The following is taken from The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecies: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament, eds. Michael Rydelnik & Edwin Blum, published by Moody Publishers, Chicago, IL 2019, pp. 1271-1283. 

Zechariah 11:4-14

The Rejected Shepherd

ABNER CHOU

For Old Testament scholars, Zch 11:4-14 poses one of the greatest interpretive challenges of the Hebrew Bible. At least 40 different interpretations exist, and scholars cannot even agree on the basic ideas of the passage.¹ For instance, some argue the point of the passage is that the shepherd is good, whereas others contend the point is that he is evil.² The fact that scholars interpret the passage in polar opposite ways illustrates why they describe Zch 11:4-14 as “the most enigmatic prophecy” and a passage with impenetrable logic.³ These difficulties in turn complicate the NT’s use of this passage. If this text is not about the Messiah, then how do the Gospels apply it to Jesus?⁴

So what is happening in this text? This article intends to further examine Zch 11:4-14 and argue that although the passage is complex, in the end, the traditional, messianic interpretation best handles all the factors. In studying these issues, we can also discover the theological depth of this text. Hence, the goal of this article is to defend the messianic interpretation of this text and grasp its impact on messianic theology. Indeed, this passage describes the full theological dynamics of a pivotal moment in redemptive history realized in Jesus.

RESOLVING INTERPRETATIVE ISSUES

Various factors, such as exegetical issues, textual emendation, and higher criticism, make this passage difficult for commentators and produce a multiplicity of views. Nevertheless, at risk of oversimplification, the approximately 40 different views can be placed into three major categories:⁵

First, this passage has long been viewed as a messianic prophecy. Supporters cite the many allusions of this passage to earlier messianic texts (e.g., Branch in Jer 23:5, Zch 3:8 and Shepherd in Ezk 34:15, Zch 11:4). They also note this view’s consistency with the NT and that it poses the least exegetical problems.⁶ However, problems do still exist. Scholars wonder who the three shepherds are (Zch 11:8), how Jesus deserted the flock of His people (Zch 11:9), and how He annulled the unity between Judah and Israel (Zch 11:14).⁷

Hence, the second view arises, maintaining that Zch 11:414 depicts the present situation of the prophet himself. This predominantly comes from higher critical methodology that rejects the possibility of prophecy and assumes Zechariah must be describing the political situation of his own time. Based upon this, critical scholars disagree about whether the main shepherd is good or bad.⁸ They also variously identify the main shepherd as well as the three additional shepherds. These identifications range from foreign nations/leaders to particular governors in Judah to the offices of prophet, priest, and king.⁹ In sum, the “present” view of the text stems from higher criticism’s desire to reconcile Zechariah’s words with his time, its politics, and with the varying (and even contradictory) thrusts within the book. This is done with varying degrees of success (as reflected in the number of proposals).

The third type of reading tries a different tack. Instead of seeing this text as future or present, it views the passage as a discussion of the past. After all, certain prophetic acts describe Israel’s history (cf. Ezk 4:5). This may follow in suit. The frequent allusions to Jeremiah seem to anchor Zechariah to Jeremiah’s description of the past exile.¹⁰ Based upon this, the view contends the main shepherd in the passage is actually Yahweh who will judge the nation into exile.¹¹ The three shepherds He judges in one month are either three specific rulers deposed or the destruction of the three offices of king, prophet, and priest.¹² Either way, it refers to the events taking place in 586 BC. The strength, then, of this view is that it is rooted in previous revelation and can account for numerous details of the text.

How does one deal with these issues? We can proceed by thinking through each view.

A major disqualifier for the “present” view is its reliance upon higher criticism. The main reason scholars continue to try to collate the text with Zechariah’s situation to no avail is because higher criticism presumes this must be the case. Conversely, without such an assumption, the impetus of the entire view disappears. Likewise, higher critics acknowledge that if one read the text cohesively in context and not via source critical method, then the “present” view has no grounds.¹³ Since higher criticism is incompatible with a high view of Scripture and a cohesive reading of the passage within the context of the book, the “present” interpretation can be ruled out.

Likewise, the “past” view has serious problems. It has difficulty identifying the “potter” in Zch 11:13 to the point where it advocates changing the text to “storehouse.”¹⁴ However, such textual emendation is without any evidence. The need to change the text to make a view work is a substantial problem. Other problems arise as well. The view also has difficulty exactly identifying the “three shepherds.” More fundamentally, this view has contextual and exegetical objections. To be sure, as proponents of this view allege, dramatic acts in prophecy can refer to the past (cf. Ezk 4:5). But in those cases, the text provides some indication of this.¹⁵ Zechariah has none of these indications; in fact, it has the opposite. The other dramatic acts in the book are unmistakably future in nature (cf. 3:1-8; 6:9-15), which would suggest that this passage does not refer to the “past” but to the future. The imperfect tense of the verbs in the text also implies this. Thus, the “past” view has contextual and exegetical problems to the point that it might need to change the text to work. These are substantial issues that indicate the view is not tenable.

So far, we have observed problems in the non-messianic views. While these arguments can help exclude those interpretations, a case still must be made for the traditional messianic view. Three major lines of reasoning support the traditional interpretation.

First, the context overwhelming directs the reader to a messianic interpretation. This begins with the intertextuality of the book with other messianic passages. Zechariah is replete with messianic titles and descriptions like the “Branch” (Zch 3:8), “riding on a donkey” (Zch 9:9), king/priest (Zch 6:11), and “pierced” (Zch 12:10). Scholars recognize that such language alludes to messianic texts in Isa (11:1), Jer (23:5), Gn (49:10), Ezk (34:15), and Dan (9:26).¹⁶ Scholars also note the interplay of messianic discussion in the minor prophets, which culminates in Zechariah.¹⁷ Indeed, key texts in Zechariah expound the Minor Prophets’ picture of how the rise of Messiah would establish the nations’ judgment and Israel’s restoration (6:9-15; 9:9; 14:1-21; cf. Hos 3:5; Am 9:11; Mic 5:1; Hab 3:13; Hag 2:21-23). Zechariah’s rich intertextuality with prior revelation anchors it as a book that discusses Messiah. In fact, Kline observes that the book is structured to emphasize the Messiah.¹⁸ This broad context already guides the reader to think of Zechariah as a book about messianic theology.

The argument within the book shows that Zch 11:4-11 is critically part of that discussion. For one, Zechariah speaks of Messiah in the immediate context. In Zch 9:9, the prophet describes the Messiah riding humbled on a donkey.¹⁹ This text not only introduces the notion of Messiah but also that He suffers as He is “humbled” or “afflicted.” These ideas certainly fit with what is described in Zch 11:4-11. The immediate context sets up for a messianic viewpoint of what happens in that text. Furthermore, the passage connects with earlier messianic discussions in the book. Scholars observe that this text is part of a series of passages where God calls on the prophet to dramatically act out His message (Zch 3:1-8; 6:9-15).²⁰ Since those earlier passages are about Messiah, one would expect that Zch 11:4-11 follows suit. The content of this passage confirms it. Kline notes how the texts uniquely share the language and ideas of royalty/shepherd (6:9-15; 11:4), “silver” (6:11; 11:13), and “temple” (6:14; 11:13). Accordingly, Zch 11:4-11 is interwoven into the development of Messiah in the book. Consistently, later passages maintain a messianic interpretation of this text. Zechariah 12:10 discusses the One who was pierced, and Zch 13:7 refers to the Shepherd that was struck down. Those texts, in discussing the Messiah,²¹ refer to Him in the way Zch 11 describes. Their descriptions assume a messianic interpretation and confirm it thereby.

With that, all the layers of context, from the book as a whole to the immediate context of the passage itself, situate the text in a messianic train of thought. That tremendously supports the traditional view.

Second, the content of the passage also favors a messianic reading. As noted, the language of Zch 11:4-11 is connected with messianic texts earlier in the book (cf. Zch 3:1-8; 6:9-15). On top of this, the passage employs the motif of a shepherd with the staffs of Union and Favor. Such language explicitly refers to Ezk 34:1-15 and 37:16, both of which speak of Messiah.²² Hence, Zch 11:4-11 not only embeds itself in prior messianic discussion in the book but also is based upon a messianic text outside of the book. This is messianic claim upon messianic claim.

Third, one can deal with the challenges to the traditional reading. As discussed, there are three major objections to the messianic reading: Who are the three shepherds (Zch 11:8), how did Jesus desert His people (Zch 11:9), and how did He annul the unity between Judah and Israel (Zch 11:14)?²³ These problems must be resolved.

Concerning the first issue of the shepherds, the context of Zechariah begins to answer this. The book emphasizes the offices of prophet (Zch 7:3), priest (Zch 6:11), and king (Zch 6:11). In fact, the only other usages of “shepherd” occur in the immediate context and refer to the prophet (Zch 10:2-3) and the royal house (Zch 11:3, “young lions” and “shepherds” refer to the royal house). Thus, the three shepherds best refer to the governing offices of Israel.²⁴ The use of shepherd elsewhere in Scripture supports this (cf. 2Sm 5:2). The grammar of the text also confirms this. Zechariah uses the article with the phrase “three shepherds,” a sign that Zechariah speaks not of individual shepherds (cf. Zch 11:5) but governmental offices (cf. Zch 10:2). Hence, language and context show Zechariah speaks of prophet, priest, and king. This idea is easily harmonized with the work of Messiah. Jesus certainly confronted Israel’s leadership (Lk 13:32; 22:66-71), and they even acknowledged the loss of power they would face as a result (Jn 11:48). The objection is resolved.

What about the other issues of Jesus deserting His people and annulling unity? These matters can be resolved through the detail of “the potter” (Zch 11:13). As noted, other views struggled to make sense of this phrase. A key observation is that the Hebrew word, in its particular form (hayotzer), occurs only in Jer 18–19, out of the entire Hebrew Bible. Others have already recognized the numerous allusions to Jeremiah in this passage.²⁵ “The potter” is another one of those. In that book, “the potter” signifies God’s right to judge Israel in exile.²⁶ His appearance again in Zechariah signifies a repetition of the same event: Israel’s rejection of Messiah will cause the nation to enter deeper into the exile. This interpretation accounts for the reason scholars often do not harmonize these details with Israel’s history (because they are not the same event), but yet why it connects with Jeremiah. This interpretation also is easy to harmonize with Jesus’ life. Israel’s rejection of their Messiah plunged them deeper into exile; hence, Messiah left their house desolate (Mt 23:38) and destroyed any immediate opportunity for Israel’s reunification in the kingdom (cf. Ezk 37:17).²⁷ Again, the objections are resolved.

With the objections resolved, the evidence thoroughly supports the messianic reading. In fact, given the immensely messianic progression of context and content, the reader would have no other expectation. That is confirmed by later revelation that, as will be seen, reads the text exactly this way. The Scripture is completely consistent in how it builds up for this passage and how it subsequently interprets it. The messianic interpretation is the reading of Scripture in every regard.

This discussion has sought to defend the messianic interpretation of Zch 11, which helps readers better see the significance of this passage. Israel’s rejection of their King will only lead them deeper into exile. This is a defining moment of redemptive history and thereby of great importance for understanding the Messiah in God’s plan.

A brief exposition of this text can help bring out this theological significance, providing further proof that it is messianic. This discussion will review the context and exposition of the text to show the prophet’s intent in discussing the Messiah’s rejection.

LITERARY CONTEXT

The name “Zechariah” means “YHWH remembers.” This is fitting for a book that refers to so much prior revelation. Zechariah wrote to Israelites who had returned from Babylon (Zch 1:1-3) and were rebuilding the temple. His task was to demonstrate that God remembers His promises, and to assure the nation and exhort them to faithfulness.²⁸

Within this, Zechariah reveals a series of night visions. These proclaim that God remembers His promises about His readiness to act (1:7-17; 6:1-8), and about the nations (1:18-21; 5:5-11), and Israel (2:1-13; 5:1-4). Technically, these visions are arranged chiastically, centering on God’s promises of His Messiah, who is King and Priest (3:1–4:14).²⁹ In light of this, the prophet’s theology is clear: God is faithful, and His Anointed One is central to His guarantees.

For this reason, after the night visions, Zechariah uses various people to depict the future moment when the Messiah resolves Israel’s exile (Zch 6:9-15). Because God still will accomplish this reality, Zechariah exhorts the people to truly worship God and repent (Zch 7–8). Again, Zechariah establishes that the Messiah is critical.

In the latter half of the book the prophet presents God’s plan, from the present to its culmination. Zechariah reveals redemptive history that will revolve around God’s purposes for the nations (9–11) and His purposes for Israel (12–14). Within this, Zechariah continues his emphasis on the Messiah. The issues with the nations will resolve via a conquering Messiah riding on a donkey (Zch 9:9). Israel’s restoration will come about when they mourn over the One they pierced (Zch 12:10) and via the Shepherd who was stricken (Zch 13:7). In the end, the Messiah will reign over Israel and the world in victory forever (Zch 14:1-21).

At this point, some questions should arise. While it makes sense in context for the Messiah to be a conquering hero (cf. Zch 9:9), it may surprise some to hear that He is also pierced and a stricken Shepherd. One cannot disregard these details, for the prophet links them with Israel’s repentance (Zch 12:10-12) and the forgiveness of their sins (cf. Zch 13:1). So how did the Messiah become stricken, and how does this set up for Israel’s restoration? Although such suffering was hinted at earlier in the book (cf. Zch 9:9 and the term “humbled”), more information is needed to answer these questions.

That is precisely where Zch 11:4-11 comes into play. In fact, M. G. Kline rightly notes that Zch 9–11 is a chiasm and that this passage is its center. It is the pivot that explains how the King victorious riding on His donkey (cf. Zch 9:9) becomes afflicted and how that ultimately leads to the redemption of His people (Zch 12–13). This is what the content of the passage will expound upon.

INTERTEXTUAL CONTEXT

Although Zechariah is replete with allusions, this discussion will focus on the allusions that bring out the “hinge” nature of the text.

The immediate context alludes to some key texts along this line. In Zch 9:9, God unveils the Messiah humbly riding on a donkey. Krause observes that the word “humble” alludes to Isa 53 and Dan 9.³⁰ These texts help interpret the Shepherd’s suffering in Zch 11. They show that the Messiah’s betrayal deals with His sacrificial death (Isa 53:35) that accomplishes atonement (Dan 9:24, 26).

Within the passage itself, two other allusions help to express the pivotal nature of the passage. Zechariah alludes to Ezk 34 with the shepherd motif (Zch 11:4) and staffs (Zch 11:7; cf. Ezk 37:16). He also alludes to Jeremiah with the reference to the “potter,” among others (Zch 11:13; cf. Jer 18:6). On the one hand, the allusions to Ezk 34 demonstrate that the shepherd of the text is the Messiah who will fulfill the promise to restore His people (see Zch 11:7). On the other hand, the Shepherd breaks the staffs of unity and harmony unlike in the prophecies of Ezk 34. Israel’s restoration is not yet. For this reason, Zechariah also alludes to Jeremiah to show that Israel goes deeper into exile as discussed in that book (cf. Zch 11:13; Jer 18–19). Thus, Zechariah’s allusions establish a tension of judgment along with future hope. The rest of the book bears out this tension. The verses immediately after this passage speak of the climax of Israel’s judgment in the tribulation (Zch 11:15-17). Yet, the very next chapters speak of Israel’s restoration as described in Ezk 34. That is because of the Shepherd’s suffering in this passage (Zch 12:10; 13:7).

Therefore, the intertextual context helps to bring out that Zch 11:4-11 is a pivotal text. It shows that this moment leads Israel to the low point of their judgment in redemptive history. It also hints that this very same moment is the hinge that turns their immense judgment into total restoration and forgiveness. Such intertextuality helps to show the significance of Israel’s rejection of the One who is responsible for ending their exile.

EXPOSITION

The text has three parts, dealing with God’s summons for the prophet to shepherd (11:4-6), the shepherding of Israel (11:7-12), and the significance of God’s judgment (11:13-14).

I. God’s Summons (11:4-6). With the opening words, “Yahweh my God says this,” the prophet introduces divine revelation. It includes God’s instruction to the prophet and His agenda.

A. God’s Instructions (11:4). God calls Zechariah to take on the role as shepherd. This continues the dramatic presentations of the Messiah throughout the book (Zch 3:18; 6:9-15). The specific role of shepherd not only alludes to earlier messianic prophecy (cf. Ezk 34) but also is important in context. Having just decried Israel’s wicked shepherds (cf. Zch 10:2; 11:1-3), the prophet now presents the true Shepherd.

However, the overall agenda is not positive. Zechariah must shepherd “the flock intended for slaughter.” Although sheep are often slaughtered, the Hebrew word (harag) is not used for sacrificial slaughter but for killing.³¹ This indicates that this flock is destined for God’s judgment.

B. God’s Agenda (11:5-6). Accordingly, the next two verses will discuss the nature of this judgment. The fifth verse walks through the parties involved in the flock’s destruction and shows, at every turn, there is no relief from judgment. The buyers (likely the nations, cf. v. 10) can slaughter without any harm coming to them. People (probably non-governmental leaders in Israel, see next verse) will sell Israelites seemingly with God’s blessing and great profit. Most shocking, Israel’s shepherds (prophet, priest, and king, see above and next verse) have no compassion on the sheep. This is jarring not only because shepherds were to protect their flock but also because the Messiah is supposed to be the shepherd. Why are these shepherds involved? What happened to the good Shepherd? Already the text hints that the good Shepherd was rejected in favor of destructive shepherds, who facilitate the entire chain of events. With that, Israel is betrayed from the start by their leaders and inevitably ends up in judgment.

Verse 6 provides the reason for this. Yahweh has no compassion on His people. He drives this entire process of judgment. Within this process, He ensures that every Israelite will face punishment as He forces them to be turned over to “his neighbor and his king.” That refers to how the sellers and shepherds of the previous verse will take over and sell their countrymen in judgment to the nations. God not only ensures that the judgment is comprehensive but also extensive. The leaders “will devastate the land.” They will cause the land and nation to be in complete ruin. On top of this, God ensures this judgment will be unrelenting. He states, “I will not deliver it from them.” With that, the flock of Israel is indeed intended for the most destructive slaughter.

Overall, these opening verses introduce what is about to take place. Zechariah dramatizes his prediction—that true leader of Israel will come to His people, but somehow He will end up moving the nation to judgment at the hands of their own leaders.

II. Messiah’s Shepherding (11:7-12). Zechariah’s dramatization will demonstrate how what was just described will precisely work out.

A. Positive Shepherding (11:7-9). At first, Zechariah depicts the Messiah’s ministry as positive. The Messiah specifically shepherds “the afflicted of the flock.” He cares about those afflicted.³² Along that line, He takes two staffs, Favor and Union, and shepherds the sheep, which alludes to Ezk 34 and 37:16. The Messiah’s actions show He is the One who will fulfill the promises to bring favor between Israel and God, as well as unity between Israel and Judah.

However, v. 8 shows that this is not what happens. The good Shepherd ultimately destroys three shepherds. As discussed, this action refers to the future overturning of the offices of prophet, priest, and king in “one month,” a short period of time alluding to the rapid turnover in the exile (cf. Jer 52:6-27). The collapse of Jerusalem and its government in 586 BC will happen again. The outcome of the Messiah’s positive work is far different from what was expected.

Why does this happen? As the rest of the verse explains, the good Shepherd is exasperated with the false shepherds and they “detested” Him. Thus, in v. 9, the Messiah declares He will judge His people. He is unwilling to shepherd them any longer and relinquishes the flock to their doom. He states, “let the rest devour each other’s flesh.” This imagery describes how sellers and shepherds (Israel’s leaders) would cannibalistically profit from the destruction of their own people—exactly what was stated in v. 6. Thus, the leaders’ rejection of Messiah pushes the nation in the very direction of judgment that God stated. It also moves the leaders (shepherds) to their own demise (see v. 8).

B. Negative Shepherding (11:10-12). In light of this rejection, the Messiah transitions from shepherding Israel positively to doing so negatively. In verse 10, He takes the staff of Favor and breaks it. As a result, the covenant or agreement God had instituted with the nations is gone. This agreement refers to how God would ensure the nations in the end would support Israel (cf. Gn 12:1-3; Isa 2:2-4). Because God’s favor is gone, so Israel’s peace with the nations is removed. God prepares the nations to judge His people.

Accordingly, v. 11 states “It was annulled on that day.” The language of “on that day” points to a definitive future moment.³³ It not only confirms a “future” interpretation of the passage but also that indeed, a pivotal moment has occurred when Israel shifts into the trajectory of judgment.

What happens next solidifies this course. Verse 11 shows that the leaders were not the only cause of Israel’s demise. The entire nation—“the afflicted of the flock”—is also responsible. Zechariah describes the nation as “watching me.” The word “watching” (Hb. shamar) describes guarding someone or watching someone in an unfriendly way (Pss 56:6; 71:10).³⁴ Why would the sheep watch the shepherd in this manner? The implication is the nation itself was hostile to the Messiah, definitively rejecting Him. After all, as noted, Zechariah states that those who did so were particularly “the afflicted of the flock,” the very people the Messiah was shepherding. Even more, these people understood that the judgment that was happening “was the word of the LORD.” Thus, the entire nation joins with their leaders to reject their Savior consciously and without excuse.

Verse 12 confirms this rejection. In seeing the distrust of the oppressed of the flock, the shepherd states “If it seems right to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them.” The animosity is so clear that the Shepherd does not even require payment to quit His position. In response, the “flock” weighs out “thirty pieces of silver” as His wage. Is this a lot of money? From a financial perspective, this is a hefty sum (cf. Neh 5:15).³⁵ From a social perspective, the amount is designed to be insulting for it is the value of one’s sum profit from a debtor slave (Ex 21:32).³⁶ A shepherd would have produced greater financial gain than that of a slave. The wage then was meant to demean what He had accomplished.³⁷ It demonstrates His spiteful rejection by the people.

At this point, the following picture emerges. The Messiah begins His ministry full of hope and promise (v. 7). However, Israel’s leaders (v. 8b) and the nation itself (v. 11) reject Him. Hence, He ceases His work as shepherd (vv. 9, 12), and subsequently Israel’s false shepherds take control. This will bring not only their own downfall (v. 8a) but the entire nation’s demise (v. 10), turning Israel into a “flock intended for slaughter” (vv. 4-6).

III. The Significance of Judgment (11:13-14). So far, God has shown how the Messiah’s rejection would plunge the nation into judgment (vv. 7-12). He has also shown its destructive nature (vv. 5-6). With the words “the LORD said to me,” God now comments on the theological significance of this judgment.

A. Deeper into Exile (11:13). God commands Zechariah to throw the silver away. Casting the silver aside shows rejection. Such rejection is further seen in sarcastically describing the money as “this magnificent price.” Israel scorned their Messiah and so the Messiah scorns them. Specifically, God rejects the temple as the silver is thrown into “the house of the LORD.” In context, Israel has been rebuilding the temple (cf. Ezr 5:1-2) with the hope that it would conclude exile (cf. Isa 2:2-4; Ezk 40–48). With this act, God rejects such efforts at least for this time. For this reason, the silver is not cast merely to the temple, but also to the potter. As noted, the potter was a figure in Jeremiah denoting exile. This figure helps Israel understand the full significance and severity of their situation. They are not merely going to lack peace (see vv. 5-6, 10) but actually are thrust deeper into the era of exile. That is the complete picture of what was happening.

B. Hope Deferred (11:14). The next verse expounds upon the nature of this exile. The shepherd cut the “second staff, Union, annulling the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.” The reunification of the nation is a hallmark for the end of exile (cf. Ezk 37:17; Zch 11:7). However, such hopes are now put away. Israel is not in the era of resolution but rather deeper into a time when Israel will have no nation, promises will be unfulfilled, and the nation will be under the most austere discipline (cf. Dt 28:48). These consequences are confirmed in the next verses that show Israel on a collision course with the peak of exile, the tribulation (11:15-17). God impresses upon Israel that this single moment will shape the duration of their history.

While the end of this passage is dire, the context establishes the Messiah’s rejection as necessary to atone for Israel’s sin per Isa 53 and Dan 9:24-26. Furthermore, the passage earlier asserts that the shepherd’s original job is to bring Israel’s exile to an end. So, while Israel’s judgment looms immediately, God still remembers His promise of salvation and will use this moment to that end as well (Zch 12:10; 13:1-9). Thus, Zch 11:4-11 is pivotal for all redemptive history in judgment and salvation.

INTERTEXTUAL USAGE

The Gospels show how Jesus’ life fulfills Zch 11:4-11 with remarkable precision. Just as Zechariah prophesied that the Messiah would shepherd the people with Favor and Union (Zch 11:7), so the Gospels describe Jesus as a shepherd (Jn 10:11), who mediates God’s goodness to the people (Jn 10:13-15) and ministers to the whole of Israel (Mt 3:5; Jn 4:1-5). Just as Zechariah described the conflict between the leaders and the Messiah (Zch 11:8), so Jesus confronts hostile leadership (Mt 23:1-6; Lk 23:1-12). Just as Zechariah announced that the Messiah will bring down the leadership in “one month” (Zch 11:8), so Jesus’ rejection leads to AD 70 (cf. Lk 21:20), which repeats the scenario of the fall of Jerusalem and its government that took place in Jeremiah’s day.³⁸ On top of all this, just as Zechariah proclaims, Jesus is betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Mt 26:15), which is then thrown into the temple (Mt 27:5) and given to the potter (Mt 27:7). With that, Jesus’ life bears out every detail of this text. This not only shows that Jesus fulfills this prophecy but also thoroughly confirms the interpretation given above.

Along that line, the Gospels not only confirm the details of the text but even its intertextuality as outlined above. For instance, Nolland notes that Matthew most likely read Zch 11:4-14 in light of the messianic shepherd imagery of the OT (cf. Mic 5:2; Ezk 34:5; Ps 78:1-72).³⁹ Likewise, Crowe acknowledges that in Mt 27:9, Matthew’s use of Zechariah likely mixes Zechariah with portions of Jer 19.⁴⁰ This accounts for Matthew’s statement that the prophecy comes from Jeremiah, even though the quotation is mainly from Zechariah (Mt 27:9), 41 demonstrating that this article is not alone in making the above connections. Matthew saw the same links, attesting that they were always intended by Zechariah.

All of this not only confirms the above analysis, but even more, shows that the gospel writers were employing the full theology of Zechariah in their own writings. After all, the intertextuality of Zechariah is what grounds the notions of Messiah, exile, judgment, atonement, and restoration in the passage. By seeing the text in this way, the gospel writers declare that the Messiah’s betrayal will lead Israel into judgment (cf. Mt 27:1-9) and also secure their redemption by His atoning sacrifice (cf. Mt 27:38-54). Seeing the theology of OT prophecy allows one to see the deep theology of the Gospels.

CONCLUSION

Zechariah 11:4-14 is a complex passage. In the end, wading through its challenges allows one to have greater confidence in a messianic interpretation and even more in the theological depth it carries. This text is not merely about the fact of Messiah’s betrayal, but also its importance in redemptive history. It is the pivot point that leads Israel to the height of its judgment in exile and also to fullness of its restoration via the Shepherd stricken for them. Accordingly, Zechariah shows that this moment makes history. The immensity of a single event reflects the power and impact of the central figure of that moment: the Messiah, the rejected Shepherd of Israel.

________________________

1. R. L. Foster, “Shepherds, Sticks, and Social Destabilization: A Fresh Look at Zechariah 11:4-17,” Journal of Biblical Literature 126 (2007): 737.

2. George L. Klein, Zechariah, New American Commentary (Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2008), 323–25; Paul L. Redditt, “Israel’s Shepherds: Hope and Pessimism in Zechariah 9–14,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51, no. 4 (1989): 640–42.

3. Foster, “Fresh Look at Zechariah 11:4-17,” 737.

4. Redditt, “Israel’s Shepherds,” 683; Stephen L. Cook, “The Metamorphosis of a Shepherd: The Tradition History of Zechariah 11:17 + 13:7-9,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993): 453.

5. Anthony R. Petterson, “The Shape of the Davidic Hope across the Book of the Twelve,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35, no. 2 (December 2010): 229. 6. Klein, Zechariah, 322.

7. Petterson, “Shape of Davidic Hope,” 229.

8. L. Redditt, “The Two Shepherds in Zechariah 11:4-14,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55, no. 4 (1993): 687; Cook, “The Metamorphosis of a Shepherd,” 453. If Zch 11:4-11 came from a different source than the rest of the more optimistic book, the shepherd is evil and dashes the hopes of the rest of the book.

9. Redditt, “Israel’s Shepherds,” 634; Douglas R Jones, “Fresh Interpretation of Zechariah 9-11,” Vetus Testamentum 12, no. 3 (July 1962): 252; Samuel I. Feigin, “Some Notes on Zechariah 11:4-17,” Journal of Biblical Literature 44, nos. 3–4 (1925): 205.

10. Michael R. Stead, “The Three Shepherds: Reading Zechariah 11 in the Light of Jeremiah.” In A God of Faithfulness: Essays in Honour of J. Gordon McConville on His 60th Birthday, ed. J. G. McConville, Jamie Grant, Allison Lo, and Gordon J Wenham (New York: T&T Clark, 2011), 154. See also Jones, “Fresh Interpretation of Zechariah 9-11,” 253.

11. Stead, “The Three Shepherds,” 154.

12. Petterson, “Shape of Davidic Hope,” 233; Eugene H. Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 258.

13. Petterson, “Shape of Davidic Hope,” 246.

14. Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 259.

15. Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel 1–24, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 178.

16. Deborah Krause, “The One Who Comes Unbinding the Blessing of Judah: Mark 11:1-10 as a Midrash on Genesis 49:11, Zechariah 9:9, and Psalm 118:25-26,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations & Proposals, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 141–53; Roy A. Rosenberg, “The Slain Messiah in the Old Testament,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 (1987): 259–61.

17. Petterson, “Shape of Davidic Hope,” 225–46.

18. See M. G. Kline, “The Structure of the Book of Zechariah,” Journal of Evangelical Theology 34 (1991): 179–83.

19. Klein, Zechariah, 207.

20. Kline, “The Structure of the Book of Zechariah,” 186–93.

21. Klein, Zechariah, 201. 22. Foster, “Fresh Look at Zechariah 11:4-17,” 740.

23. Petterson, “Shape of Davidic Hope,” 229.

24. Dean R. Ulrich, “Two Offices, Four Officers, or One Sordid Event in Zechariah 12:10-14?” Westminister Theological Journal 72, no. 2 (2010): 260–62.

25. Stead, “The Three Shepherds,” 155.

26. F. B. Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations, New American Commentary (Nashville:

Broadman & Holman, 1993), 181.

27. This also further affirms the notion of the three shepherds as prophet, priest, and king. Just as those offices were undone in the original exile, so they are again in the Messiah’s first advent. See below for the significance of “one month.”

28. Eugene H Merrill, “The Book of Zechariah,” in The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old Testament, ed. E. H. Merrill, M. F. Rooker, and M. A. Grisanti (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2011), 488–89.

29. Kline, “The Structure of the Book of Zechariah,” 179–82.

30. Krause, “The One Who Comes Unbinding,” 149–51.

31. Mark J. Boda, The Book of Zechariah, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 660.

32. Ibid., 663.

33. Klein, Zechariah, 336.

34. Boda, The Book of Zechariah, 668.

35. Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1972), 184–85.

36. Klein, Zechariah, 337.

37. Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 261.

38. See above for an explanation of “one month.”

39. John Nolland, “The King as Shepherd: The Role of Deutero-Zechariah in Matthew,” in Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, 2008, 133–36.

40. Brandon D. Crowe, “Fulfillment in Matthew as Eschatological Reversal,” Westminister Theological Journal 75, no. 1 (2013): 117.

41. Abner Chou, The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers: Learning Interpretation from the Prophets and Apostles (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2018), 140.

FURTHER READING

ISAIAH 7:1-16: IMMANUEL HAS COME!

ISAIAH 9:1-7: THE GOD-CHILD IS BORN!

ZECHARIAH 6:9-15: THE MESSIANIC PRIESTLY-KING

• Uncategorized