ISRAEL PIERCES THE MAN JEHOVAH!
In this post I will be referencing the book by David Baron titled, The Visions & Prophecies of Zechariah– “The Prophet of Hope and Glory”: An Exposition, published by Morgan & Scott, Ltd, in 1918. All emphasis will be mine.
ZECH. 12:10
“On former occasions, when Jeshurun had been made to ride on the high places of the earth, he had waxed fat and kicked; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation. But it will never be so again. He who comes to conquer their foes comes also to subdue their hearts.” Hence, great as their triumph will be, great as will have been their individual might in the last stage of their conflict with the surrounding hosts (so that “he that is feeble among them will be as David”), yet, when they return from their victory, this their glorious day of triumph will end in self-abasement and tears.3 How this wonderful change will be brought about, how the stubborn heart of unbelieving and gainsaying Israel will at last be broken, we are told in the 10th verse : “And I will ai pour upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and supplication; and they fc: shall look upon Me whom they have pierced: and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for Him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born!”
“I think,” said a great master in Israel, “there is nothing in the whole range of scripture more touching than the promise contained in these simple, unadorned words. As they touch the heart they fix themselves on our memory. Who can ever forget them? ‘They shall look unto (or “upon”) Me whom they have pierced.'” ‘They shall look unto (or “upon”) Me whom they have pierced.'”4
And yet there is not another scripture in the Old Testament around which more controversy has raged than around “these simple, unadorned,” and, to the Christian, most precious words. Jewish commentators and some rationalistic Christian writers who seem not less biased in their anti-Christological methods in interpreting the Old Testament,1 have tried their utmost to divert this scripture from Him whose rejection and suffering unto death, and yet future recognition and penitent reception on the part of “His own ” nation, it foretells.
The modern Jewish translation of the passage as given, for instance, in the “Appendix of the Revised Version,” issued by the Jewish Community in England for the use of Jews, in 1896, is as follows: “And they (i.e., the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem) shall look up to Me because of Him whom they (i.e., the nations which come against Jerusalem) have pierced.” This translation, first suggested by Rashi, adopted by Kimchi in his commentary on Zechariah, was fully elaborated by Rabbi Isaak of Troki2 in his polemical work against Christianity, Chizzuk Emunah (“Strengthening of the Faith”), who thus explains:
“If it should happen that any of the Israelites should be pierced, namely, in that war, even though it should be one of the most inconsiderable, they shall wonder greatly how this could happen, and will think that this is the beginning of a fall and defeat before their enemies, as Joshua did. When the men of Ai smote thirty-six of Israel, he said: ‘Alas! O Lord God, why didst Thou cause this people to pass the Jordan?’ And again: ‘ What shall I say when Israel turn their backs before their enemies?’ (Josh. vii.). So will it be at that time if they should see any of them pierced, they will be astonished, and look on Me on account of Him whom they pierced.”
This translation, however, to which English-speaking Jews have, as we have seen, officially committed themselves, only shows the length which modern Judaism will go in misinterpreting the plainest scriptures so as to evade the Christian argument drawn from them in support of the claims of Jesus of Nazareth.1
It is a rendering which is contrary to grammar and to the natural sense, for, first, the word (eth asher) cannot possibly mean ” because of Him whom,” but simply ” whom,” emphatically and definitely expressed. And, secondly, the modern Jewish rendering or paraphrase implies that the subject of the second verb of the first verse, daqaru —”pierced,” is a different one from that of the first verb, is a different one from that of the first verb, w’hibitu —”shall look” in the same short sentence. But it is altogether unnatural to suppose that two parties were in the prophet’s mind, and that “they” who “shall look” are the Jews, and “they” who “have pierced” are the Gentile nations.
Another “Jewish” rendering of the passage, equally unfair and even less tenable, but contradictory of the above, is that found in the bulky Jewish Family Bible,” which has also a kind of “official” air about it, inasmuch as it was “printed with the sanction of (the late) Rev. Dr. Adler, the chief Rabbi.”1 The critical passage in question is translated thus: “But I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication, and they whom the nations are piercing shall look upon Me, and shall mourn over it,” etc. But a translation which does not scruple to interpolate words and expressions is not worth noticing, except to point out that it can claim, at best, to be only a polemical Targum, or commentary, the chief aim of which is the elimination of all references to a suffering, atoning Messiah from the pages of the Old Testament. It is not necessary to point out to any one who can read the original that the words, “whom the nations were piercing,” are not found in the Hebrew text, and are an unjustifiable gloss of the “reviser.”
But there is a more ancient Jewish interpretation of this prophecy than those to which I referred, which were invented by Jews for controversial reasons; it is that, namely, which applies the passage to Messiah ben Joseph. Thus Aben Ezra,2 who wrote after Rashi, says: “All the heathen shall look to me to see what I shall do to those who pierced Messiah, the son of Joseph”; and Abarbanel,3 after noticing the interpretation of Rashi and Kimchi, says:
“It is more correct to interpret the passage of Messiah, the son of Joseph, as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, have interpreted it in the treatise Sukkah,1 for he shall be a mighty man of valour of the tribe of Joseph, and shall at first be captain of the Lord’s host in that war (namely, against Gog and Magog), but in that war shall die.”
This interpretation is of interest and importance to the Christian student, in so far as it shows that the disciples of Christ, when the New Testament was written, were not alone in interpreting this scripture of the Messiah. The Jewish Rabbis explained it in the same way, only they applied it to Messiah ben Joseph, who does not exist in Scripture, and is an invention of their own brains.
Let me, while dwelling on the Jewish interpretation of this passage, reproduce a striking passage from Alshech,2 which, barring the mention of Messiah ben Joseph, might almost be accepted as a statement of the Christian view of this scripture.
“I will do yet a third thing, and that is, that ‘ they shall look unto Me, ‘for they shall lift up their eyes unto Me in perfect repentance, when they see Him whom they pierced, that is, Messiah, the Son of Joseph; for our Rabbis, of blessed memory, have said that He will take upon Himself all the guilt of Israel, and shall then be slain in the war to make an atonement in such manner that it shall be accounted as if Israel had pierced Him, for on account of their sin He has died; and, therefore, in order that it may be reckoned to them as a perfect atonement, they will repent and look to the blessed One, saying that there is none beside Him to forgive those that mourn on account of Him who died for their sin: this is the meaning of ‘ They shall look upon Me.'”
There is another critical point on which I must very briefly touch before proceeding with the exposition. The reading of the Massoretic text, w’hibitu elai (“they shall look unto Me “), has been much disputed by Jews and modern writers, but it is supported by all the ancient versions and extant MSS with very few exceptions, and is the reading which is accepted in all the Rabbinic quotations made above. In a few MSS, however, the marginal correction—alav—”unto Him,” instead of, elai—”unto Me,” was made by Jewish hands; and in several instances this “Keri,” or marginal reading, has, as is sometimes apt to be the case, crept into the text itself.
But we need not impute any dishonest intention to the Jews in this matter, as some have done,1 and of a desire to corrupt the text; for, as a matter of fact, however much they obscured and perverted the true sense of Scripture, through their misinterpretations, and in their paraphrases and commentaries, they always most jealously guarded the original letter and text of Scripture from alteration or corruption.
The marginal reading in the few MSS which is also accepted in the Talmud, is, however, not recognised as a Keri, or proper reading, in the Massoretic text. It originated in the very natural difficulty, from the Jewish point of view, of conceiving how God, who is undoubtedly the speaker in the first part of the verse, since He promises to pour out the spirit of grace and supplication, can be “pierced.” It requires the light which is thrown on Messianic prophecy by the New Testament; and a knowledge of Him in whom dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and who could say, “I and the Father are ‘ One,'” for men to grasp this mystery.2 (Pp. 437-443)
2 Isaac Ben Abraham of Troki, a Karaite Rabbi—born in 1533, died in 1594. His book is still the chief arsenal whence many arguments of modern Jews in their polemics against Christianity are drawn. (P. 438)
1 An instance of departure not only from the plain sense and grammar, but from the more ancient Jewish traditional interpretations of Messianic passages for controversial reasons, is found in Rashi (Rabbi Solomon Bar Isaac), the most popular commentator on the Bible and Talmud — born at Troys in 1040, died in 1 105. In his commentary on this passage in the Bible he says: “They shall look back to mourn because the Gentiles had pierced some amongst them, and killed some of them.”
But in his commentary on the Talmud he says: “The words, ‘the land shall mourn,’ are found in the prophecy of Zechariah, and he prophesies of the future that they shall mourn on account of Messiah, the son of Joseph, who shall be slain in the war of Gog and Magog” (Sukkah, fol. 52, col. l). That this manifest contradiction is not accidental, but intentional, appears from the fact that this writer has dealt similarly by other controverted passages; for instance, Isa. liii., which, in his commentary on the Bible, he expounds of the Jewish people; but in his commentary on the Talmud he explains of Messiah. Indeed, his determination to get rid of any explanation that could favour Christianity is plainly avowed in his commentary on Ps. xxi., where he says: “Our Rabbis have expounded JE it of the King Messiah, but it is better to expound it further of David himself, in | order to answer heretics.” (P. 439)
1 The passage will be found in Bab. Talmud, Sukk. 520.
2 Moses Alshech flourished in Safed, Palestine, in the second half of the sixteenth century. The doctrine or theory of two Messiahs—a Messiah ben Joseph, who should suffer and die, and the Messiah ben David, who shall reign in power and glory—can be traced back to the third or fourth century A.D., and very probably originated in the perplexity of the Talmudists at the apparently irreconcilable pictures of a suffering, and yet a glorious Messiah, which they found in the prophecies. Instead of finding the solution in two advents of the one person, they explained the different scriptures as referring to two different persons.
“But whom did the Rabbis mean by the epithet Messiah ben Joseph?” writes a learned Hebrew Christian brother. We do not hesitate to answer: “None other person than Jesus, whom, after their great disappointment in the revolution of Bar-Cochba, they tacitly acknowledged as the suffering Messiah, and denominated Him by the name that He was commonly called in Galilee, in order perhaps to screen themselves against the hatred and persecution of their own followers, or of their Roman masters. This idea has been hinted at by the Rev. M. Wolkenberg in his translation of The Pentateuch according to the Talmud, p. 156, and broadly asserted by Dr. Biesenthal in his Hebrew commentary on St. Luke (chap, xxiii. 48). This accounts for the remarkable fact that on the Feast of Trumpets, before the blowing of the ram’s horn, God’s mercy is besought through ‘Jesus, the Prince of the Presence of God, the Metatron,’ or the One who shares the throne of God. At this same service, verses, mostly from Ps. cxix., are repeated, whose first letters form the name of ‘Christon,’ but so ingeniously chosen, that they should at the same time read, ‘the Bruiser of Satan.’ This name also is written on amulets and in Jewish houses when a child is born, as well as the name of the angel, which is mentioned in the said service, with alteration of only one accountable. (P. 441)
ZECH. 13:7
“Against My Shepherd“—Jehovah Himself is “the Shepherd of Israel,” but He fulfils all that is implied in this relationship and office mediately, in and through the Messiah. This is fully set forth in Ezek. xxxiv., where, after announcing that He will Himself “seek” and “save,” ” heal ” and ” strengthen,” “feed” and “satisfy,” His now scattered flock, He says: “I will set up one shepherd over them, and He shall feed them, even my servant David” (whom the Jewish commentators themselves identify with the Messiah, “David’s greater Son”). “He shall feed them, and He shall be their Shepherd” God, therefore, calls Him “My Shepherd,” for He is not only specially called and appointed by Him to this office, but because He is in the fullest sense His Representative, in and through whom the shepherd relationship between God and His people is realised.
The unique and peculiar relationship between this ” Shepherd ” and Jehovah is fully brought out in the words which follow: (‘al gebher ‘amithi) —”the man that is my Fellow.” The word (‘amithi) is found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible only in Leviticus. It seems to be a substantive, and denotes “fellowship,” “neighbourship,” in the abstract. But the only other place in the Hebrew Bible where this word is found, namely, in Leviticus, it is used only as the synonym of akh (“brother”), in the concrete sense of the nearest one.1 The two words gebher (“man”) and “‘amithi” (“my Fellow”) must therefore be regarded as apposites, and have been properly so rendered in the English Bible.
Some rationalistic writers have sought to identify the smitten Shepherd in this passage with “the foolish shepherd” in chap. xi. 15—17, who is permitted to destroy the flock in punishment for their rejection of the Good Shepherd, and who is himself in the end smitten with a sword on his right arm and his right eye.2 If the expression, “My Shepherd,” stood alone, there might be some slight plausibility for this view, for the ” foolish,” or evil shepherd is, in a sense, also raised up of God as a scourge on the “sheep of slaughter” after their rejection of the Good Shepherd; but the further description of the Shepherd in this passage as gebher ‘amithi—”the man who is my Fellow,” or “my nearest one”— implies much more than mere appointment to this office by Jehovah. More also than mere “unity or community of vocation,” or that he is so styled because he had to feed the flock like Jehovah, and as His representative.
“No owner of a flock, or lord of a flock, would call a hired or purchased shepherd his ‘amith. And so God would not apply this epithet to any godly or ungodly man whom He might have appointed shepherd over a nation. The idea of nearest one (or fellow) involves not only similarity in vocation, but community of physical or spiritual descent, according to which he whom God calls His neighbour cannot be a mere man, but can only be one who participates in the Divine nature, or is essentially Divine. The Shepherd of Jehovah, whom the sword is to smite, is therefore no other than the Messiah, who is also identified with Jehovah in chap. xii. 10; or the Good Shepherd, who says of Himself, ‘I and My Father are one ‘ — (John x. 30).”
No, the Shepherd of this passage is the Good Shepherd, who, in chap. xi. 4-14, is mysteriously identified with Jehovah, the same over whom the nation will mourn with a deep universal mourning in the day when the spirit of grace and of supplication is poured upon them, and their eyes are opened to perceive that in piercing Him they pierced Jehovah.1
The Jews accused our Lord Jesus of blasphemy, because He claimed not only to have come from God, but that He was “equal with God”; or because when speaking of Himself as “the Good Shepherd” who layeth down His life for the sheep, He said (with probable allusion to this very passage in Zechariah): “I and My Father are one.“
It was indeed a mystery passing mere human comprehension how this could be true of a man who stood in their midst. But this mystery faces us, not only in the pages of the New Testament, but in the inspired Scriptures of the prophets. There, too, the promised Redeemer is depicted as a babe born in Bethlehem, “whose goings forth are from everlasting,”2 “a child born” in the midst of the Jewish nation, whose name is “Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace,”3 a son of David, yet Jehovah Tzidkenu,4 a “man,” and yet Jehovah’s ” Fellow,” or equal. This mystery, like others in the pages of the Old and New Testaments, can be solved only by faith in things which are revealed, to the knowledge of which man can never attain by a mere process of reasoning.
But when thus laid hold of with a pure heart and in childlike simplicity, we are brought also to understand that the doctrine of the twofold nature of the Messiah — the fact that He is Man according to His human nature and, according to His Divine nature “God blessed forever,” is a necessary part in the Divine philosophy of Redemption unfolded in the Scriptures, for it is only a Divine Saviour who could redeem man from sin and death; only one in whose person the human and the Divine meet who can be the true Mediator between God and man, in and through whom the broken fellowship between heaven and earth, between the Holy God and fallen man, can be fully restored. Only as man, and one who in all points was tempted even as we are, could He become the compassionate High Priest touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and able with a perfect human sympathy to enter into all our griefs and sorrows ; but only as the Holy One, who Himself was pure from sin — the everlasting Son of the Father in whom dwelt “the fulness of the Godhead bodily,” could He effectually succour and deliver us, and lift us out of our own innate wretchedness and sin.
Therefore, this doctrine of the twofold nature of the Messiah, which to the unbelieving is such an occasion of stumbling, is to the child of God a source of unspeakable comfort, and an occasion for unceasing praise.
But this is somewhat of a digression. To return to the passage immediately before us, it is interesting to observe that Jewish commentators themselves have admitted that the word “’amithi” (“my Fellow”) implies equality with God; “only since they own not Him who was God and Man they must interpret it of a false claim on the part of man,” overlooking that it is God Himself who thus speaks of the shepherd of his text.1 (Pp. 476-479)
FURTHER READING
ZECHARIAH ON THE PIERCING OF GOD
ZECH. 12:10 & THE PIERCING OF GOD
The OT Prophets Testify that the Messiah is Equal to God the Father [Part 1], [Part 2]