Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Zechariah 11:7
And I will feed the flock of slaughter, [even] you, O poor of the flock. And I took unto me two staves; the one I called Beauty, and the other I called Bands; and I fed the flock.
7. And I will feed ] Rather, So I fed, in accordance with the command given me in Zec 11:4. Comp. “and I fed,” at the end of this verse.
even you ] or, therefore: i.e. “So I fed the flock of slaughter: therefore (because I had been commanded to do so, fed I) the poor of the flock.” R. V. adopts A. V. margin: verily the poor of the flock.
two staves ] two, instead of one as on becoming shepherd he would naturally have done, to denote, as the names given them imply, that his twofold aim in discharging his office would be to ensure the comeliness and the unity of the flock. The latter name, “Bands,” refers specially to the union between Judah and Israel.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The prophetic narrative which follows, differs in its form, in some respects, from the symbolical actions of the prophets and from Zechariahs own visions. The symbolical actions of the prophets are actions of their own: this involves acts, which it would be impossible to represent, except as a sort of drama. Such are the very central points, the feeding of the flock, which are still intelligent people who understand Gods doings: the cutting off of the three shepherds; the asking for the price; the unworthy price offered; the casting it aside. It differs from Zechariahs own visions, in that they are for the most part exhibited to the eye, and Zechariahs own part is simply to enquire their meaning and to learn it, and to receive further revelation. In one case only, he himself interposes in the action of the vision Zec 3:1-10 :15; but this too, as asking that it might be done, not, as himself doing it. Here, he is himself the actor, yet as representing Another, who alone could cut off shepherds, abandon the people to mutual destruction, annulling the covenant which He had made. Maimonides, then, seems to say rightly; : This, I fed the flock of the slaughter, to the end of the narrative, where he is said to have asked for his hire, to have received it, and to have cast it into the temple, to the treasurer, all this Zechariah saw in prophetic vision. For the command which he received, and the act which he is said to have done, took place in prophetic vision or dream. This, he adds, is beyond controversy, as all know, who are able to distinguish the possible from the impossible.
Osorius: The actions, presented to the prophets are not always to be understood as actions but as predictions. As when God commands Isaiah, to make the heart of the people dull Isa 6:10 that is, to denounce to the people their future blindness, through which they would, with obstinate mind, reject the mercies of Christ. Or when He says, that He appointed Jeremiah Jer 1:10 to destroy and to build; to root out and to plant. Or when He commanded the same prophet to cause the nations to drink the cup, whereby they should be bereft of their senses (Jer 25:15 ff), Jeremiah did nothing of all this, but asserted that it would be. So here.
And I will feed the flock of the slaughter – Rather And (our, so) I fed. The prophet declares, in the name of our Lord, that He did what the Father commanded Him. He fed the flock, committed to His care by the Father, who, through their own obstinacy, became the flock of slaughter. What could be done, He did for them; so that all might see that they perished by their own fault. The symbol of our Lord, as the Good Shepherd, had been made prominent by Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Behold the Lord will come, as a Mighty One – He shall feed His flock like a shepherd: He shall gather the lambs with His arm and carry them in His bosom: He shall gently lead those that are with young Isa 40:10-11. And Jeremiah, having declared Gods judgments on the then shepherds Jer 23:2, I will gather the remnant of My flock out of all countries whither I have driven them, and will bring them again to their fold; and they shall be fruitful and increase. And I will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them. Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a king shall reign and prosper – and this is the name whereby He shall be called, the Lord our Righteousness Jer 23:3-6. And Ezekiel with the like context Ezek. 34:1-21; Therefore will I save My flock and they shall be no more a prey; and I will judge between cattle and cattle. And I will set One Shepherd over them, and He shall feed them: My servant David, He shall feed them; and He shall be their Shepherd Eze 34:22-23; and, uniting both offices, David, My servant, shall be king over them, and they shall all have One Shepherd Eze 37:24. It was apparent then beforehand, who this Shepherd was to be, to whom God gave the feeding of the flock.
Even you, or for you, ye poor of the flock; or, therefore, being thus commanded, (fed I) the poor of the flock. The whole flock was committed to Him to feed. He had to seek out all the lost sheep of the house of Israel Mat 10:6; Mat 15:24. Dionysius: He fed, for the time, the Jews destined to death, until their time should come; the fruit of His labor was in the little flock Luk 12:32, the faithful Jews who believed in Him, out of the people of the flock aforesaid, or the synagogue, who in the primitive Church despised all earthly things, leading a most pure life. So He says, I will feed My flock and I will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord God: I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind that which was broken, and will strengthen that which was sick: but I will destroy the fat and the strong, I will feed them with judgment Eze 34:15-16.
The elect are the end of all Gods dispensations. He fed all; yet the fruit of His feeding, His toils, His death, the travail of His soul, was in those only who are saved. So Paul says, Therefore I endure all things for the elects sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory 2Ti 2:10. He fed all; but the poor of the flock alone, those who were despised of men, because they would not follow the pride of the high priests and scribes and Pharisees, believed on Him, as they themselves say, Have any of the rulers or the Pharisees believed on Him? Joh 12:48, and Paul says, Not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called; but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty; and base things of the world, and things despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are 1Co 1:26-28.
And I took unto Me two – (shepherds) staves as David says, Thy rod and Thy staff they comfort me Psa 23:4. The one I called Beauty or Loveliness , as the Psalmist longs to behold the beauty or loveliness of God in His temple Psa 27:4, and says; let the beauty of the Lord our God be upon us Psa 90:17.
And the other I called Bands – Literally, Binders . The one staff represents the full favor and loving-kindness of God; when this was broken, there yet remained the other, by which they were held together as a people in covenant with God. And I fed the flock. This was the use of his staves; He tended them with both, ever putting in exercise toward them the loving beauty and grace of God, and binding them together and with Himself.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 7. And I wilt feed the flock of slaughter] I showed them what God had revealed to me relative to the evils coming upon the land; and I did this the more especially for the sake of the poor of the flock.
Two staves] Two shepherd’s crooks. One I called Beauty-that probably by which they marked the sheep; dipping the end into vermillion, or some red liquid. And this was done when they were to mark every tenth sheep, as it came out of the field, when the tithe was to be set apart for the Lord.
The other I called Bands] Probably that with the hook or crook at the head of it, by which the shepherd was wont to catch the sheep by the horns or legs when he wished to bring any to hand.
And I fed the flock.] These two rods show the beauty and union of the people, while under God as their Shepherd. It was the delight of God to see them in a state of peace and harmony.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
And, or But, as the Hebrew particle is sometimes read: As for the greatest part, they are so corrupt and obstinately disobedient, I will cast them off;
but I will feed, & c. O therefore, so then, because it is the will of God that the flock of slaughter should. be fed, I will feed, &c.: the French version seems this way inclined. Je me suis done mis a paitre les brebis exposes tuerie: I am sent then to feed the sheep that are exposed to slaughter.
The flock of slaughter; either by the violence of their enemies, or by the monstrous negligence of their shepherds.
O poor of the flock: this is explicatory of the former, and by the ingemination of it shows us that God doth in his charge to the prophet typically, and in his charge to Christ antitype, distinguish clearly between people and people among the Jews, between those that were poor and forlorn, and those that were tyrannical, proud, cruel, and made a prey of them; these are left out of the pastoral charge, the other are taken care of.
I took unto me two staves: thus he enters on the actual exercise of his office, and takes two staves to himself, at the meaning whereof we can but guess. Two, say some, to signify the twofold way of Christs governing his people, by lenity and severity. Or, say others, to note his singular care and diligence in his office; when other shepherds content themselves with one, Christ takes two. Or what if hereby Christ would be provided with one to guide the flock, with another to repel such as would slaughter them, to protect against violence and to direct such as are meek. Christ hath his golden sceptre for his loyal and obedient subjects, and his iron rod for refractory rebels and violent enemies.
The one I called Beauty; or pleasantness, sweetness, and loveliness; this lay in the holiness of his precepts, the excellency of his comforts, the glory of his reward. This is the first, and answers to the character of the ways of wisdom, Pro 3:17; they are pleasantness. The ordinances of God, and the enjoyment of them, are the beauty of the Lord, and our beholding it, as David, Psa 27:4.
The other I called Bands; either alluding to the lines wherewith the portion of the Holy Land was meted out to every one according to their lot; or referring to the obligations Christ lays on men to hold together in peace and unity. The beauty of grace and glory, the bands of love and peace.
And I fed the flock; with these in hand the shepherd undertakes to feed and rule this flock.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
7. Andrather, “Accordingly“:implying the motive cause which led Messiah to assume the office,namely, the will of the Father (Zec 11:4;Zec 11:5), who pitied the sheepwithout any true shepherd.
I will feed“Ifed” [CALVIN], whichcomes to the same thing, as the past tense must in Zechariah’s timehave referred to the event of Messiah’s advent then future: theprophets often speaking of the future in vision as already present.It was not My fault, Jehovah implies, that these sheep were not fed;the fault rests solely with you, because ye rejected the grace of God[CALVIN].
even you, O poor of theflockrather, “in order that (I might feed, that is, save)the poor (humble; compare Zec 11:11;Zep 3:12; Mat 5:3)of the flock”; literally, not you, but, “therefore(I will feed)” [MOORE].See Margin, “Verily the poor.” It is for thesake of the believing remnant that Messiah took charge of the flock,though He would have saved all, if they would have come to Him. Theywould not come; therefore, as a nation, they are “theflock of (that is, doomed to) slaughter.”
I took . . . two stavesthatis, shepherds’ staves or rods (Ps23:4). Symbolizing His assumption of the pastor’s office.
BeautyThe Jews’peculiar excellency above other nations (De4:7), God’s special manifestation to them (Psa 147:19;Psa 147:20), the glory of thetemple (“the beauty of holiness,” Ps29:2; compare Psa 27:4;Psa 90:17; 2Ch 20:21),the “pleasantness” of their land (Gen 49:15;Dan 8:9; Dan 11:16),”the glorious land.”
Bandsimplying the bondof “brotherhood” between Judah and Israel. “Bands,”in Ps 119:61, Margin,is used for confederate companies: The Easterns in making aconfederacy often tie a cord or band as a symbol of it, and untie itwhen they dissolve the confederacy [LUDOVICUSDE DIEU].Messiah would have joined Judah and Israel in the bonds of acommon faith and common laws (Zec11:14), but they would not; therefore in just retribution Hebroke “His covenant which He had made with all the people.”Alexander, Antiochus Epiphanes, and Pompey were all kept from marringutterly the distinctive “beauty” and “brotherhood”of Judah and Israel, which subsisted more or less so long as thetemple stood. But when Jehovah brake the staves, not even Titus couldsave the temple from his own Roman soldiery, nor was Jurian able torestore it.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And I will feed the flock of slaughter,…. According to the call and commission he had from his divine Father, Zec 11:4 he determines to do as it was enjoined him, and as he had undertook:
[even] you, O poor of the flock; besides the people of the Jews in general, to whom Christ was sent, and he came to feed, there were a small remnant, according to the election of grace, he had a special regard for; and whom he fed by the word and ordinances with himself, the bread of life; and with the discoveries of his love, and with the covenant of grace, its blessings and promises, the sure mercies of David. These are called “the poor of the flock”, because they were the poor of this world, as were the disciples and followers of Christ; “the poor have the Gospel preached unto them”; Mt 11:5 and because they were spiritually poor, or poor in spirit, Mt 5:3 who saw their spiritual poverty, and owned it; who bewailed it, and were humbled under a sense of it; and sought after the true riches; and acknowledged that all they had were owing to the grace of God: and who, as to the frame of their mind, are the meek and humble ones; or, as to their outward state and condition, afflicted ones, as the word y may be rendered; who were persecuted, reviled, reproached, and accursed by others, Joh 7:49 and, as to their gifts and graces, the meanest of God’s people:
And I took unto me two staves; the one I called Beauty, and the other I called Bands; Jarchi, agreeably to the Targum, interprets this of the division of the kingdom of Israel into two parts, in the times of Rehoboam and Jeroboam. Some think persons are meant. In the Talmud z it is explained of the disciples of the wise men in the land of Israel, who make each other pleasant by their doctrines; and of the disciples of the wise men in Babylon that corrupt one another, or object to one another: according to Aben Ezra, Zerubbabel and Nehemiah are intended: others, the good king Josiah, and the bad king Zedekiah: others the priest, and the king, as Abendana observes; and Kimchi explains it of the different manner in which the Lord led the people, according to their behaviour to him; when they behaved well, they had good kings and governors, which led them in a right way, and they were filled with good things; but when they behaved otherwise they had evil kings, and evil befell them. The first of these staves some render “clemency” a lenity, kindness, gentleness; and suppose it has respect to the kind and gentle manner in which God dealt with the Jews before the times of Christ, both as to civil and religious things; as to civil things, by bringing them into and settling them in a pleasant land, a land flowing with milk and honey; by giving them wholesome laws, by which they were governed, such as no other nation had; and by setting over them judges, to protect, defend, and deliver them; and kings to rule over them, very wise and good, especially some of them, David, Solomon, c.: and as to religious things, by giving them a revelation of his mind and will, his word, statutes, and judgments, he did not give to other nations and by sending prophets to instruct them in them, and stir them up to the observance of them; and by appointing a place of worship, and settling the form of it; setting apart men to the office of priests, and ordering sacrifices to be offered, with the whole of temple service; which were the beauty of the Lord, to be beheld in his sanctuary: and then the latter, called “Bands”, which some render destroyers b, may denote either the destruction of this people, when they sinned against God, either by the Chaldeans or by the Romans; when severity was exercised on them, and wrath came upon them to the uttermost, in the ruin of their nation, city, and temple: and others think these may refer to the different usage of the Roman emperors, with respect to the Jews, who, for the most part, used them kindly, until the times of Nero; but afterwards, by him and other emperors, they were treated very roughly, until they were utterly destroyed by them; but as it plainly appears from the context that this is spoken of no other shepherd but Christ, and of no other feeding but his, they must design the instruments he makes use of, and still continues to make use of, in feeding his people. Shepherds commonly have but one staff, rod, or crook; but Christ has two: so the psalmist makes mention of a “rod” and “staff”, when speaking of Christ as a Shepherd, Ps 23:4 and these two staves some interpret of his twofold way of government, lenity to his people, and severity to his enemies; but rather it denotes the very great diligence and care Christ takes of his flock, both in guiding and directing them, and in protecting and defending them from their enemies: he fed his people in his own person when here on earth, with his staff “Beauty”, or “clemency”; he was sent, and came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and had great compassion on them, as being like sheep without a shepherd; their present shepherds, or who bore that name, being such as are before described: and his tenderness and gentleness towards them appeared in his calling sinners to repentance; in his gracious invitations to come unto him; by his kind reception of them; his affable and courteous deportment towards them; the gentle reproofs and suitable instructions he gave them, and the comfortable truths of the Gospel he delivered to them; and, during his personal ministry, he suffered his disciples to go nowhere else with his Gospel; and, at his resurrection from the dead, ordered them to begin preaching at Jerusalem, and to continue preaching to the Jews first everywhere, as they did, until they rejected the Gospel; and then Christ broke both his staves, or removed the Gospel, and the ordinances of it, which I think are meant by these staves: for these staves are not only ensigns of the shepherd, as instruments of guiding, directing, and protecting the flock; but emblematical, as their names show; and emblems they might be of the stay and staff of food, of the whole stay of bread, and the whole stay of water, Isa 3:1 and we find that Christ’s rod and staff, in a mystical sense, are of use to feed, refresh, and comfort, as well as to guide and direct, Ps 23:4 by the staff “Beauty” we are to understand the Gospel, which was preached to the Jews before the destruction of Jerusalem, which is beautiful and pleasant in itself; the doctrines of it are so, such as those of peace, pardon, righteousness, and salvation by Christ; and such are the promises of it, being absolute and unconditional, sure and suitable to the cases of God’s people, and likewise its ministers, Isa 52:7 and the ordinances of it comely and lovely; and besides, it sets forth the beauty of Christ, and represents the saints’ beautifulness in him; and it is like the shepherd’s staff; of great use in feeding the flock, not only by supplying with food, being food itself, milk for babes, and meat for strong men; and by directing to Christ, his covenant and church, where it is to be had; but by setting right such who are going in wrong pastures; pushing forward such as are backward to duty; fetching back such as are driven away, or backslidden, and preserving the whole from wolves and bears: and by the other staff, “Bands”, the ordinances of the Gospel are designed, which are of use to keep the saints together, and to direct them to proper food; particularly the ordinance of the Lord’s supper, which, as it is a feeding ordinance, and sets forth Christ, as food for faith, his flesh which is meat indeed, and his blood which is drink indeed; so it is a knitting and uniting ordinance, and is fitly expressed by “bands”; is not only a means of knitting the affections to Christ, whose love is so fully expressed in it; but of uniting the hearts of believers to one another, who herein become one bread, and one body, and feed together; and have communion with each other, and maintain their church state in a comfortable manner; and keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace; and the ordinances of the Gospel, though they are such bonds as are disagreeable to graceless persons, who are for breaking them asunder; yet they are a yoke that is easy, and a burden light to the people of God, Ps 2:3. It may be observed, that the word for “bands” is rendered “pilots”, Eze 27:8 and masters or governors of ships, Jon 1:6 and is so rendered here c; and as churches may be compared to ships, Re 8:9 so may ministers of the word to those who have the government and direction of them; and whose business lies in the ministration of the word, and the administration of ordinances, and taking care of the discipline of the Gospel: this seems to be the evangelic sense of these words; and they express the manner in which Christ fed his own dear people in Judea, partly by his own ministry, and partly by the ministry of his apostles, while he had an interest there, until the sins of that nation brought utter ruin upon them. It is a most ridiculous application made of these two staves by Antoninus, archbishop of Florence d, that Zechariah, being of the Dominican order, took to him in the person of God two staves; the one he called “Beauty”, which is the order of the preaching Friars; and the other “Bands”, which is the order of the Minors:
and I fed the flock; with the said staves, as he had determined; which includes the doing of the whole office of a shepherd; taking an exact account of his sheep, that none be lost; going before them, and setting them an example in the exercise of grace and discharge of duty; leading them to the still waters of his Father’s love; to the fountains and fulness of his own grace; to the rich provisions of his house, and the green pastures of Gospel ordinances; feeding them himself, and with himself, the bread of life, the hidden and heavenly manna; appointing shepherds under him, whom he qualifies to be pastors, gives them to his churches as such, and who receive from him the doctrines of the Gospel to feed them with; and protecting them from all their enemies, the roaring lion, Satan, wolves in sheep’s clothing, false teachers, and the world’s goats, who thrust with side and shoulder, and push with their horns of power; as well as by seeking that which is lost; bringing back that which is driven, or drawn away; binding up that which is broken; strengthening the weak; healing the sick; and watching over the whole flock night and day, lest any hurt them.
y “mites de grege”, Grotius; “afflictos pecoris”, Montanus; “afflictos gregis”, Burkius. z T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 24. 1. a “clementia”, Cocceius. b “perditores”, Munster; “destructores”, Vatablus; “perdentes”, Burkius. c “Nautae, [vel] gubernatores”, Cocceius. d Apud Quistorpium in loc.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
From Zec 11:7 onwards the feeding of the flock is described. Zec 11:7. “And I fed the slaughtering flock, therewith the wretched ones of the sheep, and took to myself two staves: the one I called Favour, the other I called Bands; and so I fed the flock. Zec 11:8. And I destroyed three of the shepherds in one month.” The difficult expression , of which very different renderings have been given (lit., with the so-being), is evidently used here in the same sense as in Isa 26:14; Isa 61:7; Jer 2:33, etc., so as to introduce what occurred eo ipso along with the other event which took place. When the shepherd fed the slaughtering flock, he thereby, or at the same time, fed the wretched ones of the sheep. , not the most wretched of the sheep, but the wretched ones among the sheep, like in Jer 49:20; Jer 50:45, the small, weak sheep. therefore form one portion of the , as Hofmann and Kliefoth have correctly explained; whereas, if they were identical, the whole of the appended clause would be very tautological, since the thought that the flock was in a miserable state was already expressed clearly enough in the predicate , and the explanation of it in Zec 11:5. This view is confirmed by Zec 11:11, where is generally admitted to be simply one portion of the flock. To feed the flock, the prophet takes two shepherds’ staves, to which he gives names, intended to point to the blessings which the flock receives through his pastoral activity. The fact that he takes two staves does not arise from the circumstance that the flock consists of two portions, and cannot be understood as signifying that he feeds one portion of the flock with the one staff, and the other portion with the other. According to Zec 11:7, he feeds the whole flock with the first staff; and the destruction to which, according to Zec 11:9, it is to be given up when he relinquishes his office, is only made fully apparent when the two staves are broken. The prophet takes two staves for the simple purpose of setting forth the double kind of salvation which is bestowed upon the nation through the care of the good shepherd. The first staff he calls , i.e., loveliness, and also favour (cf. Psa 90:17, ). It is in the latter sense that the word is used here; for the shepherd’s staff shows what Jehovah will thereby bestow upon His people. The second staff he calls , which is in any case a kal participle of fo elpic . Of the two certain meanings which this verb has in the kal, viz., to bind (hence chebhel , a cord or rope) and to ill-treat (cf. Job 34:31), the second, upon which the rendering staff-woe is founded, does not suit the explanation which is given in Zec 11:14 of the breaking of this staff. The first is the only suitable one, viz., the binding ones, equivalent to the bandage or connection. Through the staff noam (Favour), the favour of God, which protects it from being injured by the heathen nations, is granted to the flock (Zec 11:10); and through the staff chobh e lm the wretched sheep receive the blessing of fraternal unity or binding (Zec 11:14). The repetition of the words (end of Zec 11:7) expresses the idea that the feeding is effected with both staves. The first thing which the shepherd appointed by God does for the flock is, according to Zec 11:8, to destroy three shepherds. , the hiphil of , signifies , to annihilate, to destroy (as in Exo 23:23).
may be rendered, the three shepherds ( , lxx), or three of the shepherds, so that the article only refers to the genitive, as in Exo 26:3, Exo 26:9; Jos 17:11; 1Sa 20:20; Isa 30:26, and as is also frequently the case when two nouns are connected together in the construct state (see Ges. 111, Anm.). We agree with Koehler in regarding the latter as the only admissible rendering here, because in what precedes shepherds only have been spoken of, and not any definite number of them. The shepherds, of whom three are destroyed, are those who strangled the flock according to Zec 11:5, and who are therefore destroyed in order to liberate the flock from their tyranny. But who are these three shepherds? It was a very widespread and ancient opinion, and one which we meet with in Theodoret, Cyril, and Jerome, that the three classes of Jewish rulers are intended, – namely, princes (or kings), priests, and prophets. But apart from the fact that in the times after the captivity, to which our prophecy refers, prophesying and the prophetic office were extinct, and that in the vision in Zec 4:14 Zechariah only mentions two classes in the covenant nation who were represented by the prince Zerubbabel and the high priest Joshua; apart, I say, from this, such a view is irreconcilable with the words themselves, inasmuch as it requires us to dilute the destruction into a deposition from office, or, strictly speaking, into a counteraction of their influence upon the people; and this is quite sufficient to overthrow it. What Hengstenberg says in vindication of it – namely, that “an actual extermination cannot be intended, because the shepherds appear immediately afterwards as still in existence” – is founded upon a false interpretation of the second half of the verse. So much is unquestionably correct, that we have not to think of the extermination or slaying of three particular individuals,
(Note: The attempts of rationalistic commentators to prove that the three shepherds are three kings of the kingdom of the ten tribes, have completely broken down, inasmuch as of the kings Zechariah, Shallu, and Menahem (2Ki 15:8-14), Shallum alone reigned an entire month, so that not even the ungrammatical explanation of Hitzig, to the effect that refers to the reign of these kings, and not to their destruction, furnishes a sufficient loophole; whilst Maurer, Bleek, Ewald, and Bunsen felt driven to invent a third king or usurper, in order to carry out their view.)
and that not so much because it cannot be shown that three rulers or heads of the nation were ever destroyed in the space of a month, either in the times before the captivity or in those which followed, as because the persons occurring in this vision are not individuals, but classes of men. As the mentioned in Zec 11:5 as not sparing the flock are to be understood as signifying heathen rulers, so here the three shepherds are heathen liege-lords of the covenant nation. Moreover, as it is unanimously acknowledged by modern commentators that the definite number does not stand for an indefinite plurality, it is natural to think of the three imperial rulers into whose power Israel fell, that is to say, not of three rulers of one empire, but of the rulers of the three empires. The statement as to time, “in one month,” which does not affirm that the three were shepherds within one month, as Hitzig supposes, but that the three shepherds were destroyed in one month, may easily be reconciled with this, if we only observe that, in a symbolical transaction, even the distinctions of time are intended to be interpreted symbolically. There can be no doubt whatever that “a month” signifies a comparatively brief space of time. At the same time, it is equally impossible to deny that the assumption that “in a month” is but another way of saying in a very short time, is not satisfactory, inasmuch as it would have been better to say “in a week,” if this had been the meaning; and, on the other hand, a year would not have been a long time for the extermination of three shepherds. Nor can Hofmann’s view be sustained, – namely, that the one month (= 30 days) is to be interpreted on the basis of Dan 9:24, as a prophetical period of 30 x 7 = 120 years, and that this definition of the time refers to the fact that the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and Macedonian empires were destroyed within a period of 210 years. For there is no tenable ground for calculating the days of a month according to sabbatical periods, since there is no connection between the yerach of this verse and the of Daniel, to say nothing of the fact that the time which intervened between the conquest of Babylon and the death of Alexander the Great was not 210 years, but 215. The only way in which the expression “in one month” can be interpreted symbolically is that proposed by Kliefoth and Koehler, – namely, by dividing the month as a period of thirty days into three times ten days according to the number of the shepherds, and taking each ten days as the time employed in the destruction of a shepherd. Ten is the number of the completion or the perfection of any earthly act or occurrence. If, therefore, each shepherd was destroyed in ten days, and the destruction of the three was executed in a month, i.e., within a space of three times ten days following one another, the fact is indicated, on the one hand, that the destruction of each of these shepherds followed directly upon that of the other; and, on the other hand, that this took place after the full time allotted for his rule had passed away. The reason why the prophet does not say three times ten days, nor even thirty days, but connects the thirty days together into a month, is that he wishes not only to indicate that the time allotted for the duration of the three imperial monarchies is a brief one, but also to exhibit the unwearied activity of the shepherd, which is done more clearly by the expression “one month” than by “thirty days.”
The description of the shepherd’s activity is followed, from Zec 11:8 onwards, by a description of the attitude which the flock assumed in relation to the service performed on its behalf. Zec 11:8. “And my soul became impatient over them, and their soul also became weary of me. Zec 11:9. Then I said, I will not feed you any more; what dieth may die, and what perisheth may perish; and those which remain may devour one another’s flesh. Zec 11:10. And I took my staff Favour, and broke it in pieces, to destroy my covenant which I had made with all nations. Zec 11:11. And it was destroyed in that day; and so the wretched of the sheep, which gave heed to me, perceived that it was the word of Jehovah.” The way in which Zec 11:8 and Zec 11:8 are connected in the Masoretic text, has led the earlier commentators, and even Hengstenberg, Ebrard, and Kliefoth, to take the statement in Zec 11:8 as also referring to the shepherds. But this is grammatically impossible, because the imperfect c. Vav. sonec. in this connection, in which the same verbal forms both before and after express the sequence both of time and thought, cannot be used in the sense of the pluperfect. And this is the sense in which it must be taken, if the words referred to the shepherds, because the prophet’s becoming impatient with the shepherds, and the shepherds’ dislike to the prophet, must of necessity have preceded the destruction of the shepherds. Again, it is evident from Zec 11:9, as even Hitzig admits, that the prophet “did not become disgusted with the three shepherds, but with his flock, which he resolved in his displeasure to leave to its fate.” As the suffix in Zec 11:9 is taken by all the commentators (except Kliefoth) as referring to the flock, the suffixes and in Zec 11:8 must also point back to the flock ( , Zec 11:7). , to become impatient, as in Num 21:4. , which only occurs again in Pro 20:21 in the sense of the Arabic bchl , to be covetous, is used here in the sense of the Syriac, to experience vexation or disgust. In consequence of the experience which the shepherd of the Lord had had, according to Zec 11:8, he resolves to give up the feeding of the flock, and relinquish it to its fate, which is described in Zec 11:9 as that of perishing and destroying one another. The participles , , and are present participles, that which dies is destroyed (perishes) and remains; and the imperfects , , and are not jussive, as the form clearly proves, but are expressive of that which can be or may happen (Ewald, 136, d, b).
As a sign of this, the shepherd breaks one staff in pieces, viz., the noam , to intimate that the good which the flock has hitherto received through this staff will be henceforth withdrawn from it; that is to say, that the covenant which God has made with all nations is to be repealed or destroyed. This covenant is not the covenant made with Noah as the progenitor of all men after the flood (Kliefoth), nor a relation entered into by Jehovah with all the nationalities under which each nationality prospered, inasmuch as the shepherd continued again and again to remove its flock-destroying shepherds out of the way (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, ii. 2, p. 607). For in the covenant with Noah, although the continuance of this earth was promised, and the assurance given that there should be no repetition of a flood to destroy all living things, there was no guarantee of protection from death or destruction, or from civil wars; and history has no record of any covenant made by Jehovah with the nationalities, which secured to the nations prosperity on the one hand, or deliverance from oppressors on the other. The covenant made by God with all nations refers, according to the context of this passage, to a treaty made with them by God in favour of His flock the nation of Israel, and is analogous to the treaty made by God with the beasts, according to Hos 2:20, that they should not injure His people, and the treaty made with the stones and the beasts of the field (Job 5:23, cf. Eze 34:25). This covenant consisted in the fact that God imposed upon the nations of the earth the obligation not to hurt Israel or destroy it, and was one consequence of the favour of Jehovah towards His people. Through the abrogation of this covenant Israel is delivered up to the nations, that they may be able to deal with Israel again in the manner depicted in Zec 11:5. It is true that Israel is not thereby delivered up at once or immediately to that self-immolation which is threatened in Zec 11:9, nor is this threat carried into effect through the breaking in pieces of one staff, but is only to be fully realized when the second staff is broken, whereby the shepherd entirely relinquishes the feeding of the flock. So long as the shepherd continues to feed the flock with the other staff, so long will utter destruction be averted from it, although by the breaking of the staff Favour, protection against the nations of the world is withdrawn from it. Zec 11:11. From the abrogation of this covenant the wretched among the sheep perceived that this was Jehovah’s word. , so, i.e., in consequence of this. The wretched sheep are characterized as , “those which give heed to me.” refers to the prophet, who acts in the name of God, and therefore really to the act of God Himself, What is affirmed does not apply to one portion, but to all, , and proves that we are to understand by these the members of the covenant nation who give heed to the word of God. What these godly men recognised as the word of Jehovah, is evident from the context, viz., not merely the threat expressed in Zec 11:9, and embodied in the breaking of the staff Favour, but generally speaking the whole of the prophet’s symbolical actions, including both the feeding of the flock with the staves, and the breaking of the one staff. The two together were an embodied word of Jehovah; and the fact that it was so was discerned, i.e., discovered by the righteous, from the effect produced upon Israel by the breaking of the staff Favour, i.e., from the consequences of the removal of the obligation imposed upon the heathen nations to do no hurt to Israel.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Wrath Because Of Rejection Of Jesus
Verses 7-14:
Verse 7 states that the Messiah Himself would feed the flock, Mal 3:16-18; Zep 3:12, the small remnant that received and followed Him, and became His church, Joh 1:11-12; Joh 15:17; Joh 15:26. Others rejected Him, and refused to be fed, by their own choice, not by any act of Divine pre-fixation, Mat 23:37; Psa 40:8.
He took Him two staves, shepherd’s slaves or rods: 1) called beauty, and 2) called Bands, Psa 23:4. These symbolized the Shepherd-pastor’s office of guidance and care over His flock, the church, more than ordinary care, Eph 5:25; Mat 16:18; Mat 28:18-20; Joh 14:1-3. One staff was “Beauty,” meaning Grace or pleasantness, meaning God’s free favor, Deu 4:7; Psa 29:2; Psa 27:4; Psalms 90; Psalms 17. The other staff He called “Bands”, meaning bonds of brotherhood, Psa 119:61; Neh 10:29; Eph 4:1-5. Judah and Israel would be united no more until He comes again.
Verse 8 states that three shepherds were cut off by the Lord in one month, a very short time, and His soul loathed them, as they had loathed Him, Exo 23:23. These three shepherds seem to refer to: 1) Prophets, 2) Priests, and 3) Kings, or their three care-taker positions He had ordained for the Jewish people, Jer 2:8; Jer 2:18; But when they would not that He should reign over them, their kingdom was taken away, in all forms of Divine function from among men, Hos 5:7. The Lord loathed, was nauseated by them, as a nation, only after they willfully and obstinately rejected Him, instead of being enlarged toward them in love, 2Co 6:11-12.
Verse 9 certifies that the Lord gave them up to reap the putrid fruit of their own sowing, Gal 6:7-8; Joh 8:24; He announced that He would no longer feed them in their own land, but let them die and eat the flesh of one another, dying through bitter discord, one toward another. See also Jer 15:1-3; Jer 34:17; Jer 43:11; Eze 6:12.
Verse 10 described the Lord’s taking His staff “Beauty” and breaking it, cutting it off, leaning on, trusting it, or using it no more, in order that He might break His covenant that he had made with all the people; Though it was to hold good to the ones who received Him and followed Him, becoming His little flock, the church, Hos 2:18. He cut them asunder, so that for 1,900 years they have not been feared by the nations, or objects of any special blessings from Him, as a nation, race, or people, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in, Rom 11:5; Rom 11:25.
Verse 11 certifies that it, (the staff or covenant) on which He leaned, was broken in that day (period of time) of His national rejection by His own people. Thus it is declared that the “poor of the flock”, that waited upon Him knew; Jer 32:8. They recognized, or comprehended that He was the Lord, and followed and obeyed Him, as a remnant, who became His church, His bride, His house, His flock, His order of worship and service, 1Ti 3:15; Mar 13:34-35; Heb 3:1-6; Luk 12:32; Acts 20; Acts 28; Joh 3:28-29; Eph 5:25; Eph 3:21. These He called from among the Gentiles in Galilee, as a people for His name’s sake, Act 10:37; Act 15:13-15; Joh 15:17; Joh 15:26-27.
Verse 12 recounts our Lord’s challenging Israel to give Him His due servant-shepherd wages, of obedience and following, if they deemed Him the faithful one who had led and preserved them from Abraham until that day. The servant deserves his wages, Mat 10:10. He only desired their acceptance of Him, “without money and price,” Isa 55:1-3; Mat 11:28; Mat 11:30; Mat 23:37. But they rejected Him, and sold Him instead, as afore-prophesied, for 30 pieces of silver, the price of a lowly, gored, bloody, slave, Mat 26:15; Mat 27:9-10; Exo 21:32. A freeman was rated at twice that price.
Verse 13 repeats the words of God to Zechariah to cast it unto the potter, or cause it, the 30 pieces of silver, a noble price, ironical, to be cast to the potter, who plied his business in the valley of Hinnom, the polluted valley, 2Ki 23:10; Matthew 27; Matthew 9; Zec 13:7. They, the thirty pieces of silver, were thrown down in the temple, called the house of the Lord, Matthew 27; Matthew 6, 7, 10; Act 1:18; Act 2:23; Act 4:28. The silver went to buy or sustain a burial ground for the poor and for criminals.
Verse 14 declares that the Messiah then cut asunder, or broke his other staff, called “Bands, as He had broken the staff called “Beauty,” v. 10, the covenant He had broken with all nations. This staff “Bands”, refers to the brotherhood covenant of union between Judah the southern kingdom, and Israel, the northern kingdom, that God causes to be broken under Rehoboam. It also pointed to their continued breach of tribes, as they are both scattered around the world and regathering in Palestine, even today; It is a broken union that will continue until they repent and receive Jesus as the Messiah, who will reunite them at His second advent, Rom 11:15.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
He resumes here the thread of the discourse, which he had shortly before broken off; for he sets forth what had not yet been sufficiently expressed — that the ingratitude of the people, with which obstinacy was especially united, deserved entire ruin, and that now there was no hope of pardon; for the paternal care of God had been most basely and most shamefully repudiated, as well as the kind favor which he had manifested to the people.
God then complains that he fed the flock. Some apply this to Zechariah; but, as I have said, God relates the acts of kindness which he had uniformly showed to the people, until they became wholly unworthy of his favor. Let us however remember that the Prophet speaks of the remnant; for he does not here recount the benefits of God in ancient times, but describes the state of the people after their return from their exile in Babylon. God seemed before to have committed this office to Zechariah — to feed them; but as I have already said, the design of that was no other than to make it evident that the whole fault was in the people; for they had thrust from them the kindness of God, and in a manner carried on war frowardly with God, so as to prevent any access for his favor. There is therefore here an expostulation in God’s name.
I have fed, he says, the flock of slaughter, even the poor of the flock. Some render לכן, on account of; but it may be taken in an explanatory sense: or we may give this rendering — “therefore the poor,” or, especially the poor. With regard to the meaning, God here intimates that he had manifested his care for the whole people, for he had hoped that there were a few sheep yet remaining worthy of having mercy shown to them. As then some poor sheep might have been found among the impure flock, God says, that having this hope, he did not deem it grievous or burdensome to undertake the office of a shepherd in ruling the people. I have then fed the flock of slaughter, even for this reason, he says, because there were some miserable sheep among them: I was therefore unwilling to forsake them, and preferred to try all means rather than to cast away even one little sheep, provided a single one were found in the whole flock. (136)
He says that he took two rods, that he called one נעם, nom, “Beauty,” and that he called the other חבלים, chebelim, “Cords,” rendered “destroyers” by those who adhere to the Hebrew points; but as חבל, both in the singular and plural, has the meaning of a rope or cord, the Prophet, I have no doubt, means by חבלים, chebelim, ropes or bindings. Grammar, indeed, does not allow this; but Zechariah did not set down the points, for they were not then in use. I indeed know with how much care the old scribes contrived the points, when the language had already ceased to be in common use. They then who neglect, or wholly reject the points, are certainly void of all judgment and reason; but yet some discrimination ought to be exercised; (137) for if we read here “destroyers,” there is no meaning; if we read “cords,” there is no letter changed, but only two points are altered. As then the subject itself necessarily demands this meaning, I wonder that interpreters suffer themselves to be servilely constrained, so as not to regard the design of the Prophet.
The Prophet then says, that he had taken two rods, that he might devote himself in a manner not common to the office of a shepherd. Shepherds were satisfied with one crook; for by rods he means here the crook used by shepherds. As then every shepherd carried his own crook, the Prophet says here that he was furnished with two crooks, or pastoral staffs, because the Lord surpassed all men in his solicitude in the office of ruling his people. But the remainder I must defer until tomorrow.
(136) This sentence has puzzled many, but needlessly. [ לכז ] has sometimes the meaning of [ כז ], certainly, surely, in truth, Jer 5:2; and it may be rendered here “especially,” as Calvin does. The simple [ כז ] is used in a similar sense in verse 11, in connection with the same words in part, as here: them, to consider them as “the poor of the flock,” and not “the miserable sheep,” as rendered by Henderson. The rendering of Newcome gives the same meaning—”because of the poor of the flock.” He considers that [ לכז ] here signifies the same with [ למעז ], which is given in one MS., and agrees with the Syriac. — Ed.
(137) Grotius speaks in a similar strain of the Punctuists, and agrees with Jerome and others in regarding the word of a similar import with that stated by Calvin. The 14 verse is a sufficient confirmation. It is rendered “[ σχοινισμα ], bond,” by the Septuagint, Agg. and Sym. — “ funiculi, ropes or cords,” by the Vulgate. — “ devincientes, binders,” by Drusius and Marckius; and as in our version, “bands,” by Newcome and Henderson
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES.
Zec. 11:7. I] The prophet executed the task committed to him by shepherding a sad (poor) flock. Two staves] to set forth the kind of double salvation bestowed upon the nation through the care of the Good Shepherd [Keil]. Beauty] Loveliness or favour (Psa. 27:4; Psa. 90:17); which Jehovah will give them in protecting them from foes. Bands] Internal union and friendship. Easterns tied a cord or band as a symbol of confederacy (cf. Psa. 119:61, marg,).
Zec. 11:8.] First act of shepherd. Cut off] Lit. cause to disappear, destroy, or annihilate (Exo. 23:23). Three] orderscivil authorities, priests, and prophets (cf. Jer. 2:8; Jer. 2:18); others, three rulers of Asmonean linewho died by violent death in a short space of timeHircanus, Alexander, and Antigonus. Loathed] Was straitened for them: the Divine grief at the misery of his people [Pusey]. Abhorred] Nauseated me.
HOMILETICS
THE TWO STAVES; OR BEAUTY AND BANDS.Zec. 11:7
The two staves are differently explained, indicating, according to some, the double care of Christ for his flock. Henderson takes them as symbols of the two modes of treatment which the Jews had experienced under the guidance and protection of God. Beauty has been rendered grace or favour. Taken in its connection (Zec. 11:10), it means the covenant of God, with all its blessings and special favours. Bands signify unity or brotherhood, which binds men together (Zec. 11:14).
I. The staff Beauty. The one I called Beauty. This symbolizes
1. Gods gifts to men. The gifts of pastors, the wisdom of senators, and the power of princes come from God.
2. Gods presence with men. Purity of worship and principle in the nationholiness in character and usefulness in the Churchare beauties which attract and adorn. The image of God, the beauties of holiness, are most desirable. Let the beauty of the Lord our God be upon us.
3. Gods defence of men. Gods covenant was a pledge of defence to them as long as they kept it. Thus Gods favour is better than armies and fleets, wealth and valour, in the protection of a people. This alone beautifies and strengthens. For God is my defence, and the God of my mercy.
II. The staff Bands. The other I called Bands. Binders symbolize the unity or brotherhood among men.
1. This alone is the gift of God. In the gospel we have a basis of brotherhood, and motives to cement it. The bands of friendship and marriage, the contracts of business, and the treaties of nations may be broken. But in Christ we have a living, universal, and everlasting brotherhood of humanity.
2. How strong art men when thus bound together. Foes without cannot destroy unity within. Union gives strength and firmness to the humblest aids.
3. How weak are men when not thus bound together. Factions and civil discords in the nation, divisions in the Church, and discords in the family, will bring ruin. Nothing can beautify or defend a broken people. Mens hearts, says Carlyle, ought not to be set against one another, but set with one another, and all against the evil thing only. If you wish to retain strength and beauty, co-operate together, in obedience to the Great Shepherd, and under the rule of Beauty and Bands. Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.
THE SHEPHERD PROPHET.Zec. 11:7-8
I. The charge. The command was given, Feed the sheep (Zec. 11:4). Eagerly does the prophet undertake the duty, and become a type of Christ. Lo, I come to do thy will, O my God. But notice the condition of the flock.
1. A helpless flock. In the hands of cruel shepherds; bought and sold by strangers, oppressed by native rulers.
2. A miserable flock. Poor of the flock, lit. truly miserable sheep. Men may be poor without being miserable. But the Jewish people were reduced to a most unhappy condition. As in the days of Christ, they were harassed and worried (Mat. 9:36); lost sheep (Mat. 10:36). The poor are not despised, the lost are sought out, and the wounded are healed by the gospel. I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken, and will strengthen that which was sick.
II. The method of executing the charge. And I fed the flock (Zec. 11:7). He performed, like Christ, the work of a good shepherd to the Jewish nation.
1. He furnished himself with staves. I took unto me two staves. He did all he could to bind them together in unity and obedience, and direct them to the grace and favour of God.
2. He destroyed the oppressors of the flock. I cut off three shepherds. These, says a critic, were the persons of influence by whom the affairs of the nation were conducted, and to whose wickedness, which reached its culminating point when they crucified the Lord of glory the destruction of the state is to be ascribed.
3. He was grieved in soul at the condition of the flock. My soul loathed them. He witnessed the fearful wickedness of rulers and teachers, He was deeply pained, vexed from day to day with their unlawful deeds. This was the feeling of Christ, and will be the feeling of all true shepherds. Sad the wickedness which creates tears of the Saviour! If every human feeling is greater and larger than the exciting cause, as Coleridge says, what must be the loathing of him who sees the hearts of all men! He knew what was in man.
HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Zec. 11:7. I fed the flock. Christ the King of men. The poor in spirit are chosen to be rich in faith, and heirs of his kingdom. Jehovah in Christ did the work of a Good Shepherd to the Jewish nation during the whole of his earthly ministry (cf. Joh. 10:11-14; Joh. 14:6; Heb. 13:20; 1Pe. 2:25) [Wordsworth].
Zec. 11:8. My soul loathed them.
1. Divine compassion. Loathed, lit was straitened, the opposite of enlarged towards them, in love and tender compassion (2Co. 6:11-12). His soul was grieved (shortened) for the misery of Israel (Jdg. 10:16).
2. Human abhorrence. Their soul also abhorred me. My soul did not loathe them first, but their soul first despised me, therefore my soul abhorred them. The soul which drives away Gods good Spirit comes at last to loathe him and the thought and mention of him [Pusey]. No room was left by them for the grace of God, and his favours were rejected [Calvin]. Learn that unbelief creates a mutual distaste between God and the sinner. Their soul nauseated me is the real meaningthat alienation from God will lead to Gods withdrawal from men. I will not feed them (Zec. 11:9).
3. The impenitent flock and the grieved Shepherd. God is infinitely happy and incapable of grief, yet acts as if he felt the sins and miseries of men. The Good Shepherd lost patience with their perverse impenitence, and they, on the other hand, loathed him for his spirituality and holiness [Lange]. Christ cannot be rejected with impunity. Even the Jews, who did it ignorantly in unbelief, paid a terrible penalty for their crime; how much more terrible will be the punishment of those who have all their unbelief without any of their ignorance [Id.].
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 11
Zec. 11:7 (10 and 14). The prophetic narrative which follows differs in its form, in some respects, from the symbolic actions of the prophets, and from Zechariahs own visions. The symbolic actions of the prophets are actions of their own: this involves acts which it would be impossible to represent, except as a sort of drama. Such are the central points, the feeding of the flock, which yet are intelligent men who understand Gods doings: the cutting off of the three shepherds; the asking for the price; the unworthy price offered; the casting it aside. It differs from Zechariahs own visions, in that they are for the most part exhibited to the eye, and Zechariahs own part is simply to inquire their meaning and learn it, and receive further information. Here he himself is the actor, yet representing Another, who alone could cut off shepherds, abandon the people to mutual destruction, annulling the covenant which he had made [Pusey].
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(7) Will feed.Correctly, fed. The prophet, acting as Gods representative, performs a symbolical action, figuring thereby Gods treatment of His people.
Beauty.Or, rather, favour.
Bands.Or, as in margin, binders. The first staff denotes the return of Gods favour to His people; the second (comp. Eze. 37:16-22) the binding together of Judah and Ephraim in brotherhood, which latter took place, for the first time since the separation, on the return from Babylon. When He took His flock into favour once more, He made with them a covenant of peace . . . so that they should no more be a prey to the heathen. (See Eze. 34:25-28.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
The people’s lack of appreciation, Zec 11:7-8.
The newly appointed shepherd enters upon his tasks with great expectation, but, alas! he is sorely disappointed.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
7. Even you, O poor of the flock R.V., “verily the poor of the flock”; margin, “the most miserable of sheep.” The word translated even you or verily means ordinarily therefore, which gives no sense here. LXX. combines it with the next word into one and reads, “for the Canaanites of the flock”=for the traffickers of the flock (see on Hos 12:7), which would be a reference to the buyers and sellers of Zec 11:5. The divinely appointed shepherd enters upon his tasks with the determination to displace these buyers and sellers who have cruelly abused the flock. LXX.
is probably to be preferred. The means with which the shepherd intended to accomplish his ends are indicated by the two staves which are selected.
Beauty Margin R.V., “Graciousness.” The staff symbolizes the return of the divine favor to the people. The shepherd meant to emphasize constantly the truth that, in spite of the present suffering, Jehovah is gracious to his people and is ready to shower upon them his blessing, if they will let him.
Bands Or, union. Zec 11:14 places it beyond doubt that the prophet is thinking of the reunion between the north and south. The promise of such reunion would be an earnest of strength and victory.
Evidently he considers the two staves sufficient to put new life and courage into the ill-treated flock.
I fed See on Zec 11:4, and reference there.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Zechariah Battles Against The Odds And Finally Resigns ( Zec 11:7-11 ).
Zec 11:7
‘So I fed the flock doomed to be slain for the traffickers of the sheep (or ‘truly the lowly of the flock’). And I took to me two staves, the one I called Beauty (or Favour’) and the other I called Bands (or ‘Union’), and I fed the flock.’
In obedience to God Zechariah acts as shepherd to those who are doomed to die as a result of the failure of their leaders and teachers, seeking to feed and deliver them. He takes as his implements God’s covenant with His people, the covenant that offers God’s grace and favour (beauty) and also offers to unite the people (bands). But those who watch over them, to whom the people are listening, are behaving merely as traffickers or traders in sheep. Their concern is for their own welfare rather than that of the sheep. And the sheep are being condemned to die for their gain. It is Zechariah alone who is concerned for their true needs.
The translation ‘traffickers’ arises from the fact that the Hebrew consonants for cen ‘aneyy (‘thus the lowly’) if combined as one word would give cen‘aneyy (Cananeans or ‘Canaanites’ i.e. merchants – see Job 41:6; Isa 23:8; Eze 17:4; Zep 1:11 for a similar use of the root form). The original Hebrew text had no word divisions so that either reading is possible, and the latter certainly fits better with the previous verse. Compare also the use of the same root consonants to mean ‘Cananeans’ or ‘Canaanites’ in Zec 14:21.
History is full of the activities of ‘traffickers of the sheep’. Whether it has been for money, or for political power, or for position and standing, many so-called leaders of the people of God have failed them and treated them as merchandise. Yet the people choose to follow them to their own disadvantage, often ignoring the true voice that speaks out in God’s name, delaying yet again the final fulfilment of God’s purposes.
Alternately we may read ‘even the poor (or lowly) of the flock’. The word for lowly would then be the same as that used of the coming King in Zec 9:9. This would then refer to those few who were listening to Zechariah.
To assist him in his task he takes two staves, one called Beauty the other Bands. These staves clearly represent God’s covenant with His people (Zec 11:10). This is on offer to the people if only they will respond.
‘Beauty.’ See Psa 27:4; Psa 90:17 where the beauty of YHWH reflects His graciousness and favour, especially as revealed in His covenant with His people. So Zechariah’s first implement of support and protection as the seal to the covenant is the grace and favour of God.
‘Bands’ or ‘unity’. His second staff is that which binds in unity making God’s people one within the covenant (see Zec 11:14). Unity and love for one another is ever the requirement of God as a response to His grace and favour.
‘And I fed the flock.’ Repeated twice. The repetition, connected with the fact that there are two staves, stresses the importance of what he did. Two is the number of true witness. Other shepherds have failed but Zechariah feeds with truth the lowly ones who respond to his words and give heed to him (Zec 11:11).
Zec 11:8-9
‘And I cut off the three shepherds in one month, for my soul was weary of them, and their soul also loathed me. Then I said, “I will not feed you. What dies, let it die. What is to be cut off, let it be cut off. And let those who are left every one eat the flesh of another.’
Those who refuse to respond to his words come under the condemnation of God. The act of cutting off most probably refers to some overt act by which Zechariah displays his rejection of them in an attempt to win over the people. Or it may refer to some form of disrobing of official prophets and teachers which would then suggest Zechariah was at the time in a position of some authority. There was clearly strong disagreement between Zechariah and them for Zechariah was tired of their teaching and they loathed him and what he proclaimed.
‘The three shepherds.’ The number three is often used to express completeness. Thus the idea of ‘three’ may be intended to indicate the whole body of prophets and teachers. Alternately three often means ‘many’. Compare for example 1Ki 17:12 where ‘two sticks’ meant ‘a few sticks’. In the same way ‘three sticks’ would have meant ‘many sticks’. This may therefore mean the ‘many shepherds’. This would tie in with the phrases which follow it. However, three particular prophets or teachers may also have been in mind representing the whole.
To most people numbers were rarely in use mathematically so that the numbers from one to ten and especially ‘two’ and ‘three’ were often used adjectivally to signify ideas rather than quantity.
‘I will not feed you.’ Zechariah refuses to act as shepherd. This may mean to the shepherds, or it may mean to the people because they have listened to the false shepherds and rejected him. It is not because he is unwilling to guide them aright but because they have refused his ministration.
‘What dies, let it die. What is cut off, let it be cut off.’ They must be left to their own devices and learn their lesson the hard way. What is to die must be left to die, what is cut off must be left to be cut off. What they sow they will reap. They will have no one to blame but themselves.
‘Eat the flesh of one another.’ To ‘eat the flesh’ meant to kill (Psa 14:4; Psa 27:2; Psa 53:4; Eze 39:18; Mic 3:3). Thus through the false teaching they are destroying each other.
Zec 11:10-11
‘And I took my staff Beauty and cut it in two, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the peoples. And it was broken in that day, and thus the lowly of the flock (or ‘the traffickers of the sheep’) who took notice of me knew that it was the word of Yahweh.’
Zechariah now recognises that he has lost the struggle. The majority of the people cling to the false shepherds and refuse to listen to him. So he breaks the staves one after the other. Firstly he breaks Beauty. This signifies that God will cease to be a shepherd to His people as a whole and that the grace of God towards His people will cease because they have refused His word through Zechariah. In the breaking of this staff the covenant of God’s grace and favour which had been renewed is now again broken and no longer holds.
‘My covenant which I had made.’ In other words the covenant He had brought from God as His prophet.
‘Thus the lowly of the flock who took notice of me’. This translation fits better here. Indeed there is probably a deliberate play on the fact that cen ‘aneyy can mean ‘thus the lowly’ here and ‘Cananean’ or ‘trafficker’ in Zec 11:7. The Cananeans are unlikely to have rightly interpreted his actions, but his true followers surely would. They alone, the remnant, would still benefit from the promises of God. So there are those who still listen to him and to them the covenant still stands firm.
Alternately it could suggest that through his actions those who use the sheep as simply means of trade know that YHWH has indeed spoken through him, but if so it is probably his hope and intention rather than the reality.
It was a sad day for Zechariah when, having raised such hopes in people’s hearts, he had to declare that because they have listened to and responded to false teachers the promises no longer apply to them and he can no longer be their shepherd. He must have felt that he had failed miserably, not realising what a blessing he would be to future generations.
‘All the peoples.’ The plural is probably intended to indicate that the people of Jerusalem, Judah and Israel are all included. The second staff represented unity and its breaking indicated that Judah and Israel were still divided, were still two peoples.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Zec 11:7. And I will feed, &c. In Eze 37:16-17 the prophet writes the names of the tribes upon two sticks, which, joined together, aptly express the union of all the tribes. But here the prophet takes the shepherd’s crook, or staff, to shew the office and power of the Messiah; the Logos, or Word; for, to feed is to govern. In one hand he holds the staff, which he calls Beauty, to express the delight which the Lord has in governing his people, while they do what is pleasing in his sight, and strictly observe their part of the covenant subsisting between him and them. The other staff is properly called Binders, to express the union of Israel and Judah. See Dr. Sharpe as above. Bishop Chandler observes, that the prophets frequently employ metaphorical words, with intent, not to signify the thing which is obvious in the first sense of the words, but what is to be collected from another etymology or derivation thereof. Sometimes a double reference to different persons is included in the same word; again, the letters of a word are transposed to form a word that has no affinity in etymology or sense with the former. Thus our prophet calls one of his shepherd’s staves noam, or delight, so signify the pleasure which God had in his people, and the delight which the people took in God’s worship. He calls his other staff chobelim, bands, in token that the people were become chobelim, corrupters of God’s law,and their souls did mutually bachalah, abhor each other. See his Defence, p. 226.
Two staves A staff, or crook, is the proper ensign of a shepherd. The shepherds of old time had two rods or staves: one turned round at the top, that it might not hurt the sheep; this was for counting them, and separating the sound from the diseased (see Lev 27:32.); the other had an iron hook at the end of it, to pull in the stray sheep, and hold them fast while the shepherd corrected them. The Psalmist mentions both there, Psa 23:4. Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. See Lowth.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Zec 11:7 And I will feed the flock of slaughter, [even] you, O poor of the flock. And I took unto me two staves; the one I called Beauty, and the other I called Bands; and I fed the flock.
Ver. 7. And will I feed the flock of slaughter, even you, O poor of the flock ] Or, as Montanus readeth it, for you, for your sakes, O poor of the flock, i.e. O ye that are poor in spirit, pure in heart, my little flock, as our Saviour’s expression is in Luke. Even for your sakes will I yet for a time spare the reprobate goats, feeding them by my prophets, and provoking them to repentance. The word and sacraments, and all God’s common temporal favours, are, in respect of external participation, communicated to reprobates by way of concomitancy only; because they are intermixed with the elect. Thus tares, mingled among wheat, partake of the fat of the land and moisture of the manure, which was not intended for them.
And I took unto me two staves
The one I called Beauty, and the other I called Bands
And I fed the flock
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Zec 11:7-14
7So I pastured the flock doomed to slaughter, hence the afflicted of the flock. And I took for myself two staffs: the one I called Favor and the other I called Union; so I pastured the flock. 8Then I annihilated the three shepherds in one month, for my soul was impatient with them, and their soul also was weary of me. 9Then I said, I will not pasture you. What is to die, let it die, and what is to be annihilated, let it be annihilated; and let those who are left eat one another’s flesh. 10I took my staff Favor and cut it in pieces, to break my covenant which I had made with all the peoples. 11So it was broken on that day, and thus the afflicted of the flock who were watching me realized that it was the word of the LORD. 12I said to them, If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind! So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. 13Then the LORD said to me, Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them. So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the LORD. 14Then I cut in pieces my second staff Union, to break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.
Zec 11:7 I The I of Zec 11:6 (as Zec 11:16) referred to YHWH, so too, Zec 11:7-14. It is possible that Zechariah speaks and acts for YHWH or that the Messiah speaks and acts for YHWH. The NIV footnote says, Zechariah, as a type (foreshadowing) of the Messianic Shepherd-King (p. 1418). This is the fluidity in apocalyptic prophecy, which makes it so difficult to be specific.
NASBthe afflicted of the flock
NKJVin particular the poor of the flock
NRSVso on behalf of the sheep merchants
TEVthose who bought and sold sheep hired me
NJBbelonging to the sheep-dealers
The ADJECTIVE (BDB 776) can mean afflicted, poor, or humble. It is often used of the faithful being persecuted by wicked Jews or pagan nations (cf. Isa 14:32; Isa 51:21; Isa 54:11; Hab 3:14; Zep 3:12-13).
It is obvious, however, that the NRSV, TEV, and NJB are following the Septuagint’s understanding of combining the terms (BDB 485 and 776) into one Hebrew word merchants (i.e., Canaanite, BDB 488 I, cf. Zec 14:21).
And I took for my two staffs. . .Favor. . .Union From Psa 23:4 we learn that shepherds usually carry one large, crooked-necked staff to control the sheep, and one war club in their belt to fight off predators. Here, the shepherd obviously carried two large, crooked-necked staffs (BDB 596). One is called pleasantness (BDB 653), while the other one is called union or binding cords (BDB 287). These staffs stand for God’s attempt to reunite Israel and Judah (cf. Zec 11:14; Zec 9:13; Zec 10:6).
Zec 11:8 I annihilated the three shepherds in one month The term annihilate (BDB 470, KB 469, Hiphil IMPERFECT) means to totally destroy (cf. Exo 23:23; 1Ki 13:34; 2Ch 32:21; Psa 83:4). The Niphal is used in Zec 11:9; Zec 11:16 with the same meaning. The UBS, Handbook, says it can mean deposed or dismissed, as well as disposed of (p. 291).
There are over forty current theories as to the historical application of this verse, none of which literally occur in one month. The commentator’s presupposition is often superimposed on this chapter to find an allusion to history. See the Contextual Insights at the beginning of this chapter for the current theories. Interpreters must remember this is apocalyptic language, not historical narrative. See D. Brent Sandy, Plowshares and Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic.
for my soul was impatient with them, and their soul was weary of me There are several theories about the PRONOUN’s antecedents. This shows the attitude of the godly shepherd (i.e., impatient BDB 894, KB 1126, Qal IMPERFECT, cf. Num 21:4; Jdgs. 10:26; Job 21:4) because of the rebellious attitude of the people (i.e., the sheep of Zec 11:9; weary BDB 103, KB 119, Qal PERFECT may mean (1) nauseated, loathed (but there are no cognates); (2) this shows the godly shepherd’s attitude toward the three shepherds (NRSV); or (3) this shows the godly shepherd’s attitude toward the sheep merchants (cf. Zec 11:7; Zec 11:11). For soul (nephesh) see note at Gen 35:18 online.
Zec 11:9 I will not pasture you Most English translations see the you as referring to the sheep. However, the UBS, Handbook, points out that the PRONOUN is MASCULINE, not FEMININE (pp. 292-293). It can mean pasture for you, which would make it refer to the sheep merchants of Zec 11:7; Zec 11:11.
What is to die, let it die The first VERB (BDB 559, KB 562) is Qal ACTIVE PARTICIPLE, FEMININE, SINGULAR and obviously refers to the sheep. The second is a Qal IMPERFECT used in a JUSSIVE sense. The sheep are going to die. Their sins have found them out (similar to Rom 1:24; Rom 1:26; Rom 1:28).
eat one another’s flesh This is another Qal IMPERFECT used in a JUSSIVE sense. It does not reflect God’s view on cannibalism, but it develops the metaphor from Zec 11:4-5. This is part of the sheep and slay terminology.
Zec 11:10 my staff. . .Favor. . .to break my covenant which I had made with all the peoples The symbolic destruction of the staff Favor shows God’s attitude toward: (1) the Jewish people (Qal IMPERFECT); (2) the Jews of the Diaspora; or (3) that His attitude toward Gentile nations had changed! The VERB break (BDB 154, KB 180) has a violent connotation (cf. Isa 10:33) of something being cut off or sawed off. It is used in the Piel for the destruction of Canaanite fertility objects (cf. Deu 7:5; Deu 12:3; 2Ch 14:3; 2Ch 31:1; 2Ch 34:4; 2Ch 34:7).
The very concept of YHWH breaking His eternal covenant (cf. Isa 24:5) with the descendants of Abraham was shocking, but notice Jer 14:21 and Eze 16:59.
The phrase all the people (CONSTRUCT BDB 481 plus 766 I) seems to imply the universal element (cf. Zec 8:20-23; Zec 9:7).
Zec 11:11 So it was broken on that day The real interpretive question is does this refer to (1) the past acts of YHWH; (2) the future acts of the Messiah; or (3) a typology of God’s leaders?
This refers to the staff Favor, but it also refers to the breaking (BDB 830 I, KB 974, Hophal IMPERFECT) of God’s covenant, either with the surrounding nations or with the Jewish people. This is shocking! The faithful God knowingly turns from His promises and covenant (cf. Jdg 2:1) because of the people’s continued unfaithfulness (cf. Jer 14:19-22). The Mosaic covenant was conditional (cf. Lev 26:40-45)!
the afflicted of the flock who were watching me realized it was the word of the LORD The afflicted of the flock refers to the sheep merchants (cf. NRSV, TEV, NJB). See full note at Zec 11:7. The good shepherd’s actions were recognized as being directed by YHWH. God was actively involved in this process of judging:
1. the sheep
2. the three shepherds
3. the sheep merchants
Zec 11:12 give me my wages This refers to the prophet asking (BDB 396, KB 393, Qal IMPERATIVE) for payment for his services (i.e., wages, BDB 969 I) from the owners of the flock. This verse is used in Mat 26:15 to refer to Judas Iscariot’s betrayal of Jesus to the High Priests.
weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages The term shekels is in italics, which means that it is not in the original text. In the Mosaic legislation this was the price of a gored slave (cf. Exo 21:32). This is used of typological prophecy of Judas in Mat 26:15; Mat 27:9-10.
Zec 11:13 the LORD said to me, ‘Throw it to the potter’ The VERB throw (BDB 1020, KB 1527) is a Hiphil IMPERATIVE. There have been several textual emendations to explain potter (BDB 428): (1) the Septuagint has the term furnace smelter (cf. 2Ki 12:10; 2Ki 22:9); (2) the Peshitta has the term treasury; (3) the Vulgate has the term sculptor; and (4) the Masoretic text has the term potter (i.e., shaper). Some believe that it refers to Levites who made the vessels used by the priests, and therefore, a potter’s shop was located in the temple. Others say that it is a Hebrew idiom for that which is worthless and needs to be remade.
that magnificent price at which I was valued by them This refers either to irony at their lack of understanding of the value of the Messiah or it is an allusion for the high price (CONSTRUCT BDB 12 and 429, KB 431) to be paid for human life, even that of a slave (cf. Exo 21:32; Lev 27:2-3). It is uncertain which of these opposing views was in Zechariah’s mind, but the first fits the context best.
threw them to the potter in the house of the LORD In the NT it refers to Judas throwing his ill-gotten treason money back into the priests’ possession (cf. Mat 27:3-5). They saw it as blood money and could not accept it back into the temple’s treasury, so they bought a worn out potter’s field in which to bury strangers in (cf. Mat 27:6-10).
Zec 11:14 I cut in pieces my second staff, Union, in pieces, to break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel In chapters nine and ten there is an emphasis on the restoration of the people of God, but here, old scars are reopened and the union disappears! The footnote in the JB suggests this might refer to the Samaritan schism in 328 B.C. in which they built a rival temple on Mt. Gerizin (p. 1541).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
And I will feed = So I [Zechariah] tended.
even you, O poor of the flock. Reading the two words (in Hebrew) as one word (with the Septuagint) it should be “for the sheep-traffickers”, as in Zec 14:21 (“Caaanite”).
I took. Compare verses: Zec 11:7, Zec 11:10, Zec 11:13, Zec 11:15 with Zec 6:10, Zec 6:11.
staves. Which shepherds use; the crook or staff, and the club. See note on Psa 23:4,
Beauty = Graciousness,
Bands = Union.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
two staves
The scene belongs to the first advent. Beauty and Bands–literally “graciousness and union”; the first signifying God’s attitude toward His people Israel, in sending His Son Mat 21:37 the second, His purpose to reunite Judah and Ephraim Eze 37:15-22. Christ, at His first advent, came with grace Joh 1:17 to offer union Mat 4:17 and was sold for thirty pieces of silver Zec 11:12; Zec 11:13. “Beauty” (i.e. graciousness) was “cut in sunder” (Zec 8:10; Zec 8:11), signifying that Judah was abandoned to the destruction foretold in Zec 11:1-6 and fulfilled A.D. 70. After the betrayal of the Lord for thirty pieces of silver (Zec 11:12; Zec 11:13) “Bands” (i.e. union) was broken (Zec 11:14), signifying the abandonment, for the time, of the purpose to reunite Judah and Israel. The order of Zechariah 11. is,
(1) the wrath against the land (Zec 11:1-6), fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem after the rejection of Christ Luk 19:41-44.
(2) the cause of that wrath in the sale and rejection of Christ vs. (Zec 11:7-14);
(3) the rise of the “idol shepherd,” the Beast Dan 7:8; Rev 19:20 and his destruction (Zec 11:15-17).
the one
The O.T. Parables: Summary. A parable is a similitude used to teach or enforce a truth. The O.T. parables fall into three classes:
(1) The story-parable, of which Jdg 9:7-15 is an instance;
(2) parabolic discourses; e.g. Isa 5:1-7
(3) parabolic actions; e.g. Eze 37:16-22
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
I will: Zec 11:4, Zec 11:11, Zec 13:8, Zec 13:9
even you, O poor: or, verily the poor, Isa 11:4, Isa 61:1, Jer 5:4, Jer 5:5, Zep 3:12, Mat 11:5, Mar 12:37, Jam 2:5
staves: Zec 11:10, Zec 11:14, Lev 27:32, 1Sa 17:40, 1Sa 17:43, Psa 23:4
one: Psa 133:1-3, Eze 37:16-23, Joh 17:21-23
Bands: or, Binders, Joh 10:16, Eph 2:13-16
Reciprocal: 2Sa 1:19 – beauty Psa 72:4 – He shall judge Isa 14:32 – and the Eze 34:22 – will I Zec 13:7 – my shepherd Luk 12:51 – General Luk 14:21 – Go Act 4:27 – the people Rom 15:26 – the poor
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Zec 11:7. God decided to take over the feeding of the flock that had been so neglected by the shepherds. And in order to make the proper progress it was necessary to make a change in the whole system of the feeding by disposing of the unfaithful feeders, or at least by taking charge of their work and directing it according to the new program {the system under Christ). The things the Lord was going to dispose of are termed Beauty and Bands. The first means “agreeableness and the second is defined “a district or inheritance. The first stands for the Sinaite covenant as a document or constitution as a basis for some form of government. The second stands for the religious nationalism that resulted from the aforesaid constitution.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Zec 11:7. And Or rather, but, I will feed the flock of slaughter, even you Or, especially you, O poor of the flock Zechariah here, representing Christ the true shepherd, says, he will enter upon his office, and undertake the care of the flock appointed for the slaughter; even you, O poor of the flock This clause is explicatory of the former, and by the repetition of it we are shown, that God, in his charge to the prophet, as a type of Christ, and to Christ the antitype, distinguishes clearly between different sorts of people among the Jews; between those that were poor, despised, weak, and humble, and those that were tyrannical, proud, and cruel, and made a prey of their inferiors: these were left out of the pastoral charge; the others were to be taken care of. And I took unto me two staves These were the proper accoutrements of a shepherd, and these the prophet assumed as a badge of his office, and gave them significant names, which are partly explained, Zec 11:10-14. The shepherds of old time, says Lowth, had two rods, or staves, one turned round at the top, that it might not hurt the sheep: this was for counting them, and separating the sound from the diseased, Lev 27:32; the other had an iron hook at the end of it, to pull in and hold the straying sheep. The psalmist mentions both these, Psa 23:4, Thy rod and thy staff comfort me. The one I called Beauty Or, pleasantness, or, delight, as the word may be rendered, signifying, says Lowth, his favour, gentleness, or kindness toward his people; which was remarkably verified in Christ, whose gracious words, and beneficial works, were conspicuous through the whole course of his life. The other I called Bands Which the same author interprets of the bond of the new covenant, whereby he intended to unite both the kingdoms of Israel and Judah under himself, as their head and king, Eze 37:22; and then afterward to unite the Jews and the Gentiles into one church, by breaking down the partition wall that was between them. Newcome considers the former, Beauty, as intended to denote how beautiful and pleasant the land would have been, if its inhabitants had kept their covenant with God. The other, Bands, as signifying the union which ought to have subsisted between Judah and Israel. Mr. Scott explains the former word of the honour, privilege, and ornament which the Jews possessed, according to their national covenant, in the oracles, instituted worship, and temple of God; and especially by the ministry of Christ and his apostles, who preached the gospel to them first. The other, he thinks, means, the connection of the nation under one government, and the harmony that had, in some measure, hitherto united them, as the flock of God. Many other interpretations are given of these two names, but as they all are, and must be, in a great measure, founded on conjecture, the reader is not here troubled with them.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
11:7 And I will feed the flock of slaughter, [even] you, {k} O poor of the flock. And I took to me {l} two staffs; the one I called Beauty, and the other I called Bands; and I fed the flock.
(k) That is, the small remnant, whom he though worthy to show mercy to.
(l) God shows his great benefits toward his people to convince them of greater ingratitude, who would neither be ruled by his most beautiful order of government, neither continue in the bands of brotherly unity, and therefore he breaks both the one and the other. Some read “Destroyers” instead of “Bands”, but in Zec 11:14 the second reading is confirmed.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Zechariah proceeded to carry out his assignment from the Lord (Zec 11:4). He spoke as a shepherd of the sheep doomed to slaughter, the afflicted sheep, and so represented Israel’s Shepherd, Messiah. The two shepherd’s staffs that he named "Favor" (Heb. no’am, pleasantness, graciousness) and "Union" (Heb. hobhelim, binders, unifiers) represented God’s blessing and the unity of the flock (Israel; cf. Eze 37:15-28).
"The Eastern shepherd carried a rod or stout club hewed from a tree to beat away wild beasts attacking the sheep and a crooked staff for retrieving the sheep from difficult places [cf. Psa 23:4]." [Note: Unger, p. 194.]