728x90
7 sSo I became the shepherd of the flock doomed to be slaughtered by the sheep traders. And I took two staffs, one I named uFavor, the other I named vUnion. sAnd I tended the sheep. 8 In one month wI destroyed the three shepherds. But I became impatient with them, and they also detested me. 9 So I said, “I will not be your shepherd. xWhat is to die, let it die. What is to be destroyed, let it be destroyed. And let those who are left devour the flesh of one another.” 10 And I took ymy staff Favor, and I broke it, annulling the covenant that I had made with all the peoples. 11 So it was annulled on that day, and the sheep traders, who were watching me, knew that it was the word of the Lord. 12 Then I said to them, “If it seems good to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them.” And they weighed out as my wages zthirty pieces of silver. 13 Then the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—athe lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the zthirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord, to the potter. 14 Then I broke bmy second staff Union, annulling the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2016), 슥 11:7–14.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2016), 슥 11:7–14.
7절) 그래서 내가 양을 매매하는 자들에 의해서 잡혀 죽을 운명의 양무리의 목자가 되었다. 그리고 내가 하나의 이름은 은총, 또하나의 이름은 연합이라하는 두 막대기를 취했다. 그리고 나는 양무리를 돌봤다.
(슥 11:7, 개정) 『내가 잡혀 죽을 양 떼를 먹이니 참으로 가련한 양들이라 내가 막대기 둘을 취하여 하나는 은총이라 하며 하나는 연합이라 하고 양 떼를 먹일새』
(Zch 11:7, ESV) 『So I became the shepherd of the flock doomed to be slaughtered by the sheep traders. And I took two staffs, one I named Favor, the other I named Union. And I tended the sheep.』
(Zch 11:7, NIV) 『So I pastured the flock marked for slaughter, particularly the oppressed of the flock. Then I took two staffs and called one Favor and the other Union, and I pastured the flock.』
(슥 11:7, NASB) 『So I pastured the flock doomed to slaughter, hence the afflicted of the flock. And I took for myself two staffs： the one I called Favor, and the other I called Union; so I pastured the flock.』
메시야적 목자(스가랴)가 가련한, 불쌍한 양들을 돌보고 은총과 연합이라는 두개의 막대기를 취한다. 이 두 막대기는 겔 37:15이하를 상기시킨다.
- The two staffs the shepherd took and named serve as one of the most powerful symbolic images in the passage. Zechariah’s actions clearly echoed earlier Old Testament examples where two poles or staffs symbolized something far more profound. For example, when the nation challenged Aaron’s office as priest, Moses ordered that every tribe present a staff with its tribal name written on it. When every staff was gathered and placed together in the Tent of Meeting, along with Aaron’s inscribed staff, the staff belonging to Aaron budded, blossomed, and produced almonds, vindicating the priest’s mandate from the Lord to serve as priest (Num 17:1–11). Another example is Ezekiel’s adaptation of two sticks to express a divine message, which for Zechariah’s audience was a comparatively recent memory. The exilic prophet wrote “Belonging to Judah and the Israelites associated with him” on one pole and “Ephraim’s stick, belonging to Joseph and all the house of Israel associated with him” on the other (Ezek 37:15–18). Ezekiel’s symbolism underscores the restored unity of the tribes. Zechariah’s message ultimately communicated the breaching of relationships, not unity, but he used the same well known vehicle to express God’s message. The ironic twist in Zechariah’s message, in comparison to Ezekiel’s, would have made an impression on the postexilic community.
At the Lord’s command, Zechariah named both staffs. The first, commonly translated “Favor,” reflects the Hebrew term nōʿam.285 The word expresses “grace” or “kindness.” The adjectival form of the word describes the “gracious” quality of the relationship between David and Jonathan (2 Sam 1:23). “Favor” reflects one of God’s fundamental divine attributes. The concluding prayer of Ps 90:17 illumines this divine trait: “May the favor of the Lord our God rest upon us; establish the work of our hands for us—yes, establish the work of our hands.”
The second staff bears the name “Union,” rendering the Hebrew ḥōbĕlîm.286 “Union” with God and harmony among God’s people should result from godly leadership. The meaning “Union” or “Bond” becomes clearer in v. 14 where breaking the second staff illustrates the severance of brotherly relations between Judah and Israel.
285 נֹעַם. HALOT, 706.
286 חֹבְלִים. HALOT, 286; TDOT, 4:183.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 327–328.
At the Lord’s command, Zechariah named both staffs. The first, commonly translated “Favor,” reflects the Hebrew term nōʿam.285 The word expresses “grace” or “kindness.” The adjectival form of the word describes the “gracious” quality of the relationship between David and Jonathan (2 Sam 1:23). “Favor” reflects one of God’s fundamental divine attributes. The concluding prayer of Ps 90:17 illumines this divine trait: “May the favor of the Lord our God rest upon us; establish the work of our hands for us—yes, establish the work of our hands.”
The second staff bears the name “Union,” rendering the Hebrew ḥōbĕlîm.286 “Union” with God and harmony among God’s people should result from godly leadership. The meaning “Union” or “Bond” becomes clearer in v. 14 where breaking the second staff illustrates the severance of brotherly relations between Judah and Israel.
285 נֹעַם. HALOT, 706.
286 חֹבְלִים. HALOT, 286; TDOT, 4:183.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 327–328.
8-9절) 한달동안에 세명의 목자를 없앴다.(해고시켰다.) 내가 그들을 견디지 못하게 되었고 그들도 나를 미워했기 때문이다. 그래서 나는 너희들의 목자가 되지 않을것이다. 죽을 것은 죽게 두고 멸망할 것은 멸망하게 두며 남겨진 자들은 서로의 살을 먹게 두라고 말했다.
이 한달의 기간에 대한 해석과 세 목자가 누구인가에 대한 의견은 매우 다양하고 특정하기 어려운 내용이다. 이 세왕을 유다의 여호야김, 여호야긴, 시드기야라고도 하는데 한달이라는 기간과는 맞지 않는다.
- Of these views the first option, the brief duration of time, offers the best explanation. Nothing in the context or in related biblical literature supports the second view that equates each day of the month with a calendar year. Further, the third explanation, a lengthy undetermined duration of time, seems odd in light of the text’s specific language, “one month.” The short time frame fits the context best, stressing the Lord’s intention to act swiftly. Further, the participle in v. 6, “I will hand everyone over,” likewise underscores the imminent action.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 329.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 329.
- Yet another approach contends that interpreters have mistakenly sought to relate Zechariah’s three deposed shepherds to specific historical figures. In one of the broader understandings, some see the three shepherds as symbolizing the offices of prophet, priest, and king generally.305 Both Baldwin and Smith suggest that “three” should not receive a literal interpretation.306 This position takes the number three symbolically, perhaps representing all of the shepherds collectively. Baldwin clarifies her point: “Apocalyptic uses numbers symbolically. Is the number three used in that way here (cf. Dn. 7:8, 24) to signify completion? If so, the good shepherd would be removing from power all the unworthy leaders who frustrated his work.”307 Meyers and Meyers agree that the number three is symbolic in v. 8, representing all of the shepherds over Judah. They state that the number “is deliberately vague and, thereby, inclusive.”308
305 Redditt, “Two Shepherds,” 677.
306 Baldwin, Zechariah, 183; R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, 467.
307 Baldwin, Zechariah, 183.
308 Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 265.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 331.
305 Redditt, “Two Shepherds,” 677.
306 Baldwin, Zechariah, 183; R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, 467.
307 Baldwin, Zechariah, 183.
308 Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 265.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 331.
- Consequently, it is best to treat v. 8 as a symbolic action in which the three shepherds metaphorically represent the host of faithless shepherds who exploit the Lord’s flock for their personal advantage. Zechariah certainly pronounced God’s judgment against political leaders over Judah who did not fulfill their divine mandate righteously. However, the same principle applies to modern faithless shepherds of God’s flocks, insincere pastors who use their holy office for personal advantage. As mentioned above, the phrase “three shepherds” symbolizes the totality of faithless shepherds whom the Lord will ultimately judge. The single month stresses the haste with which the Lord will exact judgment when the day of reckoning finally arrives, not a literal thirty-day period.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 333.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 333.
본문을 신학적, 역사적으로 해석하는 것은 매우 난해한 작업이다. 이에 대한 수십가지의 견해가 있을 정도이다. 결국 이는 상징적으로 해석될 필요가 있다.
- Few themes evoke deeper revulsion than that of cannibalism. Yet Zechariah declared that those who do not perish right away as a result of judgment will face a more grim prospect, for they will “eat one another’s flesh.” Jeremiah predicted something similar in an earlier day when he warned Judah about the impending judgment meted out by the Babylonians: “I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them” (Jer 19:9). Josephus reported that the brutal siege of Jerusalem in AD 70 by the Romans forced the surviving inhabitants of Jerusalem to do this very thing—eating the flesh of their deceased brethren.314 Since Judah had repeatedly faced the unspeakable tragedy of sieges that led to limited occasions of cannibalism, cannibalism does not provide adequate evidence for identifying the three shepherds with any particular ruler or epoch. Further, it remains an open question whether Zechariah intended his prophecy about cannibalism to be read literally. The horror of the experience could not be clearer, though.
314 Josephus, War, VI, 193–213.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 333–334.
314 Josephus, War, VI, 193–213.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 333–334.
선한 목자이신 주님의 돌보심을 거부하는 이들에 대한 가장 큰 벌은 주님의 보호하심을 거두시는 것이다. 로마서에서 말하는 것처럼 “내어 버려두심”으로 죽음과 멸망에 처하게 된다는 것이다.
10-11절) 내가 은총이라는 나의 막대를 취하여 그것을 부러뜨렸는데 이는 내가 모든 백성들과 맺은 언약을 무효화하는 것이다. 언약이 폐하여진 그날, 나를 보던 양을 판매하는 자들은 이것이 여호와의 말씀인줄 알았다.
하나님과의 언약을 상징하는 막대기가 부러졌다는 것은 말그대로 그 언약이 파기되었다는 것이다. 메시야적 목자가 자신의 직무를 포기하심으로 은총이 거둬지게 되었다. 은총의 막대기는 하나님의 보호와 언약을 상징한다.
- (슥 11:11, 개정) 『당일에 곧 폐하매 내 말을 지키던 가련한 양들은 이것이 여호와의 말씀이었던 줄 안지라』
(Zch 11:11, ESV) 『So it was annulled on that day, and the sheep traders, who were watching me, knew that it was the word of the LORD.』
(Zch 11:11, NIV) 『It was revoked on that day, and so the afflicted of the flock who were watching me knew it was the word of the LORD.』
(슥 11:11, NASB) 『So it was broken on that day, and thus the afflicted of the flock who were watching me realized that it was the word of the LORD.』
본문의 언약(베릿)은 구약 성경안에 매우 중요한 주제이다.
- One of the major questions arising from this verse focuses on the nature of the broken covenant. Moses’s instructions in Deut 17:14–20 to Israel for the institution of kingship may serve as a background for Zech 11:8, although the Pentateuchal instruction does not incorporate covenantal terminology. But King David made “a compact” with the elders at Hebron (2 Sam 5:3). Further, Jehoiada “made a covenant between the Lord and the king and people that they would be the Lord’s people” (2 Kgs 11:17). The covenant that the shepherd in Zech 11:10 revoked resembled the covenant established between the faithful kings of Judah and their people (Ezek 34:25).
From the broad perspective of the history of interpretation, most have understood the covenant in v. 10 to represent a general covenant that protected Judah from the wiles of her neighboring nations.316 This view does not attempt to relate “covenant” (bĕrît) in v. 10 with a particular biblical covenant. Rather, according to this view, the broken covenant speaks metaphorically of God’s protective restraint on the nations that would be withdrawn when the shepherd broke the covenant. Several Old Testament passages employ bĕrît similarly to describe God’s protection of his people from foreign powers and even wild beasts (Job 5:23; Hos 2:18). Ezekiel 34:25 illustrates the usage well: “I will make a covenant of peace with them and rid the land of wild beasts so that they may live in the desert and sleep in the forests in safety.”
This approach focuses on a general perspective of the word bĕrît.317 The word frequently refers to an agreement or a contract between two or more parties in the Old Testament. For instance, in 2 Sam 3:12 Abner sought to establish a bĕrît, an agreement with David (cf. Josh 9:6; 1 Sam 18:3; 23:18).
Regarding “my covenant,” to whom does the pronoun “my” refer? The immediate referent, the shepherd, cannot satisfy the scope of the prophecy. No shepherd or shepherds throughout Judah’s history possessed sufficient might to shield the nations from the wolves that surrounded her. Ultimately, the only one with adequate power to extend or withhold protection to Judah was the Lord himself (see Zech 1:11–12, 15; 2:12–13). According to this interpretation “my covenant” speaks of the general, restraining influence exerted by the Lord on the nations to protect his own flock, Judah. Without divine protection, God’s people were defenseless.
316 Smith, Zechariah, 308; Unger, Zechariah, 197. Smith’s alternative proposal postulating an unknown covenant between Judah and her neighbors with Egypt is pure speculation.
317 בְּרִית. HALOT, 157.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 334–335.
From the broad perspective of the history of interpretation, most have understood the covenant in v. 10 to represent a general covenant that protected Judah from the wiles of her neighboring nations.316 This view does not attempt to relate “covenant” (bĕrît) in v. 10 with a particular biblical covenant. Rather, according to this view, the broken covenant speaks metaphorically of God’s protective restraint on the nations that would be withdrawn when the shepherd broke the covenant. Several Old Testament passages employ bĕrît similarly to describe God’s protection of his people from foreign powers and even wild beasts (Job 5:23; Hos 2:18). Ezekiel 34:25 illustrates the usage well: “I will make a covenant of peace with them and rid the land of wild beasts so that they may live in the desert and sleep in the forests in safety.”
This approach focuses on a general perspective of the word bĕrît.317 The word frequently refers to an agreement or a contract between two or more parties in the Old Testament. For instance, in 2 Sam 3:12 Abner sought to establish a bĕrît, an agreement with David (cf. Josh 9:6; 1 Sam 18:3; 23:18).
Regarding “my covenant,” to whom does the pronoun “my” refer? The immediate referent, the shepherd, cannot satisfy the scope of the prophecy. No shepherd or shepherds throughout Judah’s history possessed sufficient might to shield the nations from the wolves that surrounded her. Ultimately, the only one with adequate power to extend or withhold protection to Judah was the Lord himself (see Zech 1:11–12, 15; 2:12–13). According to this interpretation “my covenant” speaks of the general, restraining influence exerted by the Lord on the nations to protect his own flock, Judah. Without divine protection, God’s people were defenseless.
316 Smith, Zechariah, 308; Unger, Zechariah, 197. Smith’s alternative proposal postulating an unknown covenant between Judah and her neighbors with Egypt is pure speculation.
317 בְּרִית. HALOT, 157.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 334–335.
- Zechariah stressed the point that the nation understood that God had spoken to them. The oppressed people, facing affliction brought on by their sinful intransigence, recognized that the Lord had delivered a message to them through Zechariah. When the crowd observed the prophet cleaving the staff “Favor,” the theme from God was as clear as the symbolic actions Hosea acted out before all Israel. For example, when Hosea named his daughter “Lo-Ruhamah” he declared that God would “no longer show love to the house of Israel” (Hos 1:6). Similarly, Hosea’s son, “Lo-Ammi,” proclaimed to Israel that “you are not my people, and I am not your God” (Hos 1:8). When Judah saw the staff “Favor” broken, they knew that their love for disobedience would lead to devastation.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 336.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 336.
12-13절) 내가 그들에게 이렇게 말했다. “만약에 이것이 네게 좋게 보이거든 품삯을 내게 주고 그렇지 않다면 주지 말라” 그들이 나의 품삯으로 은 삼십을 달아서 주었다. 그러자 여호와께서 내게 말씀하셨다. “이것, 그들이 매긴 주님의 값을 토기장이에게 던져라.” 그래서 내가 은 삼십을 여호와의 집안에 있는 토기장이에게 던졌다.
하나님께서 선한 목자의 직무에 상응하는 품삯을 달라고 요구하신다. 이는 돈을 달라는 것이 아니라 그들의 마음을 시험하는 것이었다. 그들은 품삯을 은 삼십으로 정했다. 이는 소가 어떤 종을 쳐 죽였을때 지불하는 값에 불과하다.(출 21:32) 느헤미야 시절 총독의 하루 생활비가 은 40개였다.(느 5:15) 하나님의 측량할 수 없는 은혜를 이렇게 하찮게 여긴 것이다. 이 은 30일 토기장이에게 던진 행위는 예수님의 십자가의 죽음에 대한 예언의 성취를 나타낸다.(마 27:9-10)
14절) 그리고 나서 내가 나의 연합이라는 두번째 막대기를 부러뜨렸고 유다와 이스라엘 사이의 형제관계를 무효화시켜버렸다.
- The next inevitable consequence of Judah’s rejection of the Lord and the shepherd he had sent would be disunity among the people. The breaking of the second staff named “Union” portrayed this final rupture in the relationship between the tribes of Israel and Judah. The Hebrew term for “brotherhood” (hāʾaḥăwāh) is a unique word in the Old Testament.344 Related to ʾāḥ (“brother”), hāʾaḥăwāh conveys the idea of family ties. As the broken staff “Union” foreshadowed, every vestige of unity among Abraham’s seed would cease. The next five or six centuries of Jewish history would indeed manifest the most bitter internecine strife ever witnessed, providing a sobering, albeit partial, fulfillment of Zechariah’s prophecy.
344 הָאַחֲוָה. HALOT, 31.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 341.
344 הָאַחֲוָה. HALOT, 31.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 341.
'성경묵상 > 스가랴' 카테고리의 다른 글
| 슥 12:1-9 그날에는... (0) | 2017.03.13 |
|---|---|
| 슥 11:15-17 어리석은 목자의 최후 (0) | 2017.03.10 |
| 슥 11:1-6 잡혀 죽을 양떼를 먹이라 (0) | 2017.03.08 |
| 슥 10:8-12 하나님의 휘파람 (0) | 2017.03.07 |
| 슥 10:1-7 유다와 이스라엘의 회복에 대한 약속 (0) | 2017.03.07 |