Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 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.
And I said, I will not feed you – God, at last, leaves the rebellious soul or people to itself, as He says by Moses, Then My anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and will hide My Face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall find them Deu 31:17 : and our Lord tells the captious Jews; I go My way, and ye shall seek Me and shall die in your sins Joh 8:21.
That which dieth, let it die – Zechariah seems to condense, but to repeat the abandonment in Jeremiah; Cast them out of My sight, and let them go forth. And it shall be, if they shall say unto thee, Where shall we go forth? then thou shalt tell them, Thus saith the Lord, Such as are for death, to death; and such as are for the sword, to the sword; and such as are for the captivity, to the captivity o. First, God gives over to death without violence, by famine or pestilence, those whose lot it should be; another portion to violent death by the sword; that which is cut off shall be cut off; and the rest, the flock of slaughter, would be turned into wolves; and, as in the awful and horrible siege of Jerusalem, those who had escaped these deaths, the left-over, shall eat every one of the flesh of his neighbor, every law of humanity and of nature broken. Osorius: So should they understand at last, how evil and bitter a thing it is for all who lived by My help to be despoiled of that help?
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 9. I will not feed you] I shall instruct you no longer: some of you are appointed to death by famine; others, to be cut off by the sword; and others of you, to such desparation that ye shall destroy one another.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Then; after that time of his patient and vigilant feeding the flock, and after his cutting off the three unfaithful shepherds, and after the ill resentment he met with for it; when he deserved love and thanks for it, he is repaid with disdain and hatred by the people, as well as by the shepherds; when he saw all this, then, &c. Thus they rejected Christ, the true Shepherd.
I will not feed you; next he rejecteth them, he will no more take care of them, or provide for them.
That that dieth, let it die; that which is ready to die, and will not be cured, but hath rejected the Shepherds love and skill, let it die; it is like that.
If ye believe not, ye shall die in your sins. That that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; either the same repeated, to confirm and affect them more, or else it intends to leave them naked and unguarded to their enemy, to cut them off by the sword or famine, &c.
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 that they may eat, as threatened, Deu 28:52-58; or else by seditions and bloody intestine quarrels destroy each other: all which happened to them in the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
9. Then said Iat last whenall means of saving the nation had been used in vain (Joh8:24).
I will notthat is, nomore feed you. The last rejection of the Jews is foretold, ofwhich the former under Nebuchadnezzar, similarly described, was thetype (Jer 15:1-3; Jer 34:17;Jer 43:11; Eze 6:12).Perish those who are doomed to perish, since they reject Him whowould have saved them! Let them rush on to their own ruin, since theywill have it so.
eat . . . flesh ofanotherLet them madly perish by mutual discords. JOSEPHUSattests the fulfilment of this prophecy of threefold calamity:pestilence and famine (“dieth . . . die”), war (“cutoff . . . cut off”), intestine discord (“eat . . . one . .. another”).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then said I, I will not feed you,…. That is, any longer; either personally, or by his apostles; he fed them himself, during his public ministry; and afterwards by his apostles, whom he ordered to preach the Gospel to the Jews first; but that being contradicted, blasphemed, and despised by them, they were ordered to turn away from them, and go to the Gentiles: this shows that not the shepherds only, but the body of the people, abhorred Christ and his Gospel: and therefore it was taken away from them:
that that dieth, let it die; literally, by the pestilence, that going by the name of death in Scripture; and spiritually, they that are dead in sin, let them continue so; let them die through famine of the word they have despised; let them die in their sins, and die the second death, they justly deserve:
and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; literally, by the sword; spiritually, the meaning is, that whereas some were in righteous judgment appointed to ruin, vessels of wrath fitted to destruction; let them be left to themselves, to a judicial blindness, and hardness of heart, and be cut off as unfruitful branches, and be no more in a church state here, and hereafter cast into everlasting burnings:
and let the rest eat everyone the flesh of another; through famine; or destroy each other in their internal divisions, which was the case of the Jews, when Jerusalem was besieged; see Ga 5:15.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
God now declares what had been briefly mentioned before, — that his judgment could not be deemed cruel, for the people had been extremely wicked, and their wickedness deserved extreme punishment. It seems indeed to be a simple narrative; but God here defends his own cause, for he had tried all means in ruling the people, before he had recourse to extreme rigor. Who indeed could now murmur against God? for he had been ever ready to undertake the office of a shepherd, and had so humbled himself as to take care of that people as his own flock, and had, in short, omitted no kind of attention; and yet he had been despised by that people, and even treated with derision. It was therefore an extreme indignity when they hated God, who had yet dealt with them with so much kindness. We hence see that God’s judgment is here vindicated from every calumny; for the wickedness of the people was altogether inexcusable before God had renounced his care of them.
I said: the time must be noticed, for he intimates that he had not been too hasty in taking vengeance; but that as there was no longer any remedy, he had been constrained, as it were by necessity, to give up his office of a shepherd. I said then, I will not feed you; what is to die, let it die; what is to be cut off, let it be cut off (140) He here resigns his office of a shepherd, and intimates that he was innocent and free from all blame, whatever might happen. A shepherd is set over a flock for this purpose, — that he may defend it, even every sheep, both against the depredations of robbers, and the rapacity of wolves: but when he gives up his office, he is exempt from all blame, though afterwards the flock may be stolen or devoured by wolves and wild beasts. God then here openly declares, that it was not to be imputed to him, if the Jews perished a hundred times, for they refused to be ruled by him, and thus he was freed from the pastoral charge. What then is to perish, let it perish; that is, “Since they are not healable, and allow no remedy to be applied to their evils, I leave them; they shall find out what it is to be without a good shepherd.”
We now see more clearly what I before stated, — that the wickedness and ingratitude of the people are here reproved, because they had rejected God, who was ready to be their shepherd, — and that the cause of the ruin which was nigh at hand, was in the Jews themselves, though they anxiously tried, but in vain, to transfer it to another.
He concludes with these words, And those which remain, even those who shall escape external attacks, let them eat one another, since they are not now sheep, but savage wild beasts. And this we know has been fulfilled; for the Jews at length perished through mutual discords, and no one spared his own brother; nay, the nearer the relationship, the more cruelly each raged against the other. Hence God’s judgment, denounced by the Prophet, then appeared most openly, when the Jews perished through intestine broils and even slaughters. It then follows —
(140) The Targum renders the verbs in the future tense, “shall die — shall be cut off;” but the Septuagint and Jerome, in the imperative mood, as here. The verse may be thus rendered, —
9. And I said,—I will not feed you; She that is to die, shall die; And she that is to be cut off, shall be cut off; And the remainder shall devour, Each one the flesh of its (or her) fellow.
“
The dying,” or “the dead,” and “the cut off,” the literal rendering, clearly mean what was destined to die and to be cut off. Hence to render “cut off” here “missing,” as done by Blayney, is not at all necessary. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES.
Zec. 11:9. Let it] Perish those who are doomed to perish. All kindly control is withdrawn, and the flock is left to the consequences of its fatal rejection of deliverance. The fulfilment in the history of Jerusalem.
Zec. 11:10. Break] Symbolic action of taking away the good received by the flock in form of covenant. That is to say, the covenant which God has made with all nations is to be repealed or destroyed [Keil].
Zec. 11:11. Broken] The covenant annulled as the staff was broken. This not observed by the flock at large, only by the poor] who recognized the fulfilment of a Divine word (Jer. 32:8).
HOMILETICS
GOD WITHDRAWN, AND MAN GIVEN UP TO HIS OWN DESTRUCTION.Zec. 11:9-11
The treatment which the Shepherd received leads him to give up feeding the flock, and leave it to its fate. Israel rejected Jehovah, and was in turn rejected. The staves were broken, and the miserable flock have experienced the weight of the words, Woe unto them when I depart from them! Learn
I. That God may withdraw himself from men on account of their sins. Then said I, I will not feed you. God woos and awes men; instructs and chastises them; loads them with benefits and corrects them in evil; uses all possible means to keep them in his ways: but they despise his long-suffering, and provoke his wrath. The greatest favours of God often draw forth the worst manifestation of conduct. Men persist in rebellion, refuse when God calls, and are ultimately left to their folly. My Spirit shall not always strive with man.
II. That when God withdraws himself from men fearful punishment falls upon them for their sins. How awful the picture given here.
1. Destruction most effectual. It was broken in that day. If not suddenly, the Jewish nation suffered eventually. God has power to execute judgments, and nothing escapes his notice.
2. Destruction in manifold ways.
(1) By pestilence. That that dieth, let it die.
(2) By the sword. And that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off.
(3) By famine. Let the rest eat every one the flesh of another.
(4) By intestine feuds. God withdrew, and ceased to be a wall of fire round about them. The staff Beauty, the covenant, was broken, and fearful was the fulfilment. When the Romans forced admission into their city, famine and pestilence, feuds and mutual hatred, had done their work. Josephus tells us that every law of nature and humanity was broken; that even the very letter was fulfilled: The left over shall eat every one of the flesh of his neighbour.
THE OBSERVANT FEW.Zec. 11:11
When the staff was broken, and calamities were threatened, this was not observed by all. Only a small number gave heed to Jehovah, and recognized the fulfilment of the Divine word. Their character, attitude, and experience are described.
I. Their character is described. The poor of the flock. Poor in condition and poor in spirit. The nation was gone astray, but God had a seed to serve him. The people were doomed, but Jesus had a little flock. However low the condition of the world, God has always a remnant according to the election of grace.
II. Their attitude is described. They waited upon me. They prayed to God for mercy; observed God in the warnings and actions of the prophet. They discerned the hand of God in the signs of the times, just as the disciples saw coming judgments in the siege of Jerusalem, and fled to Pella. Whoso readeth, let him understand (mark, consider, 2Ti. 2:7) it (Mat. 24:15).
III. Their experience is described. They knew that it was the word of the Lord. They understood the word of God, however perplexing it was to others; were sensible of Gods displeasure, and cherished a humble spirit. Events which are common occurrences, chances of war to some, are warnings of God to others. Let faithful pastors be encouraged from these words. Prophets before them have shared their lotministered to a flock, despised by the world, but distinguished by the mark that they know the Lord. Jesus himself thought it not beneath him to shepherd a little flock, whom he will own at the great day.
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 11
Zec. 11:9. I will not. Gods decrees are not the result of deliberation, or the Almightys debating matters within himself, reasoning in his own mind about the expediency of things, as creatures do; nor are they merely ideas of things future, but settled determinations founded on his sovereign will and pleasure [Buck].
Zec. 11:10. Beauty.
In his favour life is found,
All bliss besidea shadow or a sound [Cowper].
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(9) Comp. Jer. 15:1-2; Isa. 9:20.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Withdrawal of the good shepherd, 9-14.
9, 10. As a result of the flock’s ingratitude, the shepherd decided to discontinue the shepherding care. It is difficult to differentiate in these verses between the voice of the shepherd and that of Jehovah; sometimes Jehovah, sometimes the shepherd, seems to be the speaker. Only the former could authorize the sentence of doom implied in Zec 11:9 or break the covenant (Zec 11:10). The shepherd will leave the flock to its hopeless fate, to die, or to be cut off by the oppressors mentioned in Zec 11:5, or to be devoured by one another.
10. As an indication of his determination he breaks his staff.
Beauty See on Zec 11:7. The breaking of this staff symbolized the withdrawal of the divine favor.
Break my covenant made with all the people Better, R.V., “with all the peoples”; the nations surrounding the Jewish community. While the divine favor endured it prevented the hostile nations from doing injury to the flock (Hos 2:18). Since Jehovah’s will would be supreme in this matter, his resolve amounted practically to a covenant with these peoples, binding them to refrain from hurting the flock of Jehovah; with the covenant broken they would be at liberty to do as they pleased.
The staff was broken and the covenant dissolved, and Zec 11:11 implies that the results became apparent at once.
And so the poor of the flock As in Zec 11:7; better, the traffickers of the flock (compare Zec 11:5).
That waited upon me R.V., “that gave heed unto me.” Not that were obedient to me, but in a general sense that observed me; that is, that took notice of the acts of the shepherd. The words do not imply that they were influenced for the better. The events which immediately followed the breaking of the staff were evidence that the shepherd was indeed the representative of Jehovah.
12. This recognition on the part of the traffickers would seem to offer an opportunity for further tests, (1) whether they had been led to a better appreciation of his services, (2) whether there was any desire on their part to have his services continued. One staff was still whole, an indication that he had not finally forsaken them.
Unto them If the emendation suggested in Zec 11:11 is correct, this can refer only to the traffickers; it is only natural that they should pay the wages, since they had derived the most benefit from the flock (Zec 11:5). The shepherd makes no demands; he asks them to decide whether or not his services merit compensation, and, if so, how much. They reply by offering him wages.
Thirty pieces of silver A piece or shekel of silver is equivalent to about 60 cents; thirty pieces to about $18. This seems to have been the price of a slave (Exo 21:32), and the offer showed how little they appreciated the services of a divinely appointed shepherd (compare Mat 26:15).
The offer was an insult to the shepherd as well as to Jehovah, and Zec 11:13 describes the displeasure of the latter. He orders the shepherd to throw the money away.
Cast it unto the potter A much-discussed phrase. Limited space makes impossible the enumeration of all the different interpretations given. On the assumption that the present Hebrew text is correct, the fewest difficulties are offered by the interpretation of Keil, who suggests that cast it to the potter may be a “proverbial expression for contemptuous treatment,” though, as he says, “we have no means of tracing the origin of the phrase satisfactorily.” Exception has been taken to the present text on the ground that there was no potter in the temple (compare last clause of Zec 11:13), but if the phrase is a proverbial saying it is not necessary to assume the presence of a potter in the temple, be it for the purpose of repairing or selling dishes or for the purpose of worship, for the money might be treated contemptuously without a potter being present. The addition “in the house of Jehovah” calls attention to the seriousness and solemnity of the transaction. The action was symbolical as much as the breaking of the staff (Zec 11:10; Zec 11:14); for it signified the cessation of the care of the shepherd and of Jehovah. Jehovah and the people were the persons chiefly interested in this; the temple was the dwelling place of Jehovah, and to it flocked the people; hence all transactions requiring the presence of both parties could best be performed there. Such was the act performed by the shepherd, and it is for this reason that he selected the house of Jehovah as the place where he would give expression to Jehovah’s displeasure. With this interpretation the nature of the “contemptuous treatment” remains undefined; the shepherd may have cast the money away, or may have trampled upon it, or may have done anything else that would indicate how lightly he and Jehovah valued the sum. Many recent scholars prefer the reading of Targum and Peshitto,” “to the treasurer” or “treasury” in the place of “to the potter.” This would remove the obscurity of the present expression, but the objection raised by Keil is not without weight: “God could not possibly say to the prophet, The wages paid for my service are indeed a miserable amount, yet put it in the temple treasury, for it is at any rate better than nothing.”
Goodly price Meant ironically.
I was prized at Jehovah identifies himself here with the shepherd; the insult offered to the latter was in reality an insult to Jehovah.
14. In consequence of the lack of appreciation on the part of the flock the shepherd decides to abandon it entirely; as a sign of this he breaks the second staff, for which he has no further use.
Bands See on Zec 11:7.
That I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel This does not imply the existence of the two kingdoms, nor does it point to a period before the division; it refers rather to the future reunion of the north and south, which is expected by many prophets to take place in the Messianic age. The breaking of the staff implies the destruction of the prospects of such reunion, but with these prospects gone there will be dashed to pieces any hope of a final triumph over the enemies, which will lead to the exaltation and glorification of the victors. On the teaching of the allegory see Introduction, p. 603. If the prophecy comes from the Maccabean period (see on Zec 11:8), the good shepherd represents a high priest who occupied the office about 170 B.C. Who he was cannot be determined; Marti thinks of Onias IV.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Zec 11:9-10. Then said I, &c. These are the words of the Messiah to the priests of his time, whom he quickly forsook, and broke his staff of loveliness or delight, being no longer inclined to spare them, nor to restrain the people from oppressing the Jewish nation, as he had before restrained them by that covenant which he had made with the neighbouring nations. That decree of God, by which he had hindered the nations from oppressing and destroying the little commonwealth of the Jews, is here called God’s covenant. See Houbigant. We may render that that dieth, Zec 11:9 that which is dying.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Zec 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.
Ver. 9. Then said I, I will not feed you ] Now the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, so that there was no remedy, as 2Ch 36:16 . Now his decree brought forth, Zep 2:2 . Now he grows implacable, inexorable, peremptory. Wherein nevertheless the Lord might very well break forth into that speech of the heathen emperor, when he was to pass sentence upon a malefactor, Non nisi coactus, I would not do this if I could do otherwise. Christ could not tell Jerusalem without tears that her day of grace was expired, that her destruction was determined. As a woman brings not forth without pain; as a bee stings not till provoked; so neither doth God proceed against a sinful people or person till there be an absolute necessity; lest his truth and justice should be questioned and slighted. See Eze 12:22-25 . Fury is not in God, till our sins put thunderbolts into his hands; and then, “who knoweth the power of his anger?” Psa 90:11 “who can abide with everlasting burnings?” Isa 33:14 . If he but cast a man off, as here, and relinquish the care of him, he is utterly undone. Saul found it so, and complains dolefully (but without pity) that God had forsaken him, and the Philistines were upon him, 1Sa 28:15 ; all miseries and mischief came rushing in to him, as by a sluice. Let us so carry matters that God may not abandon us; that he may not refuse to feed us, and take the charge of us as a shepherd. He yet offereth us this mercy, as Alexander did those he warred against, while the lamp burned.
That that dieth, let it die
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
that, &c. = the dying will die.
eat every one, &c.: i.e. destroy one another.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
I will: Jer 23:33, Jer 23:39, Mat 13:10, Mat 13:11, Mat 21:43, Mat 23:38, Mat 23:39, Joh 8:21, Joh 8:24, Joh 12:35, Act 13:46, Act 13:47, Act 28:26-28
that that dieth: Psa 69:22-28, Jer 15:2, Jer 15:3, Jer 43:11, Mat 15:14, Mat 21:19, Rev 22:11
and let: Deu 28:53-56, Isa 9:19-21, Jer 19:9, Eze 5:10
another: Heb. his fellow, or, neighbour
Reciprocal: Jer 6:8 – lest Jer 7:29 – for Jer 14:19 – hath Hos 4:6 – I will also reject Zec 11:6 – deliver Zec 11:14 – I cut Mat 24:21 – General Mar 8:13 – General Rev 3:16 – I will spue thee out
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Zec 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 shepherds 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, Deu 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.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Zechariah, as God’s representative, turned "them" over to their fate though that meant that some of them would die, suffer annihilation, and devour one another. The Jews did eat one another during the siege of Jerusalem in the first century A.D. [Note: Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, 6:3:3-4.] And they will evidently do so again during the Tribulation.
"By withholding his leadership the shepherd abandoned the people to the consequences of their rejection of him: death, and mutual destruction. He simply let things take their course." [Note: Baldwin, p. 184.]