5<\/strong>. a husbandman<\/em> ] Lit. one tilling the ground,<\/strong> as Gen 4:2<\/span>. Comp. Amo 7:14<\/span>, where however there is no repudiation as here of the prophetical office.<\/p>\n taught me to keep cattle<\/em> ] or possessed me as a serf, or chattel:<\/strong> adscriptus gleb. I have been made a bondman<\/em>, R. V.<\/p>\n And he shall say – <\/B>Repudiating his former claims, I am a husbandman: for a man hath taught me from my youth. There was no room then for his having been a false prophet, since he had had from his youth one simple unlettered occupation, as Amos said truly of himself; I was no prophet, neither was I a prophets son: but I was an herdsman and a gatherer of sycamore fruit Amo 7:14<\/span>. The prophet does not approve the lie, any more than our Lord did the injustice of the unjust steward. Our Lord contrasted the wisdom in their generation of a bad man for his ends, with the unwisdom of the children of light, who took no pains to secure their God. Zechariah pictures vividly, how people would anyhow rid themselves of all suspicion of false prophesying.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 5<\/span>. But he shall say, I<\/B><\/I> am <\/B>no prophet<\/B><\/I>] This must be the case of a false prophet<\/I> or diviner, who had been obliged to give up his infamous practice, and become even a labourer<\/I> in the land. But having been known to be such, he is questioned by the people to see if he still were addicted in heart to the same practices. He declares he is no prophet<\/I>, neither true nor false; that he is now a husbandman<\/I>, and was brought up a herdsman<\/I>.<\/P> <\/p>\n This verse is this reclaimed mans recantation, or renunciation of his former course, and his solemn promise to take up his own calling, and become a plain honest man, and live upon his labour, to which he was trained up from his youth, and is sorry he ever left it. <\/P> <\/p>\n 5, 6.<\/B> The detection of one ofthe false prophets dramatically represented. He is seized by somezealous vindicator of the law, and in fear cries out, “I am noprophet.” <\/P> man<\/B>that is, one. <\/P> taught me to keep cattle<\/B>As”keeping cattle” is not the same as to be “anhusbandman,” translate rather, “Has used (or’appropriated’) me as a servant,” namely, in husbandry<\/I>[MAURER]. However,husbandry and keeping cattle might be regarded as jointly theoccupation of the person questioned: then Am7:14<\/span>, “herdman,” will accord with English Version.<\/I>A Hebrew<\/I> kindred word means “cattle.” Bothoccupations, the respondent replies, are inconsistent with my being a”prophet.”<\/P><\/p>\n But he shall say, I [am] no prophet<\/strong>,…. That he is not of the Romish clergy, or of any of their religious orders, having laid aside his habit:<\/p>\n I [am] an husbandman<\/strong>; he shall put on the habit of a husbandman, and work for his bread; for he will not be able to support himself, as before, with the sale of pardons and indulgences, and by praying souls out of purgatory; for no man hereafter will buy of his merchandise,<\/p>\n Re 18:11<\/span> and he will be ashamed of his former calling and traffic, and will not own that he was ever concerned therein; but will affirm that he was never of the Romish clergy, but always a layman, and employed in husbandry:<\/p>\n for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth<\/strong>; he will say he was brought up to husbandry, or in some mechanic business, from his youth, and never was in any convent or monastery, or of any religious order: it may be rendered, “for man made me to work from my youth” u; and is not to be restrained to keeping cattle, or any particular employment.<\/p>\n u “fecerunt me operari”, Noldius; “homo operari fecit me”, De Dieu, Burkius.<\/p>\n He describes repentance in this verse more fully. When Paul wished to exhort the faithful to newness of life, he said, <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Let him who has stolen, steal no more; but rather work with his own hands, that he may relieve the wants of others.” (Eph 4:18<\/span>.) <\/p>\n Paul notices two parts of repentance, — that thieves are to refrain from acts of dishonesty and wrong, — and that they ought to labor in order to aid others and relieve their wants. So also Zechariah mentions these two particulars, — that false prophets will give up their office, — and that they will then spend their labor in doing what is right and just, supporting themselves in a lawful and innocent manner, and affording aid to their brethren. <\/p>\n Having spoken already of the former part, he repeats the same thing again, I am not a prophet. It is then the first thing in repentance, when they who had been previously the servants of Satan in the work of deception, cease to deal in falsehoods, and thus put an end to their errors. Now follows the progress, — that they who lived before in idleness and in pleasures under the pretext of sanctity, willingly devote themselves to labor, and continue no longer idle and gluttonous as before, but seek to support themselves by just and lawful employment. It would not then have been enough for him to say, I am no prophet, had he not added, I am an husbandman; that is, I am prepared to labor, that I may support myself and aid my brethren. <\/p>\n A half reformation might probably succeed with many at this day. Were many monks sure that a rich mess would continue to them in their cloisters, and were also the milted bishops and abbots made certain that nothing of their gain and profit would be lost to them, they would easily grant a free course to the gospel. But the second part of reformation is very hard, which requires toil and labor: in this case the stomach has no ears, according to the old proverb. And yet we see what the Prophet says, — that those are they who truly and from the heart repent, who not only abstain from impostures, but who are also ready to get their own living, acknowledging that they had before defrauded the poor, and procured their support by rapine and fraud. <\/p>\n The Prophet no doubt speaks of impostors, who were then numerous among the Jews; and there were also women who boasted that they were favored with a prophetic spirit; and the true prophets of God had to contend with these sorceresses or wise women, who had ever intruded themselves during a confused state of things, and undertook the office of teaching. As then there were at that time many idlers who lived on superstition, rightly does the Prophet send them away to cultivate the land. So at this day there are many brotherlings who hide their ignorance under their hood, and even all the papal clergy, under the sacred vestment, as they call it; and were they unmasked, it might easily be found out, that they are the most ignorant asses. Now, as the Lord has abundantly discovered their baseness, were they to acknowledge that they have been impostors, what would remain for them, but willingly to do what they are here taught? that is, to become husband men instead of being prophets. <\/p>\n As to the end of the verse, some retain the word Adam; others render it man; and generally the word Adam means man in Scripture. But they who think that Zechariah speaks of the first man, adduce this reason, — that as this necessity of “eating his bread by the sweat of his face” (Gen 3:9<\/span>) was imposed on all mankind after the fall, so also all his posterity were thus taught by Adam their first parent; but this interpretation seems too far-fetched. I therefore take the word indefinitely; as though he had said, “I have not been taught by any master, so as to become capable to undertake the prophetic office; but I am acquainted only with agriculture, and have made such progress, that I can feed sheep and oxen; I am indeed by no means fit to take upon me the office of a teacher.” I take the passage simply in this sense. <\/p>\n With regard to the verb הקנני, ekenni, קנה, kene, means to possess, to acquire; but as the word מקנה, mekene, which signifies a flock of sheep or cattle, is derived from this verb, the most learned interpreters are inclined to give this meaning, “Man has taught me to possess sheep and oxen.” I am however disposed to give this rendering, as I have already stated, “Man has taught me to be a shepherd.” (173) <\/p>\n The import of the whole is, — that when God shall discover the ignorance, which would so prevail in the Church, as that the darkness of errors would extinguish as it were all the light of true religion, then they who repent shall become so humble, as to be by no means ashamed to confess their ignorance and to testify that they had been impostors as long as they had under a false pretense assumed the office of prophets. The Spirit of God then requires here this humility from all who had been for a time immersed in the dregs of falsehood, that when they find that they are not fit to teach, they should say, “I have not been in school, I was wholly ignorant, and yet I wished to be accounted a most learned teacher; at that time the stupidity of the people veiled my disgrace: but now the light of truth has shone upon us, which has constrained me to feel ashamed; and therefore I confess that I am not worthy to be heard in the assembly, and I am prepared to employ my hands in labor and toil, that I may gain my living, rather than to deceive men any longer, as I have hitherto done.” <\/p>\n (173) <\/p>\n For another man hath possessed me from my youth. —Newcome <\/p>\n For I have been in a state of slavery from my youth. —Henderson <\/p>\n The latter is a very loose paraphrase; the first is the literal rendering; “another” need not be have been put in. “Disclaiming all pretensions to the character of a prophet, he shall profess himself to be no other than a plain laboring man, employed in husbandry business by those whose property he had been, quasi adstrictus glebae , from his youth.” — Blayney. <\/p>\n The line may be rendered, as proposed by Parkhurst, <\/p>\n For man has purchased me in my youth. <\/p>\n —<\/p>\n Ed. <\/p>\n (5) Taught<\/strong> . . . cattle.<\/strong>Better, acquired,<\/em> or bought me.<\/em> He pretends to be a purchased slave, kept hard at work, and therefore as having no time for professing inspiration. His meaning is very different from that of Amo. 7:14<\/span>.<\/p>\n Zec 13:5-6<\/span> <\/strong> indicate with what vehemence everyone will deny that he is a prophet <\/p>\n He shall say <\/strong> The subject is not everyone <\/em> of Zec 13:4<\/span>, but the indefinite one, <\/em> “one shall say”=it shall be said (G.-K., 144d), not necessarily by one who has been a prophet, for in such a case the statement would be an untruth, but by anyone who is suspected of claiming (compare Zec 13:6<\/span>) to be a prophet. <\/p>\n I am no prophet <\/strong> Compare Amo 7:14<\/span>, but here the denial is made for another reason; the speaker disclaims any and all connection with the prophetic office. <\/p>\n Man taught me to keep cattle from my youth <\/strong> Better, R.V., “I have been made a bondman from my youth.” This answer need not be considered an untruth; and yet it receives additional force if we suppose that the prophet means to teach that in that day a person would rather assume the most despicable position, that of a slave, than be suspected of being a prophet. The reply proves unsatisfactory, and in Zec 13:6<\/span> the inquirer is represented as continuing the questioning. <\/p>\n What are these wounds in thine hands? <\/strong> R.V., “between thine arms.” The suspicion seems to have been aroused in this case by the presence of wounds on the body of the suspect. The last three words have been variously interpreted, as referring to wounds on the palms of the hands, or on the arms, or between the arms, that is, on the breast. The last seems the most probable (compare 2Ki 9:24<\/span>); but the place of the wound is not essential. The nature of the wounds is not certain; they cannot be connected with Zec 13:3<\/span>; the questioner, connecting them, apparently, with the custom described in 1Ki 18:28<\/span> (compare Deu 14:1<\/span>; Jer 16:6<\/span>), seems to consider them marks of devotion, self-inflicted in the pursuit of the prophetic office, perhaps in order to create prophetic ecstasy; but this does not imply that he considered the person addressed a heathen or a false prophet, as distinguished from a true prophet. In reply the suspect insists that the wounds have nothing whatever to do with the prophetic office. <\/p>\n I was wounded in the house of my friends <\/strong> The last word, literally, lovers, <\/em> or paramours, <\/em> is often used of idols (compare Hos 2:7<\/span>; Hos 2:10<\/span>), and some give to it that meaning in this passage. If this is correct the reply contains an admission that at one time the speaker had taken part in idolatrous practices; but even then the form of the verb excludes the idea of self-mutilation. The context favors another interpretation, namely, to take lovers <\/em> or friends <\/em> literally, but not of the speaker’s parents, for in Zec 13:5<\/span> he states that he has been a bondman from his youth, and the word here is used only of fresh wounds, so that the reference cannot be to punishment received in childhood. He means rather that he received the wounds in a “common brawl” in the house of his friends. The willingness with which he makes the admission indicates how anxious he is to remove all suspicion that he is in any way connected with the prophetic office.<\/p>\n Zec 13:5 But he shall say, I [am] no prophet, I [am] an husbandman; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.<\/p>\n Ver. 5. But he shall say, I am no prophet<\/strong> ] O , I am no monk, no clerk, I am not book learned, was the ignorant man’s plea in Chrysostom’s time, and so it is still to this day; though it serves not his turn. But here the like speech is taken up for a better purpose. Hoc etenim principium est resipiscentiae,<\/em> saith Calvin here. Here begins their repentance, viz. in a free acknowledgment of their ignorance and utter unfitness for the office they had usurped. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n I am no prophet<\/strong> ] As for self-respects, that my belly might be filled and my back fitted, Si ventri bene, si lateri<\/em> (Horat.), I sinfully took upon me to be one, but I am a husbandman, and can better hold the plough than handle a text; feed and follow a flock of sheep than feed the flock of God (that have golden fleeces, precious souls), taking the oversight thereof, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind. 1Pe 5:2<\/span> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n For man taught me to keep cattle from my youth<\/strong> ] q.d.<\/em> Shepherdy and husbandry I have been ever trained up to, and can better therefore skill of than of preaching, which is certainly Ars artium et scientia scientiarum,<\/em> the art of arts, the science of sciences, as one said; whereunto Melancthon addeth that it is the misery of miseries. And of the same mind was his colleague, Luther, when he said, A householder’s pains is great, a magistrate’s greater, but a minister’s greatest of all; and afterward added, that if it were lawful to him to leave his calling, he could with more ease and pleasure dig for his living, or do any other hard labour, than undergo a pastoral charge. The mystery thereof is not an idle man’s occupation, an easy trade, as some fondly conceit. The sweat of the brow is nothing to that of the brain; besides dangers on every hand for the work’s sake, and armies of cares, that give neither rest nor respite, but are ready to overwhelm a man, , 2Co 11:28<\/span> , agmen subinde irruens<\/em> (Illyr.). This made Luther affirm that a minister labours more in a day many times than a husbandman doth in a month. Let no man, therefore, in taking up the ministry, dream of a delicacy; neither let slow bellies either invade it or hold it (as Popish asses and some impudent Alastores today do) to pick a living out of it. It was an honest complaint of a Popish writer, We, saith he, handle the Scripture, tantum ut nos pascat et vestiat,<\/em> only that it may feed us and clothe us. And Cardinal Cajetan, not without cause, cries out, that those among them that should have been the salt of the earth had lost their savour; and were good for little else but looking after the rites and revenues of the Church (Com. in Mat 5:1-48 ). Now for such as these that serve not the Lord Jesus Christ, but their own bellies, that, like body lice, live upon other men’s sweat, or, like rats and mice, do no more but devour victuals and run squeaking up and down, good is the counsel of the apostle, “Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth,” Eph 4:28<\/span> ; let him earn it before he eat it, 2Th 3:10<\/span> . This is hard to persuade those abbey lubbers, that live at ease in cloisters, feeding on the fat and drinking of the sweet; and those idol shepherds, that feed themselves and not the flock. O Monachi vestri stomachi.<\/em> Erasmus truly told the Elector of Saxony that Luther, by meddling with the Pope’s triple crown and with the monks’ fat paunches, had procured himself so great ill-will among them. One of them brake out in a sermon into these angry words: If I had Luther here I would tear out his throat with my teeth; and then make no doubt with the same bloody teeth to eat my maker at the Eucharist. How much better were it for such false prophets with “quietness to work and eat their own bread,” 2Th 3:14<\/span> , than to drink the blood of other men with their lives (as David spake in another case, 1Ch 11:19 ), yea, with their souls, which perish by their insufficiency and gastrimargy! Sed venter non habet aures.<\/em> But the belly hath no ears. Ease slayeth the foolish. Non minus difficulter a deliciis abstrahimur, quam canis ab uncto corio,<\/em> among other scandals and lets of the Jews’ conversion this is not the least, that they must quit their goods to the Christian. And the reason is, for that in baptism they renounce the devil and all his works, part whereof (say the Papists among whom they live) are the Jews’ goods; being gotten either of themselves or of their ancestors by usury. Now this is such cold comfort to men of their metal, that they have little mind to turn Christian; and as little doubtless have such as, with these in the text, have got their living by lying; and through covetousness with feigned words made merchandise or prize of men’s precious souls, to return to the hard labour of husbandry or any other lawful but painful employment; yet this was done both in Wycliffe’s days by many friars that fell to him, and embraced his opinions, and in the reformation by Luther, many monks and nuns betook themselves to honest trades, renouncing their Popish vows and orders; yea, Scultetus reporteth that at Augsburg, in Germany, by the powerful preaching of Dr John Speiser, A. D. 1523, some harlots forsook the public stews, and married to honest men, lived chastely, and were great painstakering persons.<\/p>\n man. Hebrew. adam. App-14. <\/p>\n I am no: Amo 7:14, Act 19:17-20 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Gen 46:32 – shepherds 1Ki 19:19 – he with<\/p>\n Zec 13:5. This verse is virtually the same as the preceding one.<\/p>\n 13:5 But he shall say, I [am] no {g} prophet, I [am] a farmer; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.<\/p>\n (g) They will confess their former ignorance, and be content to labour for their living.<\/p>\n But he shall say, I [am] no prophet, I [am] a husbandman; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth. 5. a husbandman ] Lit. one tilling the ground, as Gen 4:2. Comp. Amo 7:14, where however there is no repudiation as here of the prophetical office. taught me to keep cattle ] … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Zechariah 13:5”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23075","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23075","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23075"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23075\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23075"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23075"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23075"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"