The Jews Pierce Jehovah

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. 1285-1300. All emphasis will be mine.

Zechariah 12:10-13:1

The Pierced Messiah

DANIEL E. STUART

The early rabbis and Christian expositors interpreted Zechariah 12:10 as a messianic prophecy.¹ Today, many Bible scholars reject the “messianic interpretation” by choosing to identify the one(s) pierced in Zch 12:10 with slain Israelites or any number of Jewish martyrs instead. The Koren Jerusalem Bible (JBK) reflects this trend with, “and they shall look towards me, regarding those whom the nations have thrust through. And they shall mourn for him (that is slain) as one mourns for an only son.” In other words, the verse describes the mourning over Jews who die in a battle while defending their home country. On the other hand, the HCSB reads, “And they will look at Me whom they pierced. They will mourn for Him as one mourns for an only child.” This translation is more conducive to a messianic interpretation since the Lord is the one pierced (cf. Jn 1:1; Jn 19:37). With that in mind, it becomes clear how the identity of the “pierced one” depends on the translation of the Hebrew text. So the way to discover the identity of the “pierced one” and thereby the messianic potential of Zch 12:10 is through proper grammatical analysis and translation.

This article will defend the “messianic interpretation” by carefully investigating the passage’s grammar and providing an interpretation congruent with the findings. Then it will be suggested that the verse refers to a future time when Israel will somehow pierce the Lord—thus, opening up a door for the NT’s claim that Jesus is God in the flesh, who was pierced at His death.

HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION

The early rabbis saw a reference to Messiah ben Joseph who suffers and dies in Zch 12:10.² Although Jewish scholars such as Isaac of Troki and Kimchi argued for a reference to slain Israelites rather than a slain Messiah,³ some of the greatest rabbis like Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Abarvanel, and Alshech preferred a reference to Messiah ben Joseph.⁴ Clearly, this is an argument from oral tradition and extrabiblical sources; Zch 12:10 says nothing about a Messiah ben Joseph.⁵ These Jewish scholars, however, reveal the antiquity of the “messianic interpretation.”

Zch 12:10 has a long history of interpretation, and Rex Mason summarizes the lack of consensus among its commentators over the identity of the one pierced:

Many have found it difficult to understand how the people [of Israel] could have been said to “pierce” Yahweh, and so they have emended the text to read “they shall look to him whom they have pierced” (the version found in John 19:37). Others have taken it to mean that they have pierced Yahweh by their treatment of his representative. Some have rendered the verse, “They shall look to me. (As for) him whom they have pierced, they will mourn for him….” Some have linked the “pierced one” with the good shepherd of ch. 11. Some have found a messianic reference here. Others have thought that there is an allusion to the Suffering Servant of Second Isaiah, or to a supposed feature of the earlier enthronement festival in which the king was ritually humiliated. Several have attempted to identify the “pierced one” with some historical figure, e.g., Onias III, the high priest, while still others have taken the “him” in a collective sense to represent the godly community which has been persecuted.⁶ 

The total number of theories is particularly indicative of how enigmatic the prophecy is. Nevertheless, the case has been made for Zch 12:10 as a messianic prophecy for a long time with proponents and detractors based on how they access the evidence for the revelation of a suffering Messiah in the book of Zechariah and whether they interpret the verse as predictive prophecy. The aim of this article is to bring some clarity into the scholarly discussion by discovering the author’s intent when he wrote, “and they will look at Me whom they pierced.”

CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS

This article rejects the methods of higher criticism and assumes that the prophet Zechariah authored his entire book, which places the time of writing in the postexilic period. There is enough evidence to warrant interpreting the book in this way, and discussions can be found elsewhere.⁷

If Israel only had chaps. 1–8 they might have believed postexilic Judah was a poor fulfillment of God’s promises, but chaps. 9–14 reveal that Zechariah’s day was one of “small things” (4:10) and that the promises of old were still awaiting future fulfillment.⁸ So Israel’s initial return to the promised land was a preview of their ultimate restoration in the future—chaps. 9–14 helped them to see what that would look like.

In chaps. 12–13, the prophet Zechariah envisions a future day when Jerusalem is besieged by its enemies (12:2) and delivered by the Lord, who achieves victory on the battlefield (12:3-9) and in the spiritual lives of His covenant people (13:1-6). By a special work of His Spirit, the Lord stimulates an attitude of penitence within His people over the one whom they rejected. The entire land, especially David’s ruling house, grieves over the act as one grieves the death of an only child (12:10-14).

INTERTEXTUAL ANALYSIS

TEXTUAL INTEGRITY OF “TO ME”

The Hebrew text (specifically the Masoretic Text hereby referred to as the MT) reads “to me,” but some ancient medieval manuscripts have “to him.” The latter reading can significantly alter the meaning of the text and, therefore, necessitates a close investigation of the evidence for both options.⁹

H. G. Mitchell, among other Bible scholars, doubts the reliability of the MT because it makes God the object of the fatal piercing: “And they will look at Me (God) whom they pierced.” Mitchell believes if the author intended the Lord to be the object of the piercing, then he would not have switched from first person (“me”) to third person (“him”) in the second part of Zch 12:10 to describe the mourning; he would have used “me” throughout and made the idea obvious.¹⁰

There are two problems with these common objections to the “to me” translation. First, although the concept of piercing God is difficult theologically, lower criticism (the study of surviving manuscripts in order to establish the original text) has nothing to do with one’s theological orientation. Second, Zechariah’s switch from first person to third person almost certainly represents a change in perspective, a not uncommon feature in the Hebrew OT (e.g., Zch 7:13; 9:10). 11 Thus, it is likely that there is a switch from the Lord speaking of Himself to Zechariah speaking of the Lord in this text. This view is reflected in the HCSB through capitalization: “And they will look at Me whom they pierced. They will mourn for Him … and weep bitterly for Him” (emphasis added).

The reading of all the old versions such as the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, the Aramaic Targums, Syriac Peshitta, Old Latin Bible, and the Latin Vulgate all support the integrity of “to me.”¹² Generally, if the versions agree on a reading, then that reading is most likely original (i.e., what Zechariah wrote). In fairness, “to him” is found in a number of manuscripts—but merely as a marginal note or a marginal note that eventually invaded the actual text itself.¹³

Even the principles of lower criticism support the MT here. When confronted with this type of textual issue, the first question is, Which reading is more likely to have caused the other? Did “to me” originate from “to him” or conversely did “to him” originate from “to me”? David Baron has suggested a reasonable solution for the existence of “to him” based on this principle: “‘To him’ 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 […] can be ‘pierced.”’¹⁴ One certainly has more difficulty explaining how “to him” would have given rise to “to me” since the tendency was for scribes to soften theological problems in the text, not the other way around.

Ultimately, those who reject “to me” use the NT to support “to him.” The apostle John quotes a singular phrase from Zch 12:10 in Jn 19:37: “They shall look on Him whom they pierced” (NASB, emphasis added). The NASB was chosen here because it uses “Him” and suggests John specified the true reading of Zch 12:10 as God led him, but “Him” is not required by the Greek text (cf. the New English Translation [NET]).¹⁵ Regardless, John could have used “Him” because he believes Jesus is God. So Jn 19:37 refers to “Him” who is the “Me” of Zch 12:10. Jesus is the object of the looking and is not the speaker in the NT, whereas the Lord is the object of the looking and speaker in the OT.

In view of the foregoing evidence, “to me” should be considered as original because there is no substantial evidence to the contrary.¹⁶ Those who accept “to him” or other revisions¹⁷ do so out of theological concern because the ancient versions and principles of lower criticism support “to me.” Thus, the Lord is the “Me” of Zch 12:10.

INTERPRETATION OF “WHOM”

The HCSB’s “whom” translates the Hebrew ’et ’asher. The table below categorizes the different ways this two-word phrase been translated (cf. italicized text).

Table I.

ZECHARIAH 12:10 IN THE ENGLISH VERSIONS (all emphases added)

LXX, Brenton

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and compassion: and they shall look upon me, because they have mocked me, and they shall make lamentation for him, as for a beloved friend, and they shall grieve intensely, as for a firstborn son.

JPS, 1917

And I will pour upon the house of David, And upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, The spirit of grace and of supplication; And they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through; 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.

NJPS, 1985

But I will fill the House of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem with a spirit of pity and compassion; and they shall lament to Me about those slain, wailing over them as over a favorite son and showing bitter grief as over a firstborn.

JBK

But I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Yerushalayim the spirit of grace and of supplication: and they shall look towards me, regarding those whom the nations have thrust through. And they shall mourn for him (that is slain) as one mourns for an only son, and shall be in bitterness over him, as one that is in bitterness for a firstborn.

HCSB

Then I will pour out a spirit of grace and prayer on the house of David and the residents of Jerusalem, and they will look at Me whom they pierced. They will mourn for Him as one mourns for an only child and weep bitterly for Him as one weeps for a firstborn.

KJV

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they 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 firstborn.

RSV

And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born.

ESV

And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.

NIV

And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

The LXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew OT) has “because” (anth hon)¹⁸ instead of “whom.” Randolph Bynum suspects, however, that the LXX translator might have forced himself to use “because” based on his mistranslation of a key word and his attempt to harmonize the surrounding words to fit the sense of that one mistranslated word. This key Hebrew word is the verb daqar (pierce).¹⁹ Oddly, the LXX has instead “danced in mockery” (katorcheomai)—a word that occurs only once in the LXX.²⁰ The variance probably arose because the LXX translator confused the consonants of the Hebrew verb daqar and accidently read raqad (dance).²¹ These two Hebrew words look and sound the same, so it is possible that the translator had mistakenly switched the d (d) and the r (r) in daqar and read “dance” (raqad) instead of “pierce.”²² This explains why he wrote katorcheomai (dance in mockery).

Table II.

LXX TRANSLATION SCENARIO

1. Hebrew text has daqar (pierce).

2. While reading, the LXX translator mistakenly confuses the d and the r in daqar (pierce).

3. This results in the translator reading raqad (dance) instead of daqar.

4. After mistakenly reading raqad the translator writes katorcheomai (dance in mockery).

If this translation scenario is true, then, according to Bynum, it would make better sense for the translator to use “whom” producing the difficult “they will look on me whom they danced in mockery” (emphasis added).²³ Rather, in view of the mistranslated word “danced in mockery,” the translator was forced to use “because” in order to make sense of everything and wrote the more intelligible “they will look on me because they danced in mockery.”²⁴ To this end, the reading “because” in the LXX should be rejected as this is not a careful translation of the Hebrew text.

The apostle John quoted Zch 12:10 in Jn 19:37 and alluded to it in Rev 1:7. Rev 1:7 reads, “Look! He is returning with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced [hoitines] him, and all the tribes on the earth [or “on the land”] will mourn because of him. This will certainly come to pass! Amen” (NET, Greek added), contrasting strongly with the LXX. The Gospel passage quotes part of Zch 12:10 and also disagrees with the LXX: “And again another Scripture says, ‘They will look on the one whom [hon] they have pierced’” (NET, Greek added).²⁵...

The Jewish Publication Society Bible (JPS) has, “And they shall look unto me because they have thrust him through” (emphasis added). Of course, ’asher may sometimes mean “because.” However, when the definite direct object marker (’et in Hebrew but usually untranslatable) appears before ’asher, which is the case in Zch 12:10, then the word means “who, that, which.”²⁶ In our context ’et ’asher simply means “whom” and refers to the Lord (“Me”).²⁷...

The Koren Jerusalem Bible (JBK) has “And they shall look towards me, regarding those whom the nations have thrust through” (emphasis added). In a similar way, the New Jewish Publication Society Tanakh (NJPS) reads, “And they shall lament to me about those who are slain” (emphasis added).²⁸ So, according to these translations, Israel is looking to Yahweh with deep sorrow concerning their fellow Israelites whom the nations slayed by the sword...

The problems with the JBK and NJPS are several. First, the NJPS renders “they pierced” (daqaru) improperly with “are slain,” as if it were in a passive voice (as if it were in the Hebrew Niphal stem); but, it is in the Hebrew al stem, so the verb should be translated in the active voice as “they pierced.” This mistranslation allows them to retain “about those who” and avoid using “whom,” which would make God the one pierced.

Second, according to the JBK the “nations” are the ones doing the piercing: “regarding those whom the nations have thrust through.” “Nations” is not in the Hebrew text, and the most natural reading requires that Israel be the one doing the act, not the nations, since there is no indication of the subjects changing whatsoever for the verbs of “looking,” “piercing,” and “mourning.” A. McCaul agrees:

Now, in the first place, this interpretation introduces a new subject to the verb “pierce,” for which there is no authority. No one who reads the words, “They shall look upon me on account of him whom they have pierced,” would ever suppose that those who pierced are different from those who shall look; and still less that the one are the Gentiles, and the other the Jews. There is not the slightest intimation of a change of subject.²⁹

It is possible that the “they” in “they pierced” is vague (indefinite person). If this is true then its subject could be the nations, theoretically speaking. But, as David Mitchell states, “To assume the indefinite person for ‘they pierced’ is hardly warranted when ‘they will look’ only four words before is definite. And to assume a new definite subject (‘the nations’) when none intervenes amounts to rewriting the biblical text.”³⁰ Regardless of what appears to place the full blame on the nations, careful analysis of this text and its context affirms that Israel pierces the Lord—which is why a fountain of cleansing for sin is opened specifically for them in Zch 13:1!

The reason for the sensitivity of Jewish translations to the idea that Israel would be guilty of piercing the Messiah is the church’s history of anti-Semitism based on the Christ-killer accusation against the Jewish people. Therefore, with regard to the human responsibility for piercing the Messiah, Walter C. Kaiser Jr. wisely warns, “This is not to add fuel to the fires of those who have castigated our Jewish neighbors by the stigma of being ‘Christ killers.’ That slur is as unfair as it is untrue! In fact, the Messiah was put to death by the Jews and the Romans [italics his]. It is also true that He was put to death for the sins of all the world. So caution must be exercised in this area when describing the roles that were carried out by the first-century participants in the death of Christ.”³¹ Michael Rydelnik adds, “These verses do indicate that at their end-time repentance, Jewish people will recognize that their ancestors were participants in the conspiracy against the Messiah, not that they acted alone or were perpetually guilty (see Ac 4:27-28).”³²

Another problem with these versions is the insertion of “those” (standing for Israelites) before “who/whom.”... What follows the relative pronoun is mourning over the death of a pierced individual (“Him/him”), not Israelites plural (“they”). It was already suggested that the switch from first person (“Me”) to third person (“Him”) in this text represents a change in perspective from the Lord speaking of Himself to Zechariah speaking of the Lord. However, it is possible for “him” to stand for Israelites in the collective sense as “them,” which Hebrew occasionally allows.³³

This is the interpretation of the NJPS: “And they shall lament to Me about those who are slain, wailing over them as over a favorite son and showing grief as over a first-born” (emphasis added). While this translation is grammatically possible, the immediate context does not say anything about Israelites dying in this battle; rather, Zechariah explains how the weakest Israelites in that day experienced a metamorphosis of sorts, becoming like Israel’s greatest warrior, David, and like God himself (v. 8). Israel will utterly consume its enemies as fire devours a woodpile (v. 6). The eyes of the Lord will be on the house of Judah while He strikes the enemy’s cavalry with blindness and madness (v. 4). Zechariah consistently emphasizes Judah and Jerusalem as safe and defended on that great Day of the Lord.

The collective “them” also fails to appreciate how Zch 13 impinges upon the meaning of 12:10. That the cleansing and repentance of Israel in 13:1-6 is a response to the sin in 12:10 is likely for four reasons. (1) The prophet uses his key temporal expression “on that day” from chap. 12 to continue his discourse through into chap. 13. (2) The author’s second reference to “the house of David,” “the residents of Jerusalem,” and a “fountain” (similar to “pour”) in 13:1 indicates that 13:1 continues the language and thought begun in 12:10.³⁴ (3) The cleansing fountain for sin and impurity in 13:1 is specifically opened for “the house of David” and “the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” (4) Zechariah uses “pierce” for a second time in 13:3 (a pun) and thereby associates the piercing in 13:3 with the one in 12:10. The logical conclusion is that Israel is participating in an illegal piercing in 12:10 as opposed to a lawful piercing in 13:3 and is now in need of cleansing for “sin” (chata’t) and “impurity” (niddah). These two terms appear in contexts where purification is needed once someone became ritually unclean through contact with a corpse, which correlates with the stabbing and death recorded in 12:10-14 (cf. Nm 19:13). Therefore, the Israelites are not mourning over what the nations have done to their fellow brothers (the collective “them”); Israel is mourning for their participation in the piercing of the Lord.

Closer to the true meaning of the text are those who suggest that “Him” does not refer to the Lord per se but introduces a new subject into the verse, presumably a divine and/or suffering Messiah.³⁵ In my judgment, that the author would introduce here a new subject who becomes the recipient of the mourning even though the Lord is pierced is overly complicated. Since the Lord is the one who is pierced, it logically follows that He is the one who is mourned over.³⁶ Thus, the most natural and faithful way to render the verse is, “And they [Israel] will look at Me [God] whom they [Israel] pierced. They [Israel] will mourn for Him [God] as one mourns for an only child.”³⁷

INTERPRETATION OF “PIERCE”

Now that the subject (Israel) and object (God) of the verb “pierce” are clarified, the meaning of the verb may be studied. One issue this word study attempts to solve is whether a metaphorical interpretation of the verb is justifiable. The “metaphorical view” does not require viewing the verse as having a direct fulfillment at Jesus’ crucifixion and second coming. In its original context, the verse speaks metaphorically of Israel’s rejection of the Lord. John Calvin said, “The Jews had pierced His heart” and that the piercing prefigured Israel’s ultimate rejection of God in the person of Jesus.³⁸ But this interpretation is inconsistent with how OT authors used the verb, as this study will show.

WORD STUDY OF “PIERCE”

“Pierce” translates the Hebrew word daqar, which appears 13 times in the OT—11 times as a verb and twice as a noun.³⁹ The verb is always used in reference to the human body (with the possible exception of Zch 12:10). On one occasion the weapon of choice is a spear (Nm 25:8), but usually the action involves a sword (sometimes the weapon is not specified). The weapon causes a fatal wound (except in Jer 37:10), often hastening a violent and almost always shameful death of one or more people (e.g., the shameful deaths of Abimelech and Saul). The basic idea behind the verb is “to pierce.”⁴⁰

Scholars debate the verb’s meaning in two passages. The first is Lam 4:9: “Those slain (chalal) by the sword are better off than those slain (chalal) by hunger, who waste away, pierced (daqar) with pain because the fields lack produce” (HCSB, Hebrew author’s). According to the HCSB, “pierced” and the second use of “slain” speak metaphorically of the pain and death caused by starvation. This might suggest that the piercing in Zch 12:10 could have a metaphorical meaning as well, but there are other translations of this text that do not require one to interpret these verbs figuratively.⁴¹ Besides, Lam 4:9 contains parallelism and poetry conducive for a figurative meaning—and these elements are not found in Zch 12:10. The second is Prv 12:18: “There is one who speaks rashly, like a piercing sword (daqar); but the tongue of the wise brings healing” (HCSB, Hebrew author’s). W. H. Lowe rightly notes how “the gnomic nature of the composition, and the use of the comparative preposition ‘like’ with ‘pierce’, prepare one for the figurative use of the word. Such is not the case [in Zch 12:10].”⁴²

Despite usage and the overwhelming evidence of contexts, some scholars insist that the verb in Zch 12:10 must be understood metaphorically. For example, H. C. Leupold argues,

But if God is pierced, it is very obvious that the verb “they pierced” must be used in a figurative sense and not literally, for God cannot be literally pierced. A good parallel is Lev. 24:11, 16, where also a verb pierced is used (not daqar as here but naqab), and its object is the “name of God.” But “to pierce God’s name” must mean something like “profane his name.” The same meaning may, therefore, be assumed for the expression under consideration. At one time they insulted and blasphemed the Holy One.⁴³

There are three problems with Leupold’s reasoning. First, stating that the metaphorical meaning of the verb is obvious begs the question. Merrill Unger raises a second problem: the words for “pierce” are different, and Zechariah does not employ the idiom in Lv 24:11, 16 (“to pierce God’s name”).⁴⁴ Third, chalal (pierce, fatally wound) is surely a better synonym than naqav, as chalal occurs in parallelism with daqar on two occasions (Jer 51:4 and Lam 4:9), unlike naqav.

Although the metaphorical view appears to be a genuine way of dealing with the theological tension “pierce” creates in Zch 12:10, it does not provide answers to the following two questions. First, if Zechariah meant the verb to be understood metaphorically, then why did he not use naqav, which clearly has a wider range of meaning than daqar?⁴⁵ Second, does Zechariah’s use of the verb again in 13:3 not illustrate what is going on in 12:10? This can hardly be accidental. The juxtaposition of the two events by means of “pierced” implies that “the pierced one in 12:10 deserved honor but received the ultimate expression of disrespect execution. The malefactor in 13:3 also suffered piercing, but he deserved his punishment.”⁴⁶ In light of the parallelism, Zechariah meant both words to be read in the same way.

The context of Zechariah 12:10, specifically the excessive mourning in 12:11-14 as over one dead, combined with the verb’s consistent usage throughout the OT, suggest that Zechariah foresees the literal piercing of the Lord at the hands of His covenant people. The NT makes clear how this happens through the incarnate Son.

TIMING OF THE PIERCING

Mitchell believes many who identify the Messiah as the verb’s object “overlook a point of great importance, namely… the act of piercing the nameless victim belongs to the past. This means that the pierced one is not Messiah, whose advent, all will agree, was still future when these words were written.”⁴⁷ He assumes the verb portrays a past event from Zechariah’s perspective. However, “pierced” is in the Hebrew perfect form. This form portrays an action as a simple fact, whether in the past, present, or future. Thus, the verb being in the perfect form does not require the piercing to have occurred prior to Zechariah’s writing because the verb’s form is temporally undefined. In biblical Hebrew, the time factor is determined from context.

George Klein agrees and suggests that the verb is better understood as a Hebrew prophetic perfect in view of the future time context. With the prophetic perfect, the verb describes the certainty of a future event as if it were done because the seer has seen it. The action is not yet a reality, but described as if it is. So, Zechariah chose to express his confidence in the prophecy’s fulfillment through past expression.⁴⁸ Another option is to categorize the verb as a Hebrew future perfect. With the future perfect form two actions are envisioned, and one of the actions must take place before the other.⁴⁹ Here, the verbs “look” and “pierced” both portray future actions, but the piercing takes place before the looking. So, Zechariah is describing how Israel will at some point in the future “pierce” the Lord and, in retrospect, mourn over what they had done to Him.

The futuristic context of Zch 9–14 strongly implies a futuristic orientation for “pierced.” Meyers and Meyers observe how the prophet uses “on that day” a total of 17 times in Zch 12–14. “Nowhere else in Hebrew prophecy is there such an oft-repeated invocation of stereotyped terminology heralding God’s final judgment of all the world.”⁵⁰ Al Wolters adds that what ties “these chapters together is the repeated use of the phrase ‘on that day,’ which sounds like a drum-beat on the average of every two or three verses.”⁵¹ It is certainly possible that Zechariah conceived of the piercing and the verse in its entirety as occurring in the future with a direct fulfillment at the crucifixion and second coming of Jesus.

INNER-BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION OF ZECHARIAH 12:10

Much has been said about the influence of Isaiah’s Servant Songs (Isa 42, 49–50, 52–53) on Zch 12:10, and the connection is strengthened if the Servant is linked with the King of Zch 9 and the Shepherd of Zch 13:7. 52 A full investigation would exceed the limits of this article, but something should be said for the purpose of completeness.

In Isa 53:5, the prophet Isaiah says the Servant (understood as Messiah) will suffer unjustly and be “pierced” (chalal), a verb already established as synonymous with daqar. The Shepherd of Zch 13:7 is also “struck” (nakah), and the exact same word (nakah) is applied to the Servant in Isa 50:6 and 53:4. Additionally, the Servant is stylized as a shepherd (Isa 53:6-7); and, since it was common practice in antiquity for royalty to stylize themselves as shepherds (e.g., 2Sm 5:2), the Servant and Shepherd compare with the “pierced one” on account of the kingly overtones in Zch 12:10-14.⁵³

Strikingly, the Servant and Shepherd are both closely associated with the Lord. Based on its use in Leviticus, McCaul believes “fellow” (‘amiytiy)⁵⁴ in Zch 13:7 (KJV) is synonymous with “brother” and “expresses the relation of fellow-Israelite, or fellow-man, and points out an identity of nature.”⁵⁵ So when the Lord calls the Shepherd His “fellow,” “it necessarily implies that that being stands in the same relation to God as one Israelite or man does another; that is, that he is of the same nature or substance, that is, he is very God”—the same God pierced in Zch 12:10.⁵⁶ Many doubt the divinity of Isaiah’s Servant, “the arm of the LORD,” but there are reasons to conceive of Him as Israel’s divine Messiah. For example, in Isa 6:1 and 57:15, the prophet Isaiah sees the Lord “high and exalted.” Then, in 52:13, the prophet sees the Servant “raised and lifted up and greatly exalted,” applying the prerogatives of the Lord, who is the “pierced one” of Zch 12:10, to the Servant.

There is also a striking resemblance between the King in Zch 9 and Isaiah’s Servant. Anthony Petterson has observed how both are described as “humble” (Zch 9:9; see Isa 42:2), bringing hope and justice to the nations (Zch 9:10; Isa 42:1, 4, 6; 49:6), releasing captives from a pit or prison (Zch 9:11-12; Isa 42:7), and gathering exiled Israelites (Zch 9:12; Isa 49:5-6).⁵⁷

By association with the Servant, one can deduce that all three share a likeness with the Lord. Perhaps Isaiah and Zechariah, in typical Hebrew fashion, present us with a multifaceted picture of the ideal King whose distinction with the Lord is intentionally blurred. The NT, by drawing these images together and applying them to one individual (Jesus), clarifies the prophets’ intentions and supports the inner-biblical associations suggested here (cf. Jn 12:15; 19:37; Mt 26:31).

CONCLUSION

Zechariah foresees how Israel will one day pierce the Lord. But the Lord is gracious and faithful to His covenant. After defending the homeland of His people from their enemies, the Lord will pour out His Spirit upon the inhabitants of the land, stimulating their repentance over the sinful act. Ultimately, the Lord will forgive them and provide a way of cleansing. Although Zechariah simply makes this assertion without commenting on how it will happen, the NT clarifies how this messianic prophecy finds direct fulfillment in the incarnation, crucifixion, and second coming of Jesus (cf. Jn 1:1; 19:37; Lk 23:48; Rev 1:7). Surely God has already provided the Israelites with the theological framework necessary to understand the incarnation and crucifixion through Isa 53 and Zch 9–14 so that when He would come to suffer in the person of Jesus He would come to a people theologically prepared for the idea.⁵⁸

1. For a summary of the ancient interpretations see Talbot W. Chambers, “The Book of Zechariah,” in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, vol. 13 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 96–97.

2. For example, the Babylonian Talmud (Succah 52a). The Targumic Tosefta on Zch 12:10 differs from the Messiah ben Joseph tradition in that it features a Messiah bar Ephraim, but any son of Ephraim is also a son of Joseph. See also the comment on p. 469 in the Artscroll Stone Edition of the Teri Asar.

3. On Troki see David Baron, The Visions and Prophecies of Zechariah (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002), 438–39; on Kimchi see A. M’Caul, Rabbi David Kimchi’s Commentary Upon the Prophecies of Zechariah: Translated from the Hebrew with Notes, and Observations on the Passages Relating to the Messiah (London: James Duncan, 1837), 155.

4. Rashi said, “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” (A. M’Caul, Rabbi David Kimchi’s Commentary upon the Prophecies of Zechariah, 161). Ibn Ezra said, “All the heathen shall look to me to see what I shall do to those who pierced Messiah, son of Joseph” (Ibn Ezra, quoted in ibid., 158). Abarvanel said, “It is more correct to interpret this passage of Messiah, the son of Joseph, as our rabbis of blessed memory have interpreted in the treatise Succah, 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, but in that war shall die” (Abarvanel, quoted in ibid., 158–59). Alshech said, “I will yet do 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 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 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” (Alshech quoted in Baron, The Visions and Prophecies of Zechariah, 442).

5. David Mitchell explains why the early rabbis saw Messiah ben Joseph in this verse: (1) Like the “pierced one” Joseph was “pierced” (Gn 49:23). (2) He, Joseph, was mourned (Gn 37:35) as a firstborn son (Gn 37:3). (3) If there is a connection between Zch 12:10 and 11:12-13, then the “pierced one” is priced for silver like Joseph (Gn 37:28). According to Mitchell, the rabbis were probably just making explicit what they felt was implicit (David C. Mitchell, “Messiah bar Ephraim in the Targums,” Aramaic Studies 4, no. 2 [2006]: 227).

6. Rex Mason, The Books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi (Cambridge: University Press, 1977), 118–19.

7. See B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 475–76. H. G. Mitchell provides good evidence for the unity of the book. Helpful are the numerous examples of unity cataloged in George L. Klein, Zechariah, New American Commentary (Nashville: B&H, 2008), 51–58. See especially R. D. Moseman, “Reading the Two Zechariah’s as One,” Review and Expositor 97 (2000): 487–98.

8. Barry G. Webb, The Message of Zechariah, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), 35; e.g., foreign (Ezr 4) and domestic oppression (Neh 5) plagued the postexilic community, and the new Temple lacked the glory of the former Temple (Ezr 3:11-13).

9. Significant to my comprehension and treatment of this problem is Larry R. Overstreet’s fine exegesis in his “Israel Responds to Grace: A Study of Zechariah 12:10,” Calvary Baptist Theological Journal 13 (Spring 1977): 23–30.

10. H. G. Mitchell, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai and Zechariah, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912), 334.

11. Wilhelm Gesenius, E. Kautzsch, and A. E. Cowley, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2nd English ed. rev. in accordance with the 28th German ed. (1909) by A. E. Cowley, with a facsimile of the Siloam inscription by J. Euting, and a table of alphabets by M. Lidzbarski (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), §144p.

12. Baron, The Visions and Prophecies of Zechariah, 438; Mitchell, “A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai and Zechariah,” 334.

13. T. Jansma, “Inquiry into the Hebrew Text and the Ancient Versions of Zechariah ix-xiv,” Oudtestamentishe Studiën 7 (1950): 118; E. B. Pusey, The Minor Prophets, vol. 2 (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1886), 438; Baron, The Visions and Prophecies of Zechariah, 442.

14. Ibid., 443.

15. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, vol. 2, Anchor Bible 29A (New York: Doubleday, 1970), 938. The appeal to the NT in support of “to him” is further complicated in that we do not know exactly from which version John quoted. Brown says, “John’s citation of Zech xii 10 does not follow verbatim either the MT or the most common LXX reading” (Ibid.).

16. Eventually, Mitchell admits that the evidence favors the reading in the MT: “[‘to me’] is the easier reading; hence it is more probable that it is an error for [‘to him’] than vice versa. There is great force to this objection. Indeed, it so weakens the case for [‘to him’] that those who feel the incongruity of the Masoretic text will have to resort to emendation” (Mitchell, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai and Zechariah, 335).

17. For other emendations see the note in the textual apparatus of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartnesia (an edition of the Masoretic text); see also Julius Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten übersetzt and erklärt (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963), 50 and Gesenius et al., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar §138e, n. 1.

18. Liddell-Scott-Jones, 153.

19. Assuming the manuscript the LXX translator was working from read daqar.

20. Henry Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones, eds., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 508.

21. Assuming the manuscript the LXX translator was working from read daqar.

22. This is a common mistake during translation known as metathesis (rearranging of letters).

23. Randolph Bynum, “The Fourth Gospel and the Scriptures: Illuminating the Form and Meaning of Scriptural Citation in John 19:37,” Supplements to Novum Testamentum 144 (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2012), 96.

24. Ibid., 95–96. 25. Raymond Brown notes, “John’s citation of Zech xii 10 does not follow verbatim either the MT or the most common LXX reading” (Brown, The Gospel according to John, 938). He postulates that the apostle quoted an early recession of the LXX.

26. Dictionary of Classical Hebrew by David Clines 8 vols. 1:441; Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax by Waltke and O’Connor §10.3.1, a12–15.

27. Keil, The Minor Prophets, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1871), 387–88. That the JPS translators added the object “him” to “they have thrust through” is odd, as “him” is not in the Hebrew text at this point. Perhaps this is their attempt to retain “because.”

28. The New Jewish Publication Society version uses “lament” instead of “look.” They may simply be giving a more metonymical translation.

29. M’Caul, Rabbi David Kimchi’s Commentary upon the Prophecies of Zechariah, 158.

30. Mitchell, “Messiah bar Ephraim in the Targums,” Aramaic Studies 4, no. 2 (2006): 229.

31. Walter C. Kaiser Jr., The Messiah in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 223.

32. Michael Rydelnik, “Zechariah,” The Moody Bible Commentary, ed. Michael Rydelnik and Michael Vanlaningham (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2014), 1433.

33. Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax §16.4b 3. Rabbi A. J. Rosenberg’s translation is very different with, “And they shall look to me because of those who have been thrust through [with swords], and they shall mourn over it as one mourns over an only son” (emphasis added). So Israel is mourning over the act of the nations (“it”). While grammatically possible (Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax §16.4f 30–33), E. W. Hengstenberg notes, “When ‘al (over) follows the verb saphad (mourn) [as in Zch 12:10], though it may denote the cause [“it”] generally, it is universally connected with the person for whom lamentation is made” (emphasis added).

34. Al Wolters, Zechariah: Historical Commentary on the Old Testament (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2014), 424.

35. See Charles L. Feinberg, God Remembers: A Study in the Book of Zechariah (Wheaton, IL: Van Kampen, 1950), 177–83; Gerald van Groningen, Messianic Revelation in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 907; E. W. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, vol. 2 (McLean, VA: MacDonald, n.d.), 1109–40.

36. The HCSB, KJV, ASV, ESV, and NIV allow for both interpretations (see Table I).

37. As stated above, this is not to advance the “Christ-Killer” accusation or the deicide charge; rather, to state that the leadership of Israel, along with the Gentiles, did indeed pierce the Messiah. This is the reason Paul, when speaking of the rulers of this age, both Jewish and Gentile, identifies them as ignorant of Jesus’ deity for “if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1Co 2:8; cf. Ac 3:17; Lk 23:34).

38. John Calvin, John, The Crossway Classics Commentary, ed. Alister McGrath (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994), 437.

39. Nm 25:8; Jdg 9:54; 1Sm 31:4; 1Kg 4:9; 1 Chr 10:4; Isa 13:15; Jer 37:10; 51:4; Lam 4:9; Zch 12:10; 13:3; Prv 12:18.

40. See Herbert Wolf, “daqar,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1980), 449a.

41. A. Cohen, “Critical Notes: Lamentations 4:9,” in Journal of Near Eastern Studies 27 (October 1910–July 1911): 191.

42. W. H. Lowe, The Hebrew Student’s Commentary on Zechariah (London: Macmillan, 1882), 111.

43. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Zechariah (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1956), 237.

44. Merrill F. Unger, Zechariah: Prophet of Messiah’s Glory (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 216.

45. Milton Fisher observes, “naqav can mean ‘pierce’” but “the other senses attributed to this verb in passages which themselves indicate different usage constitute a striking demonstration of the semantic flexibility of Semitic languages” (Milton C. Fisher, “naqav,” Theological Word Book of the Old Testament, 1409d). On chalal, see Donald J. Wiseman, “chalal,” Theological Word Book of the Old Testament, 660.

46. George L. Klein, Zechariah, New American Commentary (Nashville: B&H, 2008), 379.

47. Mitchell, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai and Zechariah, 330.

48. See George L. Klein, “The Prophetic Perfect,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 16 (1990): 45–60.

49. Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 3rd ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), §163.4.

50. C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 316–17.

51. Wolters, Zechariah, 401.

52. Many assume the Shepherd is a bad shepherd because God strikes him with the sword (presumably in judgment) and, therefore, should not be associated with the Servant. However, the flock was scattered after the Shepherd was smitten, which necessarily means he kept the flock intact or unified. This is a characteristic of good shepherds (Jer 23:1), not bad shepherds (M’Caul, Rabbi David Kimchi’s Commentary upon the Prophecies of Zechariah, 172).

53. E.g., the place of Hadad-rimmon in the plain of Megiddo is where King Josiah died. For more on the kingly overtones see Dean Ulrich, “Two Offices, Four Officers, or One Sordid Event in Zechariah 12:10-14?” Westminster Theological Journal 72 (2010): 251–65.

54. On ‘amiytiy, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament has “literally, the man of my society; more freely, the man who is friendly to me; one of the same community, fellow citizen” (HALOT, 845).

55. M’Caul, Rabbi David Kimchi’s Commentary upon the Prophecies of Zechariah, 175.

56. Ibid.

57. Anthony Robert Petterson, Behold Your King: The Hope for the House of David in the Book of Zechariah (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 240.

58. I am indebted to the work of Thomas McComiskey in his “Zechariah,” in The Minor Prophets, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992) for directing my attention to the likelihood of the Lord being the one pierced in this text.

Further Reading

The Divine Messiah Gets Pierced!