Commentary on Zechariah chapters 11 to 14.

In the following notes on Zechariah, the text is the NIV’s (original version). As well as using the very useful notes in Zondervan’s “NIV Study Bible”, 1985 edition by Hodder and Stoughton, I have drawn on the following:- Crossway’s ESV Study Bible and the notes on Zechariah by Iain M Duguid.- “Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi”: an introduction and commentary by Joyce G Baldwin, in the

Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series, 1st edition, 1972.- Victor Pearce, “Evidence for Truth: Prophecy”.

To aid navigation around this document, to get to the notes that start a chapter, use the “Find” fa-cility and search for $ followed by the chapter number. For example, if you want to get to the start of ch 12, “Find” $12 will take you there.

Introduction to Zechariah chapters 11 to 14.

Zechariah gave the series of prophecies dated in ch 1 to 8 to 520-518 BC. Jews from Babylonia, in-cluding Zechariah, had returned to Judah in 538 BC and started rebuilding the temple, but the work had stalled, due to opposition but also Jewish lethargy. Because of Haggai and Zechariah’s prophetic ministry and encouragement (see Ezra 5.1f; 6.14), but also with the positive intervention of the Persian king (see Ezra 6.13), the Jews restarted the building work and the temple was fin-ished and dedicated in 516 BC (Ezra 6.15-18).

Zechariah clearly foresaw that the Lord’s plans for his people and for Jerusalem were far greater than the Jews of his day were experiencing. If we follow through what is recorded in ch 1 to 10 of the book that bears his name, we see that he prophesied prosperity, peace and comfort from the Lord for Jerusalem and Judah as well as the rebuilding of the temple (1.16f; 2.4; 3.10; 4.8ff; 8.4f, 9,12f), and the presence of the Lord powerfully and gloriously with his restored people, with the Lord himself coming to live among them (2.6, 10ff; 8.3). He bid the Jews still in Babylon to es-cape from there (2.7), and foresaw the Lord saving his people and bringing them back to live in Jerusalem (8.7f; 9.12). He prophesied about the long-awaiting Messiah coming, under the title of the Branch (3.8; 6.12f) as well as “your king comes to you” (9.9f). And the nations would come to Jerusalem to see the Lord (8.20-23).

Along the way to this glorious state there would be conflicts, as ch 9 and 10 make clear; but the Lord would march out to give them victory (9.14-17; 10.4f). (Much of the fulfilment of ch 9 and 10 probably belongs to the period from and including Alexander the Great’s conquests, 333-2BC, to the conflicts with the Seleucid succession of rulers who succeeded to part of his empire, and especially the Jewish victories under the Maccabees, 168-164 BC).

But his preaching also contained sombre warnings. The people must turn from their evil ways and practices, which had in the past brought disaster and exile upon them (1.2-6; 7.5-14; 8.14). There would be temptations to idolatry, and the people would wander “like sheep oppressed for lack of a shepherd”; and there would be shepherds - rulers over the people - that the Lord would be angry towards and would punish (10.1ff). Zechariah may even have prophesied a further scatter-ing of the Jews by the Lord among the nations (10.9), which is what happened when the Romans crushed the Jewish Revolt and destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD. But he also foresaw the Lord having compassion on them, restoring them spiritually and physically and bringing them back (10.6-12).

We now come to chapter 11. It opens with a short prophecy (vv 1ff) that probably closes the preceding prophecy by prophesying the destruction coming upon the nations and their leaders occupying land to which the exiles of Israel will return. But then the tone changes with a frighten-ing prophecy about “the flock marked for slaughter”, who reject the shepherd, i.e. leader, that the Lord sends to them, and go on to suffer terribly from civil strife and external oppression, causing the breaking up of the nation. Jesus in his rejection and betrayal clearly is that shepherd, and the sufferings of the Jewish nation in the period of the Jewish Revolt against Roman rule, culminating

in the nation’s destruction in 70 AD and the scattering of the people, is its fulfilment. There is a further prophecy, at 13.7, that the Lord’s shepherd will be struck and the sheep scattered, which Je-sus pointed to as fulfilled in his crucifixion.

But then a second shepherd is prophesied (11.15ff), but in contrast a foolish, i.e. wicked, and worthless one, who will afflict further the flock, the people of Israel. This seems to be about a na-tional leader of Israel as this age nears its close. So, before the return to their land and the physical and spiritual restoration that Zechariah has earlier prophesied, the people of Israel have to go through much suffering - the consequence of rejecting God’s Shepherd, their Messiah.

Jerusalem and Judah’s physical and spiritual restoration is developed further in ch 12-14, whose fulfilment (with the exception of 13.7) awaits the end of the age. Jerusalem is to be attacked and besieged by all the nations. The Lord will defend and strengthen them, finally by coming in person to the Mount of Olives - to be fulfilled by Christ’s second coming - and bring about a devas-tating destruction of the enemy forces. But before the final deliverance the city will be captured, the women brutally treated and half the city taken into exile In the whole land two-thirds of the population will be struck down and perish, but the remaining one-third will emerge from the refin-ing of suffering with a real faith in the Lord their God.

We presume at around the same time, there will be a dramatic spiritual restoration of the people of Jerusalem and the whole of Israel (12.10-13.1). They will look on “the one they have pierced” - Jesus Christ whom they had crucified, perhaps perceived in a heavenly sign - which will cause them to mourn in repentance and to receive spiritual cleansing. This will cause them to take a stern stand against all idolatry and false prophets.

Ch 14 closes with the Lord reigning as king over the whole earth - referring to Christ’s physical return - and Jerusalem physically and dramatically transformed. All the nations that had attacked Jerusalem now go up annually to Jerusalem to worship the Lord, the King, at a restored Feast of Tabernacles and holiness will resound across the city.

Note on the authorship of ch 9 to 14.Some scholars think that ch 9 to 14 were not written by Zechariah. None of these prophecies con-tain a date (the last date given by Zechariah is in 7.1f), nor is there any reference to an event that can be used to date when a prophecy was given. There are also some differences in style and other features of the chapters’ composition. BUT there is no widely accepted view as to who else wrote these chapters or when. I work on the basis that the Zechariah of ch 1-8 also gave the prophecies in ch 9-14, perhaps at a later period. If he was a young man in 519 BC (see 2.4) he could still have been prophesying even into the reign of the Persian king Artaxerxes 1 (465-424 BC) who in 458 au-thorised Ezra to go to Jerusalem to develop the temple sacrifices (Ezra 7.17) and to ensure that the law of Moses was being obeyed.

Zechariah ch 11: summary $11

Zechariah turns his focus from the flock back to the shepherd (last dealt with in 10.3), a term fre-quently used to describe Israel and other nations’ leaders. 11.1ff presents a challenge: does it con-clude the prophecy in ch 10, or does it open a new prophecy that is ch 11? I suggest it closes ch 10 and prophesies the defeat of those nations that now inhabit Lebanon, Bashan, the Jordan valley and perhaps other areas too (the “rich pastures” of v 3). The shepherds in v 3 are nations’ (not Israel’s) leaders. They are defeated and their power destroyed in the process of Israel’s return to their land - perhaps partly fulfilled in Israel’s victories in the 1990s over those nations in the Middle East who sought to destroy them. Their destruction may enable the returning Jews to settle in Gilead (just south of Bashan) and Lebanon, in fulfilment of 10.10.

There now follows a prophecy where Zechariah is told to act out the shepherding of the flock, the people of Israel. There are two shepherds he is commanded to act out. The first shepherd

he acts out (vv 7-14) is a good shepherd; but the second is a foolish, i.e. wicked, and worthless shepherd who mistreats and then abandons them. In his command to Zechariah in v 4, the Lord makes it clear that the flock he is to shepherd is “marked for slaughter” (“doomed to slaughter”, ESV). Vv 5f describe the merciless exploitation of the flock by those who buy and sell them and by their shepherds, with the declaration by the Lord that “I will no longer have pity on the people of the land”. The consequence is civil strife and oppression by those in authority, which will break in pieces (NIV has “oppress”) the land with no prospect of the Lord rescuing them.

So Zechariah takes up the shepherding of the flock (v 7), though perhaps this is an allegory or parable rather than an actual acting out. He takes two staffs, one symbolising God’s grace and favour, especially in holding back the nations from overrunning his people (see v 10), the other symbolising the union of the people that the Lord preserves. He gets rid of “the three shepherds” - not identifiable from the context but perhaps meaning unfit leaders. However, the flock detests him, their shepherd, and he grows weary of them, so he declares, “I will not be your shepherd . .” and spells out the consequences of the end of his shepherding (v 9). He breaks the staff symbolis-ing God’s grace and favour, with the consequence that the nations would now be free to overrun Is-rael (vv 10f). He requests his wages, now that he has terminated his shepherding, but is paid a pal-try 30 pieces of silver, the price of a slave. So at the Lord’s instruction he throws it into the temple, “to the potter”. He then breaks the second staff symbolising the union of the people, the implication being that the nation of Israel would now fracture and disintegrate (as predicted in v 6).

The Lord then commands Zechariah to “take again the equipment of a foolish shepherd”, later called “the worthless shepherd”, symbolising a future shepherd, i.e. ruler we presume over Is-rael, who will not care for the flock but will use them for his own gain and will abandon them. The prophecy closes with a “Woe” judgment or curse pronounced upon him.

We know from Matthew’s Gospel that he saw Judas’ betrayal of Jesus for 30 silver coins (Mt 26.14f; 27.3-10), his subsequent remorse and casting of the money into the temple, where it was used to buy the potter’s field, as the fulfilment of this prophecy, along with prophecies by Jeremiah. This suggests strongly that Jesus in his first coming, as God’s Shepherd for his people whom the people then reject, is the fulfilment of the first shepherd (vv 4, 7-14). This therefore means that the suffering of the people, at each others’ hands as well as at the hands of their rulers and other oppressors (vv 55f, 9) is fulfilled after the Crucifixion, particularly in the strife between the various Jewish factions as the Jewish Revolt proceeded, and at the hands of the Romans as they crushed the revolt, sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the nation by 70 AD. It is the consequence of their rejecting of God’s Shepherd for them. But the second shepherd appears to still await fulfil-ment as a “foolish”, i.e. evil, and “worthless” ruler over Israel. The fact that ch 12 to 14 is clearly a prophecy about the end of the age suggests that this wicked ruler over Israel will arise then too, when the nation of Israel has once more come into existence.

The overall message of ch 11 is that responsibility for human chaos lies squarely on men’s shoulders. God has offered men his Shepherd, but they have rejected him, to their own loss 1. Whilst Zechariah describes this in terms of Israel, the message is one for the whole world. The cost to the Shepherd himself of this rejection is described prophetically in 13.7 - quoted by Jesus in Mt 26.31.

See also the “concluding thoughts” section at the end of the ch 11 notes that follow.

Introduction to 11.1-3 . Does this prophecy conclude the ch 10 prophecy? OR is it the start of a new prophecy and there-fore introduces 11.4-17? The answer will for the large part determine how we understand and inter-pret it and determine what its fulfilment will look like. See the note after 11.3: “11.1-3, options for their fulfilment”

11.1 Lebanon. Situated a long way north of the land of Israel, though in some of the promises of land to Israel their territory would reach as far as Lebanon and even to the R Euphrates (see Dt 1.7;

1 From Baldwin’s note on v 17.

11.24; Jos 1.4). In Zechariah, Lebanon occurs in 10.10 and is part of the land to which the exiled people of Israel would be brought back from among the nations.

Lebanon was renowned for its cedars and pines (see 2 K 19.23) and animals (Isa 40.16). Isa 35.2 & 60.13 uses “glory” to describe its natural beauty. The cedars of Lebanon imagery was used at times by the Prophets metaphorically, i.e. without reference to its geographical area. In Isa 2.13 they represent man’s pride; in Isa 10.34 Lebanon and its trees stands for Assyria, about to fall as God destroys the enemy of his people; and in Ez 31.3 the mighty and proud Assyria is compared to a cedar in Lebanon that fell before the power of Babylon (Ez 31.10ff).

11.1f cedars . . cedar. Frequently linked to Lebanon in the OT (see the previous note). The singu-lar could stand for the royal house of Judah - see Ez 17.3f, 12f, where Lebanon stands for Jerusalem, the place from which that king reigned. The singular was also used to describe Assyria in Ez 31 (see the previous note).

11.1 Bashan. The table-land NE of the Sea of Galilee, and to the north of Gilead (10.10), famous for its cattle-rearing as well as its oak trees, but also described as a mountain region. Conquered when the Israelites first entered Canaan after leaving Egypt, it was part of the territory assigned to the tribe of Manasseh. The area was part of the conquered territory ruled by David and Solomon. By Zechariah’s time, Bashan was part of the Persian Empire’s province of Karnaim, i.e. outside the land of Judea. But by the 2nd and 1st Centuries BC it was again part of the Jewish state by the time of the Hasmonean ruler Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BC). On the death of Herod the Great (4 BC), his realm was divided between his three sons. The area that was historically Bashan was part of the region given to his son Philip.

The oaks of Bashan imagery was used at times by the Prophets metaphorically, i.e. without reference to its geographical area: see e.g. Isa 2.13 where the cedars of Lebanon is similarly used (see the previous note). In Ez 27.5f the two phrases occur together, but there the imagery is con-cerned with their wood being used. Bashan and Lebanon are also linked in Jer 22.20, using the im-agery of their mountainous regions.

11.2 the dense forest. Lit. “the forest of the fortification” OR “ . . of the inaccessible (one)” OR “. . the strong (one)”. AV has, “the forest of the vintage”, following an ancient amendment of the He-brew consonantal text. It may be a reference to Lebanon: compare Isa 10.34 2. Baldwin suggests that “of the fortification” was suggested by the cities for which the trees stood.

11.3 the shepherds. The shepherd and flock imagery continues from 9.16 and 10.2f (Baldwin). In 9.16 and 10.2f they applied to Judah. In 11.3 the shepherds may mean the rulers or leaders of Ju-dah, as in 10.3 and 11.5 onwards. Is the wail of the shepherds the Lord punishing them as proph-esied in 10.3?

OR the shepherds might mean the leaders of other nations, as in Jer 25.34ff; 49.19 and 50.44, and Baldwin so interprets here. Baldwin points out that the first half of v 3 draws very much on Jer 25.34ff, both in the imagery and in the Hebrew vocabulary.

11.3 their rich pastures. ESV, “their glory”. OR it could be, “their magnificence”. The Hebrew word is another form of “stately” in v 2. It recurs in v 13 - see the note there on “handsome”.

11.3 the lions. They had their lairs in the lush thicket of the Jordan, if we continue the imagery. “The lions” have lost their lairs and are now dangerously at large, threatening life, is how Baldwin interprets the imagery. Are they roaring in distress and/or anger at the loss of their lairs, which would keep it in parallel with the first half of v 3? OR the Jordan’s lush thicket has been made worthless by the presence of fierce lions (so Duguid).

2 Note that “forest thickets” in Isa 10.34 translates a different phrase from the Hebrew of Zech 11.2, though both have the same Hebrew noun for “forest”.

The phrase describing the Jordan occurs also at Jer 12.5; 49.19; 50.44; and a lion “coming up from Jordan’s thickets” occurs in Jer 49.19 and 50.44. But note that none of these passages have “the thicket of the Jordan” being ruined, as in Zech 11.3; so Zechariah has adapted the imagery, both in this respect and in lions plural. In Jer 12.5 the thickets imagery may be being used to de-scribe Judah’s leaders who would strongly oppose Jeremiah. Ez 19.1-9 (also referred to by Bald-win) uses lion imagery to describe the kings of Judah, but possibly also (see vv 1 & 6) the kings of the surrounding nations.

In Jer 25.38 the Lord in his punishment of the nations’ shepherds is likened to a lion, as he is in Jer 49.19 and 50.44. Was Zechariah inspired by the Jeremiah 25 prophecy, to which the first half of v 3 is so similar, to use lion imagery here? However, note that in the three Jeremiah passages the lion is singular, whereas in Zech 11.3 they are plural, so I think it unlikely that the lions are im-agery for the Lord acting in judgment/punishment.

Who, then, do the lions symbolise or represent? Options are:• the rulers or leaders of Judah, as in vv 5 onwards;• the kings/leaders of other nations (so Baldwin).And what does the lush thicket of the Jordan represent? Options are:• Judah - the “lair” of the leaders of Judah• the area of the Jordan, occupied by Israel• the area of the Jordan, occupied or inhabited by other powers than Israel• the home of other nations’ leaders (not tied to the Jordan geographically).See the note below on options for the fulfilment of 11.1-3.

11.3 lush thicket. Lit. “pride”, “splendour”, or “majesty” (Baldwin). It is the same Hebrew word as was used to describe Assyria in 10.10, and Baldwin observes that Zechariah continues to stress the downfall of the arrogant. RSV renders it, “jungle” - see the next note.

11.3 the lush thicket of the Jordan. The Dead Sea and the southern length of the Jordan River (the 9 miles or so that flows into the Dead Sea) was the Eastern boundary of Judea in Zechariah’s day. There was - and still is - a dense confusion of tamarisks and other shrubs extending on either side of the meandering river, an area which is inundated by flood waters when the snows on Mt Hermon melt in the spring (from Baldwin).

11.1-3: options for their fulfilment.• It is a taunting song that will be sung over the destruction of the nations - represented by the

cedar, pine and oak, whilst the shepherds and the lions are the nations’ leaders. The cedars stand for the great powers; the different types of trees represent nations large and small 3. These na-tions in 10.11 are represented by Assyria and Egypt. Just when these nations will be destroyed is unclear from 11.1ff, but from 10.8-12 it is in the process of Israel’s return to their land. In this interpretation, Lebanon, Bashan and the Jordan do not refer to their geographical areas.

• it prophesies the defeat of those nations that now inhabit Lebanon, Bashan, the Jordan valley and perhaps other areas too (the “rich pastures” of v 3). The shepherds in v 3 are nations’ lead-ers. They are defeated and their power destroyed in the process of Israel’s return to their land - partly fulfilled in Israel’s victories in the 1990s over those nations in the Middle East who sought to destroy them. Their destruction may enable the returning Jews to settle in Gilead (just south of Bashan) and Lebanon, in fulfilment of 10.10. I favour this interpretation.

• the regions are to be understood geographically and anticipate the destruction following the fall of the shepherds of Judah (v 3) (from Duguid, who does not deal further with how their fall is fulfilled);

• OR all the metaphors in vv 1-3 describe the glory of Israel’s shepherds, the subjects of the Lord’s judgments in 10.3, who will lose their glory and be brought low when the Lord acts to

3 Suggested by Baldwin.

deliver his people (prophesied in 10.6-12) (from Duguid, who does not identify which of Is-rael’s rulers might be the fulfilment)..

• it describes prophetically the devastation of Syro-Palestine due to the rejection of the Messianic Good Shepherd (described symbolically in 11.4-14). Part of the fulfilment would be the de-struction and subjugation of the area by the Romans, including the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and of Masada in 73 AD. The prophesied desolation of the land (vv 1ff) is then followed by the threat of judgment and disaster for land and people in vv 4ff. The fall of the oaks of Bashan might be fulfilled when the Roman general Vespasian crushed the fierce Jewish resistance at Gamala, 67 AD. However, I do not know of any Roman victories in Lebanon at that time.

11.4 Pasture. OR “shepherd”. It is from the same Hebrew root as the noun “shepherd(s)” here and in the rest of ch 11. The shepherd and flock imagery continues from 9.16; 10.2f and 11.3 (Bald-win). In 9.16 and 10.2f they applied to Judah, but in 11.3 the shepherds may be other nations’ rulers, rather than the rulers of Judah or Israel. Baldwin suggests that the sense in v 4 is as NEB’s translation, “Fatten the flock for slaughter”, and that the imagery is that the shepherds who feed them (v 4 and 5) help to fill the pockets of the sheep traders (v 7) who get a better price for well-fat-tened sheep.

The flock in 11.4-17 seems to be Israel, or perhaps more precisely “the house of Judah” as in 10.3. The Lord commands Zechariah to act out, as it were, the Lord’s own shepherding of his people Israel. He is to be the Lord’s representative (Baldwin). But note that the second shepherd (vv 15ff) will be a “foolish / worthless shepherd” 4. Was the Prophet to literally act out the scene in vv 7-14, as Ezekiel once did (see Ezekiel ch 4)? Or is this an allegory (so Baldwin), more like a parable (Duguid)? He takes up this command at v 7.

It is possible that vv 5f could be fulfilled later than Zechariah taking up this Shepherd role, as the verbs could be understood in a future sense. Understood this way, vv 5f described the Lord’s judgment on Israel for their rejection of the Messianic Shepherd-King (prophesied in vv 8 -14), so their fulfilment would follow later in time than this rejection. I favour this interpretation.

OR we could interpret vv 5f as describing the past conditions up to the present of the flock that the appointed Shepherd will take over. Under this interpretation, v 8 (“I got rid of the three shepherds) could refer to these shepherds/rulers over Israel. Duguid interprets vv 5f (and “doomed to slaughter, vv 4, 7 ESV) as representing the Lord’s attitude towards his people in the past, aban-doning them without pity to suffer abuse from their Persian overlords (their king in v 6) and their fellow-citizens. Or vv 5f might describe those leading Israel, in the religious and the secular sense, in the period leading up to Jesus’ public ministry

Just as the Servant in Isaiah is ultimately rejected (Isaiah ch 53), so here the Good Shepherd - a royal figure - is rejected. We can see how Jesus Christ fulfilled both these prophecies, being both the suffering Servant and the rejected Shepherd-King.

11.4 the flock marked for slaughter. Repeated in v 7. The imagery (Baldwin) is of sheep being raised to provide meat, and are soon to be sold in the market before being taken to be slaughtered. That slaughter may be described prophetically in vv 5f & 9 and also in v 16 (but see the notes there). The flock is feminine 5 - which may indicate in the imagery that they are ewes, intended for breeding and not for slaughter (see the next note).

Duguid, however, sees the flock as “doomed to slaughter” (ESV) because neither their own-ers nor their shepherds cared about them as anything other than a means of acquiring wealth.

In terms of its fulfilment, is the flock marked for slaughter (ESV, “doomed to slaughter”) because the Father knew that the Jews would not accept his Son as their Messiah, even before He sent him, and that they would have to suffer the consequences of rejecting their Messiah in the de-

4 See the note on 11.15 (“a foolish shepherd”).5 The Hebrew noun, ‘tson’, “flock” or “sheep” (individual or collective), may be either masculine or feminine.

struction of Jerusalem and the end of the nation in 70 AD? That Jesus warned them of the conse-quences of their rejection of him is clear from Mt 23.37ff; Lk 13.34f; 19.41-44.

11.5 Their buyers. The sheep-traders of v 7, if we accept the alternative reading there (see the note). In several places in v 5, “their” and “them” is feminine, perhaps indicating that the sheep are ewes, intended for breeding and not for slaughter (Baldwin). The feminine case recurs in connec-tion with the flock in vv 9 & 16 (see the notes there). This may also be why “the flock” in vv 4 & 7 is qualified by an adjective with a feminine case-ending.

Perhaps fulfilled by the sheep (the Jews) being bought as slaves by outsiders, as happened in 70 AD and the years that followed. Baldwin thinks it points to occupying powers, who expected to benefit financially from their captives.

11.5 Those who sell them. Perhaps the sellers are their own shepherds (i.e. the rulers or leaders of the people) later in the verse. But in the imagery it could be that the shepherds are hired by those who own the sheep, who go on to sell them when they fattened up and will fetch a good price.

Baldwin thinks that the fulfilment is Jewish leaders, who ingratiated themselves with the au-thorities for their own material advantage (fulfilling, Praise the Lord, I am rich!) regardless of the suffering they caused to the people affected (fulfilling, do not spare them). Bribery had corrupted the justice system in Israel for centuries; kings from Solomon onwards had taxed the poor and en-riched themselves; and in the Maccabean era money was to buy the office of high priest from the Seleucid rulers in Antioch.

11.5 go unpunished. OR “are guilty”, “feel guilty”.

11.6 For I will no longer have pity on the people of the land. Very different from 10.3 where the Lord “will care for his flock. the house of Judah, and make them like a proud horse in battle . .”, and from 10.6. Baldwin compares with Jer 13.10-14, which has almost identical Hebrew in vv 13 & 14 (was Zechariah aware of and inspired by that part of Jeremiah?). The Jeremiah passage explains why the Lord caused Judah and Jerusalem, its leaders and its people, to be destroyed by the Babylo-nians. Zechariah is prophesying a replay of this handing over by the Lord of his people to the con-sequences of their actions.

11.6 means that the Lord’s command to his Shepherd in v 4, “Pasture (i.e. shepherd) the flock marked for slaughter”, was made knowing that the people would not respond to his shepherd-ing and that he would have to allow their destruction. It also implies that the Shepherd took up his commission in v 7 knowing that he would not be able to save the flock. Baldwin wonders whether Jesus meditated on Zech 11.4-14 as he considered his mission. We know from his quotation of 13.7 (another shepherd prophecy) that he was familiar with that part of Zechariah.

11.6 the people of the land. Meaning those living in Israel or Palestine. The phrase could be translated, “the inhabitants of the earth” and “land” later in v 6 understood as “earth” too. This re-minds us of the frequent expression in Revelation, “those living on the earth” (first at Rev 3.10 6). If we understood Zech 11.6 that way, then the verse could be describing world-wide civil war, strife and oppression, such as will occur in the last days before Christ’s return (see Mt 24.7, 10 and Rev 6.2-8).

There is similar translation issue at Zech 11.15 (“over the land”). See the note there.

11.6 I will hand everyone over to his neighbour. Meaning division and strife within local com-munities. This happened in Judea increasingly in the Jewish Revolt, put to an end in 70 AD when the Romans crushed the revolt and destroyed Jerusalem. See the note on 11.14 below.

6 See the note in my Commentary on Revelation at 3.10 for its meaning in that prophecy.

It is possible instead of neighbour to read “shepherd”, as RSV, by changing the vowel pointing of the traditional Hebrew text. This gives a parallel with “his king” that follows - such par-allels being common in Hebrew poetry - and would be in line with v 5.

11.6 his king. How we interpret depends on how we understand vv 5f (see the note at 11.4, “Pas-ture”). If we see the passage as fulfilled following Jesus’ rejection as the Shepherd, it could mean the Roman emperor (see Jn 19.15, “we have no king but Caesar”). However, the phrase, if it is to be strictly parallel to the previous phrase (assuming “his neighbour” is read) suggests that there are to be various kings. Duguid, who understands vv 5f differently, interprets as referring to the Per-sian kings that ruled Judah until the Persian empire was ended by Alexander the Great (in 333 BC); OR it might be fulfilled by later rulers over Judah.

11.6 They will oppress the land, and I will not rescue (them) from their hand. The word in ( ) is not in the Hebrew text. The people the Lord will not rescue appear to be “the people of the land” earlier in the verse whom the Lord will “hand over”. But who are they and their? Most naturally, they are “his neighbour” and “his king” earlier in the verse. See the next note.

11.6 oppress. ESV’s “crush” is more literal. OR “break in pieces”, which is what happened to Is-rael in the Jewish revolt with all the factions at war with one another and when the Romans crushed that revolt in 70 AD. OR they will oppress is fulfilled by the Romans’ domination of Judea and limitation of the inhabitants’ political and other freedoms that started in 6 AD. In that year the Ro-man emperor Augustus abolished Judea’s status as a client kingdom and it became a Roman prov-ince under an imperial governor with a body of troops and judicial powers. Resentment at Roman rule culminated in the Jewish Revolt from 66 AD, which was crushed by the Romans (fulfilling 11.6?) between 67 and 70 AD, when Jerusalem and the temple were razed to the ground. The last Jewish resistance, in the mountain fortress of Masada near the Dead Sea, was crushed by the Ro-mans in 73 AD.

If we interpret “the land” in 11.6 as meaning “the earth” (as does RSV), see the note above on “the people of the land” for the fulfilment of they will oppress at the close of this age in the run-up to Christ’s return.

11.7 So I pastured the flock marked for slaughter. The same words as in v 4. Zechariah obeys and acts out the Lord’s command in v 4 to him. He is a type or foreshadowing of the Messianic Shepherd-King (see Ez 34.23; 37.24: Mic 5.4; Zech 13.7). But whilst Zechariah (“I” in the text, vv 7-14) in places symbolises the coming Messiah and Shepherd-King, Jesus Christ, in other places (including in vv 15ff) he seems to symbolise the Lord as Israel’s Shepherd and the actions he brings about in Israel. Under this interpretation, we do not have to see every detail of vv 7-14 fulfilled by the actions of Jesus in his earthly life. So, for instance, it is God rather than his appointed Shepherd who “gets rid of the three shepherds” (v 8) and who makes the covenant in v 10.

Jesus sought to shepherd the whole nation/people (Jn 10.7-15; see also Mt 23.37 and his lament over Jerusalem), but only some would accept his shepherding.

We are not told explicitly in the 11.4-14 prophecy that the Shepherd represented by Zechariah is a “good” shepherd, though this is implied by the names of the two staffs which he takes (v 7). Is there meant to be a contrast between this Shepherd and the “foolish/worthless shep-herd” of 11.15ff? I presume that there is (but see the note at 11.15, “Take again . .”).

11.7 particularly. OR “truly”.

11.7 oppressed. OR “afflicted”, “poor”, “lowly”. This is reminiscent of Jesus’ compassion on the crowds who came to him for healing and to hear his teaching. See Mt 9.36: “When he saw the crowds he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd”. OR perhaps this is fulfilled in those who became Jesus’ followers, both during his

earthly ministry and later. See Mt 5.3, “Blessed are the poor in spirit . .”, and 5.5, “Blessed are the meek . .”.

11.7 particularly the oppressed of the flock. The phrase re-occurs at v 11. ESV understands the Hebrew differently: “by the sheep traders” 7. RSV’s, “for those who trafficked in the sheep” - “for” is a literal translation of the Hebrew preposition - gives the sense that the shepherd, whether will-ingly or not, is helping the sheep traders by feeding up the sheep, as in v 4. Baldwin thinks that in the allegory the shepherd is employed by the traders who were responsible for his wages (see note on v 12). If we take NIV’s translation, in both places it probably refers to the faithful few among the people of Israel (see the note above, and also the note on v 11).

11.7 staffs. The Hebrew word is elsewhere used as a staff to aid walking, but also meaning a shep-herd’s staff (David’s staff in 1 Sm 17.40) or to describe a royal sceptre or mace (Jer 48.17). The imagery of two staffs is reminiscent (Baldwin) of Ezekiel’s two sticks in 37.15-23 which he joined together to represent the future reunion of the north and south kingdoms - but the opposite is proph-esied in Zech 11.14.

11.7 Favour. OR “Grace” (RSV), “Graciousness”, “Kindness”, “Beauty”. See v 10 for the mean-ing. It symbolises God’s favour or grace towards Israel and its people. Baldwin sees the word as a characteristic of God and compares the Hebrew word’s presence in Ps 27.4 (“the beauty of the Lord”) and 90.17 (“the favour of the Lord our God”). The staffs also symbolised (Duguid) the Shepherd’s positive intentions towards his flock.

11.7 Union. Lit. “binders”. The symbolism is explained in v 14. Baldwin suggests that union is the intended outcome of gracious leadership. However, the Lord’s prediction of the state of the nation in vv 5f is the opposite of union and unity.

Ezekiel was commanded to act out a uniting of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah that had been separated since Solomon’s death, but that uniting would be a feature of their return from exile and the nation’s restoration, including under David their king and shepherd (see Ez 37.15-28). Whilst there was a limited return under Zerubbabel, Ezra and Nehemiah, which span Zechariah’s day, such a re-union between Israel and Judah did not happen then and the Davidic monarchy did not re-appear.

I suggest that the staff called Union here symbolises the union among his people that the Lord preserved and kept in place. Since the returns under Zerubbabel and in Ezra and Nehemiah’s time, the nation was based on the limited return from exile, made up mostly of those from the king-dom of Judah that had gone into exile when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and ended the na-tion in 587 BC. There was some degree of unity among the people who had returned, critically in their attitude towards the God of Israel and his covenant requirements, though there had to be a great weeding out during the Maccabean times (169-164 BC) of those who were prepared to aban-don their Jewish culture and obedience to God’s laws and covenant with his people in favour of the prevailing Hellenistic culture. Whilst there developed different attitudes towards the Law and God’s requirements for his people, and his future for them 8, these differences did not pull apart the

7 Both translations accept the Hebrew consonantal text as in the Massoretic Text, the traditional Hebrew text. The issue is: how to group the consonants into words. NIV follows the traditional grouping of the con-sonants and the vowel pointing inserted by the MT scribes; ESV, and RSV before them, group the conso-nants differently and adjust the vowel pointing. The LXX translators appear to have understood the Hebrew text as ESV and RSV. The consonantal group, but without the concluding ‘y’ that indicates it is a plural, re-curs at 14.21, where NIV renders it “Canaanite”, with “merchant” as an alternative translation. ESV has “trader”, with “Canaanite” as an alternative. This recurrence might be considered to strengthen the case for so understanding 11.7 & 11.8 See the sects and parties within Judaism that formed during the 2nd and 1st Centuries BC: the chief ones were the Sadducees; the Pharisees, who continued the tradition of the Hasidim of Maccabean days; the Zealots and other militant nationalists; and sectarian groups such as the Essenes who withdrew into the wilderness in a quasi-monastic way of life.

nation. But this changed with Christ’s coming, his ministry and his teaching, and the birth of the Church at Pentecost. See the note on v 14.

11.7 Then I took the two staffs and called one Favour and the other Union . . We can see from the NT teaching on the significance of Christ’s first coming and work on the cross that he shepherds his people - who who will accept him as their Shepherd - with the ministry of grace (“favour”) from the Father (see e.g. Jn 1.17) and bringing about a unity in Him much greater and deeper than the unity of national Israel (see Jn 10.16; 11.52; 17.11, 21ff).

11.8 got rid of. ESV, “destroyed”. Baldwin suggests that the meaning could be, “deposed”. Duguid thinks it indicates a complete purging of the defective leadership. The Hebrew verb recurs in v 9 twice (“let . the perishing perish”), The passive participle then comes at v 16 (“the lost”).

11.8 In one month I got rid of the three shepherds. There is a similarity with Dan 7.24, in which the “little horn . . will subdue three kings” 9, but this does not seem significant to me.

There have been (Baldwin) at least 40 different ways over the centuries that commentators have identified the three shepherds, ranging from Moses, Aaron and Miriam, to kings and/or high priests in the Maccabean era, to the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes of the Roman period. Duguid thinks that they represent either leaders well known to Zechariah’s initial readers at that time (note it is “the . . .”), or else leaders in general whom the Lord has rejected. I suggest it could mean that three people claiming to be the Messiah or leading a revolt against Roman rule were killed or driven out. We know from Acts 5.36f the identities of two such popular leaders in the years before Jesus’ crucifixion. Or it might be fulfilled by Jesus Christ providing in himself an al-ternative to the current religious leaders One month may simply mean a short, limited period of time. Others (Baldwin) have suggested it is 30 years, with 1 day representing 1 year, or even an ex-tended period. Another way of interpreting (Baldwin) is that three symbolises completion, which would allow the interpretation that the Good Shepherd was removing from power all the unworthy leaders that frustrated his work.

In my view, we do not have to look for a fulfilment in Jesus Christ in his earthly ministry personally “getting rid of the three shepherds” 10, though I do think that the prime period of fulfil-ment of vv 4-14 is the time from Jesus’ first coming to 70AD. If there is a chronological flow of fulfilment to vv 7-14, then the phrase is fulfilled before the Crucifixion.

11.8 detested. An unusual Hebrew word (it only occurs here in the OT), whose root meaning may be, “loathed”.

Whilst NIV and ESV understand the flock as the subject (though NIV’s the flock is not in the Hebrew), which has “they”), it is possible to understand the line as the three shepherds “detest-ing”, and the Shepherd (“I”) “growing weary” of the three shepherds he then got rid of. However, this makes v 9 difficult to understand, as “your” in v 9 is most naturally understood as the same people as those whom the Shepherd “grew weary of”.

11.8 grew weary of. OR “became impatient with” (ESV), OR “became vexed, grieved with”. See the Lord’s weariness with accepting Israel’s religious activities and prayers in Isa 1.13f, because they were not accompanied with heart repentance and appropriate living. Isa 49.4 records the Ser-vant’s words that he had laboured “to no purpose” and “in vain and for nothing”, perhaps fulfilled in the strong opposition Jesus encountered to his earthly ministry and its apparent failure at the time. The people as a whole did not appreciate the best of shepherds (Baldwin).

9 On interpreting Dan 7.24, see the Commentary on parts of Daniel in Annex 1.10 See my argument in the note on 11.7 (“So I pastured . . .”).

11.9 Let the dying die . . From here until the end of the verse, the feminine case is used. This ap-pears to indicate a return to the sheep for slaughter imagery of v 4 (see the note on v 4, “the flock marked for slaughter”, for its significance; also the note on v 5, “their buyers”).

The Shepherd is allowing to happen what was predicted in vv 5f. By withholding his lead-ership the Shepherd abandoned the people to the consequences of their rejection of him (Baldwin). God the Good Shepherd terminates his providential care of his people Israel - his sheep.

11.9 and the perishing perish. See the note on v 8 (“got rid of”) on the several occurrences of this Hebrew verb in this part of the prophecy. ESV translates, “what is to be destroyed, let it be de-stroyed”.

11.9 eat one another’s flesh. If understood literally, this actually happened (according to Josephus 11) during the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD when some of the besieged resorted to cannibal-ism. This had also happened during the Babylonians’ siege of Jerusalem in 587 BC, according to Lam 4.10.

However, to “eat a person’s flesh” was a Hebrew metaphor for slander - see e.g. Ps 27.2 and NIV’s text note. It is possible to interpret Zech 11.9 in a similar way as meaning personal verbal at-tacks which could include betrayal and handing over to someone else to harm. This would make it similar to v 6, “I will hand over everyone to his neighbour and to his king”.

11.10 the covenant. Apparently a covenant of security, by which God the Good Shepherd had been holding back all the nations from harming his people. I had made need not, in my view, mean his appointed Shepherd had personally made this covenant, but that God had made it 12. Un-der this interpretation, the nations need not be aware of a covenant made with them, though Duguid calls it an international covenant. There is a precedent for this use of “making a covenant” in Hos. 2.18, “In that day I will make a covenant for them (i.e. for restored Israel) with the beasts of the field . .”, so that they will not harm the people in their land. Ez 34.25 is similar, since the Hebrew there is literally, “I will make a covenant . . for them”, as in Hos. 2.18.

We can see a fulfilment of the effects of revoking the covenant in the way the Roman forces, which may well have comprised troops from other nations too, were able, freed from divine restraint, to overrun Judea and Jerusalem and crush the Jewish Revolt in 70 and 73 AD.

It is possible, however, to translate all the nations as “all the peoples” and see it as meaning “the Jews” or “the Jewish nation”, perhaps including the Jewish colonies scattered among the na-tions (Baldwin). There is a precedent for this in 1 K 22.28 where, NIV’s “all you people”, ad-dressed to the kings of Israel and Judah and all those with them, is literally in the Hebrew, “peoples, all of them”. Baldwin suggests it is the covenant which the king had entered with the people, so accepting responsibility towards them (see the covenant David made with the Northern tribes who then anointed him as their king, 2 Sm 5.3; also the covenant that the priest Jehoiada made between the child-king Joash and the people at the start of his reign on the throne of Judah, 2 K 11.17). The Shepherd-king’s breaking of the staff therefore symbolises the end of a gracious rule over his peo-ple.

11.11 It was revoked on that day. Fulfilled, I suggest, on one of the days between Jesus’ entry to Jerusalem on the first Palm Sunday and his pronouncing the seven “Woes” to the people, including the Jewish religious leaders, recorded in Matthew 23. That chapter ends with Jesus prophesying that God’s righteous punishment would fall on that generation and in particular the temple would be destroyed - fulfilled by 70 AD. In his entry into Jerusalem, Jesus deliberately offered himself to the Jewish people as their Messiah, the promised Davidic king, fulfilling Zech 9.9 (see Mt 21.1-11); but whilst many people rejoiced that their Messiah had come, the religious leaders rejected him and sought to arrest him (see Mt 21.15, 23-27, 45f; 22.15-18). Matthew 21 to 23 is full of challenges by

11 Josephus, Jewish War, 6.3.4.12 For this argument, see the note on v 7, “So I pastured the flock . .”.

Jesus to the people and particularly to the religious leaders, plus warnings of God’s righteous pun-ishment if he, their Messiah, was rejected (see Mt 21.18ff, 33-44; 22.7f, 12ff; 23.33-36). These warnings culminate in the prediction of the destruction of the temple (Mt 23.37ff). I suggest that it is by this point that Jesus, if he had been employing the imagery of Zech 11.10ff, would have bro-ken his staff representing God’s favour, and the Father revoked his covenant that was protecting Is-rael, and that this would have been clear to those with the ears to hear - fulfilling the afflicted of the flock who were watching me knew it was the word of the Lord.

When the events of 70 AD happened (particularly the sacking of Jerusalem and the destruc-tion of the temple), this would confirm to the faithful that this was a fulfilment of God’s authorita-tive prophetic word.

11.11 so the afflicted of the flock. As in v 7, ESV understands the Hebrew to mean, “the sheep traders”. Afflicted translates the same Hebrew word as “oppressed” in v 7. The rest of v 11 sug-gests that the afflicted are the faithful few in Israel who recognise the authoritative word of the Lord. See the note at v 7 also.

If (with Baldwin) we read, “the sheep traders who were watching me knew that it was the word of the Lord”, the sense may be that the sheep traders felt that God’s providence was favouring them (a similar sentiment to v 5, “Praise the Lord, I am rich!”). They were keenly interested in what was going on (“who were watching me”) and wanted to be rid of the shepherd (so Baldwin). I have to say that I don’t find this a convincing interpretation.

11.12 I told them. Them would normally refer to the last people mentioned, which is “the afflicted of the flock” in v 11 (OR the sheep-traders, if we go with ESV); but it could refer to a different group, perhaps those whom the Shepherd addressed in v 9 when he said, “I will not be your shep-herd”.

11.12 give me my pay. Me is not in the Hebrew text. This would mark the end of the relationship, ended by the Shepherd in v 9 (“I . . said, ‘I will not be your shepherd . .’”). Baldwin suggests that, in the allegory, the shepherd was responsible to the traders, who paid him wages (see the note on v 7 “particularly the oppressed of the flock”).

11.12 keep it. Perhaps a more emphatic way of ending the relationship. Baldwin suggests that, in the allegory, because the shepherd renounced his task (v 9) he could no longer demand as his right his final payment.

11.12 they paid me. Lit. “they weighed out my pay”. Baldwin observes that this is evidence of a date in the Persian era, as by the later Hellenistic era stamped silver coins of a standard value were common in Judah.

11.12 they paid me thirty pieces of silver. 30 shekels of silver was the price of a slave among the Israelites when the law was given (see Ex 21.32), and we may be meant to refer to this in under-standing the prophecy. ‘Shekel’, a transliteration of the Hebrew noun, simply means “something weighed out”, including weighed out for the purpose of payment, and the verb from this root is paid in Zech 11.12. However, there were probably two and possibly three different shekels in OT times: the sanctuary shekel (Ex 30.13; Lev 5.15; Num 3.47), the common shekel for everyday use (unless this is the sanctuary shekel), and the shekel “by the royal standard” (2 Sm 14.26) which may have been heavier. The shekel of silver is referred to as a unit of payment in post-exilic times (see Neh 5.15; see also 10.32), so it may have been what Zechariah meant here. The shekel does not appear in the NT, though there was the “stater”, a four-drachma coin, which appears in Mt 17.27 as the coin that Peter was to give to the authorities as payment of the temple tax of half a shekel for Jesus and half a shekel for himself. So the stater was counted as equivalent to one shekel, at least for the temple tax purpose.

Judas was paid 30 “silver coins” as the price for betraying Jesus to the Jewish authorities (Mt 26.15; also in 27.3, 9). The Greek text does not specify what unit of currency was meant here. Experts think it was the four-drachma coin (see Mt 17.27) which was in common use at that time, which would mean that the 30 “silver coins” was the equivalent of 30 shekels. It is clear that Matthew regarded the payment to Judas as fulfilling Zech 11.12f . See the discussion below.

11.13 throw it to the potter. RSV, for the two occurrences of the phrase v 13, reads, “into the trea-sury”, following the Syriac ancient translation, which involves a minor alteration of the traditional Hebrew consonantal text. Also, both “treasury” and “potter” occur in Mt 27.6-9 (Matthew’s use of Zech 11.12f and other passages as fulfilled by Judas’ betrayal of Jesus). Baldwin: the temple trea-sury by Maccabean times served as a private bank for individuals (see 2 Macc 3.10ff), as well as the storage place for tithes and articles dedicated to the Lord (see Jos 6.24; Ez 2.69; Neh 7.70). Potters were connected with the temple, as the rituals needed a continual supply of new vessels (see Lev 6.28). Baldwin speculates that a guild of potters were minor officials in the temple in Zechariah’s time. The second occurrence of the phrase, into the house of the Lord to the potter, suggests that this potter worked at the temple (Duguid).

Another possible translation is, “ . to the founder”, as in one who makes something of molten metal 13. Baldwin likes the suggestion that Zechariah here alludes to Jdg 17.4, where 200 shekels of silver are used to make a carved image (perhaps overlaid with some of the silver) and a cast idol. By contrast, 30 shekels of silver would only make a figurine. The ironical point then is that, if the people will not have the Lord’s shepherd to rule them, the only alternative is to have a little god made out of silver pieces. See Ez 16.14 where Jerusalem, the Lord’s wife but now turned prostitute, takes her gold and silver jewellery and makes make idols out of them. Hosea 2.8 is simi-lar. Perhaps there was a foundry in the temple, for the purpose of melting down gifts of gold and silver for storing the metal in earthenware jars, as the Persians did.

It is not clear what was the significance of throw it to the potter. Perhaps it was to express the Shepherd’s disdain that he was worth so little to them and that he rejected it (so Duguid).

11.13 handsome. The same Hebrew word (in a slightly different form) as “stately” in v 2 and “rich pastures in v 3. This repetition appears to be deliberate by Zechariah, but I am unclear as to its sig-nificance.

In v 13 the word appears to be used with irony and sarcasm, as thirty shekels may have been regarded as a trifling amount (his “pitifully inadequate wages”, Duguid). It was the price of a slave (Ex 21.32) and also the value of a woman dedicated to the Lord by a vow (Lev 27.3; an adult male was valued at 50 shekels). Presumably the shepherd’s employers could offer no less (Baldwin). BUT we could view 30 shekels as no mean sum. Baldwin observes that the Mosaic Law, in valuing a slave at 30 shekels, illustrates the high value placed on human life - the Law of Hammurabi in that era put the value of a slave at around 17 shekels. Also, in Nehemiah’s day - about 80 years later than Zechariah’s ministry - a tax on the people of 40 shekels (presumably annually) was regarded as burdensome. And by the time Judas accepted his 30 “silver coins”, if each was four drachmas the total sum was equivalent to 120 denarii - and labourers customarily received one denarius for a day’s work (see Mt 20.1-16).

11.12f fulfilled by Judas’ betrayal of Jesus:It seems clear from Matthew’s account of Judas’ agreement with the chief priests to betray Jesus (Mt 26.14ff) that he saw it as a fulfilment of Zech 11.12f. Matthew, but not Mark or Luke, makes it clear that Judas asked, “What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?”. Did he see this as some sort of parallel with Zech 11.12, “give me my pay”? Also Matthew’s, “they counted out for him 30 silver coins”, is very close to the LXX translation of Zech 11.12, “they paid me thirty

13 Suggested by the LXX, which has “smelting furnace”. Baldwin quotes C C Torrey, K Elliger and M Del-cor, who links the passage with Jdg 17.4. Torrey makes the suggestion about the purpose of a foundry in the temple.

pieces of silver”, and again Mark and Luke do not have this degree of detail. Then Matthew alone (27.3-10) records how Judas was seized with remorse, returned the 30 silver coins, throwing them into the temple, and then the chief priests used the money to buy the potter’s field. Matthew con-cludes this account by observing that, “what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: ‘They took the 30 silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me’” 14. This draws very much on Zech 11.13. And Judas throwing the 30 silver coins into the temple (Mt 27.5) accords closely with Zech 11.13, “I took the 30 pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord”. Matthew’s concluding ob-servation (“then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled . .”, Mt 27.9) is one of a considerable number of observations that he makes on how details of Jesus’ life and ministry ful-filled specific OT scriptures.

It is clear, then, that Matthew saw in the rejection of the shepherd by the flock and the piti-fully inadequate wages a connection to the rejection and betrayal of Jesus (Mt 27.3-10; also Jn 10.25ff, Duguid). We struggle somewhat at this, particularly as what the Shepherd says and carries out in Zech 11.12f is fulfilled by Judas Iscariot. Also, the Shepherd seems to be talking about his worth for his services, whereas the fulfilment that Matthew sees concerns the reward to Judas for handing over Jesus to them. A further difference is in who does the throwing of the silver and their motives: in Zechariah it is the Shepherd and his motive, though unstated, appears to be disdain or disgust that he is worth so little, so he rejects it; whereas Matthew records that Judas is the thrower of the silver and his motive appears to be remorse for what he has done, perhaps followed by anger or despair when the Jewish leaders refused to take the silver back. It is perhaps a lesson to us that the way the Hebrew mind - and the Lord himself who inspired both the OT and NT - understood fulfilment of prophecy is not so much concerned with literal correspondence of detail as with under-lying truths.

11.14 Then I broke my second staff called Union, breaking the brotherhood between Judah and Israel. This signifies the dissolution of God’s covenant nation, such as had happened on Solomon’s death. Duguid suggests it signifies a national covenant between Judah and Israel that had now been annulled - breaking is the same Hebrew word as “revoking” in v 10 (“revoking the covenant I had made . .”) and is frequently used in the covenant context. But, if we keep the paral-lel with v 10, it should mean that the Lord is breaking the brotherhood that was a feature of his covenant with his people and which held them together (union is literally, “bands that bind”).

In Solomon’s time, this dissolution was brought about by the Lord as the consequence of Solomon being seduced by the prospect of multiple marriages to foreign women who worshipped other gods, who “turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been” (1 K 11.4). This was a clear breach of the Lord’s command to him, despite the Lord appearing to him twice (vv 9f). The Lord brought this split of the nation about by allowing one of Solomon’s officials, Jereboam, to rebel against the king (vv 26f). The split only took place when Solomon’s successor, Rehoboam, came to the throne. Jereboam returned from exile and led a popular revolt against the new king because of discontent with Solomon’s heavy taxation and conscription of labour for building projects and the army - bur-dens which the new king threatened to make heavier rather than lighter (see 1 K 12). But the split was also a rejection of the Davidic king who, in line with God’s promises to David, was the di-vinely appointed representative of God’s rule over his people (see 1 Chr 17.14). See the account at 1 K 12.16, 19f. It led immediately to Jereboam, their new king, setting up two idolatrous centres at opposite ends of the territory to which the people would go to worship, rather than to Jerusalem and the Lord’s temple there (1 K 12.26-30)

Should we therefore see similarities with the dissolution of the nation prophesied and acted out by Zechariah? Zechariah’s breaking of the staff called Union followed and was the conse-

14 In Mt 27.9, Matthew refers to “what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet”, as his quotation of the OT (from memory, we assume) combines Zech 11.12f; Jer 19.1-13 and perhaps 18.2-12 and 32.6-9. Matthew attributes his quotation to the major prophet, Jeremiah.

quence of the nation rejecting the Good Shepherd (Zech 11.8, “the flock detested me”, and then the Shepherd’s pronouncement, “I will not be your shepherd”), whom we know from the NT was ful-filled by Jesus Christ in his first coming when he offered himself to the people as the promised Da-vidic king (see the note on 11.11, “It was revoked on that day”). It seems to me that there is a clear parallel with the split following Solomon’s death.

But how did Zechariah in his day 15 understand Judah and Israel ? Does this offer us any clues as to the meaning of v 14? “Israel” is not found in Haggai and only occurs in Zechariah at 1.19; 8.13; 9.1 (“all the tribes of Israel”); 11.14; 12.1. “Judah” occurs four times in Haggai, in all cases to describe Zerubbabel as “governor of Judah”. This probably means the province of Judah, as in Neh 5.14, where Nehemiah says he was “appointed (by the Persian King) to be their governor in the land of Judah” 16. Zechariah uses “Judah” much more frequently 17, but never, it seems to me, in this sense. He couples “Judah” with “Israel” in 1.19 and 8.13 as well as in 11.14. In 1.19 both terms refer to the people of Judah and the Northern kingdom of Israel who were scattered into exile. 8.13 is similar in referring to Judah and Israel as formerly being “an object of cursing among the na-tions” - which occurred at the time of and after the destruction of their kingdoms in 587 and 722 BC. But 8.13 goes on to say that, in an unspecified future, God will save them and “you will be a blessing”.

Zechariah also has prophecies that couple Judah with Ephraim (frequently used in the OT to mean Israel as opposed to Judah). See Ephraim and Jerusalem at 9.10; Judah and Ephraim at 9.13. See also at 10.6f “the house of Judah”, “the house of Joseph” (used in other places in the OT to mean Israel as opposed to Judah), and “the Ephraimites. 9.10 speaks of the end of all instruments of war in Ephraim and Jerusalem when their king comes to them - looking forward to Christ’s sec-ond coming and his reign over the nations. 9.13 speaks of the Lord using Judah and Ephraim as his bow and arrow against Greece - probably fulfilled in the Maccabean times when the Jews rose up against the oppression of the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes in 168-164 BC when he sought to enforce Greek culture on the nation 18. 10.6f prophesies the strengthening, salvation and restoration of Judah, Joseph and Ephraim, and their return to their home-land (10.8-12), presumably speaking about a combined or re-united people. Other OT Prophets 19 prophesied the future uniting of the two peoples, Israel and Judah, in the day of their physical and spiritual restoration, with some con-necting this with the future rule of a descendant of David (Isa 11.12f; Ez 37.22-25). It seems there-fore that the fracturing of God’s people prophesied in Zech 11.14 is not the end of God’s dealings with Israel.

We get no hint in Zechariah as to how he regarded the descendants of the Northern kingdom of Israel who remained in the land of Samaria after the Assyria-enforced exile of 722 BC. 2 K 17.24-41 records the syncretistic worship of this population (worshipping the Lord but also idols and other gods) that were joined by deported people-groups from other parts of the Assyrian em-pire. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah make it clear that these peoples were regarded as “enemies

15 Assuming that the Zechariah who wrote chapters 1-8, dated 520-518 BC, also wrote ch 9-14, perhaps at a later date, possibly even after 465 BC when Artaxerxes I came to the Persian throne.16 Nehemiah used “Judah” in a geographical sense, meaning the land of the returned exiles, which was known to the Persians by that name, in 1.2; 2.5, 7; 5.14; 6.7, 18; 7.6; 11.3, 20, 36; 13.15. However, Ne-hemiah also used “Judah” meaning the returned exiles as a people, as in 11.25; 13.16. Nehemiah in its form in which the book has been preserved is thought to have been written by the same author of Ezra and 1 & 2 Chronicles, in the second half of the 5th century BC. This is rather later than Zechariah, of whom ch 1-8 have prophecies given between 520 and 518 BC, though he might have lived until after 480 BC (he appears to be referred to as a “young man” in 2.4.17 “Judah” is found in Zechariah at 1.12, 19, 21; 2.12; 8.13, 15, 19; 9.7, 13; 10.3, 6; 11.14; 12.2, 4-7; 14.5, 14, 21.18 See the notes in Annex 1 on Dan 8.9-14 and 11.21-35.19 Isa 11.12f; Jer 3.18; 23.5f; 30.3; 31.27f, 31; 50.4; Ez 37.15-22; Hos 1.11; Am 9.11. See also the implica-tions of Isaiah 40 onwards reassuring “Jacob” and “Israel” that they are his people (e.g.44.1f, 21). It is possi-ble that Zech 12.12, “the land will mourn . .”, and 12.14, “all the rest of their clans”, includes other tribes of Is-rael than Judah and Levi. If so, we have a prophecy in Zech 12.10-13.1 of the spiritual restoration of the whole of Israel as they look on their pierced Messiah.

of Judah and Benjamin”, i.e. of the returned exiles (Ezra 4.1), despite the fact that they accepted the five books of the Bible as the law of Moses. They were not allowed to join in the rebuilding of the temple, and became increasing bitter opponents of Judah and Jerusalem (see Ezra ch 4; Neh 2.10, 19f; 4.1-15; ch 6 20 ). It seems likely that the inter-marriage of some of the returned exiles with peo-ple from neighbouring lands and people-groups included the people living in Samaria. Stopping such inter-marriage became a major task for Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra ch 9 to 10; Neh. 13.23-30). The hostility between Samaritans (as this mixed-population inhabiting Samaria were called) and Jews (lit. “those of Judah”) became entrenched by the 4rd century BC when they established their own rival temple on Mt Gerizim (referred to in Jn 4.20) in c 325 BC. Is it possible that breaking the brotherhood between Judah and Israel is fulfilled by this split? 21 Perhaps, but the writer of 1 and 2 Chronicles, who may also be the final author of Ezra and Nehemiah, certainly saw the re-stored community in Judah as the remnant of all Israel, both north and south (see, e.g. 1 Chr 9.2f 22. Indeed, he viewed Judah this way from the time of the ending of the Northern kingdom and Samaria’s fall in 722 BC. This was clearly the orthodox view of the Jews in Judah by the second half of the 5th century BC, i.e. rather later than Zechariah 23.. The fracturing of the nation into parties hostile to each other was characteristic of the period following Jesus’ crucifixion and in particular from 66 AD, when different rebel leaders sprang up in the Jewish Revolt against Rome. Josephus (“the Jewish War”, 2.462) records that the whole of Palestine was in hopeless confusion and every city was divided into two camps, the survival of one depending on the destruction of the other. Such divisions greatly hampered the Revolt against Rome and contributed to the Roman crushing of the revolt and the destruction of Jerusalem, the temple and the nation (70 AD). This dissolution of the nation of Israel lasted for almost 2,000 years, until the modern state of Israel came into being in 1948.

However, we could also say that the ending of the nation’s unity occurred within a few years of Pentecost (33 AD), when those Jews that would not receive Jesus as their Messiah became hos-tile towards and persecuted those Jews who became Christians. That split, the hostility and the per-secution is a theme that runs through Acts. By the time Paul wrote Romans (probably 57 AD, 24 years after Pentecost) he took it for granted that Jews by and large, whether in their historic land or dispersed among the nations, were opposed to the gospel and hostile towards Jewish believers in Christ. That split or division was taught prophetically by Jesus. For instance, the Parable of the Sower (Mt 13.3-23) explained the different responses of individuals to the sown seed of God’s word, and the Parable of the Weeds (Mt 13.24-30, 36-50) makes it clear that the “sons of the king-dom” would exist in the world, including in Israel, alongside the “sons of the evil one” . “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth”, said Jesus (Mt 10.34f). “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to divide (literal translation) a man against his father . .”.

How, then, should we see 11.14 as being fulfilled? In four ways, it seems to me:• there may a preliminary fulfilment in the split and hostility between the Jews and the Samaritans

that was present in Zechariah’s day, though its origins were much earlier, and which grew in in-tensity over the succeeding centuries;

20 Sanballat the Horonite was governor of the Persian province of Samaria and the chief opponent of Ne-hemiah as he strove to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.21 Put forward by K Elliger (Baldwin, p 186).22 Chronicles makes frequent mention of movements of godly people from out of the Northern kingdom’s territory into Judah for religious reasons. This started even before the fall of that kingdom in 722 BC (see 2 Chr 11.14; 15.9) and continued after the Assyrian destruction of that kingdom (see 2 Chr 30). Archaeology has shown a large increase in the population of the region around Jerusalem during the reign of Hezekiah, who organised a great Passover feast to which all the people of the old N kingdom were invited (2 Chr 30.1-6), and it may have been caused by many from that territory coming to the feast and staying there (see 2 Chr 31.6). “The people of Manasseh, Ephraim and the entire remnant of Israel” joined with the people of Judah and Benjamin and the inhabitants of Jerusalem in restoring the temple under Josiah (see 2 Chr 34.9). These people are also recorded as being present at Josiah’s Passover feast (2 Chr 35.17f). (Taken from the Intro-duction to 1 Chronicles, NIV Study Bible, ed. Hodder and Stoughton, 1985)23 Assuming that the Zechariah who wrote ch 1-8, dated by their introductions as 520-518 BC, also wrote ch 9-14.

• it is a symbolic rerun of the splitting into two of the nation following King Solomon’s death, the common factor being the rejection of the Davidic king;

• in the fracturing of the nation in the period after Jesus’ rejection and crucifixion, culminating in the Roman destruction of the nation in 70 AD and the scattering of the Jews;

• The split of the Jews between those who accepted Jesus as their Messiah - the Christians - and those who did not.

11.15 Take again . . Zechariah is commanded to take on the identity of another, later shepherd. The first shepherd whom he acted out was in obedience to the Lord’s command in v 4 and is de-scribed in vv 7-14. Again the equipment of a foolish shepherd might imply that the first shep-herd was also a “foolish” one; but this seems contrary to the tenor of vv 4-17, which is that there is a sharp contrast between these two shepherds, and to the description of the first shepherd (see the note on 11.7, “So I pastured . .”).

11.15 a foolish shepherd. Described further in vv 16f. Foolish in Hebrew thought means “impi-ous” and “wicked” or at least morally deficient 24. See e.g. Ps 107.17 (“Some became fools through their rebellious ways . .”) and frequently in the Proverbs (e.g. Pr 1.7, “The fear of the Lord is the be-ginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction”). This is in contrast with the Shepherd of vv 7-14 who, we assume from the prophecy, was a Shepherd able to minister God’s favour and protection for his people which kept them united. The implication is that the foolish shepherd replaces the Shepherd of the Lord’s choice described in vv 7-14, whom the flock detested (v 8), after he is removed from the scene (v 12). This time, the Shepherd role does not refer to the Lord himself (but note, I am going to raise up . . ), but points to the moral that, if the Lord is not received as a Shepherd, then another will be, and that other will be a shepherd of doom (Baldwin 25)

The reign of this foolish/worthless shepherd, i.e. ruler over God\s people Israel, appears to be different from what is described in v 5 where multiple shepherds do not spare the flock, though their mistreatment of their people is described in rather similar terms.

11.15 over the land. “In the land” (ESV) is an equally possible translation. As in v 6 (see the note), “land” could mean, “the earth”. But the context suggests strongly that the prophecy contin-ues to be about the land of Israel and its people. See the notes below under “11.15ff reviewed”, for interpretations based on “over/in the earth” as the translation.

11.16 who will not care for the lost . . Baldwin compares Ez 34.3f, Ezekiel’s “Woe” prophecy against the “shepherds of Israel” who cared only for themselves and did not look after the flock. Some of the description is very similar to Zech 11.16 - was Zechariah inspired by this earlier prophecy? Ezekiel was commenting primarily on the kings and their officials of his day, just prior to the Babylonians bringing the kingdom of Judah to an end (by 587 BC), though there may be later fulfilments also. Ezekiel’s prophecy in ch 34 goes on to prophesy that the Lord himself will come after his scattered sheep, rescue them and bring them back to their land where he will tend them as a good shepherd; he will “bind up the injured and strengthen the weak” (v 16). From vv 23f and 31, it seems that the Lord will do this by placing over them his servant David as their shepherd - a prophecy of the promised future king of David’s line, the Messiah. The “foolish”/“worthless shep-herd” of Zech 11.15f, in his treatment of his flock, is in complete contrast to the promised Davidic Shepherd. We know from the NT that Jesus at his first coming is the good shepherd of David’s line of Ez 34.23f, but we await his second coming for him to rule as king over the regathered people of Israel and fulfil completely Ezekiel 34.

24 The English word “evil” is may derive its origin from the Hebrew word used for “foolish” here, which is pronounced, ‘evil’.25 Quoting S B Frost (Baldwin, p 186)

We can see another similarity between Ezekiel 34 and Zech 11.16f. Ez 34.16-22 describes oppression within “the flock” - the people of Israel - where the strong push out of the way and even plunder the weak. This appears to be even after the people return to their land, but before the Da-vidic king takes his God-given rule over them. This might be the same suffering as depicted in Zech 11.16f, except there the main agent of the oppression is “the faithless/worthless shepherd”.

11.16 the lost. OR “the broken”. It is the same Hebrew word as “the perishing” in v 9, and so RSV translates here. See the note on v 8 (“got rid of”).

Note that the feminine case ending recurs in v 16 when describing the different groups in the flock. For the possible significance of this, see the notes on v 4f.

11.16 seek the young. The good shepherd cares for the young of the flock (as in Gen 33.13). The Lord himself when he comes will “gather the lambs in his arms” and “gently lead those that have young” (Isa 40.11). Note, however, that the text is questioned by some: RSV has, “ . . the wander-ing”, following the Syriac ancient version.

11.16 the injured. The literal meaning is, “those who are broken”. The same Hebrew word occurs at Ez 34.16 (“I will bind up the injured”).

11.16 the healthy. The Hebrew participle (of the passive form) literally means, "the appointed, set, or placed ones”. ASV translates, “what is sound”; RSV similarly.

11.16 the choice sheep. ESV’s “the fat ones” is the literal meaning.

11.16 tearing off their hoofs. Perhaps in a greedy search for the last piece of edible flesh. Bald-win prefers NEB’s paraphrase, “throw away their broken bones” - all that is left after the shepherd has eaten the meat.

11.17 Woe to the worthless shepherd . . Predicts and at the same time pronounces judgment on the shepherd who neglects his flock (Baldwin). The Hebrew word here translated worthless is sim-ilar in sound to “foolish” in v 15, apparently a deliberate play on words by Zechariah.

11.17 who deserts the flock. Contrast Jesus’ teaching on the Good Shepherd - himself - who so cares for his flock that he “lays down his life for the sheep”; in contrast to the hired hand who “sees the wolf coming, abandons the sheep and runs away (Jn 10.11-16).

11.17 May his arm be completely withered, his right eye totally blinded. So that he is power-less to fight, or even take aim, against his enemies (Baldwin),, or to exert control over the flock (Duguid).

11.15ff reviewed.11.16f in its description of the flock mistreated by the “foolish shepherd” is similar to the descrip-tion in vv 5f. But the sequence of ch 11 from 11.4 onwards suggests to me that this oppressive rule will be fulfilled later than the oppression described in vv 5f. Duguid comments that this last sign-act (take again the equipment . . ) reverses the pictures of Ez 34 and 37.15-28, where the Lord promises to be Israel’s shepherd at the time of their restoration (at Christ’s return), judging their present bad shepherds and providing his shepherd, a new David, and reuniting his people. Instead, because of the people’s failure to respond positively to the Shepherd he had provided (in vv 4, 7f), they will be given over to a false (foolish . . worthless) shepherd, returning to the situation that led up to the Exile (Ez 34.1-9). However, Zech 11.17 suggests that this will not be the end of the story, as the curse there implies that the Lord will ultimately act to bring judgment on that worthless shep-herd.

In terms of fulfilment, it is possible that Jewish leaders that arose after the ending of the na-tion by the Romans in 70 AD may fulfil the “worthless shepherd” prophecy. In particular, consider Simon bar Kosiba or Kokhba, who led the Jewish revolt against the Romans in 132-135 AD and who was proclaimed as the promised Messiah by Rabbi Akiba. But it seems to me that the final ful-filment of 11.15ff awaits the end of the age. This is supported by the fact that Zechariah from this point (12.1 onwards) prophesies the nations attacking and overcoming Jerusalem - a situation ended by the coming of the Lord himself and the establishment of his reign as king over the whole earth (14.3-9), which can only be fulfilled by Christ’s second coming.

I think that Zech 11.15ff prophesies the rising up towards the end of this age of a leader over Israel who will be “faithless” and “worthless” in the Lord’s eyes and will counterfeit the true Shep-herd - Jesus Christ - who has already come but will come again to be the true shepherd of his peo-ple, whom they will the second time accept with repentance and contrition (see 12.10-13.1 and the notes). There are scriptures that suggest that rebellion against the Lord and apostasy will charac-terise the people of Israel at the time of the end 26, which would provide a fitting context for such a leader. Some see this end-of-the-age wicked ruler over Israel being the person prophesied in the following passages:

· “the king” of Isa 30.33 (OR is this the king of Assyria? See 30.31). · “the king” of Isa 57.9 (OR is this the idol Molech, as in NIV’s translation?). · the “king of fierce countenance” (NIV, “stern-faced king”) of Dan 8.23ff. Whilst the con-

text suggests that he will oppress and destroy Israel, he may be a foreign power rather than the ruler of Israel.

· “The king” of Dn 11.36-39, though whom he rules over is unclear.· The final antichrist of 1 Jn 2.18, 22; 4.3, & 2 Jn 7, but the context there does not necessarily

imply that this person will arise in Israel.· The man of lawlessness, son of perdition, the wicked/lawless one of 2 Th 2.4-9, particularly

as he “sets himself up in God’s temple” (v 4).· The second beast or False Prophet of Rev 13.11-17; 16.13, 19.20; 20.10.

Other possible interpretations and fulfilments of 11.15ff.I consider that the interpretation I have set out above is fully consistent with the way Ezekiel uses the shepherd/flock imagery in ch 34 to describe the people of Israel and their rulers, in a prophecy whose ultimate fulfilment must be in the time of Israel’s restoration, when the scattered Jews return to their land and are restored spiritually to faith in the Lord (through faith in his Messiah, as we see from Zech 12.10-13.1 and Rom 11.25) and live under their Davidic king/shepherd (Christ on his re-turn). Also, it sees the whole of Zech 11.4-17 as about Israel, their rejection of the Shepherd whom God sent them - which is supported by Matthew’s reference to vv 12f - and the consequences of that rejection.

But other interpretation are possible. If we translate v 15 as “in the earth” or “over the earth”, then we might consider that 11.15ff prophesies a world ruler who will not care for but will exploit and maltreat the peoples under his rule. The fourth world empire of Dan 7.7f, 17-26 comes to mind, as does the first beast of Rev 13 - probably both fulfilled in the same end-of-the-age ruler. Both these have their rule brought to an end by the Lord himself (Dan 7.11, 22, 26; Rev 19.19ff), which would fulfil the curse of Zech 11.17 Though I am not aware of any other OT or NT passage that uses shepherd/flock imagery to describe a world ruler.

Further alternative interpretations are possible if we hold that “the flock” of v 17, and the sheep described in v 16, should be understood as the Church. Whilst Jesus did use the flock im-agery to describe the people of Israel (see Mt 9.36; 10.6; 15.24; Mk 6.34; and perhaps Lk 15.4ff), he also spoke of his sheep or flock as those who trust in him, which after Pentecost would include Gentile believers so that there would be “one flock and one shepherd” (Jn 10.16). The NT writers followed this second usage, so that “flock” or “sheep” imagery is used to describe the local or wider

26 See the section with this title at the end of Annex 1 for a list of the relevant passages and some notes on each. This section will be incorporated in a revised version of Annex 4 currently in preparation.

church, with the “shepherd” as Christ himself, with pastors (the same word means “shepherds” in the Greek) or church elders as shepherds under Him and being responsible for the flock of believers in their charge/care 27. If we understand the sheep and the flock of Zech 11.15ff in this NT sense, perhaps because their fulfilment must occur after Pentecost, given that vv 4-11 is fulfilled in the time of Jesus’ first coming and the the period down to 70 AD, then the following interpretations and fulfilments are possible, at least theoretically:

• if we read v 15, “in the land (of Israel)”, it could prophesy a church leader, some time later than the fulfilment of vv 4-14, who exploits and ultimately deserts the Christian believers (whether Jew or Gentile) in his care, presumably those living in that land, and does not care for the rest of that land’s people by bringing the true gospel message to them and working for their salvation.

• A variation on the above might hold that the “foolish/worthless shepherd” could be ful-filled by more than one church leader, perhaps over a period of time. However, the use of singular and plural shepherds in Zechariah in 10.3 and earlier in ch 11 strongly suggests that we should interpret vv 15ff as being fulfilled by a single “shepherd”, which would rule out this interpretation.

• if we read, “in the earth”, then vv 15ff might be a prophecy that there will be a number of wicked and worthless church pastors, in a time period later than the fulfilment of vv 4-14, who will exploit and desert the Christian believers (whether Jew or Gentile) in their care, presumably anywhere in the world, and do not care for people not yet in the church by bringing the true gospel message to them and working for their salvation. This would chime with Paul’s warning to the Ephesian church elders in Acts 20.29f that, after his de-parture, “savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock”. See also Jesus’ warnings against false prophets in Mt 7.14, and Jude’s urgent warning (Jude 3f) about false teachers infiltrating the church. BUT see the previous bullet for the argument that 11.15ff must be a prophecy about a single future individual and be fulfilled accord-ingly.

• A variation on the bullet above would see this as being about a single “shepherd” over the whole Church worldwide who exploits them, does not care for them, and ultimately deserts them, and there might be a number of them over time. The number of unworthy popes over the Roman church in previous centuries might be its fulfilment. But see the ar-gument above against interpreting the passage to mean more than one “shepherd”.

• As above, but interpreting the passage as prophesying a single “shepherd” over the whole Church worldwide who will prove “foolish” and “worthless”. We might identify this per-son as the final Antichrist at the end of the age (see 1 Jn 2.18, 22; 4.3), or the ultimate false messiah (see Mt 24.23 ff and parallels; or one of the two “beasts” in Revelation ch 13), or the “man of lawlessness” of 2 Th 2.3-9.

• As above, but this “shepherd” is both ruler “over the earth” and the head of the Church. He might be identified with the end-time individuals in the last bullet, or possibly “the king” of Dan 11.36-39.

27 “Sheep” or “flock” in the NT definitely refer to the people of Israel of Jesus’ day in Mt 9.36; 10.6; 15.24; Mk 6.34; and possibly Lk 15.4ff. They refer to Jesus’ disciples in Mt 10.16; Lk 11.32; to the Apostles in Mt 26.31; Mk 14.27; to those who trust in Jesus in Mt 18.12ff; Jn 10.1-16; 21.15ff: Acts 20.28 (“the church”); Heb. 13.20; 1 P 2.25; 1 P 5.2f (the church). See Jn 10.16, “other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also . . and there shall be one flock and one shepherd” - a forecast of Gentile believers des-tined to believe in Christ becoming one flock with Jewish believers in Christ.

“Shepherd” in the NT is used of: the coming Messiah who will shepherd his people Israel, in Mt 2.6 (Q Mic 5.4); Jesus Christ as God’s chosen Shepherd in Mt 26.31 & Mk 14.27 Q Zech 13.7): Jn 10.2-5, 11-16; Heb 13.20; 1 P 2.25; 5.4; who shepherds the saints who have died in faith and are in heaven, Rev 7.17; pas-tors of the Church, Eph 4.11; of church elders, 1 P 5.2; false teachers in the local church, Jude 12.

For a more detailed discussion of these and other prophecies about end-of-the-age rulers or false messiahs, see the relevant section in Annex 4 28. See also the commentary on Daniel ch 7-11 in Annex 1 and the Commentary on Revelation on the website.

Concluding thoughts on ch 11.4-17.11.4, “Pasture the flock marked for slaughter”, is in shocking contrast to Judah and Israel’s redemp-tion, restoration and return to their home-land, at which ch 10 closed, with 11.1ff describing the fall of those nations in the path of that return. God’s plan is to restore his historic people and bring them back to their land, but he knows that they will first reject his appointed leader / shepherd for them. 11.4-17 sets out prophetically, using the flock/shepherd imagery, how they will reject his shepherd - Jesus Christ at his first coming - and the series of consequences for Israel of that rejec-tion (v 8). The consequences are:• the Lord ends his favour towards the nation, which allows the nations to overrun them - initially

the Romans in 66-73 AD (v 10)• the Lord no longer acts in pity to safeguard or rescue his people Israel, allowing them suffer and

perish under self-seeking leaders, in civil strife and from outside powers, which will break in pieces the land (vv 4-7, 9)

• the Lord breaks the bonds that bind the nation together and allows the nation to fracture (v 14) - a rerun of the split following the first rejection of the Davidic king, and visible following Christ’s crucifixion in the increasingly vicious fighting among themselves by the Jews in the land of Israel, and also in the split between those Jews who believed in Jesus as their Saviour and Messiah and the majority who did not.

• the arising of another “shepherd” of Israel, perhaps a counterfeit of the One they had rejected because he may claim to be their promised Messiah or shepherd, who will be “foolish” and worthless”, not looking after the people but feeding himself at their expense, in the end aban-doning them (vv 15ff). That there has been/will be a gap of almost 2,000 years 29 since the re-jection of the Good Shepherd before this final consequence is not a problem for the Lord’s pur-poses and the fulfilment of prophecy. Because the conditions still apply: the majority of Jews, whether in Israel or elsewhere across the world, still do not accept and trust in Jesus as their Messiah, and therefore continue in rejection of God’s Shepherd for them.

I close these notes on ch 11 by summarising some of the arguments over various scholars over the years around the date of composition of ch 11, which they believe cannot have been prophesied and written by the Zechariah dated in ch 1 to 8 30. These arguments tend to see the fulfilment of ch 11 as being at the time in which they were composed, so in very different terms than the interpretation that I have advanced above.• The presupposition that in ch 9 to 11 Ephraim existed as a separate people (see 9.10, 13; 10.7)

and that the named enemies included Assyria and Egypt (see 10.10f and, it is held, 9.11) led to the view that ch 9 to 11 was originally by an unknown prophet writing just before the fall of Samaria and the end of the Northern Kingdom in 722 BC (see 11.14, “breaking the brotherhood between Judah and Israel”.

28 This version of Annex 4 is still being drafted (at November 2019).29 Note that, from the vantage-point of the 21st Century, we can see the same 2,000 year gap in Zech 12.10, between the piercing of Jesus Christ on the cross and the Jews, particularly in Jerusalem, realising what they have done and mourning in repentance and faith (12.10-13.1), which will apparently take place when “the sign of the Son of Man appears” just before Christ’s return (see Mt 24.30). The same 2,000 year gap appears also to be present in 13.7ff, between the Shepherd being “struck” - fulfilled by Jesus when he was crucified (see Mt 26.31) - and the two-thirds perishing in the land of Israel but one-third come through the fire of refining to a true faith in God - still awaiting fulfilment as this age comes to a close and Jews turn to Christ. See the Commentary on Zechariah and the notes on these passages.30 Drawn from Baldwin’s introduction to Zechariah in her commentary.

• that Maccabean leaders and their fate had inspired the shepherd imagery of ch 11.4-17 and 13.7ff, as well as the murder of 12.10, so therefore the prophecy was written in the Maccabean era.

• the references to Egypt (see 10.10f and, it is held, 9.11) reflect conditions during the 3rd Cen-tury when the land of Israel was ruled by the Ptolemies. The reference to Greece (Javan, 9.13) is an indication that the unified Hellenistic empire of Alexander (who died in 323 BC), seen as the enemy of the eschatological future, had already passed away. It is argued that in the period from 323 to 301 when Ptolemy Lagi became master of Israel, there was a period of unrest and war that could form the background to ch 9 to 14 and given rise to Messianic longings.

• that ch 11 was written immediately prior to 587 BC, so the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the kings of Judah is the fulfilment.

• that ch 9 to 11 was the autobiographical framework of a prophet in or near Damascus who was taking pastoral responsibility for Israelites of the northern dispersion in that region.

Still others, however, hold that Zerubbabel was the one around whom the Messianic hopes of ch 9 to 14 arose; so the Zechariah of ch 1 to 8 could have written these chapters.

$12Introduction to Zech 12 and 14: there are similarities between 12.1-9 and 14.1-5 & 12-15. They might describe the same future gathering by the nations against Jerusalem, which is delivered by the Lord’s personal return to earth, to the Mt of Olives. But there are also differences. In 12.1-9 the Lord give Judah and Jerusalem the victory by empowering their armies (though he also strikes the enemy directly with panic and madness), whereas in 14.3 and 12.-15 the victory is solely due to the Lord returning and striking the enemy with plague. But the chief difficulty is that the gathering of the nations in 14.1 results in Jerusalem’s capture, the plunder of the houses, the rape of the women, and half the people being carried off into exile (14.2), perhaps with the other half putting up armed resistance. There seem to be at least four ways of understanding the prophecy as a whole:A. There will be a single gathering of the nations against Jerusalem. At first the Lord gives success

to Judah and Jerusalem (12.1-8); then the city is captured and plundered (14.1-2), and finally the city is delivered by the Lord’s personal return and his plague on the opposing armies (14.3ff, 12-15). I favour this option;

B. there will be two international gatherings against Jerusalem:• The first international gathering of armies against Jerusalem and Judah. Zech 12.1-9: the Lord

supernaturally empowers the people of Jerusalem and Judah and gives them victory, so that both Judah’s dwellings (or encampment) and Jerusalem are saved

• The second international gathering of armies against Jerusalem . Zech14.1-2: at some later time all the nations will be gathered (again) against Jerusalem, and this time they will capture the city, loot it and divide the plunder, raping the women. Half of the population will be forced into exile. Perhaps the other half are putting up armed resistance.

• 14.3-5, 12-15: at some time after the city has been captured, but whilst the nations’ armies are still there, the Lord will return in person onto the Mt of Olives and will fight against them, strik-ing them with a devastating plague which instantaneously rots their flesh. He will also strike them with panic/confusion, so that they fight each other. Judah also will be involved in the fight. Great booty will be collected from the nations’ annihilated armies, who will be unable to escape. The Lord will open up a great valley across the Mt of Olives which will form an escape route for those left in Jerusalem.

C. A variant on B has a third international gathering of armies against Jerusalem, which will take place after her capture and being plundered as in 14.1-2 31. It is this third gathering of armies that is destroyed by the Lord in 14.3 and 12-15.D. 12.2-9 and 14.3ff, 12-15 describe the same gathering of the nations against Jerusalem and their destruction; but the gathering of nations that results in the capture and plundering of Jerusalem (14.1f) will take place at an earlier time.OR perhaps there will be some other train of events that will fulfil these prophecies whilst there still is a single gathering of the nations.

How do these hostile gathering of nations against Jerusalem fit with other prophecies in the OT and NT? See Annex 5 (“Events happening to Jerusalem and Israel in the last years of this age”) for my attempt to put all the relevant prophecies into a time frame and to group together those that may have the same fulfilment. I have in this note taken certain characteristics of the attacks on Jerusalem in Zech 12 & 14 and looked to see what other prophecies share these characteristics.

First, if we look for prophecies which feature the gathering of nations to/against Jerusalem, we have:

31 See F A Tatford, “Climax of the Ages: an exposition of the book of Daniel” (Prophetic Witness Publishing House). In his exposition of Dan 11.44f he suggests that the “king of the north” (11.40) routs the “king of the south” who has invaded Israel, raises the siege of Jerusalem and captures half of the city before pressing on southwards (11.42f). But then the Jewish king (Tatford’s interpretation of 11.36-39) makes an appeal to his confederate, the western emperor with whom he has a covenant of protection (9.27), and the armies of the west pour into Israel to lay siege again to Jerusalem (fulfilling Rev 19.19). It is the armies of this third siege that are annihilated by the Lord (Zech 14.3, 12-15; Rev 19.20f). Whilst I am sceptical of this reconstruction, it seems possible from Zech 12 & 14 that there may be a third attack/siege which is destroyed in 14.3, 12-15.

- Mic 4.11f: “But now many nations are gathered against you. They say, Let her be defiled, let our eyes gloat over Zion! But they do not know the thoughts of the Lord . . he who gathers them like sheaves to the threshing floor”. (“you”, feminine singular, is the “daughter of Zion” in vv 10 & 13.)

- Zep 3.8: “to assemble the nations, to gather the kingdoms, and to pour out my wrath upon them” (assuming “them” is rebellious Jerusalem, the focus of vv 1-7, and “world” in v 8 is translated “land”, i.e. the land of Israel) 32.

Then there is the gathering of the nations to Armageddon, Rev 16.13f, 16, which is most likely the gathering at Rev 19.19 of the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies that are destroyed by Christ on his return. This may be the same future event as:

- Joel 3.2, 9-12, their gathering to the “valley of Jehoshaphat/valley of decision” for judgment;- Isa 30.28, “he places in the jaws of the peoples a bit that leads them astray”.- Zep 3.8: “to assemble the nations, to gather the kingdoms, and to pour out my wrath upon

them” (assuming “them” is the nations themselves - an alternative interpretation to the one above)

It is unclear from Revelation where “Armageddon” is situated. It might be Megiddo in the valley of Jezreel. Or the name might be symbolic, which allows a different location. The “valley of Je-hoshaphat”, if it is the place where Jehoshaphat encountered the Lord’s miraculous defeat of the en-emy, appears (from 2 Chr 20.2, 16) to be a little NW of Engedi (about midway along the W side of the Dead Sea), about 20 miles S of Jerusalem. But it too may have a symbolic meaning, as the He-brew means, “the Lord judges”. Some scholars think that the valley between Jerusalem and Mt Olivet (the Kidron Valley?) was commonly called the valley of Jehoshaphat. So this gathering may also be to Jerusalem, as in Zech 12 & 14.

Second, if we look for prophecies (which pertain to the end of the age) of attacks on Jerusalem which capture the city as in Zech 14.2, we find the following:

- Isa 29.1-4, where Ariel (Jerusalem) is besieged and brought low, by “the hordes of all the na-tions that fight against Ariel” (v 7)

- Zep 3.8 (see above)- the trampling of Jerusalem by the nations and its desolation: see Matt 24.15-22 (= Mk 13.14-

20), an end-of-the-age fulfilment of Lk 21.20-24: Rev 11.2; an end-of-the-age fulfilment of Dan 8.10-13, 24f; Dan 9.26f; 12.11, all of which appear to prophesy the same future event.

It looks from Zech 14.3ff that it is Christ on his return to earth as king who delivers Jerusalem. It seems that the returned Christ is involved in person in at least two battles. The first is the deliver-ance of Jerusalem as described here. This may be:

- the deliverance of Ariel (Jerusalem) in Isa 29.5-8;- the deliverance of Jerusalem in Isa 31.4f.

The second battle fought by Christ in person is that in Rev 19.11-21 where the armies of the beast and the kings of the earth are gathered against him, but are destroyed by the word of the Lord (the sword issuing from his mouth, v 21) and the beast and the false prophet (the second beast) are cast into the lake of fire. This appears to be:

- the destruction of “the lawless one” in 2 Th 2.8;- the battle at Armageddon, Rev 16.13f, 16;- the treading of the winepress of God’s wrath in Rev 14.17-20, as the imagery recurs in 19.15;- the judgment of the nations in the “valley of Jehosphaphat”, Joel 3.2, 9-16;- the Lord’s slaughter of the nations’ armies in Isa 34.1-4.

32 I consider that the final fulfilment of this prophecy is at the end of the age, but the Babylonian sack of Jerusalem in 587 BC may be an initial fulfilment.

The divine destructions that don’t fit so easily are the destruction of Edom (the land and its people) in Isa 34.5-end and Isa 63.1-6 where the Lord is seen returning from Bozrah in Edom after tram-pling the nations in his wrath - the winepress imagery again. There may therefore be a third scene of judgment and destruction by Christ on his return, in Edom. Or “Bozrah” and “Edom” may be symbolic 33 and these could be further prophecies about the battle at Armageddon.

Zechariah 12.1-9: summaryThe opening statement introducing “the word of the Lord” amplifies this by stating that He is the Creator of heaven, and of man. Then Zechariah prophesies a gathering of all the nations’ armies against Jerusalem and Judah. But the Lord supernaturally empowers and shields the people of Jerusalem and gives them and Judah victory, so that both Judah’s dwellings (or encampment) and Jerusalem are saved. The prophecy makes the most sense if it relates to the end of the age and the gathering in war of all the nations against Jerusalem - a future event that other Prophets foresaw and which is also described in Zech 14.3-15, where it is the Lord’s coming in person (the second com-ing of Christ) that will bring the war to an end and deliver Jerusalem.

See the “Introduction to Zech 12 & 14” above for the different ways in which the prophesied attack by the nations in 12.2-9 fits with the attack in 14.1f in which Jerusalem is captured and plun-dered and the battle in 14.3-15 in which the Lord comes down in person onto the Mount of Olives, then strikes all the nations that fight against Jerusalem with a devastating plague. The second part of the “Introduction” sets out how these hostile gathering of nations against Jerusalem fit with other prophecies in the OT and NT, including those that include a deliverance by the Lord in person or Christ’s second coming.

12.1 concerning Israel. Whilst Judah and Jerusalem in particular is the main focus of attention, the prophecies in ch 12-14 from their content seem to me to concern the whole of Israel 34. See “land” in 12.12; 13.2, 8.

12.1 the spirit of man within him. Paul employs this phrase in 1 Cor 2.11. On “spirit”, see the note on 12.10.

12.2 Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem. Lit. “And also upon/against Judah it will be in the siege upon/against Jerusalem”. The involvement of Judah is stated also at vv 4-7 and 14.14. It is possible that an army from Judah had come to Jerusalem to strengthen it as the nations’ armies gathered against it, but they were encamped outside the city and were surrounded by the besieging forces. This would explain v 6 and v 7, “the Lord will save the tents of Judah first”. It is hard to envisage Judah as a country being besieged. Perhaps the phrase could mean that Judah will be in-vaded and threatened with destruction at the same time as Jerusalem will be besieged?

Baldwin understands the sentence very differently, as indicating that Judah will be opposing Jerusalem, either by choice or by compulsion due to the much greater strength of the enemy forces; but they then change sides (see the note on v 6). It is possible to translate 14 14, “Judah too will fight against Jerusalem”.

It is unclear exactly how, in a present-day fulfilment, we are to interpret “Judah”. It seems most likely to me that it means those people who inhabit Judah as it was in Zechariah’s day. That was the territory that surrounded Jerusalem and extended south. On the west it excluded the land of the Philistines (today, the Gaza strip); to the north it ended about 10 miles north of Jerusalem; and

33 The root meaning in Hebrew of “bozrah” is, “to collect the vintage”. Edom means “red”. “Red” in Isa 63.2 is ‘adom’, the same letters as in Edom in v 1. However, there are other prophecies of destruction upon Edom that may relate to the close of the age: Ob 10-14; Jer 49.7-22; Ez 25.12ff; ch 35; Joel 3.19; Num 24.18; Lam 4.21. This weighs against interpreting Isa 34 and 63.1-6 as symbolic of the destruction by God of his and his people’s enemies and therefore as happening in a different location.34 “Israel” is not found in Haggai and only occurs in Zechariah and Malachi at Zech 1.19; 8.13; 9.1; 11.14; 12.1 and Mal 1.1, 5; 2.11,16; 4.4. It seems from Mal 1.5 that he prophetically envisaged a restored Israel in her historic borders. ?

to the east it ended at the River Jordan and the Dead Sea, and to the south it ended in a line running roughly east - west through Hebron. Since the exile, Judah had lost her southern portion and now her southern boundary was at Hebron.

12.2 a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. In the Prophets, experiencing God’s judg-ment is often likened to becoming drunk on strong wine. Drinking the cup of his wrath is the usual imagery. It is the fate of wicked nations in particular. See Isa 51.22f; 63.6; Ps 75.8; Jer 25.15-28; Lam 4.21; Hab 2.16. Also Jn 18.1; Rev 14.10; 16.19. Occasionally it is used in judgment prophe-cies against Jerusalem, e.g. Isa 29.9; 51.17; Ez 23.32ff; Ps 60.3. (“That makes us stagger” in Ps 60.3 and Isa 51.22 translates a word from the same root as “that sends . . reeling” in Zech 12.2.)

Does all the surrounding peoples mean all the peoples that live around Jerusalem, or does it refer to the armies that are gathered against Jerusalem (v 3), which of course will contain contin-gents from the peoples geographically situated around Jerusalem? The same question arises in v 6 where the phrase occurs again. It will also arise at 14.14 (“the wealth of all the surrounding nations will be collected”) 35.

Baldwin suggests that Zechariah is reflecting here the theological view that Jerusalem was the centre of the earth with the nations surrounding her (as in Ez 5.5; see also 38.12, where “land” may mean “earth”).

12.3 On that day. This phrase also occurs at vv 4, 6, 8, 9, 11; 13.1, 2, 4; 14.4, 6, 8, 9, 20, 21. It also (in the Hebrew text) forms the final phrase to the whole of the prophecy. Earlier in Zechariah it oc-curs at 2.11 and 3.10. It is shorthand for “the day of the Lord” - see the similar expression at 14.1, “a day is coming for the Lord” (ESV, a literal translation). The same Hebrew phrase (“in that day” in NIV) occurs at least 34 times in Isaiah 36. Occasionally in Isaiah it has no significance beyond noting a time connection (e.g. Isa 20.6). But usually it corresponds to “the day of the Lord” (see Isa 2.12, “(there is) a day to the Lord Almighty”; “day of the Lord” (Isa 13.9; Joel 1.15; 2.1, 11, 31; 3.14; Am 5.18; Zep 1.14) or “the day” in other Prophets (e.g. Mal 4.1) It denotes a time of judg-ment and/or blessing as God intervenes decisively in the affairs of the nations, including his people. Sometimes it is the Lord acting against other nations threatening Israel, the destruction of that threat being followed by Israel’s restoration. It is always in the future. It can therefore be a day of victory & joy (as Isa 10.20, 27) and be connected with the Messianic Age (Isa 11.10f; 12.1, 4). In the OT Prophets, it does not always refer to the same day or future period in history, even within the writ-ings of the same Prophet (e.g. Isaiah). But in the NT, it is always the time when Christ returns - see Zech 14.3ff.

In Zechariah, at 2.11 and 3.10 it is the time when the Lord comes and (once more) lives among his people, and many nations come and join themselves to the Lord and become his people. It will be a time of peace, security and contentment, after God’s servant the Branch (the Messiah) has come and God has removed the sin of the land. Zech 12 to 14 indicate how the Lord will bring about this state and deal with Israel’s enemies.

The “day” need not be a period of 24 hours 37. We might express it by, “At that time”.

35 Could Zechariah be using the two commonly used Hebrew words for peoples and nations, ‘ammim’ and ‘goyim’, which overlap in meaning, to make a distinction between peoples (‘ammim’) with regard to their ge-ographical location and nations (‘goyim’) making up the armies attacking Jerusalem?. Might this help us de-cide the interpretation of 12.2, 6 and 14.14? ‘Ammim’ (I translate it “peoples”) occurs in 12.2, 3, 4, 6, whereas ‘goyim’ (I translate it “nations”) occurs in 12.3 (“all the nations of the earth are gathered against her”) and v 9 (“all the nations that attack Jerusalem”). In ch 14 ‘goyim’ occurs at 14.2 (“I will gather all the na-tions to Jerusalem to fight against it”) and 14.3 (“the Lord will go out and fight against those nations”), but ‘ammim’ at 14.12 (“all the peoples that fought against Jerusalem”), then ‘goyim’ at 14.14 (“the wealth of the surrounding nations will be collected”), 14.16 (“all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem”) and 14.18f (“nations that do not go up to celebrate the feast”). But 12.4 does not fit this pattern. NIV in its translation seems to use both English words interchangeably.36 I have not looked up its occurrence in other of the OT Prophets.37 Note that in 1 Th 5.2 the “day of the Lord” appears to start some time before Christ’s return, as it clearly does in 2 Th 2.2 where it starts some time in the last 3 1/2 years before his return (the period of the beast’s

12.3 On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her. 14.2 is similar, where it is clear that it is the Lord that does the gathering; see also 14.12. This may suggest that 12.2-9 is the same future event as 14.2-5 and 14.12-16; but see my introduction to 12.1-9 for different ways of holding together and understanding these prophecies.

For similar gatherings of nations by the Lord, see the Introduction to Zech 12 and 14.Baldwin observes (in her note on Zech 14.2) that all the nations gathering to fight against

one city, Jerusalem, was ludicrous, and that it indicates that the conflict was ideological - to remove a non-cooperative element that stood in the way of an international world order. We can see signs of this in the way the modern state of Israel is judged and regarded in the United Nations. Rev 13 describes a time at the end of the age when “the beast” will seek to rule the world under one world-order that will be opposed to the Jews and the Christians and in which he will seek to be wor-shipped by all. It is “the beast” who, according to Rev 11.7, will oppose and kill the two witnesses/prophets in Jerusalem, perhaps because they threaten his world order.

We might also compare the way in which in modern times an international force represent-ing all the nations is often gathered under the name of the United Nations to bring a conflict to an end.

12.3 I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the peoples. All who try to move it will in-jure themselves. The LXX reads: “I will make Jerusalem a trodden stone to all the nations. Every-one that tramples on it shall utterly mock at it”. There is a verbal similarity between the LXX Greek text (the words in italics above) and Lk 21.24, and with Rev 11.2 38. Presumably this was in-tentional by Jesus and/or by Luke who recorded his teaching. If so, it supports Lk 21.24, “Jerusalem being trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled”, as prophetically describing events at the end of the age as well as having a fulfilment in 67-70 AD when Jerusalem fell to the Romans and was sacked 39.

12.3 an immovable rock. Lit. “a stone of burden”.

12.3 to move it. Lit. “to lift up / carry it”

12.3 will injure themselves. The uncommon Hebrew verb elsewhere means, “to cut” (see Lev 21.5).

12.4 strike every horse with panic and its rider with madness: is this the same future event as 14.12f & 15? See the notes there. “Panic” translates a different Hebrew word here than in 14.13.

12.4 panic. OR “astonishment, consternation”. ASV, “terror”. The word also occurs at Dt 28.28 (with “heart”/“mind”) where NIV & ESV translates it, “confusion”. Dt 28.28 contains the same trio of nouns as Zech 12.4. In Deut 28.28 they are among the curses that will fall on Israel for disobey-ing God’s covenant, whereas here in Zechariah God lays these curses upon Israel’s enemies. It may be that Zech 14.12f describes this further. OR it could be a later event.

reign, Rev 13.5, assuming that beast is the “man of lawlessness” of 2 Th 2.2). In 2 P 3.10 the “day of the Lord” appears to encompass Christ’s return and the dissolution of the heavens and earth that, according to Rev 20.11, comes 1,000 years later. Such telescoping of time in the “last days” is common in the OT prophets.38 The LXX translators either had a different word in their Hebrew text of Zech 12.3 (ESV, “I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples”, the word in bold being the one under discussion) from that which is now the accepted Hebrew text, or else they mistranslated it. The second appears more likely.39 See the notes in the Revelation commentary on Rev 11.1-2.

12.4 I will keep a watchful eye over the house of Judah, but I . . . ESV has, “For the sake of the house of Judah I will keep my eyes open, when I . . ”. This imagery suggests God’s protection. The eyes of the Lord featured in 3.9; 4.10; 9.8.

The phrase, house of Judah, is found elsewhere in Zechariah at 8.13, 15, 19; 10.3, 6. “House of Israel” occurs at 8.13. It seems to mean: all those descended from Judah and who are alive at the time to which the prophecy relates For “house of David”, see 12.7 and the note there.

12.5, 6 leaders of Judah. By a slight change of pointing it would mean, “clans of Judah” - “clan” being a sub-division of the tribe. ESV so translates. The word with this changed pointing occurs at Mic 5.2, “the clans of Judah”.

12.5 the people of Jerusalem are strong because the Lord Almighty is their God. ESV has, “through the Lord of Hosts”. The traditional Hebrew text reads: “(They are) strength to me the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the Lord of Hosts their God”. “To me” might mean, “to the leaders of Judah” or “to the Lord”. Compare, “on me” in v 10. Most English translations amend the Hebrew text slightly so it reads, “(There is) strength to the inhabitants of Judah . . .”. The divinely empowered defenders of Jerusalem (vv 5, 8) may fulfil Isa 28.6 (the Lord Almighty will be “a source of strength to those who turn back the battle at the gate”).

“The Lord Almighty (lit. “Lord of Hosts”) is God’s military title. It is common in Zechariah 40

12.6 but Jerusalem will remain intact in her place. Lit. “and/but Jerusalem will be inhabited (OR will dwell OR will remain) still / again in its place in Jerusalem”. This appears to indicate the out-come of the battle described in vv 2-9. The Hebrew expression is repeated in Zech 14.10, “Jerusalem will . . remain in its place”, in a passage describing the topographical changes to the area at that future time. It is possible that we are to so understand 12.6. However, it is possible that the phrase in 14.10 should be translated, “Jerusalem will . . be inhabited in its place” (see the note at 14.10).

When Zechariah started his ministry (520 BC), Jerusalem was in ruins with no walls and a very small population. See the note at 14.11 for the possibility that ch 12-14 date from as late as Nehemiah’s governorship, the rebuilding of its walls, and the resettlement of people into the city.

12.6 I will make the leaders of Judah like a brazier . . they will consume right and left all the sur-rounding peoples. See 10.5 where the future victories of Judah in battle are celebrated. Baldwin, who maintains that Judah at the start of this battle was part of the enemy armies, thinks that their observation in v 5 that the Lord was at work in this battle on the side of Jerusalem caused Judah to change their allegiance and turn against the enemy armies. They inflict devastating damage be-cause they are already within their ranks.

Does all the surrounding peoples mean all the peoples that live around Jerusalem and Judah, or does it refer to the armies that are gathered against Jerusalem (v 3) and against Judah (v 2, see note)? If it has the first meaning, it may prophesy Judah’s relationship with the surrounding peo-ples after the nation is restored (so Duguid). See the prophecy at Isa 11.13f for similar military ac-tion, which seems to relate to the nation’s restoration at the end of the age. If it has the second meaning, then it describes the encamped army of Judah at Jerusalem attacking the international armies surrounding Jerusalem and also possibly surrounding and threatening Judah - armies which may well have contingents from the peoples situated geographically around Jerusalem. The same question arises in v 2 where the phrase also occurs; also at 14.14.

40 It is found at 1.3, 4, 6, 12, 14, 16f; 2.8f, 11; 3.7, 9f; 4.6, 9; 5.4; 6.12, 15; 7.3f, 9, 12f; 8.1-4, 6f, 9, 11, 14, 18-23; 9.15; 10.3; 12.5; 13.2, 7; 14.16f, 21.

12.6 like a flaming torch among sheaves. The imagery is reminiscent of Samson’s exploit against the Philistines, Jdg 15.3ff.

12.7 dwellings. Lit. “tents”. It can have military connotations, as soldiers in the field lived in tents (see e.g. Jdg 7.8); so it could here mean the encamped army of Judah - see the note on 12.2 (“Judah will be besieged . .”). OR it might be meant to bring to remembrance the people of Israel on their journey into the promised land, as they dwelt in tents then (see e.g. Num 24.2, 5; Jos 3.14). But the word can mean “dwellings” - the regular homes in which people live (see e.g. Jer 30.18). In which case the meaning here is that the Lord delivers the inhabited areas of Judah as well as Jerusalem. Duguid thinks there may be a contrast here between the people of Jerusalem in their privileged loca-tion and the poorer people living in tents outside Jerusalem.

12.7 the house of David 41. The phrase comes again at vv 8, 10, 12; 13.1. The “house of David” led the fighting in defence of Jerusalem, but also received the “spirit of grace and supplication” as they looked on the pierced one and took part in the national mourning, perhaps leading it. They also needed the cleansing fountain which would be opened for them.

What did Zechariah mean by this phrase? “The house of Judah “ is frequently used by him to mean all those descended from Judah and who are alive at the time to which the prophecy relates 42. Is this what the house of David means? Elsewhere in the OT it can mean: all those in the future who are descended from David (1 Sm 20.16; see Lk 1.27; 2.4, of Joseph, Mary’s husband); a lasting dynasty of kings (1 Sm 25.28; 2 Sm 7.11ff, 16, 19, 25-29; Ps 122.5; Lk 1.69); David’s professional army (2 Sm 3.1, 6); his household - those living in the palace, including servants (2 Sm 6.20; 12.17; 15.16); his sons? (2 Sm 7.18; 12.10f; see Ex 1.21, “he gave them houses”, meaning, “families of their own”, NIV); the current king in David’s line and probably his court (Isa 7.2, 13; 22.22; Jer 21.12). See also Jer 33.21f where because of his covenant with David he, “will multiply the seed of David my servant and the Levites ministering to me”. This might be the Hebrew idiom of hyper-bole and simply mean that David’s line would never fail to have a king “to sit on the throne of the house of Israel” (see Jer 33.17, 21). Jeremiah was not shown that the future righteous Branch that would sprout from David’s line (v 15) would live and reign for ever. But it also finds a fulfilment in the truth revealed in the NT that those who belong to Christ will reign with him on his return. See 2 T 2.12; Rev 2.26f; 3.21; 5.10; 20.4, 6; 22.5; also Rom 8.17 (“fellow heirs with Christ”); 1 Cor 6.3 (“will judge angels”); Mt 19.28; Lk 22.30 (the twelve disciples “sitting on thrones and judging the 12 tribes of Israel).

41 Excluding where it means a physical house, “house of David” occurs at: 1 Sm 20.16; 25.28; 2 Sm 3.1, 6; 6.20; 7.11ff, 16, 18f, 25-29; 12.10f, 17; 15.16; 23.5; 1 K 2.33; 11.38; 12.16, 19f, 26; 13.2; 14.8; 2 K 17.21; 1 Chr 16.43; 17.1, 10, 16f, 23-27; 2 Chr 10.16, 19; 21.7; Ps 122.5; Isa 7.2, 13; 22.22; Jer 21.12; Zech 12.7f, 10, 12; 13.1; Lk 1.27, 69; 2.4.See also the following references to David without “house”: Isa 9.7; 16.5; 55.3; Jer 17.25; 23.5; 30.9; 33.15, 17, 21f, 26; Ez 34.23f; 37.24f; Hos 3.5; Am 9.11; 42 “house of . .” is used frequently of the temple. Its other uses in Zechariah, excluding where it clearly means a physical house, are as follows:6.10, “the house of Josiah son of Zephaniah” (but this may mean the physical house where Josiah lived);8.13, “As you have been an object of cursing among the nations, O house of Judah and house of Israel”.8.15, “I have determined to do good again to Jerusalem and the house of Judah”.8.19, “ . . happy festivals for the house of Judah”.10.3, “the Lord Almighty will care for his flock, the house of Judah, and make them like a proud horse in bat-tle.”10.6, “I will strengthen the house of Judah and save the house of Joseph”.12.12, “the clan of the house of Nathan and their wives”12.13, “the clan of the house of Levi and their wives”12.7-13.1, “the house of David”. In 12.12, “the clan of the house of David”.In 8.13, “house of Judah”, referring to before the Exile, presumably means all those who live in Judah, which was more than those descended from that tribe. It is possible that the other uses mean those descended from the pre-Exile Judah. 10.6 in particular must mean this.

If we examine the hope among the Jews restored from exile for a future king descended from David - the Messianic hope - we should note that the leader of the restored Judah in Zechariah’s time was Zerubbabel 43. He was part of the royal line of David continuing from king Jehoiachin (see 1 Chr 3.17ff; Mt 1.13; Lk 3.27 places him in a royal line from David that does not go through Jehoiachin) and presumably this was known to the Jews when he was made governor of Judah. There is Haggai’s mysterious prophecy that, on the day when the Lord shakes the heavens and the earth and breaks the power of foreign kingdoms, he would take Zerubbabel and “make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you” (Hag 2.23). Did Zechariah by, “the house of David”, mean Zerubbabel?

The Messianic references in Zechariah are as follows:• 3.8, “I am going to bring my servant, the Branch”. See also 6.12• 4.14, “the two who are anointed to serve the Lord of all the earth”• 6.11-14, the crown that was to be made and set on the head of Joshua, the high priest, who is

also addressed as, “the Branch”. It appears to symbolise the fusion of the royal and priestly of-fices in the future Davidic king.

• 9.9, the call to Jerusalem to rejoice because, “your king comes to you, righteous and having sal-vation, gentle and riding on a donkey . .”. He will proclaim peace to the nations.

• 11.4-14, the people’s rejection of the Good Shepherd - the Messianic shepherd-king?• 13.7, “Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered” - referring to the Good Shepherd of

11.4-14?But note that in ch 14 it is the Lord who will be king over the whole earth. There is no mention here of the future Davidic king.

In the light of all the above, and assuming the phrase has the same meaning wherever Zechariah uses it, how should we understand “house of David” in Zech 12 and 13.1? The options seem to be:• a future Davidic king, who will be the national leader, including leading the army. But 12.12

requires there to be a whole family group (NIV, “clan”) associated with him, unless this could be the royal court;

• the civil (royal) leaders of the nation (see the notes on v 12). But from v 7, they must also be the leaders of the army.

• all those who can trace their physical descent from David and are alive at the time of the prophecy’s fulfilment. This interpretation seems to be what, “the house of Nathan” and “the house of Levi”, mean in 12.12f. It is also in line with the meaning of, “the house of Judah” (see earlier in this note);

• all those who will become believers in Christ, their Messiah - their conversion and faith is de-scribed in 12.10-13.1 - who thus become spiritual descendants of David, reigning with the final Son of David when he returns as king.

12.8 the Lord will shield those who live in Jerusalem. Contrast 14.2, “the city will be captured, the houses ransacked . .”. This suggests that 14.2 happens earlier than the battle around Jerusalem in 12.2-9 and the rest of ch 14.

Shield imagery is frequently used in the OT to describe the Lord’s protection of his people. See e.g. Ps 91.4; Isa 31.5 (one of the passages listed in the note on 12.3); Isa 37.5. Zechariah has used it at 9.15.

Zech 9.14ff prophesies the Lord going forth as the heavenly warrior, shielding and saving his people and giving them military victory over their enemies. There are echoes of this passage in 14.3 (“go out”; compare 9.14, “his arrow will go forth”, ESV); 12.8 (“shield”); 12.7 (“save”). The passage appears to relate to and have been fulfilled in the victories of the armies of the Maccabees, but may have a further fulfilment at the end of the age.

43 Here is the complete list of references by name to Zerubbabel: 1 Chr 3.19; Ezra 2.2; 3.2, 8; 4.2f; 5.2; Neh 7.7; 12.1, 47; Hag 1.1, 12, 14; 2.2, 4, 20-23; Zech 4.6f, 9f; Mt 1.12f; Lk 3.27.

12.8 the feeblest. Lit. “he that stumbles (from weakness)”.

12.8 will be like David. In terms of him being a great warrior.

12.8 will be like God. Compare Ex 4.16 and 7.1 where Moses is likened to God and Aaron his prophet, speaking his words to the people and to Pharaoh. But here the thought seems to be of God as the heavenly warrior who defends his people and destroys the enemy.

12.8 like the Angel of the Lord going before them. In some OT passages (e.g. Gen 16.7, 10; 19.1, 21; 31.11, 13; Ex 3.2, 4; Jdg 2.1-5; 6.11f, 14; 13.3-23; Hos 12.3f; Zech 3.1-6) the angel of the Lord appears to be God in person but at other times to be distinguished from him. The angel of the Lord appears in Zech 3.1-6 (the vision of Joshua the high priest being reclothed). But here the reference appears to be to passages like Ex 14.19 where the angel goes before the host of Israel when they ap-proach the Red Sea and in their travels through the wilderness, to guide and protect them (Ex 14.19; 23.20; 32.34; 33.14f, 22). And see especially Ex 33.2 where the Lord promises, “I will send an an-gel before you” into the land of Canaan to destroy the evil peoples there. See also Josh 5.14 where Joshua before they captured Jericho has a vision of a man with a drawn sword who states, “as com-mander of the army of the Lord I have now come” (Duguid). The Lord in other places uses angels to bring destruction on people (see Ex 12.23 in the light of Ps 78.49; 2 Sm 24.15f; 2 K 19.35).

Baldwin observes that David was on three occasions (1 Sm 29.9; 2 Sm 14.17, 20; 19.27) compared to “an angel of God” by those addressing him.

12.9 On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem. Appears to refer back to the gathering of the nations against Jerusalem in v 3. Perhaps v 9 is a summary of vv 2-8. OR it might point forward to the gathering of the nations against Jerusalem in 14.2 and their destruction by the Lord in 14.3 & 12-15. “I will set out” (OR “I will seek”) might describe a process which be-gan in the events of 12.1-8, will continue through the capture of Jerusalem in 14.1-2, and culminate in 14.3 & 12-15. Presumably, all the nations means, all the nations’ attacking armies, rather than those armies AND the peoples back home.

See the vision of the four horns and the four craftsmen given Zechariah at 1.18-21, where the message is that God through his agents (the craftsmen) will rise up to destroy those who scatter his people. Though there no one future event seems to be prophesied. Also, at 1.18-21 God’s agents who destroy seem to be in the role of punishers for evils done to God’s people, rather than protectors from that evil.

Zechariah 12.10-13.6: summaryAfter setting out the nations’ attack on Jerusalem and concluding with the Lord’s intention to de-stroy all those nations, Zechariah goes on without an introduction to describe a completely different scene. The Lord pours out on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, including the royal house of David, “a spirit (OR the Spirit) of grace and compassion”, described in 13.1 as “a fountain . . to cleanse them from sin and impurity”. It seems that receiving this divine cleansing is connected with the people “looking on me, the one they have pierced”, which then moves them to deep mourning and weep-ing.

From Matt 24.30 and Rev 1.7, it seems that at some time shortly before Christ’s coming, the people of Israel will receive a vision of Christ their Messiah crucified - the sign of the Son of Man in the sky, Mt 24.30 - and will realise in grief and true repentance what their ancestors have done, and will turn to him in faith, fulfilling Mt 24.30 and Rev 1.7. They will receive spiritual cleansing. Zech 13.1 might be fulfilled figuratively, or literally in the river, the “living water” that “will flow out from Jerusalem . .” (Zech 14.8), in which they are baptised, following the NT practice on con-version. It is possible that this vision, mourning and cleansing occurs just before the final battle de-scribed in 12.4-9 and 14.3-15, perhaps during the siege of Jerusalem (12.2f).

The prophecy continues with two more “on that day” predictions (the first one introduced 13.1). Presumably relating to the time immediately following the cleansing in 13.1, the Lord will banish all idolatry from Israel and will cause all professional prophets who prophesy in the Lord’s name to become abhorrent to the people and to cease from their activities. The prophets will be-come ashamed of their prophetic vision. It is not clear whether this indicate true repentance by for-mer prophets for receiving visions and prophesying through relying on some inspiration that was not from the Lord. In that case, “I am not a prophet” should be understood as meaning, “I am no longer a prophet”. OR is Zechariah meaning that the prophets, because of fear that they will be killed (v 3), will deny they ever were prophets, will take steps to hide their identity and will be eva-sive under interrogation?

Other OT prophecies besides Zech 13.2-6 that seem to be talking about the end of the age reveal that idolatry will be a real problem then. See Isa 2.8, 20; Mic 5.10-14; Ez 36.25 (“I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols”); Rev 9.20; 21.8 and 22.15. The supreme idolatry at the end of the age will be the compulsory worship of the idol of the beast, an idol that had the appearance of speaking (see Rev 13.14f; also “the abomination that causes desola-tion”, Mt 24.15; Mk 13 14). False prophecy will also be a characteristic of the end of the age: see Jesus’ warnings to his followers not to be taken in by it, in Mt 24.11, 24 (and parallels in Mk 13 & Lk 21). The supreme false prophet in the end-time (Rev 13.11-15) will be the second “beast”, called “the False Prophet” in Rev 16.13; 19.20; 20.10, who will deceive the earth’s inhabitants into worshipping the first “beast”, the final world ruler. (There will also be false claims to be the Mes-siah: see Mt 24.5, 23f and parallels; also 2 Th 2.2ff and the claims of the first “beast” in Rev 13, but it is not clear whether we should understand prophets in Zech 13.2-6 to include those claiming to be the Messiah.) That idolatry and false prophecy will be made to cease at the end of the age by the Lord, as well as Zech 13.2-6 see Isa 2.18; 30.22; Ez 14.9ff; 36.25; Hos 2.17; Mic 5.13.

12.10-13.1. Baldwin observes that this section is in striking contrast with the elation of victory that we can assume from the divine destruction of Jerusalem and Judah’s enemies in 12.2-9. After the reassuring word from the Lord in 12.9, the house of David and the people of Jerusalem are not to presume. They need a new spirit (v 10) and a new cleansing (13.1).

12.10 a spirit of grace. If this is the right translation, it is a similar expression to 13.2, “the spirit of impurity”. But the pouring out of the spirit elsewhere in the OT always indicates the pouring out of God’s Spirit (Duguid). “The Spirit of grace” is a phrase used in Heb 10.29. Here it suggests gra-cious forgiveness by the Lord. Perhaps the thought is that it is by God’s grace towards them and the enabling of his Spirit that they are able to pray to him for mercy in true repentance. The same di-vine gift and enabling will enable them to identify the pierced one, realise and accept their responsi-bility for his death, and to mourn in repentance.

Compare Zech 4.6 where the word of the Lord comes to Zerubbabel, in the context of re-building the temple, “not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit”. See also Zech 4.7, “He shall bring forward the top stone with shouts of, Grace, grace to it!” (ESV). This is the only other men-tion of “grace” in Zechariah. There it was unclear whether the Spirit’s endowment was only on Zerubbabel; but in 12.10 the context suggests it is upon the people as a whole.

There are other references to the Holy Spirit at 6.8 and 7.12. 12.10, understood this way, suggests that Zechariah is pointing to that future time of the national and spiritual restoration of Is-rael that is prophesied elsewhere in the OT. See:

Isa 32.15: “till the Spirit is poured upon us from on high” (referring to the future time of na-tional restoration)Isa 44.3: (addressed to Jacob) “I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants”Isa 59.20f: “The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins, de-clares the Lord. As for me, this is my covenant with them, says the Lord. My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, will not depart from your mouth, or

from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and for ever, says the Lord”. “You” and “your” is masculine singular, presumably referring to Jacob, meaning the people descended from him.Isa 30.20f, the people of Zion will see their teachers, they will no more be hidden, and hear the inner voice of the SpiritJer 31.31, 33f, the new covenant that the Lord will make with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. The context is the nation’s restoration.Ez 36.26f: “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws”. Ez 11.19 is similar.Ez 37.9: “Come from the four winds, O breath (OR wind OR Spirit), and breathe into these slain, that they may live”. “These slain” are the whole house of Israel (v 11).Ez 37.14: “I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land”.Ez 39.29: “I will no longer hide my face from them, for I will pour out my Spirit on the house of Israel, declares the Sovereign Lord.Joel 2.28f: “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh. Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit” (ESV).

Joel 2.28f was fulfilled initially at Pentecost (Acts 2.16ff, 33), but Joel foresaw a pouring out of the Spirit upon Israel at the time of the nation’s restoration (see the context in Joel). The Reformed tra-dition view the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost as an aspect of the finished work of Christ; so the Spirit is there to be received in his fulness and power by everyone. Others, noting that Peter did not say (in Acts 2.16) that the outpouring at Pentecost fulfilled Joel 2.28f, but,”this is what was spo-ken”, consider that the revivals across the world down the centuries show that God will continue to pour out his Spirit on believers and their communities, in answer to faith and believing prayer. Some consider that there will be a final outpouring onto Israel, just before Christ returns, which will fulfil Joel 2.28f and Zech 12.10.

12.10 supplication. The Hebrew word comes from the same root as “grace”. Since it is always has a plural form, ESV translates it, “pleas for mercy”, in line with its usual meaning of cries or prayers for mercy or (Baldwin) a seeking for grace. Perhaps here we should connect it with the rest of the verse and see it as a penitent prayer to God for forgiveness for their or their ancestors’ act in pierc-ing Him. The combination of the Holy Spirit, grace and pleas for mercy and mourning suggests genuine repentance, as does 13.1 if it refers to the same future event. See Eph 2.8, “It is by grace you have been saved, through faith”.

12.10 They will look on me. OR “. . to me”. This is reminiscent of the command in Num 21.9, when the Lord had sent a plague of deadly snakes to bite the people on their wilderness wandering because of their complaining. When they had repented of their complaining, the Lord commanded Moses to make a bronze snake and put it on a pole. Then, “when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived”. “Looked at” is the same Hebrew expression as in Zech 12.10. John saw this as a type of Christ’s crucifixion: “so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that ev-eryone who believes in him may have eternal life” (Jn 3.14f).

Since v 10 starts with, “I will pour . . “, where “I” must be God, “to me” must mean, “to me, the Lord”. We might compare Isa 45.22, “Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth, for I am God and there is no other”. “Turn to . .” implies faith, just as does the act of “looking to” the bronze snake on the pole for healing in Num 12.10.

12.10 me whom they had pierced. The verb normally means, “thrust through” with a sword or spear. It occurs again at 13.3. There is one occasion (Lam 4.9) where it is used metaphorically, of

being “stricken through” from famine (ASV). There is nothing earlier in Zechariah that prepares us for this shocking statement, given that “me” must be the Lord himself. But see 13.7, “strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered”. Hence the LXX translators render 12.10, “They shall look upon me, because they have mocked, and they shall make lamentation for him . .”.

Did Zechariah think that the Lord had been thrust through in the person of his representa-tive?44 The NT authors were able to identify this as referring to Jesus the Son of God’s crucifixion. See Jn 19.37 where John when he records that the soldier pierced Jesus’ side with his spear, perhaps to make doubly sure he was dead, comments that this happened to fulfil the scriptures. He then quotes from Zech 12.10, “they will look on the one they have pierced”. We can also see it as fulfill-ing Ps 22.16, “they have pierced my hands and feet”, and Isa 53.5, “he was pierced for our trans-gressions” (though “pierced” in each is a different Hebrew verb from Zech 12.10).

For John’s allusion to this verse in Rev 1.7, and Jesus’ and Matthew’s possible allusion to it in Mt 24.30, see the note below.

It is possible that the pierced one is the shepherd who will be struck in Zech in 13.7 - a prophecy Jesus applied to himself (Mt 26.31; see the note on Zech 13.7).

Another possibility (see Duguid on 13.2) is that the piercing in its original context should be understood metaphorically 45and the sin that “pierced” the Lord is the people’s devotion to idols, that is the subject of 13.2 and from which they required cleansing. There is a thematic link between the two prophecies at 13.3 where the parents of the lying prophet “pierce” him - the same Hebrew word as in 12.10 and a punishment that fits the impact of this sin on the Lord. But this does not ex-plain how the people would then “mourn for him” - see the next note.

It seems more likely to me that Zechariah did not understand the words given to him and recorded in v 10, but as a faithful prophet he recorded them as the word of the Lord (12.1). But in the light of the NT we can clearly see the identity of the pierced one.

12.10 and they will mourn for him. The train of thought strongly suggests that the mourning is over the one “whom they had pierced”. The Hebrew verb is mostly used of mourning for or over a dead person, and in a few cases over or because of a land or city devastated or facing devastation. The dilemma for the Jews of the OT is, how could they have pierced God and then mourn for him? For us living in the NT era, we can clearly see that this refers to and is fulfilled in Christ’s crucifixion. “They will mourn for him” had a preliminary fulfilment in the mourning of the women of Jerusalem as they followed Jesus as he was led to the site where he would be crucified (Lk 23.27f).

Zechariah in 7.3ff records an incident when a group of people in 518 BC came to the priests and prophets and enquired whether they should continue the practice of mourning and fasting, to mark the anniversary of the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. This practice is also referred to in 8.19. This seems quite separate from and unrelated to the mourning that Zechariah predicts in 12.10-14.

12.10 as one mourns for an only child. The bitterness of mourning for an only child is described in Jer 6.26 and Am 8.10. See also Jephthah’s cry of misery (Jdg 11.34f) when he realised that his rash vow committed him to killing his only daughter. See also the mourning for the only son of the widow at Nain, Lk 7.11ff.

12.10 grieve bitterly. See Am 8.10, “like a bitter day”, describing the mourning for an only son.

12.10 as one grieves for a firstborn son. Compare the wailing of the Egyptians in Ex 11.5f; 12.30, at God’s slaughter of the firstborn in the final plague of Egypt. For other examples, see Gen 21.16; Am 8.10. The firstborn was the specially precious son in every Jewish family (Baldwin).

44 The view of A E Kirkpatrick, quoted by Baldwin.45 Calvin understood it metaphorically, “God declaring that He is wounded by the sins of his people” (quoted by Baldwin). Baldwin elsewhere refers to the views of those who see 12.10, along with the shepherd im-agery in 11.4-17 and 13.7ff, as inspired by the Maccabean leaders and their fate,

12.11 like the weeping of Hadad Rimmon. May refer to a place by this name in the valley of Megiddo 46, where they may have mourned king Josiah after he was killed there in battle (2 Chr 35.22ff; 2 K 23.29f). 2 Chr 35.25: “Jeremiah composed laments for Josiah, and to this day all the men and women singers commemorate Josiah in the laments”. “To this day” refers to the time of the return of the exiles, so fairly close to the date of Zechariah. Alternatively, Hadad Rimmon is the name of a Semitic storm god whose name means, “Hadad the thunderer” in Babylonian. A temple of this god is mentioned in 2 K 5.18 and it is weeping for this deity. The practice of weeping for a Babylonian deity is known from Ez 8.14, but there it is for Tammuz, a fertility god. Baldwin specu-lates that there could have been a synthesis of this pagan practice with the annual mourning for Josiah.

12.11 in the plain of Megiddo. OR “in the valley of Megiddo”. For this strategic place, see the note at 12.3.

12.12 The land will mourn. It seems likely that Jesus referred to this future event in Mt 24.30: “At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations (lit. tribes) of the earth (OR land) will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky”. It is possible that the sign in Mt 24.30 is a vision of Christ crucified, which is how, “they will look on me whom they have pierced”, in Zech 12.10 will be fulfilled. Or was Jesus seeing a wider fulfil-ment of Zech 12.10-14 in which “all the nations of the earth” (NIV’s translation) would in some sense mourn?

We have the same dilemma in understanding Rev 1.7, “Behold he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples (lit. tribes) of the earth (OR land) will mourn for (OR over) him”. The alternatives in understanding this verse appear to be:

it refers throughout to Israel and expects a literal fulfilment of Zech 12.10-14. This mourn-ing, in true repentance from the God-given realisation that their ancestors had crucified Je-sus, God’s Messiah, will fulfil the turning of Israel (the Jews) to the Lord just before Christ returns that is taught in Rom 11.25-32;OR the verse has a worldwide meaning throughout, i.e. John is reinterpreting Zechariah 12.10-14 into having a worldwide fulfilment, or a worldwide fulfilment in addition to an Is-rael fulfilment;OR a combination of both the above. John expects “every eye” world-wide to see Christ re-turning, including those in Israel whose ancestors “pierced him”, and all Israel (or possibly “all the peoples of the earth”) will mourn for him, fulfilling Zech 12.10-14. I tend to favour this interpretation.

What is clear is that to translate the last line of Rev 1.7, “will mourn because of him” (NIV) or, “will wail on account of him” (ESV), goes against the meaning of the Greek phrase elsewhere in the NT and in the LXX. It must be translated, “will mourn (OR wail) for/over him”, though that mourning could be in remorse rather than in the repentance that accompanies faith. For a detailed discussion of this verse, see the notes in my commentary on Rev 1.7.

We might compare this prophesied mourning with the scene of repentance prophesied in Jer 50.4 where Jeremiah, at the start of a lengthy prophecy on the fall of Babylon, foresees that the peo-ple of Israel and Judah together will “go in tears to seek the Lord their God. They will ask the way to Zion . . They will come and bind themselves to the Lord in an everlasting covenant that will not be forgotten”. However, he seems to be referring here to the people in exile.

46 This stems from Jerome - he had lived in Bethlehem for many years - who identified it with a place he knew as Rummane, not far from Jezreel. Rimmon is also the name of a town in the Negev of Judah (Josh 15.32), probably the same town as in the allocation to the tribe of Simeon (Josh 19.7). It is mentioned in Zech 14.10. There is also the “rock of Rimmon” in Jdg 20.45; 21.13, probably NE of Gibeah in Benjamin.

12.12 The land will mourn, each clan by itself and their women by themselves. “Land” presumably means throughout the land of Israel (see 12.1 and note), though it might mean the land of Judah. The Hebrew (‘ha’arets’) here translated “the land” can also mean “the (whole) earth”, but that meaning seems ruled out by the immediate context 47. If we understand v 14, “all the rest of their clans”, as including other tribes of Israel than Judah and Levi, then we have a prophecy in Zech 12.10-13.1 of the spiritual restoration of the whole of Israel as they look on their pierced Messiah.

The phrase suggests that the people gather together into their ancestral family groups to mourn - why is not stated. Nor is it clear why the women mourn in a separate group, though (Bald-win) the Mishnah 48 taught the separation of men and women in mourning. Presumably this process must therefore take some time. Baldwin thinks that the repetition of the phrase in vv 12ff lays stress on the genuineness of the repentance.

12.12 the house of Nathan. Probably the Nathan that was David’s son (see 2 Sm 5.14; 1 Chr 14.4; Lk 3.31; he was a son of Bathsheba, as was Solomon, 1 Chr 3.5). Zerubbabel was in the genealogi-cal line running from him to Jesus (see Lk 3.27; but Zerubbabel could also trace his Davidic ances-try through the line of the kings of Judah from Solomon, 1 Chr 3.19; Mt 1.13). There are other Nathan’s mentioned in the Bible, the best known being the prophet whom the Lord used to speak to David (see 2 Sm 7.2 et al) and who was involved in ensuring that Solomon succeeded to the throne (1 K 1.11 et al). Azariah the son of Nathan at 1 K 4.5, one of Solomon’s chief officials, and Zabud son of Nathan, a priest and personal adviser to Solomon, may be the sons of either of them . The other Nathans are:• a descendant of Jerahmeel the firstborn of Hezron (1 Chr 2.36). Hezron was in the genealogical

line that went through David to Jesus (Mt 1.3; Lk 3.33). This Nathan was therefore a member in one of the family lines in the tribe of Judah (the Jerahmeelites are mentioned at 1 Sm 27.10; 30.29), though nothing is known in the Bible of the people named in the genealogical line from Jerahmeel either before or after Nathan.

• the brother of Joel, one of David’s mighty men (1 Chr 11.38)• one of the leaders who returned from exile with Ezra (Ezra 8.16)• one of the descendants of Binnui in the list of those recorded among the returned exiles as hav-

ing taken foreign wives (Ezra 10.38)The Nathan at 2 Sm 23.36 was from Zobah, outside Israel.

12.13 the clan of Shimei. Probably the Shimei that was the son of Gershom, the son of Levi and who was the leader of one of the two Gershonite clans of the Levites (see Ex 6.17; Num 3.17, 18, 21; 1 Chr 6.17). There were other Levites called Shimei among the descendants of Gershon:• a Shimei appears as “the son of Jahath, the son of Gershon, the son of Levi” in 1 Chr 6.42, in

the genealogical line to Asaph, one of the three musicians whom David put in charge of the mu-sic in the temple.

• Ladan and Shimei are named as a pair belonging to the Gershonites (1 Chr 23.7). This may be the Shimei named further down this genealogical record as having four sons (1 Chr 23.10)

• a Shimei who appears to be a descendant of Ladan and is named as having three sons (1 Chr 23.9)

Some of the above may be the same person. Shimei is a common name in the OT. The other people so named are:• a Levite, the son of Libni, descended from Merari (1 Chr 6.29)• held the 10th lot, together with his sons and relatives, for the duty of music in the temple (1 Chr

25.17). Presumably he was a Levite.

47 Compare 14.17, “peoples of the earth”, where we have the same two Hebrew words as “clan” and “land” in 12.12. In 14.17 the context makes it clear that it is the whole earth.48 Sukkoth 51b, 52a. The Mishnah is the rabbinic interpretations and applications of the laws in Genesis to Deuteronomy.

• a Levite, from the descendants of Heman (the musician), who was part of Hezekiah’s Levitical taskforce to cleanse the temple (2 Chr 29.14)

• a Levite who with his brother Conaniah was in charge of a team who were responsible for the storerooms in the temple in Hezekiah’s reforms (2 Chr 31.12f)

• a Levite in Ezra’s day recorded as having taken a foreign wife (Ezra 10.23)• the son of Gera, a Benjaminite from the same clan as Saul, who cursed David (2 Sm 16.5 et al),

later grovelled before him in apology (2 Sm 19.18-23), and was later assassinated by Solomon (1 K 2.8 et al)

• a Benjaminite whose 9 sons are named (1 Chr 8.19ff)• a Benjaminite, the son of Kish, who was an ancestor of Mordecai, Esther’s guardian (Esther

2.5). It is possible that this is the Shimei in David’s day (above)• an officer in David’s administration who, together with Nathan the prophet & others, stayed

loyal to the aged David and refused to join Adonijah when he set himself up as king (1 K 1.8)• a Ramathite who was in charge of the vineyards in David’s administration (1 Chr 27.27)• Shimei son of Ela, whom Solomon appointed district governor over Benjamin (1 K 4.18). Pos-

sibly the same Shimei as 1 K 1.8• a descendant of Simeon who was the son of Zaccur. He had 16 sons and 6 daughters and seems

to have been the dominant family in the tribe of Simeon (1 Chr 4.26)• a Reubenite who was the son of Gog (1 Chr 5.5)• a grandson of Jehoiachin and the brother of Zerubbabel (1 Chr 3.19)• one of the descendants of Hashum in Ezra’s day recorded as having taken a foreign wife (Ezra

10.33)• one of the descendants of Binnui in Ezra’s day recorded as having taken a foreign wife (Ezra

10.38)

If the above identification of Nathan and Shimei is correct, Zechariah is prophesying that the mourning would be led by the civil (royal) and the religious (Levitical) leaders of the nation. Bald-win observes from v 10 that the royal family lead the mourning and all Jerusalem join with them. She points out that David lamented deeply the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sm 1.19-27) and later Absalom (2 Sm 18.33). See also the way king David led the mourning for Abner, who was assassi-nated by stabbing by David’s general without David’s knowledge, and all the people joined in (2 Sm 3.27-39).

12.14 all the rest of their clans: possibly including other tribes of Israel than Judah and Levi. Com-pare v 12, “the land will mourn . .” and see the note there.

$1313.1 On that day . . Repeated from 12.11. Baldwin observes that this connects the possibility of cleansing with the realisation of the crime committed and the repentant mourning (vv 10-14).

13.1 a fountain . . to cleanse them from sin and impurity. “To cleanse them” is not in the Hebrew text, but added by NIV to bring out the meaning of the verse. Compare 3.4-9 where Joshua the high priest has his filthy clothes removed by the angel, and exchanged for “rich garments”, symbolising taking away his sin. The vision concludes (v 9), “I will remove the sin of this land in a single day”. This “day” appears to be the event prophesied here at 13.1 (“In that day . .”). The Hebrew for “sin” in 3.4 & 9 is a different Hebrew word from “sin” in 13.1, but this may be because the verb from the same root as “sin” in 13.1 can mean, “to cleanse from sin”.

Cleansing from sin was one of the provisions of the new covenant - see Ez 36.25 (“I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols”); also Jer 31.34; 33.8: Ez 36.33; Heb 9.14. See also the use of water in the purification ceremonies of Lev 14. The national restoration of Jerusalem and its people would be

accompanied by spiritual restoration, which required cleansing from their sin - as prophesied in Isa 4.2-6. That one of the root causes of their impurity was idolatry is implied from Zech 13.2.

The fountain may be symbolic of the Lord himself. See Jer 2.13; 17.13: “the Lord, the spring of living water” - “spring” translates the same Hebrew word as “fountain” in Zech 13.1. See also Ps 36.9 (“with you is the fountain of life” - same word); Isa 55.1; Jn 4.10, 14; 7.37; Rev 21.6.

OR the fountain may be literal and physical and be linked to the “living water” that “will flow out from Jerusalem . .”, Zech 14.8; see also Ez 47.1-12: Rev 22.1f. See the note at Zech 14.8. Perhaps people immersing themselves in the water flowing from that fountain, in obedience and in faith in its cleansing power, produced the spiritual cleansing; just as the immersing in the water of baptism in faithful obedience to the New Testament command produces cleansing from sins (Acts 22.16; Eph 5.26; see Jn 3.5; Heb 10.22; 1 Cor 6.11; Tit 3.5; 1 P 3.21).

13.1 impurity. The word (Hebrew, ‘niddah’), originally describing menstrual uncleanness that made the person ritually unclean, was a favourite word of Ezekiel, who used it (at 36.17) to express the filthiness of idolatry in the Lord’s sight (see also its use in Ezra 9.11 and probably Lam 1.17 and 2 Chr 29.5). We are perhaps meant to interpret it as the impurity of idolatry here (see 13.3), so that it leads into vv 2ff which deal with idolatry in the land (Baldwin).

13.2 I will banish the names of the idols. “Banish” is literally, “cut off”. The name in Hebrew thought described a person’s nature. Perhaps here, then, it means the idols’ influence, fame, and very existence will be cut off.

There is little evidence of idolatry in the post-exilic community, but other OT prophecies be-sides Zech 13.2-6 that seem to be talking about the end of the age reveal that it will be a real prob-lem then. See Isa 2.8, 20; Mic 5.10-1449; Ez 36.25 (“I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols”); Rev 9.20; 21.8 and 22.15. The supreme idolatry at the end of the age will be the compulsory worship of the idol of the beast, an idol that had the appearance of speaking. See Rev 13.14f (and notes there); also “the abomination that causes desolation”, Mt 24.15; Mk 13 14. The Lord had destroyed idolatry in the land by the exile of the Northern kingdom to Assyria (see Mic 1.7) and of Judah to Babylon (see Ez 6.6). That he will do so again at the end of the age by his acts of judgment is prophesied in Isa 2.18 (“the idols will totally disappear”); Isa 30.22 (“you will defile your idols . . and throw them away”); Mic 5.13; see also Hos 2.17 as well as Ez 36.25.

13.2 from the land. Could mean, “from the (whole) earth” - see the note on 12.12. But the context of the whole of Zech 12-14 seems to be the land of Israel and what will the Lord will do there at the end of the age.

13.2 I will remove . . the prophets. From the context, this means the false prophets. At the end of the age, the time of Israel’s physical and spiritual restoration (see Zech 8), the knowledge of the Lord (see Jer 31.34) may mean that there is no longer a desire to have prophets to reveal the future.

False prophecy was a problem in the post-exilic community of Zechariah’s day: see Neh 6.12ff. But on that day suggests this relates to the same time period, the end of the age, as 13.1 and ch 12 (see the note on 12.3). False prophecy will be a characteristic of the end of the age: see Jesus’ warnings to his followers not to be taken in by it, in Mt 24.11, 24 (and parallels in Mk 13 & Lk 21). The supreme false prophet in the end-time, according to Rev 13.11-15, will be the second “beast”, called “the False Prophet” in Rev 16.13; 19.20; 20.10, who will deceive the earth’s inhabitants into

49 Isa 2.6-9, whilst it undoubtedly describes Israel (the Northern kingdom and Judah) in Isaiah’s day, may also have a fulfilment at the end of the age, as 2.2-4 describe Israel’s restoration then and 2.9-21 describe God’s disciplinary judgment in terms which require a final fulfilment at the end of the age. It is possible that 2.12-21 describes the whole earth and God’s judgment upon it, rather than just the land of Israel - “earth” in 2.19 can mean either the whole earth or the land (of Israel). Compare Isa 2.19ff with Rev 6.15f. Mic 5.10-14 is preceded by a prophecy of a restored Israel being delivered from her enemies which must relate to the end of the age.

worshipping the first “beast”, the final world ruler. (There will also be false claims to be the Mes-siah: see Mt 24.5, 23f and parallels; also 2 Th 2.2ff and the claims of the first “beast” in Rev 13.).

For other prophecies that the Lord will cause false prophecy to cease at the end of the age, see Ez 14.9ff.

False prophecy can be of two kinds: that spoken in the name of the Lord, as in Zech 13.3, and that spoken in the name of some other god or idol. That both idolatry and (false) prophecy oc-cur in the same verse suggests that the prophets were idol-worshippers and that that was the source of their inspiration, even if they prophesied in the name of the Lord.

Zechariah earlier (in 10.1f) had exposed the practice of relying on idols (lit. “household gods” 50) and diviners for information about the future; but it is not definite from the context that this is about conditions at the end of the age.

13.2 the spirit of impurity. Lit. “ . . of uncleanness”. See Jesus’ use of the expressions, “unclean spirit” in Mk 1.23 et al to mean a demon; also Rev 16.13f. In Zech 13.2 it probably means the de-monic spirit that was connected with the idol and could destroy those who started to pay attention to that idol (see 1 Cor 8.4-13; 10.19f; Rev 9.20). See 1 Cor 8.7, “their conscience is defiled”. The im-plication of Isa 44.18ff may be that idol-worship causes or reinforces spiritual blindness and delu-sion, as well being the condition in which men become idol-worshippers. Those who worship idols become like them, according to Ps 115.8; Jer 2.5; Hos 9.10 51.

Although “impurity” here is a different Hebrew word from that in 13.1, there is probably a connection. See the note at 13.1. The Lord will “remove . . the spirit of impurity” by the spiritual cleansing described in 13.1 and in other prophecies relating to the end of the age (they are listed in the note on 13.1, “a fountain . .”). See in particular Ez 36.25, “your impurities”, the same Hebrew word as “impurity” in Zech 13.2. This divine cleansing has to be accompanied by men turning from the activities that defiled them - the idol-worship and false prophesying.

13.3 lies in the Lord’s name. I.e. false prophecies.

13.3 will stab him. The same Hebrew verb as “pierced” in 12.10, but the context appears to be quite different. Duguid, however, sees the repeat of the verb as supporting his interpretation of 12.10 that it was the sin of idolatry that “pierced” the Lord, so the punishment of piercing the false prophet who supported idolatry was a fitting one.

This drastic punishment might be in conscious obedience to the law in Dt 13.6-9, where it was the penalty to be applied to anyone, even someone in your own family, who tried to entice you to go and worship other gods. This follows a passages (Dt 13.1-5) where a prophet, supported by a miraculous sign that takes place, urges the worship of other gods. See also the command to kill a false prophet in Dt 18.20.

13.4 every prophet will be ashamed. Suggests repentance and a turning away from such prophesy-ing. But see the note at the end of 13.6.

13.4 a prophet’s garment of hair. Such as Elijah wore (2 K 1.8) and which became the defining garb of the prophet - see Mt 3.4 and Mk 1.6 where John the Baptist wore similar.

13.5 a farmer. Lit. (as ESV) “a worker of the soil”. The Hebrew expression first occurred of Cain in Gen 4.2 (Duguid).

13.5 the land has been my livelihood since my youth. Instead of “livelihood”, ESV has, “posses-sion”. This may be a conscious echo of Amos’ explanation that he was not a professional prophet

50 For the reliance on household gods, see Gen 31.19; Jdg 17.5; 18.14-20; Ez 21.21; Hos 3.4.51 Drawn from the article on Idolatry by J.A.Motyer in the New Bible Dictionary (2nd Edition, IVP).

in Am 7.14. NIV and ESV’s translation is based on amending the Hebrew text. The unamended text reads: “for a man sold OR bought me in my youth”.

13.5 on your body. Lit. “between your hands”. ESV has, “on your back” or “on your chest”. Per-haps the wounds are scars rather than fresh wounds. There is a similar expression in 2 K 9.24, lit. “between his arms”, rendered by NIV “between his shoulders” (ESV is similar), the context indicat-ing that it means “into his back”. Baldwin suggests that as the farm worker was stripped to the waist for work, the scars were revealed.

13.6 friends. OR “lovers”. This particular participle of the verb, “to love”, is found elsewhere only of lovers in the intimate sexual sense, but it is always used in an applied or spiritual sense. Firstly, it was used to describe idolatry - which was unfaithfulness towards the Lord their spiritual husband. This may have been because the idolatrous rites of the Canaanite peoples, which included fertility rites that encouraged the worshippers to engage in a range of sexual behaviours including prostitu-tion (see the use of the word in Ez 16.33, 36f). The “lovers” were the deities symbolised by the idols (as in Hos 2.5, 7, 10, 12f). But “lovers” could also be nations with which Israel or Judah formed alliances which were condemned by the prophets (e.g. Jer 22.20, 22; 30.14; Lam 1.19; Ez 23.5, 9, 22) because they enticed the people away from trusting in the Lord for their security.

Given this use of the word, “the house of my lovers” in Zech 13.6, appears to mean a place where the prophet joined in idolatrous rites in which he cut himself (as in 1 K 18.28; see the prohi-bitions in Lev 19.28; 21.5; Dt 14.1). The questioner appears to suspect that this is the cause of the wounds or scars. If so, the answer is an admission that he had been a prophet relying on inspiration not from the Lord. OR, if it is held that the word means “friends”, then the person is saying that he received them in a brawl with friends, or perhaps as disciplinary blows from parents whilst growing up.

Some take v 6 as being a Messianic prophecy, but this goes against the context of the verse.

Zech 13.7-9: summary.The sword of the Lord’s judgment goes out against a shepherd, as in 11.17, but this time against the good shepherd. His death will result in the scattering of the flock and a time of great trial and test-ing for the people of Israel, during which two-thirds will perish. Yet the result of that period of test-ing is the refining of the Lord’s people, culminating in the expression by the Lord and his people of their covenant commitment to one another 52.

Jesus quoted v 7 before his arrest, saying that it would be fulfilled in his death and the scat-tering of his disciples on his arrest, but the scattering probably has a further fulfilment in in the dis-persion of the Jews among the nations following 70 AD, perhaps even right down to the present and at the close of the age. We might see a different fulfilment of the scattering in the persecution of Christ’s followers following Pentecost, down the ages since, and in the time leading up to his re-turn.

The drastic reduction of the people back in their land may belong to the period of great tribulation prophesied in Mt 24.15-22 and Mk 13.14-20. But a remnant will be left that will be re-fined into a right relationship with the Lord, which places the prophecy alongside many others that promise the physical and spiritual restoration of the people of Israel at the end of the age.

13.7 Awake, O sword. Compare 11.17, of the worthless shepherd, “a sword against his arm and against his right eye” (literal translation).

13.7 my shepherd. See Zech 11 with the stark contrast between the good shepherd of God’s people Israel, represented by Zechariah in 11.7-14, and the bad shepherds and in particular the worthless shepherd of 11.15f. Shepherd is frequently in the OT used to mean a king. Jesus at his first coming and in his ministry fulfilled what is prophesied of the good shepherd in 11.4-14, though some of the

52 Drawn from Duguid.

details of the prophecy are hard to interpret. It seems likely that the shepherd in 13.7 is the good shepherd of ch 11.

Compare Isa 53.4 where the suffering Servant is “stricken by God, smitten by him and af-flicted”; also Isa 53.10.

Baldwin observes that will different vowel signs (such signs were not included in the origi-nal Hebrew text), “my shepherd” could be read as, “my companion”, which would make it similar to the following phrase. Whilst, “my shepherd” clearly fits the context of the verse, Zechariah might have intended this other way of understanding the word as a word-play, which would throw emphasis upon, “ (my companion) the main who is close to me”.

13.7 the man who is close to me. An expression only found here in the OT. ESV, “the man who stands next to me”. “The man of my fellowship”, is the literal meaning. The noun here with the sense, “fellowship”, is found elsewhere in Lev 6.2; 18.20; 24.19, where it means, “neighbour”.

It is fulfilled by Christ, the Word who is “with God” (Jn 1.1) and who is “at the Father’s side” (Jn 1.18).

13.7 Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered. The imagery is that once the shepherd is gone, the sheep are leaderless and therefore scattered. The sentence was quoted by Jesus (Mt 26.31; Mk 14.27) 53, when talking to his disciples after the Last Supper, on the way to the garden of Geth-semane, as a prophecy predicting that his disciples would all fall away. This was fulfilled on Jesus’ arrest, when the disciples all fled (Mt 26.56; Mk 14.50), and when Peter denied Jesus in the court-yard of the High Priest (Mt 26.34, 69-75; Mk 14.30, 66-72). See also Jn 16.32 where Jesus tells the disciples, “a time is coming, and has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home. You will leave me all alone”. But there may also be later and wider fulfilment - see below.

In 11.17 it is the worthless shepherd that is to be struck by the sword; here it is God’s shep-herd. The coming Davidic king in the day of Israel’s restoration would be described as the people’s shepherd in Ez 34.23; 37.24; see also Mic 5.4.

Zechariah does not make it clear how, “strike the shepherd”, is related to, “the one they have pierced” in 12.10, though we know that they are both fulfilled in Jesus’ arrest and death.

The sheep are clearly the Lord’s people, the people of Israel (as in Ez 34). In the sheep will be scattered, we are perhaps meant to recall the curses in Deuteronomy 28 which would fall on the people who broke God’s covenant with them. See Dt 28.64, “the Lord will scatter you among the nations”; also 29.24-28; Lev 26.33 (which also uses the imagery of the Lord’s drawn sword). If so, it is fulfilled in the dispersion of the Jews among the nations following 70 AD, when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, which Jesus foresaw as the consequence of the Jews’ rejection of him at his first coming (Mt 23.37ff; Lk 13.34f). That scattering of God’s sheep was prophesied in Ez 34.6, in a prophecy that ends with the nation’s restoration, so it finds fulfilment not only in the Babylonian exile 54, but in the later scatterings of the people of Israel.

The scattering in Zech 13.7 might also find fulfilment in the dispersion of the Jews at the end of the age just before Christ’s return: see the prophecy in Zech 14.2 that half the city of Jerusalem will go into exile 55. OR, if we interpret “the sheep” as being Jesus’ disciples beyond the

53 Baldwin quotes the conclusion of R T France (“Jesus and the Old Testament”, Tyndale Press, 1971, pp 103f, 107ff) that Zech 13.7 influenced the thinking of Jesus more than any other shepherd passage in the OT. He supports this conclusion by John ch 10 with its repeated emphasis on the shepherd laying down his life for the sheep, and the scattering of the sheep.54 There are many prophecies about God’s people being scattered among the nations that were fulfilled in the Babylonian exile. See e.g. Jer 9.16; 13.24; 18.17; 30.11; 46.28. But some scattering prophecies seem to refer to later events, or have multiple fulfilment. For instance, Jer 30.11 and 46.28 are in prophecies about Israel’s restoration, which will only happen in its full sense at the end of the age (the return and restoration after the Babylonian exile was partial and, in the event, did not last).55 See also Joel 3.2 where the Lord enters into judgment against all nations by gathering them into the Val-ley of Jehoshaphat (see Joel 3.12-16) because “they scattered my people among the nations and divided up their land”. Given that the Valley of Jehoshaphat judgment is most likely the Armageddon gathering at the end of the age in Rev 16.12-16; see also 14.17-20, it seems likely that the scattering was recent, rather than

Apostles, then the fulfilment might be the persecution of Christ’s followers following Pentecost, down the ages since, and in the time leading up to his return.

13.7 I will turn my hand against the little ones. In the shepherd and flock imagery that Zechariah is using here, this must mean the lambs in the flock, though NEB translates, “shepherd boys”. It is a different word from “the young” of the flock in 11.16, but may mean the same. This treatment is in stark contrast to Isa 40.11, where the Lord “tends his flock like a shepherd; he gathers the lambs in his arms”. Baldwin thinks that the imagery conveys that the humble and helpless will suffer and she compares Lk 2.35, forecasting of Mary in relation to her son’s crucifixion that, “a sword will pierce your own soul too”.

Jesus used “little ones” to mean his disciples (see Mt 10.42), though sometimes from the context it is clear that he meant children who believed in him (Mt 18.6 = Mk 9.42; Mt 18.10,14). Sometimes (Lk 17.2) it is unclear whether he meant children or those young in the faith. See also “little children” (Mt 11.25 = LK 10.21), meaning those who believed in him; “children” in Mk 10.24, meaning his disciples, and “my children” in Jn 13.33, meaning the eleven disciples (Judas had left by this point). This term for his disciples is explained in Mt 19.13ff; 18.3; Mk 10.13-16; Lk 18.15ff, where Jesus, in welcoming and blessing little children that were brought to him, taught that, “the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these”, and that the kingdom of God must be received as a child.

It seems more likely that this belongs to the “scattered” prophecy than to that beginning in v 8. The options see to be: it means the suffering of the children of the Jews driven away from their land; OR it describes the Jews driven away from their land, highlighting their inability to defend themselves; OR it refers to the persecution of Christ’s followers.

Baldwin notes that some commentators interpret the line very differently, taking it as a ges-ture of protection for the helpless. But this seems contrary to the context. The phrase, “I will turn my hand against”, used of God, is found also at Isa 1.25.

13.8 In the whole land . . . If this is the right translation, it presumably means the land of Israel. The drastic reduction in population that v 8 goes on to prophesy will take place whilst the people of Israel are in their land, not whilst they are scattered among the nations. This, together with the out-come of tested faith in the Lord, suggest its fulfilment is at the end of the age, the time of Israel’s physical and spiritual restoration, which is the context of ch 12 to 14.

OR we could translate the Hebrew, “in all the earth” (see the notes on 12.12 and 13.2). But the context of Zech 12-14 is wholly to do with the land of Israel (or Judah), so “in the whole land” appears to be the right translation. If “in all the earth” is the right translation, then v 8 could be prophesying the reduction in the numbers of dispersed Jews throughout the world, or the reduction in the numbers of professed followers of Christ, or even the reduction in the population of the whole world (Jews and Gentiles, saints and unbelievers).

13.8 two-thirds will be struck down and perish; yet one-third will be left in it. This use of thirds is reminiscent of the Lord’s command to Ezekiel (5.2) to shave his head and divide the hair into thirds, symbolising the people of Jerusalem and how different thirds of them would suffer different punishments from the Lord (Ez 5.12). This was fulfilled in the Babylonian siege and capture of Jerusalem in the events culminating in 587 BC. But Zech 12-14 concerns the end of the age. The drastic reduction may belong to the period of great tribulation prophesied in Mt 24.15-22 and Mk 13.14-20. See also ESV’s translation of Dan 11.41, “tens of thousands shall fall”. Struck down is literally, “cut off”, the same verb as in 14.2 (“the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city”). As, “not be cut off from” is in contrast to being taken into exile, it is conceivable that “will be cut off” in 13.8 could include going into exile where those exiled perish. This might include those Jerusalemites forced into exile in 14.2.

referring to the Babylonian exile or the scattering following 70 AD.

13.8 yet one-third will be left in it. This is the concept that only a remnant of Israel will be saved. That theme runs through the prophetic parts of the OT. In Zechariah we have seen it at 8.6, 11ff in a prophecy describing Israel’s restoration. 8.6 & 11 had an initial fulfilment in Zechariah’s day, but its ultimate fulfilment awaits their restoration at the end of the age. (For a full discussion of the remnant concept, see the article in Annex 4, “Events of Israel’s restoration”.)

Rev 12.6 & 1ff prophesy that a portion of Israel will be saved and supernaturally protected “in the desert” during the last 3 1/2 years before Christ’s return. This may be those who heed Jesus’ command in Mt 24.16 (and Mk 13.14) to those in Judea to, “flee to the mountains” - parts of Judea combine both desert and mountain features.

13.9 This third I will bring into the fire; I will refine them . . Here the fire is to refine, rather than be the fire of judgment and punishment (the figure of refining is used that negative way in Ez 22.18-22 and Jer 6.27-30). It must belong to the same period as the reduction in their numbers, which is the end of the age, and the distress, suffering and tribulation that the Lord will bring on the people of Is-rael then (see Jer 30.7, 11; Dan 7.21, 25; 12.1, 7 and especially Dan 12.10, “many will be purified, made spotless and refined” 56; Mt 24.15-29. (For a detailed discussion and similar prophecies on re-fining with a fulfilment at the end of the age, see the article, “God uses the above to refine, purge away his people’s impurities”, in Annex 4). The success of this refining seems to be in contrast to the refining prophesied in Isa 48.10: there the refining does not appear to be carried on until the people are fully purified, and most likely is fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem and the Babylonian ex-ile in 587 BC.

For other scriptures on God refining his people that are not specific to the end of the age, see Ps 66.10; Jer 9.7 (both use the same two Hebrew words for “test” and “refine” as here). In the NT, see 1 P 1.7 (quoted below) and the words of John the Baptist about Christ: “he will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mt 3.11; Lk 3.17). The NT writers speak of believers being purified by God (Heb 1.3; Acts 15.9; Tit 2.14; 2 P 1.9; though in Jn 15.2 it is an ongoing process), but this is also seen as a process that the believer co-operates in (Jas 4.8; 1 Cor 5.6ff; 2 Tim 2.21; 1 P 1.22; 1 Jn 3.3; 2 Cor 6.6). See also 1 P 4.17, “For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God”, in the context indicating that the persecutions the believers were suffering (the “fiery trial” of 1 P 4.12) were judgment sent by God to purify his people.

13.9 refine them like silver: for the process, see Ps 12.6 (where the word of the Lord is compared to refined silver); Isa 1.22, 25; Jer 6.27-30; Ez 6.20ff. Refining in the OT was a traditional metaphor for the removal of impurities (see the above references and Pr 17.3). Silver and gold in a molten state give up any alloy or impurity, so the fire is used to obtain the purest metal; so the suffering it describes has a constructive purpose, as here (Baldwin).

13.9 and test them like gold. Job applied this process to himself (Jb 23.10). In the NT, see 1 P 1.7: “all kind of trials . . have come so that your faith - of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire - may be proved genuine . .”. There are other scriptures on God testing his people without the image of refining gold or silver being present: see e.g. Jb 7.18; Ps 139.23

13.9 They will call on my name. As in the Joel prophecy, “and everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Joel 2.32), quoted in Acts 2.21 and Rom 10.13, but in its context this is a prophecy about Israel at the end of the age. Zephaniah (3.9) foresaw the day when all the peoples, not just Israel, would call upon the name of the Lord.

56 The refining process also happened in the Maccabean age, as the faithful resisted, often at the cost of their lives, the attempts of Antioch Epiphanes to Hellenise the religion of the Jews. This is described prophetically in Dn 11.33ff. Baldwin refers to the views of those who see 12.10, along with the shepherd im-agery in 11.4-17 and 13.7ff, as inspired by the Maccabean leaders and their fate.

13.9 call on my name and I will answer him. The mark of a truly repentant people in a right rela-tionship with the Lord (see Isa 58.9). As prophesied by Isaiah (30.19) in the context of the day of Israel’s restoration - the end of the age. See also Isa 65.24. Zechariah earlier (10.6) had prophesied something similar of the house of Judah and the house of Joseph whom he would restore to their land and restore spiritually.

13.9 I will say. Lit. “I have said”.

13.9 They are my people . . The Lord is our God. As the result of the refining, they are in a proper covenant relationship with the Lord (see Ex 6.7; Lev 26.12). This whole future process of bringing the people of Israel, through purging, back into their land, into repentance and into the right rela-tionship with the Lord, is prophesied in much more length in Ez 20.32-44. See Zech 8.8 where, “they will be my people, and I will be . . their God”, is connected to the remnant prophecy, as here. See the similar prophecies of his people that the Lord will restore at Isa 51.16; Jer 24.7 ;30.22; 31.1, 33; 32.38; Ez 11.20; 14.11; 34.30; 36.28; 37.23, 27; Hos 1.10; 2.23. Hos 1.10 couples this restored relationship with a statement of the immense size of the restored people’s population, presumably referring to its growth in the time that follows the refining at the end of this age.

This covenant declaration is also used of the covenant relationship Christian believers have with the Lord: see 2 Cor 6.16; Heb 8.10, and at Rev 21.3 of the inheritance of the overcoming saint in the new Jerusalem in the new heavens and earth.

13.9 He will say, “The Lord is my God” (literal translation). See the confession in Isa 44.5 in the time of Israel’s restoration. In Zechariah that state of spiritual restoration is described in 8.20ff; 14.16-22.

Zech 14.1-15: summary. $14This prophecy opens with a description of Jerusalem being captured and plundered by the nations’ armies (vv 1f); but then the Lord comes in person and fights against those nations, standing on the Mt of Olives - the fulfilment of Christ’s promise that he would return. There are abrupt changes to the topography of Jerusalem: a great valley opens through the Mt of Olives that enables the inhabi-tants of Jerusalem to escape, and further changes result in the hill country around Jerusalem sinking to form a plain but Jerusalem itself to be raised up above the surrounding land. Christ’s return will be accompanied by changes to the day and night (cosmic disturbances?) and the flowing of living water from Jerusalem into the Mediterranean and into the Dead Sea. The Lord will now reign as King over the entire earth, and worship of him will be the only worship. The armies that are gath-ered against Jerusalem will be destroyed by a devastating plague.

It is unclear whether this gathering by the nations against Jerusalem is the same gathering as in 12.1-9 and in other OT prophecies about the nations gathering against Jerusalem at the close of the age and being destroyed by the Lord. But since the Lord’s personal return is described in 14.3ff, this must be the final deliverance of Jerusalem at the end of this age. (See the “Introduction to Zech 12 & 14” before the notes start on Zech ch 12 for a full discussion on the relationship be-tween the prophesied events in ch 12 & 14 and their “fit” in terms of fulfilment with other prophe-cies about Jerusalem and Israel at the end of the age and Christ’s return.)

14.1 A day of the Lord is coming. Lit. “a day is coming for the Lord” (ESV). Picked up by, “on that day” in v 4 and later in ch 14. See the note on 12.3. Baldwin points out that this is not the usual formula for “the day of the Lord”, but the phrase puts emphasis on the Lord rather than on his coming. Initially it will be a day of disaster (see vv 1f) - as is the day of the Lord in Joel 1.15; Am 5,18ff - but deliverance will follow. The “day” in v 1 is clearly longer than 24 hours, as vv 1-5 fall within it.

14.1 your . . you: feminine singular, probably meaning Jerusalem (see v 2).

14.1 your plunder: the verse does not make it clear whether this is plunder gathered by the fighters of Israel and taken into Jerusalem to be divided (which would be similar to v 14), or whether it is the spoils from plundering Jerusalem that the enemy are dividing up amongst themselves. V 2 sug-gests it is the latter, so ESV renders, “the spoil taken from you”.

14.1 among you: lit. “in your midst”.

14.2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it: compare the similar statements at:12.3: “all the nations of the earth will be gathered against her”;12.9: “all the nations that attack Jerusalem”;14.12: “all the peoples that wage war against Jerusalem” (lit. translation, ESV);14.16: “all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem” (same Hebrew phrase as 12.9).

Do these all refer to the same attack against Jerusalem? There may be more than one such gather-ing, as the capture and plundering of Jerusalem (14.1f) appears to happen an unspecified interval of time before the Lord comes in person and delivers it. See the Introduction to 12.1-9 and also the next note.

See the note at 12.3 which assembles all the Biblical prophecies about enemy attacks on Jerusalem that appear to have a fulfilment at the end of the age.

14.2 the city will be captured . . .: does this mean that the gathering to Jerusalem and its capture prophesied at 14.1f comes earlier than the gathering and battle in 12.2-9; 14.3-5 and 14.12-16, where the outcome is clearly victory for Jerusalem? It contrasts with 12.8, “the Lord will shield . . “ (see the note there). However, v 2 sits within v 1, “a day of the Lord is coming”, and v 3, “Then the

Lord will go out and fight . .”: this might suggest there can only be a short interval between the city’s capture and the Lord coming in person to Jerusalem (vv 3, 5) and delivering it.

For other prophecies that relate to the end of the age and predict the capture and ransacking of Jerusalem, see the Introduction to Zech 12 and 14. Dan 12.7 looks particularly appropriate: “When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be accomplished”. If so, this places the fulfilment of vv 1f towards the end of the last 3 1/2 years of the age 57.

It is reminiscent of the Babylonian capture, plundering and sack of Jerusalem (completed by 587 BC), including the fact that the carrying of its people into exile happened in stages. Does this similarity suggest that this future capture of Jerusalem will be the consequence of the unfaithfulness to the Lord of most of its inhabitants, as was the case with the Babylonian capture? Is it part of the Lord’s refining prophesied in Zech 13.9? For Israel including Jerusalem’s unfaithfulness to the Lord and lack of faith in Jesus their Messiah in the last days of the age, until the Lord changes this, consider the implications of 12.10-13.6. See also Dan 8.12, 23 58 (“rebellion”, “rebels”); God’s wrath against Israel, Dan 8.19; 11.36; Dan 9.27 (“he will confirm a covenant with many [OR “with leaders”] for one ‘seven’”), particularly if that covenant is that of Isa 28.15, 18. See also Rom 11.25ff. However, 12.5 suggests that many of those in Jerusalem were believed to have faith in the Lord which gave them strength to withstand the siege and enemy attack.

Baldwin sees this as an example of God’s order of events in which judgment first falls on his people before it falls on the nations (see Jer 25.29; Ez 9.6; 1 P 4.17).

14.2 the houses ransacked, and the women raped. As happened when Jerusalem fell to the Babylo-nians, 587 BC (see the prophecy of Jer 6.12; also Lam 5.11). The Hebrew is similar to Isa 13.16 (a prophecy against Babylon).

14.2 will go into exile. Is this the same future event as described in Lk 21.24, “they will be taken as prisoners to all the nations” - assuming that there is a further, end-of-the-age fulfilment of elements of Lk 21.20-24? It is conceivable that this is the scattering among the nations prophesied in Joel 3.2f.

14.2 be taken. Lit. “be cut off” (ESV). Does this imply armed resistance, though that seems at odds with earlier in the verse - “the city will be captured” - or simply that half the population will be left there? The verb occurs also at 13.8 - see the note there. If there was further resistance, it explains why the international armies that had captured the city were still there when the Lord returned in person (vv 3ff) and struck them with plague (vv 12-15) - but see the discussion in the introduction to ch 12 - 14 for the possibility that there was yet another siege after the events of 14.2.

14.3f the Lord will go out and fight against those nations . . : The Hebrew verb and preposition is found also at v 14, “Judah will fight at Jerusalem”. See the note at v 14 for the possibility that this means that Judah will fight against Jerusalem. Or perhaps v 3 should be translated as, “the Lord will fight in those nations”, i.e. among them and fighting against Israel 59. But this seems contrary to the overall sense of ch 14, especially in view of the divine-sent plague at vv 12-15.

For the possibility that the nations against which the Lord fights in 14.3 and vv 12-15 are a besieging force later than the one that captured and plundered Jerusalem in 14.1f, see the discussion at the start of the notes on ch 12.

57 For the various descriptions of this 3 1/2 years, its origin and how to interpret it, see the notes on Dan 9.24-27 earlier in this Annex; also the note at Rev 11.1-2.58 Whilst the main part of Daniel 8 is fulfilled in the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, 168-164 BC, the prophecy relates to the end of the age, according to 8.17 & 19, so must have a further fulfilment then.59 Baldwin, in discussing the options for understanding this verse, points out that “fight in/among” was the way the early Church Fathers, Cyril, Theodoret and Eusebius, understood v 3, but the Church Fathers in general had a strong bias against Israel as the people who had killed their Messiah and this may have af-fected their understanding.

the Lord’s weapons are described in vv 12-15. The language here seems to describe the Lord coming in person, as does v 5. This therefore must be fulfilled by Christ’s second coming. The Lord acting to defend Jerusalem is also described at 12.2-9, though not in so personal a way. For other occasions in Israel’s history when the Lord went into battle to deliver his people, see:• Ex 14.14, “the Lord will fight for you”, parting the Red Sea so his people could cross and es-

cape the Egyptians. See also v 25; Ex 15.3; Dt 1.30• the conquest of the cities of Canaan, Dt 1.30; Jos 23.3, 10• The defeat of Og king of Bashan and Sihon king of Heshbon, Dt 3.22• Whenever the people of Israel go out to fight against powerful enemies, Dt 20.4• The defeat of the Amorite armies near Gibeon, when the Lord lengthened the day, Jos 10.14• The defeat of the Philistines by David in the valley of Rephaim, 2 Sm 5.24;• The defeat by Jehoshaphat of the Ammonites, Moabites, Meunites and Edomites, 2 Chr 20.29• In defence of those rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem, Neh 4.20• Zech 9.14ff - see the note on 12.8 above.See also the descriptions of the Lord as a warrior in Ps 24.8; 35.1; Isa 42.13, and the poem at Habakkuk 3 (which appears to be celebrating all God’s victories for Israel as well as being a prophecy of a future intervention). Baldwin observes that, as he fights in the day of battle, suggest that Zechariah is using apocalyptic picture language in ch 14, so presumably every detail should not be taken literally; but she accepts that Acts 1.11 suggests there will be a literal fulfilment of Zech 14.4 in Jesus’ return.

14.4 On that day. A common phrase in Zech 12-14: see the note at 12.3 for its meaning.

14.4 his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives. The Mt of Olives was a ridge just over a mile long (Baldwin has two and a half miles long), running NNW to SSE, separated from Jerusalem by the deep Kidron Valley and to the east of the city. It reaches a height of about 2,700 feet, some 200 feet higher than the temple mount, Mount Zion, and there is a magnificent view of the city and the tem-ple from its summit.

Ezekiel (11.22f) saw the glory of the Lord lift up and depart from Jerusalem, halting above the Mt of Olives, when he abandoned his temple and the faithless city to the Babylonians. He would return to his temple amidst his restored people from the east, though the prophecy does not specify the Mt of Olives (Ez 43.1-5).

Compare Mt 21.1; Mk 11.1; Lk 19.28f, 37, where Jesus on his entry from the Mt of Olives into Jerusalem (celebrated by the Church on Palm Sunday) offered himself as their king in fulfil-ment of OT prophecy (especially Zech 9.9, quoted at Mt 21.4f). The Lord at his second coming will also return via the Mt of Olives, which was the site from which he ascended into heaven (Acts 1.9-12, and see the angel’s words that the Lord, “will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven”). This suggests that at Zech 14.3ff we have more than the language of OT im-agery describing God’s intervention to save his people, but a prophetic description of Christ’s actual return to earth at his second coming. See the note below on 14.5 (“the Lord will come”).

Baldwin suggests that the Lord descends not on Mt Zion, because it was occupied by the en-emy.

14.4 and the Mt of Olives will be split in two. See the poetic description in Mic 1.3f of the Lord coming down on the earth in judgment. But here this seems to be an actual prophetic description of what will take place.

14.4 from east to west, forming a great valley. Lit. “ . . a very great valley”. It is not clear whether this describes its depth or its width (ESV, “a very wide valley”). See Zech 14.10 (and the note) for the further topographical changes affecting Jerusalem and the surrounding area. It is not clear whether those will take place at the same time as the Lord splits the Mt of Olives here.

It is possible that this east-west valley is the route that the living water will take as it flows from Jerusalem into the Mediterranean (westward) and into the Dead Sea (eastward), according to v 8 (see the note there). That would require the new valley to run westerly past the temple mount, perhaps to the north of it.

14.5. ESV translates literally, “And you shall flee (to) the valley of my mountains, for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azal. And you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake . .”. The first “to” is not in the Hebrew text, so I have bracketed it.

14.5 you will flee. The Hebrew verb occurs three times in the one verse. Baldwin: whilst the Jew-ish scribes that added the pointing in the Massoretic Text (the traditionally accepted text of the OT) that indicates how it should be pronounced, were clear that “flee” was the way to understand all three occurrences, it is possible to understand the consonantal text to mean, “shall be stopped”. The LXX translators understood all three occurrences thus, and NIV gives this translation as an alterna-tive in its text note. However, the Aramaic version has only the first occurrence as, “shall be stopped”. Baldwin prefers to follow the Aramaic and supports RSV’s translation, “And the valley of my mountains shall be stopped up”. See the note below, “you will flee by . .”

14.5 it will extend to Azel. Presumably the name of a place east of Jerusalem, which will be at the eastern end of the newly formed valley. Its location is unknown. The name does not appear to have any symbolic meaning 60. RSV understood the Hebrew word not to be a place name but to mean, “side”. This requires a change in pointing to the Hebrew consonantal text. Some propose a slight amending to the Hebrew text so that it reads, “its side”. ‘Etsel’ is a fairly common preposition meaning “by”, “beside”. It probably originated as a noun meaning “side” (see its use in 1 K 3.20, “from my side”), but I could find no occasion when it is used without a pronoun suffix or a noun following it; i.e. it always functions as a preposition. RSV’s “ . . shall touch the side of it” requires the word to function as a noun, with or without a pronominal suffix.

14.5 You will flee by my mountain valley. Instead of “by”, ESV has “to”. Either is an unusual He-brew phrase, in that the Hebrew lacks a preposition or prepositional phrase following the verb. There is no precedent for “by” being understood following this Hebrew verb, but there is some precedent for “to” being understood 61.

The newly formed valley provides a way of escape for Jerusalem’s inhabitants left in the city (v 2). Baldwin points out that deep Kidron valley and the steep incline from it up the Mt of Olives render that unsuitable for escapees from Jerusalem; but this valley will change all that. Some have suggested that the valley will be extremely deep and narrow so that it provides shelter from the plague that the Lord will unleash against the armies fighting against Jerusalem (vv 12-15). Duguid suggests that the valley will provide an access road for the Lord, the divine warrior, to re-turn to his city.

Baldwin, translating (as RSV), “And the valley of my mountains shall be stopped up, for the valley of the mountains shall touch the side of it”, holds that “my mountains” are Mt Zion and the Mt of Olives, the valley “stopped up” is the Kidron Valley, and “the valley of the mountains” are the mountains formed by the new valley through the Mt of Olives. Under this interpretation, the mountains newly formed “touch the side of” the Kidron valley, so blocking it. This, however, would require a movement of the two halves of the Mt of Olives westward as well as north and southward, a detail not in the Hebrew text. The outcome is the same as in NIV and ESV’s transla-tion: an escape route to the east from Jerusalem is opened up.

60 The Hebrew root, ’atsal’, occurs as a verb meaning, “hold back, withhold”. There are Hebrew nouns and a preposition from the same root, though their meanings are not directly related to the verb’s.61 The Hebrew verb ‘nus’ is followed by, “the desert” in Josh 8.20 (“fleeing towards the desert”, NIV: “fled to the wilderness”, ESV), Jerusalem in 1 K 12.18 = 2 Chr 10.18, and “Megiddo” in 2 K 9.27 where “motion to” is clearly the sense in each occurrence.

14.5 as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. That earthquake is men-tioned in Am 1.1.

14.5 the Lord . . will come. Summarises vv 3f. See the promise in 2.10, “For I am coming and I will live among you”. See also 9.9, “Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion . . . See, your king comes to you . .” .

The Lord coming is a frequent Hebrew expression to describe the Lord’s intervention in his-tory: first, at the building of the tower of Babel (Gen 11.5ff), then to deliver his people from Egypt (Ex 3.8), onto Mt Sinai to deliver the law and make the covenant (Ex 19.11, 20), to defend his anointed king (Ps 18.9; 144.5), to defend Jerusalem (Isa 31.4; 29.6), against his people’s enemies (Isa 64.1ff; 42.13; Hab 3.1, 12f), or to judge or rule the earth (Ps 96.13; 98.9) or in judgment against his people (Mic 1.3; Ps 50.3) or against the whole earth (Isa 26.21; 66.15f), or to punish the ungodly (Jude 14). But the NT makes it clear that at the end of the age the Lord will intervene and bring the age to a close by Christ returning to the earth in person (Acts 1.11). This seems to be what is proph-esied in Zech 14.3ff. According to the NT, Christ’s return will have a range of purposes, which in-clude destroying his and his people’s enemies. See the Introduction to Zech 12 and 14 for the other OT and NT prophecies of the battles that Christ will wage on his return.

14.5 and all the holy ones with him. Alluded to at 1 Th 3.13 (“when our Lord Jesus comes with all his holy ones”) and Jude 14 (quoting a prophecy by Enoch: “See, the Lord is coming with thou-sands upon thousands of his holy ones . .”). Presumably these are angels 62, as is the case in the de-scriptions of Christ’s coming in Mt 16.27; 25.31; 2 Th 1.7. But it is possible that they refer to the resurrected saints who will return with Christ - see 1 Th 4.14 (“through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep”). There is the same ambiguity at Rev 19.14 as to the meaning of “the armies of heaven” that will follow Christ on his return from heaven. Duguid suggests that the holy ones might refer to the exiles who return under the Lord’s protection.

14.5 with him. The accepted Hebrew text has, “with you” (masculine singular). Baldwin points out the OT Prophets frequently have unexpected changes from the 3rd person (“he”) to the 2nd person (“you”) of a verb, when speaking of the Lord. The prophet sees vividly what is going to happen and turns his description into a prayer for its fulfilment.

14.6 there will be no light, no cold or frost. Based on a slight amending of the Hebrew consonantal text - apparently the reading of the LXX, Syriac, Vulgate and the Targum. If we seek to keep the received Hebrew text (the MT, Massoretic Text) a literal translation would be:

“there shall not be light; the splendid (ones) shall congeal”.ASV, following the MT, has:

“there shall not be light; the bright ones shall withdraw themselves”,ASV gives an alternative translation:

“the light shall not be bright nor dark”.“The splendid ones” is an adjective (‘yaqar’) in feminine plural form. The adjective normally means, “precious”, particularly as in precious stones. It is used once to describe the moon (at Jb 31.26, “in splendour”). It might here mean the stars, or possibly all the heavenly bodies including sun and moon. The verb - “to congeal” or “be congealed” is its root meaning - might therefore here mean to contract their light, though the verb elsewhere is nowhere used with anything like this meaning 63.

62 See also the “holy ones” in Dt 33.2; Ps 89.5, 7; Dan 4.13-17; 8.1363 Apart from Zech 14.6, the verb ‘qapa’ is found in three places in the OT: Ex 15.8, “the deeps congealed in the heart of the sea” (poetic description of the Lord parting the Red Sea); Job 10.10, “did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese?” (a poetic description of God creating a man); Zeph 1.12, “I will pun-ish the men who are thickening on the dregs of their wine” (i.e. who are complacent). The translation of the verb is in italics.

Apart from the difficulties in translating, there is a clue that the MT might not be the original text in that the verb assumes a masculine plural subject, yet “the splendid (ones)” is a feminine plu-ral form. This is not a decisive argument as Hebrew poetry can be flexible in terms of correspond-ing gender between a verb’s subject and the verb’s form. Also, the The Massoretic scribes them-selves gave an alternative in the margin to, “shall congeal”, which they considered the preferred text.

If we now consider amendments to the MT, It appears from the LXX, Syriac, Vulgate and the Targum that they had a Hebrew consonantal text with two slight amendments to that preserved in the MT. The second amendment is the one indicated by the Massoretic scribes. A literal transla-tion of the twice-amended text is:

“there shall not be light and cold and congealment”.The last word is translated “frost” by the LXX, and is generally followed by modern translators. NIV:

“there will be no light, no cold or frost” 64

There are, however, difficulties with both these amended words. “Cold” (‘qaruth’) is not found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, though it is a logical form from the root ‘qarar’, meaning “cold”. The noun translated “frost” likewise is not found anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible, though we can see how it might arise from the verbal root, “congeal / be congealed”. Also, there is no other prophecy in the Bible that describes such a feature at the end of the age.

If we take the unamended text, Zechariah appears to be describing cosmic disturbances that bring darkness, which is probably the meaning of v 7. VV 6f may be same cosmic disturbances as in Mt 24.29 (& Mk 13.24f; Lk 21.25f), just before Jesus returns 65. Alternatively, Zechariah may be looking forward to the new heavens and earth and the New Jerusalem, lit with the glory of God. See the references below (14.7, “without daytime or night-time . .”). But v 7 appears to describe one day, rather than a new continual state, so I prefer to interpret vv 6f as describing the cosmic distur-bances on Christ’s return.

14.7 It will be a unique day. Lit., “it will be one day”. The day will be unique because of the cos-mic and topographical changes and the Lord’s return. Duguid suggests that it is a return to the very start of creation, Day One, (Gen 1.1-5), when light had not yet been separated from darkness, until God said, “Let there be light”.

14.7 without daytime or night-time . . when evening comes there will be light. Duguid (see note above) thinks it is a comparison to the first day of creation, and that the sentence means that instead of alternating light and darkness, permanent light will prevail.

Zechariah may be looking forward to the new heavens and earth and the New Jerusalem, lit with the glory of God. See Rev 21.23, “The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives in light” (and also 22.5). Also Rev 21.25, “there will be no night there”. See also the longer prophecy in Isa 60.19f describing the glory of the future Zion; also Isa 24.23. In Isa 30.26 we have a rather different vision of that time, in which “the moon will shine like the sun and the sunlight will be seven times brighter” 66. The fact that Rev 22.1ff goes on to describe the

64 The revised NIV has: “there will be neither sunlight nor cold, frosty darkness”.65 Cosmic disturbances bringing darkness are one of the features that accompany the Lord’s interventions in history (the “day of the Lord”). See Isa 13.10; 34.4; Jer 4.23, 28; Ez 32.7f; Joel 2.10, 31; 3.15; Am 5.20; 8.9; Rev 6.12f; 8.12. They do not all relate to the same future incident at the end of the age. In some in-stances they appear to be language of poetry, so we should not understand them literally; but that is not to say that all should be interpreted in this way. 66 Rev 21.23-25 and 22.5 describe what is often termed, the Eternal State. In the order of end-time events in Rev 20 & 21, following Christ’s return there is a reign of the saints with him for 1,000 years, then the final judgment of the dead, and then the new heavens and earth and heaven meeting earth in the new Jerusalem, which will go on for ever (the Eternal State). It is possible in the 1,000 year reign that there were changes to the natural light on Jerusalem and perhaps more widely and a radiance from the glory of Christ reigning on the earth. and that Isa 24.23 and 30.26 describe this era, as may 60.19f (unless Isaiah was given a vision of the Eternal State and the new Jerusalem there). It seems that there are features of life in the 1,000 year

river of the water of life flowing from the throne of God - compare Zech 14.8 - may suggest that both prophets are looking forward to the same future state. But in Zech 14 the prophet is talking about a particular day - the day on which the Lord comes.

Baldwin, however, interprets the day (“that day”, v 6, “one day”, v 7) as one continuous day going on indefinitely in which time will no longer be measured in days, for night will never fall. The light of that day will not be dependant on the sun, moon and stars. She sees v 6, “there shall be no light”, as meaning there will be no sunlight. She interprets Isa 60.19f and Rev 21.25 and 22.5 as prophesying the same thing.

14.7 a day known to the Lord. See Mt 24.36, “concerning that day and hour . .”.

14.8 living water. Perhaps implying something life-giving in the spiritual sense, as in Jesus’ use of the phrase in Jn 4.10 and 7.38. See also “the water of life” in Rev 21.6; 22.17. The prophecy in Zech 14.8 has a final fulfilment in the new heavens and earth in “the river of the water of life . . flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb”, Rev 22.1. However, there may also be a physi-cal river - “living water” is Hebrew idiom for fresh water. See the next note.

Duguid observes that such a life-giving river was a common feature in the Bible in describ-ing sanctuaries: see the garden of Eden (Gen 2.10) as well as the references earlier in this note and in the following note.

14.8 . . to the eastern sea and . . to the western sea. The same phrase occurs at Joel 2.20. In both places the first is the Dead Sea and the second the Mediterranean. It is possible that the living water in Zech 14.8 follows the new east-west valley. This may be the river that Ezekiel saw (47.1-12) flowing from the Jerusalem temple eastward into the Dead Sea. Its origin may be the fountain opened in Zech 13.1. See also Ps 46.4, “the river whose streams make glad the city of God”. It is possible that Ps 46 celebrates prophetically the deliverance that is prophesied in Zech 14 and that the river is the one that will be created as in Zech 14, rather than being a feature of Jerusalem prior to its divine deliverance. The Jerusalem of Biblical times, as today, has no natural river. Of course, the Ps 46.4 river has a spiritual meaning too, as does the “river of God” in Ps 65.9 where it symbol-ises God’s continual flow of blessings and perhaps of rainwater throughout the land.

The other prophecy relating to Israel’s restoration that may describe this river of Zech 14.8 is Joel 3.18, “A fountain will flow out of the Lord’s house and will water the vale of Shittim" (NIV has, “acacias”, which is what the Hebrew word means). Shittim was on the E side of the Jordan, a little north of where it flows into the Dead Sea.

There will be streams of water on every mountain and hill in the restored Israel, according to Isa 30.25; see also 41.18 where they will be in the valleys and desert places too.

14.8 will flow . . in summer and in winter. An unusual feature, and a real blessing, in a land where so many streams were dry in the summer but flowed in torrents in the rainy season, winter. Bald-win observes that Jerusalem was always short of an adequate water supply. The spring Gihon, which “flowed gently” to become the Siloam brook (Isa 8.6), was never really adequate. But now Jerusalem will have an abundant and reliable water supply.

14.9 The Lord will be king over the whole earth. I.e. a worldwide earthly reign of the Lord himself (Duguid 67). See also v 16. This looks forward to the consummation of the Kingdom of God on Christ’s return, as celebrated in Rev 11.15, 17; 12.10; 19.6 and in many of the Psalms (see 47.7f; and Psalms 96-99). It fulfils the prophecies in Dan 2.44f; 7.13f, 27; Isa 45.23f; Ob 21; Mic 4.7.

reign that will continue but in even more glorious form in the Eternal State. The river of “living water” is one such feature. As the OT Prophets were not shown this distinction between a 1,000 year reign of the Lord on earth and the Eternal State, on occasion we are unsure in what period their prophecies will be fulfilled. Zech 14 appears to describe the Lord’s return and the start of his 1,000 year reign. 67 Duguid points out that this far exceeds the simple idea of a Messiah who will give Israel deliverance from oppression and bring the people God’s presence and blessing.

That the Lord had always been the Great King ruling over all the earth had always been part of Is-rael’s faith (as Psalms 96-99 celebrate); but they also knew that the day would come when all would come, willingly or otherwise, to acknowledge his rule 68.

The flow of John’s visions in Rev 19.11 to 21.1 (there is a repeated, “and I saw . .”) suggest that Christ’s return will be followed by a 1,000 year millennial kingdom in which he reigns on earth with his resurrected saints, then the final judgment, and then the new heaven and new earth (Rev 21.1-22.5). Zech 14.9 and 16-21 would therefore describe that millennial kingdom. Others, how-ever, think that the 14.9 statement will be fulfilled in the new heaven and earth.

14.9 there will be one Lord, and his name the only name. OR (as ESV) “the Lord will be one and his name one”. Echoes Dt 6.4 69, “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.”, a vital part of God’s covenant with his people Israel living in lands and among cultures where many gods and idols were worshipped. God’s name Yahweh 70 (Ex 3.13-17) expressed all that he had been and ever would be (Baldwin). Zechariah had earlier (13.2) prophesied that, “on that day I will banish the names of the idols from the land and they will be remembered no more”.

This has particular relevance for the end of the age, when there will be state-enforced idola-try (see the note on 13.2). There will be a ruler who will “exalt and magnify himself above every god” (Dan 11.36f) and who will “exalt himself over everything that is called God or worshipped, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God” (2 Th 2.4; see also Mk 13.14). This may be the same end-time individual as the first beast of Rev 13, whom all the earth’s inhabitants will worship. This ruler will be destroyed by Christ as he returns (Rev 19.20).

At this time we will see fulfilled Hab 2.14, “the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea”, and also Isa 11.9. Duguid points out that just as there was one day (v 7), so there will be one Lord, one name. The Lord becomes the sole object of worship (vv 16-19; see also 8.20-23).

14.10 The whole land, from Geba to Rimmon, south of Jerusalem. Geba was about 6 miles NNE of Jerusalem, at the northern boundary of Judah (it featured in the description of the extent of the land in 2 K 23.8 71). Rimmon, also called En Rimmon (Neh 11.29) was about 35 miles SSW of Jerusalem, where the hill country of Judah declined towards the Negev (see Jos 15.32 72). This would be near the southern boundary of Judah in Zechariah’ day (see the note at 12.2).

14.10 will become like the Arabah. The Arabah (the Hebrew word means, “plain, open country” or “arid region, desert”) was the name given to the low valley of the Jordan, from the Sea of Galilee to the southern end of the Dead Sea. ESV has, “shall be turned into a plain”. All the hill country of Ju-dah would be levelled apart from Jerusalem itself, which would become amazingly prominent. Baldwin points out the contrast with the current geography of the area in which the mountains that are round about Jerusalem hide and protect it (see Ps 125.2).

68 Baldwin comments that prophesies like Zech 14.9 explain the impact of Jesus’ preaching, “the time is ful-filled and the kingdom of God is at hand” (Mk 1.15).69 Quoted by Jesus in Mk 12.29; see also 1 Cor 8.4; Eph 4.6; Jas 2.1970 “Yahweh” seeks to express the four Hebrew letters that make up the divine name and that the Jews would never pronounce. The scribes who devised the pointing that indicated how the Hebrew text should be pronounced put the pointing for the Hebrew ‘Adonai’ under the four letters, which led the early English trans-lators to render the word, Jehovah. But later English translations (including RSV, NIV, ESV) used ‘the LORD” to translate “Yahweh”. It is notable that in Zech 14.6-9 we find these four Hebrew letters with slight variations 12 times, in the Hebrew words, “will be” and, “And there will be”, as well as in “Yahweh”. This word-similarity is explained in Ex 3.14. Here in Zechariah it appears to be a word-play to give emphasis to the divine name.71 See also 1 K 15.2272 Mentioned also in Jos 19.7. It is identified with Zhirbet Umm et-Ramamim (Baldwin). The rock of Rimmon in Jdg 20.45; 21.13, may be in a different location.

14.10 but Jerusalem will be raised up. See Isa 2.2ff (= Mic 4.1ff) where, “the mountain of the Lord’s temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills . .”. See also Ez 40.2 where Jerusalem and the temple are situated on a “very high mountain”. The con-text in Zech 14 shows that Zechariah foresaw a physical elevation of Jerusalem as well as a spiritual one (which features in vv 16-19; see “will go up” in v 16). Other possible references are at Ez 17.22f; 40.2; Jer 31.12.And possibly Ez 17.22f; 20.40; 40.2; Jer 31.12. See also Dn 2.35.

14.10 and remain in its place. The phrase occurred at 12.6 - see the note there on alternative ways of translating it. In 14.10 we might render the phrase, “Jerusalem will . . be inhabited in its place”, in line with the verb’s meaning in v 11 where it recurs twice (“will be inhabited”, and in the phrase, “will be secure”, where it has the sense of “remain”).

14.10 from the Benjamin Gate . . Rather strangely, the only feature here that appears in Ne-hemiah’s description of the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls is the Tower of Hananel (Neh 3.1 73). The Benjamin Gate (mentioned in Jer 37.12f; 38.7), the First Gate and the Tower of Hananel were all probably the NE part of the city wall - Baldwin thinks the Tower of Hananel was its most northerly point. The Corner Gate 74 was at the NW corner, considerably further west than the west-ern wall of the city built by Nehemiah, and the royal winepresses were just south of the city 75. So, the whole city as inhabited before the exile to Babylon was included (the city as walled by Ne-hemiah and inhabited after the Exile excluded the large western part).

This appears to fulfil the prophecy in Jer 31.38, in the context of Israel’s restoration, when “this city will be rebuilt for me from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate”. Baldwin observes that the naming of landmarks on the east, west, north and south walls emphasises that the whole city is included.

14.10. Include ref to Isa 40.4.

14.10: will become. Lit. “shall be turned into” (ESV).

14.10 like the Arabah. i.e. it will become a plain (ESV).

14.10 Jerusalem will . . remain in its place. An alternative translation is, “Jerusalem will . . be in-habited in its place”. We see the same Hebrew verb in v 11 (“it will be inhabited”, lit. “they will dwell in it”). There is a similar phrase at 12.6 (see note).

14.11 It will be inhabited . . . Zechariah had earlier (13.8) prophesied that, “in the whole land two-thirds will be struck down and perish”. But 14.11 appears to look forward to the same future time as 2.4 where Zechariah is told by an angel that, “Jerusalem will be a city without walls because of the great number of men and livestock in it”; see also 8.5f. These prophecies of a numerous popula-tion would be a complete contrast to the ruined and depopulated state of Jerusalem at the time when the vision was received by Zechariah. They will also seem incredible to the remnant of the people of Israel at the close of the age, according to 8.6.

The visions recorded in Zech 1.7-6.8 were received in 519 BC; the prophesies in ch 7 & 8 in 518 BC. No date is given us for the prophecies in ch 9-14 - we assume they were received and recorded later, but how much later is unclear. If Zechariah was the “young man” in 2.4, then he may have lived to see the rebuilding and repopulation of the city under Nehemiah, so it is conceiv-able that Zech 12-14 could be dated as late as this. At the time when Nehemiah came to Jerusalem

73 also in Neh 12.3974 see also 2 K 14.13; 2 Chr 25.23; 26.975 near the King’s Pool (Neh 2.14) and the King’s Garden (Neh 3.15), according to Baldwin.

and got the Jews to rebuild its walls in 445 BC there were few people living in it, and Nehemiah took steps to get more people to live in the city (Neh 7.4f; 11.1-4).

14.11 never again will it be destroyed. ESV is more literal: “There shall never again be a decree of utter destruction”. The word, ‘cherem’, which means, “to place under an edict of total destruction”, was used of the Lord’s decreed destruction of the Canaanite nations in the time of Joshua and the conquest of Canaan - see e.g. Deut 13.15ff; 20.16ff; Jos 6.17 (of Jericho). In Isaiah the word is found also in 43.28, where the Lord “will consign Jacob to destruction and Israel to scorn”. This probably was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 BC because of the people’s persistent idolatry, worshipping the same gods as the Canaanites. It is that destruction that Zechariah is probably referring to here.

Alternatively, it is possible that Zechariah is comparing with a destruction of Jerusalem that was still future to his time. Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD, probably fulfilling the prophecy at Dan 9.26 (“the people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanc-tuary”) as well as predictions by Jesus (e.g. Mt 23.37f; 24.2). Or it may be a destruction of Jerusalem in the events at the end of the age, before the city is delivered by the Lord - see Zech 14.2, “the city will be captured . .”, and 13.8f where only one-third of the people survive and these will suffer the Lord’s refining. Prophecies whose fulfilment seems to belong to this period certainly speak of desolation and distress/tribulation for Jerusalem and its inhabitants (see Annex 4, “Events of Israel’s Restoration), but not its utter destruction as in 587 BC.

There is a similar promise regarding Jerusalem at Jer 31.40 - a passage probably drawn on by Zechariah in the description of Jerusalem in v 10 (“from the Benjamin Gate . .”) - that it will “never again be uprooted or demolished”. As with Zechariah, Jeremiah in this passage is looking forward to the end of the age. See also Mal 4.6 where the Lord promises to send Elijah before the dreadful day of the Lord: “He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of he children to their fathers, or else I will come and strike the land with a curse”. “Curse” is ‘cherem’, as in Zech 14.11.

The LXX renders this phrase in Zech 14.11, “there shall be no more any curse” 76, and it is this expression that finds a final fulfilment in Rev 22.3 in the holy city of the new Jerusalem in which will be the throne of God and of the Lamb.

14.11 Jerusalem will be secure. Something that was not true of Jerusalem during most of Zechariah’s lifetime, when Jerusalem had no walls, but was prophesied in ch 2 & 8. Baldwin cites 2.5, “I myself will be a wall of fire around it, declares the Lord, and I will be its glory within”. There may have been earlier attempts to rebuild Jerusalem before Nehemiah’s arrival and his repair of the city’s walls in 445 BC. This is implied by Ezra 4.6-24 and the “accusation” (unspecified) against the people of Judah and Jerusalem lodged with the Persian king Xerxes (486-465 BC) and the letter sent to his successor, Artaxerxes (some time between 465 BC and Nehemiah’s interven-tion in 446 BC).

“Secure” is a Hebrew noun that also means, “trust”, “confidence”. The related verb means, “to cling to”, “to rely upon”, “trust in”. This conveys that Jerusalem’s security will be based in trust in her God.

There are many OT prophecies about the future blessing, prosperity and security of Jerusalem (Zion) 77. These were not fulfilled in any full sense in the Jerusalem that was rebuilt after the Exile to Babylon, reviewing its troubled history right down to 70 AD when it was destroyed by the Romans. Either we reinterpret them as being fulfilled in a spiritual Jerusalem that is the Church, or a heavenly Jerusalem (see Gal 4.26; Heb 12.22f; the new Jerusalem of Rev 21), or we

76 και αναθεμα ουκ εσται ετι77 on Jerusalem’s future security, see Ps 48.8; Jer 32.37; 33.16. For the security of the whole people of Is-rael, in the time of their spiritual and physical restoration, see Isa 32.18; Jer 23.6; 30.10; Ez 28.26; 34.25-28; 39.26; Hos 2.18. Such security was one of the blessings for keeping God’s covenant, Lev 25.18; 26.5; Dt 33.28; Jer 17.25. It was also promised to the individual who kept the covenant, Pr 1.33; Ps 37.27

hold that God still has a future for his people Israel and his holy city Jerusalem, and the prophecies of its restoration (physical and spiritual) await fulfilment on Christ’s return when he comes to reign on the earth (see Zech 14.9). I hold this second position.

This security will be in contrast to the political/military security that the leaders / the major-ity in Israel will seek in the last days when they make a covenant for 7 years with the antichrist “ruler who will come”, Dan 9.27. That covenant appears to be prophesied in Isa 28.15-18 (“a covenant with death”), where it is the opposite of trusting in the Lord, but it will fail to protect Is-rael from invasion.

14.12: the plague . . Compare Isa 37.36 where the angel of the Lord in one night struck down 185,00 men in the Assyrian army camp who were threatening Jerusalem, in 701 BC. The Greek historian Herodotus attributed this destruction to a bubonic plague.

The plagues of Egypt may have been in Zechariah’s mind here, as it is in v 18 where the plague theme recurs. In Egypt the Lord inflicted plagues on the enemies of his people who were oppressing them. The classic Hebrew nouns for “plague”, ‘maggephah’ and ‘negeph’, and the verb from the same root (‘nagaph’) meaning to “strike with a plague”, which occur in Zech 14.12 & 15, are first found in describing the plagues of Egypt - the noun at Ex 9.14, the verb at Ex 8.2; 12.13, 23, 27. The verb or noun recur at 1 Sm 6.4, of the plague that the Lord sent against the Philistines; see also Ps 89.23 of the Lord “striking down” David’s enemies 78. But the Lord also used the inflic-tion of sudden plague as disciplinary punishment on his own people when they rebelled against him: see Ex 32.35; Num 14.37; 16.46-50; 25.8f, 18; 26.1; 31.16; 2 Sm 24.21, 25; 2 Chr 21.14. In this respect, compare Lev 26.16 & 25 and Deut 28.22 for the diseases that the Lord would inflict on the people for violating his covenant.

The Lord striking people with a plague recurs at v 18 (see the note there). Plague (though a different word from ‘maqqephah’) or pestilence was in the Lord’s armoury of weapons he used against his enemies, which could include his rebellious people: see Ex 5.3; Num 14.12; 2 Sm 24.13ff; Am 4.10; Hab 3.5.

14.12 all the nations that fought against Jerusalem. As at 12.3 and 14.2, which might suggest it is the same battle; but see the Introduction to 12.1-9 and the note at 14.2 for my interpretation that there was an earlier gathering of the nations that resulted in Jerusalem’s capture. See the note at 12.3 for a comparison with similar prophecies which may be describing the same future events as Zech 12 & 14.

I assume that the plague only strikes these nations’ armies that have come up against Jerusalem, and that the rest of the population of these nations (see v 16) are not struck by it.

14.12: the nations. A different Hebrew word from “nations” elsewhere in ch 14, which ESV distin-guishes by translating it here, “peoples”. See the footnote to the note at 12.2 for an analysis and the possible implications of Zechariah using two different words.

14.12 will rot. The verb means, “consume away”, “waste away”. It is used of wounds stinking and “festering” (Ps 38.5, ESV); of people “wasting away” (ESV, “rot away”) in enemy lands because of their sins (Lev 26.39) and in Jerusalem just before its capture by the Babylonians (Ez 24.23; 33.10) and as a result of a protracted siege (Ez 4.17). The noun from the same root means “stench” or “rot-tenness” (Isa 3.24, of the women of Jerusalem when the city is taken by the Babylonians) and the “decay” of the roots of grass once the portion above ground is burnt by fire (Isa 5.24, used as a metaphor to describe the coming doom of those who have rejected the Lord and his word).

Compare the fate of the wicked man described poetically in Job 18.13.

78 ‘maggephah’ and in particular the verb ‘nagaph’ is also very frequently used of striking down in battle by the usual weapons of war.

14.13 On that day men will be stricken by the Lord with great panic. Compare 12.4: is this the same future event? It is very similar to the Lord’s promise to Israel at Dt 7.23 in conquering the na-tions inhabiting the land of Canaan that the Lord was going to give them, that “the Lord your God will deliver them over to you, throwing them into great confusion until they are destroyed”. See also Gen 35.5 where “the terror of God” falls on the towns of the Canaanites so they don’t pursue Jacob

14.13 panic. In the following instances of the word the Lord is named as the agent causing the panic: Dt 7.23; 28.20 (NIV, “confusion”);1 Sm 5.9, 11 (“panic”) 79. The verb from a similar root oc-curs at Ex 14.24; Jdg 4.15 and 1 Sm 7.10 with a similar meaning, again in each case with the Lord as the agent. A different Hebrew word is translated “panic” by NIV in 12.4.

For similar instances in the OT of the Lord causing panic, terror or fear on his people’s ene-mies (though not using the same Hebrew word as here), compare Gen 35.5; Ex 15.16; 23.27; Dt 2.25; Jos 2.9; 1 Sm 14.15; 2 Chr 14.14; 17.10; 20.29; also Isa 19.17.

14.13 each man will seize the hand of another and they will attack each other. For similar occasions brought on by the Lord, see Jdg 7.22; 1 Sm 14.20 (together with “panic”); 2 Chr 20.23; and, in prophecies of future battles, Isa 19.2; Ez 38.21 and Hag 2.22. See also Zech 11.9, but this does not appear to describe an army fighting each other.

This may be what is described in 12.4.

14.14 Judah too will fight at Jerusalem. It is just as possible to translate, “will fight against Jerusalem”: see the note at 12.2. The same expression occurs at 14.3 (“The Lord will . . fight against those nations”). See the note there. Judah is also involved in the battle at the siege of Jerusalem in 12.2, 4-7. This might suggest that both these prophecies describe the same future event.

14.14 the wealth . . will be collected. The plunder of battle - a reversal of 14.1f. On another inter-pretation (see the following note), it would mean that Judah and Jerusalem despoiled the surround-ing nations, perhaps as punishment for their attack on Jerusalem. Compare Dan 11.43 where the in-vader of the Middle East, including Israel (“the beautiful land”, v 41), will “gain control of the trea-sures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt”. See also Micah 4.11ff where the result of many nations gathering against Zion will be their destruction and the devotion of their wealth to the Lord, which seems to prophesy in overview the attacks in Jerusalem in Zech 12 & 14. Isaiah foresaw (60.5-9; 61.6; ) that in the era of Israel’s restoration the nations would bring in their wealth to the restored Zion.

14.14 of all the surrounding nations. See the similar phrases at 12.2, 6 and the notes at vv 2 & 6. Does it in each case mean all the peoples that live around Jerusalem, or does it refer to the armies that are gathered against Jerusalem (12.3; 14.2, 12), which of course will contain contingents from the peoples geographically situated around Jerusalem? If the latter, this is the plunder of battle. It is a reversal of the situation in 14.1 & 2, but see the note at 14.1 for a different interpretation of that verse.

14.15 a similar plague will strike the horses. If this includes their eyes rotting away (see v 12), it might be the same future event as 12.4 (“I will blind all the horses . .”). This would stop the armies from using the animals to speed their escape. Compare the plague (though a different Hebrew word from here) that the Lord sent on all the livestock of the Egyptians, Ex 9.3

79 The Hebrew noun is ‘mehumah’. In the remaining uses of the word the Lord is not named as the agent causing the panic: 1 Sm 14.20 (NIV, “confusion”); 2 Chr 15.5 (“turmoil”); Pr 15.16 (“turmoil”); Isa 22.5 (“tu-mult”); Ez 7.7 (“panic”); Ez 22.5 (“turmoil”); Am 3.9 (“unrest”). Its root is ‘hum’. A similar root, ‘hamam’, is on occasion used in verb form with a similar meaning to ‘mehumah’ - see Ex 14.24; Jdg 4.15 and 1 Sm 7.10.

Zech 14.16-21: summary . The final part of Zechariah’s prophecy describes the arrangements whereby the nations that had pre-viously banded together to attack Jerusalem will show their allegiance to the Lord the King by com-ing annually to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. There will be punishments sent by the Lord on peoples who do not come up to Jerusalem in the required way. This proving of alle-giance appears also to be an act of worship and to include communal meals which are part of the sacrifices offered in the Lord’s temple.

The prophecy finds its fulfilment in the coming age of the Lord’s reign as King on earth (v 9) - often referred to as the Millennial kingdom (from the 1,000 year reign prophesied in Rev 20.1-7). It is also the time of Israel’s physical and spiritual restoration, which very many of the OT prophecies describe. The prophecy of Revelation makes it clear that the saints (believers in Christ who endure to the end) will be resurrected on Christ’s return as King and will join him in reigning with him (Rev 20.4, 6; 2.26f; see 2 T 2.12). This will fulfil Dan 7.14, 18, 22, 27. It seems that they will govern men, women and presumably children who were alive on Christ’s return and who will be allowed into the millennial kingdom 80. It seems most likely that it is this category of mankind - called “the nations” in Rev 2.26; 19.15; 20.7, as in Zech 14.16 - that will be required to go up to Jerusalem annually to the feast of Tabernacles (Zech 14.16-21). Presumably it is their representa-tives (their rulers?) who will go, rather than the total population of each nation.

The theme of the nations coming to Jerusalem/Zion is found in many other prophecies in the OT. See the categorisation below:• To the banquet the Lord provides - to celebrate Christ’s return as King? Isa 25.6• As an annual going up for a festival: Zech 8.20-23 (though it is unclear whether this happens at

set times and is to a festival); 14.16-19 (feast of Tabernacles); and possibly Ps 22.27, 29; 47.9; 100.4; 102.22: Rev 15.4; 21.24ff.

• As subjects to the Messiah / the ideal Davidic king: Isa 49.7 (to the Servant); Ps 2.12; 72.9ff• To seek the Lord: Isa 2.2f; 11.10; 45.14; 55.5; 60.3; Jer 3.17; Mic 4.1f; Zech 8.20ff; to pray, 1 K

8.41ff; Ps 65.2; Isa 56.7 (Q Mk 11.17); to worship, Isa 56.3-8; Ps 86.9; 99.5; to bring an offer-ing, Isa 56.7 (Q Mk 11.17); 60.6f, 9; Ps 96.7f; Zep 3.10; or gifts to the Lord the King, Ps 68.18, 29; 76.11; Isa 18.7. We see this foreshadowed in the journey of the Magi to seek the Christ, Mt 2.1-11.

• To see his glory, Isa 66.18That the people of Israel will also worship the Lord in Jerusalem is prophesied in Isa 27.13 (where they are summoned from out of the nations).

There are other prophecies about all nations/mankind worshipping the Lord and bowing be-fore him: see Ps 66.1, 4, 8; 67.3ff; Isa 19.23 (“the Egyptians and Assyrians will worship together”); 45.23; 66.23 (“from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another”) without it specify-ing that this is in Jerusalem / at Mt Zion. Indeed, Mal 1.11 (“in every place incense and pure offer-ings will be brought to my name”) is specific on this point. See also the altar in Egypt, Isa 19.19 (unless this is commemorative only). See also the prophecies about the nations’ rulers prostrating themselves before the Lord and serving and obeying him, where worship may also be included: Ps 2.10ff; 68.31; Dan 7.27. The Hebrew word translated “worship” in Zech 14.16f is also used of peo-ple bowing before rulers to express their subservience, give respect and honour and show allegiance - see for example Ps 72.11; 1 Sm 24.8; 2 Sm 9.6; 1 K 1.53 81

According to Zech 14.16-21 there will be a temple in Jerusalem - the normal meaning of “the Lord’s house” - and it is clearly implied that there will be sacrifices offered in this temple.

80 That there will be this category of mankind in the millennial kingdom is required by Rev 20.7-10 where, at the end of the 1,000 years, a released Satan will deceive the nations to rebel and take up arms against Jerusalem. For a detailed discussion, see Annex 3 and in particular the second part.81 The word (‘hishtachvoth’ in the infinitive form found in vv 16f) is regularly used in the OT of paying honour to one’s superiors, expressed by bowing or falling face down before them.

Ezekiel was shown a detailed vision of the temple in the age of Israel’s restoration which had the full Levitical sacrificial system operating (Ez 40-46, though with some changes in detail from the rules in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers). Should we, then, expect to see Ez 40-46 and Zech 14.20f literally fulfilled in the coming age? If so, the sacrifices would be vivid reminders and celebrations of Christ’s finished work on the Cross and the consecration of his people to him, i.e. of the spiritual significance of the OT rituals. But it might be argued from Hebrews 8.6,13 and other NT passages that, because Christ has rendered obsolete all the legal and priestly apparatus of the old covenant, all references to sacrificial worship that are prophecies to be fulfilled in the time of Israel’s restoration will be fulfilled in a NT sense, rather than literally. So, communal meals at the Feast of Taberna-cles would be along the lines of the Lord’s Supper as in 1 Cor 11.17-34, rather than as in the OT fellowship offerings.

In the time of the new heavens and earth and the new Jerusalem, there will no longer be a temple (Rev 21.22). This final, glorious age follows the millennial reign of Christ with his saints, according to Rev 20 & 21 (see the footnote on 14.7 (“without daytime or night-time”).

14.16 the survivors. I.e. those not slaughtered in the armies that were gathered against Jerusalem, v 12. Survivors among the nations feature in Isa 66.19. But the reference in v 16 may be to the in-habitants of the nations who did not take part in the forces that gathered against Jerusalem, rather than to people in those armies who survived.

It is clear from Revelation (see 6.1-8; 8.11; 9.16ff; 11.13; 19.21) that a large proportion of the world’s population will be killed in the wars, famines, water shortages and plagues that will convulse the world in the last days of this age before Christ returns. But there will be survivors be-sides the resurrected saints to enjoy the Lord’s reign on earth through Christ the King (see Annex 3 for the detailed argument).

14.16 to worship the King, the Lord Almighty. This assumes v 9 (see the note there) where follow-ing Christ’s return to earth (v 3) the Lord will be acknowledged as king over the whole earth. Bald-win thinks it is significant that the nations are not depicted as submitting to circumcision or to keep-ing the law of Moses.

That “worship” here and in v 17 may mean or include expressing subservience as a subject people and allegiance to the King, see the note below, “14.16-19 reviewed”.

14.16 to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. The last of the three great Pilgrimage festivals pre-scribed for all Israelites in the Law of Moses (see Ex 23.14-17; Lev 23.34ff, 39-43; Dt 16.13-17 82). It was also known as the “Feast of Ingathering” or simply as “the Feast (Festival)”. The feast was celebrated from the 15th to the 22nd days of the 7th month (Tishri, usually about mid-September to mid-October) after the produce of the orchards and vines had been harvested. It came at the end of the agricultural year, which began in the autumn, and marked the conclusion of the annual cycle of religious festivals that began with Passover and Unleavened Bread 6 months previously. It was to recall God’s care for the people during the desert wanderings after the deliverance from Egypt, but it also served as a festival of thanksgiving for the harvest (see Lev 23.39f; Dt 16.13ff). The name “tabernacles” or “booths” commemorated the temporary shelters in which the Israelites lived the the Lord brought them out of Egypt (see Lev 23.43). Every 7th year (the year for cancelling debts) at Tabernacles the covenant law was to be read to all the people (see Dt 31.9-13; Neh 8.14-18). Bald-win suggests that on those occasions the people’s covenant with the Lord was renewed.

The celebration by Israel of the feast was started again as soon as the exiles first returned to Jerusalem in 537 BC and rebuilt the altar to the Lord (Ezra 3.4) and presumably continued to be cel-ebrated annually from then on and through Zechariah’s lifetime. When Jerusalem’s walls had been

82 Other references to the Feast of Tabernacles besides those in this note are: Ex 34.22; Num 29.12-34; Jdg 21.19; 1 Sm 1.3; Ez 45.25; Jn 7.2, 37ff. For the celebration of the annual feasts in Ezekiel’s restored temple - part of his vision of a physically and spiritually restored Israel - see Ez 46.9-12. In this vision, it is “the people of the land” who go up to celebrate the feasts, whereas Zechariah was shown that it would be all the peoples of the earth.

rebuilt under Nehemiah the feast was celebrated (in 445 BC) with the detail of the people making booths for themselves with branches from bushes and trees, in obedience to Lev 23.40ff - some-thing apparently that had not been followed since Joshua’s time (Neh 8.14-18). Zechariah’s min-istry began in 520 BC, with the latest date in his prophecies being 518 BC, so he would have wit-nessed celebrations of the feast. We don’t know when ch 9-14 were written: it might conceivably be as late as Nehemiah’s day and the celebration of 445 BC.

The institution of the Feast of Tabernacles during the Lord’s millennial reign (see Zech 14.9), including the reading of the covenant law, may explain Isa 2.3 (and Mic 4.2) where “many peoples” say: “He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths. The law (the word can mean, “teaching”) will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem”. The feast now en-compasses all nations who are brought within the covenant as they come to worship “the King, the Lord Almighty” 83 (Baldwin, who also points out that in OT times the alien living in Israel was en-couraged to join in the festival (see Dt 16.14), now all the nations are included in it). The festival also seems to speak of the final, joyful regathering and restoration of Israel, as well as the ingather-ing of the nations, which would be significances especially appropriate to the time of Christ the King’s millennial reign. It may also be that in this future time coming up to the Feast of Taberna-cles became a sort of proof of a nation’s allegiance and loyalty to the King, the Lord Almighty , hence the threat of punishment in Zech 14.17ff 84

14.17 peoples of the earth. The expression is similar to Gen 12.3 and 28.14, except that there a dif-ferent word is used for “earth”; see also “the families of the nations”, Ps 22.27; 96.7. The Hebrew word (‘mishpachoth’ in the plural form) occurred previously in Zech 12.12ff, where NIV renders it “clan” in Zech 12.12ff (“the land will mourn, each clan by itself . .”). It is used for a people-group related to each other by blood & descent, from a family right up to a whole nation.

The Hebrew word for “earth” can also mean “land”, as in 12.12, but “peoples of the land (of Israel)” does not fit the context.

14.17 they will have no rain. This was one of the curses for violating God’s covenant - see Lev 26.19f; Dt 28.22ff; 11.17. Examples of drought inflicted by God on his people in accordance with this principle are 1 K 17.1; 18.1; Isa 5.6; Jer 3.3; 5.24f; 12.4,11; 14.1-6; 23.10; Am 1.2; 4.7; Hag 1.11. The drought was to bring his people back to him in prayer and repentance (see 1 K 8.35f; 2 Chr 6.26f; 1 K 18.39ff; Jer 14.7ff; Am 4.8) 85.

The implication may be that God is now treating every nation as his people under his world-wide rule (v 9) and subject to his disciplinary love. Baldwin points out that this would be a way of teaching all peoples to depend on the Lord for the essentials of life, which is what the rain symbol-ises.

14.18 If the Egyptian people do not go up and take part . . The prophecy at Isa 19.21f is similar: the people of Egypt will worship the Lord with sacrifices and vows. And, “the Lord will strike Egypt with a plague; he will strike them and heal them. They will turn to the Lord, and he will re-spond to their pleas and heal them”. The context for Isa 19.21ff may be the requirement on all peo-ples to go up to the feast of Tabernacles, though this is not stated there.

14.18 If the Egyptian people do not go up and take part, they will have no rain. The Lord will bring on them the plague he inflicts . . “Rain” is added by NIV to bring out the sense. ESV is similar to NIV. But the Hebrew text as preserved by the MT is:

83 For this, the Lord’s full, majestic title, see Isa 6.5; Ps 24.10 (Baldwin).84 It is possible that the threat in Ps 2.10-12 and Isa 60.12 is triggered by non-attendance at the Feast.85 Baldwin suggests that rain is connected with the water-pouring ceremonies that were part of the Feast of Tabernacles in post-Exilic times (see the Mishnah, Sukkah 4.9). Water from the Pool of Siloam was brought to the Temple by the priests in procession, and poured out as an offering on the altar. Jesus may have been referring to this in Jn 7.38. This ritual may have been accompanied by prayers for rain after the long dry summer. Whether this ceremony began as early as Zechariah’s time is not known.

“If the people of Egypt will not go up then/and it has/does not come and not upon them; (this) will be the plague which the Lord inflicts . .” 86. ( ) indicates words not in the Hebrew.

The verb, “has not come”, is masculine, whereas “people” and “will not go up” are feminine. This suggests that “people” is not the subject of “has/does not come”, though NIV and ESV understand it so 87. “Rain” in v 17 is masculine, which may suggest that “rain” is the subject of “has not come”. “Will be” is feminine, which suggests that its subject is “plague”, a feminine noun. The MT point-ing indicates that the MT scribes placed a break after “upon them” in their attempt to understand the verse. If we assume that “rain” is the subject of “has/does not come”, we could translate as follows:

“If the people of Egypt do not go up then (the rain) does not come and (will) not (be) upon them; (this) will be the plague which the Lord inflicts . .”The MT is clearly difficult to understand and translate, and the Septuagint and Syriac trans-

lations may indicate a slightly different original Hebrew text (see the footnote). RSV, following this changed Hebrew text and ignoring the break, has:

“If the family of Egypt do not go up and present themselves, then upon them shall come come the plague with which the Lord inflicts . .”.

Yet another way of rendering the verse, which ignores the break but otherwise keeps to the MT, is:“If the people of Egypt do not go up and do not come (to the feast), then not upon them will be the plague which the Lord inflicts . .”

This assumes that the Lord will punish Egypt with a different plague than stopping the rainfall, be-cause Egypt depended on the Nile, rather than direct rainfall, for watering its crops (Duguid & Baldwin); but the nature of this different plague is not stated.

Baldwin thinks that we are meant here to reflect on Egypt’s experience of plagues sent by God in Moses’ day, which were designed to bring them to acknowledge God’s sovereignty. So plague will be a fitting symbol of disaster in the new era for peoples that will not go up to the feast of tabernacles.

14.18 the plague he inflicts. The plague appears to be the withholding of the rain (v 17), not the plague in v 12, though it is the same noun and verb as in v 12 (see the note there).

14.19 the punishment. Lit. “the sin”

14.20 Holy to the Lord. The phrase occurs in a number of contexts in the OT 88 including in v 21, but the only place in which we read that it was inscribed on the gold plate worn on the high priest’s turban (Ex 28.36ff; 39.30; 29.6), perhaps as a reminder and an expression of his consecration to the Lord’s service 89. In Zech 14.20f, “Holy to the Lord” may symbolise that God’s original purpose for his people Israel, that they should be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex 19.6), is now

86 The Septuagint and Syriac versions seem to have a Hebrew text which read, “and upon them”. It is pos-sible that the scribes in the transmission of the Hebrew text prior to the MT saw, “and not upon them” in v 17 and repeated the phrase in v 18, whereas originally the word “not” was not present in v 18.87 Hebrew does not always strictly follow the rule that the verb and the noun that is its subject must agree in gender.88 Baldwin points out that the phase occurs at Jer 2.3, reflecting on Israel’s devotion to the Lord at the time of the Exodus from Egypt: “Israel was holy to the Lord, the first fruits of his harvest”. Elsewhere in the OT it occurs at Ex 30.37 (the holy incense); 31.15 & 35.2 (the Sabbath day); Lev 23.20 (wave offering by the priest); 27.14, 21, 23 (of dedicated houses or fields); 27. 30, 32 (the tithe); Josh 6.19 (of the silver, gold and metals in a city that had been devoted for destruction - the metals going into the Lord’s treasury); Isa 23.18 (in a prophecy about Tyre, in which her profits from world-wide trade will be “set apart for the Lord” - appar-ently used to support the Temple service); Jer 31.40 (of the Hinnom Valley where the dead bodies and ashes were thrown, and an area to the north of there leading to the Kidron Valley). Ez 48.14 (the land set apart for the Levites in the restored Israel).89 The plate was also called, “the sacred diadem” (ESV, “holy crown”, Ex 39.30; 29.6). The Hebrew word for “diadem” or “crown”, ‘nezer’, has the root meaning, “separation or consecration” - it was used of the long hair of the Nazirites (Num 6.7; Jer 7.29) and of high priest’s dedication to the Lord symbolised by the anoint-ing oil (Lev 21.12)

being realised. According to Joel 3.17, in the time of Israel’s restoration “Jerusalem will be holy”, because the Lord dwells in her (v 21) 90. See Isa 52.1 (“the holy city”); Ob 17 (“Mt Zion . . shall be holy”), and Isa 4.3 where all the restored Jerusalem’s inhabitants “will be called holy”.

14.20 Holy to the Lord will be inscribed on the bells of the horses. Baldwin: once God’s reign is established holiness will characterise not only the people but their animals. Horses will no longer be needed for war (as they were in v 15) but will be transport for the pilgrims coming to Jerusalem for the feast, hence this inscription on their harnesses.

14.20 bells. The word is found only here. Its root meaning is “tingle”, “quiver”. From this root comes the word for cymbals at Ezra 3.10 and Nehemiah 12.27. It is possible that here they are to bring to mind the ephod worn by the high priest, on the hem of which were sewn gold bells (Ex 289.33ff, though a different Hebrew word from here),

14.20 cooking pots in the Lord’s house 91. It seems likely from the context of the preceding verses that this is talking about vessels used for the cooking of the offerings during the feast of Taberna-cles. See Num 29.12-39 for the regulations. The worshippers who brought fellowship/peace offer-ings (included in the feast of Tabernacles: see Num 29.39) would eat the cooked flesh of the offer-ing after the blood had been sprinkled, the Lord’s portion had been burned on the altar and the priest had taken his portion (Lev 3; 7.11-36). Also the priests would eat most of the other offerings. “Cooking pots” could describe the vessels used by the priests to cook the sacrifices and sacrificial portions reserved for them; or it might describe the vessels used by the worshippers to cook their part of the fellowship offerings - a process described further in v 21.

14.20 the sacred bowls in front of the altar. The meaning of the root of “bowls” indicates that they were used for sprinkling, presumably to catch the blood from the offerings so that it could then be sprinkled (see Lev 1.5, 11; 3.2, 8, 13; 4.6, 17; 5.9). The word is also found at Zech 9.15. The meaning is that the cooking pots in the temple for the communal feasts will be as sacred as these bowls 92.

14.21 Every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to the Lord Almighty. This goes one stage fur-ther than v 20. Perhaps illustrating the truth that common things become holy when they are used for God’s service. Baldwin observes that when God reigns all aspects of life are sacred; there will be no distinction between the sacred and the secular.

14.21 all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them. Perhaps this relates to the time of the Feast of Tabernacles, when Jerusalem’s population will be swelled by the pilgrims

90 Jerusalem was referred to as “the holy city” in OT and NT times, not just in prophecies about the age of restoration (the context of its use in Isa 52.1). See Isa 48.2; 64.10 (here used of all the cities in Judah); Neh 11.1 & 18; Isa 52.1; Dn 9.24; Mt 4.5; 27.53; Rev 11.2 (probably a prophecy about Jerusalem in the last 3 1/2 years before Christ’s return). This was because God chose it as the place for him to dwell (see Ps 87.1). The ultimate destiny for Jerusalem is to be “the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God” - the home of all redeemed mankind and of God dwelling in fellowship with them (Rev 21.3; see also 21.10; 22.19).91 “Cooking pots” (in Hebrew, ‘sir’, when singular) as part of the tabernacle service occur at Ex 38.3 and for the temple service at 1 K 7.45; 2 K 25.14; 2 Chr 4.11, 16; Jer 52.18f, though it is possible that all these refer-ences are to bronze pans for removing ashes from the altar of burnt offering (as in Ex 27.3). However, the word is found in 2 Chr 35.13 of pots in which the Levites boiled offerings at the Passover feast for the people to eat. That it could mean a cauldron in which meat was cooked is clear from Ex 16.3; Ez 11.3-11; Mic 3.3. Its use in Ex 16.3; 2 K 4.38-41 and elsewhere shows that it was an everyday pot as well as a vessel in the temple service. 92 There are, however, no rules in the OT indicating that these bowls were especially holy as a result of their function - unlike, for example, the rules regarding the pots in which the sin offering was cooked for the priest to eat (Lev 6.28).

from all over the world (see v 16). It seems to refer to the fellowship offering process - see the note at 14.20 (“cooking pots in the Lord’s house”) 93.

According to Ez 46.21-24, the new temple in the restored Israel would have a place in each of the corners of the outer court which were “the kitchens where those who minister in the temple (the Levites?) will cook the sacrifices of the people”. But perhaps there will be so many people from all nations coming to the feast of Tabernacles in the age to come that their food from the sacri-fices would need to be cooked outside the temple as well, presumably, as in these kitchens. It could be that, in the celebration of Tabernacles in the coming age, there will be shared food and meals along the lines of the Lord’s Supper in the NT Church (described in 1 Cor 11.17-34, at least as prac-ticed by the Corinthian church). However, “all who come to sacrifice” implies that it will be a process more along the lines of the fellowship offerings.

14.20f reviewed: Duguid comments that there will be an elevated state of ritual holiness in Jerusalem and Judah that affects even the most humble artefacts, so ordinary cooking pots will share the status of the consecrated bowls before the altar. This allows there to be enough utensils to boil the meat for all the sacrifices for the pilgrims entering Jerusalem from all over the world for the feast. He compares this to Rev 21.22f where the whole of the New Jerusalem becomes a temple, the place where the Lord dwells among his people.

14.21 there will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the Lord Almighty. “Canaanite” may rep-resent anyone who is morally or spiritually unclean, i.e. anyone who is not included among the peo-ple of God. Compare Ez 44.9 and the rule that “no foreigner uncircumcised in heart and flesh is to enter my sanctuary . .”. This relates to the temple in the age of Israel’s restoration. See also Rev 21.27, of the New Jerusalem, that “nothing impure will ever enter it, now will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life”.

For “Canaanite” ESV has, “trader” - the Hebrew word can have both meanings. Duguid thinks this is a reference to those Gentiles who were in the temple for business reasons, but whose presence defiled the holiness of the Lord’s house (see Ez 44.9, “no foreigner uncircumcised in heart and flesh is to enter my sanctuary”). It is not clear whether this was a problem in the rebuilt temple in Zechariah’s day 94; but Baldwin suggests that in Zechariah’s day there were shortages of utensils that could be used at the feasts, which caused prices to rise and deep resentment to be felt towards those selling them and making extortionate profits out of the worshippers. See Jesus’ cleansing of the temple (possibly on two occasions) where he drove out those who were buying and selling there, Mt 21.12 and Jn 2.16, those it is not stated that these were Gentiles. By this prophetic action Jesus may have been pointing forward in time to the fulfilment of Zech 14.21 - that is, following Christ’s return. In the age to come, money-making will no longer mar the temple courts and take the joy out of sacrificial giving (Baldwin).

The Hebrew word translated in 14.21 as “Canaanite” or “trader” is found in its plural form at 11.7 & 11. See the note on 11.7 (“particularly the oppressed of the flock”), including the foot-note. There seems to be no connection between 14.21 and 11.7 & 11 in terms of understanding both prophecies.

93 It is not certain from the OT passages on the Feast of Tabernacles how the people took part in commu-nal sacrificial meals and just how they were prepared. Num 29.39 refers to fellowship offerings being offered at the “appointed feasts” - for the procedure with these offerings see the note at 14.20 (“cooking pots in the Lord’s house”). 1 Sam 1.3-9 appears to describe, probably at Tabernacles, the fellowship offering process and a communal meal taking place. But it is clear from 1 Sam 2.12-17 that there were deviations at that time from the process for fellowship offerings laid down in the law of Moses. Besides Zech 14.20f, these are the only passages.94 According to Ezra 6.15-18 the temple was rebuilt and dedicated in 516 BC and temple service with priests and Levites resumed. Zechariah’s prophecies down to ch 8 are dated to the period 519-518 BC. Ch 9-14 are undated and it is assumed they were written later, but how much later is unclear.