Zechariah 11:9-14

Withdrawal of the good shepherd, 9-14.

9, 10. As a result of the flock’s ingratitude, the shepherd decided to discontinue the shepherding care. It is difficult to differentiate in these verses between the voice of the shepherd and that of Jehovah; sometimes Jehovah, sometimes the shepherd, seems to be the speaker. Only the former could authorize the sentence of doom implied in Zechariah 11:9 or break the covenant (Zechariah 11:10). The shepherd will leave the flock to its hopeless fate, to die, or to be cut off by the oppressors mentioned in Zechariah 11:5, or to be devoured by one another.

10. As an indication of his determination he breaks his staff.

Beauty See on Zechariah 11:7. The breaking of this staff symbolized the withdrawal of the divine favor.

Break my covenant… made with all the people Better, R.V., “with all the peoples”; the nations surrounding the Jewish community. While the divine favor endured it prevented the hostile nations from doing injury to the flock (Hosea 2:18). Since Jehovah’s will would be supreme in this matter, his resolve amounted practically to a covenant with these peoples, binding them to refrain from hurting the flock of Jehovah; with the covenant broken they would be at liberty to do as they pleased.

The staff was broken and the covenant dissolved, and Zechariah 11:11 implies that the results became apparent at once.

And so the poor of the flock As in Zechariah 11:7; better, the traffickers of the flock (compare Zechariah 11:5).

That waited upon me R.V., “that gave heed unto me.” Not that were obedient to me, but in a general sense that observed me; that is, that took notice of the acts of the shepherd. The words do not imply that they were influenced for the better. The events which immediately followed the breaking of the staff were evidence that the shepherd was indeed the representative of Jehovah.

12. This recognition on the part of the traffickers would seem to offer an opportunity for further tests, (1) whether they had been led to a better appreciation of his services, (2) whether there was any desire on their part to have his services continued. One staff was still whole, an indication that he had not finally forsaken them.

Unto them If the emendation suggested in Zechariah 11:11 is correct, this can refer only to the traffickers; it is only natural that they should pay the wages, since they had derived the most benefit from the flock (Zechariah 11:5). The shepherd makes no demands; he asks them to decide whether or not his services merit compensation, and, if so, how much. They reply by offering him wages.

Thirty pieces of silver A piece or shekel of silver is equivalent to about 60 cents; thirty pieces to about $18. This seems to have been the price of a slave (Exodus 21:32), and the offer showed how little they appreciated the services of a divinely appointed shepherd (compare Matthew 26:15).

The offer was an insult to the shepherd as well as to Jehovah, and Zechariah 11:13 describes the displeasure of the latter. He orders the shepherd to throw the money away.

Cast it unto the potter A much-discussed phrase. Limited space makes impossible the enumeration of all the different interpretations given. On the assumption that the present Hebrew text is correct, the fewest difficulties are offered by the interpretation of Keil, who suggests that cast it to the potter may be a “proverbial expression for contemptuous treatment,” though, as he says, “we have no means of tracing the origin of the phrase satisfactorily.” Exception has been taken to the present text on the ground that there was no potter in the temple (compare last clause of Zechariah 11:13), but if the phrase is a proverbial saying it is not necessary to assume the presence of a potter in the temple, be it for the purpose of repairing or selling dishes or for the purpose of worship, for the money might be treated contemptuously without a potter being present. The addition “in the house of Jehovah” calls attention to the seriousness and solemnity of the transaction. The action was symbolical as much as the breaking of the staff (Zechariah 11:10; Zechariah 11:14); for it signified the cessation of the care of the shepherd and of Jehovah. Jehovah and the people were the persons chiefly interested in this; the temple was the dwelling place of Jehovah, and to it flocked the people; hence all transactions requiring the presence of both parties could best be performed there. Such was the act performed by the shepherd, and it is for this reason that he selected the house of Jehovah as the place where he would give expression to Jehovah’s displeasure. With this interpretation the nature of the “contemptuous treatment” remains undefined; the shepherd may have cast the money away, or may have trampled upon it, or may have done anything else that would indicate how lightly he and Jehovah valued the sum. Many recent scholars prefer the reading of Targum and Peshitto,” “to the treasurer” or “treasury” in the place of “to the potter.” This would remove the obscurity of the present expression, but the objection raised by Keil is not without weight: “God could not possibly say to the prophet, The wages paid for my service are indeed a miserable amount, yet put it in the temple treasury, for it is at any rate better than nothing.”

Goodly price Meant ironically.

I was prized at Jehovah identifies himself here with the shepherd; the insult offered to the latter was in reality an insult to Jehovah.

14. In consequence of the lack of appreciation on the part of the flock the shepherd decides to abandon it entirely; as a sign of this he breaks the second staff, for which he has no further use.

Bands See on Zechariah 11:7.

That I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel This does not imply the existence of the two kingdoms, nor does it point to a period before the division; it refers rather to the future reunion of the north and south, which is expected by many prophets to take place in the Messianic age. The breaking of the staff implies the destruction of the prospects of such reunion, but with these prospects gone there will be dashed to pieces any hope of a final triumph over the enemies, which will lead to the exaltation and glorification of the victors. On the teaching of the allegory see Introduction, p. 603. If the prophecy comes from the Maccabean period (see on Zechariah 11:8), the good shepherd represents a high priest who occupied the office about 170 B.C. Who he was cannot be determined; Marti thinks of Onias IV.