The Lord Strengthens and Regathers His Flock

Zec 10:5-7 Thus equipped for battle, Judah will annihilate its foes. Zec 10:5. “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. Zec 10:6. 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 I am Jehovah their God, and will hear them.

Zec 10:7. 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 Zec 10:5, bōsı̄m is a more precise definition of kegibbōrı̄m , and the house of Judah (Zec 10:3) is the subject of the sentence. They will be like heroes, namely, treading upon mire. Bōsı̄m is the kal participle used in an intransitive sense, since the form with o only occurs in verbs with an intransitive meaning, like bōsh , lōt , qōm ; and būs 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 בּטיט חוּצות; 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 7:10; 2Sa 22:43), analogous to their “treading down sling-stones,” Zec 9:15.

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 11:40). הובישׁ intransitive, as in Zec 9:5. 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 Zec 10:7, according to which Ephraim will also fight as a hero, as Judah will according to Zec 10:5, that הושׁיע does not mean merely to help or deliver, but to grant salvation, as in Zec 9:16.

The circumstance, however, “that in the course of the chapter, at any rate from Zec 10:7 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 הושׁבותים is regarded by many, who follow Kimchi and Aben Ezra, as a forma composita from הושׁבתּים and השׁיבותי: “I 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 32:37). The form is rather to be explained from a confusion of the verbs עו and פי, and is the hiphil of ישׁב for הושׁבתּים (lxx, Maurer, Hengstenberg; comp.

Olshausen, Grammat. p. 559), and not a hiphil of שׁוּב, in which a transition has taken place into the hiphil form of the verbs פו (Ewald, §196, b , Not. 1; Targ. , Vulg. , Hitzig, and Koehler). For “bringing back” affirms too little here. הושׁבתּים, “I 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 ישׁב without anything else, in the sense of peaceful, happy dwelling (e.

g. , Mic 5:3), but here also the manner of dwelling is indicated in the appended clause כּאשׁר לא־זנחתּים, “as before they were cast off” (cf. Eze 36:11). אענם 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 Zec 13:9; Isa 58:9, and Hos 2:23.

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. Psa 78:65-66). This rejoicing in conflict the sons will see, and exult in consequence; so that it will be a lasting joy.

Zec 10:5-7 Thus equipped for battle, Judah will annihilate its foes. Zec 10:5. “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. Zec 10:6. 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 I am Jehovah their God, and will hear them.

Zec 10:7. 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 Zec 10:5, bōsı̄m is a more precise definition of kegibbōrı̄m , and the house of Judah (Zec 10:3) is the subject of the sentence. They will be like heroes, namely, treading upon mire. Bōsı̄m is the kal participle used in an intransitive sense, since the form with o only occurs in verbs with an intransitive meaning, like bōsh , lōt , qōm ; and būs 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 בּטיט חוּצות; 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 7:10; 2Sa 22:43), analogous to their “treading down sling-stones,” Zec 9:15.

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 11:40). הובישׁ intransitive, as in Zec 9:5. 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 Zec 10:7, according to which Ephraim will also fight as a hero, as Judah will according to Zec 10:5, that הושׁיע does not mean merely to help or deliver, but to grant salvation, as in Zec 9:16.

The circumstance, however, “that in the course of the chapter, at any rate from Zec 10:7 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 הושׁבותים is regarded by many, who follow Kimchi and Aben Ezra, as a forma composita from הושׁבתּים and השׁיבותי: “I 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 32:37). The form is rather to be explained from a confusion of the verbs עו and פי, and is the hiphil of ישׁב for הושׁבתּים (lxx, Maurer, Hengstenberg; comp.

Olshausen, Grammat. p. 559), and not a hiphil of שׁוּב, in which a transition has taken place into the hiphil form of the verbs פו (Ewald, §196, b , Not. 1; Targ. , Vulg. , Hitzig, and Koehler). For “bringing back” affirms too little here. הושׁבתּים, “I 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 ישׁב without anything else, in the sense of peaceful, happy dwelling (e.

g. , Mic 5:3), but here also the manner of dwelling is indicated in the appended clause כּאשׁר לא־זנחתּים, “as before they were cast off” (cf. Eze 36:11). אענם 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 Zec 13:9; Isa 58:9, and Hos 2:23.

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. Psa 78:65-66). This rejoicing in conflict the sons will see, and exult in consequence; so that it will be a lasting joy.

Zec 10:8-10 In order to remove all doubt as to the realization of this promise, the deliverance of Ephraim is described still more minutely in Zec 10:8-12. Zec 10:8. “I will hiss to them, and gather them; for I have redeemed them: and they will multiply as they have multiplied. Zec 10:9. 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.

Zec 10:10. 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 (Zec 10:8) mentioned before the sowing or dispersing (Zec 10:9), but they are both expressed by similar verbal forms (אשׁרקה and אזרעם); and the misinterpretation is thereby precluded, that events occurring at different times are referred to. We must also observe the voluntative form אשׁרקה, “I will (not I shall) hiss to them, i.

e. , entice them” ( shâraq being used for alluring, as in Isa 5:26 and Isa 7:18), as well as the absence of a copula. They both show that the intention here is simply to explain with greater clearness what is announced in Zec 10:6, Zec 10:7. The perfect פּדיתים is prophetic, like רחמתּים in Zec 10:6. The further promise, “they will multiply,” etc. , cannot be taken as referring either merely to the multiplication of Israel in exile (Hengst.

, Koehler, etc.) , or merely to the future multiplication after the gathering together. According to the position in which the words stand between אקבּצם and אזרעם, they must embrace both the multiplication during the dispersion, and the multiplication after the gathering together. The perfect כּמו רבוּ points to the increase which Israel experienced in the olden time under the oppression of Egypt (Exo 1:7, Exo 1:12).

This increase, which is also promised in Eze 36:10-11, is effected by God’s sowing them broadcast among the nations. זרע does not mean to scatter, but to sow, to sow broadcast (see at Hos 2:23). Consequently the reference cannot be to a dispersion of Israel inflicted as a punishment. The sowing denotes the multiplication (cf. Jer 31:27), and is not to be interpreted, as Neumann and Kliefoth suppose, as signifying that the Ephraimites 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 Zec 10:10 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 8:13; Hos 9:3, Hos 9:6; Hos 11:11; Mic 7:12; Isa 11:11; Isa 27:13, furnish no historical evidence of such thing.

Even if certain Ephraimites had fled to Egypt, these could not be explained as relating to a return or gathering together of the Ephraimites of 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 9:3 (cf.

Zec 8:13), 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 Zec 10:1, 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 11:11.) 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 7:14). לא ימּצא, there is not found for them, sc. the necessary room: equivalent to, it will not be sufficient for them (as in Jos 17:16).

Zec 10:8-10 In order to remove all doubt as to the realization of this promise, the deliverance of Ephraim is described still more minutely in Zec 10:8-12. Zec 10:8. “I will hiss to them, and gather them; for I have redeemed them: and they will multiply as they have multiplied. Zec 10:9. 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.

Zec 10:10. 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 (Zec 10:8) mentioned before the sowing or dispersing (Zec 10:9), but they are both expressed by similar verbal forms (אשׁרקה and אזרעם); and the misinterpretation is thereby precluded, that events occurring at different times are referred to. We must also observe the voluntative form אשׁרקה, “I will (not I shall) hiss to them, i.

e. , entice them” ( shâraq being used for alluring, as in Isa 5:26 and Isa 7:18), as well as the absence of a copula. They both show that the intention here is simply to explain with greater clearness what is announced in Zec 10:6, Zec 10:7. The perfect פּדיתים is prophetic, like רחמתּים in Zec 10:6. The further promise, “they will multiply,” etc. , cannot be taken as referring either merely to the multiplication of Israel in exile (Hengst.

, Koehler, etc.) , or merely to the future multiplication after the gathering together. According to the position in which the words stand between אקבּצם and אזרעם, they must embrace both the multiplication during the dispersion, and the multiplication after the gathering together. The perfect כּמו רבוּ points to the increase which Israel experienced in the olden time under the oppression of Egypt (Exo 1:7, Exo 1:12).

This increase, which is also promised in Eze 36:10-11, is effected by God’s sowing them broadcast among the nations. זרע does not mean to scatter, but to sow, to sow broadcast (see at Hos 2:23). Consequently the reference cannot be to a dispersion of Israel inflicted as a punishment. The sowing denotes the multiplication (cf. Jer 31:27), and is not to be interpreted, as Neumann and Kliefoth suppose, as signifying that the Ephraimites 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 Zec 10:10 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 8:13; Hos 9:3, Hos 9:6; Hos 11:11; Mic 7:12; Isa 11:11; Isa 27:13, furnish no historical evidence of such thing.

Even if certain Ephraimites had fled to Egypt, these could not be explained as relating to a return or gathering together of the Ephraimites of 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 9:3 (cf.

Zec 8:13), 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 Zec 10:1, 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 11:11.) 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 7:14). לא ימּצא, there is not found for them, sc. the necessary room: equivalent to, it will not be sufficient for them (as in Jos 17:16).

Zec 10:8-10 In order to remove all doubt as to the realization of this promise, the deliverance of Ephraim is described still more minutely in Zec 10:8-12. Zec 10:8. “I will hiss to them, and gather them; for I have redeemed them: and they will multiply as they have multiplied. Zec 10:9. 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.

Zec 10:10. 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 (Zec 10:8) mentioned before the sowing or dispersing (Zec 10:9), but they are both expressed by similar verbal forms (אשׁרקה and אזרעם); and the misinterpretation is thereby precluded, that events occurring at different times are referred to. We must also observe the voluntative form אשׁרקה, “I will (not I shall) hiss to them, i.

e. , entice them” ( shâraq being used for alluring, as in Isa 5:26 and Isa 7:18), as well as the absence of a copula. They both show that the intention here is simply to explain with greater clearness what is announced in Zec 10:6, Zec 10:7. The perfect פּדיתים is prophetic, like רחמתּים in Zec 10:6. The further promise, “they will multiply,” etc. , cannot be taken as referring either merely to the multiplication of Israel in exile (Hengst.

, Koehler, etc.) , or merely to the future multiplication after the gathering together. According to the position in which the words stand between אקבּצם and אזרעם, they must embrace both the multiplication during the dispersion, and the multiplication after the gathering together. The perfect כּמו רבוּ points to the increase which Israel experienced in the olden time under the oppression of Egypt (Exo 1:7, Exo 1:12).

This increase, which is also promised in Eze 36:10-11, is effected by God’s sowing them broadcast among the nations. זרע does not mean to scatter, but to sow, to sow broadcast (see at Hos 2:23). Consequently the reference cannot be to a dispersion of Israel inflicted as a punishment. The sowing denotes the multiplication (cf. Jer 31:27), and is not to be interpreted, as Neumann and Kliefoth suppose, as signifying that the Ephraimites 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 Zec 10:10 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 8:13; Hos 9:3, Hos 9:6; Hos 11:11; Mic 7:12; Isa 11:11; Isa 27:13, furnish no historical evidence of such thing.

Even if certain Ephraimites had fled to Egypt, these could not be explained as relating to a return or gathering together of the Ephraimites of 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 9:3 (cf.

Zec 8:13), 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 Zec 10:1, 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 11:11.) 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 7:14). לא ימּצא, there is not found for them, sc. the necessary room: equivalent to, it will not be sufficient for them (as in Jos 17:16).

Zec 10:11-12 Zec 10:11. “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. Zec 10:12. And I make them strong in Jehovah; and they will walk in His name, is the saying of Jehovah. ” The subject in Zec 10:11 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. צרה, which has been interpreted in very different ways, we take as in apposition to ים, 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 צרה is not connected with ים 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 (Exo 14:10.) The objection urged by Koehler against this view - namely, that צרה as a noun is not used in the sense of local strait or confinement - is proved to be unfounded by Jon 2:3 and Zep 1:15.

All the other explanations of tsârâh 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 Chaldaeans 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 (Exo 14:16, Exo 14:21; cf.

Jos 3:13; Psa 77:17; Psa 114:5); 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 החרים in Isa 11:15. Only the floods of the Nile (יאור) 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 Zec 10:10, and the tyranny of Asshur being characterized by גּאון, pride, haughtiness (cf. Isa 10:7.) , and that of Egypt by the rod of its taskmasters.

in Zec 10:12 the promise for Ephraim is brought to a close with the general thought that they will obtain strength in the Lord, and walk in the power of His name. With וגבּרתּים the address reverts to its starting-point in Zec 10:6. בּיהוה stands for בּי, 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 4:5, 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. If, in conclusion, we survey the whole promise from Zec 9:11 onwards, there are two leading thoughts developed in it: ( a ) That those members of the covenant nation who were still scattered 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; ( b ) 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.

Zec 10:11-12 Zec 10:11. “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. Zec 10:12. And I make them strong in Jehovah; and they will walk in His name, is the saying of Jehovah. ” The subject in Zec 10:11 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. צרה, which has been interpreted in very different ways, we take as in apposition to ים, 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 צרה is not connected with ים 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 (Exo 14:10.) The objection urged by Koehler against this view - namely, that צרה as a noun is not used in the sense of local strait or confinement - is proved to be unfounded by Jon 2:3 and Zep 1:15.

All the other explanations of tsârâh 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 Chaldaeans 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 (Exo 14:16, Exo 14:21; cf.

Jos 3:13; Psa 77:17; Psa 114:5); 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 החרים in Isa 11:15. Only the floods of the Nile (יאור) 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 Zec 10:10, and the tyranny of Asshur being characterized by גּאון, pride, haughtiness (cf. Isa 10:7.) , and that of Egypt by the rod of its taskmasters.

in Zec 10:12 the promise for Ephraim is brought to a close with the general thought that they will obtain strength in the Lord, and walk in the power of His name. With וגבּרתּים the address reverts to its starting-point in Zec 10:6. בּיהוה stands for בּי, 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 4:5, 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. If, in conclusion, we survey the whole promise from Zec 9:11 onwards, there are two leading thoughts developed in it: ( a ) That those members of the covenant nation who were still scattered 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; ( b ) 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 Zec 10:3 - 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 Zec 9:8-10, Zec 9:12, 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 Zec 10:1-12 the threat of judgment in Zec 11:1-3, 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 (Zec 11:1-3); the description of the good shepherd (Zec 11:4-14); and the sketch of the foolish shepherd (Zec 11:15-17). Zec 11:1-3 The Devastation of the Holy Land. - Zec 11:1. “Open thy gates, O Lebanon, and let fire devour thy cedars! Zec 11:2. Howl, cypress; for the cedar is fallen, for the glory is laid waste! Howl, ye oaks of Bashan; for the inaccessible forest is laid low!

Zec 11:3. A loud howling of the shepherds; for 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 (Zec 10:10), and shows a connection between ch.

11 and Zec 10:1-12, although this retrospect is not decided enough to lay a foundation for the view that Zec 11:1-3 form a conclusion to the prophecy in Zec 10:1-12, 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 Zec 10:1-12, 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 Zec 11:4-7.

; 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 explanation; 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 affirm 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, that the 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 אשׁר אדּירם שׁדּדוּ contain a second explanatory clause. אשׁר is a conjunction (for, because), as in Gen 30:18; Gen 31:49. 'Addı̄rı̄m 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,” i.

e. , the cedar forest of Lebanon. The keri habbâtsı̄r 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 ). קול יללת, voice of howling, equivalent to a loud howling. The shepherds howl, because 'addartâm , their glory, is laid waste.

We are not to understand by this their flock, but their pasture, as the parallel member גּאון היּרדּן and the parallel passage Jer 25:26 show, where the shepherds howl, because their pasture is destroyed. What the pasture, i. 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 12:5; Jer 49:9; Jer 50:44). Zec 11:3 announces in distinct terms a devastation of the soil or land. It follows from this that the cedars, cypresses, 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 10:34 the powerful army of Assyria is compared to Lebanon; and in Jer 22:6 the head of the cedar forest is a symbol of the royal house of Judah; and that in Jer 22:23 it is used as a figurative term for Jerusalem (see at Hab 2:17); 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.

In the second half of the “burden” upon the world-power, which is contained in this chapter, the thought indicated in Zec 10:3 - 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 Zec 9:8-10, Zec 9:12, 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 Zec 10:1-12 the threat of judgment in Zec 11:1-3, 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 (Zec 11:1-3); the description of the good shepherd (Zec 11:4-14); and the sketch of the foolish shepherd (Zec 11:15-17). Zec 11:1-3 The Devastation of the Holy Land. - Zec 11:1. “Open thy gates, O Lebanon, and let fire devour thy cedars! Zec 11:2. Howl, cypress; for the cedar is fallen, for the glory is laid waste! Howl, ye oaks of Bashan; for the inaccessible forest is laid low!

Zec 11:3. A loud howling of the shepherds; for 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 (Zec 10:10), and shows a connection between ch.

11 and Zec 10:1-12, although this retrospect is not decided enough to lay a foundation for the view that Zec 11:1-3 form a conclusion to the prophecy in Zec 10:1-12, 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 Zec 10:1-12, 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 Zec 11:4-7.

; 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 explanation; 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 affirm 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, that the 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 אשׁר אדּירם שׁדּדוּ contain a second explanatory clause. אשׁר is a conjunction (for, because), as in Gen 30:18; Gen 31:49. 'Addı̄rı̄m 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,” i.

e. , the cedar forest of Lebanon. The keri habbâtsı̄r 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 ). קול יללת, voice of howling, equivalent to a loud howling. The shepherds howl, because 'addartâm , their glory, is laid waste.

We are not to understand by this their flock, but their pasture, as the parallel member גּאון היּרדּן and the parallel passage Jer 25:26 show, where the shepherds howl, because their pasture is destroyed. What the pasture, i. 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 12:5; Jer 49:9; Jer 50:44). Zec 11:3 announces in distinct terms a devastation of the soil or land. It follows from this that the cedars, cypresses, 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 10:34 the powerful army of Assyria is compared to Lebanon; and in Jer 22:6 the head of the cedar forest is a symbol of the royal house of Judah; and that in Jer 22:23 it is used as a figurative term for Jerusalem (see at Hab 2:17); 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.

In the second half of the “burden” upon the world-power, which is contained in this chapter, the thought indicated in Zec 10:3 - 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 Zec 9:8-10, Zec 9:12, 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 Zec 10:1-12 the threat of judgment in Zec 11:1-3, 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 (Zec 11:1-3); the description of the good shepherd (Zec 11:4-14); and the sketch of the foolish shepherd (Zec 11:15-17). Zec 11:1-3 The Devastation of the Holy Land. - Zec 11:1. “Open thy gates, O Lebanon, and let fire devour thy cedars! Zec 11:2. Howl, cypress; for the cedar is fallen, for the glory is laid waste! Howl, ye oaks of Bashan; for the inaccessible forest is laid low!

Zec 11:3. A loud howling of the shepherds; for 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 (Zec 10:10), and shows a connection between ch.

11 and Zec 10:1-12, although this retrospect is not decided enough to lay a foundation for the view that Zec 11:1-3 form a conclusion to the prophecy in Zec 10:1-12, 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 Zec 10:1-12, 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 Zec 11:4-7.

; 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 explanation; 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 affirm 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, that the 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 אשׁר אדּירם שׁדּדוּ contain a second explanatory clause. אשׁר is a conjunction (for, because), as in Gen 30:18; Gen 31:49. 'Addı̄rı̄m 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,” i.

e. , the cedar forest of Lebanon. The keri habbâtsı̄r 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 ). קול יללת, voice of howling, equivalent to a loud howling. The shepherds howl, because 'addartâm , their glory, is laid waste.

We are not to understand by this their flock, but their pasture, as the parallel member גּאון היּרדּן and the parallel passage Jer 25:26 show, where the shepherds howl, because their pasture is destroyed. What the pasture, i. 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 12:5; Jer 49:9; Jer 50:44). Zec 11:3 announces in distinct terms a devastation of the soil or land. It follows from this that the cedars, cypresses, 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 10:34 the powerful army of Assyria is compared to Lebanon; and in Jer 22:6 the head of the cedar forest is a symbol of the royal house of Judah; and that in Jer 22:23 it is used as a figurative term for Jerusalem (see at Hab 2:17); 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.

Zec 11:4-6 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.

Zec 11:4. “Thus said Jehovah my God: Feed the slaughtering-flock; Zec 11:5. 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. Zec 11:6. 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 deliver 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” (Zec 11:5, comp. with Zec 11:7.) , and also from Zec 11:15, 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 Zec 11:8, Zec 11:12, and Zec 11:13, which in truth neither Zechariah nor any other prophet ever did, but only God through His Son, and that in Zec 11:10 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 (Zec 11:8), is not effected through the prophetic word or office; and the fourth shepherd (Zec 11:15) 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, i. 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 Zec 10:3 and Eze 34:11-12, 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? צאן ההרגה, 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 Eze 34:6 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 Eze 34:5.

But the first of these arguments proves nothing at all, inasmuch as, although feeding is of course not equivalent to slaughtering, a flock 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 second argument rests upon the erroneous assumption that ישׁבי הארץ in Eze 34:6 is identical with the slaughtering flock.

The epithet צאן ההרגה, i. e. , lit. , flock of strangling - as hârag does not mean to slay, but to strangle - is explained in Eze 34:5. The flock is so called, because its present masters are strangling it, without bearing guilt, to sell it for the purpose of enriching themselves, and its shepherds treat it in an unsparing manner; and Eze 34:6 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.

לא יאשׁמוּ does not affirm that those who are strangling it do not think themselves to blame - this is expressed in a different manner (cf. Jer 50:7): 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 אשׁם never has the meaning, to repent.

לא יאשׁמוּ refers rather to the fact that these men have hitherto gone unpunished, that they still continue to prosper. So that 'âshēm means to bear or expiate the guilt, as in Hos 5:15; Hos 14:1 (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 יאמר is used distributively: every one of them says so. ואעשׁר, a syncopated form for ואעשׁר (Ewald, §§73, b ), and ו expressing the consequence, that I enrich myself (cf. Ewald, §235, b ). רעיהם are the former shepherds. The imperfects 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 Zec 11:6 : For I shall not spare the inhabitants of the earth any longer. ישׁבי הארץ cannot be the inhabitants of the land, i. e. , those who are described as the “flock of slaughtering” in Zec 11:4; 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 ישׁבי הארץ are different from the צאן ההרגה, 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 Zec 11:11-14.

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, i.

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. המציא ביד ר, to cause to fall into the hand of another, i. e. , to deliver up to his power (cf. 2Sa 3:8).

האדם is the human race; and מלכּו, the king of each, is the king to whom each is subject. The subject of כּתּתוּ is רעהוּ and מלכּו, the men and the kings who tyrannize over the others. These smite them in pieces, i. 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.