Ecc 3:18 ff - Humans are themselves beasts

This passage of Ecclesiastes (3:18 – 22) is interesting and much discussed among both Christians and rabbis, because it does not say what people generally expect or believe to be the case.  Let me illustrate the point by describing an encounter that I had with a Jehovah's Witness now many years ago.

I was on assignment away from home at the time and living in apartment.  When I was not working I was mostly bored out of my mind, so this encounter with the JW was not necessarily an irritation.  He visited several times, and as is their practice he quoted consistently from his little book of proof texts.  One of his quotes was a summary of Ecclesiastes 3:18.  I do not now remember exactly how the summary was worded, but it was something like this: 'God is testing the sons of Adam to show them that they themselves are just cattle.'  Ecclesiastes is my favorite book of the Hebrew bible, and at that time I had been reading the text in Hebrew for around 15 years.  I said to him that I disagreed with the assertion his book of proof texts was attempting to make, so he said, "It's all in the Hebrew."  My response was to open my Hebrew bible to the passage in question and say, "Elucidate."  He, of course, knew not a word of Hebrew, so he tossed out a proof text from the New Testament.  Again I disagreed, and he said, "It's all in the Greek."  So I opened my Greek text to the passage cited and said, "Elucidate."  He knew no more Greek than Hebrew.  I told him that the next time he came he should leave is little book of proof texts at home, and we would look at what the biblical texts had to say for themselves.  I never saw him again.

The problem being confronted can be illustrated as follows: Envision a glass marble.  Now smash that marble with a sledge hammer into a zillion fragments.  I will take one of those fragments at random, give it to someone who has never seen the whole marble, and present it as the original whole.  This is just what JWs and others who used proof texts tend to do, and in so doing it is easy to misconstrue the intended message of the whole.

In this case, Ecc 3:18 - 22 is the last of three vignettes in this chapter.  I discussed the first of these in 'To Everything there is a Season.'  In this vignette the descendants of Adam are presented as creatures who have the perception but no understanding of divine purpose – or as stated in the book 'He (God) has put eternity in their (human) heart but in such a way that man cannot discover what God has done from beginning to end.'  The second vignette is brief, but it mentions a problem that plagues mankind to this day: In the place of justice there is wickedness; in the place of the righteous there is the criminal.  This last vignette compares humans to four-footed herbivores, whose primary function in life is to be eaten by others.

There are two approaches to an assemblage of vignettes like this.  One approach asserts that each vignette has its own origin, and they were randomly assembled together without any intended relation one to another.  This is the assumption that is the foundation for the proof text approach to the scriptures, regardless of who is using the methodology.  The second approach may acknowledge that individual vignettes may have had separate origins, but it assumes that the author assembled them together in a specific order purposefully to convey a specific message.  We have linear minds and can read only one word, one phrase, one clause at a time.  However, within a connected section of a discourse, the significance of each word, phrase, or clause is governed by what has come before as well as what comes after.  Failing to recognize such connections will result in obscuring or obliteration the author's intended message.  In my opinion, this last vignette of Ecclesiastes 3 is intended to express the experiential consequence of the first two vignettes in the chapter on the basis of individual personal experience.

μyhiloa‘h; μr:b;l] μd:a;h; ynEB] tr"b]DIAl[' yBiliB] ynIa} yTir“m'a; 18

.μh,l; hM;he hm;heB]Aμh,v] t/ar“li

I said within my heart concerning the manner of mankind, God has been testing them that they may see that they themselves are beasts.

μd:a;h; ynEB] tr"b]DIAl['          Verse 17 draws a conclusion about the conditions man will face beyond the limits of this present life under the sun.  Verse 18-21 addresses the kind of life that we experience now in the bent world under the sun.  The term hr:b]DI is an uncommon noun that occurs just three times in the Hebrew bible (Ps 110:4, Job 5:8, and here), and in every instance it is in a construct relationship with some other noun or with a pronominal suffix.  Suggested meanings for the word are ‘manner, reason, cause.’  In this context, the author is considering the conditions of human life at the present time under the sun.

μyhiloa‘h; μr:b;l]         This is the first of two infinitive clauses.  The form μr:b;l] is a qal infinitive construct of rrb with a 3mp pronominal suffix and the inseparable preposition –l prefix.  The most common use of such a construction is to express purpose, which fits this context well.  Here, μyhiloa‘h; (God) is the subject of the infinitive, and the pronominal suffix is the object.  The root meaning of the verb is ‘purge, purify, cleanse, select.’  Later Hebrew attests the meaning ‘prove,’ which is the source for the present English translation.

μh,l; hM;he hm;heB]Aμh,v] t/ar“li      This is a second infinitive clause formed with the qal infinitive of har (see, perceive, observe) and the -l preposition.  The relative clause beginning with Aμh,v is clearly the object of the infinitive.  Although the qal form of the verb is transitive, it does not express any causative force, so God cannot be the subject of the infinitive clause.  Consequently, the object of the first infinitive ‘them’ = ‘humans’ must be the subject.   In this context, the infinitive probably expresses result arising from the proving (trying, testing) process.  This result is that humans come to see that they themselves are in some sense merely animals.  hm;heB] is a term mostly used for four-footed herbivores (though it is used rarely for carnivores as well).  Such animals tend to have short lives, and they generally end up as food for other animals or humans.  

hz< t/mK] μh,l; dj;a, hr<q]miW hm;heB]h' hr<q]miW μd:a;h;AynEb] hr<q]mi yKi 19

.lb,h; lKoh' yKi ˆyIa; hm;heB]h'Aˆmi μd:a;h; rt'/mW lKol] dj;a, jWrw“ hz< t/m ˆKe

For one and the same fortune befalls both the human and the beast in that one dies just like the other and both have the same breath.  So the human has no advantage over the beast, for everything is an illusion.

μh,l; dj;a, hr<q]miW hm;heB]h' hr<q]miW μd:a;h;AynEb] hr<q]mi yKi         As before, yKi introduces the clause that serves as the justification or basis for the conclusion stated in the previous verse.  The remaining words constitute three phrases.  Literally they state:  ‘The fortune of humans and the fortune of a beast and one fortune is to them.’  This is a Hebraic idiom to state that both humans and beasts experience one and the same destiny.   The term hr<q]mi is an ms noun from the root hrq meaning ‘accident, chance, fortune.’  It may refer to any particular experience of life that is not directly orchestrated by the individual.

hz< t/m ˆKe hz< t/mK]     Even in Solomon’s day, most people would have rejected the assertion that humans were just another kind of animal – even the Greeks, Romans, and Canaanites all believed that there was some form of afterlife for humans.  Consequently, Solomon uses this clause to limit the scope of his comparison: one dies just like the other.  In this respect there is no difference between man and beast.  In addition, both breathe the air in the same way, so the manner of their physical life and the manner of their physical death are one and the same.

.rp;[;h,Aal, bv; lKoh'w“ rp;[;h,Aˆmi hy:h; lKoh' dj;a, μ/qm;Ala, Ële/h lKoh' 20

Both are going to the same place: both were taken from the dust and both are returning to the dust.

dj;a, μ/qm;Ala, Ële/h lKoh'  Even if one accepts his first restriction, many will still insist that the ultimate destiny of man differs from that of animals, so Solomon restricts the scope of his analysis further.  Not only do both man and beast die in essentially the same way, but both go to the same place.  The term lKoh' literally means ‘everything,’ but it has been rendered by ‘both,’ because the context limits the scope of his consideration to man and beast.  Angels – even the fallen angels – are not part of life under the sun, and the details of their destiny generally differs from that of humans.  Since this statement is also open ended, the final clause restricts its scope further: both came from dust and both return to dust during decomposition.

hl;[]m;l] ayhi hl;[oh; μd:a;h; ynEB] j'Wr ['dEwOy ymi 21

.6r<a;l; hF;m'l] ayhi td<r<YOh' hm;heB]h' j'Wrw“

Who knows whether the spirit of humans go upwards while the spirit of the beast goes downward to the ground?

['dEwOy ymi          Still there might be an objection based on the description of man’s creation in Genesis 1.  God undertook personal and direct action while creating the man and woman of the first human pair – not so with the animals.  Again, God personally breathed in the breath of life into the man after forming his body – not so with the animals.  So Solomon counters with a rhetorical question: ‘Who knows…?’  One can see the breath of both men and animals on a frosty day, but nobody can see the spirit when it is in the body, and nobody can see where it goes when it leaves the body.

/ql]j, aWhAyKi wyv;[}m'B] μd:a;h; jm'c]yI rv,a}me b/f ˆyae yKi ytiyair:w“ 22

.wyr:j}a' hy<h]YIv, hm,B] t/ar“li WNa,ybiy“ ymi yKi

So I have seen that there is nothing better than that the human should rejoice in his toil, because that is his portion.  For who will be able to bring him to see what will be after him?

wyv;[}m'B] μd:a;h; jm'c]yI rv,a}me b/f ˆyae      This is the third time that such an assertion has appeared in the text of Ecclesiastes.  The first time it was stated (2:24), it presented the skeptical view that man (and this may be applied specifically to Solomon himself) had no merit that justified enjoyment of life.  Here he states that this is the best thing that a human can do.  He offers two reasons as justification for this assertion: 1) it is his (man’s) portion, and 2) nobody can enable him to perceive (see) what will come after him.  The term ql,je refers to ones portion or share in life, and it was used to refer to the allotment of land granted to each family when they entered the land following the exodus.  The second justification refers back to verse 3:11 and the fact that an understanding of eternal purposes has not been granted to men.  Instead, their physical life restricts them to the same limitations as those of a beast.  Thus, the best that a man can do is to gain the capacity to be content within the limitation of his current circumstances, which have been limited in both scope and duration.  This is similar to Paul’s (Shaul) statement concerning himself: “I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I find myself.” (Phil 4:11, 12; see also Heb 13:5)

  

Concept of Messiah

There is great diversity of opinion concerning the terms messiah, Messiah ben David, and Messiah ben Joseph (or Messiah ben Ephraim) both today and over the past 2000 years or so.  From a purely linguistic point of view, the term משיח simply means anointed.  Talk to any Christian, and the term messiah automatically is assumed to be a reference to Jesus.  Talk to a Jew, and the term will elicit any of several different concepts, depending on which rabbinic interpretation he follows.  Although the term has been used in a variety of ways, it was not always so. 

Surprisingly, the term משיח occurs just 38 times in the entire Hebrew bible.  Originally it referred to the act of physically anointing a person with olive oil during a consecration ceremony.  Thus, Aaron and his sons were anointed as priests by Moses, and presumably all successive priests were anointed at their consecration.  Similarly, Samuel anointed first Shaul and then David as king over Israel, and presumably all successive kings were also anointed at the time they were so designated.  Interestingly, there is no description of a physical anointing for any of the patriarchs, Moses, Joshua, any of the judges, Samuel, or any of the later prophets.  However, in Psalm 105:15, all of the people from Abraham to Joseph are described as משיחי 'my anointed ones'.  This usage refers to individuals who have been set apart and empowered by God for a specific purpose, whether or not they have had any physical anointing.  Even the pagan Cyrus is called his messiah in Is 45:1 because of the role he would play in freeing the captive Israelites.  This meaning is the one most commonly found in the later prophets, and it is essentially the only usage that still survives in a theological context today.  So, for example, Christians often say that a particular person has been anointed by the Holy Spirit when that person has had a significant spiritual impact on them. Even though they undoubtedly would never call such a person a messiah, they are using the term משיח in this latter sense.

For Christians there is one and only one Messiah and no messiahs.  (Muslims also have a very restrictive idea about a singular messiah who will restore the Caliphate.)  Jewish opinion on the matter is much more diverse and hardly unified.  The earliest non-biblical texts that refer to messiahs come from Qumran: 4Q175, 4Q372, and 1QS:

·     4Q175 dates from about 100 BCE and speaks about four messiah-like figures – a prophet like Moses, a ruling individual like David, a priestly individual, and a warrior.

·        4Q372 dates from about 200 BCE and describes a messiah of Israel from the line of Joseph who dies at the hands of his enemies.  This coupled with Deut 33:17 may be one of the early sources for teachings about Messiah ben Joseph.

·    1QS dates from about 100 BCE and mentions a messiah of Israel, a messiah of Aaron, and a prophet.  

The Gabriel Revelation is a stone tablet with an ink inscription that was found near the north end of the Dead Sea, and it dates from near the end of the first century BCE.  The text speaks of Ephraim as God's first born (Jer 31:19) and also of 'My servant David'.  It mentions a great slaughter of people in Jerusalem as well as their leader at the hands of an evil king.  Because much of this text cannot be read, there remains considerable scholarly debate about its historical context and who the two or three 'messianic' figures might be.

The next significant text dealing with this issue is the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.  According to Charles, the English translator of this book, the text was originally written in Hebrew toward the end of the life of John Hyrcanus before he broke ties with the Pharisees.  John Hyrcanus was a priest, but he took the offices of high priest, king, and prophet.  Evidently, the author viewed him as messiah and the one who would bring in the messianic age.  This expectation was not realized, but the book does indicate the scope of messianic fervor during the first century BCE.

The targums, Talmud, and Jewish sages have a great deal to say about the messiah or messiahs, and the messianic hope has been central to Judaism for the past 2000 years or more.  During this time up to the present day, more than 120 individuals have been advanced as candidates for the messianic role.  Some of the diverse interpretations are as follows:

·     The Messiah ben Joseph has been set forward due to scriptural passages that describe Israel or Ephraim as the first born son of God.  He is to be a charismatic leader who is instrumental in rebuilding the temple and who lives out experiences of the suffering servant of YHWH.  Many of the teachings on Messiah ben Joseph assert that he is destined to die at the hands of a wicked king.  At least one of the teachings on Messiah ben Joseph asserts that he would be resurrected as Messiah ben David and then reign as king.  All of the interpretations I have found concerning Messiah ben Joseph (or Ephraim) indicate that he will be a real man who must suffer and die.

·       Messiah ben David is to be the one who lives out prophesies concerning the conquering ruler.  He will rule righteously on the throne of his father David, and his sovereignty will extend over the entire world forever.

·       One interpretation asserts that the nature of messiah depends on the character of Israel.  If Israel is unworthy, then Messiah will come as the suffering Messiah ben Joseph.  If Israel is worthy, then he will come as triumphant king Messiah ben David.

Rabbinic writings concerning the messiah since the destruction of the second temple are abundant and diverse.  (See The Messiah Texts by Raphael Patai.)  However, there are some very interesting common elements within the diversity that keep cropping up:

·       The origins of Messiah ben David are varied.  Some held that he was the first of all created beings before the creation of the earth.  Others held that he was born as either son or direct descendant of David.  Timing of this birth is various: directly during David's life, as one of Solomon's sons, as son of Hezekiah, as one born on the day that the first temple was destroyed, as one born on the day that the second temple was destroyed.

·      Regardless of how he came to be, he is kept in a special place within the heavenly garden of Eden, and there he is constantly mourning over the sin of Israel until the time that God finally reveals him on earth.  At the time of the mo'adim he i joined in his mourning by the patriarchs.

·       When the time has come for him to be revealed, he takes charge of the Jewish forces opposing the host of Satan, which is totally destroyed by miracles accomplished by God.  The Messiah ben Joseph is resurrected, and Messiah ben David assumes kingship over Israel and all the nations of the world.

All of the Jewish interpretations of messiah connect his coming with the restoration of the people of Israel to the land of Israel, restoration of Jerusalem to Jewish sovereignty, and the building of the third temple.  Jerusalem, and particularly the temple, are at the center of Jewish identity.  Moshe Feiglin, founder of Zehut (Identity) International, has asserted that the reunification of Jerusalem and the taking of the temple mount in the Six-Day War of 1967 were the gift of God to Israel and an invitation for Israel to take up her mantle and embrace her destiny before the world.  However, the Israeli government gave control of the temple mount back to the Muslims almost immediately after that war was over.  In so doing, they repudiated the gift of God and the destiny of Israel as a people.  As a result, now more than 50 years later nearly every nation in the world questions the legitimacy of Israel as the nation of the Jews.  His contention is that the only way for Israel to reclaim its legitimacy as a nation is to make Jewish identity as the central feature of her existence.  Thus Israel is not a nation like all other nations, but she has a unique role ordained by God.  (Note: The desire to be like every other nation is what got the Israelites into trouble during the time of the judges.)  With this I agree, but Mr. Feiglin has not addressed how this might relate to the concept of Messiah so far as I am aware.

Jeremiah 23:1-8 Judgement and Restoration

Jeremiah 23:1-4

1 Alas!  Shepherds are destroying and scattering the sheep of My pasture – the declaration of Adonai.

2 Therefore, thus says Adonai, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds, those shepherding My people.  Behold, I am the one who will attend (d3q3p) to you concerning your evil practices – the declaration of Adonai.

3 But, I will gather together the remnant of My sheep from all of the lands where I have banished them, and I will bring them back to their abode, and they will be fruitful, and they will multiply.

4 And I will set shepherds over them, and they will tend them.  And they will not be afraid, dismayed, or punished (d3q3p) again – the declaration of Adonai.

hwhy μaun“ ytiy[ir“m' ˆaxoAta, μyxipiim]W μydIB]a'm] μy[iro ywOh  1

1  Alas!  Shepherds are destroying and scattering the sheep of my flock – the declaration of Adonai.

ywOh      Interjection of alarm or dismay.  This particle sets the tone for the entire oracle.

ytiy[ir“m' ˆaxoAta, μyxipiim]W μydIB]a'm] μy[iro    The first clause presents the charge against the shepherds (rulers, priests, prophets, and judges over Israel), and the remaining three verses present first the consequences for those shepherds and then the destiny of those that remain of the sheep.  The term μy[iro is an mp qal participle from the root h3[3r, meaning ‘to pasture, tend, graze.’  The participle form was commonly used in classical Hebrew and other Semitic languages to describe the habitual action of an occupation and so became a common mode for naming occupations.  Here, the term is the subject of the clause.  The two terms μyxipiim]W μydIB]a'm] make up a compound predicate.  The first term is an mp piel participle from the root d3b3a meaning ‘slay, cause to perish.’  The second term is an mp hiphil participle from the root 63w3p meaning ‘scatter.’

μt,xopih} μT,a' yMi['Ata, μy[iroh; μy[iroh;Al[' laer:c]yI yheOla‘ hwhy rm'a;AhKo ˆkel; 2

μk,ylel]['m' ['roAta, μk,yle[} dqepo ynIn“hi μt;ao μT,d“q'p] aOlw“ μWjDIT'w" ynIaxoAta,

.hwhyAμaun

2 

2 Therefore, thus says Adonai, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds, those shepherding My people.  You have scattered My sheep, and you have banished them, but you have not attended to (פקד) them.  Behold, I will attend to (פקד) you concerning your evil practices – the declaration of Adonai.

yMi['Ata, μy[iroh; μy[iroh;Al[' laer:c]yI yheOla‘ hwhy rm'a;AhKo ˆkel;          This statement is a formula that begins a formal pronouncement of judgement.  ˆkel; is a compound adverb composed of ˆKe, the common word for ‘yes, thus, so,’ preceded by the preposition Al;.  This combination indicates that the following statement is the logical consequence of what has just preceded.  yMi['Ata, μy[iroh; μy[iroh;Al[' identifies those upon whom the judgement will fall.  The first statement of μy[iroh; is definite but not specific: many peoples including the Babylonians called their rulers ‘shepherds of their people’.¹  The appositional phrase identifies specifically who is being addressed: those shepherding My people.

μt;ao μT,d“q'p] aOlw“ μWjDIT'w" ynIaxoAta, μt,xopih} μT,a'      This portion of the verse consists of three verbal clauses: the first two state what their actions accomplished, and the third states what they should have done but failed to do.  The verbal sequence begins with μT,a', ‘they.’  This is highly emphatic for two reasons: (1) A pronominal subject is not necessary in a Hebrew verbal clause, and (2) The subject normally follows the verb.  The two accusations are: ‘You have scattered My sheep, and you have caused them to be banished.’  The final clause μt;ao μT,d“q'p] aOlw“ ‘and you have not visited them’ is the most interesting of the three.  The root d3q3p has a wide range of meanings in Classical, Mishnaic, and Modern Hebrew.  Most commonly it describes some aspect of governmental authority, frequently the visitations of the Lord (or human ruler) with judgement, which may be positive or negative depending on the circumstances.  Here the implication is this: the people’s conduct demanded judgement or discipline, but the rulers failed to do so appropriately.  So YHWH now holds the appointed rulers responsible for their lack of proper oversight.

μk,ylel]['m' ['roAta, μk,yle[} dqepo ynIn“hi        ynIn“hi is an ejaculation that is generally rendered by ‘here am I’ or simply left untranslated.  Here it lays emphasis on the subject of the clause.  The remainder of the clause cannot be rendered into English with the same structures that are present in Hebrew.  However, the force of the text is this:  The conduct of the people demands judgement.  The appointed rulers have failed to execute the specified judgement on the people, so I (YHWH) will apply that judgement to them.  The antecedent of the pronominal objects μk,A is ambiguous, but it probably includes both the shepherds and the sheep, for both are guilty, though perhaps not guilty of the same things.

ytibovih}w" μv; μt;ao yTij]D"hiArv,a} t/xr:a}h; lKomi ynIaxo tyrIaev]Ata, 6Beq'a} ynia}w" 3

.Wbr:w“ Wrp;W ˆh,wEn“Al[' ˆh,t]a,

3 But I will gather together the remnant of My sheep from all of the lands where I have banished them, and I will bring them back to their abode, and they will be fruitful, and they will multiply.

μv; μt;ao yTij]D"hiArv,a} t/xr:a}h; lKomi ynIaxo tyrIaev]Ata, 6Beq'a} ynia}w"    

If there was any question about the significance of God’s visitation on His people indicated in the previous clause, this sentence clarifies the situation.  YHWH clearly states that He was the one who scattered the people to many lands, but He will also bring them back from the lands to which they had been scattered.  As before, presenting the pronominal subject before the finite verb is highly emphatic: But I, even I, will gather together….  Please note that God promises to bring back a remnant of those who were scattered.  By implication, this remnant consists of those who actually come back, not all those who are physical descendants of those who were dispersed.  The various ramifications of this are not addressed by this passage.

Another interpretive question should also be addressed.  This oracle evidently was written some time before the final exile of most Jews to Babylon in 586 BCE, so who was he referring to as the remnant of My sheep?  The majority of the survivors of the northern kingdom had been taken into captivity by the Assyrians some 150 years before.  Since the oracle does not differentiate, one can reasonable conclude that the remnant extends to the people from the both northern and southern kingdoms.

Wbr:w“ Wrp;W ˆh,wEn“Al[' ˆh,t]a, ytibovih}w"           This presents a threefold purpose for God’s people.  First, ˆh,t]a, ytibovih}w", ‘I will cause them to return.’  The verb form is a 1cs hiphil perfect with vav consecutive from the root bwv, which sometimes expresses the Hebrew equivalent to ‘repent.’  Here, he promises to bring them back to their proper dwelling place where they will be fruitful and multiply. 

Note that the term μ[' (people) is a masculine noun, and ˆaxo (sheep) is a feminine noun.  ˆaxo obviously is being used as a symbol for μ['.  The term ˆaxo occurs three times in this context, and the term μ[' just once.  However, all of the pronominal suffixes throughout these four verses are masculine except for those in this one clause where they are all feminine.  If this fact is any more than a mere grammatical curiosity, then perhaps it indicates that God intends to restore the sheep but not their guilty shepherds, who also went into exile as part of the people.

  

.hwhyAμaun“ WdqeP;yI aOlw“ Wtj'yE aOlw“ d/[ War“yyIAaOlw“ μW[r:w“ μy[iro μh,yle[} ytimoqih}w" 4

4 And I will set shepherds over them, and they will tend them.  And they will not be afraid, dismayed, or visited (d3q3p) again – the declaration of Adonai.

μW[r:w“ μy[iro μh,yle[} ytimoqih}w"         The previous clause described YHWH’s restoration of His scattered people; this clause describes His provision.  Because the previous shepherds failed to keep their charge, He promises to provide a different group of shepherds.  The previous shepherds were responsible to ‘attend to’ (d3q3p) the people when necessary.  The new shepherds will also tend the sheep, but the passage uses a different term: μW[r:w“.  This is a vav consecutive 3mp qal perfect from the root h3[3r with a 3mp pronominal suffix; the combination means: ‘they will shepherd them.’  Interestingly, the modern Hebrew translation of the NT uses just such an expression in John 21:17: ynIaxo ta, h[er“ ‘Shepherd my sheep.'

WdqeP;yI aOlw“ Wtj'yE aOlw“ d/[ War“yyIAaOlw“     The last portion of this passage contains three verb clauses that are exactly parallel, except the adverb d/[ (again) is inserted after the first verb.  By implication, this adverb applies equally to all three clauses, not just the first one.  All three clauses contain 3mp imperfect verb forms.  The imperfect form indicates that the realization of this prophesy has not yet been realized.  The subject of the three verbs could be: 1) the sheep who had been scattered, 2) the new shepherds, or 3) both the sheep and the new shepherds.  Most commonly, the nearest antecedent should be preferred.  However, in this case the second verb ‘be dismayed’ implies that the sheep which had been scattered while under the care of the former shepherds are the specific ones under consideration.

The first two verb clauses are readily understood and fit perfectly with the previous context.  The final verb in the sequence has proved to be something of a puzzle, and as a result it has been translated in various ways.  The form WdqeP;yI is 3mp niphal imperfect of the root d3q3P.  This is the passive form of the same root that previously occurred twice in verse 2.  As previously mentioned, the most common meaning is ‘visit,’ and usually it implies a visitation that brings judgement.  BDB² lists a meaning of ‘be missing, be lacking’ for this form and lists a couple of passages to which it might be appropriate, but this meaning is not otherwise attested in the cognates, in Mishnaic Hebrew, or in Modern Hebrew.  In my opinion, a better option is this:  The original leaders were charged with ruling and disciplining the people.  They failed, so both they and the people were judged by YHWH.  YHWH here promises to reconstitute His people and provide new leaders who will tend His people appropriately.  As a result, the restored people of Israel will be fruitful and multiply, and they will never again need to fear the prospect of a visitation for judgement.

Jeremiah 23:5-8

When the various oracles of Jeremiah were assembled into a single scroll, they were organized thematically but not necessarily in temporal sequence.  This methodology probably was followed for essentially all of the latter prophets.  In this case these four verses expand and clarify the previous two using chiastic structure.  That is, verse 5 elaborates the assertion in verse 4, and verse 6 clarifies what was only hinted in verse 3.  The final two verses describe the essential consequence of the promised restoration.

qyDIx jm'x, dwId:l] ytimoqih'w“ hwhyAµaun“ µyaiB; µymiy< hNEhi 5

.6r<a;B; hq;;d:x]W fP;v]mi hc;[;w“ lyKic]hiw“ Ël,m, Ël'm;W

Behold, days are coming, says YHWH, that I will raise up for David a righteous Sprout.  He will reign as king and act prudently, and he will bring about justice and righteousness in the land. 

hwhyAµaun“ µyaiB; µymiy< hNEhi                        This verbal formula indicates the start of a new oracle from YHWH.  The statement Behold days are coming indicates that realization of the oracle is to take place at some time in the unspecified future.

qyDIx jm'x, dwId:l] ytimoqih'w“ There are two things to note here.  First, YHWH takes absolute responsibility for bringing this individual on the scene.  Second, jm'x, is the same title that Zechariah in chapter 3:8 and chapter 6.  In Zechariah jm'x, was to be a king-priest, and he would be the one to build the house of YHWH.  Here he is called righteous and so the premier representative of the good shepherds spoken about in verse 4 above.  Here the man called jm'x, will be a king who will rule with prudence and establish justice and righteousness.  All of the attributes missing that were in Jeremiah’s day.

jf'b,l] ˆKovyI laer:c]yIw“ hd:Why“ [v'WT wym;y:B] 6

.Wnqed“xi hwhy 4/ar“q]yIArv,a} /mV]Ahz<w“

In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely.  Then he will be called by this name: YHWH Our Righteousness.

wym;y:B] This common expressing has two possible interpretations.  For an ordinary human, the expression in his days is a reference to the duration of that person’s physical life.  However, verse 4 above states that after I (YHWH) restore Israel, they will live in such a way that they will never again have fear of coming judgment.  This implies that the duration of the times established by jm'x, will be without end.

jf'b,l] ˆKovyI laer:c]yIw“ hd:Why“ [v'WT This pair of clauses combined with Ezekiel 37 implies that both Judah and Israel will be restored and dwell securely in their land.  Ezekiel 37:24 states that my servant David will rule as king over the restored unified nation, but here jm'x, is the heir of David.

Wnqed“xi hwhy 4/ar“q]yI The name given by the people to jm'x, is YHWH is our righteousness.  This is significant.  Throughout the תנ״כ YHWH presents himself as husband and king over Israel.  The human kings were at best temporary representatives for YHWH.  If they performed their role according to Torah, both they and the people were blessed; if they failed to live up to the demands of Torah, both they and the people experienced withholding of blessing – up to and including physical death or exile.  Many people did – and still do – have names including the abbreviated portions of God’s name Yah or Yahu, but nobody has the full form YHWH as the basis of his name.  Zechariah 3:8 calls jm'x, a man; this name implies that he is more than a man.  From the start YHWH was the king of Israel; at the end YHWH will be the king of Israel in the person of jm'x,.

hwhyAyj' d/[ Wrm]ayoAalw“ hwhy µaun“ µyaiB; µymiy: hNEhi ˆkel; 7

.µyIr"x]mi 6r<a,me laer:c]yI ynEB]Ata, hl;[‘h, rv,a}

Therefore, the days are coming, says YHWH, no longer will people say, ‘YHWH lives who brought the people of Israel from the land of Egypt;’

hwhyAyj' d/[ Wrm]ayoAalw“ This verse is significant.  In Exodus 12:2 YHW said to Moses that the first day of the month Aviv (Passover) was to be the beginning of months for them, essentially the birthday for Israel as a people and nation.  In Exodus 20 YHWH began the ten words by stating, “I am YHWH your God who brought you out of Egypt, the house of bondage.”  This remained the dominant self-identification for YHWH throughout the תנ״כ, because it represented God’s ultimate power and commitment to the people.  This verse asserts that this standard will no longer be sufficient or even relevant it the time to come.

laer:c]yI tyBe [r"z<Ata, aybihe rv,a}w“ hl;[‘h, rv,a} hwhyAyj'Aµai yKi 8

.µt;m;d“a'Al[' Wbv]y:w“ µv; µyTij]D'hi rv,a} t/xr:a}h; lKomiW hn:/Opx; 6r<a,me

But rather, ‘As YHWH lives who brought up and brought the descendants of Israel from northern land and from all the lands to which he had banished them so they might dwell on their own land.’

This verse contains the new standard for God’s power and devotion to Israel.  Before the people were concentrated in one central area; now they are scattered throughout essentially every populated country in the world.  The extraction of the people from Egypt was preceded by dramatic judgments on that nation.  Here there is no mention of the method by which this would be accomplished just that YHWH will accomplish it.

aybihe rv,a}w“ hl;[‘h, rv,a These two clauses mean essentially the same thing.  Both verbs are 3ms hiphil perfect forms.  The first verb means cause to go up, ascend, and the second means cause to come, bring. laer:c]yI tyBe [r"z< serves as the direct object of both verbs.  The seed of the house of Israel is collective and implies that everybody who is a member of that class is included, or as Rav Shaul put it, All Israel will be saved.  The point of the whole statement is that all Israel will be tken from the land of their exile by YHWH and put permanently in their own place, the land of their promised enheritance.

Notes

¹ James B. Prichard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament with Supplement, (Princeton University Press, 1969, Third Edition).  See Babylonian poetry referring to the king as shepherd of his people.

² A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, by Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles Briggs, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, reprinted 1974), s.v. dq'P;.