“How messianic prophecy is viewed will ultimately affect the evangelical understanding of the inspiration and interpretation of the Scriptures, the defense of the gospel, and the identification of Jesus as the promised Messiah.”[1] - Dr. Michael Rydelnik
Introduction
For the last 1,000 years, direct messianic prophecy has been under attack from both secular and religious communities, culminating in its dismissal by modern evangelical scholars.[2] These attacks have damaged Christians’ ability to utilize the Bible in its appropriate evangelistic setting, which is to pinpoint that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah who has come to save mankind.[3] Though there are many prophecies that describe various aspects of the Messiah and His life, there are a few that are absolutely pivotal for understanding His work. To recover the viability of these prophecies in an evangelistic context is crucial for maintaining the vitality of the Gospel message about Jesus Christ.
This paper will defend the messianic interpretation of Zechariah 12:10 and 13:7 as announcing that the divine-human Messiah, as the Shepherd of His people, will suffer and die so that the sins of His people may be forgiven. There are four key attacks that scholars bring against the messianic interpretation of these verses. First, critical scholars claim that Zechariah was written by at least two authors, and as such, it does not represent real prophecy. Instead Zechariah is seen as a work representing the expectation of the Maccabean age. Second, theologians and anti-Christian polemicists argue that the word “אֵלַ֖י (’ê·lay)” used in Zechariah 12:10 should be translated so that it is not referring back to God Himself. Third, critics take issue with the translation of “דָּקָ֑רוּ (dā·qā·rū)” as pierced and instead state that the word simply means mental suffering. Finally, other scholars state that the unifying theme of the Good Shepherd, found in Zechariah 13:7, does not refer to Jesus or the Messiah; rather, it is referencing one or more historical figures. These arguments will be dealt with to demonstrate that these verses do indeed predict a Messiah who will come as a Shepherd and through His death, save His people from their sins.
A Defense of the Authorship and Unity of the Book of Zechariah The Necessity of Defending Authorship
One prominent attack against the authenticity of Zechariah 12:10 and 13:7 as messianic prophecy is the attempt to depose Zechariah as the author of Zech. 9-14 and sets its date in the “early Greek period.”[4] For example, Treves states that the second half of Zechariah was written “to the Maccabean age” and lists 16 different reasons why his view is more plausible than the traditional post-exilic dating.[5] The result of this attack is that the verses in question can no longer be classified as true divine prophecy. Instead, they are demoted to propaganda that was spread throughout the Maccabean time period for the purposes of legitimizing Judas Maccabeus’ revolt.[6] This deals a substantial blow to the idea of the Messiah as Shepherd and as the one who would save his people through death. Thus, this section will deal with the arguments in support of a split authorship and later dating, while also supplying positive evidence for Zechariah 9-14 containing direct messianic prophecy.
A Refutation of the Arguments for Split Authorship
The first argument for split authorship is a reference in Matthew 27:9-10 which states, “Then what was spoken through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: They took the 30 pieces of silver, the price of Him whose price was set by the Israelites, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.”[7] The obvious issue is that the very specific quotation of “30 pieces of silver” is not found in Jeremiah; rather, it is found in Zechariah 11:12-13.[8] The assumption is that a unified historical belief about the authorship of Zechariah 9-14 does not exist and the true authorship is unknown. However, this line of thinking ignores one fatal fact. The verses in question also mention a “potter’s field” which is not found in Zechariah. Thus, at bare minimum, Matthew must have been quoting or at least referring to two different prophecies that he was combining into one. Blomberg argues that the Gospel of Matthew is using typology and allusions to both prophets in his citation of the pieces of silver and the field.[9] Thus, Matthew is justified in citing the prophecy as coming from Jeremiah and there is no reason to doubt that a portion of the prophecy also came from Zechariah. While first appearing intractable, this argument ultimately demonstrates nothing concerning the authorship and unity of Zechariah.
A second major argument against the unity of Zechariah is that the literary genre and linguistic style of Zechariah 1-8 is too radically different from 9-14 to have been written by the same person. For example, the first eight chapters of Zechariah fall into the literary genre of “prophetic” in which personal “visions” are related through “prose.”[10] On the other hand, Zechariah 9-14 is often classified as “apocalyptic” and is related through “oracles” in which neither “Zechariah nor any other identifiable person or event of the sixth century” is mentioned.[11] Additionally, scholars readily recognize that “linguistic features… such as vocabulary and syntax, change markedly between chapters 1-8 and 9-14.”[12] However, it is vital to remember that it is not impossible for one author to write in different genres and utilize linguistic features that best fit those genres. In fact, though the differences are real, statistical analysis of the linguistic data have led to the conclusion that the book is unified. For example, Butterworth’s analysis found that there was “a connection between Zechariah 1-8 and 9-14, but not of an overall editing of the whole book.”[13] This means that, literarily and linguistically, Zechariah is unified, but not by a redactor. Additionally, Hill conducted a study that analyzed “nineteen grammatical and syntactic categories” that allowed him to ascertain whether or not Zechariah 9-14 fit with other literature from the post-exilic era.[14] He concluded that all of Zechariah should be dated between “515-485 B.C.”[15] These studies provide ample evidence that the syntax, verbiage, and grammar of the two sections of Zechariah are compatible, eliminating any reason to assert that the differences are incompatible with either Zechariah as the author or the post-exilic period as the historical setting.
The third argument for the division of Zechariah is that the historical setting of 1-8 is encompassed by the “Persian period” and “the restoration” while the setting of 9-14 reflects a variety of “periods of Judah’s history,” including the Maccabean era.[16] The reasons for the scattered dating arise from the mention of various cities and empires in chapters 9-14. For instance, Redditt states that the cities mentioned in Zechariah 9:1-8 were destroyed during the pre-exilic period, whereas the judgment against “Greece” would not make sense outside of Alexander the Great’s empire.[17] Additionally, Treves states that the battles mentioned throughout Zechariah force a late dating due to the fact that “the Jews fought no battles between 586 and 167 B.C.”[18] However, what these scholars do not mention nor do they give credence to is their unstated presupposition that the Bible cannot be “predictive prophecy.”[19] There is no question that if the Bible cannot have a divine origin, nor predict the future, then the various oracles in Zechariah must have come from a variety of times and sources. However, critical scholars treat the issues of divine origin/inspiration/prophecy as a priori rejections.[20] Additionally, the prophetic genre can refer to past and future events as though they are present.[21] Thus, if the hermeneutical lens of prophetic genre is used, the historical statements made in Zechariah can be reconciled with a post-exilic date for the book. Finally, some critics argue that the historical setting is what led to the difference in genre between the two parts of Zechariah: 1-8 being “prophetic eschatology” and 9-14 being “apocalyptic.” However, there is no reason why Zechariah could not have been speaking to the same people group about two different issues, namely (1) that the people needed to remember the covenant they had with God, and (2) that God would fulfill all of His promises in the eschaton.[22] For these reasons, there is no justification for denying the post-exilic setting of Zechariah, nor its prophetic nature.
A Presentation of the Arguments in Favor of a Unified Authorship by Zechariah the Prophet
The first argument in favor of a unified author is the literary congruence that is seen between the two halves of Zechariah.[23] Childs has compiled a convincing list of themes that find counterparts in each half of Zechariah. The list of themes and their verse references is as follows: (1) the security of Jerusalem in the future (2:5 and 9:8; 14:11), (2) the renewal of the earth unto paradise-like conditions (8:12 and 14:6,8), (3) the covenantal promises (8:8 and 13:9), (4) the curse and its removal (5:3 and 14:11), (5) the execution of divine judgment over the nations (2:1ff and 14:6), (6) YHWH worship (8:20 and 14:16), (7) the eschatological salvation of the nations (2:11; 8:22 and 14:6), (8) “the condition of the exiles” (8:7 and 10:9ff), (9) a dramatic change in “cultic rites” (8:18ff and 14:20), (10) an outpouring of the Spirit leading to personal transformation (4:6 and 12:10), (11) the removal of the false professors of the faith (5:4 and 13:3), and (12) the victory of the Messiah through “humility” and suffering (3:8; 4:6 and 9:6ff).[24] Though Childs himself denies the unity of Zechariah, his list of themes interlocks the two halves tightly.
The second argument in favor of a unified author is the evidence that the Book of Zechariah is actually a complex triple “diptych” that is structured around the “central spine” of Zechariah 6:9-15 and utilizes Zech. 3:1-10 and 11:1-17 as minor spines or hinges (see figure 1 below).[25] The force of Kline’s argument is that his explanation of the patterning of Zechariah fits better than the majority of other chiasm structures that have been proposed by other scholars, which often have to break true chiasm form in order to fit the themes of both halves of Zechariah.[26] Kline notes that the three hinge passages he has identified all contain the following elements: (1) there is a royal coronation, (2) the prophet directly participates in the events of the passages, and (3) “specific historical individuals are involved.”[27] Additionally, these three sections stand out considerably from the rest of the book as they focus on portraying “the coming of Christ” as “the priest-king” in increasingly dramatic fashion.[28]
Figure 1. The Diptych Structure of Zechariah.
The four sections or “side panels” also show marked structural and thematic similarity within the diptych framework. For instance, between the two large panels (“1:1-6:8 and 7:1-14:21”), Kline found the following similarities: (1) the presence of an “opening date formula,” (2) remembrance of “past covenant history,” (3) an emphasis on “lawsuit complaint[s]” and “exile punishment,” (4) encouragement to fulfill the Mosaic Covenant, and (5) a reminder that disobedience will result in “curses” while repentance and obedience will result in “blessings.”[29] Further, the sub-panels also exhibit complementary structure. Kline goes into extensive detail relating an intricate interweaving of chiasm structures and themes that are repeated dutifully throughout the vision and burden sections of the book.[30] Not only does the discovery of this level of structure and linking support the overall unity and sole authorship of Zechariah, it also demonstrates how Zechariah “highlight[s] the figure of the coming Christ [who is] ordained to priestly sacrifice and subsequent highest royal glory.”[31] In conclusion, the authorship and unity of the Book of Zechariah support reading Zechariah 12:10 and 13:7 as direct messianic prophecy that should not be written off as referring to other historical figures.
A Defense of the Messiah Being the Referent of “אֵלַ֖י” and “אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁר־”
One of the most disputed aspects of Zechariah 12:10 is the translation of “אֵלַ֖י (’ê·lay)” as “on me.” Current secular scholarship rejects any form of messianic interpretation by redirecting the referent of “אֵלַ֖י (’ê·lay)” to “slain Israelites or any number of Jewish martyrs.”[32] The defense of the messianic nature of this verse is pivotal for understanding the Messiah as the suffering shepherd.
Textual Tradition in Support of “אֵלַ֖י (’ê·lay)” as “to me” Versus “to him.”
The textual tradition concerning Zechariah 12:10 is static, and in every ancient copy, the word “אֵלַ֖י (’ê·lay)” is found. Thus, there is no textual justification for “emending the text to “elo” (“to him”)” as some scholars propose.[33] According to the Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius lexicon, “אֵלַ֖י (’ê·lay)” is used to direct any physical or non-physical action toward an object.[34] This lines up with its referent verb being “וְהִבִּ֥יטוּ (wə·hib·bî·ṭū)” or “will look.”[35] Additionally, “אֵלַ֖י (’ê·lay)” is parsed in the first person, common, singular; thus, the one upon whom is being looked must be the speaker of the sentence.[36] Zechariah 12:1-2 indicates that the speaker of the oracle is “יְהוָ֗ה” or “the Lord.”[37] Thus, the plain sense of the text indicates that in some way God would be “looked upon” by men. However, “some ancient medieval manuscripts have “to him”” in place of “to me.”[38] H. G. Mitchell uses this discrepancy along with potential theological hurdles to justify changing the text. He argues that the idea of God being pierced is nonsensical, thus, no matter what the grammar indicates, “אֵלַ֖י (’ê·lay)” cannot refer back to God.[39] Additionally, he argues that if the author wanted to indicate that it was God, the speaker, being pierced, there would not be a switch to the third person later on in the verse.[40] Though his arguments do have force, they ultimately cannot overcome the evidence in support of the textual reading. First, “all the old versions such as the Septuagint, the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, the Aramaic Targums, Syriac Peshitta, Old Latin Bible and the Latin Vulgate” all translate “אֵלַ֖י (’ê·lay)” as “to me.”[41] A second issue comes from a stylistic tendency found in the Book of Zechariah and throughout the Old Testament. There are a number of verses where a change “from first person to third person almost certainly represents a change in perspective.”[42] Other examples of this change in Zechariah can be found in 7:13 and 9:10. Thus, Mitchell’s arguments are not persuasive enough to merit an emendation of the text.
Understanding John 19:37’s and Revelation 1:7’s Reference to Zechariah 12:10
In order to fully defend the MT reading of Zechariah 12:10, its quotation in the New Testament must be addressed. The NT citations read: “Also, another Scripture says: They will look at the One they pierced.” (John 19:37), and “Look! He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, including those who pierced Him. And all the families of the earth will mourn over Him. This is certain. Amen.” (Rev. 1:7).[43] In both of these instances the author is not utilizing a direct quotation; rather, he is utilizing “an interpretive paraphrase” which allows him to demonstrate how the specific prophecy in question is being fulfilled during his time.[44] Klein similarly argues that “New Testament authors typically “quoted” the Old Testament rather loosely,” thus, references like the aforementioned should not be used to amend Old Testament texts.[45] Thus, the New Testament references, while interesting, do not pose a problem to the original understanding of the Zechariah 12:10.
Identifying the “Whom” of “אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁר־”
The proper translation of “אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁר־ (’êṯ ’ă·šer-)” is vital to linking “יְהוָ֗ה” to the one who was pierced in Zechariah 12:10. Jewish scholars, in an attempt to remove the messianic context from this verse, have translated Zech. 12:10 as follows: “And they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through,” and “they shall lament to Me about those slain.”[46] These translations fundamentally change the tenor and meaning of the verse. Rather than being about how the Jewish people rejected God and His messenger, the verse takes on the meaning of being about how the Jewish people lamented to God about others who have died. The Septuagint is in support of these translations as it renders “אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁר־ (’êṯ ’ă·šer-)” with “ανθ΄ ων” which means “because.”[47]
However, there are several reasons to reject the Septuagint’s translation and the translations of the Jewish scholars. First, the Septuagint misreads “דָּקָ֑רוּ (dā·qā·rū)” as the similar looking word “רָקַד (raw-kad’)” and translates it as “κατορχέομαι” or to “dance in mockery.”[48] With this word in place, the Septuagint translator would have to have reinterpreted “אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁר־ (’êṯ ’ă·šer-)” because it no longer fit with the rest of the verse. One natural replacement would be “because” and it seems as though that is how the translator emended the text. Another reason to reject the use of “κατορχέομαι” is that it does not appear anywhere else in the Septuagint.[49] Second, the New Testament quotation of Zechariah 12:10 in Revelation 1:7 is in contradiction with the Septuagint. Revelation 1:7 reads “He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, including those who pierced Him.”[50] Its utilization of “ων” or “who/whom” indicates that the Septuagint was not the source it used to reference the verse. Third, though “אֲשֶׁר־” on its own does mean “because,” when in the presence of “אֵ֣ת” it is forced to mean “who, which, [or] that.”[51] Thus, the translation of “אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁר־ (’êṯ ’ă·šer-)” should remain “who/whom,” and the referent should remain the person who was “pierced” who is “יְהוָ֗ה.”
Making Grammatical Sense of Zechariah 12:10
Taking the aforementioned defenses into consideration, a detailed exposition of the players of Zechariah 12:10 is as follows. The verse begins with “יְהוָ֗ה”, God, the Lord, making a statement about how He Himself will give the Israelites a contrite and humble heart.[52] As a result of this new heart, they will reflect upon their prior rejection of the “יְהוָ֗ה” as the Messiah whom their ancestors killed.[53] Thus, rather than referencing a historical event where the people would lament the death of a hero or group of heroes, this verse directly indicates how the Jewish people would relate to “יְהוָ֗ה” through the Messiah both at His first and second advent. Thus, Zechariah 12:10 is a direct Messianic prophecy defending the divinity and humanity of the Messiah, the fact that the Messiah would suffer, and the acceptance of the Messiah by a later generation.[54]
A Defense of “דָּקָ֑רוּ” as Indicating Physical Suffering and Death
A second way in which Zechariah 12:10 is attacked as a messianic prophecy is through the denial that “דָּקָ֑רוּ (dā·qā·rū)” means physical piercing. This allows God to be mentally wounded or hurt by people. However, careful analysis reveals that rendering “דָּקָ֑רוּ (dā·qā·rū)” as anything but physical piercing followed by death is impossible. In terms of the importance of this verse to messianic prophecy, Meyers and Meyers state that this word “is surely one of the major interpretive cruxes in Second Zechariah, if not all of prophecy.”[55]
Use of “דֶּקֶר” in the Old Testament
(daw-kar’) “דֶּקֶר” is used “13 times” in the Old Testament.[56] The majority of those uses are as a verb, similar to Zechariah 12:10. In all of the cases where the verb form is used, the object being pierced references a physical body.[57] Additionally, in all cases except Jeremiah 37:10, the act of piercing results in a “shameful death.”[58] For example, Numbers 25:8 states that “Phinehas… took a spear in his hand, followed the Israelite man into the tent, and drove (וַיִּדְקֹר֙ way·yiḏ·qōr) it through both the Israelite man and the woman—through her belly.” Like other verses, Zechariah 12:10 contains language that reinforces the normative physical use of the word “דֶּקֶר (daw-kar’).” First, Zechariah 12:10 does not contain metaphorical markers, simile identifiers, or symbolic references in conjunction with being pierced.[59] Second, the mourning of the pierced one is metaphorically compared to “the mourning for an only son” or “a firstborn son.”[60] This mourning is then extended to “the royal (house of Nathan) and priestly (house of Shimei) families” and finally to “all the rest of the families of the land.”[61] The degree, severity, and extent of the morning described in Zechariah 12 is completely consistent with the death of a person who should be highly revered.[62]
Assessing the Possibility of the Piercing as Being Metaphorical
H. C. Leupold argues against this literal reading, preferring to spiritualize the text in order to avoid the obvious theological issue of the possibility of a God who is spirit being physically pierced.[63] He also argues that there is a “parallel” in Leviticus 24:11-16 which speak of piercing “God’s name.”[64] He sees this as a metaphorical means of conveying that God’s name was “insulted and blasphemed.”[65] However, there are a number of issues with Leupold’s argument. First, the word used in Leviticus is “נָקַב (naqab)” not “דֶּקֶר (daw-kar’),” thus the link between the two verses is based on translations, not linguistics.[66] Second, Leviticus employs an idiom within the verse by stating that it was “God’s name” that was being pieced.[67] By stating that a non-physical thing was being pierced, the metaphorical nature of the verse is clear. Zechariah 10:12, however, speaks of a person being pierced and then mourned. It is much harder to take a person needing to be mourned non-literally. Third, “דֶּקֶר (daw-kar’)” is never used in conjunction with “נָקַב (naqab),” but it is used twice in conjunction with the word “חָלַל (khaw-lal’)” which means to “pierce, [or] fatally wound.” Fourth, Leupold does not address the link between Zechariah 12:10 and 13:3 which states “You cannot remain alive because you have spoken falsely in the name of Yahweh. When he prophesies, his father and his mother who bore him will pierce him through.” This verse utilizes “דֶּקֶר (daw-kar’)” in a clear way to refer to “execution.” These reasons are more compelling than the presumed theological discrepancy that buttresses Leupold’s assertion of a metaphorical piercing. Thus, the literal understanding of piercing followed by death should be upheld in the translation of Zechariah 12:10.
Utilizing the Hebrew Prophetic Perfect Tense to Make Sense of the Timing of the Piercing
Another way scholars attempt to dismiss God/the Messiah being the one pierced is to point out that “דָּקָ֑רוּ (dā·qā·rū)” is parsed qal perfect stem, 3rd person, common, plural, thus it is rendered “pierced” and seems to refer to a past completed action.[68] However, this is a case of sloppy exegesis. In Hebrew, the perfect form “portrays an action as a simple fact, whether in the past, present, or future.”[69] This is known as the prophetic perfect and is used throughout the prophets. When the context is taken into consideration, both the piercing and the mourning must be references to future events. For example, in Zechariah 12, the well-known eschatological phrase “on that day” is used six times in close relationship. This phrase is a reference to “the day of Yahweh” which throughout the major and minor prophets means “an approaching destructive action of Yahweh.”[70] As Meyers and Meyers note, this passage contains the most concentrated use of the day of “יְהוָ֗ה” in the Old Testament.[71] Contextually, it makes sense to render the piercing in the past rather than the future as the mourning and looking are rendered. The focus of the passage is on a future people’s action in reference to an event in their past. To place everything in the future tense would be confusing, as it would make it look like the people in question are mourning for an action they will take in their future. Finally, if the piercing was something that had already happened, the passage would be rendered nonsensical. If the Israelites had already pierced someone, then why would the current generation not be called to repent and mourn? Why would Zechariah leave the repentance to a future generation? This is inconsistent with his tenor to call Israel to repentance throughout the rest of the book. For grammatical and logical reasons, Zechariah 12:10 should be seen as a reference to future events, thus preserving its messianic message.
Connection of Zechariah 12:10 to Isaiah 53:5
One of the most important inner-biblical connections that strengthens the physicality of the piercing of Zechariah 12:10 is its connection to the Servant mentioned in Isaiah 52-53. Zechariah 12:10 mentions that a person closely associated with “יְהוָ֗ה,” perhaps in some way even “יְהוָ֗ה” Himself, is pierced and then mourned for. Similarly, Zechariah 13:7 (discussed in further detail in the final section), states that “יְהוָ֗ה” will awaken His “sword” against His “Shepherd, against the man who is My associate.”[72] The word “pierce” links these two accounts together, but when read in concert with Isaiah 53 the comparison is breathtaking. The following is a collection of statements made about this “person” from Isaiah 53: (1) “He was pierced because of our transgressions,” (2) “the Lord has punished Him,” (3) “He was cut off from the land of the living,” (4) “the Lord was pleased to crush Him severely,” (5) “You make Him a restitution offering,” and (6) He is a “righteous Servant” who will “justify many.”[73] Isaiah 53 clearly links the pierced one with the Shepherd and the Lord’s Servant, combining the two ideas of the Messiah in Zechariah. It also ensures that people understand that the pierced one was a close associate of God, that God ordained Him to be put to death, and that His death would be worthy of mourning because He was innocent of any sin. The link to Isaiah provides the context to fully understand the nature of the prophecies found in Zechariah. The Messiah is truly the pierced one, the Servant, the Shepherd, and the one whose death was undeserved but executed on behalf of many.
A Defense of the Messiah as the Shepherd of Zechariah 13:7
Discerning the Identity of the Shepherd
Similar to the arguments presented against the messianic interpretation of Zechariah 12:10, some scholars and Jewish exegetes argue that the identity of the Shepherd in Zechariah 13:7 is “the leaders of the (Gentile) nations” and understand the context of this verse as referring to a “false prophet” who would be eliminated by God.[74] However, there are several reasons to reject this view in favor of a messianic understanding of the Shepherd. First, in order to determine the identity of the Shepherd, it is necessary to examine all of the verses in Zechariah that discuss the Shepherd.
Zechariah 11 presents the reader with multiple shepherds with different identities and different tasks. One of the difficulties in interpreting Zechariah 11 is that the godly Shepherd’s story is acted out by Zechariah, even though the events of the narrative never actually happened to him during his ministry. Rather, he was acting out a future series of events concerning a future Shepherd.[75] For example, verse 4 argues that the “flock” was “intended for slaughter.”[76] However, even in the exilic and post-exilic periods the people were protected against the unmitigated divine wrath executed by gentile nations. It was not until after the time of Jesus that the Israelite people were fully dispersed and the nation lost.[77] Additionally, this is further symbolized by the breaking of the two staffs in verses 10 and 14. These represent a full covenant breach and cessation of terms which would lead Israel into a complete exile. Finally, the Good Shepherd Himself was given the wages of “a slave” as payment “for shepherding the people.”[78] Given this level of rejection of both God and the Shepherd by the nation, it is highly unlikely that Zechariah was referring to a historical event. Additionally, the eschatological nature of Zechariah 9-14 indicates that he was acting out a future Shepherd’s life, the Messiah.
The entirety of chapter 12 reads like “יְהוָ֗ה” is personally shepherding Israel. For instance, “יְהוָ֗ה” molds Jerusalem into “a cup that causes staggering for the peoples who surround the city.”[79] He also saves them, strengthens them, and protects them from the attacks of other nations.[80] Finally, He gently gives them a contrite spirit that seeks to pray earnestly to Him.[81] It would initially be easy to think that this was simply God shepherding his people; however, verse 10 is strategically placed to link the shepherding actions of God to an individual person who would be pierced, die and then be mourned. In other words, God the Good Shepherd is also identified as a man.
Chapter 13 further drives home the Shepherd motif as the shepherd who is mentioned in chapter 11 and 12 is now struck by God and killed. Additionally, the conditions that bring about the national mourning and restoration are further detailed. The nation does not simply come to recognize the Shepherd on their own. Instead, “two-thirds” of them will be killed and the final third will be put “though the fire” which will cause them to “call on My name.” Thus, there is a thematic link between recognizing the pierced one as someone to be revered and the reality that at the same time they will call on God’s name. It is as though one cannot call on God’s name without also recognizing the nature and character of His Servant, the Shepherd. Thus, all textual analyses point to the Servant being identical with the Shepherd, the pierced one, and the eschatological Messiah who would save Israel.
Discovering Divinity in “גֶּ֣בֶר עֲמִיתִ֔י (ge·ḇer ‘ă·mî·ṯî)”
One final point should be made concerning the identity of the Shepherd as the pierced one: His relationship to “יְהוָ֗ה.” In Zechariah 13:7, God states that the Shepherd is “My associate” or “גֶּ֣בֶר עֲמִיתִ֔י (ge·ḇer ‘ă·mî·ṯî).”[82] Price states that this word, translated “the man close to me,” “implies one united to another by possession of common nature, rights, and privileges.”[83] This word is never used to denote a connection between God and a human being outside of this verse. This is due to the fact that to make such a connection could easily be construed as applying divinity to a man or humanity to God. However, its use along with the close association of “יְהוָ֗ה” to the pierced one in Zechariah 12:10 provides an Old Testament framework for the incarnation of the Messiah. That in some mysterious way, the Messiah would be both a human being and also identifiable with “יְהוָ֗ה” Himself. Thus, the messianic prophecies contained in Zechariah 12:10 and 13:7 not only argue that the Messiah will be a Good Shepherd and pierced by God, but also that the Messiah Himself is in some way, God.
Conclusion
The messianic prophecies found in Zechariah 12:10 and 13:7 are rich with descriptions about the nature and work of the Messiah. In them, the Messiah is portrayed as the Good Shepherd, one who is pierced by God, and Himself divine. Even though detractors have attempted to come up with ways to delegitimize Zechariah 9-14 as prophecy, their arguments are often founded on faulty presuppositions, overextension of evidence, and the exclusion of data that is contrary to their assessments. Though the attempts to split Zechariah up have changed the face of Old Testament scholarship, those who approach the Bible canonically have discovered an interlocking web of prophecies that strengthen the case for direct messianic prophecy. With regard to the verses in Zechariah, their maintenance as messianic prophecy is vital as they contain some of the most fundamental and important predictions about who the Messiah is and what He would do. Finally, in the time of distress and exile which Israel has endured, these verses emphasize the truth of what Jesus said in the Gospel of John: “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.”[84]
Bibliography
Baron, David. The Visions and Prophecies of Zechariah. The Perfect Library, 1918.
Bauer, Walter. “Anti.” Edited by Fredrick Danker. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2010.
Blomberg, Craig. Matthew. Vol. 22. The New American Commentary: New International Version. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 1992.
Boda, Mark J. The Book of Zechariah. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016. Butterworth, Mike. Structure and the Book of Zechariah. Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992.
Childs, Brevard. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1979.
Clark, David J., and Howard A. Hatton. A Handbook on Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. USB Handbook Series. New York City, NY: United Bible Societies, 2002.
Eissfeldt, Otto. The Old Testament: An Introduction. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1965.
Fruchtenbaum, Arnold. “The History of Jewish Interpretation of Isaiah 52:13-53:12” presented at the Pre-Trib Study Group Conference, Dallas, TX, December 10, 2019.
Hill, Andrew E. “Dating Second Zechariah: A Linguistic Reexamination.” Huntington College, Indiana (n.d.). Accessed February 5, 2020. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1031.8181&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Kaiser Jr., Walter. The Messiah in the Old Testament. Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995.
Klein, George. Zechariah. Vol. 21B. The New American Commentary: New International Version. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2008.
Kline, Meredith. “The Structure of the Book of Zechariah.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34, no. 2 (June 1991): 179–193.
Lemarche, P. Zacharie IX-XIV: Structure Litteraire et Messianisme. Paris, FR: Gabalda, 1961.
Leupold, H. C. Exposition of Zechariah. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1956.
Merrill, Eugene. An Exegetical Commentary: Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1994.
Meyers, Carol, and Eric Meyers. Zechariah 9-14. The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 1998.
Mitchell, H. G. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai and Zechariah. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 1912.
Moulton, Brian. “The Prophet Zechariah: The Branch (3:8; 6:12), the Donkey (9:9), and the Piercing (12:10): Perspectives from Judaism and Christianity” presented at the 2019 Pre-Trib Conference, Dallas, TX, December 10, 2019.
Price, Randall. “Zechariah 13:7-9: The Striking of the Shepherd King.” In The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2019.
Redditt, Paul L. Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Marshall Pickering, 1995.
Rydelnik, Michael. The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? Vol. 9. NAC Studies in Bible and Theology. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2010.
Smith, Gary. Interpreting the Prophetic Books: An Exegetical Handbook. Handbooks for Old Testament Exegesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2014.
Smith, James. What the Bible Teaches about the Promised Messiah: An In-Depth Study of 73 Key Old Testament Prophecies about the Messiah. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1993.
Stuart, Daniel. “Zechariah 12:10-13:1: The Pierced Messiah.” In The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament, edited by Michael Rydelnik and Edwin A. Blum. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2019.
Treves, Marco. “Conjectures Concerning the Date and Authorship of Zechariah IX-XIV.” Vetus Testamentum 13, no. 2 (April 1963): 196–207.
Unger, Merrill. Zechariah: Prophet of Messiah’s Glory. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976.
Woods, Andrew. “Daniel 2:29-45: The Times of the Gentiles and the Messianic Kingdom.” In The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament, edited by Michael Rydelnik and Edwin A. Blum. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2019.
“Asher.” Brown-Driver-Biggs-Gesenius Lexicon, n.d.
“El.” Brown-Driver-Biggs-Gesenius Lexicon, n.d.
“Wə·hib·bî·ṭū.” Brown-Driver-Biggs-Gesenius Lexicon, n.d.
[1] Michael Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic?, vol. 9, NAC Studies in Bible and Theology (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2010), Kindle, 602.
[2] Arnold Fruchtenbaum, “The History of Jewish Interpretation of Isaiah 52:13-53:12” (presented at the Pre-Trib Study Group Conference, Dallas, TX, December 10, 2019).
[3] James Smith, What the Bible Teaches about the Promised Messiah: An In-Depth Study of 73 Key Old Testament Prophecies about the Messiah (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1993), ix.
[4] Mark J. Boda, The Book of Zechariah, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016), 26.
[5] Marco Treves, “Conjectures Concerning the Date and Authorship of Zechariah IX-XIV,” Vetus Testamentum 13, no. 2 (April 1963): 196-199.
[6] Ibid, 201.
[7] Zechariah 11:12-13 (HCSB).
[8] Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1965), 435.
[9] Craig Blomberg, Matthew, vol. 22, The New American Commentary: New International Version (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 1992), Kindle, 10512.
[10] David J. Clark and Howard A. Hatton, A Handbook on Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, USB Handbook Series (New York City, NY: United Bible Societies, 2002), 65.
[11] Paul L. Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Marshall Pickering, 1995), 93.
[12] George Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary: New International Version (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2008), Kindle, 878.
[13] Mike Butterworth, Structure and the Book of Zechariah (Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 272.
[14] Andrew E. Hill, “Dating Second Zechariah: A Linguistic Reexamination,” Huntington College, Indiana (n.d.), accessed February 5, 2020, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1031.8181&rep=rep1&type=pdf, 105.
[15] Ibid, 132.
[16] Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, Kindle, 983.
[17] Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, 94-96.
[18] Treves, “Conjectures Concerning the Date and Authorship of Zechariah IX-XIV,” 198.
[19] Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, Kindle, 1004.
[20] Ibid, 1005.
[21] Gary Smith, Interpreting the Prophetic Books: An Exegetical Handbook, Handbooks for Old Testament Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2014), 25-27; Andrew Woods, “Daniel 2:29-45: The Times of The Gentiles and the Messianic Kingdom,” in The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament, ed. Michael Rydelnik and Edwin A. Blum (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2019), Kindle, 28822.
[22] Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, Kindle, 902.
[23] Eugene Merrill, An Exegetical Commentary: Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1994), 74-75.
[24] Brevard Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1979), 482-483.
[25] Meredith Kline, “The Structure of the Book of Zechariah,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34, no. 2 (June 1991): 179-180.
[26] P. Lemarche, Zacharie IX-XIV: Structure Litteraire et Messianisme (Paris, FR: Gabalda, 1961).
[27] Kline, “The Structure of the Book of Zechariah,” 179.
[28] Ibid, 183.
[29] Ibid, 184.
[30] Ibid, 185-192.
[31] Ibid, 193.
[32] Daniel Stuart, “Zechariah 12:10-13:1: The Pierced Messiah,” in The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament, ed. Michael Rydelnik and Edwin A. Blum (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2019), Kindle, 32980.
[33] Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, p. ; Carol Meyers and Eric Meyers, Zechariah 9-14, Kindle, 9211, The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries (New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 1998), 336.
[34] “El,” Brown-Driver-Biggs-Gesenius Lexicon.
[35] “Wə·hib·bî·ṭū,” Brown-Driver-Biggs-Gesenius Lexicon, n.d.
[36] Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, Kindle, 9211.
[37] Zechariah 12:1-2 (HCSB).
[38] Stuart, “Zechariah 12:10-13:1: The Pierced Messiah,” Kindle, 33025.
[39] H. G. Mitchell, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai and Zechariah, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 1912), 334.
[40] Ibid.
[41] David Baron, The Visions and Prophecies of Zechariah (The Perfect Library, 1918), 438; Mitchell, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai and Zechariah, 334; Stuart, “Zechariah 12:10-13:1: The Pierced Messiah,” Kindle, 33044
[42] Stuart, “Zechariah 12:10-13:1: The Pierced Messiah,” Kindle, 33035.
[43] John 19:37; Rev. 1:7 (HCSB).
[44] Smith, What the Bible Teaches about the Promised Messiah: An In-Depth Study of 73 Key Old Testament Prophecies about the Messiah, 453.
[45] Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, Kindle, 9211.
[46] Zechariah 12:10 (JPS, NJPS).
[47] Walter Bauer, “Anti,” ed. Fredrick Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2010).
[48] Stuart, “Zechariah 12:10-13:1: The Pierced Messiah,” Kindle, 33101.
[49] Ibid, Kindle, 33091.
[50] Revelation 1:7 (HCSB).
[51] “Asher,” Brown-Driver-Biggs-Gesenius Lexicon, n.d.
[52] Walter Kaiser Jr., The Messiah in the Old Testament, Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), 223.
[53] Ibid, 225.
[54] Brian Moulton, “The Prophet Zechariah: The Branch (3:8; 6:12), the Donkey (9:9), and the Piercing (12:10): Perspectives from Judaism and Christianity” (presented at the 2019 Pre-Trib Conference, Dallas, TX, December 10, 2019).
[55] Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9-14, 337.
[56] Stuart, “Zechariah 12:10-13:1: The Pierced Messiah,” Kindle, 33200.
[57] Ibid.
[58] Ibid.
[59] Ibid, Kindle 33210.
[60] Smith, What the Bible Teaches about the Promised Messiah: An In-Depth Study of 73 Key Old Testament Prophecies about the Messiah, 454.
[61] Ibid, 455.
[62] Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, 133.
[63] H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Zechariah (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1956), 237.
[64] Ibid.
[65] Ibid.
[66] Merrill Unger, Zechariah: Prophet of Messiah’s Glory (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 216.
[67] Ibid.
[68] Mitchell, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai and Zechariah, 330.
[69] Stuart, “Zechariah 12:10-13:1: The Pierced Messiah,” Kindle, 33239.
[70] Boda, The Book of Zechariah, 689.
[71] Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9-14, 316-317.
[72] Zechariah 13:7 (HCSB).
[73] Isaiah 53 (HCSB).
[74] Randall Price, “Zechariah 13:7-9: The Striking of the Shepherd King,” in The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2019), Kindle, 33510.
[75] Kaiser Jr., The Messiah in the Old Testament, 220-221.
[76] Zechariah 11:4 (HCSB).
[77] Kaiser Jr., The Messiah in the Old Testament, 222.
[78] Ibid, 222.
[79] Zechariah 12:2.
[80] Zechariah 12:7-9.
[81] Zechariah 12:10.
[82] Zechariah 13:7 (HCSB).
[83] Price, “Zechariah 13:7-9: The Striking of the Shepherd King,” Kindle, 33573.
[84] John 14:18 (NIV).
Comments