ZECHARIAH, BOOK OF (זְכַרְיָ֥ה, זְכַרְיָ֨הוּ, “God has remembered”; LXX Ζαχαρίας, G2408). This prophecy was the eleventh in a collection of a dozen short books known as the twelve Minor Prophets, coming at the end of the second division of the Heb. canon of Scripture. The Book of Zechariah emerged from the immediate postexilic period, and is therefore a valuable source of information about a phase of Jewish history which is deficient in extra-Biblical documentation.
1. Background. The historical situation underlying the Book of Zechariah is identical with that which gave rise to the oracles of Haggai. Both men were contemporaries, and were mentioned together in Ezra 5:1 and 6:14. Although they were the first two prophets to be named as living and working in Judaea after the return from exile in Babylonia in 537 b.c., they were not actually mentioned until 520 b.c. Consequently it has sometimes been supposed that they had returned to Pal. with a fresh group of repatriates about that time, and were provoked by the demoralized condition of the populace into the kind of prophetic activity recorded in their books. However, there appears to be no evidence for this supposition, and it is far more probable that both Haggai and Zechariah were still children when their parents returned to the homeland in 537 b.c. If this were actually the case, Zechariah would have grown to manhood amidst the spirit of apathy, indifference and neglect of spiritual priorities which characterized the period of the return between 537 and 520 b.c. If Zechariah were in fact a young adult when he began to prophesy, it is quite probable that he himself was the individual referred to as “that young man” (Zech 2:4).
The proclamation of the edict of Cyrus in 538 by which expatriate groups held captive in Mesopotamia during the neo-Babylonian regime (612-539 b.c.) were permitted to return to their ancestral homes and pick up the threads of their former life, must have raised high hopes in the minds of the faithful Jewish remnant in Babylonia. Inspired by the utterances and personal example of Ezekiel, the prospect of renewing a covenant relationship with God in the land of their fathers can hardly have failed to stimulate great interest in the future of a restored community. What the exiles had apparently reckoned without, however, was the sense of despair and disillusionment which quickly ensued when they saw the way in which Jerusalem had been desolated. Little that was of any value was intact, and the ruined walls made it possible for those elements of the Samaritans, Edomites and Arab tribes which lived in the vicinity to wander in and out of the city at will.
It seems highly probable that the exiles who returned to Judaea were far from wealthy, their more affluent countrymen having elected for the most part to remain behind in Babylonia when the summons to return to Pal. was proclaimed. Since there were almost no capital resources upon which the repatriates could draw, they were forced to eke out a scanty existence, living precariously from day to day on the products of a ruined and inhospitable terrain, and open always to the depredations of their enemies. Not unnaturally, the first concern of the repatriates was for shelter for their families, but by the time that they had built their houses among the ruins their enthusiasm for such ambitious constructional projects as a new Temple or a defensive wall around Jerusalem had been dissipated. The most immediate need was for inspired leadership, which would place the emphasis upon spiritual priorities and lead to a revival of community life in the theocracy. It was to this forbidding task that Haggai and Zechariah were called in 520 b.c. While the former furnished the initial impetus for laying the foundation of the second Temple, the latter helped materially toward the completion of the project by giving a larger spiritual dimension to the restored theocracy through his prophetic oracles. While Zechariah was concerned with the immediacy of the social and spiritual situation in the Judaea of 520 b.c., his oracles and visions made it clear that the community of repatriated exiles would exercise still further in the future an influence of untold importance, provided always that spiritual priorities were observed. His message was one of hope and promise at a time when the situation in Judaea could hardly have appeared worse.
2. Unity. There has been a good deal of scholarly discussion relating to the unity and homogeneity of the Book of Zechariah. The fourteen chs. of the extant work fall quite naturally into two main divisions, consisting of chs. 1-8 and 9-14. It would appear that the visions contained in the first section had been put together in some definite arrangement, since while the first and the last are independent in nature, the remainder seem to have been grouped in pairs intentionally. It is possible that Zechariah was following the bifid style of composition popularly used in antiquity, in which a work was compiled in two balanced halves, both of which reproduced faithfully the thought of the author, and which could therefore be circulated independently of one another if the need arose. Whether that was actually the case or not, the first division gives the undoubted impression of being a self-contained and homogeneous literary unit, proceeding from Zechariah as the author.
With regard to chs. 9-14, almost all liberal scholars have taken the view that they are not the work of the prophet Zechariah, and may not even be a unity in themselves. Some have held that there was uncertainty about the authorship of these chs. from a comparatively early period, since the reference in Matthew 27:9 ascribed Zechariah 11:12, 13 to Jeremiah. However, this particular situation need mean nothing more than a faulty recollection of the Gr. Bible by Matthew, or alternatively an incorrect citation of material from his Messianic testimonia. The principal arguments against the authorship of Zechariah for this section include the complete absence of any reference to the recent rebuilding of the second Temple, an evident difference of atmosphere between the first and second portions of the prophecy, a hint from Zechariah 9:13 that Greece was the dominant political power instead of Persia, as had been the case in the days of Zechariah, and the apocalyptic material in ch. 14, which in some scholarly circles is commonly held to be an indication of a late date of composition. On the other hand, there are similarities between both sections of the prophecy, including such theological emphases as the necessity for repentance, the exaltation of Jerusalem and the conversion of the enemies of Israel. In addition, both portions of Zechariah make it evident that the true ruler of the kingdom is the Messiah (6:12, 13; 9:9), whose personage and functions were presented from a uniform standpoint. Again, marked similarities of style and diction occur in both sections, and these would hardly be surprising if the Book of Zechariah is to be considered as a literary bifid.
Some writers have also depreciated the unity of the prophecy by pointing out that chs. 9-14 of the book are closely associated in form with the Book of Malachi, which followed it immediately in the Heb. canon, through the use of the superscriptions of Zechariah 9:1; 12:1 and Malachi 1:1 in which the technical Heb. term for “oracle” occurs. Because of the relationship of these passages it has been assumed by certain scholars that the three sections thus introduced by the term “oracle” originally belonged together, but that the editor of the twelve Minor Prophets destroyed their unity by separating the Book of Malachi in its extant form in order to enlarge the number of minor prophets to twelve. Against this general view is the fact that other prophets, esp. Isaiah, used the term “oracle” in precisely the manner of Zechariah in passages of undisputed authenticity. Furthermore, it would be difficult to see why Malachi should have been separated from the prophetic material in the manner suggested and attributed to an individual composer, whereas the other oracles were not. While it may be thought that there are cogent reasons for supposing that the prophecy was compiled by more than one author, there are equally compelling ones for accepting the unity of composition by Zechariah himself.
3. Authorship. The attributive author of the prophecy was Zechariah, named “Zacharias” in the LXX and Vul., a contemporary of the 6th cent. b.c. prophet Haggai. The name Zechariah was quite common in Heb. society, and in the OT over thirty individuals were given this cognomen. According to the superscription of the prophecy, the author was the son (more accurately “grandson”) of Iddo, the latter being one of the heads of priestly families which returned to Judaea after the exile. Hence, Zechariah himself was most prob. a priest, and may even have functioned as a prophet in the cultus. There are good reasons for believing that he was a young adult when he commenced prophesying, an event which began two months after his contemporary Haggai had concluded his final utterance. Thus the beginning of his work can be dated quite accurately from the superscription (1:1) in October-November of 520 b.c. He seems to have prophesied for a longer period than Haggai, functioning for as long as two years according to the dates in Zechariah 1:1 and 7:1, and possibly longer. The first section of the prophecy named Zechariah as the author and furnished specific dates for his activity, the period covered by Ezra 5:1-6:22. If chs. 9-14 were written by someone other than Zechariah, the identity of this individual cannot be determined either by internal or external evidence.
4. Date. From the superscription it is possible to date the beginning of the prophetic activity of Zechariah at the end of 520 b.c., two months after Haggai began his work in Jerusalem. If the prophecy is a unity, the oracles were delivered between 520 and 518 b.c., and perhaps even later. Precisely how soon the prophecy appeared in its extant form is hard to say, but there was prob. only a short interval between the oral and written VSS. The position of the work as an integral part of the Minor Prophets in the second section of the Heb. Canon would suggest that the written form appeared within the lifetime of the prophet, and was accepted as canonical before the days of Malachi (c. 450 b.c.).
If diversity of authorship is entertained, the date of chs. 9-14 becomes a matter of pure speculation, since they cannot be dated accurately from internal evidence. The reference to Javan or Greece (9:14) has been used by some scholars to date the work in the 4th cent b.c., but such a late period is not required for the composition. Greek influence in the Near E was noticeable as early as the 7th cent. b.c., and Javan was mentioned both as a mission field for Israel (Isa 66:19) and as a center of trade (Ezek 27:13). Any reasonably astute political observer in the time of Zechariah knew that for many years Gr. mercenary troops had formed the bulk of the Pers. military forces. Furthermore, the periodic raids by the Greeks upon the Palestinian coastline, beginning about 500 b.c., may well have given rise to the prophecies against Javan. Since ch. 9 deals with other great peoples it seems unwarranted to single out the claims of Greece at the expense of states such as Tyre, Ashkelon, Damascus and the like. Attempts to identify the three shepherds (11:4-17) with personages of the Maccabean era have led some scholars to assign a 2nd-cent. b.c. date to the later oracles. This can now be regarded as impossibly late, since the DSS included copies of Zechariah. Because the Qumran MSS were themselves of Maccabean provenance, the situation would demand a date in the Pers. period for the original autograph of Zechariah. In any event the identification of the three shepherds is a precarious matter, since as many as thirty individuals have already been suggested on the basis of a literal interpretation of the passage. Even liberal scholars have placed the latest date for the supposed additions to the “original oracles” of chs. 1-8 at about 350 b.c., which in the light of the Qumran evidence seems at least a cent. too late.
5. Place of origin. As with the prophecy of Haggai, the oracles of Zechariah originated in Jerusalem in connection with the social and religious situation with which the prophet was confronted in 520 b.c. If it is assumed that chs. 9-14 were the work of a “deutero-Zechariah,” it might be possible to posit some other place than Jerusalem as the point of origin of at least certain of these utterances. A location outside Judaea would be unlikely because of the concerns of the author for the Messianic kingdom. In the light of the proposed unity of authorship it seems best to regard Jerusalem as the place where the prophecy originated.
6. Destination. The oracles of Zechariah were meant for the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judaea. In the earlier chs. his utterances were concerned with the Temple and the priesthood as well as with the civil government, though throughout the book his concern was with the nature and development of the theocracy. Whatever view is adopted about the authorship of the later chs., there can be no doubt about the destination of the material as a whole.
7. Occasion. The conditions of apathy, neglect and despair which Zechariah encountered among the repatriated exiles in 520 b.c. furnished the occasion of the prophecy. With his contemporary Haggai he was called to give that kind of spiritual leadership which would regenerate the theocracy, recall it to its true vocation, and guide it toward its destiny as the living witness of God in the world. If the prophetic ministry of Zechariah extended over many years, the original occasion would be subsumed under the larger purpose of the spiritual and social development of the theocracy in Judaea.
8. Purpose. As was the case with Haggai, the primary concern of Zechariah was the establishing of spiritual priorities in the life of the returned community. The lax attitude which the priests manifested toward their duties was matched among the laity by an indifference to the claims of the covenant relationship upon their lives, and even more seriously by a flagrant disregard for the moral prescriptions of the Mosaic Torah. Zechariah saw that the prosperity of the theocracy depended upon a proper relationship between the covenant people and their God. However keenly the repatriates felt about the injustices of life, it was evident that submission, penitence, and cleansing from sin must precede the outpouring of divine blessing. It was the avowed aim of Zechariah to establish the fundamental importance of this principle in the minds of the returned exiles, and to see that it operated at both religious and civil levels. Once this had been achieved satisfactorily it would be possible for the larger Messianic purposes of the theocracy to be satisfied.
9. Canonicity. The Book of Zechariah came last in the list of the twelve Minor Prophets, with which the second section of the Heb. canon closed. At no time in the history of later Judaism or in the early Christian period were doubts ever raised as to the canonicity of the prophecy. It was valued in the Primitive Church because of its Messianic teachings and the way in which the work was used by NT authors (Matt 21:1-11; cf. Zech 9:9, 10; Matt 26:14-16; cf. Zech 11:12).
10. Text. During the course of transmission the Heb. text had become somewhat corrupt, as can be illustrated by reference to such passages as Zechariah 5:6; 7:1, 8, 9; 8:13; 9:15-17; 11:7, 8, 13; 14:5, 6, 10, and others. What appears to be a textual dislocation can be seen in Zechariah 4:6b-10a, which could be more readily placed after v. 14. Possible instances of marginal notes being incorporated into the text appear in 2:8; 4:12; 6:6 and 11:6. The use of the LXX in restoring the text presents more problems for this book than for others, since the LXX has preserved corruptions already present in the archetype. These include such verses as Zechariah 4:12; 5:3 and 7:2, along with the dislocation of 4:6b-10a. There are also places where the LXX witnesses to a better form of the text, as in the Heb. of Zechariah 2:7, 10; 3:4, 5; 8:9; 9:15-17; 11:7, 8; 14:5, 6 and elsewhere. In any attempt at restoration of the Heb. text, the LXX needs to be used with considerable caution.
11. Content. As noted above, the extant prophecy falls readily into two principal sections:
I. Dated prophecies
(a) 1:1-6. Introduction and call to repentance, in which the prophet established his identity and pleaded with the repatriated Jews to return to the Lord. In particular he begged them to learn the lessons of past experience and avoid the misdeeds of their forebears.
(b) 1:7-17. The first vision, of four horsemen whose task it was to traverse the earth and report on existing conditions to the angel of the Lord. In this instance they stated that there were no political disturbances anywhere in the empire. Whereupon the angel interceded with God on behalf of desolated Jerusalem, and received a promise that He would soon “comfort Zion” and restore the city of Jerusalem.
(c) 1:18-21 (Heb 2:1-4). This short section contained the second vision, in which Zechariah saw four horns, symbolizing the foreign powers which had destroyed the Israelites. Four blacksmiths were also present in the vision, and to them was given the task of breaking the horns into pieces, indicating that those nations which had oppressed the Hebrews in former times would themselves be humbled.
(d) 2:1-13 (Heb 2:5-17). In the third vision the prophet was given a promise of great future prosperity for Jerusalem. The repatriates would be exalted above their former enemies, and life in the theocracy would be characterized by the divine presence in the midst of the people. This would be so notable a feature that it would attract many Gentile peoples to the service of the Lord.
(e) 3:1-7. The fourth vision of Zechariah revealed Joshua the high priest clothed in dirty attire and subjected to temptation by Satan. Because Jerusalem had been chosen by God for future blessing it was imperative for Joshua, as the representative of the people, to be cleansed ceremonially and fitted for his new spiritual responsibilities. Accordingly he was decked out in clean garments and a turban, and was then assured that he had been cleansed. Zechariah 3:8-10 comprised an oracle addressed subsequently to Joshua concerning the Branch (Messiah) and the engraved stone. Having been given the oversight of the civil and religious life in the theocracy, he was promised special access to God.
(f) 4:1-14. The fifth vision, in which the angel showed Zechariah a seven-branched lampstand fed by living branches from two olive trees, was accompanied by an interpretation. The lampstand represented the house of Israel, the seven lamps were the “eyes of God,” while the two olive trees symbolized an unfailing source of divine grace. Here the promise of God extended beyond Joshua to Zerubbabel, and assured him that the obstacles which hindered the building of the kingdom of God would only be removed by the divine spirit through grace. Zerubbabel would be privileged to see the completion of the Temple in all its splendor, even though at the time the oracle was uttered the people were passing through a day of small things.
(g) 5:1-4. In his sixth vision Zechariah saw a flying roll containing judgment upon thieves and perjurers. It would traverse the land and bring the punishment of God upon all the evildoers in the community.
(h) 5:5-11. The seventh vision of Zechariah showed the ephah, a container for measuring dry goods and equal to four gallons in liquid capacity, in which a woman was seated. Symbolic of wickedness, she was sealed inside the ephah by means of a lead stopper, and was transported to Shinar. This vision symbolized the eradication of iniquity from the theocracy and its banishment to Babylonia, the place of all evil as far as the repatriates were concerned.
(i) 6:1-8. In his eighth vision Zechariah saw four horse-drawn chariots, which as agents of God kept the world under surveillance. These four celestial spirits reported that all was quiet within the bounds of the empire, indicating that the world was once more at peace and under the direct control of God (cf. Zech 1:7-17).
(j) 6:9-15. A historical section which narrated the consecration of Joshua as symbolic of the Branch (Messiah), who built the Temple and who ruled as king and priest in the theocracy. Unlike their ancestors the members of the restored community would live in obedience to their God and at peace with each other.
(k) 7:1-8:23. Another historical section containing an oracle of Zechariah relating to the question of whether there should be fasting to commemorate the fall of Jerusalem in 597 b.c. The people were informed that a special quality of life rather than indulgence in mechanical actions is what God desires of the repatriates. If they will observe high moral, ethical, and spiritual standards, they can expect the blessing of God upon their community life. Jerusalem will experience a degree of prosperity unknown in her long history, and so conspicuous will the theocracy become in contemporary society that other nations will be attracted in a powerful manner to the Jewish way of life.
II. Undated prophecies.
(a) 9:1-17. The first of two sections whose superscription contains the word massā or “oracle.” It deals with the impending judgment of God upon the cities of Syria, Phoenicia, and Philistia. Great devastation would be wrought against these neighbors of the house of Israel, and in particular the remnants of Philistia would be incorporated into the province of Judaea. Becoming Jewish by adoption, they would present no further threat to the security of the Jews. The Temple would then be enfolded in the protecting presence of God, and the Messianic prince would enter Jerusalem in triumphal procession to institute a reign of peace and prosperity, quelling in the meantime any threats to the well-being of the theocracy from such invaders as the Greeks.
(b) 10:1-12. This section comprises an oracle denouncing the foreign rulers of Judah, described as “shepherds,” who will be forced to yield to the superior strength of the divine leader as He gathers in His flock. The oracle foretold the downfall of the foreign overlords at the hands of the Jews, and predicted that the latter would be restored to their own land from the countries to which they had been scattered. The reference to the cornerstone (v. 4), tent peg and battle bow, may perhaps be a threefold allusion to the Messiah.
(c) 11:1-17. This oracle distinguished between the good and foolish shepherds, and described the way in which the flock of God had suffered at their hands. The good shepherd confounds the schemes of the evil shepherds, but is rejected by the flock. As a result, the flock endures affliction under yet another evil shepherd. In this utterance the prophet Zechariah foresaw that the much hoped-for theocratic relationship between God and His people would be marked by serious blemishes. With the breaking of the two staffs, Graciousness and Unifying Bond, would ultimately come the end of national unity. Unfaithfulness to the covenant obligations would result in the rule of a “worthless shepherd” in the theocracy, for which the people would have to shoulder the blame.
(d) 12:1-13:6. This section comprised an oracle of an eschatological nature which in general terms depicted the Israelites returning to God at some time in the future. The city of Jerusalem had been beset on all sides by powerful armies of Gentile origin, but suddenly the inhabitants of the city saw the hand of God operating against their foes, and they joined in the defense of Jerusalem with new vigor. Victory would be followed by national mourning, and this in turn would give rise to repentance and purification. Prophets would be repudiated because they had been unfaithful to their vocation, and rigid standards of morality would finally produce a people acceptable to God.
(e) 13:7-14:21. This section continued the theme of purification for the nation of Israel, with equally strong eschatological emphases. In the last great assault of heathen armies upon Jerusalem, half of the city would be taken captive. When all seemed lost the Lord would intervene to secure victory for His people and establish His rule on earth. The Jews would have learned through these events to acknowledge the overlordship of God, and the concluding section of the oracle outlined the blessings of the newly-established divine kingdom. The Jews would make an annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem at the feast of Tabernacles, and the covenantal ideal of holiness to the Lord would be the hallmark of life in the community.
11. Theology. The thought of Zechariah, like that of his contemporary Haggai, depended to a large extent upon that of his predecessors. However it is incorrect on that account to dismiss the writings of Zechariah as being either obscure apocalypticism or unoriginal prophetism. He began to prophecy at a time when zeal for the ideals of the theocracy had reached a very low ebb, and was being revived by the vigorous teachings of Haggai. Since his prophetic vocation began as a continuation of his contemporary’s efforts, it is hardly to be expected that there would be significant theological differences between the two men as far as the immediate task of reconstructing the theocratic community was concerned. For Haggai and Zechariah the situation resolved itself into a question of priorities, and in their thought a reconstructed and functioning Temple was by far the most important material consideration. They were also firmly convinced that the returned community could continue to exist only in so far as it exemplified the ideals of the covenant relationship, and a proper form of worship was for them the outward expression of that state of inward holiness which God demanded of His people. Zechariah, however, had a clearer vision of the dangers involved in cultic formalism, for he was concerned more than Haggai about the great need for the individual to commit himself consciously to the claims of God upon his life, and to foster the ideals of the covenant in the community through strict obedience to the divine will.
His wide outlook over the world of his day can be seen in his eschatology, which has pronounced Messianic overtones. There are distinctly nationalistic aspects in his thought, of course, with its expectation of the triumph of his people over the Gentile nations, but his broader prophetic vision contemplated a time when Jew and Gentile would gather together in a spirit of faith and devotion to worship God in the Temple at Jerusalem. Like Isaiah and the other prophets Zechariah placed the scene of the final redemption of humanity in this world. While it would be continuous with the present historical order, it would differ, for such factors as evil, wrongdoing and suffering would not exist. This state of grace would be ushered in through the personage of the Messiah, who would in fact establish and rule over the new kingdom. As with other prophets, Zechariah saw the final stage in the process as the cleansing of Jerusalem from sin and the restoration of the community to continuing peace and prosperity. This kind of prophetic apocalyptic is well attested in the OT, and contains nothing which is illegitimate or particularly unusual.
The later chs. of the prophecy need to be seen in the light of such a theological outlook, esp. those sections which point to a Messianic figure. It has been popular in some quarters to see in Zechariah 9:8, 15 and 12:10 allusions to some historical personage, whether in the time of Zechariah or in some other period up to and including the Maccabean age. This approach fails to appreciate the Messianic concepts inherent in the thought of Zechariah, and in the end becomes in itself merely an exercise in subjectivity. The peaceful prince of the concluding chs. who would usher in the blessings of the kingdom is already present in the eschatology of such prophets as Isaiah, who entertained similar sequences for the future of his people. Finally, it was precisely because the members of the Early Christian Church were awaiting the “consolation of Israel” that they were able to assign with such confidence a Messianic interpretation to passages such as Zechariah 9:9; 11:12, 13; 12:10 and 13:7.
Even though Zechariah was concerned for the well-being and prosperity of the theocracy, his very apocalypticism cast a shadow of doubt upon the future. The prophetic oracle of 11:4-14, which presents considerable difficulties of interpretation, seems to imply that God knew that His flock was doomed to almost complete extinction at the hands of their enemies. The fact that such a fate would be nothing less than they deserved did not alter the ultimate state of affairs for the prophet. The symbolic breaking of the two pastoral staffs named Beauty and Unifying Bond had an awesome eschatological ring about it, pointing as it would appear to do to the end of the relationship between God and His people. Even this prospect did not dismay the prophet entirely, for he was sufficiently grounded in the theology of the covenant to realize that if the holiness of the theocracy began to approximate to that of its Lord, the prospect of destruction would be averted and the blessings of peace and prosperity would be secured for all time.
Bibliography' H. G. Mitchell, ICC (1912); D. Baron, Vision and Prophecies of Zechariah (1918); E. Sellin, KAT (1929); F. Horst, HAT (1954); T. Winton Thomas, IB (1956), IV, 1053-1088; W. Neil, IDB (1962), IV, 943-947; R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the OT (1968), 949-957.