The Divine Shepherd-King Gets Struck Down

The following is taken from The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament, edited by Michael Rydelnik and Edwin Blum, published by Moody Publishers in 2019, pp. 1300-1313. All emphasis will be mine.

Zechariah 13:7-9

The Striking of the Shepherd King

J. RANDALL PRICE

The prophet Zechariah addressed the Jewish people who had returned to Judah from exile in Babylon. The goal of his ministry was to motivate the community to complete the rebuilding of the Temple and re-consecrate themselves to the Lord. For motivation, he gave them his prophetic message of the coming of Messiah. When Messiah comes, He will end the dominion of the nations and establish the millennial kingdom on earth. Zechariah 13:7-9 is a direct messianic prophecy that encompasses the first and second advents of the Messiah. It is a pivotal passage cited in the NT as explaining both the nature of Messiah’s death as well as the ultimate (eschatological) result for Israel in the divine program.

THE CONTEXT OF ZECHARIAH 13:7-9

While there is eschatological content in Zch 1–8, the sharpest eschatological focus is found in chaps. 9–14. Within that section, there is an even greater end-time emphasis in chaps. 12–14, where the prophetic eschatological phrase bayom ha-hu’ (“in that day”) occurs 17 times (vs. four times in the rest of Zechariah). In this last section, there are initial judgments on Israel with ultimate deliverance, restoration, and blessing. Chapters 12–13 concern the national repentance and spiritual restoration (cleansing) of Israel, and chap. 14 presents the national restoration of Israel with the coming of the Messianic King. The relationship between 12:10-14 and 13:1 is not only logical but also chronological. As Feinberg has noted, “Once Israel is brought to a penitent condition and is brought face to face with her crucified Messiah, then the provision of God for cleansing will be appropriate.”¹

Predictive prophecy about national cleansing and the problem of ritual defilement in the land appears in the opening of chap. 13. The focus is on the purification of the “house of David” and the people of Jerusalem,² a phrase that refers to the entire covenant-nation. Mason sees this as a response to a political crisis, stating that “Zch 12:10 and 13:1 describe a millennial purification and cleansing of the house of David, again holding out a positive Davidic expectation in the face of present corruption within the civil government of Yehud.”³ Whether or not a historical situation is in the background, the focus of the text is plainly eschatological.

This nature of this cleansing is a ritual purification with water as per the Levitical system (Ex 30:17-21; Nm 8:5-7; cf. Nm 19:9; Ezk 36:25). The cleansing is from a fountain, a spring of water that gushes from the side of a hill (probably Mt. Zion) and provides a never-ending supply of living water to keep the inhabitants of Jerusalem in a perpetual state of ritual purification (Zch 13:1; 14:8). Part of the need for purification arose from the problem of false prophets who in a day of national cleansing seek to disguise their identity in order to avoid punishment by saying, “I am not a prophet” (v. 4-6).

Most commentators interpret this passage in light of 1Kg 18:28 at Elijah’s confrontation with the prophets of Baal. Those false prophets used self-inflicted wounds as part of an ecstatic religious practice. In Zechariah, the false prophet tried to evade identification by claiming the wounds between his arms were received in the house of his friends as parental wounding as a discipline or domestic infighting (Zch 13:3). However, one author has recently argued that a messianic interpretation of v. 6 should not be ruled out because of linguistic ambiguities, structural parallels, and subtle ties between vv. 6 and 7.⁴ Nevertheless, the isolation of v. 7 from v. 6 in the Gospel citations and the absence of any reference to v. 6 in the NT where such would be appropriate (cf. Mt 26:23; Lk 22:21; Jn 13:18 where Ps 41:9 is cited) argues against this view.

The significance of these false teachers does have relevance to the end times as well. Some might contend that Judaism dealt with the problem of idolatry and false prophets in the postexilic period. However, modern Judaism is rife with spiritual compromise, and this problem will worsen in the tribulation period when false prophets and false messiahs appear (Mt 24:24; Rev 13:11-14); with the coming of the Antichrist, the future false messiah who will claim deity will make an idol of himself to be worshiped (2Th 2:4; Rev 13:14-15).

THE CRITICAL EVALUATION OF ZECHARIAH 13:7-9

In summary, Zch 13:7-9 indicates that the Messiah will be struck down, the children of Israel will be scattered and, when back in their land, two-thirds will perish, but a remnant will be purified and return to God. It has been said that no other book in the OT is as messianic as Zechariah and that it has more to say about Messiah than all the other Minor Prophets combined.⁵

Critical scholars, however, noting the reuse of the shepherd/sheep imagery from chaps. 1–8 in chaps. 9–14 have questioned the literary unity of Zechariah and divided the book into a Proto-Zechariah (1–8) and Deutero-Zechariah (9–14).⁶ Some further see the present text (13:7- 9) as a Trito–Zecharian section.⁷ The unity of the book has been defended based on similarities in language and style⁸ and congruent aspects between chaps. 1–8 and 9–14.⁹ Another problem is that the critical perspective interferes with the consistent literal interpretation of the book, as well as the messianic interpretation supported by intertextual usage.

With this in mind, it is best to view Zechariah as a whole text written by the prophet as a literary unity. This is how the book has been preserved in the canon, and this appears to have been the way it was understood by the Second Temple period Qumran Community. The Qumran manuscripts contain a Greek fragment of Zechariah that includes the end of chap. 8 and the beginning of chap. 9 with no break in the text, implying a single author.

Another critical, non-messianic interpretation, argues that the smitten figure (13:7) is one of the Judaic kings of the Davidic line whose rule ended violently in the sixth century BC, with the Babylonian exile. Then the Jewish remnant was purified in Babylon and restored to their land and national life after the exile.¹⁰ In response to this, however, Zechariah is capable of identifying important historical figures by name (cf. Zch 1:7; 3:6-10; 6:9-14; 7:1-2), Furthermore, the postexilic period did not see a purging of the Jewish people that led to ongoing national purity (Ezra and Nehemiah as well as the postexilic prophets complain of national sins). Following the return from exile, and into the intertestamental and NT periods, the land was primarily under Gentile dominion (despite a temporary period of indigenous Jewish rule during the Hasmonean period). The subsequent history was one of continued domination and nothing like what Zechariah depicts as a victorious war against the nations. Therefore, since this did not occur, Zechariah cannot be referring to the immediate postexilic situation.

THE RABBINIC INTERPRETATION OF ZECHARIAH 13:7-9

Neither the Mishnah nor the Talmud cite Zch 13:7, and it is completely ignored in the other rabbinic writings of the Tannaitic and Amoraic periods. One exception appears at the end of the Babylonian Talmud in the legendary account of the martyrdoms of R. Ishmael and R. Simeon ben Gamaliel. As a tribute to R. Simeon at his death, R. Ishmael cites part of Zch 13:7 eulogistically: “Concerning you was it stated, Awake, O sword, against My shepherd, and against the man that is near unto Me” (Abot R. Nathan §38). However, this is so isolated from its context that it offers no insight into early rabbinic interpretation of our text. Modern Orthodox Jewish interpretation sees the context set in the messianic era and describes the punishment of (a sword turned against) the enemies of Israel. The leaders of the (Gentile) nations were the shepherds (God’s colleagues), to whom He entrusted the fate of His people Israel (the flock). However, when these shepherds oppress “the flock,” the sword is unleashed against them, and the flock escapes while God’s vengeance is turned against subordinates who helped oppress Israel. Based on their understanding that v. 6 refers to a false prophet, they see the one smitten in v. 7 as a false shepherd and therefore reject a messianic interpretation of this figure.¹¹

THE SUPPORT FOR A MESSIANIC INTERPRETATION OF ZECHARIAH 13:7-9

Seeing this text within an eschatological context provides a better understanding of the events in Zch 13:7. An end-of-days interpretation is the basis for this future repentance and the final covenant restoration it depicts (v. 9) under the Divine King (Zch 14:9). The context requires a greater interpretation in harmony with related passages in other prophets, and therefore the argument for this passage as a direct messianic prediction is made on several grounds.

First, there is the inner-textual relationship between the rejected shepherd of chap. 11, the pierced one of chap. 12, and the smitten shepherd of chap. 13. The good shepherd of 11:4 who is detested (11:8) and rejected (11:12-13) is like the formerly rejected and pierced one of 12:10, who is equated with the Lord (“look at Me whom they pierced”), as is the smitten shepherd of 13:7 (“the one who is My associate”). The LXX has “smite” (aorist imperative v. 13:7), but Mk 14:27 changes it to “I (YHWH) will strike” (future indicative), as does Mt 26:31. On this basis, Jeremias argues that this change connects the shepherd motif with the suffering servant motif in Isa 53:6b: “The smitten Shepherd is the Servant of the Lord. God vicariously lays on him the judgment which should have smitten the whole flock.”¹²

The original audience was expected to understand these intended connections as establishing the identity of the Divine Shepherd; One who was rejected by the Nation and consequently put to death. Likewise, Zch 13:7 is intertextually related to Ezk 34 where the good Shepherd (who is said to be the Lord, v. 11) will rescue and restore His sheep to the land of Israel (vv. 13-14). In like manner, the sheep, who have experienced worthless shepherds (leaders) in a time of national discipline (Zch 13:8) will be refined and restored (v. 9). Ultimately, this will be “a single shepherd, My servant David” (Ezk 34:23-24). Here, through Ezk 34, is an intertextual connection to Jer 23:1-6 which extends the metaphor of the shepherd to the righteous Branch of David (v. 5) who will reign as king, save Judah, and secure Israel in its land (v. 6). Judah is also the object of Zch 12, with chap. 13 focusing specifically on the “house of David” in its prediction of its repentance and restoration. Jeremiah 23:6 concludes by linking the Davidic shepherd with the Lord (“This is what He will be named: Yahweh Our Righteousness”), similar to Zch 12:10 and 13:7, where the Lord is also the figure upon whom He acts.

All of these passages are set in eschatological restoration contexts. The events described are defined in their respective contexts (Ezk 34–37; Zch 12–14) and by comparison with other prophets who give details of the end time, specifically the 70^th week of Daniel (Dan 9:27) and the “time of trouble for Jacob (Israel)” (Jer 30:7). There is also an intertextual connection between Zch 13:7 and Isa 53:10, where the Lord is the One responsible for the action against the Shepherd/Servant. A sword oracle is also found in Jer 50:35-38 in connection with the shepherd/sheep imagery. A careful reader should have understood the greater authorial intent and identified the messianic connection implicit in these texts.

One text found at Qumran cited Zch 13:7-9 and may reflect an early Jewish messianic understanding. The Qumran text CD 19:6-11 reads:

When God visits the earth, when there comes the word which is written by the hand of the prophet Zechariah [Zch 13:7] “Wake up, sword, against my shepherd, and against the male who is my companion—oracle of God—strike the shepherd, and the flock may scatter, and I shall turn my hand against the little ones.” Those who revere him are the poor ones of the flock. These shall escape in the age of the visitation; but those that remain shall be delivered up to the sword when there comes the Messiah of Aaron and Israel.

The text may be interpreted as referring to God visiting the land to repay the evil ones who despise the law (CD 19:5-7). Some scholars see this text reflecting the Qumran community’s view of the illegitimate Jewish authority in Jerusalem, employing the biblical royal Davidic tradition, which was referred to as the “Branch of David” and “prince” and also associated with the shepherd metaphor, to establish the eschatological hope for their community.¹³ However, the interpretation also speaks of “the afflicted of the flock” (Zch 11:11) as “those who guard him/it” (God’s precept?) and who will “be rescued at the time of the visitation” (CD 19:9-10). The shepherd figure mentioned in the Qumran quotation may connect with the messianic figure (a priestly/Davidic messiah?), however, it is clear that they relegate this event to the time of the end.¹⁴

Some others see this as a reference to a plural messiah, but the tradition of Jer 23:5 and Ezk 34:23-34 (36:24-25) stands behind the Qumran community hope for one shepherd. The Qumran text Q4266, fragment 4:11-13 (Parallels: CD XX 33-34), says: “God will set up one shepherd who will feed them in the pasture and will be […] and will choose unto himself mercy.” Geza Vermes notes that while lines 11-12 are badly preserved, he considered them to be an allusion to the Messiah and translates: “God [will set up] a shep[herd for His people] and he will feed [them] in [pasture] …”¹⁵ Therefore, the Qumran interpretation may lend support to a messianic interpretation.

Another source of early Jewish messianic interpretation is found in the apocryphal Psalms of Solomon (mid-first century BC). In Pss Sol 17:21-22, 32, 40-42 the psalmist explicitly connects the Davidic Messiah and the shepherd metaphor:

Behold, O Lord, and raise up unto them their king, the son of David, at the time known to you, O God, in order that he may reign over Israel your servant. And gird him with strength, that he may shatter unrighteous rulers, and that he may purge Jerusalem from Gentiles who trample (her) down to destruction … And he will be a righteous king over them, taught of God. And there shall be no unrighteousness in his days in their midst, for all shall be holy and their king the Lord Messiah … faithfully and righteously shepherding the Lord’s flock, he will not let any of them stumble in their pasture. He will lead them in holiness and there will be no arrogance among them, that any should be oppressed. This is the beauty of the king of Israel which God knew, to raise him over the house of Israel to discipline it.

This text, and its greater context (17:21-45), apparently reflects a crisis when Israel will be ruled by Gentile powers, a problem said to have been caused by the people’s sins. Nevertheless, God did not abandon Israel, for this divine discipline will end one day, and He will again have mercy on Israel (cf. Pss Sol 7:3-10; 9:9-11). This eschatological hope is expressed in the prophecy of the Davidic Messiah, who like David will be God’s shepherd for His people. The psalmist looks forward to the day when the Messiah, the son of David, will come and rid the nations of its enemies and restore Jerusalem and the people to their proper place (17:21-25, 45).

Second, as mentioned above, the smitten shepherd is identified as “My associate” (v. 7). He is associated with YHWH (“the LORD”). The Hebrew term geber ‘amiti (“the man close to me”) implies one united to another by possession of common nature, rights, and privileges. The only other use of this term is in the priestly context of Leviticus (Lv 18:20; 19:11, 15, 17; 24:19; 25:14-15, 17) where it has the idea of neighbor, fellow, associate, or companion, and is closely related to the word ‘ah (“brother”), such as in Lv 19:17; 25:14. J. Baldwin defines this as one “who stands next to me,” indicating essentially an equal.¹⁶ In all of the early Christian discussions of this passage, the shepherd has a positive function as the one who is on God’s side.¹⁷

The Targum translates Zch 13:7 as: “O sword, be revealed against the king and against the prince his companion who is his equal, who is like him …” indicating the two figures share a royal connection. The shepherd is often used as a figure of the ruling king, as in 1Kg 22:17 where the prophet Micaiah predicts that the absence of the king would result in the sheep (Israel) being scattered on the mountains. The historical interpretation therefore understands this “associate” as a member of the failing Davidic dynasty (Zerubbabel or Elnathan). However, James Smith contends, “It is not likely that God would apply this epithet even to the most godly among men whom He might appoint as shepherd over the nation. Only one man could be denominated God’s equal, and that is the Messiah.”¹⁸ Since this equates the Lord who struck the shepherd with the shepherd himself, the only shepherd that would qualify would be a divine Messiah. This identification is appropriate biblically (cf. Isa 9:6-7; Jer 23:6; Dan 7:13; Pss 45:6-7; 110:1). In theological terms, the shepherd is a man, but he is also deity, and such a person could only be the God-man, the Lord Jesus (cf. Jn 1:1; 8:58; 14:9-10; 17:24; Rm 10:13; Col 2:9; Ti 2:13; Rev 1:8; 22:12-13 with Isa 44:6).

Third, the NT interprets Zch 13 as a messianic text and applies it as a direct prediction to a specific historical event in the passion of Messiah Jesus, a treatment that requires further discussion.

THE MESSIANIC INTERPRETATION OF ZECHARIAH 13:7-9 IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The NT quotes and alludes to Zechariah some 41 times. The Gospels cite Zch 9–14 (especially in the Passion Narratives) more than any other portion of the OT. It is the second most cited OT book in Revelation, second only to the book of Ezekiel. Therefore, the messianic interpretation of Zch 13:7 should not be unexpected. The point of the possible intertextuality between the two passages points out connections to the shepherd/sheep metaphor. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah are in harmony in the use of this sheep/shepherd metaphor in messianic terms. Thus, through this prophetic tradition, despite the presence of evil shepherds, God will raise up good shepherds and particularly send a Shepherd-Messiah to care for His people.

Matthew appears to adjust the text in Mark to be closer to the Alexandrinus text of the LXX, which emphasizes the relationship between the flock and the shepherd. The citation begins with the first singular future active indicative (“I will strike”) for the MT’s second singular imperative (“Strike”). This change may be required grammatically, since the citation includes only a section from the middle of Zch 13:7. It does not mention the “sword.” probably because the sword only personifies the one who commands it, revealing that the action against the shepherd and the sheep is initiated by the Lord.¹⁹

Jesus cites Zch 13:7 as a direct prediction of His disciples abandoning Him at the time of His arrest (Mt 26:31/Mk 14:27). This was the beginning of being “struck” by the “sword” (judicial punishment by the Jewish and Roman authorities). That prophetic prediction is intended is clearly indicated by the introductory statement “it is written …” (Mt 26:31/Mk 14:27; cf. Jn 16:32) and the summary statements: “How then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen this way?… But all this has happened that the prophetic Scriptures would be fulfilled” (Mt 26:54, 56; Mk 14:49). The use of the prophets (plural) by Matthew is obvious in intertextual analysis: Mt 9:36 alludes to Ezk 34:48; Mt 15:24 to Jer 50:6 and Ezk 24:23-25 (cf. also Ps 119:176; Isa 53:6). Matthew 25:32 draws upon Ezk 34:17, 20-24, and Mt 26:31-32 cites Zch 13:7 and is intertextually related to Ezk 34:11-13. In addition, the metaphor of Israel as “scattered” sheep in Zch 13:7, which implies the loss or lack of a shepherd, is alluded to or implied elsewhere in the OT (Nm 27:17; 1Kg 22:17 and 2Chr 18:16; and especially in Isa 53:5-6 and Ezk 34:5).

The Lord Jesus self-identifies with the smitten shepherd of Zch 13:7 and views the scattered sheep as His disciples. This understanding justifies reusing the shepherd/sheep metaphor from Zch 11 in chap. 13. Jesus will make two predictions: first, the defection of all the disciples (Mt 26:31), which He notes is “because of [Him]” (i.e., they will be scandalized/shocked by His arrest); and second, the prediction of His subsequent death and resurrection and further meeting with the disciples in the Galilee (Mt 26:32; Mk 14:28). Thus, His predicted “falling away” of the disciples (Mt. 26:31; Mk 14:27) is the fulfillment of the “scattering” of the sheep (Zch 13:7). This “falling away” is further defined as defection from or betrayal of Messiah when Jesus answers Peter’s objection by declaring that he would be guilty of denying Him that very night (Mt 26:33-35; Mk 14:30-31). The historic reality of the fulfillment came when the disciples “left Him and fled” (Mt 26:56; Mk 14:50). The nation’s rejection of the Messiah will result in dispersion for Israel (“snared and captured,” Isa 8:13-15), a national suffering the Jewish disciples will also experience.

Some commentators see the Gospel’s quotation from Zch 13:7 as including vv. 8-9, although it is not present in the NT text. They then interpret Jesus’ death as the birth pangs that initiate the eschatological tribulation (the disciples’ scattering) and ultimately create the (spiritually refined) people of God in the new age (the new covenant Church).²⁰ But there is nothing that implies that a reference to these verses was intended since the Gospel writers do not cite or even allude to the remainder of the Zechariah passage (Zch 13:8-9). While the Gospels (Mk 13, like Mt 24), include a discussion of the eschatological tribulation and the second coming of the Messiah, this was given as an explanation to the disciples’ question with response to the announced destruction of the Temple (Mk 13:2; Mt 24:1-2; Lk 21:6). Their question was “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign when all these things are about to be fulfilled/about to take place?” (Mk 13:4; Lk 21:7).

Matthew expands the question to include three distinct elements: “When will these things happen. And what is the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?” (Mt 24:3). Jesus’ answers in these chapters treat the near fulfillment of the Temple’s destruction in AD 70 (“when will these things happen?”) and the far (eschatological) fulfillment in the end time (“what is the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”), which includes the tribulation and the messianic advent in the judgment of the nations and the restoration of Israel. The subsequent chapters that include reference to Zch 13 are in a different context of the sufferings of the Messiah, and the messianic interpretation in the Gospels is restricted to v. 7.

Historicist and preterist interpreters are eager to read the entire prophecy (vv. 7-9) as being fulfilled by the citation of v. 7, a practice they employ in other such references, interpreting Zch 9:9-10 in Mt 21:5 and Jn 12:15 where only v. 9 is cited. However, Jesus, and thereafter His disciples, understood how to distinguish what OT texts applied to His first and second comings and were careful to cite only the text that applied to the point of immediate fulfillment. Consequently, in the synagogue in Nazareth, Yeshua stopped in the middle of His reading of Isa 61:1-2a and did not include the rest of the passage (2b-3) in His declaration that “today, as you listen, this Scripture has been fulfilled” (Lk 4:21).

Likewise, Matthew and John were aware that only Zch 9:9 was appropriate for fulfillment in the historical context and did not include v. 10 which has an eschatological reference. This can be argued from the greater context of Zch 9–14: This section concerns Israel’s future and presents the purpose of the messianic advent as being to save the people spiritually. This becomes the basis for their final restoration nationally. This context also includes the conflicting elements of a humble Messiah and a conquering Messiah (Zch 9:9-10; 12:10; 14:3-4), along with a rejected and repentant Israel and a redeemed and restored Israel (Zch 10:6-12; 12:8-13:1; 14:9, 20-21).

These elements appear in tension until He is recognized in the initial fulfillment with the first coming as the Suffering Messiah and Israel’s national rejection, and in the final fulfillment with His second coming as Conquering Messiah.²¹ Therefore, while Zch 13:7-9 is a direct messianic prophecy, the NT authors telescope it with a near fulfillment at Messiah’s first advent (v. 7) and then a far fulfillment in the second advent (vv. 8-9). Peter seems to understand the far eschatological reference of vv. 8-9 when he alludes to the “testing by fire” (Zch 13:9 in 1Pt 1:7) as being fulfilled before the revelation of Messiah (i.e., in the trials of the tribulation).

THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE SHEPHERD IN ZECHARIAH 13:7-9

Another major theme of Zch 13:7 is its focus on the means of national cleansing. This comes first through the shepherd and affects the sheep. Thus, the identification of the Shepherd is essential in understanding this passage. In Scripture, the Lord alone is the ultimate Shepherd of Israel (e.g., Gn 48:15; 49:24; Pss 28:9; 80:1; Isa 40:11) and by extension of the metaphor, the people (Israel) are the sheep of His pasture (Ps 100:3). The Patriarchs were shepherds (Gn 13, 26, 30) and the Lord’s provision to Abraham of a ram for the covenant son (Isaac) is a preview of God’s provision for a substitutionary sacrifice in the future (Gn 22). Springing from this background in Genesis are two other traditions that inform the shepherd/sheep metaphor throughout Scripture: the exodus tradition, where Moses is the prototype shepherd of Israel (Isa 63:11) and the royal Davidic tradition where a shepherd becomes a king to “shepherd My people Israel” (2Sm 5:2). This same phrase is used in Mic 5:2 of the hope of an eschatological David who will be God’s Messiah-Shepherd. 22 The shepherd, as a representative of God, is to exemplify godly virtues.

A third tradition of the evil shepherd emerged as the one who rejected these godly qualities and standards, leading Israel astray. Such shepherds were subjects of divine wrath (Ezk 34). Although some suggest this is the case for the shepherd judged by God in Zch 13:7, this is not supported by the text. The shepherd is identified as “My (the Lord’s) associate” (see above). This is not an evil shepherd that has arisen, it is still the good shepherd, though misunderstood, since the divine judgment was not caused by His failure, but because of His rejection by the nation. This shepherd cannot be an evil figure since He cooperates with God’s purpose of scattering the sheep so that they may be purified by suffering.²³ There is a contrast with the shepherd here and the “worthless shepherd” in Zch 11:17 where the sword does not inflict a fatal injury, but only strikes the arm and right eye. In chap. 11, the good shepherd (prophet) was unable to turn the people to the Lord, and so judgment fell on the evil shepherds and the people.

In Zch 13:7 the judgment does not stop with the evil shepherds (10:2-3; 11:15-17) but falls also on God’s good shepherd, providing purification/refining of the nation. As Hedrick notes, “The shepherd is willing to pay the ultimate price in providing the salvation and deliverance of the sheep. In these opening verses of Zechariah 13:1-9, the promise is that God will provide cleansing for ‘the house of David.’”²⁴ The language here, as discussed above, sends the reader back to Isa 53 for the explanation, which is that the Servant/Shepherd was being judged for Israel’s sins and in their place. This is a second mention of the death of the Messiah (Zch 12:10; 13:7). The good shepherd was first pierced (12:10) and now is struck with the sword (13:7). This, as S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. observes, “is recorded from the standpoint of God.”²⁵ Moreover, it is God Himself who executes the shepherd, since the term “strike” is masculine and agrees with “the LORD of Hosts.” The two imperatives “awake” and “strike” are parallel, and both are addressed to the sword, the symbol of judicial authority (see Rom 13:4) by the Lord. Therefore, Zechariah is consistent with other prophets in presenting Messiah’s death as God’s divine activity (cf. Isa 53:10; Ac 2:23) as well as part of Israel’s purification (12:10-14; Ac 2:36; 4:10; 5:30).

The results of the striking of the shepherd are described (13:7b-9), both for the immediate period surrounding His death (v. 7b) and the future period in which a remnant, brought through a time of testing, will be restored to covenant relationship identified as “My people” who will say “The LORD is our God” (vv. 8-9). The prophecy moves to the end times (v. 8), after the people of Israel have returned to the land (in unbelief), when they will face great affliction designed to both purge and prepare a remnant. The intertextual reference is Ezk 5:12-13, where two-thirds of Israel are destroyed and one-third is scattered as a remnant with the sword behind them, indicating continued discipline. This is clearly a prediction of devastation as the two-thirds “perish” (Hb. gawa, which always refers to the act of dying). Ezekiel’s reference is to the Babylonian destruction and exile, but the pattern is set for the preserved, yet disciplined remnant, by this text.

Zechariah explains that the judgment of Israel in the eschatological future tribulation will follow this precedent, and the preserved remnant will be brought to repentance and restored in the end time at the coming of Messiah (v. 9; cf. Isa 10:22-23). The final remnant will call on the Messiah for salvation (Zch 12:10; cf. Rom 11:25-27). The term qara (“call”) alongside ‘ana (“answer”) denotes both a human cry for help in the form of a prayer and God calling a human being in v. 9. Here are the national repentance of Israel toward Messiah and the divine response in His return to revive the nation and restore it in the millennial kingdom. For this reason, the covenantal formula of loyalty “they are My people … the LORD is my God” is employed to show that Israel is in a restored relationship with God. This passage as a messianic text predicted the whole program of God for Israel from ruin to restoration. The passage fits well within Zechariah’s presentation of the Messiah’s initial humble role as a suffering king (Zch 9:9) and His final victorious reign as the sovereign king (Zch 14:9).

1. Charles L. Feinberg, God Remembers: A Study of Zechariah (Multnomah, OR: Multnomah Press, 1977), 233.

2. For a comparison of the priestly purification of this passage with that of Joshua the high priest in Zch 3 see Daniel F. O’Kennedy, “Purification of Priest,” Old Testament Essays 27/1 (2014): 231–46.

3. R. Mason, The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1977), 117.

4. Ingram London, “Messianic Allusions of Zechariah 13:6 Revisited” (Research paper for course OTST 555 Prophets, Andrews University 2011). Merrill F. Unger also championed the messianic interpretation of Zch 13:6 in Zechariah: Prophet of Messiah’s Glory (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963), 228–30.

5. George L. Robinson described Zechariah as “the most Messianic, the most truly apocalyptic and eschatological, of all the writings of the OT.” “The Book of Zechariah” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr, John L. Nuelson, and Edgar Young Mullins (Chicago: Howard-Severance Company, 1915), V:3136.

6. See James A. Hartle, “The Literary Unity of Zechariah” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35/2 (June 1992): 145–157. Some evangelical scholars have also accepted this view. See Bruce K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 846–47 and Kenneth L. Barker, “Zechariah,” in Daniel and the Minor Prophets, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1985), 7:597, who proposed that Nehemiah wrote chaps. 9–14 later in his life.

7. Stephen Cook, “The Metamorphosis of a Shepherd: The Tradition History of Zechariah 11:17 + 13:7-9,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55:3 (July, 1993), 453–466.

8. Barker, “Zechariah,” 7:596.

9. See B. C. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia:

Fortress Press), 482–83, and Michael Rydelnik, “Zechariah,” in The Moody Bible Commentary, ed. Michael Rydelnik and Michael Vanlaningham (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2014), 1413–14.

10. See E. M. and C. L. Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, Anchor Bible 25C (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 385–87.

11. Oddly, the popular anti-missionary and founder of Outreach Judaism, R. Tovia Singer, does not include a discussion on Zch 13:7 in either of volume of his expanded work Let’s Get Biblical: Why Doesn’t Judaism Accept the Christian Messiah? although he does treat Zch 13:1-6 and 8–9.

12. Joachim Jeremias, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966) 6:493, n. 78.

13. For a discussion of this document with some parallel texts in CD A VII, 7-XIII, 21 and CD B XIX, 1-XX, 34, see Joseph M. Baumgarten and Daniel R. Schwartz, “Damascus Document (CD),” in James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, vol. 2, Damascus Document, War Scrolls, and Related Documents, The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1995), 25.

14. J. de Waard, A Comparative Study of the Old Testament Text in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the New Testament, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 4 (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1965), 196.

15. Geza Vermes, An Introduction to the Complete Dead Sea Scrolls (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 136 n. 9.

16. Joyce Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, ed. D. J. Wiseman (Downers Grove, IL: Tyndale, IVP), 197–98.

17. Maarten J. J. Menken, “Striking the Shepherd. Early Christian Versions and Interpretations of Zechariah 13, 7,” Biblica 92:1 (2011), 45.

18. James E. Smith, What the Bible Teaches About the Promised Messiah (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1993), 458.

19. Clay Alan Ham, “Zechariah in Matthew’s Gospel: Jesus as Coming King and Rejected Shepherd” (PhD dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2003), 112.

20. See Paul Sloan, “The Return of the Shepherd: Zechariah 13:7–14:6 as the Interpretive Framework for Mark 13,” in Ancient Readers and their Scriptures: Engaging the Hebrew Bible in Early Judaism and Christianity, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Volume: 107 (Brill 2016), 128–58.

21. See Won Jin Jeon, “The Chronology of the Events in Zechariah 12–14” (Honors Thesis, Andrews University, 2016). The author found that the literary structures, key terms, Hebrew grammar, and general theological motifs aided in the holistic understanding of the timeliness of the events in Zch 1214 and separated the timing of the events in chaps. 12–13 from those in chap. 14. The weakness in the interpretive approach is the failure to distinguish that national Israel has a future in these texts and has not been superseded by the Church. This approach applies the texts spiritually to all believers and thereby loses the significance of the timing argument it proposes.

22. Terry J. Hedrick, “Jesus as Shepherd in the Gospel of Matthew” (Durham e-theses, Durham University, 2007), 179.

23. See C. Stuhlmueller, Rebuilding with Hope: A Commentary on the Books of Haggai and Zechariah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 152–53.

24. Terry J. Hedrick, “Jesus as Shepherd in the Gospel of Matthew,” 177.

25. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “Israel’s National Cleansing” – Zechariah 13:1-9 (Transcript, Dallas TX: Believer’s Chapel, 2008): 11.

Further Reading

The OT Prophets Testify that the Messiah is Equal to God the Father [Part 1], [Part 2]

The Jews Pierce Jehovah

The Divine Messiah Gets Pierced!