슥 11:15-17 어리석은 목자의 최후

¹⁵ Then the Lord said to me, “Take once more the equipment of ^ca foolish shepherd. ¹⁶ For behold, I am raising up in the land a shepherd ^dwho does not care for those being destroyed, or seek the young or heal the maimed or nourish the healthy, but ^edevours the flesh of the fat ones, tearing off even their hoofs.
^{17  f}“Woe to my worthless shepherd,
^gwho deserts the flock!
May the sword strike his arm
and ^hhis right eye!
Let his arm be wholly withered,
his right eye utterly blinded!”

 The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2016), 슥 11:15–17.

15절) 여호와께서 내게 말씀하셨다. “어리석은 목자의 장비를 한번더 취해라” 

이는 그의 장비를 취해서 그의 역할을 대신할 것을 말씀하시는 것이다. 여기서 어리석은 목자가 누구를 이야기하는지는 불분명하다. 본문의 장비는 양들을 보호하기 위한 막대기, 물매, 양들을 불러 모으는 피리, 추위를 피할 옷등이 있을 수 있다. 

- The word “again” in v. 15 links this verse with v. 7 where the good shepherd assumed his mandate of leadership from God. The same person plays the role of both the good shepherd and the foolish shepherd, fulfilling the symbolic actions God ordained. But the roles he played before the watching nation could not be more different. As discussed previously (under 11:4–17), the shepherd was presumably Zechariah himself. Many interpreters have attempted in vain to associate the “foolish shepherd” with later historical figures ranging from Herod to the Antichrist.³⁴⁷ Each of these identifications remains purely speculative, lacking any supporting evidence. Consequently, it is best to conclude that the “foolish shepherd” does not symbolize one particular historical individual. Rather, he represents every leader of God’s people from Zechariah’s day to the present who seek their own evil desires, not the selfless way of the Lord’s righteousness. An ancient prophet or a modern preacher may claim to represent God, but that does not prove that he does. Faithful servants, those who serve at God’s bidding, will “do the work of him who sent” them (John 9:4; cf. Matt 24:45–46).
³⁴⁷ Unger, Zechariah, 202. For a survey of suggestions, see Merrill, Zechariah, 303.
 George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 342–343.

- The Hebrew term for “foolish” (ʾĕwilî) carries great significance, particularly in the wisdom literature.³⁴⁹ The word’s connotation is brutally frank, suggesting a stupid, brutish person. The same word occurs in Prov 1:7 where, in contrast to the fear of the Lord, “fools despise wisdom and discipline” (cf. Prov 14:29; 24:9). In Hos 9:7 the Israelites used the same word (“foolish”) to mock the prophet, the man of God delivering the inspired word of the Lord. Jeremiah described those people who refused to seek God, who possessed no understanding, and who did not know how to do good as “foolish people” (Jer 4:22). In Zech 11:15 the foolish shepherd is one who had no interest in seeking God and who could do nothing but evil. Thus, foolishness represents the very opposite of the wisdom of the Lord.
³⁴⁹ אֱוִלִי. HALOT, 21.
 George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 343.

16절) 보라. 내가 그 땅에서 한 목자를 세우겠다. 그 목자는 망한자들을 돌보지 아니하고 어린 자를 찾지 않고 상한자를 고치지 안고 건강한자를 먹이지 아니하고 도리어 살진자의 살을 게걸스럽게 먹고 심지어 그들의 발굽을 찍을 것이다. 

이 어리석은 목자는 목자로서 마땅히 감당해야할, 무리들의 필요를 채워주고 살펴주는 역할을 하지 않고 있는 것이다. 본문의 seek the young의 히브리어 단어 ‘한나르’가 구약에 동물에 사용되는 용례가 아니기에 이를 수정하여 해석하기도 한다. 그래서 seek those who wander로 해석하기도 한다.

- The shepherd’s next failing is his refusal “to seek the young” (cf. Matt 18:12–14). The word translated “the young” (hannaʿar) never describes animals in any other passage of the Old Testament, just humans.³⁵⁵ Some interpreters argue for an emendation of the Hebrew text to hannaʿ (“to wander”).³⁵⁶ The translation resulting from the emendation would be “seek those who wander.” However smooth the emendation might sound, no evidence supports the change, and the Masoretic Text reads clearly as it stands. The use of naʿar makes the connection between the metaphorical lambs and the literal children more immediate. Of the six scenes Zechariah presented, this may be the most shocking. How could a shepherd turn his back on tender, defenseless lambs? How could anyone, much less a leader charged with safeguarding the well-being of all of the people, turn his back on children? What kind of national future could a leader contemplate if he willingly allowed the children, the future hope of the nation, to be lost?
³⁵⁵ הַנּעַר. HALOT, 707.
³⁵⁶ Mitchell, Zechariah, 319; Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 287.
 George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 344.

- As a final expression of neglect, the shepherd failed to complete the most basic task expected from the shepherd—he was unwilling even to feed the healthy sheep that needed no special attention. The Hebrew word rendered “feed” (yĕkalkēl) is an unusual term with differing meanings.³⁵⁹ The word can mean “to contain” (1 Kgs 8:27) or “to provide” (Gen 45:11). The former meaning would suggest condemning the shepherd for his failure to offer protection to the flock. The latter meaning is more likely, though, since the one example of neglect Zechariah has yet to mention is failure to provide food for the flock.³⁶⁰
Zechariah concluded the verse with two scenes that convey the violent behavior of the shepherd. The first shows the hired shepherd killing and consuming sheep belonging to his master. Not only did the shepherd steal, but he also killed and devoured sheep solely to satisfy his own selfish, rapacious desires. As Unger notes, the shepherd fed on the sheep instead of feeding them.<sup>361

359</sup> יְכַלְכֵּל. HALOT, 463–64.
³⁶⁰ McComiskey, “Zechariah,” 1205.
³⁶¹ Unger, Zechariah, 203.
 George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 345.

발굽을 찢는 마지막 행동은 이스라엘 백성들에게 있어서는 매우 비상식적이고 가혹한 행동이다. 새번역은 이것에 대해서 “살진 양을 골라서 살을 발라 먹고, 발굽까지 갉아 먹을 것이다”라고 번역한다. 그런데 한국에서 사골을 고아서 먹는 행동은 외국인들에게 매우 이상하게 보일 것이다. 

- Although he does not read this prophecy literally, Unger contends that this startlingly evil shepherd whom God himself had raised must signify the Antichrist.³⁶³ He equates this evil shepherd with the little horn (Dan 7:24–26), the one who “sets up an abomination that causes desolation” (Dan 9:27; cf. Matt 24:15), “the man of lawlessness” (2 Thess 2:4–8), and the beast who arises out of the sea (Rev 13:1–10). However, Zechariah set the context of the two shepherds in chap. 11 squarely in his own historical setting, striving to use familiar metaphors to draw Judah’s attention to the inevitable results for the nation from the good shepherd’s service, as well as the outcome of the evil shepherd’s duplicity. Nothing in chap. 11 suggests otherwise. Further, while one might conclude that Zechariah’s evil shepherd finds its fulfillment in some secondary sense, it is anything but clear that one should read the passage with the Antichrist in mind. The New Testament does not clearly indicate that one should link Zechariah’s evil shepherd with the Antichrist.
³⁶³ Unger, Zechariah, 204; cf. Barker, “Zechariah,” 679–80.
 George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 345–346.

17절) 양떼를 버린 나의 무가치한 목자에게 화가 있을 것이다. 칼이 그의 팔과 그의 오른 눈을 치리라. 그의 팔은 완전히 말라버릴 것이고 그의 오른 눈은 완전히 멀게 될 것이다. 

본문은 겔 34장을 떠오르게 한다. 

- 팔과 눈이 없다면 실제적으로 목자로서의 역할을 수행할 수 없다. 양의 안전을 책임지고 그 양을 찾아서 그들을 보호하는 것이 목자의 가장 중요한 역할이기 때문이다. 

- Without an arm and his right eye the shepherd becomes powerless, no longer capable of injuring the flock, or even able to retain his position.³⁶⁸ The eye and the arm symbolize the shepherd’s physical and mental abilities.³⁶⁹ Merrill puts the point well, “Without the arm to retrieve and carry the sheep (cf. Luke 15:5) and the eye with which to search and find (cf. Matt 18:12), the shepherd truly is worthless, now not only in a moral sense but in a practical, functional sense as well.”^370
368 Sweeney notes that in Isa 45:1 the Lord declares his intention to take Cyrus’s right hand, suggesting that Zech 11:17 refers to Cyrus (Twelve Prophets, 682–83). But Sweeney overstates the linguistic similarity between the two passages. Further, Zech 11 looks to the present and future circumstances and is not a retrospective.
³⁶⁹ Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 292.
³⁷⁰ Merrill, Zechariah, 305.
 George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 347.

어리석은 목자의 앞선 상징적인 행동은 그를 향한 하나님의 저주로 끝을 맺게 된다. 하나님께서는 자기 백성의 패역함을 응징하시고 심판하시는 도구로 어리석은 목자를 사용하시고 일정기간이 지난후에 그에게서 그 권력을 빼앗아 가신다. 

이 본문을 묵상하는 이 시간 박근혜 대통령의 탄핵선고가 진행되고 있다. 어리석은 목자의 한 모습을 보고 있는 듯하다.