John Calvin Commentary Zechariah 11:7

"So I fed the flock of slaughter, verily the 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." — Zechariah 11:7 (ASV)

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.