Two Offices, Four Officers, Or One Sordid Event In Zechariah 12:10-14?

By Dean R. Ulrich

[Dean R. Ulrich is Professor of Old Testament at China Reformed Theological Seminary in Taipei, Taiwan.]

The Hebrew text of Zech 12:10-14 presents an interpretive challenge to its readers. If vv. 12-13 mention the mourning of the clans of David, Nathan, Levi, and Shimei, v. 10 gives the cause of the mourning. Along with the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the clans of David, Nathan, Levi, and Shimei mourn the death of the one that they have piercedאת אשר־דקרו)1).The person pierced is further identified by the first person pronoun me (עליו) and the third person pronoun him (עליו). The evident, if not also shocking, antecedent of both pronouns is Yahweh, who in 12:2-9 has spoken in both first and third person through his prophet Zechariah.[2] If the wording of the Hebrew text is taken at face value, Yahweh dies at the hands of his covenant people, especially David, Nathan, Levi, and Shimei. The descendants of these men grieve over what their fathers have done. The sorrow, however, is not limited to these prominent families. The whole nation bears responsibility and so joins the leading families in lamenting not only a moment of political intrigue but also a history of covenantal failure.

Three questions arise about Zech 12:10-14. First, who are David, Nathan, Levi, and Shimei? Second, why are they mentioned here? To state the second question more strongly, why are they said to have participated in the death of Yahweh? Third, how does Zech 12:10-14 fit into the larger context of the book, especially chs. 9-14 which have a heightened interest in leadership (both God-dishonoring and God-honoring)? This article will attempt to answer these questions.

I. The Identities Of The Persons Named In Zechariah 12:12-13

The answer to the second question about why David, Nathan, Levi, and Shimei are mentioned in Zech 12:12-13 depends on the answer to the first question about who these people are or, perhaps better, what these names represent. The identity of David raises no doubt. He is the son of Jesse who became king of the united monarchy after Saul. Yahweh entered into a covenant with David, promising that he and his descendants would have an eternal kingdom. Davidic kings would exclusively serve as God’s vice-regent to rule over God’s creation for the realization of God’s plan of redemption. Even if David’s descendants fell short of covenantal faithfulness (and Zechariah is aware that they did), God would nevertheless accomplish his plan of redemption through the line of David (2 Sam 7:14-16; 2 Kgs 8:18-19). The identities of Nathan, Levi, and Shimei, however, allow for more discussion. Scholars typically favor one of two possibilities.

1. How Nathan, Levi, And Shimei Have Been Understood

The first, and clearly preferred, way to identify Nathan, Levi, and Shimei is to focus on the names of David and Levi, who are better known than either Nathan or Shimei. In this option, David and Levi represent the royal and priestly offices, and Nathan and Shimei are members of the royal and priestly families.[3] According to 2 Sam 5:14 and 1 Chr 3:4, David had a son named Nathan who is then supposedly mentioned again in Zech 12:12. Similarly, Levi had a grandson named Shimei (Exod 6:17; 1 Chr 6:17) who likewise is said to be recalled in Zech 12:13. These otherwise unknown descendants (i.e., Nathan and Shimei) may have lived hundreds of years apart from each other, but they nevertheless join their famous ancestors (i.e., David and Levi, who also were separated by many generations) in Zech 12:12-13 to share responsibility for abusing the offices of king and priest. John L. Mackay suggests that famous fathers and obscure descendants represent “the greater and lesser branches” of the royal and priestly families. Zechariah’s point, then, is that the mourning will be comprehensive. References to wives and the rest of the clans indicate that the whole populace will feel the effects of Yahweh’s death.[4] In other words, the actions of leaders impact everyone else.

The difficulty with this first possibility, though, is that more obvious descendants of David and Levi could have been named to share not only in the representation of the two offices but also in the recollection of how the officers had misused the offices. Why mention the relatively unknown Nathan when it was his brother Solomon who inherited the throne from their father David and used royal power to accumulate both wealth at the expense of burdened subjects and security at the expense of religious fidelity? Similarly, why mention Shimei when it was Aaron who became high priest and yielded to lay pressure to “make us gods” (Exod 32:1)? It is not difficult to see how Solomon and Aaron contributed to the piercing or death of God in their respective generations. Both of them disobeyed Yahweh’s commands and brought public dishonor to his name. No such evidence exists for David’s son Nathan or Levi’s grandson Shimei.

The second possible way to identify Nathan, Levi, and Shimei is to focus on them as people in David’s court. If David represents the office of king, Nathan represents the office of prophet, Levi the office of priest, and Shimei the office of sage.[5] Levi, of course, did not live during David’s reign, but his name could appropriately represent the priesthood instead of the several men who actually served as priest during David’s lifetime and, in some cases, compromised the integrity of the office. It is apparent that the priests, in all the intrigue surrounding Saul’s death as well as in Absalom’s and Adonijah’s plays for the throne, began to divide according to political loyalty and perceived pragmatic benefit. Zechariah’s use of Levi’s name would be unambiguous shorthand for the complex web of men who held the office of priest during David’s lifetime.

Though this view appreciably recognizes that Zechariah holds the officers responsible for leading God’s people astray from the covenant (a theme that carries over from ch. 11 and is further recalled in 12:7-8), it also presents a challenge. No Shimei is said to have served David or any of his descendants as a sage. A Shimei, son of Ela, served as one of Solomon’s district governors (1 Kgs 4:18). This Shimei should not be confused with the Shimei, son of Gera, who cursed David and whom Solomon executed (2 Sam 16:5-8; 1 Kgs 2:8-9). A district governor, however, would hardly qualify as a sage and therefore an office-bearer. Prophets, priests, and kings were anointed officers. They held spiritual or covenantal offices, not secular positions in government bureaus. Solomon’s district governors were not anointed to serve the spiritual interests of God’s people. It seems more accurate to say that Shimei, son of Ela, contributed to the ever expanding bureaucracy of a king who, though also a sage, increasingly disregarded the deuteronomic regulations for kingship (1 Kgs 4:7; cf Deut 17:14-20).

Whatever strengths these options for identifying Nathan, Levi, and Shimei may have, their supporters nevertheless express a certain measure of reservation in articulating them. For example, Mark J. Boda, with reference to the first option, speculates: “Perhaps Nathan’s line was raised in status because of the sinful behavior of Solomon’s line, though certainty is beyond our grasp.”[6] Similarly, Ben G. Ollenburger concedes: “Why Zechariah chooses these obscure names [Nathan and Shimei] is uncertain, but David/Nathan, Levi/Shimei seem to form pairs of royal and priestly families.”[7] Likewise, Michael H. Floyd says that “the reason for the specification of these two families [David/Nathan and Levi/Shimei] and the significance of the hierarchy’s overall arrangement remain obscure.”[8] These appreciable expressions of interpretive humility draw attention to the sometimes less than obvious meaning of Zechariah’s oracles. Even so, the admission of uncertainty also implicitly invites another reading of the text.

2. Another Way Of Understanding The Names

The second option, which views David, Nathan, Levi, and Shimei as contemporary leaders, points in a potentially more fruitful direction. What if Shimei, though, is not one of Solomon’s district governors but is, instead, the descendant of Saul who cursed David and was David’s contemporary?[9] If so, Zech 12:12-13 more likely recalls the sordid circumstances involved with Solomon’s accession to the throne in 1 Kgs 1-2. The house of David, Nathan the prophet, a divided priesthood, and Shimei of Benjamin all factor into the transfer of power from David to Solomon. Whereas 1 Chr 29:22-2 Chr 1:1 says that Yahweh firmly established Solomon over his kingdom seemingly without a ripple of dissent from the royal family, priestly ranks, or northern tribes, 1 Kgs 2:12 and 2:46 similarly refer to an established kingdom but in the context of Solomon’s adherence to David’s final instructions about his unfinished business. To be more specific, Solomon secured his hold on the throne by executing Joab (David’s “trigger-happy” general and nephew who was both a convenience and a nuisance), Adonijah (David’s oldest living son who was too eager to succeed his father as king), and Shimei (the Saulide loyalist). Solomon also removed Abiathar from priestly office because he had supported Adonijah. Solomon took these steps by following his own wisdom to which his father had approvingly referred (1 Kgs 2:6, 9). Even so, the writer of Kings later mentions Solomon’s prayer for and receipt of wisdom from Yahweh (1 Kgs 3:9-12). Perhaps Solomon’s wisdom and Yahweh’s wisdom did not originate from the same source and should be distinguished from one another.[10] At any rate, the establishment of Solomon’s kingdom was anything but clean and peaceful.

In the Kings account of Solomon’s accession, everything is wrong. Prophet, priest, and king act in a way that is all too familiar in the history of human government. Each official (or, in the case of Adonijah, would-be official) shamefully looks after his own interests and schemes behind the backs of others. Godliness seems to be in short supply among those charged with leading God’s people.

As for David, he is weak physically and so unable to carry out the duties of royal administration. Impotence in the royal chamber represents a similar condition on the royal throne. The deuteronomic historian makes a note of David’s permissive approach to parenting Adonijah and relatedly recalls the heartache caused by Absalom (1 Kgs 1:6). Not only has David not handed down the covenant to his children, but he also has apparently not made public what he had said privately to Bathsheba about Solomon as the royal heir. Consequently personal ambition, rather than a commitment to God’s will, seems to characterize the naming and crowning of David’s successor. The biblical writer may want the reader additionally to perceive divine providence in the messiness of human history, but the less than exemplary conduct that seemingly undermines God’s covenant is there nonetheless.

When David mentions Shimei to Solomon (2 Kgs 2:8), it is evident that the house of Saul still has its supporters who remain unconvinced, for one reason or another, of the legitimacy of Davidic kingship.[11] Walter Brueggemann assesses Shimei’s cursing of David (2 Sam 16:7-8) as follows: “The Saulide party is alive and active and has a hope as durable as its memory. Its memory is long, passionate, and bitter against David.”[12] Thus, the whole scene in 1 Kgs 1-2, along with the recollection of the unpleasant history leading up to it, indicates how far the monarchy (Davidic kingship especially) has drifted, even at its beginning, from the deuteronomic ideal.

Moreover, when the royal house shows disregard for Torah observance and covenantal administration, the offices of priest and prophet inevitably become debased too. Neither the priests nor the prophet are said to have consulted Yahweh about who should be king after David. In this case, the priests take sides, and the prophet rather sheepishly enlists Solomon’s mother to confront and advise the king. Earlier, the same prophet had directly approached the king and pointed out his sin with the result that repentance occurred (2 Sam 12). Ignoring Yahweh’s covenantal regulations for kingship and resorting to a more Ancient Near Eastern version of power politics lead God’s people far afield from their calling to be a kingdom of priests to the nations around them (Exod 19:6). The remainder of Kings will document how what happened at the transfer of the crown from the first Davidide to the second is repeated with spirally deleterious effects for Israel’s society and mission. In short, Davidic kingship failed to unite God’s people in the worship of Yahweh, in just and compassionate regard for one another, and in witness by example to the nations.

Moreover, the lamentable scene in 1 Kgs 1-2 is not an anomaly in the reigns of David and Solomon. There were other instances of disregard for the spirit of kingship in Deut 17. Whatever good David and Solomon may have achieved and whatever promises Yahweh may have made to them, they set a dangerous precedent by oppressing their subjects and arguably subordinating religion to politics. Samuel had warned of this (1 Sam 8:11-17), and the overall narrative confirms his concern.

For example, David took a census to learn how many men were eligible for military duty (2 Sam 24:2). Subsequently feeling guilty, David repented and waited for the consequences. In what seems to be a test of sincerity, Yahweh gave him a choice of three punishments: three years of famine, three months of fleeing from his enemies, or three days of plague—what the chronicler additionally identifies as the sword of Yahweh (1 Chr 21:12) that was in the hand of the angel of Yahweh (1 Chr 21:16; cf. 2 Sam 24:16). Two of these options involved harm for David’s subjects. After selecting the three days of plague (i.e., the sword of Yahweh), David soon realized that others were suffering for his sin. Confessing that he was the only one who deserved punishment, he referred to his subjects as sheep (2 Sam 24:17). If they were sheep, then David was the shepherd, a common Ancient Near Eastern and biblical metaphor for monarchs. Far from being a good shepherd, David allowed the sheep to be “pierced” for his sin. Moreover, Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba, was another of David’s subjects who played the role of sacrificial lamb when David behaved less like a Deut 17 kind of king and more like an Ancient Near Eastern despot. Is it merely by coincidence that Uriah’s name appears last in the deuteronomic historian’s list of David’s mighty men (2 Sam 23:8-39)—a list that immediately precedes the story of the census?[13] The books of Samuel end with a qualified evaluation of David: Yahweh may have entered into an unconditional covenant with him, but he was not the complete answer to Hannah’s prayer (1 Sam 2:1-10).

Solomon similarly disregarded the regulations for kingship in Deut 17. By marrying Pharaoh’s daughter, he took Israel back to Egypt for horses and chariots (Deut 17:16; 1 Kgs 3:1; 10:28). When he sealed political alliances with hundreds of other royal marriages, he esteemed political security over religious fidelity (Deut 17:17; 1 Kgs 11:1-4). What is more, Solomon’s building projects and the labor department (1 Kgs 9:23) that oversaw them needed revenue, with which the tribute from David’s conquests was unable to keep pace.[14] As Samuel feared, Solomon predictably raised taxes and divided Israel into twelve administrative districts. Israel’s version of the Internal Revenue Service surely dampened the enthusiasm of the general population for the splendor of Solomon’s temple and the elaborate worship of Yahweh that occurred there.[15] One has only to recall the request to ease the tax burden that the assembly of Israel made of Rehoboam, Solomon’s son (1 Kgs 12:4). Even so, the damage was done and the precedent set. Subsequent kings in both Israel and Judah followed the statist example of David and especially Solomon (1 Kgs 21; Mic 3:1-3; Jer 22:13-14).

It is this less than flattering reality of leadership in Israel’s history that Zechariah remembers in 12:12-13. He could, of course, have recalled numerous incidents from the reigns of the other Davidic kings, the reigns of the northern kings, or even the reign of Saul. All the kings who ruled in Israel fell short of the royal ideal in Deut 17. According to Rex Mason, “Far from shepherding the flock, from ruling according to the terms of Davidic Covenant or being upholders of the law in the community, they themselves [i.e., Israel’s leaders] have exploited and oppressed the poor and broken the covenant law whose champions they were supposed to be.”[16] For some reason, though, Zechariah highlighted Solomon’s accession.

II. Why Is Solomon’s Accession Remembered In Zechariah 12?

1. Bad Shepherds In Israel

Zechariah may have lived after the events recorded in Samuel-Kings, but he agreed with the deuteronomic historian that kingship was flawed from the beginning. In chs. 10 and 11, Zechariah refers to kings with the common OT and Ancient Near Eastern image of shepherd. Israel’s kings in his assessment were bad shepherds because they resorted to the occult (a form of idolatry and false worship) for political advice and economic benefit (10:1-3). Their actions negatively influenced their subjects to do the same. According to David L. Petersen, “The people suffer because they have sought out inappropriate means for discerning an answer to their problems.”[17] Both shepherd and sheep forgot or ignored the link that Deut 28:1-14 established between covenantal faithfulness and economic prosperity. Yahweh, not the gods of Israel’s neighbors, was the source of fructifying rain. Ethics, not manipulative magic, characterized the relationship with Yahweh. Obedience was the evidence of both gratitude for what God had done in the past and trust in his promises to provide in the future.

Moreover, obedience to the law yielded justice in society. Love for God, seen in obedience, leads to love for one’s neighbor, and love for one’s neighbor takes the form of justice and compassion. Without allegiance to Yahweh (i.e., love for God), however, and the ethical conduct that ensues (i.e., love for neighbor), the shepherds oppressed the sheep and scattered them. Consequently, the sheep had no direction and turned to other shepherds, just as false, for sustenance. Conditions deteriorated so much that the sheep, even when they had a good shepherd on rare occasion, preferred the lies of the bad shepherds (11:8). Soon, no external threat was needed to bring about the demise of the nation. A people debased by bad leadership rotted from within and continued to get the corrupt leaders that they sadly came to prefer in place of submission to their divine king.[18]

Bad shepherds, however, were by no means a late pre-exilic development. Zechariah located the origin of corruption as far back as the days of David, Nathan, Levi, and Shimei, in other words, the first instance that royal power transferred from one Davidic king to another. As early as then, Israel’s leadership failed to model godliness for God’s people. The effect was that God died at the hands of those who in practice rejected him or, less overtly, considered him irrelevant for state affairs except to provide theological legitimacy to self-serving royal policy. Nevertheless, the reference to families of these leaders and the families of everyone else in the land leaves no one without a share of responsibility. Meyers and Meyers observe, “Because . . . everyone was involved in the failure of leadership, everyone will mourn the historical misdeeds that led to the conquest of the nation and to the exile of many of its people.’”[19] The nation as a whole followed the poor example of its leaders who failed to be guardians of God’s covenant (cf Ezek 34:17-22). Everyone from king to cobbler and from Jerusalem insider to distant outsider participated in the rejection and death of a vital relationship with Yahweh. A practical atheism settled over the land (Zeph 1:12; Ezek 8:12). The eternal God of Israel may not have died literally, but committed worship of him had. God’s people had made him a non-factor in their everyday affairs, and gone was any corporate sense of mission. Zechariah indicates that the passage of time confronted everyone with the consequence of his or her decision. Upon realizing how they had squandered Yahweh’s grace and blessing, God’s people will mourn their loss in bitterness and despair.

While Shimei’s name reminds the reader of Zechariah that David was not the first king in Israel, David was the king after, or according to, God’s heart (1 Sam 13:14). Saul may have been the people’s choice for a king, but David was Yahweh’s. However Saul’s kingship factors into God’s sovereign purpose in election (and there is certainly tension in 1 Samuel’s presentation of Saul as both victim and villain), God had promised kingship to Judah (Gen 49:10) not Benjamin, for Judah had demonstrated servant leadership when he offered himself in place of Benjamin (Gen 44:18-34).[20] Even so, David, as Judah’s descendant, had not always practiced servant leadership. He was arguably as flawed as Saul. This is Zechariah’s point in chs. 11 and 12. He is aware of Israel’s ongoing unfaithfulness from the top of society down to the grass roots.[21] More bad shepherds yet to come will guarantee the continuing apostasy of the sheep (Zech 11:16), and God will give a people hardened in their stubbornness over to their reprobate mind. If Zech 11 is considered one of the hardest chapters in the Bible to interpret,[22] it also has one of the hardest messages to receive because the basic message, despite some challenging details, is all too clear. Nevertheless, David and his descendants were God’s choice to be the vice-regents through whom God would work out his plan of redemption, and a time would come, says Zechariah, when they would repent of their abuse of a high calling.

This community-wide desertion of covenantal commitment has a long history. Whereas Zechariah traces the root of the current problem back to Solomon’s accession, other prophets choose different points of origin. Joshua goes back to the patriarchal beginnings of Israel (Josh 24:14); Ezekiel to the years in Egypt (Ezek 23:3); Hosea to the wilderness (Hos 11:1-2); and Jeremiah to the settlement (Jer 2:1-7). Psalms 78 and 106 similarly review a history of sin that is said to have begun in Egypt. The writer of Kings agrees that retribution has cumulatively added up since the Exodus (2 Kgs 21:15) but also evaluates each of the northern kings by Jeroboam’s disregard for the law of centralized worship in Deuteronomy and each of the southern kings by what they did about the high places, which similarly rivaled the Jerusalem temple where Yahweh had chosen to put his name. The biblical writers are united in their recognition that sin has hijacked God’s redemptive program for years. No human program or institution will reconcile a broken world to God’s eternal plan. God himself will have to redeem a history littered with the wrecks of poor leadership.

2. The Sorrowful Memory Of Josiah

It is in this context that Josiah’s untimely death is indirectly recalled in Zech 12:11.[23] Though the deuteronomic historian offers unqualified commendation of Josiah,[24] Josiah’s reforms came “too little too late.” Judah’s cup of iniquity which had been filling up since the Exodus from Egypt, overflowed during Manasseh’s reign, and God, at that time, threatened imminent and unavoidable judgment (2 Kgs 21:10-15). As is evident in the actions of Josiah’s sons (Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah) and grandson (Jehoiachin), Josiah’s reversal of Manasseh’s apostasy had no lasting effect on the government or people of Judah. In fact, Josiah’s “back to the Bible” movement seemed to create widespread complacency. Given the crumbling of the Assyrian Empire that provided the favorable climate for Josiah’s reforms, the Judean populace as a whole seemed to respond by misplacing its confidence in a quickly hardened and politicized form of Zion theology. The refurbished temple became a good luck charm that, independent of heartfelt submission to Yahweh’s covenant, supposedly guaranteed Jerusalem’s security from foreign invasion (Jer 7:1-8). Whatever hope for political and religious revival a godly remnant may have sincerely invested in Josiah, that hope faded quickly when he was fatally pierced by one of Pharaoh Neco’s archers near Megiddo (2 Chr 35:23). Manasseh’s reign had, in fact, been the proverbial last straw. Later generations, including Zechariah’s audience, were left to lament the untimely death of the last good king in Israel (2 Chr 35:25; Zech 12:11) and wonder what would become of God’s promises to David that Josiah had too briefly embodied.

Even so, David’s descendants as a whole from Solomon to Zedekiah had been such a disappointment. The ideal for kingship that David himself expressed in Ps 72, which was presumably composed for Solomon’s coronation,[25] went unrealized with the passing of each Davidic king. For Zechariah’s contemporaries, Josiah’s death was apparently still a poignant reminder of what could have been and what they hoped would yet be. Instances of dashed longings for a world reconciled to God’s purpose share a common yearning of God’s people for God to make good on his promises. Zechariah, while identifying with the disappointment, would not relinquish the ideal. He expects its realization at some point in the future.

III. Zechariah 12:10-14 And The Larger Message Of Zechariah

Zechariah denies that human sin can ultimately frustrate Yahweh. In 10:6-12, Zechariah presents his version of a second Exodus that will exceed the return from Babylon already past. Zechariah has earlier mentioned a “day of small things” (4:10). The return from exile and rebuilding of the temple, as arduous and reduced as they may have been, foreshadowed grander acts of God in the future. What God had begun with Cyrus’s decree in 539 B.C. and the completion of the temple in 516, he would surely finish. Indeed, the Exodus typology (10:10-11) indicates that Yahweh had directed the course of saving history since the days of Moses, and what was happening now was organically related to what had happened then. The one plan of redemption was still unfolding in history under the superintendence of the God of Abraham, Moses, David, and now Zerubbabel. If the Assyrians and Egyptians, symbolic of the terrestrial enemies of God’s people from whom God had granted deliverance, had now passed off the stage of history, then no adversary of Yahweh can thwart his purpose. He will have a people for his name. But how, given the present reality that the beginning of ch. 10 and all of ch. 11 describe?

1. The Man Who Is Yahweh’s Companion

Zechariah 12 opens by designating Yahweh as the one who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and gives humans the spirit or breath of life. These references to God as Creator raise the expectation of a new creation that will never labor under the effects of a curse for sin. Yahweh will first transform Israel (the subject of chs. 12 and 13) and then the rest of the world (the subject of ch. 14).[26] All of redeemed humanity will then be united in the pure worship and service of the one true God.

Ezekiel anticipated the healing of old wounds between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah (34:1-24; 37:15-28; and 47:13-48:29). This healing would involve Davidic kingship that no longer offends and alienates. Before Israel can be a blessing to the nations, it has to get its own house in order. Similarly, Zech 12:7-8 addresses the rift between the tribes and the royal house. In the past, Davidic kings had been anything but humble servants. They “lived like kings” and took advantage of their subjects (cf 11:5-6, 16 with Jer 22:13-17). Carol and Eric Meyers observe: “Although the inviolability of Davidic rule was never questioned, Deuteronomic and prophetic literature is often highly critical of actions taken by the crown and many kings are portrayed as little better than oriental despots.”[27] Zechariah foresees an exalted king with a servant’s heart. He even goes so far in 9:9 as to use the word עני (“afflicted” or “humble”) of this king. In the new creation, the house of David will no longer get rich at the expense of the governed and deprive them of their share in the Promised Land. Rather, the Davidic king, who in theory was the vice-regent of Yahweh (Pss 2:7; 89:26-27), will match reality with theory and display justice and compassion to all God’s people. It will be as if Yahweh himself were incarnate on David’s throne. All of God’s people will gladly submit to his humane rule as they enjoy the refreshing governance of one greater than David or Solomon.

What, though, will effect this reversal of centuries of the status quo? In the words of Barry G Webb concerning Zech 12:10, “we are on holy ground,” and “there is mystery here.”[28] Webb’s assessment can apply to more than 12:10.

The use of first person and third person singular pronouns in 12:10 to refer to the one pierced creates enough ambiguity to set up the introduction of the גבר עמיתי in 13:7. This appositional expression means literally “a man, my (i.e., Yahweh’s) companion.” In Leviticus (the only other place in the OT where עמית occurs), עמית refers to one’s neighbor or a fellow member of the covenant community whom one should not harm. The עמית, then, is a person who is close to another person in one way or another. In Leviticus, a person and his or her עמית are partners in God’s holy nation that has a priestly mission to model a redeemed lifestyle to the rest of the world. In Zech 12:10, the גבר, who is also Yahweh’s עמית, has a close relationship and association with Yahweh. This גבר is further said to be Yahweh’s shepherd (רעי). The sword that presumably pierces Yahweh in 12:10 also strikes the shepherd in 13:7. It is, therefore, hard to escape the conclusion that the גבר is not only the רעה but also Yahweh; yet, he is, as Yahweh’s עמית, somehow distinct from Yahweh. Also to be noticed is that the man-shepherd who is Yahweh’s עמית is also close to the sheep. What happens to him (i.e., being struck with the sword) brings about the re-establishment of the covenantal relationship with a remnant of the sheep. God’s shepherd, who is his companion, also brings the sheep close to Yahweh. So then, the relationship between 12:10a and 13:7 is made in 12:10b and 13:1. The piercing of Yahweh/me/him in 12:10a and the striking of my shepherd/my companion in 13:7 bring about the mourning for sin in 12:10b and the cleansing from sin in 13:1. Atonement made possible by Yahweh without the house of Levi—because the high priest himself is defiled and in need of Yahweh’s sovereign grace (3:3-4 and 12:13)—is Zechariah’s solution to the woes of the post-exilic community and, indeed, of the whole world.

A practical consequence of this cleansing is that the popular and royal penchant for trying to control Yahweh and gain economic prosperity through proscribed forms of divination (i.e., false prophecy) comes to an end. Yahweh pours out a spirit/Spirit[29] of grace and supplication by making atonement for the sins of his people and reconciling them to himself. Consequently they repent and no longer tolerate false imitations of true religion (13:2-6). What the exile could not do (expiate sin, propitiate divine wrath, change the heart, or eliminate false religion), God did by being pierced and striking the גבר עמית.

2. Connections Beyond Zechariah

The Hebrew noun גבר means not just “man” but “warrior” and “champion.” This noun also occurs, among other places, in Lam 3:1 where it refers to a male survivor of the fall of Jerusalem. Perhaps a soldier who defended Jerusalem against the Babylonians or just a fictitious projection of the author’s point of view, this man identifies closely with Jerusalem and pours out his complaint about Jerusalem’s affliction much like the psalmist lamented the predicament of his community. In v. 21, though, the male voice reviews the attributes of God (i.e., what he, on the basis of revelation, knows to be true of God regardless of his circumstances) and contemplates the possibility that God might redeem Jerusalem’s suffering. Beginning with v. 40, the male voice becomes a plural voice that confesses Jerusalem’s sins. In v. 49, however, the plural voice reverts to the male voice who then calls upon Yahweh for vindication before his enemies. The גבר, then, is closely identified with Jerusalem in its sin but also distinct enough to plead for vengeance on his enemies who are the secondary cause (Yahweh is the first cause) of the affliction and judgment in vv 1-20. Similar to Isaiah’s servant who is sometimes a group (Isa 41:8-9; 42:18-22) and other times an individual that represents the group (Isa 42:1-7; 49:1-7; 52:13-53:12), the גבר in Lam 3 is a lone but representative male who laments and pleads on behalf of a ruined city that in earlier chapters has the persona of an unfaithful wife or wayward daughter.[30]

Relatedly the adjective גבור (“mighty”) is used of God in Isa 9:5 (ET 9:6). Mighty God, though, is one of four exalted and even suprahuman titles used of a male child who “will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness . . . forever.” The male child is Yahweh (who else in the OT could be the Mighty God and Everlasting Father?) as well as a man, even a Davidic descendant, who is close to Yahweh. Christian readers of Isaiah, on the basis of apostolic teaching (e.g., Luke 1:32; Rom 1:3-4), have long identified this male child with Jesus Christ, the son of David and incarnate Son of God. Likewise, Matt 26:31 and Mark 14:27 read Zech 13:7 with reference to Jesus.

If Zech 9-14 is known for its inner biblical allusion or exegesis[31] and if Zechariah has already (3:8; 6:12) borrowed the theologically significant terms “servant” and “branch” from Isaiah (and perhaps Jeremiah), his use of גבר in 13:7 is hardly coincidental. Surely he has deliberately chosen this word that conveys close relationship with Yahweh, close relationship with God’s people, and victory over the enemy of God’s people, even sin itself. Zechariah’s divine shepherd, then, is a warrior (cf 9:14-16) who conquers by suffering In his own body, he atones for the sin of God’s people in one day (3:9) and thereby makes the covenant motto a reality. He is none other than Isaiah’s mighty God, royal branch, Davidic son, and suffering servant. He also becomes the embodiment of the גבר of Lamentations. These closing chapters of Zechariah draw the strands of OT eschatology together and set the reader’s hope in the coming of a humiliated and vindicated God-man.

What seems to be the bleakest moment, even the rejection of the good shepherd in ch. 11 and the piercing of Yahweh in ch. 12, becomes the turning point in God’s relation with his people. Yahweh, the eternal Maker of heaven, earth, and humanity (12:1), cannot really die or, taking the incarnation into view remain dead. Otherwise, the book of Zechariah would have to end at 12:14 with unmitigated mourning. There could, then, be no restoration of the covenant relationship in 13:9 or restoration of creation in 14:6-7 (cf. Gen 8:22). Remarkably, though, Yahweh the good shepherd dies for the sheep in order to cleanse them from sin and bring about a godly sorrow that leads to repentance. If the book of Zechariah opens with a call to repentance and yet reckons with the inability of the deuteronomic curse of exile to change the heart (3:3; 5:3-6; 7:9-10; 10:2), 12:1 and 12:10 indicate that God who sovereignly gives the breath of life to all humans can graciously give new life to sinners. So infinitely higher is God’s purpose in human history that the rejection and death of God, far from being disastrous, turn out to be the solution to the harm caused to the covenant community by both unfaithful kings and hostile nations. As represented by David, Nathan, Levi, and Shimei, a history of leadership failure is redeemed by the death of Yahweh himself. God’s irrepressible grace triumphs over covenantal unfaithfulness and grants comfort to those who mourn their sin and cry out in supplication. In short, chs. 13 and 14 presuppose that Yahweh is alive. Death cannot maintain its grip on the pierced Yahweh.

If humans can actually thwart God’s plan and even put him to death (through practical atheism or, from a NT perspective, actual execution of God incarnate), there is neither hope for this world nor cessation of humanity’s tears. As grim as Zech 11 is about the prospect of humanity’s acceptance of Yahweh’s good shepherd, the book of Zechariah as a whole remains hopeful. The good shepherd, who is none other than Yahweh himself, rules as a humble king (Zech 9:9), even a priest-king (Zech 3:8-9; 6:12-13), over the hearts of his people. The ignominious death of the divine priest-king turns out to be the instrument that God uses to subdue evil and transform his fallen creation. The humiliation of God incarnate amazingly leads to his exaltation and earth’s joy.

IV. Summary

To return to the title, does Zech 12:10-14 have to do with two offices, four officers, or one sordid event? This article has argued that Nathan and Shimei are not the lesser-known descendants of David and Levi, who represent the offices of king and priest. That view founders on the insignificance of Nathan and Shimei. This article has also found another possible explanation unsatisfactory, namely that David, Nathan, Levi, and Shimei held the offices of king, prophet, priest, and sage. The difficulty there is that Shimei did not serve David or Solomon as a wise advisor.

This article has suggested, instead, that the four names in Zech 12:13-14 recall Solomon’s accession as reported in 1 Kgs 1-2. Zechariah considered this first transfer of power from one Davidic king to another a grievous event that set the tone for leadership in Israel. The kings of Judah, not to mention the kings of Israel, continually failed to model Torah piety and so led God’s people away from their calling and mission. As a whole, Judah’s kings disappointed all those who hoped for godly leadership and the redemptive blessings that could proceed from it.

By the Spirit of prophecy, Zechariah announced the coming of another king who would redeem a history of royal misdeeds by becoming the victim of his people’s murderous rejection. This king would mysteriously be both Yahweh himself and someone closely associated with Yahweh. Zechariah’s daring announcement of the death of God fits with the rest of the prophets who anticipated a future coming of God to deal with not only his people’s enemy without (i.e., the hostile nations) but also their enemy within (i.e., the sinful nature). Only Yahweh could change the heart, and he would have to do it at great cost to himself. Moreover, Zechariah’s expression of the prophetic hope fits with what the NT writers claimed about the person and work of Jesus Christ. In Jesus, according to apostolic testimony, God became human, paid the penalty for sin, and secured the heart- and world-transforming hope of Zechariah and his prophetic colleagues. To Zechariah’s way of thinking, one sordid event and its deleterious results became the opportunity for God to showcase his ironic power and redemptive grace.

Notes

1. The Septuagint’s translation is hard to explain. See the discussion in Thomas E. McComiskey “Zechariah,” in The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary (ed. Thomas E. McComiskey; 3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992-1998), 3:1214.
2. This article will not enter into the discussion of the compositional history of the book of Zechariah. A fresh case for the redactional and even authorial unity of the book has recently been made by Byron G. Curtis, Up the Steep and Stony Road: The Book of Zechariah in Social Location Trajectory Analysis (SBL Academia Biblica 25; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 231-76. Curtis also joins an impressive list of scholars who prefer an early Persian date of composition.
3. See the discussion in Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Z (AB 25c; New York: Doubleday 1993), 346-48.
4. John L. Mackay, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi: God’s Restored People (Focus on the Bible; Fearn, U.K.: Christian Focus Publications, 2003), 239. See also David L. Petersen, Zand Malachi: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 123.
5. Katrina J. A. Larkin, The Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study of the Formation of a Mantological Wisdom Anthology (Contributions to Biblical Theology and Exegesis 6; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994). 165-66; Ralph L. Smith, Micah-Malachi (WBC 32; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1984), 277.
6. Mark J. Boda, Haggai, Zechariah (NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 489.
7. Ben C. Ollenburger, “The Book of Zechariah,” in NIB 7:829.
8. Michael H. Floyd, Minor Prophets, Part 2 (FOTL 22; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 528.
9. Cf. Paul L. Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 134. Though Redditt favors the first option that considers Shimei a Levite, he mentions the possibility that Shimei may be the Benjamite who cursed David.
10. Iain Provan, V Philips Long, and Tremper Longman 111, A Biblical History of Israel (Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 247-48.
11. Cf. J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 154-55, 175, 177.
12. Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (Interpretation; Louisville, Ky.: John Knox, 1990), 307.
13. The parallel list in 1 Chr 11:26-47 puts Uriah’s name not at the end but in the middle. The report of the census appears in 1 Chr 21, immediately before David’s elaborate preparation for building the temple. With the exception of mentioning David’s census in order to account for how David acquired the property for the temple, the chronicler presents an untarnished portrait of David as well as Solomon.
14. John Bright, A History of Israel (3d ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 220-22.
15. Walter Kaiser, A History of Israel: From the Bronze Age through the Jewish Wars (Nashville: Broad-man & Holman, 1998), 275, 290.
16. Rex Mason, “The Use of Earlier Biblical Material in Zechariah 9—14: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis,” in Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9—14 (JSOTSup 370; New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 123.
17. Petersen, Zand Malachi, 72- Petersen does not restrict the shepherd image to kings but expands its scope to include economic and religious leaders (see p. 73). Perhaps so, and Zech 12:12-13 puts the blame for Yahweh’s piercing on more than one office. Still, Deut 17 charges the king with administering the covenant and setting a covenantal pace for all layers of society. As the king goes, so goes, more often than not, the rest of the kingdom. The interest in shepherds in Zech 11 and the house of David in Zech 12 supports the connection between the covenantal faithfulness of the king and that of the people.
18. Elizabeth Achtemeier, Nahum—Malachi (Interpretation; Louisville, Ky.: John Knox, 1986), 158-59.
19. Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9—14, 360.
20. Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 507-8, 515, 552, 558-59, 567.
21. See Curtis, Up the Steep and Stony Road, 202-6 for a discussion of the possible identity of the worthless shepherds in Zech 11.
22. Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9—14, 293. Cf. Petersen, Zand Malachi, 1.
23. See the defense of the Josianic reference of Zech 12:11 in McGomiskey “Zechariah,” 1215: Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9—14, 343-44; and Petersen, Zechariah 9—14 and Malachi, 122- For a defense of Hadad Rimmon as a pagan ritual, see Boda, Haggai, Zechariah: 487; and Mason, “The Use of Earlier Biblical Material in Zechariah 9—14,” 165-66. One cannot help but wonder, though, why Zechariah would allude to a pagan ritual in this context that has to do with the failure of leadership.
24. See Gerald Eddie Gerbrandt, Kingship According to the Deuteronomistic History (SBLDS 87; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986).
25. Given the reference to the last of David’s prayers in Ps 72:20, the preposition ; in the psalm title would be better understood as an objective genitive (“for Solomon” or “about Solomon”) rather than a subjective genitive (“by Solomon”).
26. Barry G. Webb, The Message of Zechariah (BST; Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity, 2003), 155.
27. Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9—14, 357.
28. Webb, The Message of Zechariah, 159, 160.
29. Both spellings are theologically correct, though the Spirit’s enabling (objective genitive) makes the human disposition (subjective genitive) possible. Ezekiel 36:26-27 establishes the same truth. Cf. the discussion in Mason, “The Use of Earlier Biblical Material in Zechariah 9—14,” 158-60.
30. For more on the relationship between Isaiah’s servant and Zechariah’s גבר, see Jill Middlemas. “Did Second Isaiah Write Zechariah III?,” VT56 (2006): 505-25; and Patricia Tull Willey Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in Second Isaiah (SBLDS 161; Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1997), 214-21.
31. See Michael H. Floyd, “Deutero-Zechariah and Types of Intertextuality” in Bringing Out the Treasure, 225-32; Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9—14, 35-50; and Paul L. Redditt, “Zechariah 9—14: The Capstone of the Book of the Twelve,” in Bringing Out the Treasure, 308-11.