Zechariah 11: Allusions And The Messiah

By Matthew Seufert

[Matthew Seufert teaches New Testament and Apologetics at Rockbridge Academy in Crownsville, MD.]

Abstract

This article explores several of the allusions of Zech 11. It pays particular attention to the contexts of these allusions in order to offer potential solutions to some of the chapter’s key exegetical questions. In addition, it proposes that the general effect produced by the allusions, in Zechariah’s reversal of previous promises, affirmation of previous judgments, and consistent evocation of Messianic contexts, is a pronounced longing and need for the coming Savior.

-------------------

Zechariah 11 has been closely scrutinized, and a major part of scholarly discussion asks many of the same questions: What is the historical identity, if any, of the three shepherds? The first or good shepherd? The worthless shepherd? The sheep traders? Does the chapter refer to the past, present, or future? To what genre does this chapter (especially vv. 4–17) belong? Did the prophet actually perform these acts? Do vv. 1–3 pronounce judgment on the leaders of the nations or Israel? Are they the conclusion of ch. 10, introduction of 11, both, or neither? In vv. 7 and 11 should we read “surely/particularly the afflicted of the flock” based on the MT (לָכֵן עֲנִיֵּי הַצֹּאן) or divide the letters of the MT differently and read “by/for the merchants/Canaanites of the flock” based loosely on the LXX (οἱ Χαναναῖοι and εἰς τὴν Χαναανῖτιν)?[1] In v. 13 should we read “to the potter,” following the MT (אֶל־הַיּצֵר), or “to the treasury,” following the Peshitta, both of which seem to be picked up by Matthew’s Gospel (Matt 27:3–7)? Is the span of “one month” in v. 8 in which the three shepherds are destroyed to be taken literally? Are the 30 shekels a large sum, an insultingly low sum, or a fair sum? What does it mean that they are thrown to the potter or treasury? To what covenant does “my covenant which I had made with all the peoples” in v. 10 refer? Do “all the peoples” of the same verse refer to Israel or the nations?

Proposed answers to these questions take up the bulk of the literature on Zech 11.[2] While this article does offer answers to some of these questions, some new and some not, in an attempt to give a somewhat fresh perspective, it focuses more particularly on the allusions of Zech 11. Not a few have noted the most prominent allusions of this chapter. To these, and to other less-prominent allusions that the article offers and defends, I am seeking to give an overall coherence.

I. A Scholarly Consensus

Didymus the Blind begins his comments on Zech 11 with an idea echoed throughout the literature. “Words that make announcements in a hidden manner are riddles. The text of the prophet before us, for example, is phrased in the manner of a riddle and proposes an obscure teaching.”[3] “Scholars regularly name this passage as one of the most difficult in the book.”[4] As James Nogalski comments, “To interpret the shepherd narrative in 11:4–17 is in many respects—to paraphrase Winston Churchill—to interpret an enigma wrapped in a riddle.”[5] Eugene Merrill says, “Chapter 11 is clearly one of the most difficult in all the book.”[6] Carol Stuhlmueller goes further and places it “among the most obscure passages in the OT.”[7] S. R. Driver goes furthest and names it “the most enigmatic [passage] in the Old Testament.”[8]

The chapter’s difficulty, recited throughout the ages, makes it a prime candidate for a fresh view of the whole. My attempt at this comes through the lens of allusion.

II. History Of Proposals

Many scholars have used this lens for various verses. All proposed allusions are not agreed upon by all, and some are tentatively proposed, but the cumulative list of potential allusions is quite extensive. For vv. 1–3: Judg 9; [9] Isa 2:12–17, [10] 10:34, [11] 14:8, [12] 23:14, [13] 32:19; [14] Jer 12:5, [15] 22:6, 20–23, [16] 25:15–29, [17] 25:34–38, [18] 32:8b, [19] 48:32, [20] 49:19 and 50:44; [21] Ezek 27:5–6, [22] 31:3ff.;[23] Amos 1:2, 4, 7, 10, [24] 3:8; [25] and Ps 24:7–10.[26] For vv. 4–14: covenant God established with the descendants of Jacob;[27] Gen 9:8–17; [28] Lev 27:1–8; [29] Num 21:4; [30] Isa 2:2–4, [31] 9:19–20, [32] 41:2 and 42:4, [33] 42:6, [34] 43:4, [35] 44:21–28, [36] 45:9, [37] 49:4, 6b, [38] 49:8, [39] 50:4ff.,[40] 53:6, 9, [41] 56:9–11; [42] Jer 5:27, [43] 12:3, [44] 13:14 and 21:7, [45] 14:11 and 20:9, [46] 14:19, 15:2, and 19:9, [47] 15:6, [48] 18:1–11, [49] 19, [50] 22:9, [51] 23:1–8, [52] 32:8, [53] 38:6, [54] 50:7; [55] Ezek 5:11, 7:4; 9:5, 10, [56] 7:19–20, [57] 19:3, [58] 22:17–22, [59] 34:12, 20–21, [60] 34:23, 25, [61] 37:15–28; [62] Hos 2:18 (2:20),[63] 11–12, [64] 12:7ff.;[65] and Song 7:7.[66] For vv. 15–17: 1 Kgs 13; [67] Jer 22:13–19 and 36:20, [68] 23:1–4, [69] 50:35–38; [70] Ezek 17:19ff.,[71] 21:14–22, [72] 21:30, [73] 30:21, [74] 34:1–21; [75] and Hos 3:1–5.[76]

It is readily apparent from this list that Zech 11 merits a focused and detailed treatment of its allusions. I cannot address each and every proposed allusion; rather, in what follows, I focus on the most compelling and offer an analysis of their overall impact. First, I examine the texts and contexts of the most-noted allusions (Jer 25:34–38; Ezek 34 and 37:15–28), anchoring this chapter in the earlier prophets and taking special care to note Zechariah’s methodology in utilizing their texts. Second, I do the same with less-frequently suggested, but still compelling, allusions. Throughout, I seek to offer allusion-based answers to some of the questions posed at the beginning of this article. The following demonstrates that Zech 11 consistently and repeatedly reverses the promises and reiterates the judgments of the earlier prophets, which works an agony-filled longing for the promised Messiah.

III. Jeremiah 25, Ezekiel 34 And 37

As shown by the footnotes above, almost all scholars accept these texts (more specifically, Jer 25:34–38 and Ezek 34:1–21 and 37:15–28) as valid allusions. I do not, therefore, give an extended justification for these allusions. Building upon others’ work, my focus will be on the message and context of these texts and their import for Zech 11, both the import for specific details of verses and for the chapter as a whole. Zechariah’s use of these also serves to build a framework within which his use of other, less-noted allusions will fit.

1. Jeremiah 25 And Zechariah 11:1–3

All of Jer 25 is subsumed under v. 1 as the “word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah (that was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon).” It is addressed to “all the people of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (v. 2).

The ensuing verses pronounce the coming judgment of the Lord through Nebuchadnezzar because of the people’s disobedience in spite of the Lord’s constant warnings via his prophets (vv. 3–14). Not only Judah and Jerusalem but the nations, specifically their kings and officials (see vv. 15–26a, 29, 31–33), will serve Nebuchadnezzar for seventy years (v. 11), after which Nebuchadnezzar himself will be punished (v. 26b). The prophecy pictures the Lord as roaring (שָׁאַג [3x]) against his dwelling place (עַל־נָוֵהוּ) and all the inhabitants of the earth (v. 30).

The final five verses of the chapter (vv. 34–38) share the points of contact with Zech 11 that commentators identify. Jeremiah 25:34–38 reads,

Wail, O shepherds! Cry out and roll in the dust, O lords of the flock! For your days for slaughter and your dispersion are complete, and you shall fall like a choice vessel. It will perish, the place of refuge for the shepherds, an escape for the lords of the flock. The sound of the crying of the shepherds, the wailing of the lords of the flock, for the Lord has destroyed their pasturage. The habitations of peace will be silent because of the fierce anger of the Lord.[77] Like a lion he has forsaken his lair, for their land has become a waste because of the wrath of the oppressor, and because of his fierce anger.

Jeremiah tells the shepherds to wail because of the complete desolation of the land. The portion of comparison is Zech 11:2–3. For context, v. 1 begins, “Open your doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour your cedars.” Verses 2–3 then read, “Wail, O cypress, for the cedar has fallen; the mighty ones have been destroyed. Wail, O oaks of Bashan, for the dense forest has come down. The sound of the wailing of the shepherds, for their glory has been destroyed. The sound of the roaring of the lions, for the pride of the Jordan has been destroyed.”

The most readily recognized parallel between the two sections is Zech 11:3a and Jer 25:26:

Zech 11:3a: קוֹל יִלְלַת הָרֹעִים כִּי שֻׁדְּדָה אַדַּרְתָּם 

Jer 25:36: קוֹל צַעֲקַת הָרֹעִים וִילְלַת אַדִּירֵי הַצֹּאן כִּי שֹׁדֵד יהוה אֶת־מַרְעִיתָם

Zechariah combines the synonymous lines of Jeremiah (“the sound of the crying of the shepherds” and “the wailing of the lords of the flock”), borrowing a term from each line (“shepherds” and “wailing”) to form one new line (“the sound of the wailing of the shepherds”).

Zechariah 11:3a attributes the wailing of the shepherds to the destruction of “their glory” without further identification. In Jer 25:36, their wailing is the result of the Lord having destroyed “their pasturage.” A one-to-one identification yields that the shepherds wail in Zechariah because their pasturage has been destroyed.[78] Perhaps this explains Zechariah’s text, but it is just as likely that Zechariah freely changes his source text, dropping the initial referent.

Another possible ray of light from Jeremiah illuminates the agent of destruction who remains in the shadows in these first three verses of Zechariah. The verb שָׁדַד occurs three times in the passive in vv. 2 and 3 of Zech 11. “The glorious ones have been destroyed [שֻׁדָּדוּ]” (v. 2). “Their glory has been destroyed [שֻׁדְּדָה]” (v. 3a). “The pride of the Jordan has been destroyed [שֻׁדַּד]” (v. 3b). The shepherds’ wailing in Jer 25:36b is explicitly said to be a result of the Lord’s punishment. “The Lord has destroyed [שֹׁדֵד] their pasturage.” Without any other indications to the contrary, and looking ahead to vv. 4–17 of Zech 11 for confirmation, it is almost certain that the Lord is Zechariah’s unnamed agent of destruction. He has destroyed or will destroy the glorious ones, the shepherds’ glory, and the pride of the Jordan.

Another point of contact is Jeremiah’s use of the “mighty ones” (אַדִּרִּים). Zechariah 11:2 reads, “Wail, O cypress, for the cedar has fallen, the mighty ones have been destroyed.” It occurs here as a substantive adjective and remains open to interpretation. The ESV interprets it as “the glorious trees” and the NIV similarly as “the stately trees.” In Jer 25:34, 35, and 36, however, the same adjective occurs, and each time it parallels “shepherds.” 25:34, “Wail, O shepherds! Cry out and roll in the dust, O lords of the flock [אַדִּירֵי הַצֹּאן].” 25:35, “It will perish, the place of refuge for the shepherds, an escape for the lords of the flock [מֵאַדִּירֵי הַצֹּאן].” 25:36, “The sound of the crying of the shepherds, of the wailing of the lords of the flock [].” It appears that Zechariah has utilized his pre-text’s language while dropping its precise referent, though a subtle reference to shepherds is also possible.

As somewhat of an aside, Isa 14:8 offers another interesting possibility for an allusion. There, instead of the wailing of the cypress as here, the cypresses (בְּרוֹשִׁים) and cedars of Lebanon rejoice;[79] “wie Cypressen und Cedern in Jes 14, 8 zusammen sich freuen, sollten sie auch zusammen weinen.”[80]

The occasion of the trees’ joy in Isa 14:8 is the fall of the king of Babylon, which leaves the whole earth quiet and at rest. They exclaim, “Since you [king of Babylon] were laid low, no woodcutter comes up against us.” Conversely, in Zech 11:2, the cypress and oaks of Bashan wail because “the cedar has fallen; the glorious ones have been destroyed … the thick forest has been felled.” Not only is there a reversal from rejoicing to wailing, but there is a perfect reversal of the cause for each; Isaiah’s trees rejoice because they are standing, and Zechariah’s wail because they are cut down.

The destruction of the trees in Zech 11:2 indicates that the destructive force previously embodied in the king of Babylon has not been fully vanquished. If it had been, the cedars, as in Isa 14:8, would rejoice. Instead, the ruin of the glorious ones, which, as Jer 25 explains, was also caused by the king of Babylon, signals to the trees that peace does not yet reign; therefore, they wail. The recollection of both Jer 25 and Isa 14 by Zechariah does two very compatible things. It reapplies the predicted judgment of Jeremiah and reverses the predicted joy and peace of Isaiah.[81] The centrality of Babylon links the two texts for Zechariah.

This leads to one of the main questions scholarship has sought to answer within this chapter. Against whom is the judgment of Zech 11:1–3? Who are the shepherds of v. 3’s “The sound of the wailing of the shepherds?” Commentators disagree as to their identity. Most identify them as either the rulers of the nations[82] or the rulers of the Lord’s people.[83] If read with Jer 25 as the main background, the answer would be that they are both. As rehearsed above, the judgment of God extends well beyond his people in Jer 25. The catalyst for judgment is the people’s disobedience (see Jer 25:3–14), but the cup of wrath is given to the kings and officials of Jerusalem and Judah and to “all the kings … on the face of the earth” (Jer 25:26; see vv. 15–27). The prophecy culminates in universal condemnation. “The Lord has an indictment against the nations; he is entering into judgment with all flesh.… Behold, disaster is going forth from nation to nation, and a great tempest is stirring from the farthest parts of the earth” (Jer 25:31–32). The shepherds of v. 3, therefore, in agreement with Jer 25, are the kings of all the nations, including the nation of the Lord.

The geographical movement of these first three verses of Zechariah likewise undergird the universality of the pronounced judgment. As Al Wolters writes,

The movement is from the renowned faraway cedars of Lebanon, which can easily be seen as symbolic of the proud and arrogant nations to the north, to the familiar tamarisks and oleanders of the lower Jordan.… It is not until the final word of this finely crafted pericope that it becomes unmistakably clear that the judgment that is threatened is not only directed at foreign nations, but also against Israel itself.[84]

This conclusion agrees with both sides of the dispute among scholars over whether this small unit of Zech 11 (vv. 1–3) is meant to be the conclusion of ch. 10 or the introduction of 11:4–17.[85] The dispute arises because the unit is “tightly related to its surroundings.”[86] “Evidence for either position can be adduced, since these verses contain catchwords which connect it with both the preceding and following sections.”[87] The interpretation of Zech 11:1–3 via Jer 25 also connects it with both what precedes and follows.[88]

At the end of ch. 10 the Lord promises that the “pride of Assyria shall be laid low, and the scepter of Egypt shall depart” (10:11). In the remainder of ch. 11, the Lord judges the shepherds of his own people (see vv. 4, 7–8, 15–17; see also Zech 10:2–3). As in Jer 25, judgment falls on the shepherds/leaders of all the nations, Israel included.

An allusive reading of Zech 11:1–3 offers support for both sides of both debates present in the secondary literature. These verses pronounce judgment on the shepherds of the nations and of the Lord’s people; they conclude ch. 10 and introduce ch. 11.

To summarize the interpretative conclusions drawn thus far, we have seen that the backdrop of Jer 25 fills out the picture of Zech 11:1–3. It identifies the unnamed agent of destruction as the Lord and the shepherds as the kings and officials of every nation. It reads the unit as both a fitting conclusion to ch. 10 and introduction to 11, and, through its mutual connection with Isa 14:8, gives the specific reason for the wailing of the trees and shepherds: the destructive force previously embodied in Babylon has not yet met its final fate. In other words, the Lord’s use of an agent of destruction to repay disobedience is still active. Judgment remains for all, including Israel, and the world peace of Isaiah is reversed, at least for now.

Another notable parallel between these two texts deserves discussion. Zechariah 11:3b reads, קוֹל שַׁאֲגַת כְּפִירִים כִּי שֻׁדַּד גְּאוֹן הַיַּרְדֵּן (The sound of the roar of the lions, for the pride of the Jordan is ruined). Here the lions (plural) roar because of the destruction of the גְּאוֹן הַיַּרְדֵּן. Jeremiah 25 has two verses with similar imagery. Jeremiah 25:38 reads, עָזַב כַּכְּפִיר סֻכּוֹ כִּי הָיְתָה אַרְצָם לְשַׁמָּה (Like a lion he has forsaken his thicket, for their land has become a desolation). Jeremiah 25:30 reads, יהוה מִמָּרוֹם יִשְׁאָג וּמִמְּעוֹן קָדְשׁוֹ יִתֵּן קוֹלֹו שָׁאֹג יִשְׁאַג עַל־נָוֵהוּ (The Lord from on high will roar, and from his holy habitation he will let out his voice; he will roar fiercely over his habitation). Verse 30 clearly identifies the Lord as roaring. Verse 38 appears to say that it is the Lord who has left his lair, and this because “their land has become a desolation.”

The first point of similarity is the presence of roaring (שָׁאַג). The Lord roars against his dwelling place/flock in Jeremiah, and the lions roar in Zechariah because their dwelling place has been destroyed. If there is intentional interplay here, Zechariah freely and artfully reemploys the imagery of Jeremiah.[89]

Zechariah altogether departs from Jeremiah’s identification of the lion as the Lord. Zechariah’s lions are part of the group (with the shepherds and trees) that mourns. Interestingly, though, he retains a portion of Jeremiah’s description involving the lion. The Lord, like a lion, leaves his lair “because their land has become a desolation” (Jer 25:38). The lions roar in Zechariah “because the pride of the Jordan has been destroyed” (Zech 11:3). In both cases the ruin of territory causes the lion/lions to do something, albeit something different. The significance of the difference is hard to pin down. It seems right to conclude that though the elements (lions, roaring, desolation of land) and theme (judgment) are the same, Zechariah has incorporated them into his own text with a degree of freedom.[90] With Jones and others we can say that “he is creative, not imitative.”[91]

The final and perhaps most illuminating point regarding the contact of these two texts and the significance of the context of Jer 25:34–38 for interpreting Zechariah is the explanation Jeremiah provides for the judgment of Zech 11:1–3. This explanation is wholly lacking in Zechariah. Scholars have often noticed the disparity between chs. 9–10, which are filled with hope and promise, and ch. 11, which is almost entirely pessimistic.[92]

Zechariah provides no immediate explanation for the shift but Jeremiah’s context does. There, the judgment comes because the people “have neither listened nor inclined [their] ears to hear, although the Lord persistently sent to [them] all his servants the prophets” (Jer 25:4). The message of previous prophets was reiterated by Zechariah in the introduction to his book: “Turn now, every one of you, from his evil way and from the evil of your deeds.… Do not go after other gods to serve and worship them” (Jer 25:5a, 6a; cf. Zech 1:4).[93]The surrounding context of Zech 11:1–3 speaks both of the rejection of the Lord’s shepherd/prophet (see Zech 11:7–13) and serving other gods (see Zech 10:2). These texts (Zech 1:4; Jer 25:4–7; Zech 10:2 and 11:7–13) work together to paint a robust picture of the occasion for Zechariah’s abrupt shift to judgment. It is a shift in perspective from the future to the present. The present generation has not returned to the Lord, has not listened to his prophet, and will therefore experience desolation and mourning. This is in stark contrast to the future picture painted by the end of Zech 10, when the Lord, in a second-Exodus event, will take it upon himself to return the people from the many nations to which they were scattered (vv. 8–11) and “will make them strong in the Lord” so that “they shall walk in his name” (v. 12).

To conclude, the text and context of Jer 25:34–38 supply missing identifications for Zechariah’s abbreviated text (the Lord as unnamed agent of destruction; the shepherds as those of all nations) and provide the background against which Zechariah’s text reads well (the refusal of the people to heed the prophets brings about judgment; the destructive force of Babylon is active again). In addition, this reading supports the view that these three verses act as a hinge connecting the end of 10 and the remainder of 11. Finally, a comparison of the two texts showcases well the freedom with which Zechariah utilizes his sources.

2. Ezekiel 37:15–28 And Zechariah 11:4–16

Ezekiel 37:15 begins a new section of ch. 37 with the introductory words, “the word of the Lord came to me.” This sets it apart from the well-known vision of the dry bones, which takes up the first part of the chapter (Ezek 37:1–14). The small section ends in v. 28 and is clearly distinct from the following prophecies against Gog (chs. 38–39).

In these verses, Ezekiel performs a symbolic action. The Lord commands him to take (לָקַח) two sticks (הָעֵצִים) and to write upon each of them. On one of the sticks he is to write לִיהוּדָה וְלִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲבֵרֹו (For Judah and for the sons of Israel of his association), and on the other לְיוֹסֵף עֵץ אֶפְרַיִם וְכָל־בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲבֵרוֹ (For Joseph (the tree of Ephraim) and all the house of Israel of his association) (v. 16). He then commands him to join them together so that they are one (v. 17). An explanation of the action follows,

I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from all around, and bring them to their own land. And I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. And one king shall be king over them all, and they shall no longer be two nations and shall no longer be divided into two kingdoms.… My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. (Ezek 37:21–22, 24)

The two nations of Israel’s history shall become one and the division that has plagued the nation since the days after Solomon will no longer remain. There will be one king, one shepherd ruling over one obedient nation at home in their own land.

Zechariah 11 is strongly reminiscent of this account. Zechariah, in response to the command of the Lord to shepherd the flock (11:4), takes (לָקַח) two staffs (מַקֵּל) and names themנֹעַם and חֹבְלִים (11:7). Instead of joining the sticks together, as in Ezekiel, he breaks each of them. The breaking of the first staff symbolizes the breaking of the covenant with all the peoples (11:10).[94] The breaking of the second staff symbolizes the breaking of the brotherhood between Judah and Israel (11:14). “Damit wird nun auch einfach die Verheißung von Ez 37, 19ff. umgedreht.”[95]

Ezekiel speaks of one people with one shepherd. In Zechariah, the brotherhood is broken and the Lord’s appointed shepherd, after a mutual detestation between him and his flock (11:8), leaves off being their shepherd. “I will not shepherd you” (11:9). In his place, the Lord appoints a worthless shepherd who is the antithesis of the promised Davidic shepherd (11:15–16; see below).

Zechariah here reverses Ezekiel’s promises of the one good shepherd and the united people.

While these two passages share substantial material, there are noticeable differences, including different terms used for the sticks, naming the sticks instead of writing the names upon them, and using Joseph and Judah to refer to the two kingdoms in Ezekiel and Israel and Judah in Zechariah.[96] These changes are well within the boundaries of Zechariah’s creative allusive methodology, and the major parallels are more than enough to legitimize the allusion. While the specific reasons for the change in terminology and change from “writing” to “calling” are unclear, it is possible that other prophets prompted the change from Joseph and Judah, as used in Ezekiel, to Israel and Judah, as used in Zechariah.

The change is even more interesting given the use of Joseph and Judah alongside one another in Zechariah’s previous chapter: “I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph. I will bring them back because I have compassion on them” (Zech 10:6).[97] The promises of the return of Joseph and Judah to the land (see Ezek 37:21–22, 25–26; Zech 10:6, 8–10), the blessing of their children in the land (Ezek 37:25; Zech 10:7, 9), a multiplication of the people (Ezek 37:26; Zech 10:8), and an ingathering from all over (Ezek 37:21; Zech 10:9–10) are promised by both prophets. Zechariah’s apparent intimate familiarity with Ezek 37:15–28 and use of its identical elements and themes in Zech 10 make the change in Zech 11 from Joseph to Israel even more interesting. Why the change?

It seems likely that Zechariah is in conversation with more than one prophet here. More than a few passages in the latter prophets speak of the promise to bring the people of Israel and Judah back to the land. “He will raise a signal for the nations and will assemble the banished of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth” (Isa 11:12). “For behold, days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will restore the fortunes of my people, Israel and Judah, says the Lord, and I will bring them back to the land that I gave to their forefathers, and they shall take possession of it” (Jer 30:3; see also Jer 12:14–15; 23:6; 31:27; 33:7). A more direct dialogue partner for the breaking of the brotherhood of Israel and Judah in Zech 11 is Jer 3:18. “In those days the house of Judah shall join the house of Israel, and together they shall come from the land of the north to the land that I gave your fathers for a heritage.” Hosea 1:11 (2:2 MT) also underlines the unity that Zech 11 severs: “And the children of Israel and the children of Judah shall be gathered together, and they shall appoint for themselves one head.” By pairing Israel instead of Joseph with Judah, Zechariah’s stick-breaking of 11:11 reverses not only Ezekiel but also others of the prophetic past who spoke of a reunification of the divided nation. Instead of the promised unity coming to fruition during the time of this prophecy, he here breaks the staff in order “to break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel” (Zech 11:11b). It is a full reversal, a literal breaking, of the previous promise.

Zechariah is here in conversation with multiple prophetic voices. Even when he clearly alludes to a single prophetic passage, he has the propensity to interact with a host of prophetic voices.[98] In this case, that interaction comes via a name change, from Joseph, as Ezekiel and Zech 10 have it, to Israel, as other prophets have it. Since other major elements had already firmly rooted his prophecy in Ezekiel, he could freely opt for the name change in order to dialogue with other prophetic promises. By reversing these promises, Zechariah expressly indicates to his then-current audience that theirs is not the time for the promises to be realized.[99]

A quote from Rex Mason aptly concludes this section, “The original message is being inverted and the meaning of the action [now] is to announce judgment.”[100] As with Isa 14:8, Zechariah reverses the promises of Ezekiel and other former prophets, promises of a united people with a single king, exchanging those promises for a message of judgment expressed in a divided people with a worthless shepherd (see next section).

3. Ezekiel 34 And Zechariah 11

Like Jer 25 and Ezek 37, it is commonplace to link Ezek 34 and Zech 11.[101] Ezekiel 34:1 begins a new oracle with the heading, וַיְהִי דְבַר־יהוה אֵלַי לֵאמֹר. The oracle extends the length of the chapter and is bookended with the same theme as Zech 11: sheep and shepherds. Ezekiel 34:2–10 is directed against “the shepherds of Israel” (v. 2). These shepherds feed themselves instead of the sheep and are worse than worthless, intentionally harming the sheep rather than working for their good (see vv. 3–10). The oracle ends by referring to the Lord as the shepherd of the people of Israel, “the human sheep of [his] pasture” (Ezek 34:31b). The intervening verses (Ezek 34:11–30) recount the Lord’s promises in light of the worthlessness of Israel’s shepherds: “I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep” (Ezek 34:15a; cf. 34:11b, 20b, 22a, 25, 28a) and “I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them” (Ezek 34:23a).

Zechariah 11 is likewise concerned with sheep and shepherds. The shepherds appear in this text as early as v. 3, where they are wailing because their glory is ruined, and consistently throughout (see vv. 4, 5, 7–9, 15–16); the chapter concludes with a pronouncement of woe against “my worthless shepherd” (Zech 11:17).

Aside from the shared general topic of shepherds and sheep, several more specific points of contact are apparent between Ezek 34 and Zech 11. These corresponding points further showcase the reversal at work in Zechariah’s use of the earlier prophets.

In Zech 11:16 the Lord says, הִנֵּה־אָנֹכִי מֵקִים רֹעֶה בָּאֶרֶץ (Behold, I am raising up a shepherd in the land). The introduction to this shepherd, especially in light of how he is more fully and terribly described in the following verses of Zech 11, converses with and directly opposes a promise of Ezekiel. Ezekiel 34:23 begins, וַהֲקִמֹתִי עֲלֵיהֶם רֹעֶה אֶחַד וְרָעָה אֶתְהֶן (And I will raise over them one shepherd, and he shall shepherd them). This shepherd, contrary to Zechariah’s, “shall feed them,” and will be the Lord’s arm blessing his people (see vv. 24–31).

Moreover, and strengthening the conclusion that intentional interaction exists between the proclamations of these two prophets introducing the one who will be raised up, Ezekiel’s description of the actions of the worthless shepherds, and his description of what the Lord would do in the future as shepherd of his people, as many commentators have noted, substantially overlaps with Zechariah’s description of the worthless shepherd in Zech 11:16. Ezekiel poses the rhetorical question, “Should not shepherds feed the sheep?” He continues with his description of Israel’s shepherds:

You eat [תּאֹכֵלוּ] the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, and you slaughter the fat one [הַבְּרִיאָה], but you do not feed the sheep. The weak you have not strengthened. The sick you have not healed [לֹא־רִפֵּאתֶם], and the broken [וְלַנִּשְׁבֶּרֶת] you have not bound up. The strayed you have not brought back. The lost you have not sought [לֹא בִּקַּשְׁתֶּם]. Instead, with violence and with harshness you have ruled them. (Ezek 34:3–4)

Later in the passage, the Lord promises to do for Israel what its shepherds had failed to do: “The lost I will seek [אֲבַקֵּשׁ]. The strayed I will bring back, and the broken [וְלַנִּשְׁבֶּרֶת] I will bind up. The weak I will strengthen” (Ezek 34:16). Ezekiel’s generation suffered the rule of ruthless and faithless leaders, which led to their dispersion among the nations. In the face of this reality, the great promise was that the Lord would take up the shepherd’s staff and rule over a reunited nation in the land through a David-like figure. Zechariah’s generation undoubtedly expected that this promise belonged to them. The bitterness of the words of Zech 11:16 is in the mixture of part of Ezekiel’s hoped-for promise, that the Lord would raise up a shepherd for them, with the descriptors used for the worthless leaders. Zechariah 11:16 reads, “Those being destroyed he will not attend. The young he will not seek [לֹא־יְבַקֵּשׁ], and the broken [וְהַנִּשְׁבֶּרֶת] he will not heal [לֹא יְרַפֵּא]. The healthy he will not sustain. Instead, the flesh of the fat [הַבְּרִיאָה] he will eat [יֹאכַל] and their hoofs he will tear off.”[102] “Behold, I am raising up a shepherd in the land,” who, says Zechariah, will be exactly like the ruthless shepherds of Ezekiel’s day. He will not be the good shepherd who was promised to you, and you will again suffer under oppressive rule.[103]

Zechariah here completely reverses the promise of Ezekiel and indicates that the people will return to their pre-exilic condition under a leader who does not care for them as the Lord had promised to care for them. Zechariah’s reuse of Ezek 34, then, contains both reversal and reapplication of judgment. The realization of Ezekiel’s promise is not for the current generation to experience. Their disobedience, as that of earlier generations, has resulted in the Lord’s anger and judgment (cf. Zech 1:4–6), expressed here in terms of Ezekiel.

The pronouncement of woe upon the worthless shepherd in Zechariah’s day (הוֹי רֹעִי הָאֱלִיל) is also reminiscent of Ezek 34. The agent of judgment, the worthless shepherd, will himself be on the receiving end of the Lord’s judgment, as pronounced in 11:17, “Woe to the worthless shepherd, who deserts the flock! May the sword strike his arm and right eye! Let his arm be wholly withered, his right eye utterly blinded.” Ezekiel 34:2 reads, “Woe to the shepherds of Israel [הוֹי רֹעֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל], who have been feeding themselves!” The end of Zech 11, working together with the surrounding oracles, essentially resets to the circumstances of Ezekiel’s day. The people faced the judgment of ruthless rulers, which led to their scattering (Ezek 34:5–6; Zech 10:9), the eventual judgment of the leaders, and the expectation of the return of the people (Ezek 34:11–16; Zech 10:6, 10–11) and coming faithful king who himself would rule over them (Ezek 34:15, 23–24; Zech 9:9 [cf. Zech 2:10]; 14:9). Thus, although Zechariah here reverses Ezekiel, he also reiterates the doom of the worthless shepherd (within the immediate passage) and the promises of peace and security (within the surrounding passages), which work together to redirect hope to the future.

Heiko Wenzel, writing against Katrina Larkin’s supposition that Zechariah tried to offer an explanation for the failed prophecy of Ezekiel, says, “The previous ten chapters [Zech 1–10], however, implicitly acknowledge that previous prophecies have not been fulfilled yet either.… They have pointed to … an intervening time period before the complete fulfillment.”[104] As Wenzel explains, Zechariah points his audience to an additional period of waiting. The promises are not for the current day, as the returnees would have supposed, but that does not mean they have failed. Though there is reversal and judgment, there is also a reiteration of hope in the words of the earlier prophets. While Zechariah’s prophecy may explain why the earlier promises were not realized in his day, namely, the disobedience of the people and failure of the leaders, he does not completely nullify their validity. Rather, he points with his prophetic precursors to the future.

To compress the findings of the comparison between Zech 11 and its three most often observed pre-texts (Jer 25, Ezek 34, and Ezek 37), and what can be concluded about Zech 11 from this comparison, the prophet either reiterates the judgment of his predecessors or he reverses their promises. In one instance, that of the pronouncement of woe upon the worthless shepherd, the reiteration of judgment is a positive indication that the punishment of the people will not be the final word. As for the other interactions with earlier prophecies, the picture is quite bleak. The hopes of the then-current generation are dashed, as prophetic language is taken up in order to break promises or reapply judgments. These observations lay the groundwork to investigate other, less-prominent uses of the earlier prophetic stream in this chapter. Before I discuss these other allusions, I want to call attention to a recurring figure within the main source-texts of Zech 11: the promised Davidic king.

IV. David’s King: Presently Absent

It is at the very least worthwhile to note that of the three most prominent alluded-to sources of Zech 11, the promise of a king is present in two of them, and is intimately tied to the third. Ezekiel 34:23 reads, “And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them.” Ezekiel 37:24 similarly reads, “My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes.” Jeremiah 25 does not contain any reference to a Davidic king, as it is occupied entirely with the judgment against “the shepherds … the lords of the flock” (Jer 25:35). Jeremiah 23, on the other hand, which begins the pronouncement of judgment that continues in ch. 25, “Woe to the shepherds [הוֹי רֹעִים] who destroy and scatter the sheep” (Jer 23:1; see above on Ezek 34:2 and Zech 11:17),[105] does promise David’s king. “Behold, the days are coming … when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely” (Jer 23:5; cf. Jer 33:14–18; Zech 3:8; 6:12).

This observation lends itself to certain potential conclusions. The first is that Zechariah has the broader context in mind when he alludes to particular texts. In this case, he is able to highlight the root of the people’s problem, the absence of the Davidic king, by leaving him out of his picture in Zech 11.

Since Zechariah here recalls three texts that are accompanied by the promise of the king’s coming, the intentional non-mention would seemingly say something to the audience. Even though the prophet does not employ the specific verses wherein mention is made of David’s king, he creates a hole for him by his employment of the surrounding topics and terminology in the texts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. This is especially convincing in light of the dynamic between the worthless shepherds and the good king, who is the solution to the sheep’s problem in Ezek 34. Zechariah’s reinstatement of the worthless shepherd indicates the pressing need of the king to come. In this way, he is able to evoke the prophecies of the good king and his future coming without explicitly mentioning them. The king’s noticeable absence, ironically, gives him a certain presence.

Second, the observation that the king is present through absence in Zech 11 threads together earlier and later parts of Zechariah’s prophecy, as it elsewhere explicitly presents the king’s arrival as the solution to the problem of the people. The cyclical distress of the people, hinted at in Zech 1:4, “Do not be like your fathers” (cf. Zech 7:7–14), would only come to an end when the king came. As early as Zech 3:8 there appears to be interplay between Zechariah’s prophecy and Jeremiah’s promise of the Branch (צמח)/king (see Jer 23:5; 33:14–18): “Behold, I will bring my servant the Branch.” Again, in Zech 6:12–13, “Behold, the man whose name is the Branch.… It is he who shall build the temple of the Lord and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne.”[106] Most explicitly, Zech 9:9 reads, “Behold, your king is coming to you! Righteous and having salvation is he.” Finally, Zech 14:9 speaks of the day when “the Lord will be king over all the earth.” These promises, coupled with the dire situation of Zech 11 in which a people who suffer and will suffer at the hands of worthless shepherds/a worthless shepherd, work together to present the absent king as much-needed and still-hoped-for in the renowned shepherd-narrative. Zechariah 11 presents a problem whose solution lies in the source texts’ contexts, and this is corroborated by other places within Zechariah that directly speak of the king’s coming.[107]

Another consideration in favor of this line of thinking is the lesser-noted allusion to Judg 9 in Zech 11.[108] Zechariah 11 opens with the line, “Open your doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour your cedars [וְתֹאכַל אֵשׁ בַּאֲרָזֶיךָ]!” As Wolters notes, Judg 9 is “the only other place in the Hebrew Bible where there is mention of fire consuming the cedars of Lebanon.”[109] Judges 9:15, a verse in the midst of Jotham’s fable concerning Abimelech’s recent illegitimate appointment as king, reads, “If in good faith you are anointing me king over you, then come and take refuge in my shade, but if not, let fire [אֵשׁ] come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of Lebanon [וְתֹאכַל אֶת־אַרְזֵי הַלְּבָנוֹן].” Several verses later (v. 20), Jotham identifies the cedars of Lebanon with “the leaders of Shechem and Beth-millo.” In both cases, the consumption of Lebanon’s cedars, the leaders, is the result of the lack of a legitimate king. Zechariah 11 could have well concluded with the closing remark of the book of Judges: “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” Or, as Zechariah has it nearby, “The people are afflicted because there is no shepherd” (Zech 10:2); he “will make them strong in the Lord, and they shall walk in his name” (Zech 10:12).

V. Lesser-Noted Allusions

In addition to the three oft-noted allusions to Jeremiah and Ezekiel, other less-noted allusions within Zech 11 appear valid, as they fit into the molds of reversal and restatement of judgment. It is the purpose of this next section to set forth those allusions, demonstrate their validity, and explore their surrounding contexts for overlooked parallels that may aid in understanding Zech 11.

1. Judges 9

The thematic and peculiar lexical parallels between the texts of Zech 11 and Judg 9 were discussed above, and these are the ones that have been noticed and commented on by others.

Upon further investigation, Judg 9 yields an intriguing parallel to the infamous thirty pieces of silver.[110] The prophet Zechariah receives instruction to “become shepherd of the flock doomed to slaughter” (Zech 11:4), and he becomes their shepherd (11:7a). He recounts, “But I became impatient with them, and they also detested me” (11:8b). This leads to a request by the shepherd for his wages (11:12a), which come to him in the amount of thirty pieces of silver (שְׁלֹשִׁים כָּסֶף; 11:12b). The transaction finalizes the relationship between the two parties and leads ultimately to the appearance of the worthless shepherd who “devours the flesh of the fat ones, tearing off even their hoofs” (11:15–16).

In Judg 9, when the leaders of Shechem found it favorable for Abimelech to rule over them as king they gave him “seventy pieces of silver [שִׁבְעִים כֶּסֶף] … with which Abimelech hired worthless and reckless men who followed after him” (9:4). “And he went … and killed his brothers … seventy men” (9:5).

In Zechariah, the payment of silver comes at the end of the prophet’s tenure as the shepherd of the flock, a prophet who was commissioned by the Lord to be a shepherd. In Judges, it comes at the beginning of Abimelech’s reign as king, a king who had no commission and procured the office by illicit means. The one payment disposes of a good leader, while the other installs a wicked one. This is not the reversal of prophetic promises as before, but another sort of reversal can be seen in the opposite elements of disposal and installation and good and worthless.

Further, after the initial difference, the removal versus the installation of a leader, the payments both initiate the same course of events, generally considered. Each payment results in the activity of worthless men who kill and devour. In Judges, the silver is more directly linked with the worthless men than in Zechariah, and so too the killing, but the parallels remain.

It is also possible, though admittedly unlikely, that this sheds light on the debated question of interpreting whether thirty is a low amount or a fair amount for the prophet’s service as shepherd. Upon receiving the payment, the prophet is instructed by the Lord to throw the money to the potter, and refers to it as “the glorious price which I was priced by them” (Zech 11:13a). This verse is surely ironical, and seemingly indicates that the amount was too little. The prophet should have been paid more. Joyce Baldwin, however, drawing upon Neh 5:15, which records that the forty shekels in tax per year exacted by the Persian governors was burdensome, and Exod 21:32, which records that thirty shekels was the price for the life of a slave, valuing human life highly, thinks, “This was no mean sum.”[111]

If the “seventy of silver” can in any way be connected to a payment received by Abimelech to rule, then the “thirty of silver” is perhaps indeed meant to be viewed as a mean sum.[112] In any case, the foregoing observations on the interpretive impact of Judg 9 are suggestive rather than conclusive. They do, though, showcase the potential fruitfulness of mining the contexts of the source-texts in order to illuminate the dark places of Zechariah. Even if the interpretive options provided by the source-texts’ contexts are not entirely persuasive, they open up possibilities.

2. Jeremiah 12–13 And Ezekiel

Other general prophetic precursors also appear to be operative in Zech 11. The first part of Zech 11:6 reads, “I will no longer have pity [לֹא אֶחְמוֹל] on the inhabitants of the land, declares the Lord. Behold, I will cause each of them to fall into the hand of his neighbor, and each into the hand of his king.” The first-person form of חמל occurs only six other times in the HB. The Lord is the subject of the verb in all other instances, and in each instance, as in Zechariah, the verb is negated by the particle לֹא (Jer 13:14; Ezek 5:11; 7:4, 9; 8:18; 9:10).

This is likely another example where Zech 11 restates the judgment of the earlier prophets. Jeremiah 13:14 reads, “And I will dash them, each man against his brother, fathers and sons together, declares the Lord. I will not pity [לֹא אֶחְמוֹל] or spare or have compassion from destroying them.” The Lord gives his reason for this in Jer 13:10, “This evil people, who refuse to hear my words … stubbornly follow their own heart and have gone after other gods to serve them and worship them.” All five texts of Ezekiel are very similar to one another. Ezekiel 5:11 reads, “Because you have defiled my sanctuary with all your detestable things and with all your abominations, therefore I will withdraw. My eye will not spare, and I will not pity [וְלֹא אֶחְמוֹל].” Ezekiel 7:4, 7:9, and 8:17–18 also mention the peoples’ “abominations.” Ezekiel 8:17 adds that they “fill the land with violence,” and Ezek 9:9–10 picks this up: “The land is full of blood, and the city full of injustice.… My eye will not spare, nor will I have pity [וְלֹא אֶחְמוֹל], I will bring their deeds upon their heads.” The prevalence of false worship, violence and injustice, in short, disobedience, leads to the condemnation that the Lord will no longer pity the people.

In Zechariah’s day, the situation was comparable. Zechariah 10:2–3 reads, “For the household gods [הַתְּרָפִים] speak deceit, the diviners see visions of falsehood and speak empty dreams and comfort with a vain thing, therefore the people wander like sheep.” The idolatry of the people led to the scattering of the flock. Supporting the allusion, the context of Jer 13 references the people as “the Lord’s flock [that] has been taken captive” (Jer 13:17), the “beautiful flock” (Jer 13:20). The injustice and violence of Ezekiel’s verses are likewise present in Zechariah: “Those who buy them slaughter them and go unpunished, and those who sell them say, ‘Blessed be the Lord, I have become rich,’ and their own shepherds have no pity on them. For I will no longer have pity” (Zech 11:5–6a). The same vices produced the same results.

These allusions to previous prophetic judgments again recall the introduction to the book and its call: “Return to me, and I will return to you.… Do not be like your fathers, to whom the former prophets cried out … ‘Return from your evil ways and deeds.’ But they did not hear or pay attention to me” (Zech 1:3–4). “My words and my statutes, which I commanded my servants the prophets, did they not overtake your fathers?” (Zech 1:6a). These introductory verses issue a call to readers/hearers with the implicit threat that the same fate awaits them if they follow in their fathers’ steps. This provides interpretive value that lends its hand in legitimizing these allusions in Zech 11, as the allusions subtly communicate that Zechariah’s audience did not heed his call to reform. The consequences of their actions, the actions that imitated those of earlier generations, will now imitate that of earlier generations; “Again, I will not have pity on them.”[113]

Zechariah 11:6 ends, “I will not deliver from their hand [וְלֹא אַצִּיל מִיָּדָם].” Ezekiel 34:10, 12, and 27 use similar language. For example, Ezek 34:27 reads, “And they shall know that I am the Lord, when I break the bars of their yoke and have delivered them from the hand [וְהִצַּלְתִּים מִיַּד הָעֹבְדִים בָּהֶם] of those who enslaved them.” Three times the Lord promises through Ezekiel, “I will deliver,” which he reverses by Zechariah, “I will not deliver.”

If לֹא אַצִּיל at the end of Zech 11:6 is meant to evoke Ezekiel’s promise by reversing it, fitting well with Zechariah’s clear reversal of Ezek 34 elsewhere in this chapter, then it becomes even more likely that לֹא אֶחְמוֹל at the beginning of Zech 11:6 is meant to evoke Ezekiel’s language of judgment by restating it.

This conclusion raises two questions. Is the text of Jer 13:14, as the only text outside of Ezekiel containing the exact words לֹא אֶחְמוֹל, to be included among the source texts? And, is this an allusion to a single text or to multiple texts? That is, is it specific or broad? If it should be concluded that Jeremiah is to be included in the source texts, it would rule out a single text, but it may still be an allusion to multiple single texts, as the limited number of occurrences allows for the isolation and identification of the texts to which he is here alluding.

First then, is he here alluding to Jer 13:14? Again, it reads, “And I will dash them one against another, fathers and sons together, declares the Lord. I will not pity, or spare, or have compassion from destroying them.” Aside from לֹא אֶחמוֹל, the two verses share in conveying the idea of conflict among the people: “I will dash them one against another [וְנִפַּצְתִּים אִישׁ אֶל־אָחִין],” and “I will cause each of them to fall into the hand of his neighbor [מַמְצִיא אֶת־הָאָדָם אִישׁ בְּיַד־רֵעֵהוּ]” (Zech 11:6). As noted above, thematic overlap also exists between the two, as Jeremiah speaks of “the Lord’s flock [that] has been taken captive” (Jer 13:17; cf. v. 20). Another consideration in support of a likely allusion is the presence of two rare phrases in Jer 12 that appear in Zech 11. They are “the flock of slaughter,” כְּצֹאן לְטִבְחָה in Jer 12:3 and אֶת־צֹאן הַהֲרֵגָה in Zech 11:4, and “the thicket of the Jordan,” בִּגְאוֹן הַיַּרְדֵּן in Jer 12:5 and גְּאוֹן הַיַּרְדֵּן in Zech 11:3. The former phrase finds close parallel elsewhere only in Ps 44:12, כְּצֹאן מַאֲכָל, and Isa 53:7, כְּשֶׂה לַטֶבַח. In Jer 12:3, the term for slaughter is different than that of Zechariah, טִבְחָה instead of הֲרֵגָה, but exact lexical use is not necessary for a legitimate allusion in Zechariah, and even if it was, Jeremiah’s verse concludes with Zechariah’s term, “Pull them out like sheep for the slaughter, and set them apart for the day of slaughter [לְיוֹם הֲרֵגָה].” הֲרֵגָה is a very rare term, occurring only in Zechariah (in 11:4 and 11:7) and Jeremiah (in 7:32, 12:3, and 19:6).[114] If Zechariah intentionally used Jer 12, he has altered the phrase while managing to maintain the vocabulary of his predecessor. The latter phrase, “thicket of the Jordan,” is peculiar to Zech 11:3, Jer 12:5, 49:19, and 50:44. The thought here is that if Zechariah was swimming in the waters of Jer 12, as evidenced by his use of these two rare phrases, it is more likely that, being so close by, he could have easily dipped in those of Jer 13.

It is a difficult question to answer definitively, whether Zechariah had Jer 13 in mind for his proclamation that the Lord would no longer have compassion. It is also interesting to wonder if that is the right question to ask. Did the author of Zech 11 have the scrolls of Jeremiah and Ezekiel opened up before him as he wrote, taking this word or phrase from one place and that word or phrase from another, leaving for his readers/hearers marks on a trail to follow to his original place of departure in an earlier prophet? Were the specific words and contexts all contained in his mind, so that practically this would amount to the same thing? This has been the underlying assumption of most of what I have written. The difficult part in assessing an intentional use of Jer 13 is how familiar it must have been for anyone acquainted with Ezekiel to hear that the Lord would not have compassion. This being the case, perhaps he did not intend to lead his audience to Jer 13 by his use of the words, “I will not have compassion.” That he apparently used Jer 12 in this same context is, to my mind, the strongest consideration in favor of an intentional use of Jer 13, but it is not decisive, since it is not clear that Jer 13 adds anything to Zechariah’s interpretation beyond what Ezekiel’s texts add: a reapplication of the precise judgment of the former prophets in light of imitative disobedience.

This same line of thinking can be applied to the question of whether Zechariah is making a specific or broad allusion. Not one of the Ezekiel texts in which לֹא אֶחְמוֹל or לֹא אֶחְמֹל appears (Ezek 5:11; 7:4, 9; 8:18; 9:10) is notable for what it adds to the interpretation of Zech 11 beyond this general observation, that as the opening of the book called for repentance in the words of the earlier prophets, it is now applying judgment in the words of the earlier prophets, with the further implication, as noted above, that the people have emulated the disobedience of their fathers. It would therefore be impossible to single out one text as the one to which Zechariah is alluding.

VI. Conclusion

This article has sought to give coherence to the allusions of Zech 11 by examining well-known and oft-rehearsed allusions, as well as lesser-noted allusions that gained believability in light of how Zechariah utilized the more obvious ones. Zechariah consistently employs the earlier prophets, reversing their messages of promise and blessing and reiterating their pronouncements of judgment, using like language to condemn like disobedience and heightening the need and longing for the promised Messiah.

A significant portion of the article explored the surrounding contexts of the specific allusion texts and demonstrated their potential fruitfulness for understanding some of Zechariah’s obscurities. We saw especially that the broader contexts of the alluded-to texts within Jer 25, Ezek 34 and 37, Isa 14, and Judg 9 have much to offer by way of interpretive help. This was true with certain details (e.g., the Lord is the subject of the passive שׁדד, via Jer 25; why Zech 11:14 uses Judah and Israel; the shepherds of v. 3 refer to the leaders of the nations and Israel) and broader thematic/theological issues (e.g., conflict and judgment existed among the people and leaders because the king like David had not yet come, via Jer 23, Ezek 34 and 37, and Judg 9; Zechariah’s audience did not heed the call to pay attention to the words of the prophets).

Difficulties certainly remain for Zech 11. The conclusions of the present article, in combination with the work of others, should direct interpreters to mine the earlier prophets for help in resolving these. The extensive list of proposed allusions from others is a good start.

Notes

1. This is complicated by the LXX’s inexact correspondence with the re-division of the MT. Theodore of Mopsuestia and Didymus the Blind, whose commentaries were based on the LXX, mention both the land of Canaan and the Canaanites in reference to these verses. See Didymus the Blind, Commentary on Zechariah, trans. Robert C. Hill, Fathers of the Church 111 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2006), 264, 272; Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, trans. Robert C. Hill, Fathers of the Church 108 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2004), 379, 381. Unless otherwise noted, all English translations herein are my own.
2. For discussion of these questions, refer to any extended commentary written in the last 100 years.
3. Didymus the Blind, Commentary on Zechariah, 253.
4. John Goldingay and Pamela Scalise, Minor Prophets II (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 290.
5. James Nogalski, The Book of the Twelve: Micah–Malachi (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2011), 939 (italics original).
6. Eugene Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Exegetical Commentary (Richardson, TX: Biblical Studies Foundation, 2003), 249.
7. Carroll Stuhlmueller, Haggai and Zechariah: Rebuilding with Hope (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 139.
8. S. R. Driver, The Minor Prophets, 2 vols. (New York: Henry Frowde, 1906), 2:253. For similar comments, see Ernst Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch (Leipzig: A. Deicherische Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1922), 510; Al Wolters, Zechariah (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 357; Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, AB 25c (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 253, 293; 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, ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd, JSOTSup 370 (New York: Sheffield Academic, 2003), 93; Douglas R. Jones, “A Fresh Interpretation of Zechariah 9–11, ” VT 12 (1962): 250; Paul Redditt, Zechariah 9–14, IECOT (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2012), 92; George L. Klein, Zechariah, NAC 21b (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2008), 311.
9. Wolters, Zechariah, 349, 351–52; Bernhard Stade, “Deuterozacharja: Eine kritische Studie,” ZAW 1 (1881): 68–70; Katrina Larkin, The Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study of the Formation of a Mantological Wisdom Anthology, CBET 6 (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994), 101; Redditt, Zechariah 9–14, 78; Ina Willi-Plein, Prophetie am Ende: Untersuchungen zu Sacharja 9–14 (Cologne: Peter Hanstein Verlag, 1974), 73.
10. Larkin, Eschatology of Second Zechariah, 101; Redditt, Zechariah 9–14, 88; Risto Nurmela, Prophets in Dialogue: Inner-Biblical Allusions in Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14 (Turku, Finland: Abo Akademi University, 1996), 132–33. Nurmela sees here a “possible allusion.”
11. Wolters, Zechariah, 353; Redditt, Zechariah 9–14, 88; Mark Boda, The Book of Zechariah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 645; Willi-Plein, Prophetie am Ende, 75.
12. Karl Marti, Das Dodekapropheton (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1904), 437.
13. Wolters, Zechariah, 354.
14. Wolters, Zechariah, 353; Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 246.
15. Redditt, Zechariah 9–14, 89; Stuhlmueller, Haggai and Zechariah, 132.
16. Albin van Hoonacker, Les douze petits prophètes (Paris: Libraire Victor Lecoffre, 1908), 674–75; Boda, Book of Zechariah, 639, 642, 644n37; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 508.
17. Wolters, Zechariah, 350.
18. Almost all commentators. So, for example, Marti, Das Dodekapropheton, 437; Paul Lamarche, Zacharie IX–XIV: Structure littéraire et messianisme (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1961), 59; Jones, “Fresh Interpretation,” 251; Magne Saebø, Sacharja 9–14: Untersuchungen von Text und Form (Wageningen, Netherlands: Neukirchener Verglag, 1969), 229; Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, TOTC (London: Tyndale Press, 1972), 192; Wilhelm Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 1–8, Sacharja 9–14, Maleachi, KAT 13/4 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1976), 199–200; Elizabeth Achtemeier, Nahum–Malachi (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1988), 156; David L. Petersen, “Zechariah 9–14: Methodological Reflections,” in Bringing out the Treasure, 215; Goldingay and Scalise, Minor Prophets II, 289.
19. Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 1–8, Sacharja 9–14, Maleachi, 208n18.
20. Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 245.
21. Redditt, Zechariah 9–14, 89; Boda, Book of Zechariah, 643n35.
22. Ralph L. Smith, Micah–Malachi, WBC (Waco, TX: Word, 1984), 267.
23. H. G. Mitchell, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Jonah, ICC (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912), 297.
24. Julia M. O’Brien, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, AOTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 2004), 249.
25. Stuhlmueller, Haggai and Zechariah, 132.
26. Paul D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 335; Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 239.
27. Wolters, Zechariah, 377.
28. Wolters, Zechariah, 377.
29. Wolters, Zechariah, 387.
30. André Lacocque, Zacharie 9–14, in Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament 11c (Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1981), 177.
31. Marvin Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, Berit Olam (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), 2:679, 680–82.
32. Mitchell, Haggai, Zechariah, 308.
33. Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 2:683.
34. Robert L. Foster, “Shepherds, Sticks, and Social Destabilization: A Fresh Look at Zechariah 11:4–17, ” JBL 126 (2007): 748–49.
35. Michael Stead, “The Three Shepherds: Reading Zechariah in the Light of Jeremiah 11, ” in A God of Faithfulness: Essays in Honour of J. Gordon McConville on his 60th Birthday, ed. Jamie A. Grant, Alison Lo, and Gordon J. Wenham (New York: T&T Clark, 2011), 160.
36. Foster, “Shepherds, Sticks, and Social Destabilization,” 752.
37. Wolters, Zechariah, 385.
38. Lacocque, Zacharie 9–14, 173; Lamarche, Zacharie IX–XIV, 143, 147; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 515.
39. Foster, “Shepherds, Sticks, and Social Destabilization,” 748–49.
40. Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 512.
41. Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 143, 145, 147.
42. Hanson, Dawn of Apocalyptic, 342.
43. Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 256.
44. Rex Mason, The Books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 105; Wolters, Zechariah, 362; Boda, Book of Zechariah, 660.
45. Andrew Hill, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, TOTC 28 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012), 231.
46. Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 515.
47. Lacocque, Zacharie 9–14, 177; Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 258. Merrill mentions only 19:9. M. Delcor, “Les sources du Deutéro-Zacharie et ses procédés d’emprunt,” RB 59 (1952): 387. Delcor mentions 14:19 and 15:2.
48. Stead, “Three Shepherds,” 154.
49. van Hoonacker, Les douze petits prophètes, 677; Wolters, Zechariah, 383, 385.
50. Klein, Zechariah, 340.
51. van Hoonacker, Les douze petits prophètes, 675.
52. Saebø, Sacharja 9–14, 229; Lacocque, Zacharie 9–14, 173; van Hoonacker, Les douze petits prophètes, 675; Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 2:677; Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 485.
53. Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 515.
54. Eibert Tigchelaar, “Some Observations on the Relationship between Zechariah 9–11 and Jeremiah,” in Boda and Floyd, Bringing out the Treasure, 268.
55. Delcor, “Les sources,” 387.
56. Hill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 231.
57. Delcor, “Les sources,” 410.
58. Delcor, “Les sources,” 408.
59. Mason, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, 109.
60. Delcor, “Les sources,” 386; Barry G. Webb, The Message of Zechariah (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 149n139.
61. Lacocque, Zacharie 9–14, 173; Smith, Micah–Malachi, 271.
62. Almost all commentators. So, for example, Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 257; Friedrich Horst, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten: Nahum bis Malachi (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1964), 253; Heiko Wenzel, Reading Zechariah with Zechariah 1:1–6 as the Introduction to the Entire Book, CBET 59 (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 232–34; Delcor, “Les sources,” 386; Stead, “Three Shepherds,” 158; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 511–12.
63. Lacocque, Zacharie 9–14, 176.
64. Lacocque, Zacharie 9–14, 173, 177.
65. Willi-Plein, Prophetie am Ende, 80; Mason, “Use of Earlier Biblical Material,” 103; Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 256.
66. Lacocque, Zacharie 9–14, 176.
67. Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 289–90, 292.
68. Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 512.
69. Wolters, Zechariah, 398; Boda, Book of Zechariah, 678; Hanson, Dawn of Apocalyptic, 337.
70. Larkin, Eschatology of Second Zechariah, 137; Mitchell, Haggai, Zechariah, 316; Boda, Book of Zechariah, 678; Tigchelaar, “Some Observations,” 267.
71. Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 512.
72. Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 517.
73. Delcor, “Les sources,” 386; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 512.
74. Mitchell, Haggai, Zechariah, 316; Mason, “Use of Earlier Biblical Material,” 116.
75. Almost all commentators. So, for example, Théophane Chary, Aggée, Zacharie, Malachie (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1969), 184, 193; Horst, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten, 253; Smith, Micah–Malachi, 271; Willi-Plein, Prophetie am Ende, 81; Driver, Minor Prophets, 2:260; Marti, Das Dodekapropheton, 442. Some limit it to vv. 1–10 or 1–16.
76. Willi-Plein, Prophetie am Ende, 81.
77. This translation retains the meaning of the verb דמם, to be silent. ESV renders the verse “the peaceful folds are devastated.” NIV, “The peaceful meadows will be laid waste.” In my view, although it is destruction that brings about the silence, the idea foregrounded by the use of דמם is silence, which gets backgrounded or lost with “devastated” or “laid waste.” It appears that this verse recalls Jer 25:10, which speaks of banishing “the sound of exaltation and the sound of rejoicing, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride” from the land. Here, then, Jeremiah pictures the punishment in terms of the joyful sounds having been silenced.
78. Pace Rudolph, Hagga, Sacharja 1–8, Sacharja 9–14, Maleachi, 199. He appeals to Jer 25:34–36 and thinks “their glory” references “their flock.” Michael H. Floyd, Minor Prophets, Part 2, FOTL 22 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 482, refers “their glory” to “their flock and their pasturage.”
79. See Zech 11:1, “Open your doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour your cedars!”
80. Marti, Das Dodekapropheton, 437.
81. The terminological overlap (cypresses, cedars of Lebanon), reversals (from rejoicing to wailing and from trees standing securely to falling), interpretational significance, and similarity with Jer 25 (occupation with the king of Babylon, a text Zech 11 clearly references), make Isa 14:8 a very good candidate for an allusion. For a similar reversal of Isa 14 by Zechariah, see Matthew Seufert, “Zechariah 1.11’s Allusion to Isaiah and Jeremiah,” JSOT 42 (2017): 249–65.
82. So, for example, Marti, Das Dodekapropheton, 437; Jones, “Fresh Interpretation,” 251; Lamarche, Zacharie IX–XIV, 59; Nogalski, Book of the Twelve, 921–22; Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 1–8, Sacharja 9–14, Maleachi, 204; Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 2:677; Mitchell, Haggai, Zechariah, 295.
83. So, for example, Hanson, Dawn of Apocalyptic, 334–35; Smith, Micah–Malachi, 267; C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Minor Prophets, trans. J. Martin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 355.
84. Wolters, Zechariah, 347.
85. For the unit as conclusion, see, for example, Peter Ackroyd, “Zechariah,” in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, ed. Matthew Black (London: Nelson & Sons, 1962), 653; Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, 375; Chary, Aggée, Zacharie, Malachie, 183; Lamarche, Zacharie IX–XIV, 59. As introduction, see, for example, Stade, “Deuterozacharja,” 68–70; Klein, Zechariah, 311; Achtemeier, Nahum–Malachi, 156; Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 2:675; Hanson, Dawn of Apocalyptic, 334. Rudolph says it is “zunächst eine Einheit für sich” (Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 1–8, Sacharja 9–14, Maleachi, 199).
86. Floyd, Minor Prophets, Part 2, 481. For the arguments of both views, see Lacocque, Zacharie 9–14, 170; Wolters, Zechariah, 347–48; Hill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 226; Larkin, Eschatology of Second Zechariah, 103; Redditt, Zechariah 9–14, 78; Lamarche, Zacharie IX–XIV, 58–59, 61–63.
87. Wolters, Zechariah, 348.
88. This position is supported by those who have claimed this section as a “literary hinge” or “redactional bridge” between ch. 10 and 11:4–17. See respectively Hill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 226; Redditt, Zechariah 9–14, 79. See also Klein, Zechariah, 311; Larkin, Eschatology of Second Zechariah, 104; Willi-Plein, Prophetie am Ende, 52.
89. For another example of the freedom with which Zechariah uses and interacts with earlier prophets, see Matthew Seufert, “Zechariah 5:5–11: Why an ephah?,” VT 65 (2015): 289–96.
90. For another discussion of the similarities and differences, see David L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1984), 94.
91. Jones, “Fresh Interpretation,” 251.
92. Zech 11:17 judges the worthless shepherd and offers the only hope of the chapter.
93. For a discussion of the use of earlier prophets in Zechariah’s introduction (1:1–6), including Jer 25:5–6, see Matthew Seufert, “Zechariah 1:3a, Zechariah’s Introduction, and the Former Prophets,” ZAW 128 (2016): 389–403.
94. For a full discussion of this covenant, see Matthew Seufert, “Zechariah 11:10: My Covenant with All the Peoples,” WTJ (forthcoming).
95. Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 516.
96. Israel is also named in both cases in Ezekiel. The sticks symbolize Joseph and Judah and the members of Israel associated with them.
97. In fact, Zech 10 and Ezek 37 are the only places in the latter prophets where Joseph and Judah appear together. That they appear in the exact same context, proclaiming many of the same promises, together with the fact that Zech 11 certainly alludes to Ezek 37, argues strongly for a sustained allusion to Ezek 37 in Zech 10 and 11.
98. For another example of this interaction, see Seufert, “Zechariah 1:3a, Zechariah’s Introduction, and the Former Prophets,” 393–402.
99. The same suspension is also evident in Zech 1:7–17. See Matthew Seufert, “Zechariah 1.11’s Allusion to Isaiah and Jeremiah,” 249–65.
100. Mason, “Use of Earlier Biblical Material,” 107.
101. See references above in section II, History of Proposals.
102. The somewhat uncomfortable English, with the description of the sheep coming first and the action/inaction of the shepherd second, reflects the word order of Zechariah’s Hebrew, which is also the order of Ezekiel’s; this furnishes the comparison of these two prophetic texts with yet another point of contact.
103. This is similar to the use of Isa 14 by Zech 1:11, where Zechariah proclaims a message of lament in the language of Isaiah’s promise of blessing. See, again, Seufert, “Zechariah 1.11’s Allusion to Isaiah and Jeremiah,” 249–65.
104. Wenzel, Reading Zechariah, 237.
105. The texts of Jer 23:1, Ezek 34:2, and Zech 11:17 are the only three in the HB that pronounce “woe” upon “shepherds.” On others who have noted an allusion to Jer 23 in Zech 11, see references above in section II, History of Proposals.
106. For a thorough discussion of these texts, and a defense that they are messianic, contrary to a popular view that the “Branch” refers to Zerubbabel, see Walter Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Post-Exilic Period (New York: T&T Clark, 2000); Anthony R. Petterson, Behold Your King: The Hope for the House of David in the Book of Zechariah (New York: T&T Clark, 2009).
107. Cf. David Kimchi, Rabbi David Kimchi’s Commentary upon the Prophecies of Zechariah, trans. A. M’Caul (London: Paternoster Row, 1837), 142–43.
108. See, among others, Wolters, Zechariah, 351–52.
109. Wolters, Zechariah, 351.
110. The parallel by itself is a stretch, but when this peculiar phrase is seen to appear in both Zechariah and Judges, it becomes more plausible.
111. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, 198–99.
112. The connection is not all that neat in the Judges narrative, as the seventy likely relates to the number of men who were killed. Perhaps, then, Abimelech received one for every man’s life, in which case there would be a disconnect between his ruling and his reception of the payment. It is also unclear in Zechariah if this shepherd was set up as a royal ruler, since only the term shepherd is used. Though it clearly indicates a leadership position, there is not a one-to-one connection between Abimelech as king and Zechariah as shepherd, and so it may be improper to compare the amount of silver that each received.
113. For a monographic defense of the idea that the introductory verses govern the whole book, see Wenzel, Reading Zechariah. It is also worthwhile to note that it was common among earlier interpreters to suppose that Zechariah wrote his later chapters when he was older, giving time for the hopes of the community to be dashed and moral failure to set in.
114. Jer 7:32 and 19:6 speak of the “Valley of Slaughter,” גֵּיא הַהֲרֵגָה.