers a valuable history of the discussion of the whole question from the days of Mede, with a careful argument of all the evidence on both sides. The very original conclusion is reached that the chapters reflect the history of the years 518-516 B.C. In discussing the question, for which our treatment of other prophets has left us too little space, we need not open that part of it which lies between a pre-exilic and a post-exilic date. Recent criticism of all schools and at both extremes has tended to establish the latter upon reasons which we have already stated, and for further details of which the student may be referred to Stade’s and Eckhardt’s investigations in the Zeitschrift fur A.T. Wissenschaft and to Kirkpatrick’s impartial summary. There remain the questions of the unity of chapters 9-14; their exact date or dates after the Exile, and as a consequence of this their relation to the authentic prophecies of Zechariah in chapters 1-8. On the question of unity we take first chapters 9-11, to which must be added (as by most critics since Ewald) Zechariah 13:7-9 , which has got out of its place as the natural continuation and conclusion of chapter 11. Zechariah 9:1-8 predicts the overthrow of heathen neighbors of Israel, their possession by Jehovah and His safeguard of Jerusalem. Zechariah 9:9-12 follow with a prediction of the Messianic King as the Prince of Peace; but then come Zechariah 9:13-17 , with no mention of the King, but Jehovah appears alone as the hero of His people against the Greeks, and there is indeed sufficiency of war and blood. Chapter 10 makes a new start: the people are warned to seek their blessings from Jehovah, and not from Teraphim and diviners, whom their false shepherds follow. Jehovah, visiting His flock, shall punish these, give proper rulers, make the people strong and gather in their exiles to fill Gilead and Lebanon. Chapter 11 opens with a burst of war on Lebanon and Bashan and the overthrow of the heathen ( Zechariah 11:1-3 ), and follows with an allegory, in which the prophet first takes charge from Jehovah of the people as their shepherd, but is contemptuously treated by them ( Zechariah 11:4-14 ), and then taking the guise of an evil shepherd represents what they must suffer from their next ruler ( Zechariah 11:15-17 ). This tyrant, however, shall receive punishment, two-thirds of the nation shall be scattered, but the rest, further purified, shall be God’s own people ( Zechariah 8:7-9 ). In the course of this prophesying there is no conclusive proof of a double authorship. The only passage which offers strong evidence for this is chapter 9. The verses predicting the peaceful coming of Messiah ( Zechariah 9:9-12 ) do not accord in spirit with those which follow predicting the appearance of Jehovah with war and great shedding of blood. Nor is the difference altogether explained, as Stade thinks, by the similar order of events in chapter 10, where Judah and Joseph are first represented as saved and brought back in Zechariah 10:6 , and then we have the process of their redemption and return described in Zechariah 10:7 ff. Why did the same writer give statements of such very different temper as Zechariah 9:9-17 ? Or, if these be from different hands, why were they ever put together? Otherwise there is no reason for breaking up chapters 9-11, Zechariah 13:7-9 . Rubinkam, who separates Zechariah 9:1-10 by a hundred and fifty years from the rest; Bleek, who divides 9 from 10; and Staerk, who separates 9-11:3 from the rest, have been answered by Robinson and others. On the ground of language, grammar, and syntax, Eckardt has fully proved that 9-11 are from the same author of a late date, who, however, may have occasionally followed earlier models and even introduced their very phrases. More supporters have been found for a division of authorship between chapters 9-11, Zechariah 13:7-9 , and chapters 12-14. {less Zechariah 13:7-9 } Chapter 12 opens with a title of its own. A strange element is introduced into the historical relation. Jerusalem is assaulted, not by the heathen only, but by Judah, who, however, turns on finding that Jehovah fights for Jerusalem, and is saved by Jehovah before Jerusalem in order that the latter may not boast over it. { Zechariah 12:1-9 } A spirit of grace and supplication is poured upon the guilty city, a fountain opened for uncleanness, idols abolished, and the prophets, who are put on a level with them, abolished too, where they do not disown their profession. { Zechariah 12:10 - Zechariah 13:6 } Another assault of the heathen on Jerusalem is described, half of the people being taken captive. Jehovah appears, and by a great earthquake saves the rest. The land is transformed. And then the prophet goes back to the defeat of the heathen assault on the city, in which Judah is again described as taking part; and the surviving heathen are converted, or, if they refuse to be, punished by the withholding of rain. Jerusalem is holy to the Lord (chapter 14). In all this there is more that differs from chapters 9-11, Zechariah 13:7-9 , than the strange opposition of Judah and Jerusalem. Ephraim, or Joseph, is not mentioned nor any return of exiles, nor punishment of the shepherds, nor coming of the Messiah, the latter’s place being taken by Jehovah. But in answer to this we may remember that the Messiah, after being described in Zechariah 9:9-12 , is immediately lost behind the warlike coming of Jehovah. Both sections speak of idolatry, and of the heathen, their punishment and conversion, and do so in the same apocalyptic style. Nor does the language of the two differ in any decisive fashion. On the contrary, as Eckardt and Kuiper have shown, the language is on the whole an argument for unity of authorship. There is, then, nothing conclusive against the position, which Stade so clearly laid down and strongly fortified, that chapters 9-14 are from the same hand, although, as he admits, this cannot be proved with absolute certainty. So also Cheyne: "With perhaps one or two exceptions, chapters 9-11 and 12-14 are so closely welded together that even analysis is impossible." The next questions we have to decide are whether chapters 9-14 offer any evidence of being by Zechariah, the author of chapters 1-8, and if not to what other post-exilic date they may be assigned. It must be admitted that in language and in style the two parts of the Book of Zechariah have features in common. But that these have been exaggerated by defenders of the unity there can be no doubt. We cannot infer anything from the fact that both parts contain specimens of clumsy diction, of the repetition of the same word, of phrases (not the same phrases) unused by other writers; or that each is lavish in vocatives; or that each is variable in his spelling. Resemblances of that kind they share with other books: some of them are due to the fact that both sections are post-exilic. On the other hand, as Eckardt has dearly shown, there exists a still greater number of differences between the two sections, both in language and in style. Not only do characteristic words occur in each which are not found in the other, not only do chapters 9-14 contain many more Aramaisms than chapters 1-8, and therefore symptoms of a later date; but both parts use the same words with more or less different meanings, and apply different terms to the same objects. There are also differences of grammar, of favorite formulas, and of other features of the phraseology, which, if there be any need, complete the proof of a distinction of dialect so great as to require to account for it distinction of authorship. The same impression is sustained by the contrast of the historical circumstances reflected in each of the two sections. Zechariah 1:1-21 ; Zechariah 2:1-13 ; Zechariah 3:1-10 ; Zechariah 4:1-14 ; Zechariah 5:1-11 ; Zechariah 6:1-15 ; Zechariah 7:1-14 ; Zechariah 8:1-23 , were written during the building of the Temple. There is no echo of the latter in "Zechariah" 9-14. Zechariah 1:1-21 ; Zechariah 2:1-13 ; Zechariah 3:1-10 ; Zechariah 4:1-14 ; Zechariah 5:1-11 ; Zechariah 6:1-15 ; Zechariah 7:1-14 ; Zechariah 8:1-23 picture the whole earth as at peace, which was true at least of all Syria; they portend no danger to Jerusalem from the heathen, but describe her peace and fruitful expansion in terms most suitable to the circumstances imposed upon her by the solid and clement policy of the earlier Persian kings. This is all changed in, "Zechariah" 9-14. The nations are restless; a siege of Jerusalem is imminent, and her salvation is to be assured only by much war and a terrible shedding of blood. We know exactly how Israel fared and felt in the early sections of the Persian period: her interests in the politics of the world, her feelings towards her governors and her whole attitude to the heathen were not at that time those which are reflected in "Zechariah" 9-14. Nor is there any such resemblance between the religious principles of the two sections of the Book of Zechariah as could prove identity of origin. That both are spiritual, or that they have a similar expectation of the ultimate position of Israel in the history of the world, proves only that both were late offshoots from the same religious development, and worked upon the same ancient models. Within these outlines there are not a few divergences. Zechariah 1:1-21 ; Zechariah 2:1-13 ; Zechariah 3:1-10 ; Zechariah 4:1-14 ; Zechariah 5:1-11 ; Zechariah 6:1-15 ; Zechariah 7:1-14 ; Zechariah 8:1-23 , were written before Ezra and Nehemiah had imposed the Levitical legislation upon Israel; but Eckardt has shown the dependence on the latter of "Zechariah" 9-14. We may, therefore, adhere to Canon Driver’s assertion, that Zechariah in chapters 1-8 "uses a different phraseology, evinces different interests, and moves in a different circle of ideas from those which prevail in chapters 9-14. Criticism has indeed been justified in separating, by the vast and growing majority of its opinions, the two sections from each other. This was one of the earliest results which modern criticism achieved, and the latest researches have but established it on a firmer basis." If, then, chapters 9-14 be not Zechariah’s, to what date may we assign them? We have already seen that they bear evidence of being upon the whole later than Zechariah, though they appear to contain fragments from an earlier period. Perhaps this is all we can with certainty affirm. Yet something more definite is at least probable. The mention of the Greeks, not as Joel mentions them about 400, the most distant nation to which Jewish slaves could be carried, but as the chief of the heathen powers, and a foe with whom the Jews are in touch and must soon cross swords, { Zechariah 9:13 } appears to imply that the Syrian campaign of Alexander is happening or has happened, or even that the Greek kingdoms of Syria and Egypt are already contending for the possession of Palestine. With this agrees the mention of Damascus, Hadrach, and Hamath, the localities where the Seleucids had their chief seats. { Zechariah 9:1 f} In that case Asshur would signify the Seleucids and Egypt the Ptolemies: it is these, and not Greece itself, from whom the Jewish exiles have still to be redeemed. All this makes probable the date which Stade has proposed for the chapters, between 300 and 280 B.C. To bring them further down, to the time of the Maccabees, as some have tried to do, would not be impossible so far as the historical allusions are concerned; but had they been of so late a date as that, viz. , 170 or 160, we may assert that they could not have found a place in the prophetic canon, which was closed by 200, but must have fallen along with Daniel into the Hagiographa. The appearance of these prophecies at the close of the Book of Zechariah has been explained, not quite satisfactorily, as follows. With the Book of "Malachi" they formed originally three anonymous pieces, which because of their anonymity were set at the end of the Book of the Twelve. The first of them begins with the very peculiar construction " Massa’ Debar Jehovah ," "oracle of the word of Jehovah," which, though partly belonging to the text, the editor read as a title, and attached as a title to each of the others. It occurs nowhere else. The Book of "Malachi" was too distinct in character to be attached to another book, and soon came to have the supposed name of its author added to its title. But the other two pieces fell, like all anonymous works, to the nearest Writing with an author’s name. Perhaps the attachment was hastened by the desire to make the round number of Twelve Prophets. ADDENDA Whiston’s work is " An Essay towards restoring the True Text of the O.T. and for vindicating the Citations made thence in the N.T. ," 1722, pp. 93 ff (not seen). Besides those mentioned (seen.) as supporting the unity of Zechariah there ought to be named De Wette, Umbreit, von Hoffmann, Ebrard, etc. Kuiper’s work is "Zachariah 9-14," Utrecht, 1894 (not seen). Nowack’s conclusions are: 9-11:3 date from the Greek period (we cannot date them more exactly, unless 9:8 refers to Ptolemy’s capture of Jerusalem in 320); 11, 13:7-9, are post-exilic; 12-13:6 long after Exile; 14 long after Exile, later than "Malachi." Zechariah 11:1 Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars. THE CONTENTS OF "ZECHARIAH" Chapters 9-14 FROM the number of conflicting opinions which prevail upon the subject, we have seen how impossible it is to decide upon a scheme of division for "Zechariah" 9-14. These chapters consist of a number of separate oracles, which their language and general conceptions lead us on the whole to believe were put together by one hand, and which, with the possible exception of some older fragments, reflect the troubled times in Palestine that followed on the invasion of Alexander the Great. But though the most of them are probably due to one date and possibly come from the same author, these oracles do not always exhibit a connection, and indeed sometimes show no relevance to each other. It will therefore be simplest to take them piece by piece, and; before giving the translation of each, to explain the difficulties in it and indicate the ruling ideas. Zechariah 11:4 Thus saith the LORD my God; Feed the flock of the slaughter; 7. THE REJECTION AND MURDER OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD Zechariah 11:4-17 ; Zechariah 13:7-9 There follows now, in the rest of chapter 11, a longer oracle, to which Ewald and most critics after him have suitably attached Zechariah 13:7-9 . This passage appears to rise from circumstances similar to those of the preceding and from the same circle of ideas. Jehovah’s people are His flock and have suffered. Their rulers are their shepherds; and the rulers of other peoples are their shepherds. A true shepherd is sought for Israel in place of the evil ones which have distressed them. The language shows traces of a late date. No historical allusion is obvious in the passage. The "buyers" and "sellers" of God’s sheep might reflect the Seleucids and Ptolemies between whom Israel were exchanged for many years, but probably mean their native leaders The "three shepherds cut off in a month" were interpreted by the supporters of the pre-exilic date of the chapters as Zechariah and Shallum, { 2 Kings 15:8-13 } and another whom these critics assume to have followed them to death, but of him the history has no trace. The supporters of a Maccabean date for the prophecy recall the quick succession of high priests before the Maccabean rising. The "one month" probably means nothing more than a very short time. The allegory which our passage unfolds is given, like so many more in Hebrew prophecy, to the prophet himself to enact. It recalls the pictures in Jeremiah and Ezekiel of the overthrow of the false shepherds of Israel, and the appointment of a true shepherd. Jehovah commissions the prophet to become shepherd to His sheep that have been so cruelly abused by their guides and rulers. Like the shepherds of Palestine, the prophet took two staves to herd his flock He called one "Grace," the other "Union." In a month he cut off three shepherds-both "month" and "three" are probably formal terms. But he did not get on well with his charge They were willful and quarrelsome. So he broke his staff Grace, in token that his engagement was dissolved. The dealers of the sheep saw that he acted for God. He asked for his wage, if they cared to give it. They gave him thirty pieces of silver, the price of an injured slave, { Exodus 21:32 } which by God’s command he cast into the treasury of the Temple, as if in token that it was God Himself whom they paid with so wretched a sum. And then, he broke his other staff, to signify that the brotherhood between Judah and Israel was broken. Then, to show the people that by their rejection of the good shepherd they must fall a prey to an evil one, the prophet assumed the character of the latter. But another judgment follows. In Zechariah 13:7-9 the good shepherd is smitten and the flock dispersed. The spiritual principles which underlie this allegory are obvious. God’s own sheep, persecuted and helpless though they be, are yet obstinate, and their obstinacy not only renders God’s good will to them futile, but causes the death of the one man who could have done them good. The guilty sacrifice the innocent, but in this execute their own doom. That is a summary of the history of Israel. But had the writer of this allegory any special part of that history in view? Who were the "dealers of the flock?" "Thus saith Jehovah my God: Shepherd the flock of slaughter, whose purchasers slaughter them impenitently, and whose sellers Say, Blessed be Jehovah, for I am rich!-and their shepherds do not spare them. [For I will no more spare the inhabitants of the land-oracle of Jehovah; but lo! I am about to give mankind over, each into the hand of his shepherd, and into the hand of his king; and they shall destroy the land, and I will not secure it from their hands.] And I shepherded the flock of slaughter for the sheep merchants, and I took to me two staves-the one I called Grace, and the other I called Union-and so I shepherded the sheep. And I destroyed the three shepherds in one month. Then was my soul vexed with them, and they on their part were displeased with me. And I said: I will not shepherd you: what is dead, let it die; and what is destroyed, let it be destroyed; and those that survive, let them devour one another’s flesh! And I took my staff Grace, and I brake it so as to annul my covenant which I made with all the peoples. And in that day it was annulled, and the dealers of the sheep, who watched me, knew that it was Jehovah’s word. And I said to them, If it be good in your sight, give me my wage, and if it be not good, let it go! And they weighed out my wage, thirty pieces of silver. Then said Jehovah to me, Throw it into the treasury (the precious wage at which I had been valued of them). So I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the House of Jehovah, to the treasury. And I brake my second staff, Union, so as to dissolve the brotherhood between Judah and Israel. And Jehovah said to me: Take again to thee the implements of a worthless shepherd: for lo! I am about to appoint a shepherd over the land; the destroyed he will not visit, the he will not seek out, the wounded he will not heal, he will not cherish, but he will devour the flesh of the fat." "Woe to My worthless shepherd, that deserts the flock! The sword be upon his arm and his right eye! May his arm wither, and his right eye be blinded." Upon this follows the section Zechariah 13:7-9 , which develops the tragedy of the nation to its climax in the murder of the good shepherd. "Up, Sword, against My shepherd and the man My compatriot-oracle of Jehovah of Hosts. Smite the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered; and I will turn My hand against the little ones. And it shall come to pass in all the land-oracle of Jehovah-that two-thirds shall be cut off in it, and perish, but a third shall be left in it. And I shall bring the third into the fire, and smelt it as men smelt silver and try it as men try gold. It shall call upon My Name, and I will answer it. And I will say, It is My people, and it will say, Jehovah my God!" The Expositor's Bible Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.