John Calvin Commentary Zechariah 11

This Chapter contains severe threats, by which God intended to warn the Jews in due time. His purpose was that if there was any hope of repentance, they might be restored by fear to the right way. Additionally, He intended that others—the wicked and the reprobate—might be rendered inexcusable, and also that the faithful might fortify themselves against the strong temptation to despair upon seeing such a dreadful calamity awaiting that nation.

This prophecy does not indeed seem consistent with the preceding ones. Until now, the Prophet has not only been encouraging the people to entertain hope but has also declared that their condition would be so happy that nothing would be lacking to make them truly blessed. But now he denounces ruin and begins with reprobation. For he says that God had long been the shepherd of that nation, but now He renounced all care of them; being wearied, He would no longer tolerate that perverse wickedness which He had found in them all.

These things may seem inconsistent. However, we should observe that it was necessary, in the first place, to set God's benefits before the Jews, so that they might proceed with more eagerness in the work of building the temple and know that their labor would not be in vain. But now it was necessary to change the tone, lest hypocrites, vainly trusting in these promises, should become hardened, as commonly happens. It was also necessary so that the faithful would entertain proper fear and thus not walk heedlessly before God, for nothing is more ruinous than complacency, since when license is taken to sin, God’s judgment hangs over us.

We therefore see how useful and reasonable this warning of the Prophet was, as he made the Jews understand that God would not be favorable to His people without punishing their wickedness and obstinacy.

To make his prophecy impressive, Zechariah addresses Lebanon; as if he were God’s herald, he commands it to open its gates, for the entire forest was now consigned to the fire. If he had spoken without a figure of speech, his denunciation would not have had as much force. He therefore denounces imminent ruin on Lebanon and on other places.

Almost all interpreters think that by Lebanon, the temple is to be understood, because it was built with timber from that mountain. However, this view seems unconvincing to me, though it is approved by the general agreement of interpreters. For why should we think the temple is metaphorically called Lebanon rather than Bashan?

And they think no such thing of Bashan, though there is equally the same reason. I therefore regard Lebanon simply as Mount Lebanon itself.

I will merely refer to what Josephus declares: that the temple was opened before the city was destroyed by Titus. But though that historical account may be true, and it seems probable to me, it does not therefore follow that this prophecy was then fulfilled. This is contrary to what is said of Rabbi Jonathan, who then exclaimed, “Look! The prophecy of Zechariah! For he foretold that the temple would be burned, and that the gates would be previously opened.”

These interpretations seem plausible and at first glance gain our approval. But I think that we must understand something more substantial and less overly subtle, for I do not doubt that the Prophet denounces complete ruin on Mount Lebanon, Bashan, and other places.

But why does he command Lebanon to open its gates? The reason is given, for shortly afterward he calls it a fortified forest, which was nevertheless without walls and gates. Lebanon, we know, was near Jerusalem, though far enough away to be free from any hostile attack.

Since the place was by nature sufficiently safe from being attacked, the Prophet speaks as if Lebanon were surrounded by fortresses, for it was not exposed to enemy attacks. The meaning is that even though, on account of its situation, the Jews thought Lebanon was not exposed to any harm, yet the destructive urge of enemies would lead them even there.

We have already said why the Prophet commands Lebanon to open its gates: it is because he assumes the role of a herald, who threatens and declares that God’s extreme vengeance was already near at hand.

He then adds, Howl thou, fir-tree, for the cedar has fallen. No doubt the Prophet, by naming Lebanon (mentioning a part for the whole), meant the whole of Judea. It appears evident from the context that the most remarkable places are mentioned here. Yet the Prophet’s design was to show that God would punish the whole people, so as not to spare Jerusalem or any other place.

And then by the fir-trees and cedars he meant whatever then excelled in Judea or in other places. For this reason, he compares them to the cedars of Lebanon, as if he had said, “There is no reason for the fir-trees to regard themselves as beyond the reach of danger; for if He spares not the cedars, what will become of the fir-trees, which possess no such stateliness and grandeur?”

So now we perceive the Prophet’s meaning concerning the trees. But, as I have said, he includes under one category whatever was valuable in Judea. We learn this more clearly from what follows, for he adds, Fallen have, or laid waste have been, the strong. Some read this in the neuter gender: “Laid waste have been splendid things.” But I am inclined to regard persons as intended.

The Prophet then simply declares that the vengeance of God was near all the great ones, whom dignity sheltered, so that they thought themselves in no danger. And for the same purpose he adds, Howl, ye oaks of Bashan. He joins, as we see, Bashan to Lebanon; there is then no reason for allegorizing only one of the words when they are both connected. And he says, For fallen has the fortified forest.

This may either be applied to Lebanon, or the Prophet may be viewed as saying in general that there was no place so difficult of access that would not be penetrated when the Lord would give enemies liberty to destroy all things. Even though the density of trees protected these mountains, yet the Prophet says that nothing would obstruct God’s vengeance from penetrating into the innermost recesses of strongholds.

He then adds, The voice of the howling of shepherds; for their excellency, or their courage, is laid waste. Here the word is אדר, ader, and earlier it was אדירים, adirim, both in the masculine gender. We see, then, that the Prophet confirms the same thing in other words: “Howl now,” he says, “shall the shepherds.”

He intimates that the beginning of this dreadful judgment would be with the chief men, as they were especially the cause of the public ruin. He then says that the dignity of the great was now approaching its fall, and therefore he commands them to howl.

He does not in these words exhort them to repentance but follows the same line of teaching. By God’s command he here declares that the shepherds who took pride in their power could not escape the judgment they had deserved. As this is a way of speaking usually adopted by the Prophets, I will not dwell on the subject any longer.

He afterward adds, The voice of the roaring of lions. He no doubt gives the name of lions here, by way of metaphor, to those who cruelly exercised their power over the people. But he also alludes to the banks of the Jordan, where there were lions, as is well known.

Since lions were found along the whole course of the Jordan, as is evident from many passages, he compares shepherds to lions—that is, the governors who had abused their authority by exercising tyranny over the people: Fallen then has the pride (or the excellency) of Jordan.

In short, it is now sufficiently evident that the Prophet threatens final destruction to both the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel. Both kingdoms were indeed then abolished, but I speak of the countries themselves. The meaning is that neither Judea nor the land of the ten tribes would be free from God’s vengeance. He afterward adds—

Here a reason is given why God intended to deal so severely with His people—because their obstinacy deserved no pardon. Just as in the beginning of the chapter the Prophet threatened ruin to the Jews, so now he reminds them that their punishment was near, and that they could not be treated more gently, because their wickedness was wholly incurable. We now perceive the Prophet's design; but he charges the Jews especially with ingratitude, because they responded so basely and shamefully to the unique benefits of God.

He says first, that he was commanded to feed the flock destined for the slaughter. Now the Prophet does not here simply relate what command he had received from God, but teaches us in general that God had always performed the office of a good and faithful shepherd towards the Jews.

The Prophet then assumes the character of all the shepherds, as if he had said, “There is no reason why this people should plead their ignorance, or attempt to disguise their own fault by other names and various pretenses; for God has always offered them a shepherd, and also sent ministers to guide and rule them. It is not to be attributed to God that this people has not enjoyed prosperity and happiness.”

There is now no need to spend much effort on this verse, as interpreters have done who confine what is said here to Christ alone, as one who had received this office from the Father; for we shall see from the passage itself that the Prophet’s words are forcibly wrested from their meaning by them.

Let it then be kept in mind that his special object is to show that God had always been ready to rule this people, so that He could not have been accused by them of not having done what could possibly have been expected from a good shepherd.

If anyone objects and says that this could have been said in other words, the plain answer is—that God’s perpetual care in His government had been fully shown; for He had not only Himself performed the duties and office of a shepherd, but had also at all times placed ministers over them, who faithfully performed their work.

Since God then had so constantly and diligently watched over the safety of the people, we see that their ingratitude was completely proven. And by calling it the flock of slaughter, a reference is made to the time of the Prophet; for the Jews were then as if they had been snatched from the jaws of wolves, having been delivered from exile.

They were then like dead sheep whom the Lord had rescued; and we also know to how many troubles and dangers they had been constantly exposed. Thus, the goodness of God appeared more clearly, for He was nevertheless pleased to care for His flock. Then the Prophet elaborates here on God’s favor, because He had not despised His sheep, though they were given up to slaughter.

The words might indeed be extended further, as if the Prophet referred to what had already taken place, and they might thus be applied to many ages. However, it seems more probable to me that he mentions here what belonged to that age.

Zechariah then teaches us why God was constrained to adopt extreme severity: it was because He had tried everything that might have healed the people, and yet all His labor was lost. When their wickedness became wholly incurable, despair, so to speak, finally constrained God to exercise the severity mentioned here. This, I think, is the Prophet's meaning.

He afterward adds another circumstance, which shows still further the wonderful and ineffable goodness of God—that He had been a shepherd of a flock, which had not only been harassed by wolves and robbers, but also by its own shepherds. In short, the import of the whole is—that though wolves and robbers had roamed with great barbarity among the people, yet God had always been their shepherd.

He then elaborates on the subject and says that they who possessed them had killed them, so that they spared not. By these words, the Prophet shows that the safety of the people had been regarded as nothing by their very leaders: they could not then by any excellence of their own have induced God to show so much kindness to them.

But these words should be carefully noted: when the flock was slain, the executioners or butchers themselves had no mercy, for they thought it was spoil justly due to them. We see how God highlights His own goodness here, for He had condescended to defend, rule, and feed that people, who were not only despised in the world but also considered as nothing, and whose slaughter was deemed a lawful prey.

They sin not, he says; that is, they are not conscious of exercising any cruelty. Why? Because they thought that they justly enriched themselves while they were plundering so wretched a flock.

The more base, then, and inexcusable was the ingratitude of the people, when after having been so kindly received and so gently nourished by God, they yet rejected all His favors and did not allow themselves to be governed by His hand.

And it is important to observe here that these contrasts tend greatly to highlight the sins of men and should be considered, so that God’s severity may not be blamed. For we know that many complain when God executes His judgments: they would measure all punishments by their own ideas and make God subject to their own will.

Therefore, to check such complaints, the Prophet says that though the flock was most contemptible, it had not yet been despised by God, but that He undertook the care of it.

The shepherds and masters said, Blessed be Jehovah. We are accustomed to give thanks to God when we really believe that the blessings we have come from Him. The robber who kills an innocent man will not say, “Blessed be God;” for he on the contrary tries to extinguish every remembrance of God, because he has wounded his own conscience.

The same may also be said of thieves. Hypocrites often profess the name of God; and they whose trade is cheating always make a speech of this kind, “By God’s grace I have gained so much this year;” that is, after having acquired the property of others by deceit, cheating, and plunder, they give thanks to God! And at the same time they flatter themselves by self-deception, as if all were a lawful prey; because, indeed, they are not proven guilty before a human tribunal.

Now the Prophet here adopts this common way of speaking, by which men, unaware of doing wrong, usually testify that their gain is just and lawful.

He then adds, And he who fed then has not spared them. The meaning is, that the people, according to the opinions commonly held, were not worthy of mercy and kindness. Hence, as I have said, the wonderful goodness of God shines forth more clearly; for He condescended to take care of a flock that was completely despised.

Then he says, I will not spare the inhabitants of the land; behold I will deliver, etc. To some, it appears that a reason is given here; for the Jews would never have been thus stripped, had not God been angry with them; as if he had said that God’s vengeance was just, because they were thus exposed to such atrocious wrongs.

But according to my judgment, God simply confirms what we have stated—that His future vengeance on the Jews would be most just, because He had, in feeding them so carefully, labored completely in vain. For though the Prophet has not yet expressed what we shall later see respecting their ingratitude, he yet does not break off his discourse without reason, for indignation always has some warmth in it; he then in the middle of his argument exclaims here, I will not spare; for God had spared the Jews, when yet all men exercised cruelty towards them with impunity; and when they were contemptible in the sight of all, He still had regarded their safety.

As then they had been so ungrateful for so many acts of kindness, should God not have been angry with them? This then is the reason why the Prophet introduces here in God’s name this threatening, Surely I will not spare them; that is, “I have until now deferred My vengeance, and have surpassed all men in kindness and mercy; but I have misplaced My goodness, and now there is no reason why I should any longer suspend My judgment.” I will spare then no longer the inhabitants of this land.

I will give, or deliver, he says, every man into the hand of his friend; as if he had said, “They are no longer sheep, for they will not bear to be ruled by My hand, though they have found Me to be the best of shepherds. They shall now tear and devour one another, and thus a horrible dispersion will follow.”

Now the Jews should have dreaded nothing so much as to be given up to destroy themselves by mutual slaughter, and thus to rage cruelly against one another and to perish without any external enemy. Yet God declares that this would be the case, and for this reason: because He could not succeed with them, though willing to feed them as His sheep and ready to perform the office of shepherd in ruling them.

He concludes by saying, They shall smite the land, and I will not deliver from their hand. He intimates in the last place that ruin without any remedy was near; for He alone was the only deliverer of the people; but now He testifies that their safety would not be the object of His care. For should He see them perishing a hundred times, He would not be moved with pity, nor turn to bring them help, because they had precluded all compassion.

He resumes here the thread of the discourse, which he had broken off a short time before. He explains what had not yet been fully expressed: that the ingratitude of the people, with which obstinacy was especially united, deserved complete ruin, and that now there was no hope of pardon.

For the paternal care of God had been most despicably and shamefully rejected, as well as the kind favor which He had shown 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 consistently shown to the people, until they became completely unworthy of His favor.

However, let us remember that the Prophet speaks of the remnant. 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 previously to have committed this office to Zechariah—to feed them. But as I have already said, the purpose of that was none other than to make it evident that the whole fault was in the people.

For they had pushed away the kindness of God and, in a way, stubbornly waged war 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 as 'on account of'; but it may be taken in an explanatory sense, or we may offer this rendering: “therefore the poor,” or, “especially the poor.”

Regarding the meaning, God here intimates that He had shown His care for the whole people, for He had hoped that there were a few sheep still remaining worthy of having mercy shown to them. Since then some poor sheep might have been found among the impure flock, God says that, having this hope, He did not consider 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 could be found in the whole flock.

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 vowel points. But since חבל, both in the singular and plural, means 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 write down the vowel points, for they were not then in use. I indeed know with how much care the old scribes devised the vowel points when the language had already ceased to be in common use.

Those then who neglect, or completely reject the vowel points, are certainly devoid of all judgment and reason; yet some discrimination should be exercised. For if we read “destroyers” here, there is no meaning; if we read “cords,” no letter is changed, but only two vowel points are altered.

Since then the subject itself necessarily demands this meaning, I wonder that interpreters allow themselves to be so slavishly constrained as not to regard the Prophet's intention.

The Prophet then says that he had taken two rods, so that he might devote himself in an uncommon manner to the office of a shepherd. Shepherds were satisfied with one crook, for by 'rods' he here means the crook used by shepherds.

Since 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 care in the office of ruling His people. But the remainder I must defer until tomorrow.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, that as You have until now so kindly shown Yourself to be our Shepherd, and even our Father, and have carefully provided for our safety—O grant, that we may not by our ingratitude deprive ourselves of Your favors, so as to provoke Your extreme vengeance, but on the contrary allow ourselves to be gently ruled by You, and render You due obedience. And as Your only-begotten Son has been by You set over us as our only true Shepherd, may we hear His voice, and willingly obey Him, so that we may be able to triumph with Your Prophet, that Your staff is sufficient for us, so as to enable us to walk without fear through the valley of the shadow of death, until we at last reach that blessed and eternal rest, which has been obtained for us by the blood of Your only Son. Amen.

[Exposition continues from previous day's lecture]

We said yesterday that the word חבלים, chebelim, the name given by Zechariah to the second rod, could not be rendered “destroyers,” as all the Hebrew scholars do. For God teaches us that He had fully and faithfully discharged the duties of a shepherd, so that the people perished through their own fault.

And since God undertook the office of a shepherd, it could not have been said that He took a staff to destroy them. There is also no doubt that He connects this word with the other, נעם, nom, “beauty.”

And He says in the last place, that this rod called חבלים, chebelim, was broken, in order to show that the brotherhood between Judah and Israel had come to an end. Now what connection can there be between destroying and uniting? It is then clear that the word חבלים, chebelim, is to be taken here as ropes, or cords.

Let us now see why the Prophet calls one “Beauty,” and the other “Ropes.” Some think that the law of nature is designated by נעם, nom, and the law of Moses by חבלים, chebelim. Those who render the word “Lines”—such as Jerome, who gives the right version here—think that since the law was a hard yoke on the ancients, the rod was so called because it bound them fast.

Others, as Jerome also does, refer to this passage of Moses: When the Lord cast his line, He chose a place for Israel, and when the Highest divided the nations... etc. They then think that 'a line' is taken to mean an inheritance.

But the first interpretation is too remote and distorted. Regarding the second, since the Prophet puts the word in the plural number, it cannot be suitably taken to mean an inheritance, and, as we said yesterday, the following clause shows that the idea of union is included in it.

The meaning of the Prophet then is that God had so performed His office of a shepherd towards His people as to rule them in the best manner. This I understand by the word נעם, nom, beauty, for nothing could have been more perfect in beauty than the government which God had exercised over the Israelites. Hence He compares here His pastoral staff to beauty, as though He had said, “The order of things was so arranged that nothing could be imagined better.”

He then mentions unity or concord, and it was the highest favor that God gathered again the scattered Israelites so as to make them one body.

It is indeed true that few from the kingdom of Israel had returned to their own country, but it is yet evident that the remnant was not only from the tribe of Judah, from the half-tribe of Benjamin, and from the Levites, but that there were others mingled with them.

It was therefore a most appropriate representation that not only was a most beautiful order established by God, but also that a brotherly concord was added, so that the children of Abraham were joined together in one spirit and in one soul.

Since then they had so good a shepherd, the more vile and less excusable was their ingratitude in shaking off His yoke, and in not allowing themselves to be ruled by His staff.

We now then see what the Prophet's words mean when he introduces God as furnished with two rods, namely beauty and gathering. He then repeats what He had said before, I have fed, He says, the sheep, intimating that it was not His fault that He should not continue to rule them.

At the beginning of the verse, the Prophet continues the same subject: that God spared no pains in ruling the people but patiently bore with many grievances. For it is the duty of every good and careful manager of a flock to inspect his flock often and to change his shepherd when he finds him idle and inattentive to his duties.

God then shows that He had exercised the greatest vigilance, for in one month he had rejected three shepherds; that is, He had within a short time often chosen new shepherds and substituted them for others. For one month is to be taken here for a short time, and the three shepherds signify many, indefinitely.

When a manager of a flock neglects his own flock, he may be deceived all year round if he encounters a thief or an inactive and worthless man. Since God says that He had changed His shepherds often in one month, He intimates what I have already said: that He took the greatest care of His flock, for He loved it and omitted nothing necessary to defend it.

And this circumstance especially aggravated the sin of the Jews, for they did not respond to such great care on God’s part, not even when they saw that He watched night and day for their safety.

Now the latter part of the verse is a complaint, for God begins to set forth how base the wickedness and ingratitude of the people had been. With weariness, He says, has my soul been affected by them, and their soul has hated me. He speaks not now of the shepherds, and those who read the passage this way are mistaken, as though God had repudiated the shepherds because His soul was wearied with them. On the contrary, He turns His discourse to the whole people and begins to show how wicked they had been, who, having been favored with so many benefits, could not yet endure the best of shepherds.

Hence He says that His soul had been straitened by them, for He found no room made for His favors. Paul also, addressing this subject, expostulates with the Corinthians and says that he was ready to pour out his heart and to open his mouth wide, but they themselves were straitened, and he felt these straitenings in his own heart (2 Corinthians 6:11).

So also God complains here and says that He was straitened by the Jews, for He found that His blessings were not rightly received but were, as it were, hindered, so great was the wickedness of the people.

He expresses more clearly at the end that He was despised by them: They also have hated me. Now it was an inexcusable contempt when the Jews would not acknowledge how kindly and bountifully God had treated them. We now perceive the Prophet’s design: after having related how kindly God had condescended to rule the people, he now says that this labor had produced no fruit, for the door for God’s favors had been closed up. It follows next—

God now declares what had been briefly mentioned before—that His judgment could not be considered cruel, because the people had been extremely wicked, and their wickedness deserved extreme punishment. It seems indeed to be a simple narrative, but God here defends His own cause, for He had tried all means in ruling the people before He resorted to extreme severity. Who indeed could now murmur against God? For He had always been ready to undertake the office of a shepherd, had so humbled Himself as to take care of that people as His own flock, and had, in short, omitted no kind of attention; yet He had been despised by that people and even treated with derision. It was therefore an extreme indignity when they hated God, who had nevertheless dealt with them with so much kindness. From this we see that God’s judgment is here vindicated from every slander, because the wickedness of the people was altogether inexcusable before God had renounced His care of them.

I said: the time must be noted, for He intimates that He had not been too hasty in taking vengeance; but that as there was no longer any remedy, He had been constrained, as if by necessity, to give up His office of a shepherd. I said then, I will not feed you; what is to die, let it die; what is to be cut off, let it be cut off. He here resigns His office of a shepherd and intimates that He was innocent and free from all blame, whatever might happen.

A shepherd is set over a flock for this purpose—that he may defend it, even every sheep, both against the depredations of robbers and the rapacity of wolves. But when he gives up his office, he is exempt from all blame, even if the flock is afterwards stolen or devoured by wolves and wild beasts.

God then here openly declares that it was not to be attributed to Him if the Jews perished a hundred times, because they refused to be ruled by Him, and thus He was released from the pastoral charge. What then is to perish, let it perish; that is, “Since they are not healable and allow no remedy to be applied to their evils, I leave them; they will find out what it is to be without a good shepherd.”

We now see more clearly what I stated before: that the wickedness and ingratitude of the people are here reproved, because they had rejected God, who was ready to be their shepherd; and that the cause of the ruin which was near at hand was in the Jews themselves, though they anxiously tried, but in vain, to transfer it to another.

He concludes with these words, And those which remain, even those who will escape external attacks, let them eat one another, since they are no longer sheep, but savage wild beasts. And this we know has been fulfilled, for the Jews eventually perished through mutual discords, and no one spared his own brother; indeed, the nearer the relationship, the more cruelly each raged against the other. Therefore, God’s judgment, proclaimed by the Prophet, then appeared most openly when the Jews perished through internal conflicts and even slaughters.