LEADERSHIP RENEWED, REBUKED AND

REPLACED:
An Analysis of the Vision for the Royal, Priestly and
Prophetic Leadership Streams in the Book of Zechariah



by



Joel Barker



A thesis submitted to
the Faculty of McMaster Divinity College
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Masters of Arts







McMaster Divinity College
Hamilton, Ontario
2005





132
requires and that the king of 9:9 demonstrated.
61
Consequently the shepherds will cry
out as YHWH will judge them. The function of these verses is to serve as an
introduction to 11:4-17 which provides greater detail on the reasons behind this
judgment on the shepherds and concludes with an oracle indicating the nature of that
judgment.
62


4.3.2.2. 11:4-17:
Following these two brief references, Zechariah 9-14 turns to the core of the
prophetic message concerning the shepherds. It occurs in the extended description of
the action found in 11:4-17. This passage is set apart from the rest of the material in
Zechariah 9-14 by the obscure introductory formula `7N 1` DN J and the shift in
the first person referent.
63
In the rest of Zechariah 9-14, the first person pronoun
indicates YHWH himself, but in this passage it refers to the prophetic figure who
undertakes this action for YHWH.
Scholars advance several proposals for understanding the form of this prophetic
action. Many view it as an allegory making reference to an actual historical event.
64
In
particular, they look at 11:8 which refers to three other shepherds whom the appointed
one removes. However, much like the march of the divine warrior in 9:1-8, there are so

61
Mason, Use, 89.
62
Redditt, Israel's Shepherds, 634.
63
Petersen, Zechariah 9-14, 90-1, notes that although this particular introductory formula is unusual,
prophets did refer to YHWH as `7N, my God. He suggests that one might even expect such a
personalization as it is the prophet himself who has been called on to enact Gods word. See also
Mason, Use, 97, who argues that this formula was used to set YHWH over and above any other gods.
64
See for example A. Caquot, Brves remarques sur l'allgorie des pasteurs en Zacharie 11, in
Mlanges Bibliques et Orientaux en l'honneur de M. Delcor, ed. A. Caquot, S. Lgasse and M Tardieu
(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985), 44-55; L. V. Meyer, An Allegory Concerning the
Monarchy: Zech 11:4-17; 13:7-9, in Scripture in History and Theology, ed. A. L. Merrill and T. W.
133
many possibilities advanced for the identity of the three shepherds that it seems to be a
fruitless exercise.
65
Neither are there clear indications concerning what the remaining
figures in the passage are to represent, and so to call this passage an allegory does not
help with its interpretation. Kline views it as an act of prophetic commissioning, arguing
that YHWH calls the prophet to actually take on the role of shepherd-ruler over the
community.
66
Meyers and Meyers argue that this seems unlikely as not all of the
actions are definitively caused by divine agency, and this categorization oversimplifies
the complex nature of the language and the images employed.
67
This identification is
also unlikely as there is absolutely no evidence anywhere to support a prophetic figure
assuming this kind of leadership function in the Yehudite community. If this is an act of
commissioning, then it appears that the prophetic figure was commissioned to an office
he never actually assumed.
Another possibility for the form of this passage is the prophetic sign-act. Friebel
would most likely caution against such an identification, as it is highly unlikely that this
action was ever performed. He understands sign-acts as rhetorical non-verbal
communication in which the accomplishment of the act itself presents a message that
the prophet uses to communicate a message from God to the intended audience.
68

When it is unlikely that the action was ever performed, it is hard to see how this could
be classified as a sign-act. However, the shared shepherd imagery between this

Overholt (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1977), 225-40; L. Waterman, "The Camouflaged Purge of Three
Messianic Conspirators," JNES 13 (1954): 73-78.
65
Meyer, Allegory, 233. Meyer views this passage as an allegory, and he thinks that it might have
originally made reference to an actual historical event. However, even he concedes that the search for
the specific event is most likely futile. See also Redditt, Two, 632-6 for a review of previous attempts to
specify historical referents for these three shepherds.
66
Meredith G. Kline, Glory in our Midst: A Biblical-Theological Reading of Zechariahs Night Visions
(Overland Park: Two Age Press, 2001), 245.
67
Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9-14, 298.
134
chapter and two prophecies found in Ezekiel 34:11-31 and 37:15-28 potentially
suggests a way to understand this passage as a sign-act. The connection to Ezekiel
37:15-28 is particularly persuasive as it is a sign-act in which YHWH commands the
prophet to bind two pieces of wood together into a staff.
69
The pieces of wood are
labelled, Judah and Joseph, which is a synecdoche for the Northern and Southern
kings. The breaking of the second staff in Zechariah 11:14 shatters the bond between
Judah and Ephraim, which is another synecdoche representing the two kingdoms.
Consequently, this Zechariah passage appears to play off the imagery of the Ezekiel 37
sign-act. Taken alongside the shared metaphor of the shepherd, these connections
suggest that understanding this passage as a literary adaptation of the sign-act genre is
a viable possibility. It is likely that the writer of this passage adapted the sign-act form
found commonly in Ezekiel in order to shape a response to two of Ezekiels prophecies.
On a literary level, this passage also contains the required structural elements for
it to be considered a sign-act. There are three elements that are necessary according
to Friebel for a passage to be considered a sign-act. These are the divine command to
perform and action, an account that it was done, and an interpretation of that action.
70

All three of these occur several times in this passage. There are divine commands to
perform three specific actions at 11:4, 13a, 15, reports of the execution of these actions
at 11:7-12, 11:13b, 15 and interpretations of the first and third of these actions at 11:6
and 16. An explanation of the second action is not present, which possibly suggests
that its interpretation is tied in with the first action.
71
There are then two fully functioning

68
Friebel, Jeremiah, 20-34.
69
Friebel, Jeremiah, 362-4.
70
Friebel, Hermeneutical, 28.
71
See the chart breaking down these sign-acts in Boda, Reading, 280.
135
prophetic sign-acts in this passage, focusing on two different shepherds who are to tend
the same flock and a third action of the throwing away payment that is not explained
explicitly, but that is tightly connected to the actions of the first shepherd in this section.
These structural similarities along with the close tie to Ezekiel indicate that this passage
is best understood as a literary adaptation of the earlier prophetic form of sign-act.
After identifying the form of this passage, there are several textual difficulties
within it that need to be clarified before making conclusions on what it says about the
function of leadership. The first issue occurs in a collocation found in 11:7, 11. The MT
reads ``1V }J7, which is generally understood as for the poor/afflicted ones.
72

However, many scholars argue that the LXX which reads at this point is
preferable. This reading involves eliminating the space between the two words found in
the MT, and instead reading them as one word. This creates a reading of a noun
preceded by the preposition lamed with a translation value of for/on behalf of the
Canaanites. The key to this argument is to understand that the noun }V1J can also
refer to merchants or traders, besides its most common use as a reference to a people-
group.
73
According to this reading, the shepherd tends the flock on behalf of the
merchants, who are probably the buyers and sellers mentioned in 11:4. Finley argues
that the second occurrence of this collocation at 11:11 tips the balance towards this
reading. The shepherd breaks one of his staffs, and then the text tells us that the ones
implied by this collocation knew that it was a word of YHWH. In 11:12 the shepherd
demands his wages from D`7N , from them, which is a preposition linked with a third

72
Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9-14, 261.
73
T. J. Finley, The Sheep Merchants of Zechariah 11, GTJ 3 (1982): 51-65, 52.
136
person masculine plural suffix. This suffix most likely refers to the disputed phrase from
the previous verse. Finley claims that it is much more likely that the shepherd would
demand wages from the merchants, not from the afflicted ones of the flock.
74

However, there are good reasons to maintain the MT reading in these verses. It
appears to offer the more difficult reading of the text as one might expect a shepherd to
tend the flock for its owners, and to receive his wages from them. Finley attempts to
argue that the LXX reading is actually the more difficult one because Zechariah 14:21
declares that there will be a time when there will be no `1V1J in the house of YHWH. He
wonders how then the prophet could tend a flock on behalf of these people, or how they
would realize that his staff breaking exercise was the word of YHWH.
75
This argument
is mistaken as Finley has misunderstood the context created by the LXX reading. The
merchants here are the buyers and sellers of 11:5. These are not positive figures, as
they gloat over the destruction of the flock in 11:6. Therefore even though the prophetic
figure performing the sign-act might tend the sheep on behalf of these figures, this
would not prevent YHWH from indicting them in 14:21. The LXX reading is very
understandable once placed in this light. The MT is actually more difficult as it involves
using the conjunctions }J7 in 11:7, and }J in 11:11 in ways that are not well attested.
These grammatical peculiarities make the MT reading difficult, although certainly not
impossible, and on those grounds, it is to be preferred on this occasion.
The divine command of the second sign-act is also obscure. In 11:13, YHWH
tells the prophet to throw his thirty pieces of silver to Y1` . This word is generally

74
Finley, Sheep, 64.
75
Finley, Sheep, 59.
137
translated as potter, or someone who fashions objects out of earth. This is strange as
the second half of the verse locates this potter within the Temple. Many scholars
including Meyers and Meyers, and Petersen, follow the Syriac reading at this point .
76

They instead propose reading the text as Y1N , which would indicate a treasury, a
proper place to cast coins. This reading is not likely to be original as it eliminates the
interpretive difficulties of this verse.
77
It is also possible to make sense of the MT at this
point. Sweeney notes that the term Y1` does not necessarily refer to someone who
forms things out of earth. Instead, it is used to refer to one who forms or fashions
things, and it is often used of YHWH himself.
78
C. C. Torrey suggests that instead this
term can also apply to people who create things out of metal.
79
Consequently the
command from YHWH is to cast the payment to this individual. This reading is difficult
as there is no indication as to the role or status of this individual, other than the fact that
they were in the Temple (11:13). However, it is more likely that this reading gave rise to
the Syriac, and it should probably be preferred on those grounds.
There is also a debate over the significance of the value of the payment made to
the first shepherd. Zechariah 11:12-13 states that he was paid thirty silver shekels,
which YHWH then told him to throw away. Many have noted that according to Exodus
21:32, thirty shekels is the price that the owner of a goring ox must pay if it kills a male
or female slave.
80
Based on that passage, Baldwin argues that this is a significant
amount, and that it represented more than sufficient payment for the shepherd figure.
81


76
Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9-14, 276; Petersen, Zechariah 9-14, 87.
77
Sweeney, Twelve, 681.
78
Sweeney, Twelve, 681. Sweeney lists Gen 2:7, 8; Isa 27:11, 43:1, 21; 44:21; 45:7, 11.
79
C. C. Torrey, The Foundry at the Second Temple at Jerusalem, JBL 55 (1936): 247-60.
80
Petersen, Zechariah 9-14, 96.
81
Baldwin, Haggai, 184; See S. Feigin, Some Notes on Zechariah 11:4-17, JBL 44 (1925): 203-13.
138
However, many disagree with this assessment and consider the thirty shekels to
represent an insignificant amount. Redditt argues that it indicates that the ones paying
the shepherd regarded him as no more valuable than a slave. The prophets
description of his fee as a ` 1N is therefore pure sarcasm.
82
Other scholars find
further evidence for this understanding on the basis of a metaphorical sense of this
phrase. K. Luke notes a parallel from the Gilgamesh epic which describes Gilgamesh
donning armour metaphorically weighing fifty minas, which seems to be a heavy
amount. But to him, it only felt like thirty shekels, the implication being that was a trifling
amount.
83
Similarly Lipinski identifies the same expression in Akkadian as a way
illustrating an insultingly low wage.
84
This weight of evidence suggests that the sum
paid to the prophet at the end of his first shepherd portrayal should be understood as an
insulting amount.
There is also debate over how to understand the first shepherd portrayed in the
sign-act of 11:4-17. In both cases, the prophet is fulfilling the commands of YHWH in
how he performs his duties, but there are questions about the quality of their leadership
over the flock. It is clear from 11:16 that the judgment of the second shepherd is
negative, but the nature of the first shepherd is not quite as apparent. Redditt views this
first shepherd as an evil figure because he quarrels with the other shepherds (11:8) and
he abandons the flock when difficulties arise. This leaves them defenceless and in
response the shepherd states that they should let the dying ones die (11:9).
85
However,
there are also strong indications that this shepherd should be viewed as a positive

82
Redditt, Two, 684.
83
K. Luke, The Thirty Pieces of Silver (Zch 11:12f), ITS 19 (1982): 15-32, 30.
84
Lipinkski, Recherches, 54-5.
85
Paul L. Redditt, The Two Shepherds in Zechariah 11:4-17, CBQ 55 (1993): 676-86, 682.
139
figure. Maintaining the afflicted of the flock reading in 11:7,11, it would seem that this
shepherd was to have taken on this role with the proper motives at heart. Psalm 72
calls the royal house to care for the oppressed among it, and so becoming the shepherd
for the afflicted of this flock is the proper action of a ruling figure.
86
This idea is also
present in Zechariah 1-8 since Zechariah 7:8-10 echoes this call to care for the weak as
proper action before YHWH.
The failure of this shepherd appears to be related as much to his rejection by the
flock in 11:8 than to any inappropriate actions that he himself undertakes.
87
The
shepherd grows weary of the flock
88
and they in turn detest him.
89
It is interesting to
note that the condemnation does not fall entirely on the shoulders of the shepherd
leader at this point, there is also a sense in which the flock brought this upon itself by
rejecting him. Also, if the payment given to the shepherd signifies an insignificant
amount, then it appears that the community bears some responsibility as they
effectively scorn the one whom YHWH appointed to rule over them. Luke suggests that
the actual price that the shepherd wanted was the flocks obedience to his rule that
YHWH had commissioned.
90

This passage then concludes with a prophetic woe oracle against the bad
shepherd in 11:17. It pronounces judgment on the worthless shepherd and threatens
him with partial blinding and maiming. This would render him powerful and unable to

86
Boda, Reading, 282.
87
Duguid, Messianic, 274.
88
The verb used here is Yn1 . The appropriate gloss is one which has a basic range of meaning of
being impatient, being short, grow tired. Other examples of this gloss are found at Jdg 10:16, 16:16;
Mic 2:7.
89
The verb used here (703 ) is a hapax legomenon. Its meaning is not clear, but most scholars,
including Meyers and Meyers accept BDBs proposal that this verb denotes despising, or feeling
loathing towards. See Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9-14, 266.
90
Luke, Thirty, 22.
140
function, since taken together the images of arm and right eye could represent his
physical and mental abilities.
91
In this way, this oracle proposes that his physical
condition match his unworthy leadership ability. The flock has been given over to him
because they reject the good shepherd, but this proclamation of woe against him
suggests the possibility of restoration and return as YHWHs judgment will fall upon
him.
92
This woe oracle will be echoed and expanded in the remaining shepherd
passage of 13:7-9.

4.3.2.3. 13:7-9
This final shepherd reference occurs in the second NUD of these chapters. It is a
prophetic oracle that first pronounces judgment against a shepherd. The judgment is
probably more severe than that found in 11:17 as in this passage it looks as though the
sword raised against him should kill him. In concert with the attack on the shepherd, the
flock is scattered, and YHWH turns his hand on them in judgment. In 13:8, there is a
description of this judgment which states that D`1U`D, two parts will perish while
n`U7U1, a third will remain alive. This third will experience a period of purification and
refining which is compared to processes that gold and silver undergo. The final result of
this purification is that they will be restored to right relationship with YHWH who will call
them his people, and they will call him their God.
This passage has thematic similarities relating to the violence enacted against
the shepherd that connect it to the oracle of 11:17 at the end of the sign-act section.

91
Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9-14, 292.
92
Duguid, Messianic, 274.