Cornelius a Lapide
Table of Contents
Synopsis of the Chapter
Zechariah predicted in chapter 10 the wars and victories of the Maccabees; now he continues with what was to come after them, and what would befall the Jews through the Romans. In this chapter therefore he predicts the destruction of Jerusalem, namely the city and the temple — recently built by Zerubbabel and Joshua the son of Josedec — to be carried out by Titus and the Romans, and this on account of the sins of the Jews, especially on account of Christ, killed by them and sold for thirty pieces of silver. Therefore, so that they might avoid these sins and thus escape the destruction, God makes Zechariah a shepherd, that is, a prophet, to predict and threaten these future events. Hence, in verse 7, he takes up two shepherd's rods, with which, as a shepherd, he may feed the people as his flock: one he calls Beauty, that is, fair and gracious; the other he calls the Cord, by which the guilty are bound and punished. By these he represents the two modes of providence and governance which God had already used in ruling Israel, and would continue to use henceforth: namely, the rod named Beauty represents the love, promises, and benefits by which God had formerly drawn the Jews to Himself, and through the Maccabees and their successors would continue to draw them up to Christ, who was the beauty, love, and grace of God the Father poured out upon the Jews; the other, named the Cord, represents the fear, threats, and punishments by which God, after the former rod of love was broken at the death of Christ, fed and harassed the Jews through the Romans; and because they equally spurned this rod, He broke it too, and cast them off from Himself, and laid aside all care and providence for them; and in verse 15, He handed them over to a foolish shepherd — whose form and garb Zechariah is commanded to assume, so as to represent him to the people — to be fed, that is, to be destroyed and slaughtered.
Vulgate Text: Zechariah 11:1-17
1. Open your gates, O Lebanon, and let fire devour your cedars. 2. Wail, O fir tree, for the cedar has fallen, because the mighty have been laid waste: wail, O oaks of Bashan, for the fortified forest has been cut down. 3. The voice of the wailing of shepherds, for their magnificence has been laid waste: the voice of the roaring of lions, for the pride of the Jordan has been laid waste. 4. Thus says the Lord my God: Feed the flock of slaughter, 5. whose possessors slew them and felt no remorse, and sold them, saying: Blessed be the Lord, we have become rich: and their shepherds spared them not. 6. And I will no longer spare the inhabitants of the land, says the Lord: behold, I will deliver men, each one into the hand of his neighbor and into the hand of his king: and they will cut the land to pieces: and I will not deliver them from their hand. 7. And I will feed the flock of slaughter, because of this, O you poor of the flock. And I took to myself two rods, one I called Beauty, and the other I called the Cord: and I fed the flock. 8. And I cut off three shepherds in one month, and my soul was straitened in them: for their soul also varied toward me. 9. And I said: I will not feed you: that which dies, let it die: and that which is cut off, let it be cut off: and let the rest devour each one the flesh of his neighbor. 10. And I took my rod that was called Beauty: and I cut it asunder, to make void my covenant which I had struck with all the peoples. 11. And it was made void in that day: and so the poor of the flock, who keep watch for me, knew that it was the word of the Lord. 12. And I said to them: If it be good in your eyes, bring me my wages, and if not, be still. And they weighed out my wages, thirty pieces of silver. 13. And the Lord said to me: Cast it to the potter, a handsome price at which I was valued by them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver and cast them into the house of the Lord to the potter. 14. And I cut asunder my second rod, which was called the Cord, to dissolve the brotherhood between Judah and Israel. 15. And the Lord said to me: Take to yourself yet again the instruments of a foolish shepherd. 16. For behold, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, who will not visit what is forsaken, nor seek what is scattered, nor heal what is broken, nor nourish what stands firm, but will eat the flesh of the fat ones, and will tear off their hoofs. 17. O shepherd and idol, who forsakes the flock: the sword upon his arm and upon his right eye: his arm shall utterly wither, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.
Verse 1: Open, O Lebanon
1. Open, O Lebanon. — You ask, what does Lebanon signify here? Theodoret and the Chaldean think it signifies the neighboring and hostile nations to the Jews, such as the Syrians, Idumeans, and Moabites: for Lebanon was the boundary of Judea and the beginning of the gentile nations, namely of the Syrians toward the north. They think therefore that destruction is threatened here against the nations, because they envied the Jews' return from Babylon and the restoration of the temple and city, and hindered them as much as they could. But all that follows pertains to the Jews, not the nations, and especially verse 3: "The pride of the Jordan has been laid waste." Therefore all the rest, such as St. Jerome, Cyril, Haymo, Remigius, Hugo, Lyranus, Dionysius, Vatablus, Arias, Ribera, Mariana, Sanchez, a Castro, and others, consistently and unanimously hold that by Lebanon is here understood Jerusalem and the temple.
First, because the city as well as the temple stood out in Judea, just as the famous Mount Lebanon stood out in Syria. Second, both were constructed from the cedars of Lebanon. Third, it abounded in houses and inhabitants, as Lebanon and its forest abound in trees. Fourth, because Jerusalem nourished tyrants, robbers, and plunderers, just as Lebanon nourishes wolves, lions, bears, and other wild beasts, and for this reason was laid waste. Fifth, because the temple gleamed white with the whiteness of its stones, as Lebanon gleams with the whiteness of its snows, as Josephus testifies, The Jewish War VI; and from this Lebanon was named from laban, that is, white, bright: or from lebonah, that is, frankincense, because it is rich in frankincense. The temple, then, which was being built together with the city, Zechariah here calls Lebanon, and predicts its end and destruction at its very beginning. Hence the Chaldean translates "temple" for "Lebanon." In a similar way Ezekiel 17:3 calls Jerusalem "Lebanon." See what I said there.
Finally, he alludes to the royal house of the forest of Lebanon, built in Jerusalem by Solomon (1 Kings 8:2). Now some think that the devastation predicted here is what Antiochus Epiphanes inflicted on the city and temple in the time of the Maccabees, when the shepherd and idol, of whom verse 17 speaks, was the impious Jason, who, just as he simoniacally purchased the pontificate from Antiochus, so wickedly
administered it wickedly, worshipping Hercules and the gods of Antiochus. But because this was an intruded pontiff, whom the Maccabee priests and legitimate princes soon expelled, under whom the religion of God and the temple especially flourished; therefore Vatablus, Ribera, a Castro, and others generally more correctly hold that the subject here is the devastation inflicted on the city and temple by Titus and the Romans. For these utterly burned and demolished both the city and the temple, whereas Antiochus did not destroy it but only profaned it with his sacrileges. So St. Jerome, Haymo, Remigius, Albertus, Hugo, Dionysius, Vatablus, Arias, Ribera. The sense therefore is: "Open your gates, O Lebanon," as if to say: O Jerusalem, and temple recently built with cedar boards brought from Lebanon, open your gates to the Romans who are coming, because you will not be able to resist them: for in vain will you shut your gates against them, because they with their own might and strength will break through everything.
A symbol and presage of this was what Josephus narrates in The Jewish War VII, ch. 12: that before the city was taken by Titus, the eastern gate of the temple, which was made of bronze and could be closed by twenty men, opened of its own accord at the sixth hour of the night during Passover. To the same purpose is what the Hebrews report, and from them R. David, Lyranus, and Galatinus IV, ch. 8: namely that for 40 years before the temple was destroyed by the Romans, the gates of the temple which were closed in the evening were opened of their own accord at night, and R. Johanan ben Zakkai, who was coming there early in the morning and was eminent among the Rabbis, said: "O house, O sacred house, what does it mean that you fear for yourself? Indeed I know that destruction and devastation threaten you, and that long ago this prophecy was uttered about you: Open your gates, O Lebanon." If this is true, it fits aptly with this passage; where Ribera shrewdly conjectures that the gates of the temple opened of their own accord on that very day when Christ died on the cross, and the veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom. For the time agrees, namely the fortieth year before the destruction of the city, in which Christ suffered; for the city was destroyed in the second year of Vespasian, which was the year 73 from the birth of Christ, as Eusebius testifies in his Chronicle. Finally, Christ suffered and died at Passover; and likewise Josephus writes that the gates of the temple were opened at Passover.
And let fire devour your cedars. — First, literally, as if to say: Just as, O Jerusalem, you recently saw your magnificent buildings and palaces constructed from cedars, firs, and oaks burned by the Chaldeans, so again you will see and suffer the same from the Romans. Second and better, symbolically cedars are called the chief princes and pontiffs: firs, the provosts, senators, consuls, and lesser prefects; oaks, the rich and the strong in power. Hence the Chaldean translates, satraps of the provinces, as if to say: The fire of your devastation and burning will assail and consume all your princes, prefects, nobles, and rich men. So St. Jerome, Cyril, and Eusebius, Demonstration VIII, ch. 4: whence, explaining further, the Prophet adds:
Verse 2: Wail, O Fir Tree, for the Cedar Has
2. Wail, O fir tree, for the cedar has fallen — as if to say: Wail, O senators and lesser magistrates, because the princes who nourished and protected you have fallen, and therefore you also will likewise fall, to be killed or captured by Titus and the Romans. This is what he adds: "Because the magnificent ones (the princes) have been laid waste." It is therefore a proverb.
Wail, O oaks of Bashan — that is, you powerful and wealthy, who stand out among the Jews as oaks do in the land of Bashan. The Chaldean translates: Wail, O satraps of the provinces.
For the fortified forest has been cut down — namely fortified Jerusalem, which he calls a thicket or forest, because he persists in the metaphor of Lebanon, the mountain and forest.
Verse 3: The Voice of the Wailing of Shepherds. (some,
3. The voice of the wailing of shepherds. (Some, like a Castro, think the Prophet is speaking to the Jews then present, who grieved that the construction of the second temple did not equal the magnificence of the first, as if to say: The magistrates now grieve because they see the magnificence of the temple so diminished: the princes roar like lions, because they see the ancient splendor of Jerusalem now obscured. But you should not grieve; rather, taught by past danger, give thanks for the present, though with lesser prosperity; which I opportunely admonish you, lest from the state in which you now are, you fall into a similar captivity, from which you have now been freed. But since these things pertain to the preceding words, in which he clearly predicted the future destruction of the city and temple by the Romans, they must be referred to the same, as if to say: I seem to myself from afar, from the high watchtower of prophecy, to see the final catastrophe of Jerusalem, and in it to hear the wailings of the citizens, especially of the shepherds, that is, the priests and pontiffs: because their magnificence has been laid waste, because namely the magnificent temple has been burned, along with its vessels and vestments in which the pontiffs walked magnificently dressed, and by whose offerings and wealth they lived splendidly. Therefore the magnificence of the temple has been overthrown, the magnificence of the priests. I seem also to myself to hear the wailing of the princes and magistrates, like the roaring of lions, who ruled the people avariciously and tyrannically, and attacked them like lions, fiercely, proudly, and rapaciously. For these roar and wail, because) the pride of the Jordan has been laid waste — namely their proud palaces, estates, villas, fields, and woods, which they possessed along the Jordan, to be irrigated by its streams, and made fertile for fruit as well as pleasant to behold. He alludes to the lions, of which there was an abundance in the forests along the Jordan. For these, when the fields and forests were devastated by the Romans, and the flocks accustomed to graze there were killed or carried off, likewise roared, because deprived of their lairs as well as their prey from the flocks, they were forced either to die of hunger or migrate elsewhere. Hence that passage in Song of Songs 4:6: "From the top of Sanir and Hermon, from the dens of lions, from the mountains of leopards." For Sanir and Hermon were near the Jordan: so Clarius, Arias, Vatablus, and others. St. Jerome adds that the Jordan was partly dried up by
God, and partly by the Roman forces, was the Jordan; therefore the lions roared for thirst. Hence the Chaldean translates: Because the swelling of the Jordan has been dried up on their account. For the Jordan is wont to swell and rise with the waters flowing from the melting of snows. The Septuagint: Because the roaring of the Jordan has become wretched. For abundant waters are wont to roar among themselves or when dashed against rocks. For the Hebrew word geen means magnificence and arrogance, which is the cause of roaring.
Verse 4: Feed the Flock of Slaughter
4. Feed the flock of slaughter — namely the Jews destined for slaughter by the Romans, like sheep and cattle. You ask, to whom and by whom is "feed" said? Theodoret, and from him Ribera, answers that it is said by the Eternal Father to Christ His Son already incarnate, as if to say: You, O Christ, My Son, feed and teach the Jews, if by any means they may repent and be converted to You, and so escape the destruction by the Romans, to which I have consigned them.
More simply, St. Jerome, Remigius, Hugo, Lyranus, Vatablus, and others hold that these are the words of God to Zechariah, as if to say: I appoint you, O Zechariah, a shepherd, that is, a Prophet, so that by these oracles of yours you may feed, teach, and warn the future Jews about the coming destruction, so that they may strive to avert and escape it through repentance and a change of life. That this is so is clear because Zechariah here puts on the garb of a shepherd: therefore he takes up two shepherd's rods, one he names Beauty, the other the Cord, just as shortly after, in verse 15, he assumes the guise of a foolish shepherd: which cannot be said of Christ. Hence the Chaldean translates: Prophesy against the rulers, who were appointed to govern my people, and they have lorded it over them as over sheep for slaughter, saying: It will not be imputed to us as a sin. Where note that the Jews are here called sheep or cattle of slaughter. First, because the princes and pontiffs preyed upon them with impunity as upon sheep, and plundered and slaughtered them in their souls by their wicked teaching and life, as Christ reproaches them in Matthew 23. So Theodoret from the Chaldean. And it is clear from what follows: "Whose possessors slew them." The sheep of slaughter, therefore, or of food, as they are called in Psalm 43:12, are those that are not kept for wool or milk, not to be shorn or milked, but to be killed and devoured. So Jeremiah 12:3: "Gather them," he says, "like a flock for the slaughter, and consecrate them for the day of killing." Second, because they were destined for the slaughter and sword of the Romans on account of their crimes, together with their princes and pontiffs, and devoted to destruction. So St. Jerome, Remigius, Hugo, Vatablus, and others generally. A Castro gives the reason: for Zechariah, he says, is commanded, as if practicing the pastoral art, to represent the office of feeding by which God fed His people at various times, and would henceforth continue to feed them. And God teaches that the reason for assuming this character and, as it were, this dramatic role, is that wicked shepherds were the cause why He Himself abandoned the people and allowed them to be led into captivity by the Chaldeans, and would again allow them to be led away by the Romans.
God therefore says: Come, O Zechariah, take on the role of a wise shepherd, and feed My sheep, whom foolish shepherds both kill and prepare for slaughter: for those to whom I entrusted their care slaughter them, seeking their own profits, not the sheep's welfare; nor do they grieve for this crime, as if they had committed no fault; and they sell them, and enriched by the price, they praise God, saying: Blessed be God, for we have been enriched; and so these shepherds do not spare the sheep, but plunder and slaughter them with impunity. Jeremiah uses a similar figure, 23:4: "Woe," he says, "to the shepherds who scatter and tear the flock of my pasture!" And Ezekiel 34:2: "Woe to the shepherds of Israel who fed themselves! etc., what was fat you killed, but the flock of the Lord you did not feed." See what I said there. So a Castro, and rightly, except that he considers these words to be said about past shepherds, not future ones, whereas rather, as I said, these words, being oracles about the destruction of the city, pertain to the future, and to future shepherds up to the times of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem. For against those wicked, impious, and tyrannical shepherds, He sets His own pastoral care and His equitable, pious, and fatherly governance.
And they sold them — namely the cattle, as if to say: These false shepherds made profit from the flocks entrusted to them; they abused them and their children, servants, workers, fields, etc., for their own gain through violence and fraud, just as if they had sold them for their own profit. It is a catachresis.
Verse 6: And I Will not Spare them
6. And I will not spare them. — Some take the future for the past, namely "I will not spare (that is, I did not spare) them," that is, the Egyptians, because they had oppressed My people; or rather them, namely the Israelites, because they had made a schism from Me and from the house of David. For this reason I delivered them to wicked kings who would tyrannically plunder them; indeed I caused them to attack one another, and to destroy each other through internal hatreds, frauds, and murders. So a Castro.
Better, others take the future properly as it sounds, and hold that it was fulfilled under Aristobulus and Hyrcanus, who, when they were contending for the pontificate and the principate, called Pompey and the Romans to their aid, by whom they were subjugated, despoiled, and devastated: so Theodoret. Or rather under Titus and Vespasian, when the Zealots and other Jews mutually plundered and slaughtered one another, as Josephus testifies, The Jewish War VI, chs. 2 and 4. And they were delivered "into the hand of their king," that is, of their factious princes, as Vatablus says, or of Herod Agrippa, Vespasian, and Titus, who destroyed all of Judea. So St. Jerome, Albertus, Hugo, Arias, and Vatablus. For the Roman emperors are called kings of the Jews, both because in the Passion of Christ the Jews acknowledged and professed them as their Caesars, when they cried out before Pilate: "We have no king but Caesar;" and because the Romans subjugated them by war — whether justly or unjustly, I do not dispute.
And I will feed the flock of slaughter. — Theodoret, Vatablus, Ribera, and others hold that this is Christ's voice addressed to His Apostles and the first faithful gathered from the Jews, whom He calls the poor of the flock on account of their humility, poverty, and weakness, as if Christ here signifies that He wills to obey and comply with His Father, so that as far as lies in Him, He may feed the Jews and avert the wrath and disaster decreed against them by God. But this is rather mystical and allegorical than literal. For literally, the Prophet, appointed shepherd by God here in verse 4, where he heard from Him: "Feed the flock of slaughter," in this verse takes up the burden of feeding and responds to God: "I will feed the flock of slaughter." Hence from the Hebrew you might translate: and I fed, or I began to feed; our Translator renders: and I will feed, to signify the continuation and long duration of feeding. So St. Jerome, Remigius, Lyranus, and Arias. Moreover, Zechariah was a shepherd, not a true and literal one, but a mystical and symbolic one, and he fed the Jews with these oracles, by which at God's command he assumed the garb and rod of a shepherd, and represented the duties of the true shepherd, namely God's governance over the Jews, just as in verse 15, conversely, he puts on the instruments of a foolish shepherd, to express and display his character to the people in himself.
Because of this, O you poor of the flock — supply: attend to what I am about to say: so St. Jerome, Remigius, Albertus, and Hugo. Secondly, Arias, Vatablus, a Castro, and others, as if to say: Because these sheep are destined for slaughter, and because I have been appointed their shepherd by God, for this reason I will feed them, especially so that I may free you, O poor of the flock, both from the slaughter to which the rest are certainly destined, and from the hand of your wicked shepherds. Hence Arias translates: I will feed the sheep of slaughter for your sake, O poor of the flock, so that the Hebrew lachen is not an adverb meaning "because of this," but a pronoun meaning "for you," so that lachen in the feminine is used for lachem in the masculine. He calls "the poor of the flock" the destitute among the people, especially the simple, innocent, meek, and just, for whose sake God spared the rest of the wicked for a time, feeding them through the Prophets and calling them to repentance. So Theodoret.
And I took to myself two rods — two pastoral staffs, so that I might assume the garb as well as the office of a shepherd. Hence he adds: "And I fed the flock." One I called Beauty. — In Hebrew noam, that is, beauty, comeliness, pleasantness, grace, loveliness, sweetness, gentleness. Hence the mother-in-law of Ruth was called Naomi, and she said: "Do not call me Naomi, that is, beautiful, but call me Mara, that is, bitter, for the Almighty has greatly filled me with bitterness" (Ruth 1:20). This rod signifies a gentle governance through love and benefits, not through threats and punishments. Hence Vatablus says: "This was the clemency of Christ, which He exercised when He assumed flesh." Therefore the Syriac translates: One I called Sweet, or Pleasant; the Arabic of Antioch: One I called Ease, or Benignity; the Alexandrian: One I called Beauty.
And the other I called the Cord — Hebrew chabalim, that is, cords: so the Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus, and our Translator. Hence also the Syriac and both Arabic versions translate it as "rope." This signifies a harsh governance, severe laws and edicts, by which the people are, as it were, bound, constricted with cords, and if they sin, are scourged, bound, and ensnared. Now the Hebrews vowel-point it differently and read chobelim, that is, binders, helmsmen, governors, and by antiphrasis, destroyers, corrupters. Moreover, since inheritances were formerly measured out with cords, hence "cord" metonymically signifies inheritance, or the lot and portion of an inheritance, which fell to each person through the measuring cord. Again, "cord" signifies an assembly and congregation. For just as a cord is made from many threads twisted together, so from many people gathered together an assembly and a people is formed. Hence Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel X, ch. 4, by "beauty" understands the old law, which was given, he says, to the cord, that is, to the assembly and people of Israel, who were the cord of inheritance, that is, the lot and inheritance of God.
You ask, what is this hieroglyph of the rods? What do these two rods symbolically and literally signify? First, St. Jerome, Remigius, Rupert, Hugo, and Ribera understand by these two rods two covenants and the twofold governance of God's providence. The first was entered into with Noah and all men (Genesis 9:9), which is here called beauty, because this universal dominion over men and care for all befitted God: the second was entered into with Abraham and his posterity, namely the 12 tribes of Israel (Genesis 17:7), which is therefore called the cord, or in the Hebrew, cords, as if to say: The hereditary lot which the Lord chose for Himself from all nations, as His people and Church, was the posterity of Abraham, or the people of Israel.
Second, St. Cyril holds that the cord represents the Old Testament, as binding, constraining, tying, and scourging the Jews: and beauty refers to the New Testament, or the law of grace. Third, others hold that by beauty are signified just and pious leaders and kings; by the cord, unjust and impious ones. So R. Moses, Guide for the Perplexed II, ch. 44, by beauty understands Moses, Joshua, and their successors; by the cord, Rehoboam and his successors, partly idolaters, partly criminals. Others by beauty understand the kingdom of the twelve tribes, united under David and Solomon; by the cord, the same kingdom, divided into two under Rehoboam. Others by beauty understand the kingdom of Judah; by the cord, the kingdom of Israel, or the ten tribes. The Chaldean agrees, who by beauty understands the kingdom of Jeroboam, who freed the ten tribes from the tyranny of Rehoboam—
freed and claimed for liberty: by the cord, the kingdom of Rehoboam, threatening and tyrannical from the start. But all these things were already past, and although the Prophet alludes to them, nevertheless he properly prophesies about the future. Therefore Arias by beauty understands the Maccabees, the first avengers of the people, namely Judas with his brothers; but by the cord their successors, who violently seized the royal name and kingdom for themselves.
Fourth, others by beauty understand the beginning of Christ's preaching, which was gentle and mild: by the cord, its end, which was threatening with destruction, judgment, and hell, as is clear from Matthew 23, 24, and 25.
Fifth, and genuinely, the rod called Beauty signifies the governance of love through consolations, admonitions, and benefits, which after the times of Zechariah, God showed to the Jews through the Maccabees, and especially through Christ. The other rod, called the Cord, signifies the governance of terror, which God used when He saw the Jews abusing the former rod of love and gentleness and growing hardened, namely after the death of Christ, when He began to harass them through the Romans, and finally utterly overthrew them, so that all the Jews were either killed, or captured and bound with cords, and then each one received his own cord, that is, his lot and punishment according to his deserts, and therefore in Hebrew it is "cords" [plural]. So Vatablus.
This twofold time and governance of God, both rods assumed, is what Zechariah signifies, as God's vicar and prophet. For he, as a shepherd of the double rod, represents God the shepherd of the double governance, namely of love and of fear. That this is the sense is clear, first, from the fact that this oracle of the Prophet concerns the future, not the past. And regarding the future, we cannot more conveniently explain or assign the symbol of the rod of beauty and the cord than in the way I have just expounded. Second, the same is clear from the outcome of events. For first, God's governance over the Jews was fair in the time of the Maccabees and of Christ, then terrible and fatal in the time of the Romans, Nero, and Vespasian. Third, because shortly after, the Prophet says that he broke both these rods, because namely God utterly rejected and reprobated the Jews, which cannot be said of any other time than that of Christ and Titus. Fourth, because in verse 13, he signifies that this rod of beauty was broken at the death of Christ, on account of His being sold and killed, because namely the Jews valued Him and bought Him for thirty pieces of silver.
Morally, princes, magistrates, prelates, rulers, etc., should learn here from God's providence and governance the manner of ruling, namely that as far as lies in them, they should rule their subjects with beauty, that is, with humanity, love, clemency, mercy, beneficence, promises, and rewards. For thus the governance will be noam, that is, fair, elegant, and beautiful: for the wisdom of God so rules and governs the whole world that it reaches from end to end mightily, and orders all things sweetly (Wisdom 8:1). But if some, being of a harsh and servile disposition, refuse to be ruled by love, let them apply to such the rod of the cord, by which they may rule them as stubborn and brute animals, with threats, fines, punishments, and penalties. For Zechariah teaches that this is the best method of ruling, and he himself used experience, approved by pagans as well as by Christians. Hear their opinions and maxims on this matter.
Archytas the Pythagorean, in On Law and Justice: "A true prince," he says, "must not only know how to command rightly and be able to do so, but also humanely. For it would be shameful for a shepherd to hate his sheep, and to be hostile to his own flock." Xenophon in the Education of Cyrus asserts that "a good prince differs in nothing from a good father. For parents also provide for their children. And Cyrus now seems to me to advise us on those things by which we can persevere in the greatest happiness to the very end." Seneca, On Clemency I, ch. 6: "The cruelty of princes," he says, "is war; clemency, into whatever house it enters, renders it happy and tranquil; but in a palace, the rarer it is, the more admirable. It is the mark of a great soul to be calm and tranquil, and to despise injuries and offenses by overcoming them. For to rage is womanish. Anger does not befit a king." And a little further on: "I would set up the gods as the best example for princes, that they should show themselves such to their citizens as they wish the gods to be to themselves." Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics VIII: "Similar," he says, "is the comparison of a king to his subjects, a father to his children, a shepherd to his sheep." Pythagoras said that a prince should rule in such a way "that his subjects revere him more than fear him. For admiration accompanies reverence, but hatred accompanies fear." So Stobaeus, Sermon 46, who adds that Pittacus held that a praiseworthy prince is one who makes his subjects fear, not him, but for him. The same was the opinion of Chilon, Philo, and Musonius, the same their maxim. Moreover, Anaxilaus, prince of Rhegium, when asked what was the happiest thing in a principate, answered: "Never to be outdone in conferring benefits." Tiberius Caesar, according to Suetonius, used to say: "It is the part of a good shepherd (such as an emperor is) to shear the flock, not to flay it." Agapetus the Deacon, On the Duty of a King: "As the eye," he says, "is innate to the body, so the emperor has been adapted to the world by God, given for the administration of what is useful. Therefore he ought to look after men as his own members, so that they may prosper in good things and not be tripped up by the stumbling block of evils. The role of the sun is indeed to illuminate the world with its rays, but the virtue of a prince is to have mercy on the needy." Just as animals, however strong and fierce, are captured and tamed by caresses: so subjects, however alien to all humanity, are easily governed by the benevolence and humanity of a good prince, as Dionysius says, Nicetas in his life of Augustus, Plutarch in the Moralia: A musician, he says, does not immediately cast away or cut discordant strings, but by gradually tightening or loosening them brings them into harmony: so a prince gently
should correct sinners, not immediately destroy them. For such a ruler's scepter is a plectrum, such a ruler's governance is an honor, not a dishonor, whereas others dishonor their magistracy (that is, the honor itself), as Cicero used to say. Hence St. Jerome, letter to Pammachius: "About Caesar," he says, "Cicero said admirably: When he wished to adorn certain men, he did not honor them, but defiled the ornaments themselves." Pliny, Natural History XI, ch. 17: "The king of bees," he says, "alone has no sting, or at least does not use it. Moreover, he is larger in body and more handsome in appearance, but with smaller wings than the rest, and so a prince should be most clement, and never fly far from his state."
In God three things stand out: supreme power, supreme wisdom, supreme goodness: a king is an earthly God, and therefore let him fulfill this triad as far as his powers allow. For power without goodness is mere tyranny, without wisdom it is ruin, not a kingdom. Let him therefore take care to be wise, and strive to be of the greatest possible benefit to all: for this belongs to goodness, and power should serve him for this purpose, so that he can do as much good as he desires, indeed he should will more than he is able: furthermore, he should wish to do harm the less, the more he is able. As God set the sun in heaven as the most beautiful image of Himself, so He set the prince on earth. But nothing is more generous than the sun, which shares its light even with the other heavenly bodies; so a prince ought to be most exposed to public uses, and have the natural light of wisdom at home, so that even if others are somewhat blind, he himself may never err. What the heart is in a man, the prince is in the state: just as the heart breathes spirit and life into the other members, so does the prince to his subjects: what the physician is in a city, the prince is in the state. So Plutarch in the Moralia. Moreover, Claudian in his Panegyric celebrates the liberality of Probus thus: "That lavish hand surpassed the rivers of Iberia, pouring forth golden gifts."
"It is generous to sow a benefit so that you may reap its fruit," says Cicero on his way into exile. "The chief endowment in a prince is liberality and clemency," says Pomponius Laetus writing on Diocletian. Demosthenes, when asked "what makes men like God," answered: "Doing good." So Maximus, Sermon 8. Xenophon used to say that it was much more glorious to leave behind an abundance of benefits than of trophies: so Stobaeus, Sermon 46. Thus glorious was Cyrus, who used to say that his friends to whom he had given the most were the treasures of his riches, as Xenophon says; Alexander, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Constantine, were most liberal. Ptolemy was surnamed Euergetes ("Benefactor") from his benefactions. Philadelphus used to say "it is more kingly to enrich others than to become rich," as Aelian says. King Antigonus used to say that "a kingdom is nothing other than a splendid servitude." And indeed, if you look more deeply into the matter, what is a principate, what is a Cardinalate, but a purple-clad servitude that serves the interests of the faithful with splendor? Are you surprised? The Supreme Pontiff, who is the apex and summit of princes and purple-clad lords, is nothing other than the servant of the servants of God: for this is the title he himself bears and in which he glories. Indeed, on the tomb of Pope Adrian VI, teacher of Charles V, in the Vatican, this inscription was carved: "Here lies Adrian VI, who counted nothing in life more unhappy than to rule." So Jovius in his Life.
Moreover, the rod of noam, that is, of beauty, comeliness, pleasantness, elegance, and grace, demands much from a prince and prelate. First, humility, that he may lower himself to the weak, even to rustics and the poor, and hear their complaints and burdens before all others, and remedy them. Second, affability, that he may show himself affable, courteous, and kind to all, repelling no one, or addressing anyone too harshly. Third, equanimity, that he may bear the weaknesses and murmurings of his subjects with equanimity, not becoming angry at them, not being disturbed, but tolerating them, as a mother tolerates the foolishness of her little infant. Fourth, magnanimity, that as an angel superior to human affairs he may govern men, as a tutor governs children: let him never lose heart, even if he sees many resisting or fighting against his pious endeavors, but gently and firmly bend all to the rule of equity and piety. Fifth, patience, that he may steadfastly bear the labors, troubles, and hardships of governance. Sixth, kindness and beneficence, so that
he may reward beyond merit and punish less than what is deserved. Let him be like a bee, which everywhere pours forth honey, but extends its sting only in necessity against enemies: so let the prince do good to all, harm to none, and avenge not his own injuries, but only those of the state. Seventh, candor and sweetness of soul, by which he may soothe and console the afflicted, the sorrowful, the faint-hearted, the melancholic. Eighth, charity, which he may breathe upon all everywhere, even enemies, so that he may seem to have a heart dilated, full, and burning with charity toward all. Ninth, pleasantness, urbanity, and grace in speaking and acting, by which he may speak graciously, act, and command by hinting rather than ordering, by example rather than by word: let him anticipate the deserving with honor and beneficence; let him stimulate the undeserving to their duty with hope and promises. Such was Christ (about whom Zechariah here especially speaks), as is clear from Isaiah 42:1 ff., and Isaiah 11:1 ff., and Matthew 12:48 and elsewhere. Such were St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John. Such were St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Gregory, St. Augustine. Such in the Society [of Jesus] we have had and have (praise be to God) St. Ignatius, St. Francis Xavier, Fr. Lainez, and others, who display and instill sincerity, eagerness, joy, and beneficence of spirit in all, so that being wholly honeylike, they always seem to pour forth honey, never gall.
Verse 8: And I Cut Off Three Shepherds
8. And I cut off three shepherds. — Who are these three? First, St. Jerome, Remigius, Albertus, Hugo, and Ribera understand Moses, Aaron, and Miriam their sister and prophetess: for Moses was the shepherd of the people in civil affairs, Aaron in sacred matters, Miriam presided over the women (Exodus 15:20). For in the same first month, namely March, in which Miriam died, the sentence of death was pronounced by God against Moses and Aaron (Numbers 20:1), who also died a little later in the same year, the fortieth from the departure from Egypt, namely Aaron on the first day of the fifth month, that is, July (Numbers 33:38); Moses on the seventh of the month of Adar, that is, February (Deuteronomy 34:7). The Prophet certainly alludes here to the past, but intends to prophesy something else about the future. Second, others understand the three first kings of Israel, namely Saul, David, and Solomon; others, like Lyranus, Joram, Ahaziah, and Jezebel, whom God killed through Jehu. Better, R. David understands the three sons and kings of Josiah, namely Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah, whom God deprived of their kingdom through the Chaldeans within 22 years. But all of these had already been cut off long ago: here, however, the Prophet is prophesying about the future: for he narrates how he himself, appointed shepherd by God, fed and ruled the people with two rods, so as thereby to represent that the people would henceforth be ruled by God in two ways.
Therefore third, Arias more aptly understands the three shepherds as Judas, Jonathan, and Simon, the Maccabee brothers, whom God removed within one month of years, that is, within thirty years; but under these three, understand also their successors and the remaining princes of the people up to Christ. For these ruled the people for one month, that is, for a short time, with the rod of beauty, and when it was cut off by God on account of the iniquity and rebellion of the people, especially when they resisted Christ and killed Him, they were cut off by God, as follows. He alludes to shepherds of flocks who, hired to feed them, either broken by the untamed fierceness of the cattle or by excessive labor, resign their shepherding office in the first month and depart from the flock. For thus God often sent good shepherds to the Jews, that is, pious princes, prophets, and pontiffs, one after another in succession; but these either, overcome by the obstinacy and wickedness of the Jews, abandoned their office, or were consumed by weariness and labor, or were killed by the Jews, as Christ reproaches them in Matthew 23:37.
Therefore God, wearied of this task of sending such shepherds, and as if overcome with disgust, resolved to cut off and remove them all together with the rod of beauty, and to leave the people to themselves like an untamed flock, to wander wherever they pleased without law and without king.
Mystically, Christ, establishing the Church as a new commonwealth of God, within a month, that is, within a short time, removed the threefold shepherds of the old law, namely princes, prophets, and priests: so Theodoret and Vatablus.
And my soul was straitened (in Hebrew vattiqtsar, that is, was anguished, as if to say: From trouble and sorrow my soul was constricted and as if contracted) in them — that is, on their account (for their cause and in regard to them), namely the Jews, and therefore I removed from them the three shepherds just mentioned. Symmachus and Theodotion translate: My soul was dismayed; others: It is nauseated in them.
For their soul also varied toward me — namely in my worship and in obedience to my law, as if to say: Now they were obedient to me, now disobedient; now they worshipped me, now their own desires. Hence the Chaldean: Their soul detested my worship; therefore I will abandon them, because they first abandoned me: I detest them, because they first detested me. Hence the Septuagint: Their soul roared against me; Aquila: Their soul was unripe toward me — that is, it was astringent, bitter, harsh (for such are unripe fruits, e.g. pears and apples) toward me, or it rejected and vomited me out, as the mouth and stomach reject and vomit out crude and unripe fruits; Symmachus: Their soul prevailed against me; the Tigurina: It detested me; Vatablus: It abhorred me; others: It was dissolved in me; others: It is nauseated in me. For the Hebrew bachal, by metathesis alludes to chabal, that is, to bind: for we bind and bandage stomachs and members that are weakened and languid with pain; hence R. Moses, in the passage cited a little earlier, thinks there is an allusion to the second rod, which in verse 7 is called chobelim, that is, destroyers, demolishers, as if to say: Because these shepherds are chobelim, that is, destroyers of my flock, therefore my soul bachala, that is, detests them. Better we will say there is an allusion to chebalim, that is, cords, as if to say: Because their soul bachala, that is, detested me, therefore I will give them the rod of chabalim, that is, of cords, and will treat them as guilty
and My shepherds, who ruled My people with beauty and love, and I introduced another mode by which I ruled them with cords and scourges, as slaves, indeed as oxen and asses. And so this rod of beauty was symbolically and literally cut and broken by Zechariah, so that by this very act he might represent that in the death of Christ the governance of love, by which God had until then ruled the Jews, would be broken. To make void my covenant which I had struck with all the peoples. — Hence St. Jerome and others think that this rod of beauty signifies the covenant of God with Noah and all the nations descended from him, entered into immediately after the flood, which He revoked shortly after on account of their idolatry and unfaithfulness, when, leaving aside and cutting off the other nations, He entered into another and special covenant with Abraham alone and his posterity, namely the Israelites (Genesis 17:2). But even though the Prophet alludes to this, he nevertheless properly prophesies about the future, namely that the lovable and peaceful covenant and governance by which He ruled and was going to rule the Jews, would be broken on account of their rebellion at the death of Christ. For then the Jewish covenant and the Old Testament were made void.
You will say, how is this said to have been made with all peoples? For it is established that it was made with the Jews alone. I answer, because at that time there was no other covenant of God in the world than this Jewish covenant, and therefore whoever among the nations wished to be partakers of this covenant of God, had to become proselytes and embrace Judaism. Second, because the covenant previously entered into by God with Noah and all nations was transferred to Abraham and the Jews, and remained with them; and so with regard to its origin it was entered into with all nations, just as with regard to its continuance and state; for the nations were not excluded from this covenant, but rather included: for they could embrace Judaism, and so insert themselves into this covenant, especially because to Abraham, the founder of this covenant, God had said: "In your seed all nations shall be blessed" (Genesis 22:18).
Verse 11: And so the Poor of the Flock Knew
11. And so the poor of the flock knew — as if to say: "So," that is, from that manner of my governing, the humble and meek will know, namely the Apostles and the other faithful who keep God's will, and they will say in admiration that this is the word of the Lord, that is, His command and work, who does not allow the impious Jews to go unpunished. They praise therefore this word of God, just toward the Jews, but merciful toward themselves; just as of old Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob knew—
approved and praised My judgment, by which I revoked the covenant made with the nations through Noah on account of their unfaithfulness and apostasy, and entered into a new one with Abraham and his posterity. Note the phrase "who keep watch for me," that is, in my favor, supply: my precepts. Hence Pagninus and others translate: Who keep me, namely as a most precious treasure, by which they are abundantly rich, even if they are otherwise very poor; the Chaldean: Who keep my will; the Tigurina: Who observe me, that is, my mouth, my orders and commands; the Septuagint: The sheep that are kept for me; for whoever is God's treasure, so that he can say with the Apostle: "I live, now not I, but Christ lives in me," for him in return God is his treasure, lot, and portion, and he can say to Him: The Lord is my lot: "The Lord is the portion of my inheritance and of my cup; it is You who will restore my inheritance to me" (Psalm 15).
Verse 12: And I Said to them
12. And I said to them — namely to the poor of the flock, says St. Jerome, who wished to hold me back when I wanted to leave the pastoral care, and consequently I said the same to all the others whose shepherd I was, as if to say: I said to the Jews: If you want me as your shepherd, assign me the price and wages for my care and labor: if not, be still; I too will rest from caring for you and will depart: for a shepherd does not feed his flock for nothing, but demands a just compensation for his pasturing. All these things Zechariah said and did, not in reality, but mentally through an imaginary vision, says Vatablus; for he seemed to himself (with God representing this in his mind) to say these things, and to demand the price of his pastorate, and the Jews assigned him the price of thirty pieces of silver, which, since it seemed cheap, at God's command he cast to the potter, so that through this vision he might symbolically represent the price at which the Jews valued Christ and His labors in feeding them, when they valued Him at thirty pieces of silver and bought Him from Judas, in order to kill and crucify Him as a false shepherd, indeed a tyrant.
For Christ, the shepherd of the Jews, fed them with the rod of beauty, which was therefore cut and broken by God at His death. Zechariah therefore says in the type and person of Christ: "If it is good," etc., as if to say: If it seems fair to you, O Jews, assign and give to Me, your God incarnated for your sake, and feeding, teaching, and ruling you in the flesh assumed with supreme beauty and condescension, a just and due wage for this My providence, care, and charity toward you, namely the highest thanksgiving, obedience, honor, and worship; "and if not," as if to say: If this does not please you, I do not force you: for I do not need your wages, worship, or praise. That these things pertain to Christ literally, St. Matthew teaches in chapter 27:9. Therefore, from this passage the exposition of the two rods that I assigned in verse 7 is plainly confirmed, by applying them to Christ and His times: for Zechariah here represents Christ, both in his person and in his action, says a Castro. For just as for his pastoral office he demanded a just price, namely faith and piety from the heart, and for this he was given the vile price of thirty pieces of silver: so Christ demanded from the Jews for His ministry of preaching that they believe in Him and regard Him as the Messiah and Son of God. But they valued Him at the price of thirty pieces of silver. And just as for this reason the indignant Prophet cast away the price and those who gave it; so Christ cast away the Jews and delivered them to the Romans to be devastated.
And they weighed out — on the balance to the just weight. For in ancient times money was not minted, but was weighed out to a certain weight; for example, for the price of something they would give so many drachmas, ounces, pounds, or talents of gold or silver. Hence also later, when money was minted, it had to be of a certain weight, and still must be. Therefore the shekel, which was the common coin, had to weigh 4 drachmas to be just, as I said on Exodus 30:13, as much as 4 Roman julii or 4 Spanish reales weigh. Hence also shekel, that is siclus, in Hebrew comes from shakal, that is, to weigh, to balance. The shekel is therefore the same as a weight, namely a fixed amount of gold or silver.
Thirty pieces of silver — namely shekels, say Maldonatus, Pererius, Salmeron, and others on Matthew 27. Christ therefore, sold by Judas, appears to have been sold for 30 shekels, that is, 30 Brabantine florins, the price at which the life of a slave who had been killed was valued, and had to be redeemed by the killer, according to the law of Exodus 21:32. Christ and His life are therefore here equated by Judas and the Jews with a slave and his life.
But since Jeremiah 32:6, a stater, that is, a shekel, as the Hebrew has, is distinguished from silver pieces; for he says: "I weighed out to him seven staters of silver and ten silver pieces;" and since Budaeus, in On the As V, followed by Suarez, Ribera, and others, asserts that he saw in Paris a coin for which Christ was sold, and that it weighed only two Attic drachmas, or two julii, or two Spanish reales; hence it seems more likely that the silver piece was half a shekel and double a denarius. A silver piece is therefore two julii, or two reales, that is, half a Brabantine florin. Therefore Christ, sold for 30 silver pieces, was sold for 15 Brabantine florins, or six crowns, that is, six Roman gold coins. I was more confirmed in this opinion at Rome, where in the church of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, together with a part of the holy cross, a nail, and the thorns brought there by St. Helena, I saw one coin from these 30 pieces of silver for which Christ was sold. For it is the size of two Reales, indeed smaller than a double Real of ten asses, or stuivers, but a little thicker. Hence also Zechariah calls this price ironically "handsome," that is, unhandsome and most vile.
Note: Because Christ was sold for so cheap a price, therefore by this humiliation and vile estimation of Himself He merited to become and to be the price of our redemption, and likewise of sin, which similarly weighs and values a cheap thing together with
God and values them together. For the sinner weighs, values, and esteems a single morsel of food, a single theft of a florin, a single base desire, a point of honor, etc., together with God — indeed, above God — the greatest and best, and thus prefers them to God Himself, and chooses them over Him. To satisfy for this great injury and contempt against God, Christ similarly willed to be sold for so vile and unworthy a price, to teach us morally to bear patiently contempt, insults, and reproaches against ourselves. For who despises and undervalues us so much that he does not value us more than the thirty pieces of silver at which Christ was valued and despised? For this was a most grievous ignominy and injury to Christ, as the Son of the living God and Lord of all creation, whose proper nature is to be beyond all price: because His value and dignity are infinite in every direction. The injury was increased by the fact that He was sold by a disciple whom He had chosen as an Apostle from so many millions, and this to the most hostile enemies of Christ who thirsted for His blood: for such were the Scribes and Pontiffs. Hence His type was Joseph, who was sold by his brothers to the Midianites. Hence that grave complaint of Christ in Psalm 54:13: "For if my enemy had reviled me, I would certainly have borne it, etc. But you," O Judas, "a man of one mind, my guide and my familiar, who together with me took sweet food, in the house of God we walked in harmony."
Tropologically, Christ willed to give us an example of heroic and supreme humility, meekness, patience, charity, etc., to be imitated and practiced; and specifically, He willed to teach prelates to tolerate, indeed to care for, difficult, wicked, and rebellious subjects. For in proportion as they increase the burden of governing, they increase the merit of virtue; and, as St. Bernard says in letter 37: "In proportion as you are burdened, in proportion you gain." Thus St. Martin refused to remove from office his cleric Brice, his constant detractor, saying: "If Christ endured Judas, why should I not endure Brice?" By this patience and humility he so conquered him that he changed his tongue and his life, became a saint, and succeeded St. Martin in the bishopric. The witness is Sulpitius, Dialogue 5 on the Life of St. Martin, who also adds that all these things were predicted by Martin to Brice.
Tropologically, those sell Christ for a cheap price who traffic in and sell the sacraments, benefices, justice, their chastity, etc., for a temporal price: for Christ is truth, justice, chastity. So Salmeron on Matthew 27. And St. Bernard, Sermon 1 on the Lord's Supper: "What," he says, "is to sell? To alienate. He sells the Lord who alienates the Lord from himself. O disciple of Christ, the devil seeks to tear you away, to drag you out of the Lord's flock. See that you do not consent to him. He wants to kill you. Beware of purses; they are the devil's pits: Judas, while he thirsts for gain, reaches for the noose; while he loses his life, he gains death."
Verse 13: And the Lord Said to Me: Cast it
13. And the Lord said to me: Cast it to the potter. — In Hebrew yotser, which commonly means a potter, who fashions and forms vessels or statues from clay or mud. Hence Aquila, as Eusebius testifies (Demonstration X, ch. 4), translates "moulder"; the Tigurina, Arias, and Clarius, "potter." Second, yotser in general means one who fashions something from bronze, gold, silver, or some other metal or material, for example an idol or statue. Hence the Septuagint and Symmachus translate: Cast them to the smelter, that is, to the refiner, namely to the minter, or to the silversmith or goldsmith, who weighs and strikes or smelts the coin and estimates its value — so that he whose business it is to estimate the value of money may judge whether this is a worthy price for my person, and for my labor and pastoral care. Hence St. Jerome translates "potter" (statuarium), which is a name common to both potter and smelter: "Instead of moulder and fashioner," says St. Jerome, "I formerly translated 'potter,' compelled by the ambiguity of the word, which signifies both potter and fashioner in a single term." Third, the Chaldean, R. David, Pagninus, and Vatablus hold that yotser is put for otser, that is, treasurer, or prefect of the treasury, namely of the temple or the house of the Lord. All these translations tend to the same end. For God here commands Zechariah through an imaginary vision to cast these thirty pieces of silver which the Jews had assigned him as wages, indignantly into the temple at the feet of the priests, especially the treasurer of the temple, so that they might appraise the cheapness of this price, and this for the purpose of representing by the very act the selling of Christ, and the cheapness of the price for which Christ and His most innocent blood were bought unto death; and therefore the priests would not put that money into the treasury but give it to the potter, so that from him they might buy a field for the burial of strangers (Matthew 27:7).
Note first, that all these things were done through a vision. For Zechariah seemed in his imagination to be demanding the price of his labor from the Jews, and they to be assigning him thirty pieces of silver, but then he cast them in the temple at the feet of the treasurer. The reason was so that by this vision he might represent the real casting of the silver pieces in the temple — those for which Christ was sold — done by Judas. That it was indeed a vision, not a real reception and casting of thirty silver pieces, is gathered from the fact that Zechariah was not a shepherd but a prophet of the people. Hence he could not demand a shepherd's price from them; and if he had demanded a wage for prophesying, that is, for preaching, they would certainly have assigned him not so vile a sum, but a decent and honorable one. For the people held Zechariah in honor and veneration: for at his prophecy and insistence they built the temple, so laborious and splendid, as is clear from 1 Ezra 5:1. Thus Ezekiel in chapter 1 did not actually see the cherubic chariot of God, but through a vision. Thus Isaiah 8:3 approached the prophetess, and she conceived, not in reality but through a vision. Hence the Prophets were called Seers. If anyone nevertheless contends that these things were performed by Zechariah not through a vision but in reality, to represent in reality the selling of Christ, I will not drag out a contentious rope with him, nor will I resist, especially because Zechariah does seem actually to have taken up two shepherd's rods, one of which he called Beauty, the other the Cord; and then actually to have put on the instruments of a foolish shepherd, as he himself says in verse 15 that he was commanded by God. For in a similar way Isaiah, chapter 20, actually went naked, to represent in reality the nakedness and despoiling of the people. Similarly Ezekiel, chapter 4, actually depicted the siege of a city on a brick, ate cow dung, and slept 390 days on one side, to represent in reality the siege of Jerusalem, and its famine and long duration. Similarly Hosea, chapter 1, actually married a prostitute, and from her begot children of fornication, to represent in reality the mystical fornication, that is, the idolatry of the people. The Prophets did many more such things and even more prodigious, because they were made by God a portent for Israel and for the world, as Isaiah says, 8:10. Nor should it seem surprising that the people assigned so small a price to Zechariah, both because they had been impoverished — for they had recently returned from the Babylonian captivity and had spent greatly on the building of the temple, the walls of the city, and their own homes — and because they did it at God's instigation and direction, to represent the vile price at which their posterity would value and buy Christ.
Note second: Zechariah here, as if in a play, sees and acts these things in the person, not his own, but of Christ: for he here puts on the person of Christ, and represents Him symbolically and hieroglyphically. Therefore these symbols of his are to be explained literally as pertaining to Christ. For just as in a play an actor who plays the role of St. Lawrence literally signifies the words and deeds, not his own, but of St. Lawrence, so also here Zechariah, as an actor, represents on stage the selling of Christ through these symbols of his.
Note third, that Zechariah, representing Christ, is told by God: "Cast it," when it was Judas who cast the silver, not Christ: for Christ, by His innocence and by His prediction of the betrayal of Judas, stung and impelled his conscience to bring back and cast the silver in the temple. For when he saw that Christ, sold by him, was now about to be delivered to death by the Jews, coming to his senses, although too late, he repented and grieved that by his own selling he was the cause why Christ would be killed — Christ, of whose innocence and charity he had been an eyewitness for three years, and whom he knew to be a prophet and a divine man, and who had moreover predicted to him this very betrayal of his. Hence Christ's holiness and prediction, and consequently the consciousness of so monstrous a crime, impelled him to cast away the silver pieces and to publicly confess his crime before the complicit priests, saying: "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." To Zechariah therefore it is said: "Cast it," that is, predict that the price of the sold Christ is to be cast away by Judas: but to Christ, the antitype of Zechariah, it is said: "Cast it," that is, compel and force by Your power, and by the stings of conscience driven into Judas, that he, repenting of his crime, may cast away the price for which he sold You, his God and Lord, in a monstrous sacrilege, so that they themselves may likewise see the enormity of their simony, by which they purchased the Holy of Holies for so vile a price, and therefore they may not assign that sum, being the most vile price of divine blood, to the vessels and uses of the temple, but spend it on the poor and apply it to the burial of strangers.
Note fourth: just as in plays, symbols, and parables certain things are added for the elegance of the play, symbol, or parable which do not correspond to the thing signified, and conversely certain things exist in the thing signified which are passed over in silence in the play or parable, indeed sometimes cannot be represented because the type does not correspond in every respect to the antitype: so it happens here as well. For first, Zechariah here, just as he demands, so also receives the price: but Christ, whom he signifies, did indeed demand a price from the Jews; yet it was received not by Him but by Judas the traitor. And so here the indignity of the antitype far exceeds the indignity of the type. For that Christ was valued by the Jews at thirty pieces of silver, but these were given not to Christ but to Judas His betrayer, is far more vile and unworthy than that Zechariah was valued at thirty silver pieces, since he himself received them, that is, seemed to himself to receive them through a vision. Second, Zechariah cast the silver pieces as an unworthy price for himself to the potter or craftsman, and does not specify why, or what was done with them; but St. Matthew does specify these very things, namely that they were given to the potter so that a field might be bought from him for the burial of strangers, and adds that this was done
by God's will and decree, saying: "And they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed for me." Third, Zechariah, indignant that so vile a price was being given him, cast the silver pieces: but Christ, as He did not receive the price for Himself, so neither did He cast it; rather Judas himself did so, and not out of indignation at so vile a price, but from consciousness of crime and repentance for the deed. The cause of these disparities is that it was not fitting, indeed it was scarcely possible, for a holy Prophet playing the part of Christ to simultaneously play the part of Judas the traitor and take upon himself his deeds and crimes: therefore he represents them by assuming the person not of Judas but of Christ. For what Christ suffered in this selling of Himself, Judas did and inflicted upon Him.
Therefore, although it is certain that Zechariah here foreshadowed the selling and price of Christ, and as it were represented it on stage, nevertheless because of the disparities just mentioned, many hold that St. Matthew 27:9, where he teaches that this very thing was predicted by a Prophet, does not directly and properly cite this passage of Zechariah, but of Jeremiah. For he says: "Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying: And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him who was priced" (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV, ch. 40, reads "honored," that is "adorned," as if referring to the "handsome" price, of which Zechariah speaks shortly) "whom they priced from the children of Israel: and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed for me."
For these words differ greatly from those of Zechariah: "And they weighed out my wages, thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said to me: Cast them to the potter, a handsome price at which I was valued by them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver and cast them in the house of the Lord to the potter." Since therefore they are not Zechariah's, they seem to be Jeremiah's: for the Latin and Greek Bibles, both modern and ancient, consistently read the name of Jeremiah in St. Matthew, with few exceptions. For at Rome in the Angelica Library of the Augustinian Hermit Fathers I saw ancient manuscript Bibles in which the name of Jeremiah was absent. Hence, since these words are not found in the prophecy of Jeremiah that now exists, many hold that they formerly existed in it and were erased by the Jews: or rather that they were written in some other book of Jeremiah that has been lost. Hence St. Jerome, on Matthew 27: "I recently read," he says, "in a certain Hebrew volume which a Hebrew of the Nazarene sect offered me, an apocryphal work of Jeremiah in which I found these words written verbatim." Origen holds the same, Treatise 35 on Matthew; Tertullian, Against Marcion IV, ch. 39; Eusebius, Demonstration X, ch. 4; St. Augustine, Harmony of the Gospels III, ch. 7; a Castro here. Others, however, on the contrary hold that Matthew is citing these from Zechariah, and that the name of Jeremiah crept in for it through the carelessness of copyists, both because the Syriac and some Latin manuscripts of the Gospels, formerly according to St. Augustine's testimony at the passage just cited, did not have the name of Jeremiah.
Lyranus, Rupert, and others testify to the same, whom Francis Lucas cites in his Notes on Matthew 27. Also because the Evangelists sometimes cite the Prophets not as to the words but as to the sense, especially because Zechariah here acts as it were the role of the future Christ: and an actor, just as he comically and scenically represents words and deeds of the past, so much more those of the future. Therefore what Zechariah symbolically, obscurely, and concisely foreshadowed in his manner as future events in Christ, St. Matthew narrates as fulfilled in Him explicitly, clearly, and at length. St. Jerome, Baronius (at the year of Christ 34), Jansen, Maldonatus on Matthew 27, Suarez (Part III, vol. II, disp. 34, sect. 1), and other men of great judgment hold this opinion as probable and follow it.
A handsome price — as if to say: A truly fine and worthy price for my labor! It is irony. Similar is the poet's line: "A truly fine praise and ample spoils you bring home." He alludes to the rod of beauty in verse 7, and pathetically sets up an antithesis against it, as if to say: I ruled you with the rod of beauty, fairly: you repay me with an unbecoming and unworthy reward. I poured out all my love and beneficence upon you: you do not value me and my labor and love at more than thirty pieces of silver. This, forsooth, is the fair price of my beauty and love; this is the worthy wage for so great a condescension of mine.
Morally, let the priest, religious, and the Christian who is stingy and slothful in God's worship and service, consider the same said and reproached to him by Christ: I gave My life and soul for you: you scarcely wish to move a foot beyond what is required, for love of Me. I sweated blood and water for you; you fear to shed a droplet of sweat for Me in winning souls, in the duties of obedience. I humbled Myself below all the angels and all men; you refuse for My sake to be placed after even one person. Is this, forsooth, the fair price for My charity, humility, and patience, that you repay Me? Let the holy and fervent soul therefore say to Christ:
O You who have pitied our labors too greatly, too greatly, O You who are too mindful of us and not at all of Yourself. Neither the human race, nor the fabric of so great a world, was a worthy reward for so great a labor. Has the eternal offspring of the eternal Father, made man, died so that we guilty ones might not die?
"O hard," says St. Bernard, Sermon 2 on Pentecost, "and hardened, and obstinate sons of Adam, whom so great a benignity does not soften, so great a flame, so immense a blaze of love, so vehement a love, which for worthless burdens expended such precious wares. For He did not redeem us with corruptible gold or silver, but with His precious blood, which He poured out abundantly: for streams of blood flowed copiously from the body of Jesus through five parts."
Verse 14: And I Cut the Rod
14. And I cut the rod. — Just as in verse 10 he cut the first rod called Beauty, which signified the governance of gentle and mild love, because the hard and rebellious Jews spurned it; and took up the other, called the Cord, which signified the governance of terror and scourges, namely that He would rule them like slaves with stripes and lashes (in which manner He ruled them after the death of Christ for forty years until Titus, during which the Jews received various disasters from the Romans and other nations, many of which Josephus describes in his seven books On the Jewish War; for these were preludes to the final war and destruction): so when He saw that they were not corrected even by these, but plainly hardened in their sins, He breaks this rod too, and lays down His care and governance of them, and abandons them. This happened about the fortieth year after the death of Christ, when He delivered the Jews to Titus and the Romans to be devastated, and caused their commonwealth, kingdom, nation, church, religion, city, and temple to be utterly overthrown. So St. Jerome, Theodoret, Albertus, Hugo, Lyranus, Ribera, and others.
To dissolve the brotherhood. — The Septuagint: the covenant; the Tigurina: fraternal unity, that is, the genuine and brotherly friendship which under David and Solomon had existed between Judah and Israel, namely between the two and the ten tribes. He alludes to the schism by which Israel under Rehoboam withdrew from Judah and the house of David, and made for itself King Jeroboam and new gods, namely golden calves, for which he erected temples in Dan and Bethel: but by this he signifies the future dissolution, dispersion, and ruin of the Jewish commonwealth. For in the time of Christ, the brothers Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, contending for the principate and pontificate, were the cause why Pompey invaded Judea. And after Christ, properly by Titus and the Romans the brotherhood was dissolved, that is, the fraternal unity and fellowship of Judah and Israel, by which they had previously under one leader and one religion and law conspired into one Church and commonwealth. For Titus utterly dissolved and overthrew this, and expelled the Jews from their homeland and dispersed them throughout the world. For so completely was their brotherhood and kinship dissolved at that time, that they themselves are ignorant of it and do not know from which tribe or family they descend. He names Judah and Israel, both because he alludes to the schism that Israel made from Judah under Rehoboam; and because many from Israel, that is, from the ten tribes, in the schism of Rehoboam joined themselves to Judah, or after the schism returned to union with Judah, whose union and fellowship was utterly dissolved by Titus; and finally, because mystically Judah, that is, "confessing," represents the faithful Jews who, having embraced Christ, were saved by Him both in soul and body; for they escaped Titus's destruction, because warned by God they left Jerusalem before the siege, as I said elsewhere from Eusebius. But schismatic Israel represents the unfaithful Jews who, rejecting Christ, were killed by Titus, so that the sense is, as if to say: Just as under Rehoboam God and the house of David and Judah expelled Israel from His Church, kingdom, and temple, that is, the ten schismatic tribes: so the same God through Christ, who is the typological David, will separate the Jews who believe in Him from the unbelievers and unfaithful, both in the slaughter of Titus and on the day of judgment, both particular and universal, when He will adjudge the faithful to heaven and the unfaithful to hell, so that the faithful may be sons and heirs of God, and the unfaithful of the devil. So St. Jerome, Theodoret, Hugo, Ribera, and others.
Verse 15: Take to Yourself yet Again
15. Take to yourself yet again. — Up to this point the Prophet played the part of the wise and good shepherd, to represent God the shepherd of the people, and the shepherds to be sent by Him, for example the Maccabees, and especially Christ, who would rule the Jews with the rod of beauty, that is, with love and fatherly care; and would scourge the rebels with the rod of the cord, that is, with terror and threats. Now God commands him to play the opposite role, and to put on the garb of a foolish and wicked shepherd, who cares for himself alone and neglects the flock; to show that the Jews would fall under such shepherds, because they would spurn God the best shepherd and the vicars sent by Him. In a similar way, Christ alluding to this in John 10, calls Himself the good shepherd, who watches over the flock entirely and gives His life for the sheep, and sets Himself against the hireling, who seeks his own advantage; therefore when the wolf comes he flees and allows the sheep to be torn apart. So also Ezekiel, chapter 34, extensively censures the false shepherds of Israel and describes their ways, and finally in verse 25 promises that God, having removed them, will raise up the true shepherd, Christ the Lord.
The instruments of a foolish shepherd. — The Septuagint: of an unskilled one; the Chaldean: of a foolish ruler, not speculatively but practically, namely one who rules the flock unskillfully and foolishly, because he is wise and provident only for himself. By "foolish" therefore, understand here one who is wicked, criminal, rapacious, cruel, who benefits himself and harms the flock, indeed rages against it and despoils, plunders, and afflicts it. So Theodoret, St. Cyril, and others. Thus the sinner is called a fool throughout Proverbs 15:5: "A fool mocks his father's discipline." For a fool is senseless, one who, deprived of the use of reason, speaks and acts foolishly. But what is more foolish than the sinner, who acts against the dictate of right reason, against the law, against honesty, against virtue, against the will of God, who for fleeting pleasure sells eternal glory, and voluntarily casts himself into the fires of hell? Now his instruments, that is, his tools are the same as those of the good shepherd, say St. Jerome and Lyranus, namely the staff,
the scrip, the pipe, and the whistle; for by the singing of the pipe the shepherd soothes the sheep, so that they may pluck and swallow their pasture, even bitter pasture, more sweetly. For this shepherd seems to have had the outward appearance of a good shepherd, but not his inner disposition. Hence he shortly calls him an idol of a shepherd. Others better hold that the "instruments of a foolish shepherd" differ from those of a good one: for the good shepherd carries a crook, with which he throws a clod of earth at straying sheep to drive them back to the flock; the bad one carries a club, which he hurls at the sheep to break their legs: the good one carries a knife to cut fodder for the sheep; the bad one a sword, with which he slaughters and butchers them: hence follows: "The sword upon his arm." The good one stores in his scrip food for the sheep as well as his own; the bad one only his own, and a noose for strangling the sheep: the good one summons the sheep with a whistle; the bad one terrifies and scatters them with a horrible shout: the good one carries in his scrip ointment, with which he anoints and heals injured sheep; the bad one poison, with which he kills them: the good one by playing a pipe or bagpipe invites the sheep to feed eagerly; the bad one plays the lyre only for himself, as in Italy I have seen some idle rustics and shepherds carrying a lyre instead of a hoe or crook, and being skilled lyre-players for themselves, but gaping and hoarse for others. So St. Cyril. These instruments therefore Zechariah assumed and put on at God's command, to represent the wicked shepherd.
Verse 16: Behold, I Will Raise up a Shepherd
16. Behold, I will raise up a shepherd. — Note here that God creates shepherds, not only good ones but also wicked ones, on account of the sins of the people, so that through them He may punish the people. For just as He often gives wealth to the impious, so also honors and prelacies. You ask, who was this impious shepherd? First, Theodoret holds that it was Antiochus Epiphanes, who raged against the Jews. Second, Arias holds that it was Herod the Ascalonite, who, being a foreigner, thrust himself into the kingdom of the Jews, whose cruelty is evident from the slaughter of the innocents and the killing of his own sons. Third, a Castro holds that it was Titus and the Romans, for to these the Jews were delivered because they refused to obey Christ the true shepherd sent by God, just as He had formerly delivered them to Shalmaneser and Nebuchadnezzar to be governed, because they had rejected God's rule. For these are called shepherds in Scripture, as Jeremiah 6:3: "Shepherds will come to her"; Nahum 3:18: "Your shepherds have slumbered, O king of Assyria"; Isaiah 44:28: "Who says of Cyrus: He is my shepherd." But Titus and the Romans were not foolish shepherds; for by their counsel and patience they occupied the empire of the world, as it says in 1 Maccabees 8:3.
Fourth, and genuinely, this shepherd signifies all the perverse pontiffs and princes who ruled the Jews after the times of Zechariah, or who seized the pontificate and principate, to whom God delivered the Jews on account of their crimes, especially because they rejected Him and His shepherds. Such in the first place was the wicked Jason, says Sanchez, who treacherously fled to Antiochus, took Jerusalem, and produced great slaughter of the citizens (2 Maccabees 5:6). Likewise Jason's brother Menelaus, of whom it is said in 2 Maccabees 4:25: "Having received the king's orders, he came, having nothing worthy of the priesthood; but bearing the spirit of a cruel tyrant and the rage of a savage beast." Hence he also stole the golden vessels from the temple and had the pontiff Onias killed. Hence in 2 Maccabees 5:15, he is called a traitor to his homeland. Such also were Herod the king, intruded by the Romans, Annas and Caiaphas, and others constituted as pontiffs not by God but by the Romans for a price paid. Likewise the Scribes and Pharisees, who opposed Christ the true shepherd to the point of His death and crucifixion. Such after Christ were Theudas and Judas the Galilean, of whom Acts 5:36-37 speaks. Likewise Bar Kokhba in the time of the Emperor Hadrian, of whom Eusebius writes in History IV, ch. 6. Likewise the pseudo-Moses of Crete, who in the year 433, under the Emperor Theodosius, deceived the Jews; for pretending to be Moses, he ordered them to enter the sea from Crete with him, as if he would lead them to a new promised land, as Moses had formerly done; but the sea swallowed and drowned those who entered, as Socrates reports, VII, ch. 37. Such finally will be the Antichrist, who will be the antagonist of Christ; for although he will rage against Christians alone, and will be benign toward the Jews — since he is to be accepted and promoted by them as the Messiah, as the Apostle teaches in 2 Thessalonians 2:10 — nevertheless he will rage against their souls: because he will drive them to idolatry of himself, to lusts, to slaughters of Christians, and other crimes, and through these to eternal destruction; and once his power is established, he will rage also against their possessions and bodies: for he will be a most cruel and most ambitious tyrant against all. For he will look only to himself and his own honor, power, and glory, and will force the resources, bodies, and souls of his subjects to serve him. Hence Christ says in John 5:43: "I have come in the name of My Father, and you do not receive Me: if another comes in his own name, you will receive him." To him also applies that saying: "O shepherd and idol!" For the Antichrist will want to be worshipped and adored by his followers as an idol and deity. Therefore by this foolish shepherd, none other than the Antichrist is understood by St. Jerome, Theodoret, St. Cyril, Remigius, Hugo, Lyranus, Arias, Vatablus, Ribera, and others. But for the exposition to be general and complete, the Prophet seems to indicate also others closer to his own time, already mentioned: for these were forerunners of the Antichrist, and the following words aptly fit them.
Who will not visit what is forsaken — namely the sheep that are weary, lame, straying, entangled in thickets, and therefore abandoned and lost he will not seek. Hence the Chaldean translates: Those who have strayed he will not seek; Pagninus: What is cut off he will not visit; Vatablus: The most gravely sick and already despaired of he will not visit.
He will not seek what is scattered. — The Hebrew hannaur means "shaken off," and from this a child shaken off from the milk and first care of parents, that is, a weaned child and youth. Hence Pagninus translates: What is small he will not seek; the Tigurina: The foolish he will not seek; Vatablus: What is young he will not seek, that is, he will not seek the lambs of the flock when they have foolishly strayed from the flock. He notes that the greatest care must be had for children and youth; for one who sins through age and imprudence, not malice, is more to be pitied, and can easily be recalled to the right path when his error is shown. The Chaldean translates: Those who have migrated he will not seek.
He will not heal what is broken. — The Tigurina: He will not heal the wounded; the Septuagint: He will not heal what is broken.
He will not nourish what stands firm. — Pagninus: What stands he will not carry; Vatablus: The one that has stopped he will not carry, as if to say: The sheep that stops from weariness while the others are returning to the fold, and cannot be moved from the spot, he will not take upon his shoulders to carry to the sheepfold. The Chaldean: And those who stand he will not sustain, he will not support; the Septuagint: What is whole he will not direct; for the Hebrew kilkel means various things, namely to sustain, to carry, to nourish.
He will eat the flesh of the fat ones — as if to say: He will enjoy the wool, milk, and flesh of the flock, and yet will not feed it; the Chaldean: He will plunder their goods.
And he will tear off their hoofs. — Pagninus: he will separate; the Septuagint: he will pervert their ankles; Vatablus: he will break, namely with a kick or a blow from the rod he carries. Our Translator renders: he will dissolve, that is, by beating he will wound and split them, so that they cannot walk. He describes the gesture of a cruel shepherd raging against his own little sheep.
Verse 17: O Shepherd and Idol!
17. O shepherd and idol! — For "O," the Hebrew has hoi, that is, woe, as the Septuagint and Chaldean translate; or "O," as our Translator, Pagninus, Vatablus, and others translate. Hence the Arabic translates: Woe to the vain, idle, lying shepherd! For "idol" the Hebrew has elil, which by paronomasia alludes to evil, that is, foolish, as he was called in verse 15. Now elil, first, means a vain, useless, worthless thing. Hence Vatablus translates: O worthless shepherd who forsakes the sheep that were entrusted to him! Others: O vain and useless shepherd! The Septuagint: Woe to you who feed vanities! The Syriac: O vain, uncultivated shepherd (like uncultivated land), who has forsaken the sheep! Second, elil is a diminutive of el, that is, God, so that elil means a little god, a shadow of God, and an idol. Hence Pagninus translates: O shepherd of an idol! The Tigurina: Woe to the idol-shepherd who forsakes the flock! Our Translator: "O shepherd and idol!" as if to say: O shepherd, you are not a shepherd but an idol and mask of a shepherd! You have nothing of a true shepherd except his shadow and likeness; because you pursue only your own advantage, but do not feed the sheep, do not care for them, abandon them, and hand them over to wolves. St. Jerome adds that the Antichrist is indicated here, who out of arrogance will truly want to be worshipped as an idol and deity. He says therefore: O shepherd evil! that is, not wise and sane, but foolish and insane, you are likewise elil, that is, not true but vain; not a living but a painted and feigned shepherd; you are an ape of a shepherd, not a shepherd. An ape is
an ape, even if it wears golden insignia; so too you are an ape of a man, not a man; you carry a golden crook, a golden crown and mitre, and a fine linen vestment; but in your mind and heart you have no wisdom, no care, no vigilance, no pastoral diligence. Woe, woe, woe to you! On the decisive day of the world, Christ the judge will strip off this mask, and will show how empty was this idol of a shepherd that you displayed outwardly. Such was Novatian, the Antipope and rival of Pope St. Cornelius, about whom St. Cyprian writes in his letter to Jubaianus: "Novatian," he says, "after the manner of apes, which, though they are not human, nevertheless imitate humans, wishes to claim for himself the authority and truth of the Catholic Church, when he himself is not in the Church, indeed has been a rebel and enemy against the Church," etc. Thus the preachers of heretics are apes and idols of shepherds.
Morally, learn here the vices and marks of a false shepherd, and from them gather the virtues and signs of a true shepherd. For the false shepherd, says Zechariah, "will not visit what is forsaken, will not seek the scattered, will not heal the broken, will not nourish what stands firm, will eat the flesh of the fat, and will tear off their hoofs." St. Gregory, Homily 17 on the Gospels, touches the root of the evil: "Intent," he says, "on worldly cares, we become inwardly the more insensible in proportion as we seem more zealous about external things. For by the practice of earthly concern, the soul hardens against heavenly desire, and while it becomes hardened through its very engagement in worldly action, it cannot be softened toward what pertains to the love of God." And shortly after: "We seek no gain of souls, we devote ourselves daily to our own pursuits, we covet earthly things, we eagerly seize human glory with intent mind. And because by the very fact that we are set over others, we have greater license to do whatever we wish, we turn the ministry of the blessing we received into an occasion for ambition." St. Bernard, Sermon 76 on the Song of Songs: "For the guarding of the city (of God, that is, the Church)," he says, "there is need of a man who is strong, spiritual, and faithful; strong to repel injuries; spiritual to detect ambushes; faithful so as not to seek what is his own." And shortly after: "Exceedingly few are those who do not seek what is their own, of all his dear ones. They love gifts, and cannot at the same time love Christ, because they have given their hands to mammon. Behold how they walk about, sleek and adorned, clothed in varied garments, like a bride proceeding from her chamber. If you should suddenly see one of them approaching from afar, would you not think it a bride rather than the bride's guardian? But whence do you think this superabundance of wealth, this splendor of garments, this luxury of tables, this heap of silver and golden vessels, comes to them, if not from the goods of the bride? From this it is that she is left poor and naked, with a pitiable, unkempt, rough, and pallid face. Therefore it is not the mark of this age to adorn the bride, but to despoil her; not to guard her, but to destroy her; not to instruct her, but to prostitute her;
and to devour, as the Lord says of them: 'They who devour my people as though eating bread.' Whom will you give me from the number of prelates, who does not watch more over emptying the purses of his subjects than over rooting out their vices? Where is the one who by prayer bends wrath, who proclaims the acceptable year of the Lord? O would that they were found as vigilant for the care of souls as they are eager to run to the chair of authority!"
In contrast, true shepherds seek not what is their own but what is Christ's: they do not hunt purses but souls; they do not aspire to a lavish life but to crosses and martyrdoms for the glory of God. Among others, in a later age St. Adalbert, Bishop of Prague and afterwards of Gnesen, was eminent in this regard. Born of the most noble parents in Bohemia, spurning the pomps of the world, called to the lot of the Lord, he gave his goods to the poor. Brought to the bishopric of Prague, he devoted himself entirely to correcting the morals of the wicked, piously severe and gravely gentle. Midday never saw him eating (except on feast days), midnight never saw him sleeping; his bed was the ground. When he saw himself making little progress among the Bohemians, he went to the Hungarians and instructed them in the faith, and especially Duke Geisa and his son St. Stephen, who was the first among the Hungarians to receive the name and dignity of king, and who died a martyr. From there he went to the Poles, and after confirming them in the Christian doctrine, he proceeded to Prussia, where, killed by the infidels, he attained the laurel of both the apostolate and martyrdom, in the year of the Lord 997. Shortly after, Emperor Otto III, visiting his tomb out of veneration, received the saint's arm as a gift from Prince Boleslaus (which he deposited in Rome in the church of St. Bartholomew, where we venerate it annually), and in return gave him a royal crown; and from that time the princes of Poland were held and called kings, who previously had been titled only dukes. They therefore owe the kingdom to St. Adalbert, which from his time they have now held for six hundred years, as have the Hungarians. So his Life and the Polish Annals relate.
Moreover, from this passage we learn that there are two duties of the true shepherd. The first is vigilance and care of the flock. The second is eminence of virtue and holiness of life. For Zechariah here describes and censures the false and feigned shepherds on two opposite counts, namely that they sleep and neglect the flock, and that they pursue their own advantages, not those of the flock, and carnal ones at that, not spiritual. As to the first, St. Antiochus, Homily 3, holds that the shepherd must be entirely eye and mind: He, he says, to whose faith the guardianship of souls has been entrusted by God, must watch over the salvation of his subjects with no small zeal, knowing for certain that he will face the peril of his own soul on their behalf, etc. The shepherd must therefore be entirely mind and eye, so that not even one of the sheep entrusted to him may become unworthy of being received by the Lord through negligence. Shepherds should therefore be Arguses, that is, hundred-eyed, so that they may inspect and care for each individual sheep; and therefore before all else they should first inspect and care for themselves. For whoever is wicked to himself, to whom will he be good? Whoever neglects himself, over whom will he keep watch? For it is written: Physician, heal yourself. It is therefore the part of subjects to obey, and of shepherds to watch, according to Hebrews 13:17: "Obey your leaders and submit to them. For they keep watch, as having to render an account for your souls."
If the eyes sleep, the whole body sleeps: the eyes of the people are the shepherds; if the shepherd sleeps, the people too will sleep. Receive an example of a vigilant shepherd from Genesis 31:38: "For twenty years (says Jacob) I was with you," that is, with Laban; "your ewes and she-goats were not barren, I did not eat the rams of your flock: nor did I show you what was seized by a beast; I made good all the loss: whatever was lost by theft, you demanded it from me: by day heat consumed me and frost by night, and sleep fled from my eyes," etc. If one who fed the sheep of Laban labors and keeps watch thus (says Gregory the Great, Epistles VII, 48, to Anastasius): if, I say, he labors and keeps watch thus, with how much labor and how many vigils must he strive who feeds the sheep of God? Observe those words of Jacob: "I made good all the loss; whatever was lost by theft, you demanded it from me." Which indicate that an accounting of the sheep will be demanded of the shepherd by God. Whatever loss occurs through his own fault, the shepherd will restore; whatever perishes will be demanded from him. This is what St. Chrysostom says in On the Priesthood II: Whoever has had Christ's flock entrusted to him, must suffer the loss of his own soul for the sheep that are lost.
As to the second, Saul king of Israel provides the type, of whom it is said in 1 Samuel 9 that from the shoulders upward he was taller than all the people. On which St. Gregory says: A king excels by the neck, excels by the head: by the neck, speech is designated; by the head, contemplation. By the head and neck, therefore, the shepherd excels above all his subjects and their heads, if he is admirable for the height of contemplation and the sublimity of doctrine. In Isaiah 40, God commands the shepherd who evangelizes to ascend a mountain: "Go up to a high mountain," He says, "you who evangelize Zion;" therefore from a sublime life, not a low and common one, the shepherd must preach to the sheep so as to be heard: this is what the same most vigilant and holy shepherd, truly Gregory, teaches in Epistles I, letter 24, to the Bishop of Constantinople: "He who," he says, "by the necessity of his position is required to say the highest things, is by this same necessity compelled to show the highest things. For that voice more readily penetrates the heart of the hearers which the speaker's life commends; because what he commands by speaking, he helps to be accomplished by showing. Hence it is said by the Prophet: Go up to a high mountain, you who evangelize Zion; so that he who employs heavenly preaching, abandoning the lowest earthly works, may be seen to stand at the summit of things, and may the more easily draw his subjects to better things, in proportion as he cries out from on high through the merit of his life." An outstanding shepherd also
Salvian, whom Gennadius calls the teacher of bishops, writes admirably on this matter in Book I to the Catholic Church: "Priests ought to be examples to all, and must surpass others in devotion as much as they surpass all in dignity. For nothing is more shameful than for someone to be eminent in rank and contemptible in worthlessness. For what is authority without sublimity of merits but a title of honor without a man? Or what is dignity in an unworthy person but an ornament in the mud? And therefore all who are eminent on the platform of the sacred altar ought to excel as much in merit as they do in rank." The reason is given by St. Basil, as quoted by Nazianzen in his Praises. For scarcely, he says, does a bishop attain the middle through the summit, and through the overflowing abundance of virtue draw the common people to mediocrity. Finally, the saying of St. Gregory, Epistles VII, 32, is golden: "The light of the flock is the flame of the shepherd. For it befits the shepherd, it befits the priest of the Lord to shine in character and life, so that in him as in a mirror the people entrusted to him may both choose what to follow and see what to correct." If you wish for more, see what I said on Ezekiel 34.
The sword upon his arm. — Either actively or passively. The Chaldean takes it actively when he translates: This foolish shepherd is like a butcher, who has a sword in his hand, and his eye looks to the fat ones to slaughter them, and therefore he will be punished by God, who will wither his arm and darken his eye. Secondly, others generally take it passively, and the following words require this, as if to say: The sword, that is, the vengeance of God, will fall upon the cruel arm of the foolish shepherd, to break his power: likewise upon his right eye, that is, upon his foresight, cunning, counsels, and wicked intention, by which he strives to plunder and destroy the flock, as if to say: God will scatter and confound his counsels and wicked intentions. For He will wither his arm, that is, take away his power: and darken, blind, and overthrow his right eye, that is, his intention and machination. So St. Jerome, Theodoret, Remigius, Hugo, Lyranus, Arias, Vatablus, Ribera, and a Castro. This will be most clearly manifested in the Antichrist, whom "the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth, and will destroy with the brightness of His coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:8).