Roman invasion, when the Jews were destroyed by the rage of parties against each other. This is so plain, that it forced itself even upon Abarbanel: "Quia tempore excidii latrones aucti sunt, et cum amore etiam fraternitas est imminuta in tribu Judah, et insuper inter hos et filios Israelis, sacerdotes et Levitas, qui apud ipsos erant, idcirco hic ait, ad irritum faciendam fraternitatem inter Judam et Israelem."

V. 15. "Then said the Lord to me, take to thee again the vessels of a foolish shepherd." Calvin: "Hic docet propheta, ubi deus abjecerit curam populi, fore aliquam vanam speciem regiminis, sed ex qua facile colligi possit, deum non agere amplius officium pastoris. Jam se abdicaverat deus munere pastoris, sed postea præfecit et lupos et fures et latrones pastorum loco, cum scil. vellet exequi horribile suum judicium contra Judæos." y, again i. q. "while thou proceedest to symbolize the fortunes of the people." It is obvious, that by the foolish shepherd must be understood not an individual, but the whole body of the wicked rulers, who, after the rejection of the good shepherd, destroyed the people. We are not, however, to refer it to foreign, but domestic leaders. For only against the latter could the divine punishment be threatened, as is done v. 17, because they were at the same time instruments of the punishment and partakers of it, as well as of the horrible apostasy; and indeed of this they were the chief authors, while the former, according to v. 5, were not guilty. That there, in like manner, the domestic rulers under the name of the shepherds, are contrasted with the foreign, the buyers and sellers, we have already seen. The truth was perceived by Abendana in the Spicileg. to the Miclal Jophi of Sal. Ben Melech, only that his interpretation is too limited: "Per pastores nihili, intelliguntur principes latronum, Jochanan, Simeon, et ElieThe designation of the shepherd, as foolish, instead of ungodly, points out how the leaders of the people, blinded by the divine penal justice, will not perceive that they destroy themselves when they rage against the people. This view of ungodliness, the foolishness connected with it, is often exhibited, comp. e. g. Jer. 4: 22, "For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have no understanding; they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge." - By the implement of the foolish shepherd, more accurately determined by the antithesis with what precedes, may be understood simply the shepherd's staff, or, at the same time also, his other implements. We may

zer."

suppose that the implement of the shepherd consisted of a strong staff, armed with iron, wherewith he wounded the sheep, while the good shepherd kept them in order with the soft blows of a thin staff; we can at the same time imagine a perforated shepherd's-pouch, which contained nothing which was useful to the sheep and the shepherd, &c. In any event, the opinion of Bochart (Hieroz. I. 455) is to be rejected, that the bad shepherd was not distinguished from the good by any thing external, but only by his actions.

V. 16. "For behold, I raise up a shepherd in the land, he will not visit that which is perishing, not seek that which has wandered, not heal that which is wounded, not nourish the feeble, and the flesh of the fat ones he will eat, and divide their hoofs." Here also the prophet has several passages of Ezekiel and Jeremiah in view. Comp. Ezek. 34: 3, 4, "The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost." Jer. 23: 1, 2, "Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the Lord. Therefore, thus saith the Lord God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them." The reference to these passages is not merely external, as in general we must regard the dependence of Zechariah on the older prophets, on account of the great power and originality of his genius, as chiefly voluntary. By a righteous divine judgment, the people had been punished before the exile by bad rulers; Jeremiah and Ezekiel had promised them deliverance from these; and this had actually happened after the exile, particularly at the time of Zechariah, when Zerubbabel and Joshua guided the people in a truly paternal manner. Zechariah however announces, that in future the same cause would produce the same effect, and indeed in a higher degree. — at the beginning is explained by the circumstance, that the reason why a symbolical action was performed, is the same which the action signified. The particulars of the verse are admirably illustrated by Bochart, Hieroz. I. p. 445. yan, not with the Hebrew interpreters and Calvin, (“ Oves longo usu sese continent, ita ut non aberrent ab aliis, sed agni magis lasciviunt, et facile huc et illuc disperguntur,") "the young," occurs of animals, but "the dispersed." In the sense to shake, the verb occurs, Neh. 5: 13; in the Talmud it occurs especially of

never נַעַר

the wandering flocks of sheep, comp. Buxtorf, s. v. In the Arabic il, according to Gigg. De viro, instabilis, sedem mutans. — Sax, after Michaelis, Rosenmüller explains by, “ Qui restitant præ lassitudine et morbo, non portabit." But the verb

never means to carry, but always to sustain and nourish. Others, That which stands upright and firm, he will not nourish." Vulg.: "Id quod stat non enutriet." Bochart: "Stans opponitur jacenti et ex morbo decumbenti. Nam ut confractis et ægris medela opus est, sic cibo et alimentis stantibus et valentibus, quo bona illa habitudo conservetur." It is better, however, as appears from the parallel passages of Ezekiel, to combine the two interpretations; "That which continues to stand, and that which, from hunger and feebleness, cannot move from its place, (to this sense we are led by Niphal, which designates suffering,) he will not provide for, to strengthen it by food and care." The expression, "he will divide their hoofs," does not indicate, as most interpreters suppose, the extreme cruelty, but the extreme greediness of the shepherd, which has indeed, for its attendant, cruelty against his sheep; it is a climax of," he will eat," &c. He will even break the hoofs apart, that no

fibre of the flesh should be lost.

V. 17. "Wo to the unworthy shepherd, who forsakes the flock, a sword comes upon his arm, and-upon his right eye; his arm shall be altogether palsied, his right eye altogether blind." Calvin: "Hoc versu docet propheta, etiamsi deus merito tam gravem vindictam infligat Judæis, tamen pastores ipsos non impune elapsuros, et hoc modo admonet, etiam in rebus illis tam confusis et perditis sibi tamen aliquam fore fœderis sui memoriam." As the object of the punishment, the arm and the right eye are mentioned by way of individualization, as the two members of the body, which the good shepherd chiefly employs for the care and protection of his flock, but which the bad shepherd most shamefully abuses to its destruction. The arm the organ of strength, the right eye the organ of prudence. An apparent difficulty here arises, from the circumstance, that two punishments, inconsistent with each other, are mentioned for each member; first, for both, the sword; then, for the arm, palsy, (Calvin : "Arescet brachium, h. e. vigor ejus ita defluet, ut sit quasi lignum putridum"); for the eye, dimness. But on a closer examination this difficulty vanishes. The particular punishments serve here only to individualize the idea of punishment in general, and the prophet combines several, in order to exhibit the greatness of the punish

ment, and consequently the greatness also of the crime. He could do this the more readily since the shepherd is not an individual, but a collective body. To remove this difficulty, two interpretations equally untenable have been invented. Jahn takes the in the sense ariditas, appealing to Deuteronomy 28: 22, where, however, this sense is in like manner arbitrarily assumed. Rosenmüller after the Chaldee, and Jarchi, suppose, that the threatening of punishment commences with the words, "His arm will wither," and that the preceding belongs to the description of the crime: "Dicitur brachium et oculus mali pastoris gladio instructus, quod aciem oculorum malo animo et nocendi cupido intendit." Both suppositions however are refuted by the comparison of two parallel passages. The first, Jer. 50:35 -38, "A sword upon the Chaldeans, saith the Lord, and upon the inhabitants of Babylon, and upon their princes, and upon their wise men. A drought upon their waters, that they dry up." —The second, below, chap. 13: 7, " Sword awake against my shepherd." Remarkable is the double yod paragog. in the verse before us, exactly as in Jer. 22: 23. It is frequent only in the most ancient writings, and in the latest from imitation; in the intervening writers, only in rare examples, as Ps. 110 : 4, Is. 1 : 21; comp. Ewald, p. 376. Perhaps also the yod in, v. 15, can be taken as paragogicum; there would then be here a trace of a decidedly later usage, to append the yod, originally an outward designation of the stat. constr., in other cases also as a mere paragoge. Still we may take it with Gesenius (Thes. s. v.), as an adjective ending, though to this it is an objection, that as an adjective form of, as fool, and foolish, never occurs elsewhere, and that the twofold use of the yod parag. in the verse before us is in favor of assuming it there also.

The mournful prospect is here again followed by a joyful one. A totally different scene presents itself to our view. The people of the Lord in the conflict with all nations of the earth, feeble in themselves, but strong in the Lord, everywhere come off victorious, v. 1-9. The Lord has broken their hard heart, and given them grace to

repent, so that, with bitter distress, they regret the wickedness which they have committed against him, v. 10-14. In him they have now the forgiveness of their sins, chap. 13: 1, and this produces an upright striving after sanctification, and the avoiding of all ungodliness, v. 2-6..

The interpreters are divided in reference to the time of the fulfilment of this prophecy, as well as its subject. With respect to the former, several, at the head of whom is Grotius, suppose a reference to the times of the Maccabees. But this supposition is for several reasons altogether untenable. It is contradicted by the relation to the foregoing chapter. The reception of the people of God here described, stands in plain contrast with the rejection of them there; and, if the latter belongs to the time after the appearing of Christ, the former cannot be placed in the time before his coming. This is also confirmed by the comparison of chap. 12: 10. The penitential and believing looking upon the crucified Messiah there predicted, leads us beyond the time of the Maccabees to that of the Messiah, with which also the characteristics given at chap. 13, the forgiveness of sins, and the general striving after holiness, taken by themselves, and compared with the parallel passages, can alone agree. Lastly, in the former prophecy, referring to the times of the Maccabees, one particular people, the Greeks, are mentioned as hostile to the covenant people, chap. 9: 13; here, on the contrary, all the nations of the earth appear as their enemies; a sure proof, that we must seek the fulfilment not in the past, which presents nothing of the sort, but in the future, and that the prophecy is analogous to those of earlier prophets, which, as Joel chap. 4, and Ezek. chap. 38, 39, (comp., as respects the latter, however, the introduction to chap. 14,) relate in like manner to the last great struggle against the kingdom of God, to the last great victory of the Lord over his enemies. Notwithstanding the untenableness of this view, it has still some foundation in truth. As in general the chief events under the Old Testament are typical of those under the New Testament, - of which we have one remarkable example in Zechariah himself, chap. 69 sq., where the Jews dwelling in Babylonia, cut off from the sanctuary, but still contributing to rebuild it, are represented as a type of the distant heathen nations, who, in the Messianic time, should promote the building up of the kingdom of God; as also in the second part of Isaiah, where the return from the exile is so constantly regarded as a type of the future return of the heathen nations