Zechariah 11:15-16

15. Jehovah said unto me As on the former occasion (Zechariah 11:4).

Yet R.V., “yet again.” Connects this command with the preceding one.

Take… the instruments of a… shepherd The staves (Zechariah 11:7). The taking up of these shows that the shepherd is ready to begin the shepherding care of the flock; hence the command is practically equivalent to that in Zechariah 11:4.

Foolish This time the prophet is to act the part of a foolish shepherd (Zechariah 11:7-8). Foolish is to be understood in a moral sense, as ordinarily in the Old Testament, equivalent to forgetful of duty, worthless (Zechariah 11:17). While this shepherd also would have staves, they could not be the same as those of the good shepherd (see on Zechariah 11:7).

Zechariah 11:16 does not point to the future from the standpoint of the prophet, but from that of Jehovah’s command. It states why the latter issued the command, and at the same time it supplies an interpretation of the symbolic action. Jehovah, who withdrew the good shepherd (Zechariah 11:13), determined to raise up one who would not protect and guard but hurt and destroy.

A shepherd in the land Not a successor of the “three shepherds” (Zechariah 11:8), but of the good shepherd. Who is meant cannot be determined definitely. If Marti’s view concerning the three shepherds (see on Zechariah 11:8) and concerning the good shepherd (see at the close of comments on Zechariah 11:14) is correct it is not impossible that the foolish shepherd is Alcimus, who became high priest in 163 (compare 1Ma 7:5-25 ; 1Ma 9:54-57 ).

Visit In a good sense, to take an interest in.

Those that be cut off As in Zechariah 11:9 (compare Zechariah 11:5); he will leave them to their fate. Margin R.V., “lost”; but, since the lost ones are referred to in the next clause, the ordinary rendering is to be preferred.

The young one Better, R.V., “those that are scattered.” If the text is correct, which may be doubted (see Ezekiel 34:4), the translation of R.V. is to be preferred; at least it expresses the thought which one would expect. The foolish shepherd would not seek the lost, nor would he heal the injured, nor feed the sound.

That that standeth still R.V., “that which is sound.” Another obscure expression, of which A.V. gives the more literal translation. Standeth is generally interpreted as the opposite of broken in the preceding clause; he does not look after the needs of the injured nor after those of the sound and strong. The translation feed also is uncertain; margin R.V. suggests “bear,” and the whole clause has been translated, “he does not bear the halting one,” that is, he does not lift up and carry in his arms the lamb or sheep that halts or comes to a standstill because of weariness (compare John 10:1-16). Though there may be uncertainty as to details, the thought expressed in all the clauses is that the foolish shepherd would not have the least care for the welfare of the flock (compare Ezekiel 34:4).

But not only would he neglect the flock, he would even help to destroy it.

He shall eat the flesh of the fat That is, of the fatlings of the flock. Instead of looking after the welfare of the flock he is concerned only with his own well-being, and to satisfy his own appetite he is ready to sacrifice the lives of the sheep (compare Isaiah 3:13-15).

Tear their claws in pieces R.V., “hoofs.” This obscure phrase has received various interpretations. Some have thought that the reference is to the cruel practice of driving the flocks over rough roads; some have interpreted it of the intense greed of the shepherd which manifests itself in the tearing to pieces of the hoofs, so as to secure the last morsel of flesh or fat. Others have thought of the tearing of the hoofs, that the sheep might not wander too far, and thus give the shepherd trouble. The second interpretation is improbable, because one as greedy as this shepherd would hardly stop to gnaw the bones clean; he would rather kill another beast. The other interpretations are possible; in either case we would have a picture of extreme cruelty. The expression is peculiar and the text may have suffered; if so, we have no means of determining the original.